Are you letting people in, Vanita?

Yes.

Okay.

Tell me when we're ready.

We're ready.

Okay.

I'd like to welcome everyone and call tonight's zoning board meeting to order.

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Zoning Board, and it is 6.34 on September 8, 2025.

The members of the board and the staff are holding this meeting by Teams video conference.

The public is in attendance, both on the video conference and by teleconference.

I'd like to do a roll call of the board and the staff.

Excuse me.

Bill Morris.

Here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

And uh Jerry Bozak is unable to attend tonight.

And now for the staff, Ralph Blessing.

Sorry.

Here.

And Vanita Matter.

Here.

The board's microphones will be open throughout tonight's hearing.

Applicants' mics will be open during the public hearing for their application.

However, I would ask applicants to please mute their mics when not speaking in order to reduce any background noise.

The first part of tonight's meeting is the public hearing during which the public will have an opportunity to speak.

Each member of the public will be muted until it is your turn to speak.

Here's the procedure for the public to let us know if you would like to speak.

If you came in through Teams, please use the raise your hand function and you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak.

If you called in on one of the telephone conference call phone numbers, please use star five, and this will raise your hand and then press star six to unmute when it's your turn to speak.

When members of the public speak, please give us your name and address for the record and whether you are in favor of or opposed to the application.

The board requests that members of the public limit your comments to three minutes so that everyone will have a chance to speak.

And her email address is V, as in Victor, V M-A-T-H-U-R at StamfordCT.gov.

And she will uh try to get you on.

This meeting will be recorded and will be posted uh on the zoning board's website.

You can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and all the meeting applications and other materials by going to our website, which is at www.stanfordct.gov slash zoned.

Before we um get to our first application, just an announcement that the um application 225-27, Horn and Hoof Properties, which deals with the property at 961 Long Ridge Road and 16 Wire Mill Road.

That's the corner of Long Ridge and Wire Mill.

That application will not be heard tonight, and it will be heard on uh September 29th at our meeting on the 29th at 6.30 on Teams.

So that application is being continued.

So if you're here for that one, um no need to wait around.

Now we have uh four applications that were continued from before our August break.

And it's uh nice to be back again.

Um the first is application 225-12, ESS Prisa LLC, 35 Commerce Road, site and architectural plans and/or requested uses and special permit.

Applicant proposes to construct a new self-storage building with parking, site landscaping, and storm water systems.

Uh we um I think we had requested a couple of items uh from the applicant when we left them on uh July 28th.

And um is the applicant here.

Uh yes, we are, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

You're somewhere.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm on the top left of my screen, but I don't know if that's uh you're right in the middle of my screen.

Oh, perfect.

All right.

requested a couple of items uh from the applicant when we left them on uh july 28th and um is the applicant here uh yes we are mr chairman okay you're somewhere uh yeah i'm i'm i'm on the top left of my screen but i don't know if that's uh you're right in the middle of my screen oh perfect all right good um there you are okay so um uh attorney clein uh please proceed great for the record jay clean of carnaby law hope everyone had a nice uh august break um on behalf of the applicant uh my uh colleague Karina Arodondo is also here she was with me the last time we were all together karina has some images that she'll be sharing her screen uh in a moment if that's okay with you Vanita and and everyone else if you can um let her do that she'll just share some of the materials that the chairman alluded to a moment ago uh on july 28th you asked us uh for a couple of items uh that i think really redounded to you know uh uh sharpening our pencils on the look of the building and karina why don't you go to the next slide that depicts uh a rendering um zoom out a little bit per oh perfect uh next slide let's zoom out just a little bit if we can um uh rendering that was requested at our last meeting that incorporates some modifications further modifications to the building facade many ideas that were brought up by folks uh on the board i think the most notable one is the incorporation of uh panels on what is the the southwest corner of the building Karina can you just circle that uh uh in the wasabi green which is uh I think it's southeast corner right southeast I'm sorry I think I said southwest sorry about that um really helps to bring uh a point of interest and a little bit of difference to the building facade at a at a key facade of it uh as well um a comment that I think it was Mr.

Bozak maybe others had mentioned too was adding some trim uh to the tops and bottoms of each of the window or uh uh you know the glazed elements that you see on the south side and on the east side of the building you see carrying over uh on this rendering too um if you go to the next slide uh Karina please I think we have our uh materials board um which shows the different panels you see the uh the corner piece on the far left corner and then the other panels that will be featured uh along the various facades of the building um I think there was a request for a photo of the fence that we are proposing along the southern facade or the southern frontage I apologize which you see uh noted on this material board as well and then Karina if you uh just highlight uh circle the image on the bottom left corner of the building this shows uh in real life uh pictures of those uh uh uh panel elements both with the green and the uh uh you know uh finished uh uh metal reveal um the window addition the additions to the windows that you were just describing um those those are on this side of the building correct they're on the south and the east side yes that's correct yeah yeah and we have those shown on elevations Karina go to the next slide is one of our uh elevations this is just a comparison of um you know where this project started earlier in the summer and where we hope uh you know it and it ends up um you can see them uh uh um point on my screen as if we're all looking over my shoulder here but Karina was just uh highlighting them with her cursor uh a moment ago on on the new on the yeah on there Karina yep perfect perfect that's great um and you know I mean I think this is a good slide to just kind of show you know I know zoning hearings sometimes you know uh they get big splashy headlines but you know it we have this process because it you know oftentimes works and I think this before and after shows you know the process working when uh property owners and and and you know collaborate with staff and and you folks on the board here to get a nice end result uh uh for for everyone really so um happy to answer questions that folks have we do have our our team is is here on uh on our checkerboard of faces too if there are questions uh but I think that hit all the all the high points from from the last time we had together okay good thank you um Bill do you have any questions uh no any questions I'll just uh comment that you know I'm glad we went through this process because there's a much better looking bullying than what we were presented with originally so I thought it was well worth our time and effort and also the applicant's uh time and effort and I appreciate their efforts that's all I have okay um Roseanne yeah did it to that no questions and thanks for getting us everything ahead of ahead of the meeting so we could review it yeah I I feel the same way I think the end product is is a big improvement from where we started um so uh why don't we go to the public if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this either for or against it um please raise your hands pleased um first we have the phone number ending in 7008 please unmute and give us your name and address before you start hi this is this is Dave Adams uh 29

There's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this, either for or against it.

Um please raise your hand.

Um first we have the phone number ending in 7008.

Please unmute and give us your name and address before you start.

Hi, hi.

This is this is Dave Adams, uh 29 Flintro Flint Rock Road.

And I just wanted to alert the board that the link in the agenda uh for the team for teams um the teams link, it does not function.

It brings you to a page that says uh sorry this link is broken or it's been removed.

Uh and I'd like to reserve any time later in the public uh hearing once that's fixed things.

I'm sorry, you'd like to reserve time for what hello.

Sorry.

He must have hung up.

You hi, yeah.

If I could uh get a uh a link to the meeting so that way I can uh come in on teams instead of uh dialing in by phone.

Uh that would make it easier for me to Dave.

This this is your chance if you have comments on this application.

Um, because when we um finish with the public, we are going to close it.

Then I then I yield.

Okay, then no no comment.

No comment, thank you.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Um David, I just want to note if people are have, you know, people who are on the phone and if they want to try joined by teams, they should use the link um on a Chrome browser that seems to have worked for most people.

Um so maybe they're using a different browser, but it Chrome seems to be working better.

I just for whatever it's for the record.

I I just clicked on the link.

I am in a Chrome browser as Manita mentioned, but the link brought me right to the registration page.

So it seemed to work for me for whatever that's for.

And and you came in through the public um public link.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so yes, if there's someone from the public who doesn't have a uh Chrome browser, um, please um stay on by phone.

And um we're happy to take your comments by phone as well.

Or you know, don't be they could email me and I can send them.

Uh I can register them by the way.

Okay.

So remember um you can email Vanita at V M A T H U R Vmonter at Stanford Ct.gov.

Vanita was there any other members of the public who wanted to speak.

Yes, we have the phone number ending in 5178.

Hi, Vanita or hi.

Oh sorry.

Yeah, this is Sue Halburn.

I was just gonna say the same thing.

I was trying the link um at my computer and I couldn't get in.

So it would be nice to be able to see the presentation, but I see Vanita sent me uh another way to get in, so I'll try that.

But thank you.

I have no comments on the presentation.

I'm just this teams is awful.

Thank you.

So it's a challenge for all of us, Sue.

Oh my goodness.

Yeah, I thank you.

I'll try this at Vanita sent me.

Thank you.

Um I don't see any other hands raised.

Okay.

Good.

Um, board, before we close this, uh any other questions or comments.

Not from me.

Nothing from me.

Okay.

Um attorney Klein, anything you want to say before we close this?

No, uh I mean, I think our application materials state, you know, the compliance with the master plan, how this is great that self-storage is growing on a site that's already used for self-storage and not some other property.

And I think as as you all said, we we're we're happy to have collaborated with you all and glad that the you know if this is approved at the end result is something that everyone's excited about.

So thank you, everybody.

Good.

Thank you.

Then um, we are going to close application 225-12.

Which is um application 22519, 72 Cummings Point Road, um, site and architectural plans and or requested uses, special permit and coastal site plan.

Applicants proposing to construct in addition to the current building consisting of 2,790 plus or minus square feet of floor area with related site improvements.

The property is within the cam boundary.

Um who is um presenting on this tonight?

That would be me, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, attorney Feinberg, welcome back.

Thank you.

It's good to see everyone.

Hope everybody had a nice break.

Um I begin.

So um I'm uh I can't quite remember where we left off.

I think we had a couple of questions that you would resolve those.

So anything else that you would like to present tonight?

Well, for the record, if you'll indulge me, and I and I think you'll remember I was pretty brief last time.

I would like to just We always indulge you.

Oh, thank you so much.

I I would like to kind of do a little bit of a redo um just in case anybody was unable to join last time.

So for the record, my name is Lisa Feinberg.

I'm a partner with Carmeny Torrent, Sandack and Hennessy.

My office is at 1055 Washington Boulevard.

With me is my team, Daniel Radman from uh is the owner's rep, Ryan Salvatore and Neil Hawk, uh the project architects, and Ted Malone from Redness and Mead.

Um, as you stated, this is a continuation of the public hearing from July 28th.

Um, I was planning to just go quickly through the PowerPoint.

So, Vanita, can I go ahead and share?

Go ahead.

Gonna do so much better this time.

Can you all see that?

Yep.

Yeah.

All right, excellent.

Um as you know, we're here to present the proposal to expand the Stephen and Alexander Cohen Foundation building, which of course is located at um at the point 72 campus at 72 Cummings Point Road.

You can see that outlined here in orange.

There are technically three applications before you site plan, coastal site plan, and special permit.

Um the development site is actually outlined in yellow.

It's in the far southwestern boundary of the city on the waterfront, very close to Greenwich, um, in an area known as Soundview Farms.

Uh, the site itself is 5.76 acres.

It's located in the IP D zoning district, and the Cohen Foundation sits in that corner, which is shown in yellow.

The foundation was founded in 2001.

Um, since then, they have donated more than 1.3 billion dollars to thousands of recipients, including contributions to the Cohen Children's Institute at Stanford Hospital, the Cohen Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, the Cohen Soundwaters Harbor Center, the Mill River Park Skating Rink and Interactive Fountain and Person-to-Person Mobile Food Pantry.

As you may remember, when the foundation opened its doors in 2001, it operated from the.72 building.

Um, but in 2015, this board approved the construction of this building that you see here, a one-story, about 3,700 square foot office building that serves as the foundation's headquarters today.

We're now about a decade down the road, and they require additional space for the important work that they're doing.

We are here tonight requesting approval of an addition, um, consisting of about a little under 2800 square feet of floor area.

Uh, the expansion has been designed uh to really fit in seamlessly with with what is there today.

It's an extension of what's there today.

It's set back about the same from Gatehouse Road a little bit closer to the road.

It was 18.7.

Now it'll be 16.4 feet from Gatehouse over here.

And that is the special permit that we are requesting.

Um the building will appear as a single story from the outside with a main level and basement level.

Mr.

Chairman, uh, last time we were before you, you did have some questions about the building height you asked me to clarify.

We uh submitted this exhibit in the interim that shows that the building is uh at about 17 feet from average grade.

So the upper level will be offices and workstations along the perimeter with a formal conference room in the center.

Basement will have additional workstations, secondary conference room, and smaller focus rooms.

Um you can see there's landscaping improvements that are also proposed, all native species, generally salt tolerant and low growing shrubs you see here and grasses that uh really will allow us to see the beautiful building.

The proposed addition you can see over here on the right, and it's connected uh with this glass here.

Just a couple other views.

You can see high quality materials, including stone, metal, wood, significant amount of transparent glass to really maximize the natural light.

One more view here.

And that's that's really all I had.

Okay, good.

Um let's go to the board then.

Um Roseanne, any questions or comments.

You muted uh Roseanne.

Sorry, I knew that would happen.

Um, I don't think I have any questions.

Um it's a really nice addition, blends right in.

The landscaping that you have shown us is terrific.

Um, so I don't have any questions.

Do we know?

Do we know if the signing is going to change at all?

Or could that come in the future?

The signage for the foundation.

Yeah.

Not that I'm aware of.

Um, Bill.

Well, I believe at the end of the last meeting, the only issue was the height of the building, which has been addressed, so I have no other questions.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't either.

Uh, I'd like to echo what Roseanne said.

Um, it's a very attractive looking addition, and um uh looks like a good project.

So uh let's go to the public.

If there's any members of the public here who would wish to speak on this application, either for or against it.

Um please raise your hand.

And uh when you're um called on, give us your name and address, please.

I don't see any hands raised, Tina.

Okay.

Okay.

Good.

So then um before we close this application, um, board, last chance for any questions or comments.

I'm good.

Okay.

Um, any uh closing words for us.

Um no, sir.

I think we're we're all set.

We we appreciate you giving us the opportunity to present this.

I think it's gonna be an exciting um you know contribution to the city, a continued contribution, if you will.

Good.

Thank you.

Then um we are closing application to 25-19.

Uh next application we have is application 225-18, toll northeast five corp, and real view of Connecticut Inc., real view of Connecticut, Inc.

Um, 700 Fairfield Avenue and Zero Cummings Point Road, site and architectural plans and or requested uses and coastal site plan review.

Applicant is proposing to construct 56 condominiums, associated amenities and parking.

The property is within the cam boundary.

Um, this one we opened and continued last time.

So there was no hearing on this.

So this will all be new to uh all of us.

So um attorney Feinberg, are you presenting on this?

I'm going to uh play a participatory role.

Uh Mr.

Mazio is gonna feel this one.

Uh okay.

Good.

Is Mr.

Mazio on.

I just made him a presenter, so he should be.

I see his hand raised.

There we go.

Uh good evening, everyone.

Uh Ray Mazio, Redness and Mead on behalf of uh the applicants.

Um so yes, Lisa is with us tonight, uh, as well as Dave Pinto of my office, uh and Mike Zamola and Zach Monjovi uh from Toll Brothers.

And if you give me a moment, I will share my screen.

Okay.

Um so we are here tonight to talk about uh 700 Fairfield Avenue to the property outlined in yellow here.

Uh we're in the waterside neighborhood of Stamford.

Um part of the Soundview Farms office park, um, and specifically talking about the existing office building, uh, which is a 146,000 square foot building, uh, formerly the corporate headquarters for Platex and later Diamond uh Damon Worldwide.

We were here before you in January for you became muted here muted for some reason.

There we go.

Yeah.

Um so this is the existing building.

Um again, 146,000 square feet uh with over 400 surface parking spaces, and I'm just kind of outlining the property here, which is not this, which is part of Gartner, um, but here this parking lot and further down here.

Um I guess I can't use the spacebar to page forward in my presentation.

I have to click.

Um, but uh so we were here in January for the zone change and the general development plan approval to put the property in the RM1 district.

Um and now with the current application for final site plan app for final site plan approval, um there are no special permit requests and the the application is consistent with all the applicable regulations in the RM1 zone uh as well as the approved GDP plan.

Uh there are only a few really minor changes uh to the plan.

All of the vehicle access, uh orientation of buildings, number of units, parking spaces all remain the same.

The only thing that changed was we um yes, excuse me.

When you say changes to the plan from what?

From the G from the approved GDP.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

So the approved GDP is here on the left, the final site plan is here on the right.

Um, and the only change was we flipped around the orientation of the pool and clubhouse building, so that the pool is now on the south side, and obviously formalized uh a little bit better the uh the child play area, which just sits right here next to the clubhouse.

Um everything else is as uh as presented in the GDP.

Um exceeds the the minimum requirements of the zone.

Uh we have over three acres of usable open space shown in green here, um, which is about 17 times uh the requirement for the zone, uh including patios uh for each unit directly behind uh the the homes.

Uh there are over a hundred new deciduous trees being planted and over 380 new trees in total, and that is in addition to the other hundreds of shrubs, ornamental plantings, um, and and other uh flowering plants and things like that as shown here, which is a kind of a typical foundation planting plan uh around uh uh a building.

This one is a four-unit building.

Um in terms of parking, each home has a two-car garage and a driveway with the capacity uh to hold another two vehicles.

Uh there are 19 visitor spaces shown along here and here, and also a few uh just outside the clubhouse.

Uh two of those 19 spaces, uh the two right here outside the clubhouse, uh, will be equipped with EV chargers.

Um the homes themselves will all be wired to accept EV chargers in the garages should any of the uh future owners decide uh to do that.

Um the plans to those EV spaces show on the plan.

Yes, this is just the the rendered plan, but they're marked on the engineering plans.

Okay.

Um are there handicapped spaces as well?

Yes, there's one handicapped space here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, and then in terms of uh below market rate requirement, that is being satisfied uh through a fee and loop payment, uh, which we estimate to be about 2.14 million.

Um and the calculations were included with the application, and I think reiterated in the staff report.

Ray, were those your calculations?

Yes, those are the calculations based on the zoning regulations.

Um and the if I understand correctly, um our base year.

Let me find this.

Our base year is um January 2024, and the calculations show an increase, I guess, in inflation of 1.6% in the last year and eight months.

Well, it's a six six percent is the is the inflation number.

It's a multiple of 1.06.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

That makes more sense.

And then and then that'll get recalculated at the time of payment, which will be uh prior to building permit.

Got it.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um, actually I'll stay on this plan for a moment.

Um uh the planners responsive to several staff comments.

Um and others uh including uh other comments that we've received from staff so far, including traffic staff.

Uh one was that TTP has requested that we actually not build the proposed sidewalk, which is shown here uh along Fairfield Avenue.

Uh the traffic staff is working with the town of Greenwich on a more comprehensive streetscape plan for the neighborhood with the goal of connecting Binney Park in Greenwich with Bukutsee Park with more of a complete streets plan.

Um that plan is really just in its conceptual phases uh right now.

Um, and they've asked that instead of building the required sidewalk that we contribute 125,000 um to their effort along with a 10 foot easement along Fairfield Avenue.

Uh and we went over that with the applicant, and they're agreeable to that condition.

Um other comments include uh extending the internal sidewalk, which you see here around the the what I'll call the internal loop.

Um sorry, I'm having some trouble seeing where your cursor is.

Sure.

Where are you?

So here this is the sidewalk internal to the site, and they asked that we create or put in an extension.

So we have similar to this here, have the same thing coming here and just getting you out to the top gallant right of way.

And again, the applicant is is uh agreeable to that condition.

So they'll add that sidewalk to their permit plans.

Yeah, just thinking ahead, there's there may be a couple of other things.

If you will just give us revised plans to that on it and any other items um before we uh vote on it, please.

Sure.

Um let's see.

Oh, and uh another uh item in the staff report was that all of the internal sidewalk be concrete instead of asphalt, except for where they cross uh driveways, and the applicant is agreeable to that as well.

So all the sidewalks will be concrete except for where it's flush with the driveway where it would just be asphalt.

Will the driveway be asphalt?

Yes.

Okay.

Um we covered all of those items.

Um staff also had some thoughts on the architecture, which we've submitted some responses to.

Um in terms of adding uh different use of colors and materials uh throughout the buildings to differentiate the units.

Um these are examples of other communities which all have a very simple understated, elegant and unified design, which is what toll is going for uh in this development, um, where the architectural form and details provide the character and individuality to the buildings rather than relying on a mix of colors to do that.

Um so this is uh daybreak in Westport.

This is the Kensett community in Derrien.

I think that's something the board will I think should discuss.

Sure.

And then so this is the proposed development.

So there's a gray siding and then a wood a white shingle that is along the front, and then it is also incorporated along the sides within within the gables.

And that the use and deployment of those materials can vary from building to building.

Also the architecture itself can vary from building to building, as there are three different unit types that can be mixed and matched with within a building.

So here we have, you know, in addition to having three unit, four unit, and five unit buildings, all of which would have you know a different roof lines and variations, even within the same building type, um, there can be variations.

So here we're looking at two four-unit buildings.

Um the top one has different end units, um, a little different deployment of the white shingle material, um, different roof lines, and uh here the the middle units have their entrances together in the middle, whereas the lower plan has a little bit different use of color.

Uh the end units are mirrored in their roof line, and the the garages of the two middle units are together with the with the entrances uh separated.

So even without doing any of that, there's variation within uh the different building types.

Also, one thing that we've added um from the initial application was some color and variation uh brought around to the rear side of the units.

So initially it was um all one treatment along the back, um, which was the hardy siding in the gray color.

And here what we've shown uh on the bottom one is the ability to bring in um some of the white shingle within the gables here um and then varying the colors uh within the unit.

So the two end units have the gray siding, and then the two middle units have a white siding.

Um so able to add some variety to to the look there while keeping um the theme and character that toll is looking to achieve here.

And everything that they've done is really responsive to the market um and and what they're trying to bring um to the uh to the future homeowners.

Vanina, um I thought you raised some interesting questions about the design and have some suggestions worth looking at.

Can you just explain to us what it was you felt um should be changed or added?

Sure.

So I understand that they're trying to create a unified look within the area.

My suggestion was kind of vary some of the buildings so that they're you know they can be the same material, same color scheme, but maybe have some variation, some gradient uh to you know, to make so that you could identify them distinctly from each other.

Um, they could favor them the same palette of colors that they want.

Um but you know, I I understand that they they have a you know what the applicants uh telling us is that there's a strong demand or uh you know they're leaning towards this particular um color scheme or the white and gray combination that's the most popular, and every you know, all of the all of these are arranged around that.

So I'm not sure there, you know, how the two match.

I my idea was like maybe having some you know alternate or have a couple of different uh building uh colors or something.

Um not you know because the the buildings individually are you know pretty well designed the materials are good quality so I don't see an issue with um details or penetration all of that I think is well done just that you know it's all you know it's the same white and gray color.

Yeah yeah um I think you raise some some good points uh Bill and uh Roseanne do you have any thoughts on this I I wouldn't want to add any color other than the white and the gray I think that um won't be the best um for the development for the property um I happen to agree with the applicant to keep the color scheme as it's been presented tonight.

Okay other than color um any I think the design she went beyond just color yes but it it I'm in agreement that the design is great and the materials are great and uh I'm not looking to change anything.

Okay.

Bill I I agree with Rosemary I believe or not I you know I don't when I looked over the render even the architectures that were supplied to us I kind of like the way it look no I understand what is saying well I don't know if that's gonna make it look better or not I I I'm sort of happy with what they presented but I wouldn't be opposed to doing some additions but I I don't I don't think we have to request it.

Okay.

Yeah I I do I think Vanita made a a good point when she said they the groupings tend to look alike um and the adding some variation would would differentiate them but it's not a not a huge issue and if you guys are not in favor of it then um I don't think it's um something we should ask for and I'll just add to that you know I had you know brought this to their attention and you know we've had a conversation since and you know I've kind of better understood the the model that uh the applicant's trying to bring here and also I think you know the execution of the project matter the execution of the buildings the materials because if they're you know the materials aren't that great or um you know if there's not much variety otherwise in the building design you know sometimes you have to leave lean on color to to do the work um but if it's a nicely developed um elevation then you know even simple colors can be attractive okay yeah and and that's really what they're going for and what they specialize in um so just to keep going here we'll give you some uh existing and proposed views uh into the the site here so this is um from Fairfield Avenue uh almost at the shore road intersection looking into the site so right now you're basically looking into a parking lot and then this is um looking kind of kitty corner into the entrance so the entry drive into the development is on the right uh fairfield avenue would be on the left and that's a pretty typical view of an end of the end unit that people would see yes um you're not gonna see a whole lot because there is um a stone wall with a fence on top of it along Fairfield Avenue but where there are openings to the site um you know the this is this is the view so you can see there is um some variation in the color and materials here um on this end unit okay but the the end which uh on the left side is will have windows and um look similar to that yes yes and we have we have other views that we can keep showing um so this is kind of a straight on look from Fairfield Avenue um so you can see kind of where uh the the growth of the evergreens has died uh in the underneath part of the canopy um and then this would be the view into the site there so um I think we have a really handsome fence and wall combination uh along the street with plantings on the public side uh of the fencing as well um and then again the different deployments of of the the white shingle material and the gray siding um and I think with the the the black windows kind of

Um and then this would be the view into the site there.

So I think we have a really handsome fence and wall combination uh along the street with plantings on the public side uh of the fencing as well.

Um and then again the different deployments of of the the white shingle material and the gray siding.

Um and I think with the the black windows kind of really pop as well, and it's all done at a two-story kind of single family scale.

Um this is the view from the top gallant right of way again into the the parking lot and and and obviously the office building.

Um, and this is the view on the entry from that side.

So here uh it's the the fencing plantings as you turn the corner.

Um this is where the sidewalk would be added out to the top gallant right of way.

Um then lastly is uh an interior shot of the clubhouse building.

So it kind of mimics the character uh of the homes, obviously, um, but at a smaller scale.

And that's really all we had.

Happy to answer any questions from the board.

Um sure.

Uh Bill, why don't you start?

Um actually, David, I don't have any questions.

Okay.

Roseanne.

Um could we spend a few minutes more on the landscaping plan?

Sure.

Um, because we did kind of very much breeze over it.

So what's shown here are all the deciduous trees in in the circle evergreens have kind of the spiky uh notation.

Um so what we're looking at are um the trees here uh will serve as the street trees along Fairfield Avenue, and those are just outside the fencing um with some lower shrubs and plantings in between, um, and then trees dotted in, you know, all along the interior of the site.

Um and what's not shown just so it didn't clutter clutter up the planting plan um is the the plantings along each set of built each set of units, which we show separately here.

So this is kind of a typical unit planting, which would have you know shrubs, ornamental plantings, and uh flowering plants uh along the units.

So can you confirm how many trees are coming down and how many new trees going up?

So there are 50 deciduous trees coming down and 108 being planted, and there are 116 total trees coming down and 386 being planted.

So we are doubling the number of deciduous trees being removed and tripling the number of total trees being removed.

Um one question, you show um the some of the stone wall with a fence on top of it, but then there are some sections where the fence is all the way down to the ground.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So uh yes, the the stone wall and fence combination is along Fairfield Avenue, um, and then the the fence by itself is along the top gallant side.

And um, can you confirm the square footage of the is it five different style homes, four style, four different homes?

There are three different sizes of buildings.

There's a three-unit, four-unit, and five-unit building throughout the site.

There are three different unit types which can be deployed within each collection of units.

Um, and um what we've done is we've assumed the largest for the purposes of calculating the square footage so that if any of the different unit types change, it would only be a reduction.

And so what's the average square feet uh uh square footage of each of the homes?

I think it's about 2500 square feet.

Okay.

Okay.

I don't have any other questions, David.

Thank you.

Just a couple of questions.

EPB had requested a shift to that the landscape plan remove the uh non-native plants and that they'd be replaced with native plantings.

Has that uh been revision been made yet?

No, but we'd be happy to take that as a condition and and obviously handle that at building permit before EPP signs off on anything.

No, I'd like to see it, please.

If you would um give it to us for next meeting.

Yep, it'll be three weeks, so I think that should be more than enough time.

Sure.

We've got a sign off on the landscape.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um let's see, staff recommended additional street lights.

Um which seemed like a good idea.

Um is that something the uh applicant uh uh can do?

Yes.

Okay.

Will you add that to the plan that we uh get for the next meeting?

Yep.

Thank you.

Um sustainability scorecard.

They got a whopping 24 out of 127, um, which is barely uh 10%.

Is that really the best they can do?

Yes, yeah, and I think part of a lot of that is that the sustainability scorecard is really geared towards multifamily or or larger scale, you know, kind of single building development.

Uh it doesn't really lend itself to what amounts to more of a uh a town home, you know, single family type of development.

Um staff, I guess Ralph, this has been more your thing.

Do you do you see it the same way?

Uh yes.

Um, and we're also working on refinements to the scorecard.

Uh so that it matches better different um building types.

And also, I mean, if you if you were to build uh like a single family home or or uh two town homes, you wouldn't be subject to the sustainability scorecard.

Uh it's for developments with 10 units or more.

But the the which this is right.

Which this is, but it's it's a different building type.

So it was really when we developed the the scorecard, it was really more like downtown south end type development that we were looking for.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's see.

Oh, Ray, I don't I got we've gotten two sets of architectural plans, both dated May 30th in our package.

What's the difference?

Um I'm not sure why you would have gotten two sets of signed.

Remember Ray, they had to be signed and certified.

Thank you, Lisa.

So which is one the we should be looking at the sign one.

They're exactly the same.

It's just the uh staff asked for them to be signed and certified.

Uh yeah.

But the plans are exactly the same.

Okay.

Um last question deals with street trees.

Um the applicant has calculated street trees based on one per 40 feet of frontage.

Um, but our our regs uh are one per 25 feet of frontage.

So the regulations refer to the street tree manual, um, which is based on the size of the trees that are being planted, which in this case, since we don't have any power lines running across this part of the site, we're able to use uh the larger trees.

So the the requirement is calculated based on the spacing of those trees, uh, which is how we got to it.

Uh and then if I can finish, if I can finish.

Yeah.

If you fall short of that, your regulation calculates the fee and lie at 25 feet.

But we're meeting the requirement, so we don't have any fee and lie.

Um I was involved in writing those, and that's not the correct interpretation.

There's two different um they're really apples and oranges.

One is what's the street tree requirement or the fee and loo requirement, which is one per 25 feet.

The other is what should the spacing be?

And that depends on the size of the trees.

The issue we ran into when we were writing this was what happens if you have a big tree next to a little tree next to a medium tree, and we said this is gonna get to be impossible to calculate.

So we said, let's just take one per 25, use that across the board, and then the spacing can be, you know, whatever the applicant decides to do, but um the it's really two different things.

So that the calculation is one per 25 feet.

I I I disagree, and it it doesn't quite make sense how you would achieve that.

Um what do you mean?

So you're saying we should do smaller trees at 25 feet?

It's it's up to the applicant how many they want to put in.

So if they want to put in five trees and pay fee and loo for 20, that's they're right.

Um it's just the total number that there has to be um uh financially covered is the one per 25.

The spacing is a um, you know, it's a a tree uh issue, not the financial issue.

So they're really two different uh two different things.

And we're gonna do that.

Mr.

Chairman, where does it say that?

Sorry, did I direct?

The regs say one per 25 feet.

Oh, could I where does it say that?

We must have missed it.

I can't, Lisa.

I don't think you missed much.

Um I'm not sure.

Staff, can you uh point us there?

Well it's 12k.

So I think it's 12k one six.

Okay.

I think the reason that we're confused is because the section where the first section, 12k6A, where it talks about the number of trees provided, it says that they shall be provided in accordance with the street tree manual, and then the one per 25 comes later for the fee and loo payment.

So I think that's where Yeah.

When it says it should be provided, that's that's a planting recommendation or a planting rule for how you plant trees.

Um as you see it, it differs from 20 feet for little ones uh to 50 feet for large ones.

Um we so but we didn't want to get into trying to say, okay, you've got seven small and five medium and ten large, and trying to calculate that how many would be required.

So we we set them up as separate requirements.

And the planting distance is really a tree health issue, not a regulatory issue on how many trees have to be provided.

So you're saying that if we planted larger trees that were further apart, then we would buy out for the number of trees not provided based on that one per 25.

Just like we always do.

Yeah, yes, but typically we're in downtown locations where you have most of the buildings have power lines across their frontage, and you don't have the ability to do larger trees.

So the way you're interpreting the regulation, which is not explicit, is discouraging the planting of larger trees.

the number of trees not provided based on that one per 25 just like we always do yeah yes but typically we're in downtown locations where you have most of the buildings have power lines across their frontage and you don't have the ability to do larger trees so the way you're interpreting the regulation which is not explicit is discouraging the planting of larger trees well i think the one per 25 is pretty explicit that's if you're not meeting the minimum requirement as required by the street tree manual yeah that I mean the the thing is that uh a large tree is is ecologically more valuable than uh a smaller tree so I think we should be careful that we don't create the wrong incentives okay but Ralph we we wrestled with this when we were developing the distance planting distance between trees as well as the number which have to be provided um and maybe it's something we should take another look at um I mean I don't I don't have a problem with that I think it gets difficult though um well I don't know there's maybe there's some formula that can be worked out um but it the intention was yeah the number had to be one per 25 and then you yeah yeah yeah I I recall that we had the definition uh that that we had the discussion for the fee in lu uh because an applicant can say oh I would have um planted large trees so therefore I only have to pay for like 10 trees while if I had planted uh if it was small trees uh the the fee lu would have been much higher I think that's that's where it came from but I mean in this instance I think we could actually calculate based on the number of small trees and medium sized trees and large trees what what the tree requirement is I mean we have a given frontage and then we say there's like 20 large trees uh times 40 feet and 10 medium trees times 25 feet so I think that's something that can be figured out so I I don't I don't recall the I recalled a discussion uh when when we talked about the fee and lu because people would come in and say hey um I would only plant large trees and therefore they would reduce and and and make the number the fee and lu number smaller than it might actually be but I I might be mistaken okay well why don't we um I mean maybe we can have the applicant calculate based on the type of tree they provide that Ralph that's that's what we did um then they're all large trees so it's it's really very simple there's not a mix of small medium large along the frontage so it's it's just one simple calculation like yeah I think the site lends itself to large trees oh I don't I agree I agree I'm just talking about um what was behind the development of the numbers both in the tree manual and in the in the regs um right but if we get penalized for doing larger trees in essence then doesn't it wouldn't it make sense for us to revert back and do smaller trees well I guess I'd say that larger trees would make your development more saleable right but we're not gonna do what's appropriate and get penalized for it I okay I don't see it as being penalized but um we can uh discuss this one further sure let's see I think that was it okay that's all I've got um so why don't we go to the public uh if um anyone from the public wishes to speak on this application either for or against it uh please raise your hand when you uh when we unmute you uh please give us your uh name and address of course we have this Loretta Northern you're muted Loretta should I move to the next why don't we go on to Dave Adams um Ms.

You're muted, Loretta.

Should I move to the next speaker?

Why don't we go on to Dave Adams?

Um Ms.

Nolan, if you can unmute in the meantime, uh please do that.

Good evening, uh zoning board members.

My name is Dave Adams, 29th Lin Rock Road, and uh my comments on this project.

Uh well, first I have a question, and I the question is is uh, you know, are these units going to be for sale?

Uh and if so, uh that's awesome.

And uh I'm very much so in favor of this project, uh at the at least this stage of the project.

And uh the if not, if it is they are for rent, uh I am uh not in favor of this project being uh approved as planned.

Uh I think it's more important to have uh home ownership uh in whatever form we can get it here in the city than it is uh you know, in terms of just creating more rental properties uh for companies to make money on.

And I know that toll brothers you know does mixed projects.

I know that uh you know sometimes they have they have projects that they they're selling the units sometimes projects that they are renting the units.

So um if that could be answered, that'd be fantastic.

Anyway, those are my comments.

I hope you have a wonderful even.

Thank you.

We'll get to the answer at the end of the uh public uh questioning comment.

So there aren't any other hands, so we can go back to Ms.

Lire.

I was I was showing a Mark Anderson who now is gone.

Okay.

Yeah, sold out too.

Um I I'll unmute him.

He is back again.

And he is unmuted.

Mr.

Anderson, if you're there.

Um now you're muted again.

Are we are we muting him?

Or is he uh he's unmuted on his end.

Okay.

You need to unmute.

There we go.

Okay, you want to can you hear us now?

Yes, if you could give us your name and address, please.

Okay, my name is Susan Monague, and I live at 40 Flying Cloud Road in Stanford.

Okay.

And this is the first time I even became aware that there was such a project underway.

I don't know how what the notification process is for people in the neighborhood to know that there's a big project going on like this.

I I guess I would say offhand I'm against the project.

I think it it had such a level of density, and there appears almost like there are no setback like that.

It's that the build out is to the very edge of the property.

Right now, when we look at that property, there are trees, there's open space.

And this does not appear to give any of that, even though the buildings themselves look look nice.

I mean, I think toll brothers does a good job, but I don't really understand why uh why this would be allowed, the conversion from commercial to residential.

And it seems to, I'm wondering myself, it's like could the entire office park be turned into all of these dense communities like this?

Or what what would prevent that, or how how would you speak out against that?

If you think, you know, if you want to build residential, then maybe single family residential instead of like kind of dense multifamily.

Can I add, and I'm this is Mark Anderson.

I also live at 40 Flying Cloud Road with the approval of the Barrie Place 261 units.

This is 56 units with parking spaces for four at every one of their units.

The traffic on Fairfield Avenue, not directly adjacent to this property, but on the way out to CELEC in the morning, is pretty horrendous already without the development of 300 plus more units.

How is the board addressing the uh traffic congestion that will also take place?

Because it's it's you in the mornings, it's very hard to get a get through that Select Fairfield intersection.

Okay.

The applicant will uh answer those questions um uh when the public has finished its uh questions and comments.

Uh did you have anything else before we go on to the next person?

No.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

David, I don't see any other hands.

Nolan is still still a raise her hand.

Yeah.

So to unmute yourself, there is on the top uh bar there's a microphone.

Uh and it should be crossed out uh on your screen.

You have to press the microphone, the mic uh button in order to unmute yourself.

We cannot unmute yourself.

Uh we cannot unmute you, sorry.

Well, um let's see.

I can't unmute it says only select participants can unmute as per message.

Um can we make her a presenter?

Um is she a presenter?

She's an attendee.

So uh we can make a presenter and see if that helps she's posting a question on text.

Okay, so while um she is typing her question.

Um if there's no one else uh from the public.

Um Ray, do you want to uh take those questions we heard?

Sure.

Um so for Mr.

Adams, yes, they they are all intended to be for sale units uh in this development uh with no rentals.

Um and then for the folks at 40 flying cloud, um, we had a neighborhood wide meeting.

We hosted it at the site um almost a year ago.

I think it was back in October before we moved forward with the zone change and GDP application.

I think Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think we probably had about 50 attendees uh at that meeting hosted at the site, including uh the district representative, uh Mr.

Della Cruz for the Waterside neighborhood, as well as um the associations for uh the Dolphin Cove neighborhood, um and the other condo associations um along Fairfield Avenue and and Top Gallant.

So uh I think we went above and beyond the the typical notice requirements, which are um all the the required notice is all owners within a hundred feet of the property.

Um, but we had uh further reach than that.

Uh I'm sorry that you missed it.

Um I think a lot of your questions were actually addressed at the time of GDP, um, including the density, which we showed to be very much in line with the surrounding neighborhood, uh, at about I think six units an acre, which is really almost down to a single family uh type of density.

Um then in terms of traffic, that too was was addressed both at the time of GDP and also in in the application uh in the comments from the traffic staff, they accepted our uh traffic study, which showed uh about I think uh over 1200 fewer vehicle trips compared to the office use.

Um, and I think with the collection of offices uh down in the waterside area, with really only one or two means of getting north of 95, it's really the office use that creates that congestion.

And by mixing in different uses, including residential, you're able to reverse the flow and and reduce the congestion at any time of day or at the at the peak hours um most specifically.

So I hope that answers those questions.

I can't speak for the Barry Place application as we're not involved in that.

So the bus stops were put in privately by the office.

So now that it's moving to a less intense residential use, the the bus stops are being taken out.

And yes, easements in the future are for the city's future implementation of sidewalks or whatever kind of complete street plan they come up with.

So the applicant has agreed to uh provide a 10-foot easement along the entire frontage of Fairfield Avenue.

Um and then I think I'll just say we appreciate your your comment on the colors.

We too think that the applicant certainly this applicant uh knows what they're doing.

So appreciate that.

Ray, can I just note two things in response to the questions?

Please.

Um, in terms of the bus stops, I just think it's important to note that in addition to the bus stops that were in our direct frontage, there happen to be bus stops all over Soundview Farms for the same reason that there's a lot of office space, and there's a bus stop just north of uh top gallant on the west side of Fairfield Avenue.

So folks won't have to walk far should they need a bus.

And then um just for the record in terms of notice, uh, I think you know what what Ray said is is really important, but in addition, we did go above and beyond with the continuation as well.

Although we didn't have to re-notice the continuation of this hearing tonight, we did do that.

We resent letters and republished in uh the advocate and updated the signage.

That's it.

Okay.

Um good.

Um there any other questions or comments from the public?

Okay.

Um I think we um we're gonna get a couple of um revisions here.

So um uh board, any other questions uh or comments, discussion on this?

Not at this time.

Nothing.

Okay.

Um David, just before we break, I have update the number of lights internal to the site, uh, the the walkway out to top gallant and the tree species or the planting species.

And yeah, and then maybe you already did it, change the sidewalks to concrete from asphalt, that then we'll we'll make that note if it hasn't been done already.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, is there any way that we could accept those things as a condition just so that we can move something off of your super busy uh agenda?

Yeah.

Um you know what?

I'd like to keep this one open just to um see if we can get some resolution, some more information from staff on the tree count.

Um so um let's um let's continue this one until our next meeting.

So uh application uh 225-18 uh is continued until the next meeting of the zoning board on September 29th, uh 6.30 on teens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Ralph and Benita, would you look at look at the uh regs on the tree manual?

Um and um just advise the board on your thoughts.

Um it may be that that my interpretation is wrong.

Um, but it please let us know what your thinking is.

We'll do that, yeah.

Um next we have application 225-22, City of Stamford uh zoning board tax change.

The purpose of the text change is to provide assurances for BMR tenants that are threatened by the loss of their units to stay in the program and to make sure that lost affordable units get replaced.

Um I think we spent a fair amount of time on this, um, but we did continue it from our last meeting.

So uh Ralph, uh you were the presenter, is there anything else you'd like to say on this?

Or repeat on it?

I think I think we covered everything.

Uh maybe I can just uh sort of repeat the high um level uh items in the tax change.

So uh firstly, uh what the tax change would do, it would require for all BMR units that are lost uh an administrative approval by the zoning board and an information of the zoning board.

It would also um require um uh that uh if a building the change the uses change or the or the building gets redeveloped that uh either a one uh by one replacement would be have to make or that a fee and loop payment is paid for.

We also added uh provisions that uh residents uh must be uh paid moving costs.

Um and also we um required that if any premium floor area was received for providing the uh BMR units on site that uh a fee and loo payment for uh the um premium floor area is made uh when it's not longer used as a residential building.

Uh we also propose changes to the affordability plans.

Um and this change would uh give um tenants who are affected by a loss of BMR units um priority when new uh BMR units become um uh uh come online.

Uh and we also that is not related to the BMR program, uh but uh to bonuses that are received, for example, for plazas uh or historic preservation.

Uh when the reason for the bonus is no longer there, the plaza, for example, then uh a fee and loo payment has to be made if premium floor area was received for that um uh specific feature, like a plaza or the through block connection or whatever the case may be.

So those are sort of the high-level uh proposals, obviously.

Uh when you look at uh the zoning text, uh it becomes very technical very quickly.

Uh, but those are the on uh on uh um high level the changes we're proposing to the BMR program.

Okay.

Um thank you.

I let's go to the board.

Uh Roseanne, any questions or comments on this?

Now I had all my questions answered at the last minute meeting.

I think this um um this is uh a great change and the kind of thing that you only know to do once something like this comes up.

But um I I don't have any questions about the text change.

Okay.

Uh Bill.

No, uh as I recall, we we spent a lot of time on it in the last meeting and with all the issues definitely.

And the only reason we left it open because there was a technical requirement because of public hearing notification issue.

Otherwise, we would have closed it last meeting.

Yeah, after saying all that, I got no further issues or questions.

Okay.

Um so let's go to the public.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on this uh application, either for or against it, please raise your hand and um when you're called on, uh give us your name and address.

Uh good evening, zoning board members again.

Uh my name is Dave Adams, 29 Plant Rock Road.

And uh just I have one simple uh you know uh request that you remove any option or B and Lou as a mechanism to avoid having to replace the BMR units one for one.

please raise your hand and um when you're called on uh give us your name and address to dave adams uh good evening zoning board members again uh my name is dave adams 29 flint rock road and uh just i have one simple uh you know uh request that you remove any option or fee and lo as an a mechanism to avoid having to replace the bmr units one for one uh the whole concept of this tax change is to protect the stock of bmr units and to protect the people that are in those bmr units so if you're giving a fee and loo option you are basically turning a problem into a problem that can't be resolved for six to ten years you are not solving the problem with this tax change if you allow fee and loo so please remove it from this tax change thank you and have a wonderful even good thank you um I don't see another hand no other speakers okay okay um Ralph could you uh please respond to Dave's uh comment yes I think uh Mr.

Adams has a uh valid point um the issue is that we uh can't really keep a person from uh changing the use of their building it's their building um uh and and they have property rights and um some owners in Stanford would have the ability excuse me uh to provide uh replacement units but others uh do not if they have a single building in Stanford uh they would not have the ability to uh provide uh replacement units so that's uh why we decided to come up with um that uh solution um I know that uh it's not fully satisfying but um I think we have to um balance um property rights here with uh the BMR program and maximizing um the the flexibility um of the program and obviously as as we've stated before um the point of the Fee and Lou units is to have funds available to provide different types uh of housing that the BMR program usually doesn't produce um for us so um those those were the reasons I I as I said I I agree to a certain degree uh that that um a in kind replacement would be preferable but I don't think it's practicable right and it does come into play when there is a change in the use of the building so that the new the new use does not have um bmr units in it for example an office building um so you're right you may not there may not always be the ability of the owner to provide um replacement units um also as I recalled we discussed this in in in great depth and I believe we also ran this issue by a corporation counsel who I know used the word strongly recommended that we leave the fee in Lewin there we would run into some issues with state regulations that type of thing is that record yeah I think you're right Bill okay um there's uh I see no one else from the public uh board any other uh final items or questions on this one comments discussion before we close it nothing okay then we are closing application two two two five two two now um the four the four applications we just discussed were all carried over from uh before a summer break and um three of them we have now closed um and I think it would be appropriate to uh vote on these um before we get into the new application so can I get a motion um that we take the agenda out of order and uh vote on these three applications that we just closed i i'd like to move that but also add that i think uh we can also quickly vote on the time extensions that are in the agenda at the at the end i think okay i think we could get those done with no time at all second okay all in favor aye okay uh so we are now um taking the agenda out of order the first uh we're going into our regular meeting where we will deliberate and vote um and the first item we have is application two two five depth

I think we could get those done with no time at all.

Second okay, all in favor?

Aye okay.

Uh so we are now um taking the agenda out of order.

The first uh we're going into our regular meeting where we will deliberate and vote.

Um the first item we have is application 225-1-2, uh, which is 35 commerce road.

Uh this is the self-storage facility.

Umita, do we have um proposed conditions for that?

Um can you see the conditions?

You need to make it larger.

I know that it's there, but that's about it.

Is this better?

Yeah, much better.

It's fine.

Okay.

Okay.

So move down to the conditions.

Were there um there was a special permit there?

Do we address that in the conditions?

Yes.

So I mean the special permit is for the um large scale.

Um this there's no special, like no particular special related to any gotcha dimension.

It's just the large scale.

Okay.

Okay.

Um first uh is there anyone who opposes this application?

No.

No.

Okay.

So why don't we uh uh start looking at the conditions?

Uh first one is that the plan will uh uh the work will conform to the plans.

Uh second is uh they will provide 43 unassigned self-parking spaces, including free EV charging spaces.

We good on that.

Okay.

Uh they'll provide 22 Class B bicycle, not less than 22 Class B bicycle parking spaces.

Can I bring this up as this is like with my comment last meeting about the EV spaces?

You think anybody's gonna drive their bike to their um self-storage unit?

I don't think so.

I can't I think that's another part of our regulations we need to look at.

I know we have to have it here, it's in the regulations.

Why you only need enough for employees, let's face it.

Nobody's going to take something out of their um their storage boxes or storage unit on a bike.

Could have to be a pretty small item, I guess.

Or a large bike.

I I just think we should add it to the conversation as well about the um EV units.

Like are you gonna park long enough to pick something up in your storage unit to charge?

I mean, yeah, I guess I know it all has to be here, but I think we should address it.

Yeah, I think you're right.

I took a note, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, thanks, Phil.

Um is our usual bicycle uh requirements.

Um applicant will provide a contribution of 100,000 to the city for installation of a sidewalk along Harvard Avenue.

Um this is in place of the applicant um building the sidewalk.

Um the expectation would be that the applicant would not that the city would be building the sidewalk eventually.

Is that correct, Benita?

Yes.

Okay.

Um applicants not required to install a sidewalk along along Commerce Road.

Um why is that um because it's a higher priority there uh to provide the sidewalk along Harvard Avenue than Commerce Road.

Then Commerce Road.

Commerce Road is more commercial.

And Harvard Avenue.

Okay.

But it's not we're saying that it may be required under our regulations, but it's covered by the 100,000, or it's not a requirement.

It is a requirement by the regulations.

But I think it makes sense.

Harvard Avenue really needs a sidewalk.

So I think this is a good way to address the issues on Harvard Avenue.

Okay.

Any questions for it on number five?

No, sir.

No.

Okay.

Number six.

It would also have been basically like an island sidewalk, like in front of the property and nowhere else.

Any sidewalks on Commerce Road, so Harvard Avenue makes more sense.

Okay.

Number six.

They will replace the sidewalk along West Main Street as shown on the plans prior to CO.

Seven, signage will be approved by staff.

Eight applicant will comply with the comments from TTP.

Is it really July 4th, 2022?

Taken three years?

Oh no, it was no.

I fixed that.

Sorry.

I'll fix the date.

You know what?

I've got it here.

It says 2022.

I'm not sure that was correct, but it is what the letter says.

Pardon?

Is there a stamp?

No.

It is signed.

It's got Frank and Luke's signatures on it.

But no, there's no received stamp on it.

I mean Yeah, they weren't even there in 2022.

Yes.

Yeah.

They weren't employed by the department then.

Much better.

Okay.

Yes.

Next is the EPB comments.

It'll be complied with Engineering Bureau comments will be complied with.

Fire Marshal comments will be complied with.

Sidewalk easements.

Prior to CO applicant will submit and record on the land records and easement showing all easements on the property and in particular an easement agreement and map depicting the portion of proposed existing public sidewalks which are located on the applicant's property.

The applicant will give the city an easement for those portions of the sidewalk.

Street trees provide and plant not less than 16 street trees and submit a bond, the amount of thousand dollars per tree.

And those trees will be along um they'll be along commerce.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Applicant will submit final plans.

Um to staff for its approval.

Applicant will submit final spec specifications for landscaping, lighting, fencing, and streetscapes.

There'll be a performance bond from the applicant.

And uh as determined by uh EPB.

Uh exterior mechanical equipment will be um will not be viewable from any public street without review and approval by the zoning board staff.

Um the sustainability scorecard will be finalized and uh posted.

Aren't some of these are uh they're all standard conditions.

You skipped over that line.

You missed okay.

Well, I'm not gonna continue then.

Well I don't want to you were on a roll, I didn't want to interrupt you.

No thanks.

Okay, these are the standard conditions.

Right.

Um do we have any discussion on this?

No, sir.

I think we came up with a uh end result of very acceptable.

Yeah, I think it's a big improvement.

Um can we get a motion then to approve uh application 225-12 um with these conditions as um presented and amended tonight?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, application two two five-12 is approved with conditions.

Um next we have uh application two two five-19, 72 Cummings Point Road, site and architectural plans and our requested uses, special permit and coastal site plan review.

Uh this is for the um additional the addition um at 72 Cummings Point Road.

Um is there anyone who uh objects to this application?

No.

No.

Okay.

Umita, can we see the conditions please?

Yes, such as they are just make the spigot.

There we go.

Um down to the site specific conditions.

Here's the special permit that's um uh oh, site specific.

Um the uh application will um conform.

I'm sorry, the work will conform to the building plans.

Uh signage will be subject to zoning board staff review.

Number three, uh the applicant we will comply with the comments from TTP prior to CO.

Um number four, applicant will comply with the comments from EPB prior to building permit.

Number five, applicant will comply with the comments from engineering prior to building permit.

And number six, applicant will comply with the comments from WPCA prior to uh building permit.

And the rest are our standard conditions.

Any discussion on this application or the conditions?

No, not at all, sir.

It's a simple one, it looks great, it's a good addition.

Yeah, it does.

Okay, so can we get a motion to um uh approve application 225-19 with the conditions as presented tonight?

um prior to uh building permit and the rest are our standard conditions um any discussion on this application or the conditions no no not at all sir it's a simple one it looks great it's a good addition yeah it does okay so can we get a motion to um uh approve application 225-19 with the conditions as presented tonight so moved second any further discussion all in favor say aye aye aye uh the application uh is approved three zero uh next we have application two two five two two this is the zoning board's text change um amending the BMR regulations uh is there anyone who is opposed to this application no any um any discussion on it no we we did a thorough run through of this and asked a lot of questions i'm all good and it really i think it um it it takes care of a couple of um gaps in our regulations and i'm i'm glad to see we did this uh this was something that you know you learn learn from experience here and um uh this this is a good change yeah uh can we get a motion to approve uh this application so moved second to approve the application two two two five two two okay is there uh any further um discussion uh no just for the record uh it's the version uh uh dated july 28th uh 2025 that contains a couple of changes that were made um after the last uh the first public hearing uh on this item okay but we um have seen this yes okay i just want to make sure it's the uh yeah this is the version that we were sent for the last meeting yes okay good um uh any further discussion on this okay all in favor uh say aye aye aye okay uh this application uh two two five two two is approved three zero good work folks um now in accordance with uh the motion we're going on to the uh extensions of time first one we have um well no first one we have is uh application two two two two five walton place llc and 80 prospect street partners zero walton place and 80 prospect street um proposing the redevelopment of the site including repurposing the 1900s church building um requesting extension of time they want that extension until when see until october 21st 2026 i believe thank you any piles of paper yeah he's right october 21st 2026 okay um vanita any uh issue with this that you're noah no um they are working through all the engineering um complications and moving forward so hopefully get the billing but soon okay um i i move that we approve extension for time for application 2225 through uh october 21st 2026 okay any further discussion all in favor say aye aye aye okay good next we have uh a request for an extension of time on application 224-32 relating to uh 74 broad street um this one uh they're requesting extension to uh december 20th 2026 uh vanita is this uh look okay yes um actually they might have gotten that permit since after um

for time for application 222-25 2026 okay any further discussion all in favor say aye aye aye okay good next we have uh a request for an extension of time on application 224-32 relating to uh 74 broad street um this one uh they're requesting extension to uh december 20th 2026 uh vanita is this uh look okay yes um actually they they might have gotten their permit since after um applying for the extension i would i just want to check it it's either this one or 460 they were both in the permit system so it might be redundant but i think you know granting the extension doesn't hurt okay well why don't we go ahead and um grant it and if they've received it that's terrific um i move that we approve an extension of time for um application 224-32 until december 20th 2026 second for a second okay um all in favor say aye aye okay extension of time for application um two two four three two is approved next we have uh an extension of time request for application two two four three three um relating to 460 summer street um which was the conversion of the office building into 40 apartments uh applicant is looking to extend the uh time to november 18 2026 um vanita anything special about this no they've already filed for their permit this is the one where they they're kind of working on the on the permit uh issues with all the departments uh but they do need extra time so i just looked through my notes and then 74 broad was the one that they had just gotten to recently gotten that permit yeah good okay okay on this one um for 460 summer street can I get a motion to extend the time to November 18th 2026 so moved second okay all in favor say aye aye aye okay the extension of time is approved um so can I get a motion to um go back into the uh regular agenda order so moved second okay any discussion all in favor say aye aye okay we're back in the uh back into the public hearing now and um the first item we have is um hang on a second first item we have is a um application 225-31 uh Raymond Mazio redness and mead zoning text change the purpose of this text change is to revise section two permits and approvals to match the expiration and extension timing of variance approvals to be consistent with both site plan and special permit approvals um roseanne could you please read the uh planning board letter sure uh dated August 28th 2025 to Mr.

David Stein chair city of Stanford zoning board regarding application 225-31 uh Raymond Mazia redness and mean uh zoning text change dear Mr.

Sign and members of the zoning board during its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday August 26 2025 the planning board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter purpose of this text change is to revise section two permits and approvals to match the expiration and extension timing of variance approvals to be consistent with both site plan and special permit approvals.

Good.

Thank you.

Is Mr.

Mazio?

I see you haven't left us yet.

Good.

I am.

I thought you forgot about us for a second.

Did you uh please proceed?

Sure.

Uh Ray Mazio and in this case, I I am the applicant.

Um but the the catalyst for this, we kind of stumbled upon it, didn't even realize uh initially that the extension periods were different um for uh variances because they don't have an expiration in the state statute.

Um the expiration comes from our local regulations.

Um and we had uh in this case a synagogue, the young Israel uh synagogue on Oaklawn that um got an approval for a variance and special permit, you know, for the uh the non-residential use in a residential zone and some variances as their existing site was um limited by a lot of wetlands and had setback issues and things like that, and they wanted to redo their synagogue building.

So we got the approval, and then when we went for the uh extension, we got an initial extension, and when we went for the second round, which you can for special permits, we realized that the uh the variance was limited to only one extension, um, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, um, especially in the case of nonprofits and religious institutions, especially where they're all their fundraising is private, you know, among their constituents.

So it can take a while to get from approval to construction.

Um, and really it just made sense to write size uh the variance to be in line uh with the other types of zoning approvals.

So that's what that's what we've written, and then also allowing the um the extension periods to apply to any approval that is still active.

So if the if your approval has expired and it's sunset, you can't bring it back to life, but we can extend the life for uh approvals that are still active.

Um so that's what we've proposed.

The text is uh up on the screen here.

Um happy to be brief or you know, we can go through it, but it's it's not much, it's pretty uh straightforward, I think.

Okay.

Um Roseanne, any questions on this?

No, my um question is really just to staff.

Um just to see if they have any questions about this.

Is this something they totally agree with?

No, absolutely.

We uh uh encouraged the applicant to file it themselves rather than wait for us for uh a cleanup.

Uh we would have taken it up uh as a cleanup because uh as Mr.

Mazio stated, it does not make sense that different uh types of uh approvals expire at different times uh when they relate to one project.

So I think that's that's uh very reasonable uh request.

Okay, so it's certainly something you would have done if we had gotten to cleanup of this section.

Yes, and it's one of those things that um when you when you don't uh uh when you're not confronted with the issue, you don't pay attention.

So it came up with this specific project.

Uh and that's why Mr.

Mazio picked it up.

Okay.

Other than that, uh I don't have any questions about the actual text change itself.

Okay.

Bill.

Yeah, what is the uh significance of April 15, 2025?

Why that date?

So that is in your current regulations, and that was the date you adopted the most recent change, which uh which uh varied the uh the approval timing.

Okay.

From from what's it for me, David?

I'm good.

Okay.

Just some of you understand this a little better.

Um so in the first one, we're saying we're going from 12 months to 36 months.

Um for the initial approval.

Correct, which is in line with the other types of approvals.

Okay.

And then um we can grant two two-year extensions, which is that in line with um anything else?

Yes.

Actually, the ZBA, the ZBA can because it's a variant.

Right.

Okay.

Then it says in the end, the uh yellow highlighted.

Um, these expiration periods shall be valid for all applications approved after.

I guess we need a date there.

Yes, which if you approve it tonight would be today's date or or the effective date of the approval.

It would be the effective date, yeah.

Okay, which um we we know what that would be if we approved this tonight.

Yeah.

Um is this so this would apply to um any variants that's already been granted.

Um let's say it was originally and it was originally granted with the 12-month um with one 12-month extension.

So if either of those sorry, go ahead.

As as drafted, the initial approval period would only apply to applications approved after the adoption of this regulation, so they wouldn't get the benefit of the initial approval period, but any application that's still active could request an extension pursuant to this regulation, as long as the approval is still alive.

So if they're still within the initial 12-month approval, they could ask for two two-year extensions.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I didn't quite understand in each of these the language at the end.

It says um these expiration periods will be valid for all applications approved after blank date.

That's fine.

And the extension periods applicable to all active approval.

Um it's not really a sentence.

Um maybe re-add the shall be periods and so what would extension period shall be applicable to all active approvals.

The extension period shall be what does that mean?

Interactive on the date we're gonna fill in.

Sure.

That's what you're trying to say.

Um you really don't need the date because if they're what they'd have to be active at the time they're requesting the extension.

Well, but that's always the case.

Why are we saying it?

You can't ask for an extension if your approval is no longer active.

Right, but the date that this gets adopted is uh irrelevant for that.

What would happen if you just deleted the part after the semicolon?

Um it would not be applicable to the applications that um that we that were the impetus for drafting it because they were approved prior to this being adopted.

The X.

So that's why we separated the the approval period and the extension period into two different parts.

So the first part is these expiration periods will be valid for all applications approved after whatever the effective date of this is, right?

And then that's part one, and then part two is the extension periods.

Uh how about a new sentence?

The sure so the extension periods, these are the two two-year extensions, yes, will be applicable to what we put it as all active approvals because your approval you still have to have either be within your initial approval period or have obtained the extensions that were available to you prior to this.

So the application has to still be active.

But that's always the case, right?

You can't get an extension on an application that's not active.

Right.

So what does this do for you?

It separates the extension period applicability to applications that were approved prior to this date.

Right?

Because without that language, this only applies to applications approved after this date.

Right.

And that's not what we're looking for.

So it would be it would be for all applications which are in effect on this effective date.

Yes, but the the I don't think you want to say that because the this regulation is going to be in place presumably years from now.

It can't be applicable.

Right.

You don't what I'm saying is you don't need the date.

That date is no longer relevant.

All it it could be on or after, right?

So this the language is kind of confusing to me.

Um and I that's why I'm just trying to clarify what it's supposed to be doing.

Um you want the extension periods to pick up any application that was still effective on whatever today's date or 10 days from now, whatever.

And thereafter.

Correct.

Okay.

That would work.

So can we just new sentence the extension periods shall be applicable to all approvals active?

Sorry.

On or after whatever date we're putting on in here.

Sure.

Okay.

And then I guess it would be the same language in the other two as well.

Correct.

Okay.

Um Bill or Roseanne, if you're still awake, um, is that okay?

Sure.

I I I didn't see the issues you're having with this, but long can we get it resolved?

Why about me?

It just refers Okay.

Okay.

Can you repeat the language?

Do you get it or yeah?

If you can repeat that okay.

So first we've got the insert effective date.

So I'm I'm gonna assume that this is if it's approved tonight, what will the effective date be?

Two weeks from today.

Okay, so that would be September 22nd.

Yes, we generally keep it the the 23rd, allowing for the the notice to be posted by the end of this week.

So September 23rd would be Do you want to insert it in that bracket there?

Oh the last full line of the first.

Is this editable the the version that you're looking there?

I can do it now.

I started too.

So you want it separate new sentence, so yeah, the September 23rd date, new sentence, the extension periods shall be applicable to all approvals.

Approvals.

Which are active on or after September 23rd.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so then I think we just need to repeat this part.

Yeah.

And here it instead of a semicolon.

Good.

And I think that does it.

Okay.

That's my only question on this.

Um we go to the public.

If there's anyone from the public who uh wishes to speak on this application, um please raise your hand.

I don't see any hands raised.

Okay.

Um board before we close this, anything you want to add, ask.

Nope.

I'm good.

Bill, good.

I'm good.

Right.

Ray, you good if we close it?

Yes, I'm sending the updated language to Venita now.

It's been sent.

Okay.

Good.

Then we are closing application 225-31.

Um next we have uh two applications from Stanford Hospital relating to uh 31 Wright Street.

The first is application 225-25.

Um 31 Wright Street, applicants proposing a map change for 31 Wright Street property from the current R5 multiple family medium density design zoning district to the proposed HCD hospital complex design district zoning district.

Uh second application is application 225-26, uh Stanford Hospital 31 Wright Street, site and architectural plans and our requested uses and general development plan.

Applicant is proposing to construct a new parking lot and to modify the general development plan to incorporate the right street property.

Um we have um to planning board let's sorry no go ahead.

Um letters here if you'd like me to read them.

Although only one is required.

Um application for the map change.

Pardon me.

The one for the map change uh is the required uh commentation.

Want to read that one?

That's the first one dated August 28th, 2025 to Mr.

David Stein Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 225-25 Stanford Hospital map change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board during its regular scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025, planning board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

Applicant is proposing a map change for the 31 Right Street property from current R5 multiple family medium density design zoning district to the proposed HCD hospital complex design district zoning.

William Hennessey, Carmody Torrent Sanduck and Hennessey LLP made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After some discussion, the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZB application 225-25 and found that it is found this to be in general harmony with master plan category number three residential low density multifamily sincerely Stanford Planning Board Jennifer Cozzino chair.

Okay.

Umita on the first application 225-25.

Did we receive a certificate of mailing?

Yes.

And the sign affidavit?

Yes.

Okay, and on the second application, 225-2-6.

Did we receive certificate of mailing and sign affidavit?

Yes.

Okay.

Good.

Um I see uh attorney Hennessy has appeared, so I'm guessing that uh you'll be presenting on this one.

So that's correct, Mr.

That's correct, Mr.

Chairman.

Well, welcome and um please proceed.

I will do so and welcome back all of you.

I hope you enjoyed your time off.

Uh for the record, I'm William Hennessy with the firm of Carmen Torrent Sandak and Hennessey.

Uh I practice out of our Stanford office at uh 1055 Washington Boulevard, and I'm here with my colleague uh Karina Aradondo tonight.

Uh the the um uh uh uh applications before you, I think are quite simple.

Uh I'm gonna move kind of quickly.

If I move too quickly, please stop me and ask me to circle back.

And I'm gonna, Mr.

Chairman, with your uh permission, present these really uh as tandem applications uh and ask that we combine the hearings.

I'll also note for the record that in addition to the certificate of mailing and posting of the sign that the uh uh proper uh newspaper notices were also published uh in in the paper, uh the newspaper here.

Um as described in the uh application materials, a little context might be helpful here.

Let's go to the next slide.

Uh Karina.

Uh it was about 10 years ago that the hospital embarked on its plan to rebuild its facility and uh create the hospital complex design district and to create a GDP final plan approval process, and then uh set about to rebuild the campus that we've enjoyed for the past decade or so.

Uh and it was uh, I think uh uh viewed uh uh uh on the community basis as a uh a very profound success and served as well uh without missing a single beat or a single day in providing health care during both the construction phase and during the uh pandemic we all lived through about uh five years ago.

At that time, you may recall uh that the hospital uh was about 20 acres in size and needed to be enlarged by about a third.

It is now about 30 acres in size.

And in order to accomplish that, there was a very, very complicated set of uh acquisitions uh that allowed for the enlargement of the campus.

And they included road discontinuances, uh purchases of private property, uh complicated land swaps with Charter Oaks community from the uh former uh housing towers it had to the south uh west corner of the site.

Uh and it all worked out perfectly, and uh the campus uh was enlarged.

The one piece uh of the campus that was not enlarged is the property we'll be talking about tonight, known as 31 Wright Street, uh about 80 uh 900 square feet.

It's outlined there, uh Karina's uh showing you where it is in the orange-yellow color.

Uh it was a uh two-family house that had been in a family for generations, and the uh family was just not desirous of selling.

The family was uh very helpful and uh not at all uh uh the a contrarian in the uh assemblage and ultimate development of the property.

They just wanted to stay in their house, and they did.

And it was about two years ago that they uh you know, generations have moved on, and they decided that it was time to sell the hospital acquired it.

What is uh improved on the campus and exists on the campus and has existed for about a decade is a surface parking lot that functions mostly as a valet lot uh to both the north and the south of this little uh area that was a lot.

And uh the purpose of this application, since the hospital has uh purchased it and since demolished the uh structure, is to just integrate that little piece of land into the parking area, the surface parking area to the north and the south of it.

That's it.

Um the um application uh to change the zone, would just allow the zone to be changed from RA from R5 to HCDD.

That's the official zoning map.

Uh we've discussed with Ralph and Vanita the fact that the official zoning map has a little error on it.

That piece right there that Vanita's playing with uh was rezoned about uh eight years ago.

Uh the only piece in that whole big block that is not in the HCD is the piece we're talking about tonight.

And as you'll see, it's surrounded to the east, west, north, and south.

Uh no, to the uh west, north and south by the uh hospital campus.

And we think obviously it's appropriate that it fall within that now that it's part of the hospital.

And the uh uh companion application just seeks to uh uh uh uh uh the amend the GDP uh to include 31 Wright Street and allow for the final plan approval that's shown on your uh uh uh application materials.

There you see the map change application.

Uh there uh next, I think uh you'll see the we have the landscape plan next, Karina.

Yeah, there's the landscape.

What we've done there very unscientifically uh is uh in green.

Uh excuse me.

Can you go?

Can you go back to the previous slide?

Yeah, sure.

Yeah.

Street and allow for the final plan approval that's shown on your uh uh application materials there you see the map change application uh there uh next I think uh you'll see the we have the landscape plan next Karina yeah there's the landscape what we've done there very unscientifically uh is uh uh in green uh excuse me can you go couldn't can you go back to the previous site slide yeah sure yeah it's a spruce street yeah yeah yeah the same question yeah is it uh the it's spruce street farther south is that right yeah no that well spruce street and right street connect yeah uh this when this was prepared it it it was spruce when we we saw that and when we published the legal notices in the newspaper it was changed to right street but it is at that point it is right street you know if you remember back in the day some of you who have been around you used to drive down that street and you would get to a point where there was a right angle in the middle of the street you used to drive down and uh the street would just stop go 90 degrees to the west and then begin again right at that spot if you will was where uh spruce tree started so I think that's how it got picked up by the surveyers Ralph are you okay with the um the record using that document could we just for clarity uh uh maybe um like a parcel number or something like that to to the map so but sure we can do whatever you yeah yeah but there's no question about uh the the parcel we rezoning right uh I do know that we we had picked that up and I apologize we filed this quite some time ago we got sort of some things got in afraid got lost in the sauce I I forgot to mention that to you Karina did pick that up when we were filing the uh notices in the paper and said oh we better change that so it was change uh did we get um is it reflected in the application materials that we have on file it's always referred to as uh right street in the application that is the only piece of paper I believe that says Spruce Street and we can certainly get you the you know an amended or updated uh zone map uh yeah we can certainly that would be helpful and if you want to add the parcel number that's I'm sure referred to in the applic you know the application form requires that so we have that but we can just include that in the uh in the official uh record if that helps you rel yeah yeah yeah I think that would be good okay okay if does that mean that this will need to be voted on next meeting or can it be voted on tonight is that possible given this change I think if the condition of approval Mr.

Chairman is that uh we supply uh an updated uh I'll call it uh the the accurate uh uh exhibit uh depicting uh the zone change exhibit that that uh I mean it it it says I'm looking at the bottom it says 31 right street it's just that the street on the map is incorrect um I I I would be comfortable with that with what I mean there's no condition of there's no condition of approval with a map change that's the only concern could you could you get us how about how about this why don't you just at least take a copy of it's in writing take take a copy of this right on it whatever it needs and scan it over to uh Ralph and Benita or we can do that right now edit it yeah I think if I can edit it on a PDF.

Oh we're perfectly comfortable having you add it Vanita if you're comfortable doing that we'd appreciate that whatever is easiest for you all I am writing right here you want to scan that to Vanita I can scan that did you just stick today's date on it the eighth right yes yeah yeah right now so what did you do to it Bill I uh I crossed off the word uh spruce where it says it in the middle of the street yeah okay uh right here and I wrote right and then I put the and I put the date up up here on the upper left good uh Ralph is that fine with you that's fine with me yep okay good okay um Karina Karina's got control of the screen so Karina's running her

right yes yeah yeah right now so what did you do to it Bill I uh I crossed off the word uh spruce where it says it in the middle of the street yeah okay uh right here and I wrote right and then I put the and I put the date up up here on the upper left good uh Ralph is that fine with you that's fine with me yep okay good okay um Karina Karina's got control of the screen so Karina's running around sweet yeah so yeah that what's what's in green there is uh our lawyer not not surveyor approximation of where the lot is it results in uh by our count uh 15 yeah what uh I think it was uh one two three four five nine nine complete new spaces and seven spaces uh that are two thirds on the lot and two thirds off and the reason this is a little off is in combining the lots and making sense of them uh you know some of the spaces are on uh the existing hospital or or some portion of some of the spaces are on the existing hospital campus site and others are on the right street site um you've got uh um uh referral comments from TTP from EPB from engineering and uh we can uh it uh and uh uh uh uh acquiesce to uh all of their requests uh and uh we're prepared to do so the most profound TTP wants some uh sidewalk uh uh enhancements uh there are some broken uh panels that they'd like replaced and we're happy to do that uh the other oddity here mr chairman just so you're all aware when the hospital was approved that entire strip of property uh that is on the w west side of right street that is the uh uh um uh the hospital campus property is subject to a 15 foot road widening easement for future road widening purposes and so the the missing piece was of course this piece and they've asked that that be included also uh so that there's a continuous 15 foot easement uh extending from broad street all the way down to former per spruce street and you know but we're of course happy to do that um that that it's not much more complicated than that this just allows for some much needed valet parking in the area where uh it's closest to the front doors and easiest for the valets to operate and uh we'd ask that that you approve it i think it's very simple application there's no other structure there's no lighting going in um you can see the landscaping is rather robust uh and um much of it is transplanted from what we had planted and what was approved by you uh 10 years ago to go around the former house we're just uh utilizing a lot of that plant material now that it's big and mature and moving it down uh toward the road and into the uh to the little traffic uh bump outs that's really the uh that's the entirety of the application we'd very much like to get it done so uh uh get it approved so we can begin working immediately and uh get use of the the site quickly um okay so um board members anyone have any questions or comments on this no question no it it um makes a lot of sense we'll uh we'll look a bit more normal now yeah yeah i don't i don't have any questions either um so why don't we go to the public if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on either of these applications um please raise your hand i don't see any hands raised okay vanita did we get the the updated yes map we did get it i i also updated it so we have options yeah we have i can i can share that um that remains the one from bill or the one that you've uh um actually re put one together one second left and then left handers are not known for their penmanship so i think anybody oh left official wow i think you can accept that thank you right is it okay um is it uh clear that it is it dated by any chance um you know i have which one is current yeah i

Is it okay?

Um is it uh clear that it is it dated by any chance?

Um you know I have to which one is current.

Yeah I let me let me share one that I just did because I dated it.

Hold on a second.

He can decide do you see one with the date on top?

Perfect.

Yeah.

Very nice.

Okay.

Perfect.

Okay.

Please don't put mine up.

Okay.

Uh we have no one from the public who wants to speak on this on either of these applications.

Um, anything um Bill Hannesy, anything further you want to say before we close these two applications?

Justin, I think it completely complies with the special permit and site plan approval processes and conditions uh of the uh uh and criteria of the zoning rights.

Okay, thank you.

We are closing applications 225-25 and 225-26.

Um thank you.

You're welcome.

Vanita, if we have if we want to vote on these tonight, do we have conditions?

Yes, we do.

I I though they are very simple.

Um because it does no construction really, you know, the working okay.

Good.

All right.

The um the last application is uh 225-27 Horn and Hook properties, 961 Long Ridge Road and 16 wire mill road site and architectural plans and our requested uses and special permit.

Um as announced at the beginning of the meeting, this application um has been continued until um our next meeting, which is on September 29th at 6 30 p.m.

on teens.

Um David.

I'm sorry.

Yes, we need to open it.

Thank you, Bill.

I can't continue it yet.

Okay, let's go backward.

Um application 225-27, Horn and Hook properties, 961 Long Ridge Road and 16 wire mill, site and architectural plans and a requested uses and special permit.

Applicants proposing to construct nine independent living, three bedroom dwelling units with parking landscaping and other related improvements.

Um can we hear the uh planning board letter, please?

Yep.

Uh September 8th, 2025 to Mr.

David Stein chair city of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 225-27, Horn and Hook Properties LLC.

I um dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board during its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025.

Planning board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

Applicant is proposing to construct nine independent living three-bedroom dwelling units with parking, landscaping, and other related improvements.

Joseph Capabo Esquire made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After some discussion, the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZB application 225-27 and found this to be in general harmony with master plan category number two, residential low density single family.

Sincerely Stanford Planning Board Jay Tapper, Vice Chair.

Good.

Thank you.

Yes, we got the certificate of mailing and the signal for David.

Okay, thank you.

Um we will be continuing this application to our meeting on September 29th, 6.30 p.m.

on teams.

Next, um, we're going into our regular meeting now.

And um, first thing we have is the um uh um first thing we have are the minutes.

I a message just came across.

Umita, do you see it?

I do.

Um I think it might be regarding the application that we just continued.

This might you know the speaker might the public attendee might want to speak on that application?

I'm I'm assuming.

And he said that it's correct, but we're we haven't we're not hearing it tonight.

Right.

So um if you would like to speak on it, um we will be having the public hearing on September 29th at uh 6.30 at our um on our meeting that night.

And you can also submit uh he says he's been on the line since 6.30, but we made that announcement um earlier in the evening that it was not gonna be open tonight.

We made that announcement at about 6 35 or 6 40.

Um it was also noted on the agenda.

Yes, okay.

Um I'm sorry you had to wait.

Um, but as Roseanne said, we did announce it earlier.

Um into the regular meeting.

Um the first item we have is approval of the minutes from uh July 28th.

Um does anyone have any uh corrections on this?

I don't okay.

Um I move that we approve the minutes of uh the meeting from Monday, July 28th, 2025 as presented.

Second okay, any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Minutes are approved.

Um next we have the uh we have a CSPR um Maria uh Sadie, and I'm sorry if I mispronouncing the name.

297 Weed Avenue, applicants proposing we construct a 720 square foot edition and flood poop lower level properties within the cam boundary.

Umita, can you just tell us about this one, please?

Sure.

So this is uh this property is a postal property.

Um the addition, the most of the prop the property on the waterwood side is in the flood prone area, but the addition is not located in Birre.

Um we have a positive recommendation from EPB um in a letter dated August 22nd, 2025.

Um we also have an engineering uh comment letter from Villera Capell dated um I have don't have the exact date.

I have August listed.

I'll have to look up the date.

Um the deep uh comments from Karen Michaels are dated July 31st, 2025, and we have the Harlem Management Commission's comments.

Um they dated uh August 27th.

Um just need to look up the engineering report.

Uh but they there was no concern that the building will be foot flood-proof with flood vents um the ground level.

So that'll bring the uh house into compliance with regulations.

Okay.

Um board, any discussion on this?

Nothing from me.

None.

Okay.

Um can we get a motion to approve this subject to all of the uh departmental comment letters, including the one that um doesn't have a date at the moment.

I move that we approve CSPR-1220, as David said, with all the comments from the city departments.

Do you have any what is it?

It's August 20th.

August 20th okay, thank you.

Um in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, it's uh CSPR 1220 is approved.

Um next we have uh the um text amendment from Raymond Mazio, application 225-3-1.

Um are folks okay uh voting on that tonight?

Yes.

Yep.

Okay.

Umita, you want to um just put it up?

Yes.

My browser is acting up coming up.

Um give it another second.

Here we go.

Here it is.

Okay, and it's includes the change that we made the expiration periods and the extension periods.

Um okay.

And the last one, oh I'm sorry, the can you put up the third paragraph there?

Okay, it's two two-year extensions that's already in there.

Okay.

Um do we need that last sentence given that we already have the extension periods in there?

That makes sense.

I think it it is necessary because if somebody is just looking at this section it shall be applicable to approval.

It's 36 months with two two-year extensions, the expiration periods will be valid for all applications approved.

Uh the extension periods.

Um we move that sentence up after expire at the expiration of 36 months after the date of approval.

Which sentence?

That one.

These expert no, the one uh before these expiration periods will be valid for all applications approved after April 15, 2025.

Um is that what it okay?

Yeah, I guess it it should be moved up, and it's an expiration period, right?

Singular.

This expiration period be valid nowwithstanding the foregoing the reviewing board of untimely application, may grant not more than two two-year extensions of the expiration date.

I don't see why we need the last sentence.

What am I missing?

Um the extension periods are already there, unlike that first paragraph where we were adding them.

Umplicative.

Well, I'm wondering if it if it hurts anyone.

I don't think all approvals active.

Um I think it applies to all approvals period, right?

I mean they have to be active to be able to be extended.

Yeah, but that's always the case.

Um I don't think we need that last sentence.

Um I mean if you're doing it for everything else, like we did it for variance special permits, this is just for the site plan.

That's because we change the expiration periods.

Well, at least in the first one, right?

Did we change it?

We didn't change it.

I'm not sure that we need, I mean, so we're saying that if it expires um before the 23rd, that they don't get the extension.

Um if it expired, then it's expired.

It says no longer use it.

It doesn't make sense to have that.

Um I mean if it if there are applications that are valid right now, but about to expire.

Yeah.

Um that you know maybe they were approved last year when we didn't have the um the longer expirations, then they'd be able to use this.

So why don't we use the April 15th date then if that's what we're using?

I don't see why the expiration period that's already there is not taking effect for another two weeks.

Okay.

Um remove this from here.

I'm I lost you.

Say that again.

We can we can take this line off.

Yeah, I don't think it it serves any purpose other than to just be a little confusing.

And I think it it's the same in the second one as well.

Uh we should probably also move that one sentence up.

Yeah, yes.

Yeah.

So it's this expiration period.

Will be valid for all applications approved after.

What so if my application was approved before April 15th, what is that what happens to me?

Then they're then you have the one year with three extensions available to you.

Yeah, if the one year that you got originally, and then you can come back for two two-year extensions.

I think you're right.

I think I mean this is yeah.

It's it's not real user-friendly.

Um if it's gonna be something different, we should really say in it what the alternative is.

Or we can just wait and hope it doesn't happen.

I mean it will happen.

That's the reason why they applied for this change.

And they were um and were they approved after April 15th.

No, they didn't they didn't fall under this paragraph.

They fell under the first one.

Yeah.

Right, which is where they needed the uh two two-year period.

Okay.

I mean I think because we make a distinction for the expiration for things that were approved before and after the date.

And we don't make that distinction for the extensions.

I think it's implicit that it applies to everything that is active.

Yeah, I think you're right.

Right.

So the extensions would be everybody could get the two two-year extensions.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um are we are we good now with this board?

You guys have that the post is sufficiently dead.

Okay.

Can we get a motion to um approve application 225-31?

Um as amended.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Okay.

It's approved.

Um next we have the the hospitals two applications, 225-25 and 225-2-6.

Does anyone object to either of these?

Nope.

And you guys okay voting on these tonight?

Yep.

Okay.

Um, Ralph, which one do we vote on first?

The map claimed.

Okay.

Um we have the updated map dated today.

Um I get a motion to uh approve the map change.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion.

Um all in favor of uh application 225-25 with the uh updated map say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

That application is approved.

Next is application 225-2-6, site and architectural plans under requested uses and general development plan.

Um we have um conditions for this.

Yes, Benita.

I can go straight to the conditions.

Uh really it's just the department letters.

Okay.

So um we have the work will conform to the plans.

Uh they will consolidate 31 right street with the um main hospital parcel.

There will be compliance with TTP's um comment letter.

Uh they there will be compliance by the applicant with EPV's comment letter.

Uh there will be compliance by the applicant with the engineering bureau comment letter.

And then we have our standard conditions.

Um nothing else that we need, right?

Do we do we need anything that ties it into the previous approval?

Um it's so the GDP will be amended.

Um does this say it amends the GDP.

We do cover it in the introduction.

Um did the applicant see this.

Yes.

Um okay.

That's a good question, Roseanne.

Um could add that, you know, the update the GDP plan.

Or all other conditions.

I think that might be a good one to add here.

Or previous GDP and site plan conditions remain effective.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

You have to give it a number.

Yeah, this, you know, cloud doesn't let me do that very easily.

Yeah.

I'll have to download it and do it again.

Why they good in certain ways in other ways it's glitchy.

Yeah.

That's the only um comment I had.

Um, it should be approvals, I guess, right?

GDP and site and architectural approvals.

Right.

Yeah.

Um shall remain um in effect.

Okay.

Um and then what are our speci uh standard conditions?

Yeah.

So we have two standard conditions.

One talks about architectural plans, one with final specifications because there's no architectural, I just kept the final specifications of parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing.

Furnishing it didn't change much of that.

Okay, that looks good.

Yeah.

Mechanical equipment.

This may not be that critical, but I've kept it in construction staging management, drainage maintenance.

If they change anything with the drainage, um landscape maintenance, engineer certification of the final um as bills, sediment and erosion control, street opening permit, property maintenance and approval and extensions.

Are we um this is the term of approvals?

Yeah, yeah.

Should it be is it still one year initially?

No.

This is yeah, this should be three two extensions.

And you need to add a yes to years.

Yeah.

In the first line, three years.

Right.

Three years.

Okay.

Good.

Good.

Um and this and we say in here that the GDP, we've approved the amending amendment of the GDP somehow.

Yes.

Yeah.

No, that yeah, that's the application request.

Right.

So the zoning board has reviewed the modification of the GDP and the final site plan.

And they're approving this application, but I mean, I think it is implied.

Okay.

Well, we've approved the application.

The application is a request to modify the site plan.

So that's yeah.

I think it gets us there.

I'm sorry, the GEP.

Okay.

Um can we get a motion to approve this uh we approve application 225-26 with the conditions uh discussed and revised this evening?

Second.

Okay.

Further discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Uh application 225-2-6 is approved.

Um now we've got uh one more item, and that is the extension of the term of the acting CEO, Daniel Trapp through October 13th, 2025, pursuant to section one C4, the zoning regulations, and we will also be receiving an update on the new CEO.

Uh so why don't we start with the uh extension?

Um does anyone have an issue with extending the term for an additional month of the IPC?

No, okay.

Can we get a motion to uh extend the term through October 13th?

I move that we extend the term of the acting GEO through October 13, 2025.

And I second that motion.

Okay.

Um any further discussion.

Um before we vote, uh Ralph, anything we need to know?

Um I should ask that might be the update on ZEO.

Okay, we'll get to that.

So uh yes.

Okay.

No, not fully extension.

Okay, so uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, the uh extension through October 13th, 2025 for Daniel Trout.

So acting CEO is approved.

Now, Ralph, can you give us the update on the new CEO, please?

Yes, um, I've already sent an email to uh the board members.

Uh the city has hired a new uh ZO who needs to be appointed by uh the zoning board.

Uh so the plan is that um you will vote on her appointment at the next meeting of the zoning board.

Um she started working for the city um a couple of weeks ago.

Um the idea is that she would have a little bit of time to uh get herself accustomed to the Stanford zoning regulations.

Uh she is uh she she has experience as uh a ZEO, she has the uh certification that is required for ZEO, but obviously uh zoning regulations are different in every jurisdiction.

So uh and and she's not from Stanford, uh from another municipality in Connecticut.