All right.

Bill, I think we're ready to roll.

Okay.

Good evening, everyone.

Sorry for being a little late.

We had some uh technical difficulties and uh well we're finally here.

Uh my name is William Morris, and I'm filling in for our chairman the Davis Stein, uh, who was unable to uh attend tonight's meeting.

I'd like to call a role.

Uh for and hopefully the board members can respond if we're working correctly.

Uh first we have uh Roseanne McManus.

Here.

And secondly, we have uh Gerald Bozak.

Here.

Thank you.

And for our staff, we have uh our principal planner uh Vanita Mature.

Here if uh if members of the public uh are having any issues regarding uh getting into the meeting, um in order to help you resolve that, uh would you please uh email uh Vedina Mature and her email address is B.

That's V A T H U R at Stanford C T dot gov.

Once again, it's V M A T H U R at Stanford C T.gov.

And hopefully Vanita will be able to help you out and get you through this.

Um we have some ground rules.

I'll go through them real quick since we are running a little late, but uh just so you know the meeting will be recorded and it will be posted on the City of Stanford uh website.

Uh attendees shall be on mute and will be on muted when they're called to speak uh during the public hearing part of the meeting.

Uh speakers from the public will have uh three minutes uh each to speak, and that's in order so that uh all the members who wish to speak will have the opportunity.

Uh if three minutes is not sufficient time for you, you can hang up and then you can uh try again later and we'll take your comments.

Um and lastly, this meeting is being held via Teams.

Thank God.

And um, but hopefully we'll get through this tonight.

Uh Vanita, did I cover everything?

Um yes, then you know that's the dial in uh instructions.

Yeah.

Um so those who are dialing in through the phone, you can press star five to raise your hand and star six to unmute when you're called upon.

If uh you can also dial one, which gives you some of these uh shortcuts to get uh raise your hand and unmute.

And once again, if you have any issues, just email uh vanita.

That's uh V M-A-T-H-U-R at Stanford C T.gov.

And with that, I guess we'll go to the public hearing portion of our meeting.

Uh the first item is application number 224-18, Continental Family Holdings, LLC, uh by Michael Cacase.

Uh the applicant is proposing to rezone 23 Barry Place from the current MG to the proposed RM1.

And uh this particular application we are going to continue until November 4 24th uh 2025 and be held via Teams.

Um and there will be no further comment on that particular application this evening.

Uh the next application is also be going to be continued uh until November 24, 2025 on Teams.

And that is application number 225-23.

Once again, it's Continental Family Holdings LLC 23 Barry Place.

It's a site in architectural planned and or requested uses and a special permit.

And the applicant is proposing to construct 60 townhouses and a 201 unit apartment building with a total of 474 uh parking spaces and associated amenities.

And once again, this hearing is being continued until Devember 24th, 2025 via Teams.

Okay.

The next item we will be hearing tonight.

And this is application number 225-28.

Uh 120 Long Ridge Road, LLC.

Uh, it's located at 120 Long Ridge Road in Stanford.

Is a site in architectural plans and or requested uses and a special permit.

Applicants proposing to convert existing office building into 196 apartments with 808 parking spaces and associated amenities.

The last meeting.

Yeah.

Yeah, we also had to we verified the uh sign affidavit.

And the certificate of milling, which that was all done, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Then if the applicant is ready, I believe that's uh Ms.

Feinberg, we could proceed.

Um began to hear you, um Roseanne.

Can't hear you still.

You're going to enjoy using using the phone.

I think she wants us to proceed until she can get through us.

Yeah.

So Lisa, if you would go ahead, please.

This has been one heck of a night so far.

And it's not even seven o'clock yet.

Hopefully, all the excitement will be over now.

Um for the record, my name is Lisa Feinberg.

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

My office is here in Stanford at 1055 Washington Boulevard.

With me tonight is my colleague Dan Chapel, also from Carmody.

Tim Hollister from Hinckley Allen, Harvey Weber, I believe is also on, our architect.

Thomas Walmser from Tie and Bond, our traffic engineer, Eric Lingquist from Tyne Bond, our civil engineer, and Dr.

Donald Poland from Goman and York, our urban planning and strategy consultant.

We're all here on behalf of the applicant, 120 Long Ridge LLC, an entity that is related to BLT, represented here tonight by Kirk Keener, Dave Waters, and Connor O'Neill.

For the record, uh I think you already noted, uh, Mr.

Chairman that all of the required notices were properly submitted.

And uh we we opened the hearing on the 20th of October, but we did not actually present that evening, and it was continued to tonight.

So uh we are here in connection with a proposal to repurpose the property known as 120 Long Ridge Road.

Uh can I go ahead and share my screen, Mr.

Chairman?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um you can see 120 Long Ridge right here with the red marker.

Uh Long Ridge Road, just to orient you is on the east side over here.

Um, and then the Rippewam River runs along the western edge.

Um, the site to the north was approved a couple years ago for senior housing, mosaic, senior living, and that's currently under construction.

And uh a proposal to redevelop the site to the south of the office building with 102 carriage homes and town homes uh by toll brothers uh is also currently pending before the zoning board.

As proposed, the site is about 25 acres.

You can see directly across Long Ridge Road.

We have a ton of new retail whole food sacks, off fit, peppies, Starbucks, Shakeshack, CBS.

Um, today the site has a about 300,000 square foot office building and an 808-space parking garage, and then there's also some surface parking.

It's located in the newly uh adopted MU2 mixed use community campus land use category, and it's been in the CD zone um since the the late 1960s.

As you all know, the CD zone is commonly referred to as the suburban office park zone because it was ultimately molded to accommodate large companies uh looking to relocate their headquarters from New York City to a greener, uh more suburban environment.

However, before it was a commercial office park, it was actually home to the Gibbons Sanitarium.

Then in the late 1960s, uh Olin Chemical purchased the property, about 60 acres and uh redeveloped it as its headquarters.

Um, it was subsequently subdivided, and the office building was most recently home to GE and then Gen Re.

So as the office market began to change over the last you know couple decades, companies started prioritizing access to the train and amenities uh to find that you would typically find in a downtown environment.

Um then, of course, we had a pandemic and the vacancies became even more pronounced uh while the need for housing continued to grow.

This board began addressing these issues by amending the zoning regulations in 2021 to permit multifamily housing in the CD zone.

And more recently by amending uh section 10 of the zoning regulations to encourage the conversion of existing legally non-conforming office buildings to housing.

These efforts have you know certainly helped to facilitate multiple conversions in Stanford, but as you can see, the need really does continue to persist, persist.

Um in Q3 of this year, uh for our total vacancy outside of the central business district, and this includes you know, the class A and Class B, Class C office space, um, was hovering around close to 38%.

And then once you get into the just the class B space outside of the central business district, it's around 44%.

So, you know, we're hopeful that the current proposal would really help to uh address this issue.

So the existing office building, so as I said, 300,000 square feet would be converted to 196 apartments.

Uh the current unit mix includes 23 studios, 64 one-bedrooms, and 109 two-bedroom units.

Um, the plan is to provide a fee and loop payment for the uh required BMR obligation, and that would be equivalent to 13.72 units.

The existing parking garage uh would remain, but only one level is really anticipated to be used by the residents.

It has 285 spaces.

Um, this level has a convenient tunnel that connects directly to the main building.

We'd also provide um the 26 Class A bike parking spaces, which are shown in green, and the 20 um Class B bike parking spaces, which are shown in orange, and 29 uh EV parking spaces within this level of the garage.

So um there's no new construction um proposed on the site, and the exterior of the building would also remain as it exists today.

As you can see here, you know, the suburban office parks were were designed with a significant amount of green space.

Um, and the mature landscaping that you see on the site is scheduled to remain almost or more than uh 63% of the site is pervious with more than three acres specifically dedicated to you know what we define as usable open space.

And that alone is almost 10 times what's required in the zone, but it only includes uh you know the courtyard and sort of the relatively flat space around the building.

We were very conservative with the space that we called usable open space.

It doesn't include the passive open space throughout the site, which as you can see is is very significant.

The building set back more than 260 feet from Long Ridge Road.

The parking garage is more than 50 feet from the road, and it's also you know partially buried.

And then of course, um, we are also proposing 39 new street trees along Long Ridge Road.

Well, we'll just you know further enhance the robust screening that exists out there today.

So now's probably a good time for me to turn things over to some of the other folks on my team to go over other aspects of the application.

I know you all received all of the you know various plans and um reports.

So I've asked our team to keep things relatively brief and just summarize key points.

But of course, um if you have any questions or want to spend more time on anything, just let us know.

So um, Eric, why don't we start with you if you can if you can take the board through some of the enhancements to water quality.

Um I don't think uh I have them here in the final list yet.

So hold on.

Oh, I see him.

He just raised his hand.

Yeah.

He should be able to uh unmute and put his video on now.

Sorry, it took us a while.

Um, I was toggling and trying to get it right.

So I finally got three.

Thank you.

Uh, for the record, my name is Eric Linquist.

I'm senior project manager at Time Bond.

And I'm just gonna give a uh very brief runover of the the site.

So I'll if it's okay, I'll share my screen now.

Um this is the civil drawing package uh that was submitted with the application and revised per the various uh common letters we got from uh the engineering WPCA and all those.

Um you know, as Lisa went through, there are no significant site improvements on this plan.

This the site improvements are essentially mostly in reaction to requests from the city for various things.

Um I've just kind of highlighted the site uh in this this uh gray shade right here.

And as I go into these next plans, I just kind of want to orient you on the site where we are, and then I'll go through um really the improvements, which are all summarized on this plan.

Um so if I zoom in, one of the requests from traffic was to add in uh a sidewalk.

So we did add that in.

I just want to highlight that before there was really no improvement other than the playground tot lot that's over by the main entry of the building.

So that was a request that we did accommodate and provided a crosswalk here and connected it to the sidewalk out by the street.

Other than that, the the like I said, the site changes are fairly minor.

The one thing I did want to bring to your attention was a request for water quality from engineering.

Uh currently the site is captured by several catch basins throughout the parking areas and driveways.

Uh the request was to provide water quality for that.

So we did incorporate a swirl separator, which did not meet the 80% TSS removal requirement.

So in this last round of revisions, we included a what is called a jellyfish filter.

It is a more robust water quality structure that will provide the city with the uh requested water quality removing 80% of suspended solids from from the runoff.

So that was incorporated into the plan.

Uh there's other requests that have been accommodated through notes.

Uh, we're going to be required to video inspect the lines, uh, required to have sumps that are two feet for all the catch basins, and all that work um will be done.

We'll go out there and inventory the catch basins and confirm that they provide the sumps needed if they don't have them.

We will, in fact, replace them or uh retrofit the structures to accommodate it.

Uh that's really the the bulk of the the improvements.

There will be some utility upgrades for water that's shown on the plans here, but all the other utilities are expected to remain.

So that's really a summation of the civil work on the project, and I'd be more than happy to pass it back to Lisa.

Thanks, Eric.

Eric, real quick, is the sidewalk lighted, lit?

We we uh I could just let me share my screen one more time.

I'll I'll show that to you.

So there are existing lights out there.

And if I zoom in, you'll see we there's a light here, there's a light here.

We we put these the sidewalk in an area that was adjacent to the existing lighting so that it could take advantage of that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, great.

Um, you want to take everyone through the traffic.

Looks like he just rose his hand also, Benita.

I think uh can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, there you go.

Now you can see me.

So good evening, everybody.

Uh, thanks for your time and attention.

So for the record, my name is Thomas Wamser.

I'm a traffic engineer at Time Bond.

I'm professional engineer, professional traffic operations engineer, and a road safety professional level two infrastructure.

I'll just go ahead and share my screen and take you through the findings from the traffic study.

Okay.

So the 120 long ridge road traffic study, 196 apartments.

First, I want to just orient you with the study area uh that we looked at for our assessment.

So you'll see the site here, 120 long-range road apartments, uh just off of Route 104, Long Range Road.

And to orient you, north is straight up on this aerial image.

We have the two site driveway circled in orange, the north site driveway, which is signalized, and the south site driveway, which is unsignalized.

Additional intersections that we analyzed for the study are circled in yellow.

So to the south, we have the intersection of Long Ridge Road at Cold Spring Road, and then just to the east, Cold Spring Road at High Ridge Road, south of those two, Long Ridge, High Ridge, Summer Street, and Bedford Street, and then down to the southwest, Cold Spring Road at Old Barn Road South and Randall Ave.

So first I wanted to tackle the basis for the assessment that we do to determine the number of trips that will be generated by the development.

So we rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, that's ITE, their trip generation manual, which has methodology for determining how much traffic a site will generate.

So you can see the manual pictured here on the right.

We use the 11th edition for this assessment.

So this is a data-driven approach in order to arrive at these numbers.

This manual is based off of real-world data taken from various locations, and all of the all of the locations are referenced within the manual.

So it's very transparent.

You can see where the data has come from and it's tried and true.

It's a standard practice throughout the industry.

So traffic engineers use this as a resource to do trip generation assessments throughout the country.

And one step further than that, it's recognized by the regulatory agencies that will approve traffic studies.

So that would be various municipalities, local agencies, and state departments of transportation.

So another piece that's important to know about the ITE trip generation manual is as traffic engineers, we interpret this data.

So there are various parameters within the bounds of the methodology that we can make sure that our assessments are being done very conservatively.

You know, we want to make sure that we're capturing all the nuance of what makes a site unique to the area where we're actually doing the development.

So we take extra care to make sure that we're not just taking numbers blindly out of a manual.

So after explaining that, I'll go through the site-generated traffic that we did for this again, 196 apartments.

So pictured there on the left is the breakdown for what we analyzed.

And on the right, I'll get to that after is just some comparisons for some different uses.

So for the 196 apartments, we looked at the weekday morning peak, the weekday afternoon peak.

So it's 7 a.m.

to 9 a.m.

in the morning, and then 4 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

in the evening.

And we also looked at the Saturday midday peak, and that occurs from 11 a.m.

to 1 p.m.

So we look at the busiest one hour period during that time frame.

So during the weekday morning, this site is anticipated to generate 84 vehicle trips, 20 entering and 64 exiting.

In the afternoon, that number is 105 with 66 entering and 39 exiting.

And then on Saturday, it's 80 with an even split of 40 entering and 40 exiting.

Now for the purposes of comparison, we looked at some other potential uses for the existing building.

You know, we're proposing 196 apartments, but as you know, it's an existing office space, 300 000 square feet.

So you can see the proposed or potential 300 2,000 square foot office space and the number of trips it's generating.

So morning is 433, afternoon, 416, Saturday, 160.

All those numbers are higher than the proposed condition with the apartments.

We also looked at medical office of the same size because that's a permitted use under what it is currently.

Medical is more than general office, so our numbers are 652, 1187, and 912.

And then another permitted use is actually school for this parcel.

So we looked at a estimated 2500 student population high school, as well as a private high school.

And those numbers again are higher at 1,059 and 350 and 300, and then for the private school, 1,09 and 475.

And at the bottom of this table, there's a specific land use codes that are exactly what comes out of the trip generation manual.

So the proposed 196 apartments is a lesser use than some other uses that are permitted currently on the site.

So to wrap up some uh traffic study findings for you, we looked at the level of service, which is a letter grading system that traffic engineers use to grade how well an intersection is operating.

So I included that table on the right over here.

And this is for the 2029 combined conditions, so that's after the development is fully built in place.

You can see the intersections listed on the left here, the same ones that I mentioned earlier that were circled on the aerial image, and you can see the letter grades that they're assigned.

So we generally uh like to make sure that things aren't failing at level service F or approaching failure at level service E, a little bit different from a letter grade.

Um, and then as you see here, the overall level of service is satisfactory in all of those cases, and at our site driveway unsignalized, uh, we just have one level service E dipping down at uh that one unsignalized egress point, but there's a signalized driveway which operates better.

We also, of course, analyze safety.

We looked at the traffic collision history along the study area corridors and intersections, and we found no discernible patterns that this site would exacerbate any existing collision history.

Uh finally, I also want to mention that this traffic study was submitted to the city of Stanford TTP, and we reviewed and incorporated their comments, and uh there was nothing significant that ultimately changed uh much of what we had proposed or anything like that.

And with that, uh that should wrap up the traffic study.

I'm happy to take questions or turn it back to Lisa.

Uh Roseanne, do you have any questions about regarding traffic?

Um, I'm good.

I'm good, Bill.

Okay, and Roseanne.

I can't see you, never mind here.

I I can see her.

Uh there we go.

Okay.

Um I have a question.

I know you list.

Hold on, I have to turn off the other.

I know you list um the number of trips.

Um if the office building was full.

Could does somebody have the information from the 90s and the knots when this building was fairly active, how many employees were in the building?

I can tell you that when it was GE, it was, you know, I think about a thousand employees.

Um and Gen Re was similar when it was really, you know, active.

Um, I think the off the the parking garage is a good measure.

You know, it's an 800 plus space parking garage, and then there's all additionally surface parking.

So I mean it was needed.

Yeah, I uh historically I remember police officer being in the middle of the road, getting everybody out into the road safely for years.

Um, and Bill, just um, not about traffic.

The comment I was trying to make before when I couldn't get my machines to work.

Um while we did read the planning board letter, we did receive a revised planning board letter.

So I'm not sure if later on we should read it into the record.

This is for uh C I assume.

Yeah, or 28, 225 28.

Okay.

Um, that was my only question about traffic.

Okay.

Uh I got a couple of quick questions uh on uh traffic.

It has to do with uh cold spring road between high ridge and long ridge road, which seems to have a chronic problem with getting backed up during uh morning and evening commutes.

Do you do do you think uh do you know of any way that this can be resolved or approved upon?

So there are some existing congestion issues at these intersections.

Um, you know, as what we assess for this development is to see the marginal impact that we have on the existing conditions.

So uh, you know, assigning the onus of who's responsible for what.

I know one of the comments by Stanford TTP was to make a monetary donation to funds to address congestion.

So that's how that was addressed to the satisfaction of TTP.

But we did look at again the changes in operations there.

So we're assessing what's out there now versus what's going to be out there after the additional traffic generated by our site and just ensuring that we're not exacerbating anything or introducing like newfound delays that aren't currently out there.

So the the the new signal light is then going to be installed to improve the situation there.

Is that what you're saying?

Or is it not what you said?

No, so we we look at the timings there and we assess what the impacts are going to be.

And when we see marginal impacts, because we're not generating a whole lot of traffic.

Generally, we're not trying to upset the balance of the existing patterns that are out there unless it's warranted.

And in this case, we didn't find it to be warranted.

Uh, there's some very long cycle lengths on there right now, which are set to prioritize the arterial movements.

So our site driveways are operating uh acceptably and all the intersections are operating overall, acceptably.

There's you know, individual movements that may from time to time falter a bit.

Um, but we didn't have any recommendations that we proposed as part of the study.

But didn't you say in part of your study that the southern driveway uh is going to uh add some congestion?

So at the southern driveway, which is unsignalized, it has a level service E operation for the exiting traffic.

So that means operations on Long Ridge Road are staying efficient.

It's not at the level of failure, and you know, there are options to use the signalized driveway as well.

So operations like that are pretty typical on busy arterial roadways.

It's to be expected that you have some level of delay in favor of moving most of the traffic through on the main line.

So they're not at the level of failure, and that's seemed to be closer to level failure.

Well, we'll coming on the southern driveway.

Will you be able to make a left heading north on Longridge?

Yes or no?

So we'll be able to do that.

That's permitted, yes.

So that's factored into the delay.

So what exactly the the additional traffic light, which you're contributing to, and another $50,000 with something I can't remember what exactly is that gonna do I think that's maybe a question for the city of Stanford on how they allocate those dollars, but um, well, I can I can respond to that, Tom, because I spoke to Luke about it.

Uh the the plan is to modify the traffic signals so that left turns can be made at that signal more easily.

I don't know if it's adding an arrow or what that modification is, but Luke looked at the study and said you're gonna be adding more cars heading north, and I want you to update that signal.

So that's what that was for.

And then the other 50,000 was for pedestrian safety improvements at Bullshead.

So therefore, then if I understand you correctly, there'll be no improvements to the Cold Spring Road area between Longridge and Hybrid.

Not in connection with this project now.

Okay.

Um, also I believe in your study you talk a little bit about uh uh additional townhouses on another parcel, is that correct?

Is that calculated in here also?

Yes.

So that's going to be presented, of course, in the future.

But our final yep, our our final condition is to assess both of those at the same time because we understand that that's a joint venture there, and we want to make sure we're capturing the full picture and not piecemealing it in one piece at a time.

All right, this is a question I think for Lisa is that if this application to we be approved, and obviously that means that we're accepting this traffic study.

Does that in any way affect on how the board looks at the traffic study when it comes to the next application?

Since it's included in this one?

I mean, I think the applications have to stand on their own, but the numbers will be similar because we were asked to assess them collectively.

So, you know, if you have a concern with the numbers or or you don't have a concern with the numbers, I guess that would impact how you look at that particular traffic study, but the project itself has to stand on its own.

Well, well, well, in other words, we would we would if we if the if this application were to be approved, and this is a question, I don't say anything else.

If this application were to be approved, would that preclude the board from raising any traffic concerns on the next application since it's basically already been approved?

I don't think so.

No one more thing again.

If it comes to me, I'll I'll get back to it.

Okay, let's proceed, Lisa.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so as you all know, uh a special permit use is a use that's expressly permitted in the zoning regulations pursuant to specific standards um that are outlined in the regulations themselves.

A special permit recognizes that a use is generally compatible um with the applicable zoning district, but it requires you all to consider the specific location um and details of the proposal to ensure it's compatible with the surroundings and remains consistent with other uses permitted as of right in the district.

And that's where I think that question becomes relevant, Mr.

Morris, is that each one of these uses has to be considered um on its own.

But uh, you know, between tonight's presentation and the and the materials that we submitted, I think we have addressed all of the standards.

Um, but before we conclude the presentation portion, I would like to ask uh Dr.

Poland to spend just a little additional time talking about um one of these standards, and that's the nature and intensity of the proposed use and the potential impacts on the surrounding area.

So uh Dr.

Polland.

Thank you, Lisa.

Uh for the record, my name is Don Poland.

I'm trying to find where to share my screen.

Uh I'm with the firm of Gilman York property advisors, and we are located in East Hartford, Connecticut.

Yeah.

So I took my report and broke it down into some basic uh points that I want to make.

I'll try and make this short as possible.

But first and foremost, I want to emphasize uh that this is a redevelopment or adaptive reuse of an existing site.

So when considering kind of the impacts of the site to adjacent properties and so forth, it's key to understand that this site is already developed, the footprint, the design and so forth to mostly stay the same, that existing mature vegetation exists, that the site's obscured from the road and so forth.

In addition, we have to consider in the context of the existing frontage on Long View, uh Long Ridge Road, and that this site is already bounded by primarily commercial uses with an older residential neighborhood to the northeast.

That Long Ridge Road is a state road and a major arterial.

Immediately north of the site is the recently approved assisted living development, and north of that site is medical offices.

To the east is Whole Foods and the Methodist Church, and also CVS and Shake Shack.

South of the site at the corner of Cold Springs Road, there is a commercial office building and some older single family homes, and also to the south of this site is Old Barn Road in that subdivision of single family homes.

And to the west, across the river uh is still water road with single family homes and the Eden Farm property, which I just want to be clear, farms are commercial uses.

And the river uh in the existing vegetation already provides a substantial buffer between this site and those sites.

I also just want to note quickly that the approved assisted living facility that's under construction to the north of the site, in some ways is similar in size, scale, and massing.

Uh it's also similar in use in the sense that assisted living is residential within that commercial assisted medical care uh layered onto it.

And comparatively, you know, the assisted living facility was maybe a bit more intrusive in the sense that it was a greenfield site, new construction, and the removal of existing vegetation.

When looking at this overall neighborhood from a residential property value perspective, you know, it's a strong market, it's mostly affluent.

Uh the collective attributes of the neighborhood, you know, really end up informing us that the uh that the market is driven more by scarcity, uh, more by proximity to New York, proximity to downtown Stanford, and so forth.

And that land value is really high, and that's the scarcity factor at about 350,000 per lot and one million per acre, and the average uh value of homes near the site are approximately 670,000.

It's also important to note current property values in this area, residential values exist, being abutting to commercial development and a major arterial road.

So the existing development is not negatively impacting, impacting this area with such high values.

I'm gonna go through these slides very quickly, but in the context of zoning, I think it's always important if we're talking about impacts to understand some of the history of zoning.

It comes about in the 1920s, it's a reaction to the harsh conditions of the industrial city, and it's ultimately designed to do things like lessen congestion in the streets, secure uh safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, to prevent overcrowding and so forth and so on.

And I often like to say to my clients, uh, especially when I'm working with you know zoning boards and so forth, you know, how many of us live in fear of fire, panic, and other dangers today?

Zoning's done a great job along with other codes of actually uh reducing kind of or mitigating what were the concerns and issues of the industrial city in the past.

And therefore, we arrive at a place today where zoning's become this complex system of regulations, and that we often maybe overthink or over-emphasize uh dissimilarities and uses.

So, in this section of the report, I break down uh the thinking through of the site and what's being proposed in the regards of use, density, intensity, and property value.

From a residential perspective, when we're talking about multifamily next to single family residential, there's no difference in use.

Whether it's one unit or 196 units or five units, the use is residential.

Most important in the context of this site, we're going from a commercial use to a residential use.

That's actually a down zoning with commercial being viewed as more intensive land uses.

So, therefore, the multifamily is actually more compatible with the surrounding area in residential uses.

From a density standpoint, it's always hard on these conversions.

You know, it's not an apples to apple uh comparison of what was the density of commercial property versus what is the density of the residential property.

But this site was designed for 800 plus employees at its peak.

That's a huge number of occupants on that site.

At 160 96 households, that's approximately 363 persons or 1.5 persons per household.

That's based on the U.S.

census for rental units within Stanford.

So we're going to a much lower occupancy on the site.

What does change in the con is in the context of intensity?

The site development doesn't change.

You know, we're just reoccupying the same footprint with a different use, residential rather than commercial.

But what does change in the context of intensity is days and hours of use.

So it's a temporal shift.

The existing commercial offices were primarily five days a week, 12 hours a day, let's say.

Well, the multifamily will be a 24-7 use of the property.

Now, that being said, that's the same as all residential uses.

They're all 24-7 utilizations of property.

In regards to property value, zoning has always recognized property value.

That was part of the charge going back to the 1920s.

But here we're not talking about really dissimilar uses.

We're talking about residential proximate to residential with a difference in density between those uses and maybe some difference or changes in the intensity.

So the fact is residential uses do not negatively impact other residential uses.

And to back up that statement of mine, uh I turn to academic and industrial research.

Concerns over any new development, whether it's commercial, industrial, residential, are very common in land use planning in the zoning approval process.

We constantly hear that property values are going to be negatively impacted.

There's been dozens of studies over decades, especially around the most noxious uses airports, landfills, super fund sites that continually show that yes, those intensive industrial uses negatively impact residential property values.

Unfortunately, those claims and concerns seem to migrate over into other uses, and it's been common to hear these claims.

But decades of research uh have ultimately shown that such claims are not substantiated.

A large study done by MIT in Massachusetts looked at affordable housing developments across seven communities, and ultimately found that uh in all seven uh case study towns led us to conclude that the introduction of large-scale high-density mixed income resident uh rental developments in single-family neighborhoods does not affect uh value of surrounding homes.

It went on to say that the fear of potential asset loss amongst suburban homeowners is misplaced.

A 2003 study by Harvard's Joint Center on Housing also found that apartments pose no threat to surrounding single-family neighborhoods, single-family properties.

A more recent study done by the University of Utah looked at 7,754 multifamily units and the impacts of those developments on single-family home values.

What they actually found was uh apartments built between 2010 and 2018 have not reduced single family home values in the suburban Salt Lake uh County.

I won't go into greater detail there, but basically the overall finding is not a negative impact on property values.

Another study by uh an industry study by national home builders actually found that single-family residential property values within 300 feet of multifamily rental uh housing increased by 2.9%.

In a Virginia Tech study uh found that multifamily rentals that were well designed, attractive, and well landscaped, increased value of approximate single family residential housing.

In those last two studies, it was kind of concluded that you know there's an amenity value to rental housing.

It provides potential future homeowners and therefore it bolsters the market.

It also shows that there's new investments in activity in the uh local marketplace, and all of those things positively impact the market overall on the properties.

Um then, you know, my conclusions here the proposed conversion of the building to multifamily is one of many changes that are occurring in our development patterns.

You know, we're seeing this in a lot of places, commercial office being converted into residential.

Multifamily residential uses are less intensive uses than the existing commercial office.

The proposed conversion is contained within the existing building footprints.

This isn't new development.

Nothing physically is actually changing other than the use itself and some of the intensity uh of development in that temporal context of 24 hours a day.

The Stanford market is strong, functioning at a scale, the metropolitan region with high land values.

The market's driven by land scarcity and high land values, which drive residential property values.

Uh, very much the case throughout Fairfield County.

And this means that land use has little role on influencing property values other than those most noxious uses that I mentioned.

So ultimately, I and our firm in producing this report, we agree with the research that consistently shows apartments pose no threat to surrounding single family homes in the fear of potential uh asset value loss is often misplaced.

So I thank you for your time, and I'm more than willing to answer any questions if you have them.

Roseanne, Jerry, any questions on this matter?

Um I I don't know when to ask my question, but let me let me pose it now.

So the applicant doesn't feel that anything needs to be done to the outside of this building to make it look more like an attractive apartment building.

I mean, I love the fact that we're not tearing anything down and we're not building uh paving over any more grasses.

I mean, I love the fact that we're just reusing.

I mean, that's perfect to me.

But uh, I'm surprised you're not doing anything to make it more attractive to renters.

I mean, you know, I wouldn't rent there because of the windows, but that, you know, I don't care about whether you open the windows or not.

Um as a zoning board member, but um, so it was to really just curious.

Yeah, you know, I think it the style of the building is just completely subjective, I think.

And I, you know, the owner just doesn't feel like it is um prudent to make any changes to the facade.

The other thing I'll tell you, and I can actually more easily show you is this building is not terribly visible from the street.

I mean, it's pretty far back.

You can see there.

And we're gonna be adding um a bunch of street trees along the frontage in addition to what's out there today.

So, you know, all of these things they go to cost and then cost goes to renters.

And so I think it's just really important to have a diverse housing stock and different options for different people.

Some people, you know, may not like the look of the building and that turns them off.

Other people may not care because they can get a larger unit in a suburban environment, and that's really appealing to them.

So, you know, having having the options, I think is what's important for the city.

And you won't um if uh if the residents of the building want to hike around the property, there's there's not going to be any trails added or anything.

They're just gonna be walking on the grass that's there.

That's correct.

Too bad.

Okay.

I don't have anything else, Bill.

Jerry.

No, I actually I got the my question answered through Roseanne.

I saw there are no windows going to be opened or not.

It's just the existing building itself, and it really is kind of something that the the uh the owner just is going to place as if you want to rent there, we're gonna rent there.

If not, but there's no changes being made structurally.

Correct.

That's correct, I suppose that.

Okay, thank you.

No, sir.

Okay, then we'll go to members of the public.

Uh please state your name and your address and whether you're for or against the uh application.

All right.

Um first we have Miss Sue Halburn.

Hi.

Oh, hi, can you hear me?

Hi, sorry.

I never know if I'm this works or not.

This is too halpern.

I live at 30 Elmcroft Road.

Yeah, thank you for uh allowing me to speak.

You know, I was just looking at the meeting materials um from October 27th, the letter from attorney Tim Hollister about the windows.

And I I just can't believe that you would have an apartment building with no operational windows.

I know it says here that um windows that can be opened are a design choice with pros and cons.

The Connecticut State Building Code applicable to multi-level multi-family residential buildings does not require in new construction that bedrooms have windows for fire escape purposes if the building is sprinklered as this one is required to be.

Operable windows make interior temperature and humidity control and window cleaning more difficult.

Now, this says for new construction, but my question is you know, this is an office conversion.

It seems that this would be a different circumstance.

And my thinking is that no operational windows lead to poor air quality and is unhealthy.

You have trapped pollutants such as airborne chemicals from furniture and cleaning products, which produce allergens and mold.

And then what if there's a power failure and the ventilation system doesn't work?

I mean, how do you address that issue?

It's just amazing that you would have an apartment building without windows that open.

Thank you.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next.

I don't see any other hands.

Let's leave for a couple of minutes.

All right.

We do have Mr.

Dave Adams.

Mr.

Adams, you can unmute um introduce yourself.

Hold on.

Okay.

Thank you for allowing me to uh speak.

I um I'm not in favor of the project as it stands right now.

Um I I like the idea of of you know reusing the building, but uh, you know, I think when we're looking at those traffic numbers, they they they seem very um it's just interesting.

I I think there was it was mentioned 808 parking spaces, that's like four per unit.

That I I don't know where that number came from, but um you know, at 197 units, I I just don't see how you're gonna only have 83 trips in in and out, 105 trips, 80 trips at uh high volume periods of time during the day.

Uh so I'm a little skeptical about that.

And I also wanted to uh second everything that that uh Sue Halpern just talked about, uh especially the operable windows.

Uh working construction.

I understand that uh at any time we're doing remodeling.

Uh nowadays we're we're we're actually looking to you know create negative pressure systems to evacuate the the air from inside the unit uh during construction.

And if you don't have an operable window, you you're gonna have to remove that window and and and put one in.

Uh and forget, I mean, you know, that's in a case remodeling uh situation.

I couldn't even speak to the volume of of toxic chemicals that are coming off all the things that we purchase.

And without fresh air to you know carry a lot of that away, we are subject to uh a much heavier dose than is than should be required.

Um in a design.

And the the other thing that I want to talk about is this uh fee and loo payment.

Um I I don't know where the 7% came from.

Uh I did read you know the the estimate that was uh produced by uh Rob Blessing.

I don't understand how such a large piece of property got broken up into two different projects, and one side of the project is installing BMR and the other side of the project is is getting uh fee and loo, but the fee of loop payment is like a ridiculously low amount.

Two 2,684 uh thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars.

Like that is nuts for the uh the 1970 units are getting put in.

I I don't know.

I I think that calculation uh that there's some I don't know.

I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other, but I think that that's really concerning that the that payment is so low.

Um anyway, those are my comments.

Uh I I hope you consider them and have a great evening.

Thank you for your service.

Thank you, Dave.

Um, I don't see any other hand.

No, nobody else.

No, no.

We'll come back to the public if somebody raises their hand later.

Lisa, would you care to comment on the comments you heard this evening?

Uh sure.

I'm gonna let Tim Hollister address the the comments on the windows, and then I can address everything else.

Thank you.

Uh and good evening, Chairman Morris and commission member or board members.

Uh I guess the first thing I'll say is that no one has a greater interest in quality and aesthetics and a nice looking building and a building that has a nice air quality than the applicant.

I mean, this is not something that the applicant would ever, you know, take a risk with they they always could try to do what's best for the comfort of the occupants.

So when it comes to windows, operable windows, there are pros and cons.

The lady who just spoke talked about the the cons.

Uh and but the uh the there she forgot to mention or didn't mention that you know, if you if the windows are open, it makes interior temperature and humidity control extremely difficult.

You can unbalance the temperature and the humidity in the building by having open windows throughout the complex.

That that's a big a big issue.

Um when you're converting when you have a building that does not have operable windows, uh to try to convert it to operable windows is a huge logistical uh issue that uh you know the gentleman just talked about introducing pollutants into the air, that's adding a major component to the construction.

But uh I think ultimately, and and we say this with you know, obviously due respect to the commission and its authority, it's it's a design choice by the developer.

It's not a zoning issue, it's a building code issue, it's a convenience issue, but um, you know, it's just not really part of the calculus uh that Mr.

Poland was talking about intensity of use to you know compatibility of of uh adjoining uses and so forth.

So um, you know, the there's no perfect solution or perfect answer, but uh I think the the design is high quality and the as I said, the applicant is highly motivated to make sure that this is a nicely designed and comfortable building for the occupants.

And attorney Feinberg, if there's anything I missed, please please chime in.

Thanks, Tim.

Um I think uh I'll just address the other comments.

So um there was a question about the number of parking spaces that there were, you know, four per unit, and that parking garage is there.

That we're not building any new parking.

Um and the intention is to, you know, utilize a smaller portion of it, the most convenient portion of it, but it doesn't make sense to tear down a parking garage um when we all know how expensive they are to construct and the you know the impact to the environment is not it's just not necessary.

Um in terms of the traffic numbers, I mean, we can go round and round, I suppose, on whether you know people want to um believe the IT data, IT data is derived from real projects.

It's not created out of thin air, it's taken from a number of other projects that are similarly situated so that we can understand what these types of uses typically drive in terms of peak hour traffic.

And the reason that multifamily housing is a great choice in this location where we have a mixture of uses is because it has different peak hour traffic, especially now.

People are just living and working differently.

They are not all, you know, getting to work at 839 and leaving at five, five thirty.

I'm a perfect example.

I, you know, I drop my daughter off at nursery school in the morning.

I don't get to the office till closer to 9.30.

I don't leave the office before 7.30.

So, you know, we all have different patterns, and so that's why the numbers associated with uh residential are different than the numbers associated with office.

And that's the comparison because something has to be able to go here.

We have to be able to do something, and there is a very limited number of uses that are permitted in the CD zone, and not a single one of them is permitted as of right.

Every single use requires a special permit.

Um in terms of the fee and loo, you know, that is in the regulations.

It was created as an incentive to uh create these conversions.

We want as a city, we we recognize the need for more housing.

We recognize the fact that we have a very high office vacancy, and we decided, you all decided that it made sense to encourage developers to convert these office buildings to housing.

And one of the ways to do that was to reduce the BMR slightly.

I beg to differ.

I think that you know, two over $2 million is a significant amount of money.

Um, and I think that it should be welcomed.

Um what else?

Uh, you know, I guess I'll I'll close by saying this.

You know, Long Ridge Road is a busy road.

Um, it's one of Stanford's main arterial north-south connectors.

It has more than 20,000 vehicle trips every single day.

This is a major commercial corridor, you know, uh, and particularly this portion of the road has become particularly well suited for multifamily housing with all of the new retail and direct walking distance, um, as well as the senior housing to the north and the proposed townhomes to the south.

This is really coming together to be a lovely uh walkable area.

We've also agreed to contribute to the infrastructure.

That's what happens with these developments.

There's you know impacts are created and we have to contribute.

So we've agreed to contribute 150,000 for the signal improvements and 50,000 for you know pedestrian safety improvements.

And this is in addition to the work that the city just completed along Long Ridge Road.

So, you know, by converting this vacant office building to housing, we really believe we're making this site more compatible with our surroundings, um, including all of the single family homes across the river to the west.

That's really all I have, Mr.

Morris.

Uh Vanita, one last check, see if there's any members of the public.

No other hand.

Vanita, we would do we have any outstanding information we have to wait for?

We have everything.

We we do have everything.

They've responded to all the comments that we've made or other departments have made.

So um, I don't see I do see one hand.

Mr.

Michael Kelleck Mr.

Kelly, can you unmute, please?

Yes, thank you very much.

Good good evening, zoning board.

I just really like to make a comment about, and I just feel like the Long Ridge corridor um is being raped and pillaged up and down the entire corridor with all of this development.

So I strongly oppose any further development along this uh with the development of 800 and 900 and the development at the corner of wire mill and long ridge road as well.

Uh I'm I I'm sorry, I forgot to state my name and address.

It's Michael Kelleck for Hunting Lane, and I'm a and I'm adjacent to Wire Mill Road as well.

So I'm going to be adversely affected by 800 to 900 once those units are um completed.

So there'll be a lot more traffic along uh from Long Ridge Road as well, too.

So that's why I just feel like uh Long Ridge Road is being pillaged uh by the zoning board.

Um, and there's gonna be so much more traffic.

Uh, just today, um, you know, there was a bad accident on High Ridge Road, somebody was killed.

Uh, there was a motorcycle accident this afternoon on uh on the Merritt Parkway.

It's awful.

And living on the street that I live on is going to be used uh extensively as a cut through from uh long ridge to to high ridge road.

We know that it's a fact.

The traffic studies are inadequate.

So that's it.

I just want to uh view my protest, uh voice my protest of the extensive pillaging of Long Ridge Road corridor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I don't see any other hands raised.

Lisa any last comments.

Um I guess just in response to to the last speaker, you know, we're at the opposite end of Long Ridge Road.

And um, when we talk about no more development, the building is there, so we're not constructing a new building.

We're changing the use, and we've got to be able to do that um, or else these sites don't contribute to our community.

So uh Roseanne, Yuri, unless you have any objections, I'm gonna close the hearing.

No, I'm I'm good.

No, you know you don't need any for information for you to deliberate on this.

Okay, with that being said, Vanita, we have everything, correct?

Yes.

Okay, then I'm going to close application number.

Excuse me, before I do that.

Uh Roseanne, you say something about we got an um uh a different uh updated planning board letter.

We got a revived letter dated October 28th, 2025.

And I'm not sure if it needs to be read into the record or not, but I received you know, we got it this week in our packs.

Uh well, I uh uh can't hurt to read it into the record.

Lisa, you have any objections?

I do not.

I just think it's the prudent thing to do, probably.

Go ahead.

Read it in, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um revive for October 9th, 2025, revised to October 28th, 2025 to Mr.

David Sign Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board.

Regarding ZB application 22528, Lisa Feinberg, uh, Carmody Torrent Sandack and Hennessy, representing 120 Long Ridge.

If you're Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board during its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, October 7th, 2025.

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

Applicant is proposing to convert an existing office building into hundred 196 apartments with 808 parking spaces and associated amenities.

Lisa Feinberg partner, Carmody Torrent, Sandeck and Hennessy, LLP made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After considerable discussions by a vote of three to one to one in favor, Godzino, Linder, and Saylet.

Opposed Levin abstain, subromanian.

The planning board recommended approval of ZB application 225-28 with the recommendation the applicant pre-clad redesign the exterior so the building appears less commercial.

Mr.

Levin supports the project overall but voted in opposition due to a strong preference for a portion of if not all of the blow market rate units be on site given the location of the development.

The board found this to be in general harmony with a comprehensive plan category MU2 mixed use community campus.

Sincerely Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Godzino, Chair.

Thanks, Roseanne.

Okay, and with that, I'm going to close application number 225-28.

Thank you, Lisa.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Okay, and the uh we'll move on here.

Now the next uh application is also going to be continuing to our next meeting.

That is application number 225-29, 120C Long Ridge Road LLC and uh toll northeast.

And this is applicant is proposing to construct 44 two-story carriage homes and 58 three-story townhomes with associated improvements and amenities.

Uh there'll be no discussion on this particular item, and it will be continued until November 24th, uh, 2025 near in heard via teams.

Um did you mention it that it's at 6:30.

That the hearing is at 6:30.

And Bill, there's also um an updated planning board letter for that application as well.

I can certainly hold it and read it at the next meeting.

Oh, I'd also do it right now.

We have time.

Okay.

October 9th, 2025, revised to October 28th, 2025 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 225-29120C Long Ridge.

Here, Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

During its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, October 7th, 2025.

The planning board reviewed the above captioned application, referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

Applicant is proposing to construct 44 two-story carriage homes and 58 three-story townhomes with associated improvements and amenities.

Lisa Feinberg, Carmedy Torrent, Sandic and Hennessy, LLP made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After considerable discussion by a vote of three to two to zero in favor, Godzino, Linder, and Saylet.

Opposed Levin and Subromanian.

The planning board recommended approval of ZB application number 225-29.

Mr.

Levin and Mr.

Sub Romanian support the housing types, but voted in opposition as they feel there are too many limits for this site.

Tree removal will be excessive.

Grading of the land is too extensive impacts to river, lack of usable open space specifically for children, and an unattractive design concept visually dominated by um repetitious garage doors in inner circulation roads.

Also, the applicant had not indicated whether they would support low market rate units on site.

The board found this to be in general harmony with the comprehensive plan category MU2, mixed use community campus.

Sincerely Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gonzino, Chair.

Thanks for that.

Okay, this concludes the public hearing portion of our uh meeting.

And we're now going to move on to our regular meeting.

And the first item is uh approval of minutes of the October 20th, 2025 meeting.

In all members which are present are eligible to vote.

I'll make that motion, Mr.

Morrison.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Okay, now we're going to move on to pending applications.

And the first one is CSPR 1222.

Nancy A.

Lovos, I believe that's pronounced.

Yes.

For Jay, uh Elena Landauer.

For property located in 203 Ocean Drive West.

Applicants proposing to renovate existing decks, construct a new fence, pool patio, outdoor kitchen and shower.

And property is within the cam boundary.

That's CSPR.

Good.

Vinita.

Yep.

So this is a coastal property.

And the applicant is proposing adding a new pool, a patio associated with it, an outdoor kitchen and shower and a fence.

All of the improvements that are proposed are all outside the VE zone.

So everything would be towards landwards of the VE zone.

EPB in a letter dated September 19, 2025 from Lindsay Tomoski.

We have an engineering comment letter from Valera Capelle dated September 17, 2025.

We have a letter from the Harbor Management Commission dated November 6, 2025, stating no objections.

And we also have comments from DEEP dated September 17, 2025.

But overall, there were no objections from any of the departments.

Okay.

I'll make the motion for approval.

I'll second, including all the conditions from the city department.

Yes.

Aye.

Unanimous.

Next item is also a coastal site plan review.

It's CSPR 1223.

Applicant is proposing to raise existing house to meet base flood elevation, reconfigure to driveway, add a stone terrace, drainage improvements.

And property is within the cam boundary.

Benita.

Yeah.

So the applicant here is elevating, raising the home to uh elevation 16.

Um there is uh minor modifications to the home, including you know, include adding uh flat roof at the top in a small section, um changes to the driveway, adding um a walkway to the home.

Um there's also a new uh storm water system that's being put in.

Um we have positive recommendations from EPB in a letter dated October 14, 2025 from Bob Clausey.

Um we have an engineering letter dated October 27, 2025 from Villetta Capel.

Um, the home letter is dated September 28th, and the deep comments are September 25th, 2025.

Um, you know, because this is uh elevating the home, uh taking it out of the uh flood prone uh you know zone, so it will be uh it's a positive improvement.

Yeah, that area is notorious for problems.

I have a quick question.

So nobody from the historical side of things.

Oh no, they're elevating it.

Oh let me um just elevating it.

I'm never sure exactly what raise means, you know.

Raise it up or raise it.

Um let me just actually that's a great question, Rosin.

Um my uh my assumption is always just bringing the house up.

They didn't both ways.

Yeah.

It is elevating uh and you know the existing home.

It's not uh demolishing it.

That's a big house to elevate, but huge, yeah.

They're doing it up and down the whole Eastern Seaboard, so I get it.

Okay, that was my only question.

Very good with this.

I'm very good with it.

Absolutely.

I'm taking a motion.

I move that we approve CSPR with all the conditions and recommendations from um the city departments.

I'll second that.

All in favor.

Aye.

Unanimous.

Okay, next item.

Is uh decision for application number 225-27 that's Horn and Hoof properties and 961 Long Ridge Road and 16 Watermill Road.

Site and architectural plans and or requested use and special permit.

Benito.

Before I go to Venita, I have members are are we is anybody against this particular application.

No.

No, I'm okay with it.

Yeah, I can share the conditions.

Yes, on the screen, please.

You can go through them for us.

Yes.

All right.

So I will move move to the findings and site specific conditions.

So here we just stating the record uh in terms of the hearing uh notices, the list of plans.

And we have all the revisions.

Um we you know, we have all the revisions that were submitted at the time of the hearing.

We because the hearing was closed, we discouraged the applicant from putting more into the record.

Um they can provide them between now and the building permit stage.

None of the items were critical to or changed anything major to the um site plan.

So I didn't feel like we needed to um put them in the record after the hearing is closed.

Um so the special permit relates to the uh to the use itself, which is nine independent living units.

Recent to our definition in section four.

Um here are other findings that we're making for the use.

Now moving on to the site specific condition.

Okay.

Um so consistency with the plans um or for minor modifications, staff will review them, and that applies to the items that the board had requested at the end of the of the last hearing.

Um consolidation of the property, the two properties, 961 Longbridge and 16 wire mill will be consolidated, and an address will have to be uh secured before the building permit.

Um they will have to uh provide all the parking spaces that have been shown on the plans prior to CEO.

All conditions permit have to be met at the time of building permit and CEO as applicable.

The units will be deed restricted um to be either inhabited by a senior or someone with a disability meeting our regulation and this deed restriction will be to review by the law department and zoning board staff.

Talking about the ADA compliance here the requirement will be to meet the standards for type B unit.

And then the plans for that compliance will be reviewed by staff and the building department prior to the building specifically looking at ADA compliance because this is unique different from other type of projects.

That's all the time we spend the A or A or B units yeah right.

Right.

Yes any signage will come back to staff for review a photometric plan will be required to be submitted prior to building permit for the street trees that they're planting they will have to post a bond uh for three years in the amount of thousand dollars for each tree um they have to meet conditions of all the uh department comments including traffic EPB engineering fire marshal um and then there's a special note regarding the traffic study letter um that um ctp will confirm that no major update no update is needed to the applicant's traffic study um so that's that's all the site specific conditions and then we have uh standard conditions no i'm good no i i read the conditions this afternoon all fine okay i'd like to move that we approve application 22527 horn and hoof properties with the uh conditions as reviewed uh this evening second that all in favor aye unanimous application 22527 is approved uh next item is also a uh decision is for application number 225-15 the Woodway points LLC uh this is uh for site and architectural plan plans and or record requested uses and a special permit banita well can you show us what you have to meet unmute okay sorry um so we have to have conditions for this project um starting with just with the description of the property here um the list of plans findings uh so back going back to what they're seeking the special permit um relates to the premium density in the RM1 district um now we in terms of the site specific conditions we have consistency of with the plans that have been approved for the board um revision of the landscape plan to show all play equipment and plantings um and then we have consolidation of property um then we have the affordability plan uh requirement for the two bmr units um in terms of the parking spaces they have to provide all 45 self parking spaces including the e v spaces um they have to provide the photometric plan um any signage will be subject to staff review uh sidewalk easement will have to be uh recorded prior to CO um in terms of offsite traffic improvements the applicant will be required uh will be required to contribute 43945 this is based on um the formula that we have in our regulation for on-site site sidewalk improvements but this was expanded to uh cover the corner of hope street in Wood Bay so in lieu of the applicant improving uh the sidewalk on um other private property you know the

This is based on the formula that we have in our regulation for on-site site sidewalk improvements, but this was expanded to cover the corner of Hope Street in Wood Bay.

So in lieu of the applicant improving the sidewalk on other private property, you know, the what was seem what seemed like a reasonable solution was for the applicant to contribute this and then the traffic bureau to coordinate the actual improvement of the sidewalk.

Next we have the street tree planting bond.

And then next we have the traffic bureau um like department comments, including Traffic Bureau, EPB, Engineering Bureau, and Fire Marshall.

Sure.

Nothing.

No, I'm okay, Bill.

What about you, Bill?

No, I got no issues.

Okay.

Um I move that we approve application 225-1-5 with the conditions as discussed this evening.

I'll second that.

All in favor.

Unanimous.

Okay.

Application 225-15 is approved.

Let's see.

Next item application 224-18 was continued until November 24th.

After that, application 225-23 was also continued until the 24th.

Next item would be application 225-28.

We just heard this and closed it tonight.

And then we have application 225-29, which is continued until uh November 24th, also.

Okay.

And the only thing left now is going to be administrative approval.

And we have this is for Longwood Roads of popular road this evening.

223-34 900 Long Ridge Road.

This is a request for an extension of time for the site and architectural plans in our requested uses and special permit approvals as modified by stipulation for judgment.

Yes, uh the letter was the request for the extension.

So the good news is that they're um actively working on the building permit plans.

So uh the extension is just to be able to receive the building permit um in time within their um you know within their term limit.

So um that's why they need another year.

So they should be they just want a one-year extension.

We can only give them one year because uh the stipulation had that uh had that limit of only one year extensions.

Um so they can seek two more one year extensions, but we can't give them two years like that would be until January 2nd, 2027.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

Um just double check though.

Sorry, just it's taking me a minute to open the slide.

No problem.

Um right, so January 2nd, 2027.

2027 would extend it to.

Right.

Yeah.

I can't believe January 2nd, 2026 in less than two months.

No, no.

Crazy.

Yes.

Yeah.

I move that we uh approve a one-year extension uh application application 223-34900 Long Ridge Road.

Um an extension for building permit to January 2nd, 2027.

I make a second to that.

All in favor?

Aye.

Extension is approved for one year.

And believe it or not.

That's it.

I have a question.

Do we need to review the new board of reps tree ordinance and make sure it's in agreement with our uh regulations?

She's so smart.

I didn't know there was a new tree ordinance.

Late into the night last Wednesday.

You can't just tear down trees anymore, willy-nilly.

Veney, were you aware of this?

I I was so it it is very new.

It's uh you know, it it could have an impact of how um development happens or what you know what they have to do to mitigate for it.

We can you know provide a summary at the next meeting or you know or maybe before that.

When does it go into effect?

I'm actually I'm not sure.

Um I'll have to look at that date.

I I know not effective today, is it?

Yeah, it can't be.

I don't think so.

No, I think there's a little bit of buffer.

If you want to tear down a tree bill, you gotta pay.

Uh no, I have no if I can play a trees, but I just curious.

I I was unaware of that.

I just yeah, well, and there's also the the cat and dog um ordinance, but we've already I think made those adjustments, you know, they're trying to get rid of puppy mills too.

And the third one I don't think has to do with us.

There were three things.

Trees, cat and dogs, leaf power, leaf power, leaf floor.

Yeah, that's too, but that doesn't affect us.

Anyway, that's all I have.

So Venita, what do we have for uh next meeting for day?

Welcome back.

We'll have um so we have the continuation um 120c long ridge road, the townhomes, 23 barriers change and the special permit site and site plan.

Those are the two uh continuation major continuations or three applications, and we have um the Glenbrook Road and Parker Avenue, uh the small development next kind of an annex to the existing housing that was done at 492.

So that's a new application, and then we have a we have two um text changes uh from staff.

Um so that's all the that's the agenda for next time.

It is pretty um aggressive, it's an aggressive agenda, so we'll have to what what we finish and what we continue to the next meetings, but yeah, and no, we'll we also gotta decide uh 24 20 225-28.

Uh that meeting also, I still yes anything else we should do.

We have a lot of time.

It's only eight.

I have conditions for 225-28 if the board wants to review that.

No, I think well I think we'll wait till next meeting now.

Yeah, I think David.

Deciding to say later.

Yeah.

I I guess well then I guess uh that's it.

And uh if Jerry wants to make a motion to adjourn, I guess we can do that.

I I would absolutely love that.

I would like to make a motion to adjourn at this time.

And I would love to second it.

All right, gang.

Be well.

See you in a couple weeks.

Good night.

Good night.