Thank you.

Um, Vanita, did am I a uh co-presenter or whatever it is?

I have a make sure you are.

Your organizer.

Yes, you are.

Yeah.

All right.

Okay, let me know when.

Um, we're ready to rule.

Yes.

Yes, you're ready.

Okay.

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

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Zoning Board, and it's 6 30 p.m.

on November 24th, 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.

Uh Phil Morris.

Here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Jerry Bozak.

Here.

Um and now for our uh staff members, Ralph Blessing.

Present.

And Vanita Mater.

Present.

Um the board's microphones will be open throughout tonight's hearing.

Applicants' mics will be open during the public hearing while we are hearing their application.

However, I would ask the applicant to please mute your mics for not speaking in order to reduce background noise.

The first part of tonight's meeting is a 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 members of the public to let us know that 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 the telephone conference call phone number, then press star five, and this will raise your hand, then press star six to mute when you are called on to speak.

When members of the public speak, we'd ask that you 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.

If you're having some trouble getting on, you're trying to let us know that you want to speak and there's some issue with raising your hand, um, send an email to Vanita and she will uh do her best to get you on.

Uh her email address is V Moter.

That's V Victor Matter, M-A-T-H-U-R.

Um at Stanford C T.gov.

Um this meeting is being recorded and will be posted on the zoning board's website.

You can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and the meeting applications and other materials, um, also at our website that is www.stanford ct.gov slash zoning.

Uh we'll now uh proceed with the public hearing portion of our meeting.

Umita, if you could have the rec uh minutes indicate, please that I watch the video of the zoning board meeting held on November 10th.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we're starting with um two applications, 22418 and 22523, um, which relate to uh 23 Bury Place.

The first one, 22418 is Continental Family Holdings LLC by Michael Cacase, zoning map change.

Applicant is proposing to rezone 23 Berry Place from the current MG Manufacturing General to the proposed RM1 multi-family district low density design district and RMF multifamily residence design district zoning districts.

The second application is 225-23 Continental Family Holdings, uh site and architectural plans and a requested uses and special permit.

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

Uh let's see.

Uh is attorney cake here to the applicant.

He's here.

Um can you unmute yourself?

Um I see him in the list.

I okay, I think he's unmuted.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Michael Case.

I am here.

Good.

Good.

Um when we uh last left uh this application or these applications.

I think that um there were uh several items that uh we had asked uh the applicant to provide, and I know you had sent us some things.

You want to just walk through what you sent us and uh how it uh responded to what we'd requested?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Uh for the record, my name is Michael Cakees, and I'm the attorney representing the applicants on both applications.

Uh when we last met, which was October 20th, there were a number of requests from either staff or members of the board uh that we supplement the materials that we had already uh submitted.

Uh the meeting was continued to November 10th, and at the request of the board, it was postponed again until tonight.

So this is the second public hearing for these two applications.

In the meantime, we have uh uh addressed all of the issues that we understood were outstanding the last time uh we appeared in front of you.

The first was to provide more information on the e-bikes, how many, where they're located, and we've also submitted architectural specifications for them.

Uh likewise, there were some comments made as to the location of the exterior charging facilities uh and where they were located, and they have likewise been moved to comply with the regulations and the interior charging stations.

Uh, we were suggested that we uh meet with the fire marshal, and we have been in contact with the fire marshal.

Uh the fourth thing uh was that Chairman Stein, you indicated that the trees that were shown on our site plan along the street uh should have been 20 feet uh apart.

Uh Matt Pop, uh who is our uh landscape architect, pointed out that the trees shown on the original map were compliant because there were a few that uh were not called out, but he has adjusted his plan to uh meet the requirement of having this trees 20 feet apart.

Uh we've also added the dimensional uh sorry.

Um excuse me, one sec.

The other item on the street trees was to increase it from 13 to 16.

Um that also occurred the trees have been increased.

That's correct.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Uh you also asked that we add dimensional uh measurements with regard to the sidewalk, both on the site plan and uh the uh landscape uh plan, and we've done that.

Uh the outstanding issue as to the Melrose Place streetscape improvements uh have been discussed with TTP uh and Derek Dunays, who's also with us this evening, uh, can comment further on that.

Likewise, you asked for an updated traffic report, and that has been submitted uh during the intervening intervening several weeks.

Um, which is also been reviewed by TTP.

There were comments made at the last hearing uh with regard to uh I'm sorry, excuse me one sec.

Did we hear um have we heard back from TTP yet on that revised traffic study?

I'm unaware that they have uh commented on the updated traffic study.

Um but I think I'm sorry.

Yeah, so am I.

Umita Ralph, did we hear back yet?

Not yet.

We have not.

Oh okay.

Uh, as has Derek in terms of uh the streetscape improvements, and they can comment on their discussions with TTP.

The next items that we submitted for the record concerned issues that were raised by uh a nearby neighbor concerning potential contamination at the site, and we've submitted extensive uh evaluations performed by GO environmental dated uh July 30th of this year and also April 30th of this year, together with a letter dated November 11th of this year, indicating that the bottom line is there is no risk to neighboring property owners or neighbors.

Um the architectural plans, there were some questions, and our architect Ravi Ahouya is available for comment.

Uh, we have likewise submitted some 40 letters of support for the two applications.

Um we've issued a response to the WPCA uh comments, which we hadn't had time to respond to uh at the last meeting.

I suppose, however, given the staff report, which we received today at about 5 30, the most pressing issue uh is one of density and the appropriateness of the RMF district, which we have proposed for the rear portion of the site.

And what I'd like to do is turn the hearing over to Lindy Andrea and Derek Dunays to talk about uh the site and how it fits very well with this location for an RMF zoning district, together with and followed by the SLR representatives who can speak to the underlying traffic issues relating to that density.

So if I can turn it over to Derek and Lynn.

Sure, can we get them uh promoted?

Yep.

Uh good evening, everybody.

This is Derek Donay and Lindy Andrea from D'Andrea Surveying and Engineering.

Um, we are the site engineers for this project.

And uh first uh we'll get into the uh density part um in a minute.

First, I would just want to show the uh board some of our uh the improvements and stuff uh that attorney Kase has just reviewed so you guys can see um everything that's been revised.

Um so uh may I share screen?

Sure, go ahead.

All right, can everybody see my screen?

Yep, yes.

Okay, so uh one of the first things they talked about or requested was the location of uh electric bike charging stations.

So for the townhouse units, they're taken care of in the garage for the apartment building and one of the uh the bike storage areas.

Um uh architect Ravi Ahuja has noted the 14 that are required um and where they'll be located um in the apartment building.

Uh one of the other comments had to do with the electric V or excuse me, the um uh the EV spaces being closer to the um entrance to the building and re and as per zoning uh regulations previously we had them along the back of this north parking lot, you know, uh, but we've since moved them closer to the uh the main door there for uh that the residents over that are parking this area will be going in and out of the building.

Everyone can see the cursor right there in the middle.

Um another comment had to do with the dimensions of sidewalks.

So this is the Barry Place frontage area, and what we're providing is a 10-foot wide shoulder, which will include a six-foot-wide sidewalk, and then you have a three and a half foot wide grass strip and a six-inch curving, and that'll be consistent along the project frontage.

Uh while I'm here, one of the other um things that came up when I met with uh uh Luke from traffic.

Um we eliminated the mid block crossing, and as per his request, we have then shifted once we get past our property, the sidewalk then kind of hugs the shoulder of the road as opposed to having the grass strip.

That way we can avoid a utility pole and some other conflicts over in this area, and we have the intersection crossing, which is more desirable at Fairfield Avenue.

So that's I just want to make you how far from the property line is that the back of the side.

So this is uh, and I'll just zoom out a little bit here.

This is a kind of a funky property line situation here.

Um for our main property, which you know is up uh where my cursor is up here, there's a triangular area right in front of Innis Arden that goes right around here where my cursor is.

That is also actually part of our property.

Yeah, no, what I'm what I'm saying is if you move the the crosswalk down, yes, is it gonna be so far from the buildings are that people are just gonna jaywalk and ignore it?

No, because there's no sidewalks across the street on the other side of Barrie.

The sidewalk is on Fairfield Avenue.

So what you would do is you would walk down the street and then cross over to Fairfield.

That's the better location for it.

And this avoids then now we've got controlled uh stop signs and avoids the midblock crossing, so it's a safer crossing.

All right.

Um, and this leads me to one of the other ones.

Uh, one of the comments that came up during the last hearing had to do with the Melrose Place streetscape improvements.

Um, TTP had requested uh safer pedestrian access along Melrose Place.

We met with uh Luke Buttonweezer out in the field from traffic and we discussed this area.

So as we and this has not been all detailed on the plan yet, but I do have a cross section to show you the concept that we're in the process of working with them uh with that's something uh upon further once we do a survey of the street and we'll send in final designs.

Um, we'll get that all approved with traffic.

But in the meantime, we wanted to show you the concept because that question came up during the last hearing.

So as you exit our site, you'd follow a sidewalk along Barry Place.

And I'm gonna go to hold on one second.

Uh this plan.

Let me just zoom out a little bit.

This gives you a little bit overall.

There we go.

So as we exit our property, we would walk the sidewalk up Barry Place, and as we get closer to um hold on, just up is north.

There we go.

Sorry, up is north, correct.

Okay, and then as we get towards Melrose Place, we would cross at the stop sign, and his desire was to put a sidewalk on the north side of Melrose Place.

So you would cross again where this where there's a stop sign at Melrose.

So on the so now, as you are on Melrose Place going towards Fairfield Avenue, I'll show you a uh cross section of it.

Um this is what it looks like right now.

This is the existing conditions.

You have the roadway, and on the right side, so that's the south side of the um of the road, there's some broken asphalt gravel areas, parking shoulders that people have put in over the years along the side of the street.

Um, there's limited drainage on the street, no curbing, no sidewalks.

And so what his preference was, as we discussed in the field, was to kind of clean it up, make a real street out of this, and so you would have now you would have curbing on both sides of the street.

You would a stripe a edge of travel lane and uh for a parking area on the side, the south side of the street.

You would then have your two regular travel lanes with a double yellow center line, curving on the other side of the street, and a sidewalk adjacent to the curbing.

That was his preference for Melrose Place, and this is the concept that we'll be working towards um as we move forward with design plans for Melrose Place streetscape improvements.

But I wanted to show it to you because this question came up during the last hearing.

Do you have any questions uh about the Melrose Place?

Um question.

Yeah, is Melbourne Place going to be more narrow than what it is presently?

The overall pavement will not be.

So you have what uh, and if you look at the the top section here, so right now it's about 26 feet apart, and it was just repaved.

It's approximately that much.

And what you have are people that park kind of on the north side, halfway on the shoulder, halfway in the street, and then on the south side, they're parking in the shoulder over there.

So the travel lane, travel lanes will be similar in width because you won't have the park, the parking will just be on the south side of the street now, and you'll have the curb on the north side.

The 11 and a half foot wide travel lane.

Yep.

At least my mind occurs to be rather narrow.

Am I missing something here?

He had actually said we could go less than that, but we figured uh a little bit wider would be better.

And the final width will be determined once we get the full survey of the street and work with Luke on that, because it also has to do with the placement of utility poles.

If we can go wider, we'll go wider, but this we might be limited if we're there's to be a sidewalk on Melrose Place, which is desired by the city TTP.

Once again, though, is 11 and a half.

I you didn't really answer the question.

Is 11 and a half feet?

She appears to me to be rather narrow.

Uh no, it's not that narrow.

I mean, that's not uncommon.

It's narrow.

Well, I guess it would depend on how busy the street is, and it's not that busy of a street.

There are cars that go in and out of it, and there are trucks, but there's not a it's not Route One or anything.

So the width of it is acceptable for this.

And uh TTP thought it could even go more narrow than this.

This sort of reminds me of like uh I don't know if you're from how familiar you are with Stanford, but like Knickerbroker Avenue in uh Stanford, where you know it's about that wide, but two cars heading down that road is doesn't work very well in the real life.

I understand what you're saying, but in the real world, it doesn't work very well.

Okay.

There's room on the shoulder as well on the north side.

So if it's determined that these should be wider, say they go to 12 foot, there is room on the north side where all this uh lawn area is to go further that way.

The initial design is not to go too far into areas that people have already encroached into the right-of-way, but it can go wider.

So we do have plenty of room to make these travel lanes.

One more time.

If if you were putting a city street, a new city street in, how wide would the travel lane be?

Good question.

It depends on the situation, honestly.

But it but it can go anywhere from 11 to 12 button width.

May I ask a question?

Yes, sorry, Bose.

So okay, let's clip the chase.

I'm I'm probably the newest member here, so please just speak to me in a very uh um uh basic parochial way.

If we are gonna put a new street in, right?

Say on Stillwater Road or London Lane or in that area, how wide would the street be?

It's probably residential area.

Yep, because you have a 50-foot wide right-of-way, so you probably have anywhere from 10 or total of 20 foot would be the minimum, so that would be 10 foot and 10 foot, and typically then it goes up to like 24 foot.

And you're proposing that would be two 12 foot wides, two 12 foot wides, gotcha.

Right.

Okay, and that's that's average at this point.

That's average residential neighborhood.

Correct, yes.

Okay, and we're and you're proposing on this site 11, 11 and 11.

Um, so we've got 11 and a half, two eleven and a half foot lanes and a nine-foot wide on-street parking.

So those streets that have 12 foot wide um lanes, right?

They people park on the sides, which encroaches into those lanes.

So that's why this is nice and wide because you don't have the parking in the lanes that you would typically have on the side of a street.

These are free, free and clear of travel lanes, so there's plenty of room.

However, would that would that be different if we're gonna if the city is requesting to put a sidewalk?

Would that encroach upon that 11 and a half?

No, the sidewalk, if you see, is on the left side of the section over here.

Okay, so that's off of the uh travel lane.

If I might chime in as well, this is Neil O'Linsky with SLR.

The um the Connecticut DOT's standard width these days for a regular all-purpose vehicle travel lane is only 11 feet.

That's the truth from center line to shoulder line.

Gotcha.

Well, you'd have here on a very narrow side, um, a very minor, still narrow um uh residential street, is you'd you'd have just that essentially you'd have 11 foot travel lanes and maybe a very small shoulder.

And then that would set that that by itself would satisfy the state requirements.

What are the um let's say you're on a busier street?

Um, I don't know, long ridge road.

What are the the widths of the lanes there?

Well, it would depend on the volume of the trap of traffic.

Um you mean it they change how many cars there are yeah, you tend to see around 11 to 12 feet width for higher volume arterial roads.

This would be minor uh local road, essentially, local street.

Um, there's something to be said too that if if you make streets overly wide, it gives drivers um a false sense that they have more room to work with, and thus they speed up, which is the opposite of what you want.

So narrow streets can actually narrower streets up to a certain extent can have a traffic calming effect, which is what you want residential area like this.

Any other questions or discussion on this?

Um are you doing any what are you doing on Barry Place if anything?

Sure, I'll show you that again.

Uh the sidewalks on Barrie Place.

That's just the sidewalks.

Yes, I got side sidewalk.

Nothing else besides the sidewalks and moving the crosswalk.

Okay.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um please continue.

Sure, moving on.

So one of the other things um uh attorney K spoke about were the uh street trees.

So this is Matt Pop's um uh landscaping plan.

And so these are shows the additional trees that were added, and now they have the 20 foot spacing um for the zoning regs.

These are small trees, right?

They are oh should say it's flowered.

These are cherry trees a little then deciduous.

Um I have to look at that.

Look on uh they look on these they're there, the smaller trees.

Okay.

The list down below shows you um their size.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so that would be 20 feet.

Okay, and there's there's now 16 of them.

Yeah, we added two.

Um originally I didn't include the uh birch trees that are actually at the entrance.

So those trees should be street trees too, but those are excluded from the count.

Okay.

Thank you, Matt.

You're welcome.

Uh while I have while I have this street up, uh one of the other comments came up during the last hearing about if um additional playground area might be required for this project.

And so I want to show you a couple things um that involves both the architectural plans and this.

Um, so currently we are showing a playground in the uh north of the apartment building uh um parking lot here.

There's a playground over here on the right where my cursor is, and a dog walk area.

I'm sorry.

Yep, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble seeing the cursor.

Okay, sorry, I'll zoom into the area.

Let's see if I can get over there.

All right, so where the northern parking lot is, you see that T, like a little sidewalk T.

Yeah.

All right, so to the to the right side of that, and it's uh we show it on our zoning location survey as well, is the 2500 square foot uh playground area to the left side is the 1500 square foot uh dog walk area.

So exterior, those those amenities are shared by the entire complex, townhouse and apartment.

When we go to the apartment building itself, also has a lot of rec kind of passive recreation areas inside of it.

So this is the apartment building's first floor, and what you have on the first floor is you have your exercise room that a lot of the apartment buildings have.

Plus, you have two large open courtyard areas on the first floor, and then the apartment building also has this extensively large roof deck area with lots of areas for gathering recreation going up there as well.

Besides that, so then the building has that, the apartment building has that.

There's the shared uh playground area and dog walk, and then also the townhouse units each have a courtyard area to the rear of the building, so a shared courtyard along the back of each building is a raised open courtyard area.

Along with that, there's that's the green area between the between the two buildings is the green, correct.

That's an open courtyard that each of these opens out to you also have a large uh lawn area uh along the southern area, uh southern property line here.

This is above our stormwater retention system, but this will be maintained as lawn, but another area if you want to go out and throw a ball around or something like that.

Sorry, where you said the southern sorry, southern.

So the kind of the middle units that are a little bit shorter on the south, and I'll zoom in here.

Oh sorry, my cursor's not darker.

We I wasn't seeing it.

This lawn area over here on the right, yes.

Can you scroll scroll up a little bit more?

Sure.

Or down, whatever, so we can see it.

Uh the lawn area, yes.

I'll scroll down this way.

It's right right here.

Yes.

Okay.

So the uh the blue, all those blue bushes, that's right along the property line.

That's the screening on the property line area.

So just above that is this lawn area here.

There you go, right in the middle here.

Okay.

Now, if they decide we the design team felt that this was adequate for what we're doing for recreation, playground areas.

Um, but if there was ever a need in the future, if the development said, hey, we would like another smaller playground area, something else.

There's this area where we have these eight trees in between the apartment building and the townhouse complex, right in the middle of my screen, that this area can also be designated as like a future playground area if it's ever desired by the developer.

So we feel there is enough uh area on the site for current currently proposed for play.

Right.

Okay.

Um, and then the last question that came up during the hearing.

Um, I think it was by the neighbors, had to do with the the contaminated soils on the site.

So as attorney cake had mentioned, uh Geoenvironmental has been out there and they submitted in um we submitted in three of their reports, I believe, of their of their findings from different stages of when they've done testing out there, and they're also submitted in a summary letter recently to kind of describe what's happened on the site and what the potential future actions will be.

So briefly in summary, the site was previously remediated um for industrial standards back in 2012-2013, and as part of that, there were some areas that were capped where contamination was found.

And I'll show you on the zoning location survey here.

Those are in the northern area.

Uh, this whole you see where it says lot S up here, a little bit to the south of there, there's a rectangle in here.

That's an area that has been um hold on.

This is the subject area here, and then there's some further ones over to the western side adjacent to the Insaran um property.

Those areas are outside of our development area.

There's no buildings proposed there or any excavation.

So those areas will remain capped and undisturbed throughout geo-environmental.

They've been in touch with the US EPA and Connecticut DEP regarding what the requirements will be for future remediation.

And so you have, and they have agreed that if those areas were untouched, they can stay capped.

Any areas that they did find, uh, when they did some additional testing after the building was removed, they found uh a few other small areas with some areas that should be remediated.

They were said they were below the levels for um residential um uh requirements, but still those areas.

If any excavation goes in there, that soil gets removed, it gets stockpiled separate from any other soil.

It gets covered with plastic uh temporarily until it gets hauled away.

So that's how this is a very regulated activity.

Um, and there's um, so there's no adverse impacts to any of the neighbors.

It's not disturbance where it's going to be all over the place, it's controlled, it's contained, and then it's hauled away um correctly.

I believe that was all of the site design questions.

Um I'm gonna turn it over to Lendy Andrea here, who's gonna talk about the question that of neighborhood uh density.

Before we go to Mr.

D'Andrew, could I just quick question?

Yeah, yeah, please.

Board members, anything on the site.

The the um are you proposing aside from what you talked about this evening?

Uh any traffic calming uh meth methods are going to be taken?

Yes.

No, as far as I mean, within our site or outside of our site, outside of our site, outside of the yeah, nothing besides the streetscape improvements that have our we've already talked about.

Okay, and did the discussion or issue nothing?

The subject of traffic calming come up with your discussions, not you personally, but with the applicant's discussions with uh TTP.

I'll leave that for Neil Alinsky to speak to.

Okay, if he wants to uh chime in.

Yeah, yeah.

Neil Wolinski again.

Um we had brought up the thought or idea of speed humps, and it didn't sound like the TTT, the TTP was in favor of that.

Thus, we shifted more so towards the um the sidewalk um cross section plan that Derek showed and the slightly like narrower but still compliant travel lanes on um Belrose.

You didn't okay.

Did you think that the uh the you know speed humps or speed bumps, whatever you want to use, is rather dramatic as far as traffic coming.

Did do you feel that that's necessary in this uh particular uh area?

No, I don't think it's necessary.

We just threw it up, we just threw it out there as an idea.

It's one of many things in the toolbox, so to speak.

Um, we do see more and more of those in some cities.

New Haven has been installing a bunch of speed humps.

Um, but didn't sound like um the TTP department here in Stanford wanted them.

Um we may come back to that again later.

Sorry, Dave.

Go ahead.

No, no problem.

Um, anyone else in the board have any questions about the items that um we just heard about from I I do, Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, I do, Mr.

Chairman.

So I'm a little concerned, you know, and I and I appreciate the integrity of you know of the applicants team.

Uh, but I really would like to see the report from TTP.

Um, you know, for the board.

That's the reason that they exist, and we should really see to compare with their independent study and and kind of figure out what the traffic flow is.

Because I think that was that was a resounding theme.

Um, before this, during it, during, you know, the we just really need to have uh you know comparison to what they're they have and what you know what the report is with with that um agency.

So just my yeah, we reach we we need to see their response to the revised traffic study.

Um we try we tried reaching out to uh Luke Buttonweiser um from TTP to see if he can get a response out for this meeting, but I know he's away on vacation this week and won't be back until after Thanksgiving.

Well, he was very fortunate on the yesterday at the Thanksgiving Day parade.

So he's probably had a lot of work getting ready for it.

Um so hopefully when he gets back, we'll get that soon.

And that's unfortunate.

I know that you guys you're you you had postponed one, so that's unfortunate.

I'm sorry about that.

Anyone else on the board?

Uh have any um questions for the team.

Okay.

So um, yeah, please proceed with the um the mapping question.

Okay, I'll I'll take that.

Um Lendy Andrea here and Derek and I go back a year and a half, I guess, or so on this project from his infancy.

Um, we're gonna go over, Mr.

Morris.

I think you were asking, is there anything similar in this neighborhood?

And I certainly think we have identified a number of them.

Uh on the screen before you, to the bottom of the screen, those are a number of apartment complexes on the um what is it, south side.

Uh this is the side of the east east side of Southfield Avenue.

And um, we're gonna blow these up as we go along.

We'll start with uh this one here.

We label as number three.

Okay, that that one is um TGM anchor point.

You can see it's two horseshoe apartment comp or apartment buildings.

Uh there's 323 units in these.

And the way you approach this from Southfield Avenue, you have a large circle.

Not sure what the purpose is, other than there's an anchor in the center of it, and you branch out to surface parking areas along the street, and then you go east along the complex, and there's more service parking on both sides, and then you actually have some surface parking on the north side as well, and inside the horseshoe itself.

And then you actually have some surface parking on the north side as well, and inside the horseshoe itself.

Not quite sure what the purpose of the large circle was.

Um, but again, as you come in, what you're looking at is parking.

The next one that we're going to look at is number five to the north.

And that is uh Bay Point Apartments that has 109 with one long building.

Uh from the street, you look in, and you'll actually see down through the building, the one that's up on the street, where then it has uh parking below the building, and then on the south side, you have even more um surface parking, and basically limited, if at all, any screening along the street.

Then the next one is number two, and that is quite similar to our design concept.

That is Stamford Landing, 88 Southfield Avenue.

It has um two buildings in the back comprised of 218 apartments, and then in the front is 88 townhouses.

And those numbers might sound familiar.

We're looking at 201, I think it was 201 apartments and 60 townhomes.

Um this is um interesting in that it's served by a loop driveway that Derek is pointing out now.

So again, you come in, there's very little streetscape at all.

You look to your right, which is a one-way counterclockwise circulation, and what do you see?

Are garage doors and surface parking the entire loop around.

Very little landscaping uh along the street itself.

Now we'll we'll jump up and take a look at um our plan before you.

Um 201 apartments in the building in the back that is is set back from Barrie Place, 600 feet.

And the approach, which you've heard before, is a tree-lined sidewalk lined uh shared driveway.

Uh, that's your entry focal point.

And when you reach to the end of that driveway, hang on.

You will hang on.

Hold on.

Oh.

You can then branch off, turn to the right.

There's a surface parking lot there.

Then you swing around to the back, and that's where you would enter the below grade garage.

And remember, this is not in the floodplain.

Uh, as you come in, this was not the initial design.

There are actually in the very first pass at this, the same thing again, some parking on the uh on the shared driveway, and then you had garage doors that face to the entrance drive.

We didn't like that at all.

So we tried a different concept, and you we created these uh alcoves of eight to ten units each of where you turn in and you and then you turn into your garages, and all of the uh townhouses have two car garages.

There was a comment that um I think Mr.

Morris, you might have mentioned, you know, why why are we so overparked?

Well, it's not that we're overparked, it's just that by design, by providing the um I didn't want to say the well, no, I'm sorry, the uh the the rear, the rear area of each unit where we have the outdoor amenities for each townhouse.

We provided enough room for that, and then what are we left with?

So we couldn't do it for everyone, but we tried to accommodate as many units as possible with a full length driveway of about 18 feet.

So when you do that, and and based on the zoning regs, you can actually count one of those two driveway spaces as a legal parking space.

So you're overparked by zoning, but the real realistic aspect of this is it's just good planning.

If we can give them a driveway for someone to quickly come in and visit, maybe it's uh the grandkids or a delivery truck.

That's a better, that's a better design, a better plan.

So I wouldn't say we're overparked, we're just efficiently parked.

Uh again, there are there are no garages facing the drive and no parking along that common drive.

Now, traffic on the street.

So let's go back here.

There was a comment um that said the the parking or excuse me, the the traffic in this area in this neighborhood, pan out a bit more if you don't mind, is I think the word might have been horrendous, um, over tax, whatever.

That's not the way this traffic works.

If you come out of Barry Place from this development, you can turn either right or left.

Many people will turn right and perhaps go into Old Greenwich, or perhaps go further south into the office complex.

Hopefully, it'll just walk as a short distance away.

Or if you turn right, you could go to Melrose Place, go out to Fairfield, perhaps turn uh left at this point in time and head out to Selleck Street and points beyond.

Or you could turn out of Barry Place and go right and get over to the stop sign, then turn left down Fairfield, which turns into Congress Street.

Now, Derek and I have been driving this area morning and afternoons for the last month.

We've driven it all different hours, seven o'clock in the morning, 7:30, 8:30, 9, 9:30.

And you'd be amazed how little traffic there is on Congress Street, which is virtually nothing, or Carlisle Place, or Burwood Avenue, or even Fairfield Avenue.

South Hill Avenue, even though there may be close to a thousand units along South Hill Avenue, it's wide, it flows.

You barely see cars coming out at what we would call our rush hours.

You get over to the intersection with to the right intersection with Sellick Street.

Some of you, hopefully, all of you know that that's been redesigned.

And now you would be able to only go right or left.

If you go right, you follow that along to the north, and then you get into the brand new rotary, a true um functioning rotary, which has been working very, very well.

This morning again, I drove it into work, and what's interesting, I live in Stanford.

So I came into the area.

I had worked my way over to Greenwich Avenue.

So here.

And then you're at that intersection where uh to the south of you is Southfield Avenue.

Yes, there is queuing on Greenwich Avenue, but as you look south, there's virtually no cars.

There's no queuing at Southfield Avenue.

We have driven us again in the evenings and the afternoons.

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration, especially the individual who made the comment, I believe he lived on either Key Street or Noble.

Those are the side streets, and you can go in either direction to either Congress or Burwood.

If you were going into the city, you'd work your way to Southfield Avenue and straight up and in.

Again, we we chose this transitional idea.

We started this months and months ago, where we said, let's transition out from Barrie Place with the individual townhouses, and then to the apartment building in the back, which as you can see is tucked up against two sides of the golf course, heavily screened from the golf course.

That was one of the things we agreed to do for them, and the railroad track to the north, and then you have the hockey ring.

So that's another comment that was made.

The hockey rink is in big demand.

Well, it is, it's a necessary and a great amenity to the city of Stanford.

But the peak period for the hockey rink is on the weekends.

Truly is Saturday, Sunday.

But again, going there this morning at uh 7:45, all but two cars in the parking lot.

So the point of this is it's designed in such a way where it just doesn't conflict.

They have their peak period perhaps in the weekend, nothing during the week to say until perhaps after school.

Meanwhile, if it's the weekend, we're lounging around in our townhouses, the apartment having a cup of coffee.

We're not driving to work.

So there's there's no conflict between that traffic demand and requirement versus our um apartments in our townhouses.

You know, every day you read about every time we pick up the newspaper.

I'm sure we all read the Stanford Advocate like I do first thing in the morning.

Every article is about the need for more and more housing.

We we if we're going to produce housing that's affordable, we need to have the available availability.

This gives uh people a cross section of of um of uh of a living um that they can choose from in Stanford next to the Grange Line, not in downtown.

Um we have a nice little amenity for the loop ground, and there's one more thing to talk about here, too.

And that is there is on the drawing board uh a path from Benny Park down to um the park here on Southfield Avenue.

Want to show that down over here.

And that would come down one of the two streets.

I think it was either one of them was coming down Congress Street or Burwood.

So if this becomes uh an actual path, just another great amenity for a residential project in this neighborhood.

The other thing, too, of course, you look at our neighbors, go back up to our project.

We have uh a church across the street, which also has a daycare center.

And what could be better than to have a daycare center right next door to where you live?

Uh, the church I know is in full support of this as well.

I think there was also one more comment that um there are tractor trailers that sometimes park overnight on Barrie Place.

We appreciate that comment.

thing too of course you look at our neighbors go back up to our project we have um a church across the street which also has a daycare center and what could be better than to have a daycare center right next door to where you live uh the church i i know is in full support of this as well i think there was also one more comment that um there are tractor trailers that sometimes park overnight on barry place we appreciate that comment we will work with uh ttp and perhaps without signs no commercial parking at any hour on these streets but i think it fits well i think we've done a great job in identifying the needs of the neighborhood a nice transition from the heavy industrial to the residential and right across the street with the church being there they're very pleased to know that they don't have to think about this large site being heavily uh industrialized so I think we've done a great job and I hope you see it the same way but that we're available for any questions okay I'm sorry Jerry were you gonna say something no no I'm good thank you Mr.

Chairman okay um since um Benita issued the staff report today um I think it would be worthwhile to hear from her on why she um had concerns about the uh the density of this um of the apartment building so Vanita if you could um sure just explain your thinking there please yeah so the the area uh that we're looking at has a variety of uh single family districts um our six r ten r seven and a half uh all around it so um yeah I think 23 bed places a you know it's a good site to add more housing and you know um medium density housing um which would allow for a transition being next to single family but you know the RMF zoning district we feel is a a stark contrast compared to the uh districts that are around so um and you know it's a contrast both in terms of density big number of units it allows and also the building height um the RM1 district um has uh you know allows multifamily but at a scale that's um much you know that relates much better to the single family also in terms of the number of units it permits there are other districts that uh fit better and would have you know the density and the scale that would add add to the housing that we need without um you know you know overpowering um the single family district or you know being a concern from burning the the roadway in any way um we feel that you know because this the entire project has a single means of access on Barry Place um we don't want to create any pinch points um and in terms of uh you know districts that are appropriate we feel that there could be other districts that could fit this better including you know either R5 for a portion or all of the site or RM1 um specifically you know our five achieves uh more units than um than RM one but still you know below what's what's proposed right now also we feel that you know this the site has to be organized such that there's you know centralized open space um uh and you know proper circulation uh we don't want to create a situation where all we are left with our interstitial spaces um so that those are some of the reasons why I felt that um the RMF district uh wasn't the best fit for the site good thank you um board members um why don't we um continue this discussion on the um on the uh the mapping and the density uh Bill since um you were the one who uh raised this point originally um why don't you pick it up okay uh and I appreciate the fact that they they sent us that additional information but unfortunately it hasn't really uh this way to me from the same feeling to have the this is overdeveloping it we're talking about a map changer I don't think that comparing the uh the complex that we're built on um Soundview Avenue and this site is is equitable I really don't I do it's like apples and oranges are far different and I don't think it's appropriate I think that the density that uh they're thinking about putting on this site is too much I really do and uh so I mean I would like to hear they're more than welcome to try to convince me otherwise but right now I have you know a lot of concerns about the you know 40 units per acre is rather substantial compared to the neighborhood that it's in okay Roseanne um I I pretty much feel the same way as Bill um I just think the um apartment um I think the map change is allowing too many units um I I I think there should be housing here I think there should be plenty of units but

Okay.

A Roseanne.

Um I pretty much feel the same way as Bill.

Um I just think the um apartment.

Um I think the map change is allowing too many units.

Um I I think there should be housing here.

I think there should be plenty of units, but um between uh the apartments in the uh back portion and the townhouses, I think it's it's too much for where it is and for those narrow streets that surround it.

Um I think I think there's a map change to be made that will be appropriate.

Um but I think this current request um is allowing too many units.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Jerry.

You know, uh the only my my biggest concern here is the community in that area, uh especially with St.

Clemens.

Uh I I've and I don't know if the other members have heard from people in the community, I've heard from the people in the parish.

Um, and a lot of people in the neighborhood that in support of this project.

Um, they feel that uh with that's development will help their congregation.

Um and quite frankly, you know, uh on these applications, I never get calls.

I I I seldom get calls, usually they're in the opposite direction of not wanting projects, if at all, you know, as we see through our letters that we sit on the board.

But I actually have gotten calls all weekend about supporting this project and and especially the community uh the you know the congregation, which you all know, houses of worship tend to um they need added support at this time.

So I'm really uh I'm really having a hard time not approving the project in that um it's an outcry of the community that would really like something um developed here.

Okay.

Um I support having a project here, I guess I I feel um similar to the way Roseanne expressed it.

Um we need we need more housing, and this is a good site for it.

Um at the same time, I agree with staff's analysis that uh this RMF is is really inconsistent with the neighborhood.

Um neighborhood is R6, R7.

Close.

The projects that the applicant pointed out, um applicant's team over um we're several blocks away and not as close to the um proposed project as the uh R6, R7 half and R 10 areas.

Um I would I would urge the applicant to um to consider switching to uh an R5.

I think it would be more appropriate for um for the whole for the whole area, um or some other zone which should reduce the density, which I think is is just um too much for the the uh neighborhood it's in applicant Len or uh Derek or anyone else want to respond.

Yeah, go ahead.

I would love to respond.

Um I want to give you an idea, the concept of R5, and I think of Camp Camp Avenue up there in uh Springdale.

And the design of an R5, because we're allowed the extra story, is going to be a straight up vertical.

They'll end up probably having one car garage, no elevators.

It's it's not a great selection.

It doesn't give enough people an opportunity to have what they need, which may be empty nesters.

This apartment, the two buildings, there's 31 bedroom units, one bedroom units.

There's 147 two-bedroom units and only 24 three beds.

Now the townhouses are different, they have three bedrooms in it.

So don't think of this as being uh a tremendous amount of people.

It's not even like a two-family house where you might have four bedrooms in each unit.

It doesn't generate a lot of traffic.

Chances are in the apartment or even the townhouses, they may not even be full-time uh occupants.

They may have their another place that may be in the retirement mode.

It's not a bad location.

They're a golf course and they're a good amount of amenities.

Um I I think that you have to think about what's the mix of housing.

I don't think this needs to have an R5 in the back for the sake of reducing it by a few number of units.

And I implore you to, if you're not deciding tonight to drive the area.

You mentioned that you can't put, you know, it's not apples to apples.

Well, what we are trying to point out is with all that uh housing that's along Southfield Avenue, it doesn't generate a lot of traffic.

It truly doesn't.

And you don't have to believe me, you can listen to traffic engineer and you can drive it yourself.

Um, this is a place where as you come out, you split up the traffic.

Not everybody's going to go down to Southfield Avenue.

Not everybody's going to go to downtown Stanford.

Not everybody's going to train.

Some may go to Oak Greenwich, and it's split out in different directions.

I don't think it's an impact to the neighborhood.

I think it's a nice transition.

It fits extremely well into the corner of this zone.

And it's again what we're looking for.

Provide BMRs, greater number, greater number of BMRs.

Um it's a it's just a great uh opportunity to have a different mix.

And it again, it's it's in walking distance.

You could walk to Oak Greenwich, you can walk down to the park, you can walk right out to the bus stop that's on Fairfield Avenue.

The only thing can I respond to that?

What did you mention my name?

Bill, just just one sec.

I I think what the board is saying, well, I don't think the board is is saying that there's too much traffic.

Um, we're waiting to hear from the TTP on that.

Um, I think what we're saying is that this size of this apartment building is not consistent with the surrounding area, which is the um the lower density areas that surround this property.

Um so um if anyone on the board disagrees with me, you know, please please say it.

Sorry, Bill, go ahead.

Uh it's okay.

Uh I'm good.

Okay.

But I just let me just make that one last comment that uh remembered the apartment building is up against railroad track, heavy industrial, and a golf course in two sides.

It's really no impact to the two-family neighborhood to the east or the industrial or the um office part to the south.

Okay.

Um Mike, you're uh muted, Mike.

Mike, you're muted.

Yeah.

If I can, I'd like to add to Mr.

D'Andrea's comments.

And if I could share my screen, Anita.

Sure.

Yep.

So I I think it's important to start where we began.

And you're not nothing is showing up yet.

There we go.

Yeah, it is.

So we start where we began, which was an industrial building on this site, which took up the bulk of the site.

Uh, and as was testified to at the last hearing, there were some 400 employees.

So 400 employees in traffic on the peak hours, both in the morning and the evening, it generated probably far less traffic than this proposal uh will generate.

You can also see that the building was quite large uh and uh took up much of the site without being necessarily integrated into the site.

And I understand we're all saying this is an appropriate spot for housing, but maybe you'd like a little bit less in the back.

The proposal that was advanced in the staff report to convert it to R5, Vanita puts in the text of that that it would yield some 200 units if the entire site were in an R5 district.

And I submit to you that the delta between 200 or 261 is not that dramatic for this neighborhood, particularly when the front part of the site will be all the townhouses, which are very much a transition to the rear portion.

And as Len pointed out, that rear portion is bordered by heavy screening, number one, but the golf course on its entire southern border, southerly border, uh, it's westerly border, and on the northerly border, you have the train tracks and industrial and commercial properties.

Now, just to Lens point, I think we can look at the sites he talked about, Stamford Landing for one.

Uh, is got a very similar proposal with 88 townhouse kind of condo units in the front and 218 apartments in the rear of that site.

Now I did the calculations that comes out to about 28 units per acre.

Um our proposal is 28.5 per acre.

So I think it's it's very similar.

They use the same road work.

Uh, likewise, you've got 323 apartments down on the TGM site, and uh the last site that was talked about, um was Bay Point with 109 units um less than three acres.

We have nine acres, so I think all we've talked about are sites that are within the water neighborhood, and Len didn't even go into the commercial and industrial uses that are in the neighborhood uh and are quite compatible with the area.

You've got the Conair office building, you've got Platex, their old building, you've got uh the the Gartner Group building, you have a host of uh sites along the train tracks which are industrial.

Um, and when we talk about the zoning in that area, I think it's important um to point out that that neighborhood does include uh a number of similar zoning categories that we've talked about.

There's there are RMF in the neighborhood.

Um let's keep in mind that the planning board changed the master plan so that the front was in a category three, and the rear is in a category five, which is for high density housing.

The planning board looking at their own master plan changed that to correspond with an RMF category.

Likewise, the planning board has recommended approval of both the zone change and the special permit uh and site plan application.

EPB has approved it.

The plan complies with all the height area and bulk requirements.

It's producing 26 affordable units.

If we go down, we're gonna lose some units.

I'm not sure in an R5 category that we would have home ownership.

We're producing 60 home ownership units, six of which would be BMRs.

It's a large site, it's over nine acres.

There aren't going to be that many sites uh that come before you uh for consideration, and I think we have to be careful that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot because the site is ripe for this kind of development.

Um as we've pointed out, yeah.

I'm sorry, can you just show us on this what's on the screen now?

Where the site is.

Yeah.

Is it that RMF?

No.

Where is it?

Let me come down here.

Bottom map.

Right here is our site.

Right here.

Can you see that?

Uh no.

Is that the MG?

Well, it's it's in the MG zone right now, yes.

Right here.

And the R10 that's shown here is the NS Arden Golf course.

To our north is all MG.

And over here, and there is RMF, just a stone's throw away abutting that same neighborhood.

The DWD district all along the water is where those other complexes are that we just showed you.

The IPD, which is just down the street, allows for the commercial buildings that I just identified, whether it's Conair, Gartner Group, or some of the others.

This is very consistent, and that whole area at the rear of the site will be bordered by industrial or commercial uses or the golf course.

The more intense use of that property is not near or there's a transition with the townhouses.

And that's why we've developed it that way.

And I just fear we're gonna we run the risk of missing a great opportunity here to have housing on a site that is appropriate for it.

And I don't think a delta of some 60 units makes that much of a difference.

Okay.

Um have anything they'd like to say.

If I may add something too, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, please.

Well, attorney Kase was speaking, gave us a little chance to do a little math, but you basically hit on the numbers.

Um the mix that we're proposing is 576 bedrooms.

If we were to turn it all to R5, it would yield 600 bedrooms going for the bonus.

If we did a mix of R5 and RM1, it would be 516 bedrooms.

So I don't think going to R5 is is the appropriate answer.

I think the apartment complex, when it's a mix of well, one bedroom units, two bedroom units, and three bedroom use, just gives another opportunity, gives housing opportunity for people that just don't want the climb stance.

So keep that in consideration as well as there should be a transition from this high industrial to a golf course or a two-family neighborhood to our east.

And I hope you consider that as well.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um again, just to make clear the board is my understanding is that the board is not um that first that the board supports housing here.

Um, I think that was clear from what everyone said.

Um it was just the the density of the housing and that I don't think it was a traffic issue so much as an incompatibility issue that because there is the um these R6, R7 and a half, R10, all around that area that this apartment building um would not would not be compatible with the neighborhood.

Mr.

Chairman, the R 10 is not even developed.

That's that's the golf course.

So whatever that zone, I think really should not play a role here.

Let's also consider the fact that we've submitted 40 letters from people in the neighborhood that support the project.

And as uh has been pointed out, um at least one board member has heard from members of the community that they're in support of this.

I don't think it's incompatible.

Okay.

Um understood.

I board.

Does anyone have anything else uh they would like to add before we go to the public?

No, let's go to the public, Dave.

Yeah, okay.

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

Um when you're called on, um, please give us your name and address and um keep your comments please to three minutes, and uh if you have some trouble getting through, uh send an email to Benita at V Mater, M-A-T-H-U-R at Stamford C T.gov.

So take it away.

Yes.

Uh the first speaker we have is the phone number ending in 5035.

Yes, hi, good evening.

My name is Lenine Krasnow, and I'm a resident of Waterside for 45 years.

And I have a number one.

Can you give us sorry, give us your address, please?

Yes, my address is one Dolphin Cove Quay.

And first of all, I want to thank you for hosting um tonight's event.

Um, very much appreciated.

Um, I have a couple of comments.

One is um I'm not opposed to additional housing.

I can understand the need that we have here in Stanford.

I do have some concerns though that leads me to want to object or non-concur whatever the appropriate language is.

Well I support the housing and I support a variety of housing as it's kind of being described in this site I think that some of the information doesn't reflect the reality of somebody living here.

So specifically I would point to a couple of things um and I hope I'm interpreting the diagrams correctly but the fact that the complex which has been described by the applicant himself and his various representatives as being the largest property or you know a huge complex um having tandem parking you know in front of these units is going to end up looking very crowded even though these units are supposed to be you know the ones facing Fairfield and the site you know attractiveness of that I think is is not going to be strong.

Someone else made the comment that you know what's the difference between 200 and 261 units well it's 30 percent so it is a significant number.

You know the other thing is if you look at the SLR drawing figure one that I'm not on I'm on the phone as you know I'm I think I'm referring to the same drawing that the gentleman was referring to.

If you just look at that picture of all of the units on the or the complex is on the right side along the um channel of the um harbor and then you look at Congress and Burrowood and those other streets and then what's off to the left where this proposed site for development is it looks like they're physically being squeezed by these larger type facilities.

Because they'll have no view of this golf course what Innes Arden does and you can see it for example on Fairfield Avenue the residents of Fairfield Avenue aren't looking across at the golf course because Innis Arden weaves um green tape in an among the metal fence such that people can't see into their um golf course so I don't think that's a good way to promote this as being you know beneficial for the neighborhood um I'd like to talk to traffic for a minute um I know that several of the gentlemen had you know a lot of data that they were pointing to but they don't and I know they drove the neighborhood and all that but I find it really hard to believe that you're on Fairfield Avenue trying to go from Congress Street to Selleck and you don't have to wait two traffic lights to get through there.

So I can't imagine what 262 cars dumping out onto Melrose are going to do as they try to move into Fairfield I know they have the numbers I know they've told the story I just really question the reality of that explanation was well they won't all go to Melgor so go somewhere else so if they go to Congress and they go down to Southfield a lot of work was done on Southfield Avenue tremendous amount of work it looks very very good and the rotary that was built where just you know that's your you're at three minutes if you could wrap up please all right so then let me just see if I had another point I wanted to make oh and in terms of the ice skating rink please go to their website they advertise 86 parking spaces if you look at the pictures alone on a on a weekend there's over a hundred kids on that ice rink so the traffic on the weekend is going to be comparable to the traffic excuse me you need to conclude um your remarks my my con yeah so my conclusion is is that I'm not sure the traffic really reflects the reality of the traffic for people who drive the traffic and I think that the neighborhood will have additional traffic on the weekend that they don't have during uh during the week thank you for the opportunity to speak great thank you could we take this down please thank you next next we have miss Kathy Smith Ms Smith can you unmute yourself I move to the next speaker yeah next we have Mr John McCall McAlway McGatley Macaboy MacAloy sorry um is that Miss Smith um yes I can you hear me yes I apologize trying to use this thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak my name is Kathy Smith I live at two little cove lane in old Greenwich and I'm speaking as a resident I am also a member of St.

Smith?

Um can you hear me?

Yes.

I apologize.

Trying to use this.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Kathy Smith.

I live at two Little Cove Lane in Old Greenwich.

And I'm speaking as a resident.

I am also a member of St.

Clement's Parish.

And I'm opposed to this application.

This project has a significant impact on our community.

And this is my concern.

The back apartment proposed is a dense development.

This will house, I think around twice the population of the entire residential waterside community.

This is not low or medium dense housing.

It overpowers the community.

And I agree with Medita Mature.

This is not the best fit for the site.

David Stein said the density is too much compared to the neighborhood.

It's incompatible with the neighborhood.

I agree.

Rosanne McMahon has just agreed that this request is allowing too many units.

This large project is not located in a walkable area of a train station or local stores.

This means that the residents of the development will need to use their own cars to access the train station and other commercial amenities outside of the waterside community.

It doesn't make sense as a walkable community.

This traffic of the project will significantly impact the residential streets in Waterside and in Old Greenwich.

As Lindy Andrea just said, many cars will be turning into the old Greenwich community to get to the train and access other amenities.

Our residential streets are already crowded.

A realistic traffic study needs to be done.

Driving the area doesn't mean anything until the units are built.

To my knowledge, no consult consultation of traffic impact has been coordinated with the town of Greenwich.

And I urge you to look at a scaled back version of this plan to make sure it fits properly into the surrounding community.

And it takes into account the traffic flow into the Waterside community and to old Greenwich.

And I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Mr.

John McAvoy.

Thank you.

I don't know why I couldn't unmute, but anyway, I just want to make a few corrections.

Can you introduce yourself and give us your address, please?

John McAvoy, 88 Southfield Avenue, Stanford Landing.

Thank you.

I've been visiting there a number of times, and I know that Condor has moved.

However, I just want to point out they're still there.

They just moved down the street.

So they still have the cars.

I still have the people.

That's not been made, uh no one's comment about that.

They just say, well, they just left.

They didn't leave.

Number two, uh, for where I live, we don't we just have 88 units.

That's including the townhouses and the apartments.

We don't have an extra 218.

So you triple the number of people that we have here.

Number three, the uh two uh horseshoe-shaped uh uh complexes, which is right down the street.

Uh that's the TGM building.

I'd like to point out that they have a van that's constantly going back and forth, taking the residents of TGM down to the train station.

I don't know where else they go, maybe the center of Stanford.

Uh but that's a big help for them.

Uh number four is that the I did visit the ice rating ring, and it's not really an ice rating ring, it's a hockey ring for kids, young kids, and I'm all in favor a thousand percent.

It's a great idea.

Uh I was told by a person who works there, uh, the gentleman behind the desk, he says he's there every day.

And he said every day they come in there for the uh teams meetings and so forth.

Uh and uh it's three o'clock, it's really busy time.

Now I we're getting different stories here.

Uh when I was there on a Saturday, there were uh at least every single parking place almost was taken.

Uh and I know another person who may speak up, uh, who had his son go and count the cars going in and out of there.

Uh you'll probably hear from him later tonight.

Uh 300, well about 150 one way, 150 the other way in one hour.

And the residents, uh, I mean, these people have worked hard, saved their money, got their deposit, bought their home, and now on the weekends I've got all these cars coming and going out of the wings hockey place.

Now we're gonna have this huge complex.

I am very in favor of the complex.

It's beautiful, and uh attorney Caca done a wonderful job, and you're very uh good about giving everything, all the details and so forth.

Uh it just needs to be toned down a little bit.

It's just too much, too many uh units.

And uh it just uh it's another issue we haven't talked about.

Yeah, what about the increased need for uh police fire, emergency vehicles and so forth?

These are all part of the infrastructure, all part of our community, and so it's just uh it's it's it's just too much.

Uh so you've got to tone it down some.

And so uh you it started out with less with fewer uh apartments, now you've increased it.

Uh and I mean you're doing your job, and you know, I understand that.

Uh we try to do the best we can, but this is the rest of the community saying it's got to be toned down a little bit.

So you'll be happy, and we'll be happy.

Okay, and that's it.

Thank you, sir.

Good.

Thank you.

We have a starling cavero.

Good evening.

My name is Darlene Calvillo.

I live in 34 Melrose, place.

And I want to talk about the traffic.

And I know they're talking about a lot about the there is no barely car traffic, but for you guys to really see the traffic, you have to be here from six o'clock in the morning and no moving.

Just stay here, please.

Until 8 45 APM, you will see the traffic coming in and going out from the ice skating ring.

It's a lot of cars.

And my daughter was just listening that I was on the meeting right now, and she just told me that another friend was gonna get hit this morning trying to cross from Melrose to Fairfield to go to the bus' stop.

So having too many cars is going to be really bad.

And I think I have pointed out my concern is my kids, my family, and it's also the neighbors' family, and I know they mentioned about Corner, and I was here before Cornair was closed down, and over the weekends, it was super quiet, and we were able to go and walk to Corners in the front yard.

We were playing we were training our kids to ride the bikes in there because there was no cars, no traffic.

Now the traffic is crazy, and I know like everybody saying, I'm not a paussing either.

It will be a nice thing to have there, but that's way too big.

What happened if you they have family people over?

Where are they going to park their car?

So they're gonna come and take our parking street over, and that would be too much, right?

I know I see everybody's eyes, please.

I have a teenager too.

I have two, so I'm gonna need parking space two.

My driveway is not big enough, but like somebody say we have been working hard to come and get our own house here to have a little residential, and now it's gonna come like a big building.

So I just wanted to please take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next, we have Miss Giovanna Fox.

Ms.

Fox, can you unmute, please?

I also queue up the next person.

Um Jason Kennard.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

Is that Ms.

Fox?

Yes.

Okay, if you could introduce yourself and give us your address, please.

Yes, my name is Giovanna Delia Fox, and my family has owned the home on the corner of Barrie and Melrose.

So it's eight Barry Place for 60 years.

We support the plan for townhouses across the street, as they would bring more family and green space to the area.

But we have serious reservation about the density of the proposed apartment building in the rear.

The current infrastructure on Melrose and Barrie cannot support such a high density project size.

To the best of my knowledge, the updated traffic study was finalized in June of 2025 before the ice skating rink was even open.

And correct me if I'm wrong.

Parking is also very limited in this area.

Our household and many other homes rely on parking on Melrose and to a lesser extent, Barry.

And spaces are frequently taken by employees and attendance attendees of the loading dock, which I'm not sure if you realize is a catering hall that's behind there during events.

Earlier this meeting, I heard a proposal for potentially enroaching upon some grass area on Melrose.

And I'm not certain I understand exactly where the grass is, then other our lawn.

So I would definitely appreciate some clarification on this.

Thank you.

Next we have Mr.

Kennard.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Chair and board members, I'm Jason Connard.

I live at 150 Southfield Avenue.

Previously lived in Davenport Association for seven years.

Thank you for hearing me uh voice my strong support of 25 Berry Place.

We're asking, I think we're delivering a proven upgrade for the neighborhood.

First, this fits perfectly right down the street.

We have uh TGM Anchor Point, my current residence.

We have 323 units, 62 more than 261 that the project calls for and has been a gold standard of success for 25 years.

No traffic chaos, no drop in property values, just higher property taxes, and a vibrant harbor.

We've heard other examples uh on the same street.

Uh, but at 261 units, uh, we're actually a conservative choice and well under zone density.

Um second, I believe the neighborhood wins big uh 50 million dollars in new assessed value lowers everybody's taxes.

Uh 26 affordable homes keeps water side diverse.

Uh 2 million in development funded fixes, repaves Barrie Place into upgraded sidewalks and upgraded drainage.

Uh 20% fewer peak hour trips than office or warehouse use.

The alternative commercial, I think would be a disaster for Water Side.

Uh the uh Stanford office vacancy rate is 30 percent.

Commercial means double the trucks and idling diesel.

Um the uh residential cleans the soil, quiets the block, uh funds our future.

Um I just like to finish up by saying it is um not just 261 units, it's 261 reasons Waterside gets better.

Um please approve the entitlements and let's build the neighborhood we all want.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you.

Um I don't see other hands.

You could wait a couple of minutes to see if anybody else wants to speak.

Okay, next we have Mr.

Salvador Zarella.

Let me allow Mike here.

Okay.

Cesarella, you should be able to unmute now.

Did we lose him?

Um, can you hear me?

Yes, yes.

Yes, we can hear you.

Good evening, everyone.

Um I want to uh I'm sorry, could you could you introduce yourself, please, and give us your address?

Yes, I will.

My name is Salvatore Zarella, and I live on 42 Keith Street.

That's uh say between Congress and Burwood.

So I would like to just briefly go over some of the points that uh were made.

Uh but one um real salient point that I'd like to uh mention is the intent of our master plan and how our master plan drives towards the uh MU1 designations in our land use, and it's designated to be near uh public transportation and to be walkable.

And so as guidance related to the master plan and the use of certain areas and their proximity to those the infrastructure, this site is actually the furthest from all of the transport um being as it compared to South Avenue uh South uh South uh Southfield.

I I've heard a lot of the comparison southfield regarding Stanford Landing and the units there.

It's a it is as Mr.

Morris pointed out, apples and oranges.

And we've taken the the densest, one of the densest complex and put it into the most remote remote portion of the waterside on as Derek had mentioned, streets that are there's no activity on, as he says.

And I think that the neighbors that live there and own there intend them to remain as quiet streets.

So I I heard uh Mr.

Connard talk about how all the benefits to the neighborhood related to taxes and infrastructure and many of the things that have always been speculative and subjective, but have we discussed at all what what it really means to the residences that live here and I've heard you know Mr.

D'Andrea, who I've respect and admire very much, talk about uh and I have to disagree with him on this point, unfortunately, that he's came here for a month.

Well, I must say that I didn't have to come here for a month.

I've I've been here for 50 years.

And so the culture and the type of the traffic moves and and what really happens here can't be we can't ignore the people who are living here and observe those conditions and understand what's happened to the streets and how we can no longer park in front of our homes, whereas before it wasn't an issue.

And so the absurdity to think that this doesn't affect traffic is I have to laugh at that notion in so many ways, because we're also ignoring what actually happens today.

Most homes have three times as many deliveries than they've ever had before.

So when you have 261 cars and most every family has two cars.

So this the parking regs are outdated and set in the sense where they they now have their the parking regs for this zone is scaled to one and a half instead of two per family, not in tandem.

These are one and a half and in tandem.

So when you talk about the amount of actual cars necessary, the site can't support that.

And I don't understand why even 200 units is even discussed, as if that's you know uh a reasonable compromise.

I think that that's so unreasonable, even at those numbers, because when we look at the uh Platex complex.

Mr.

Sarella, you have a few minutes.

We we we see a site that's about nine acres, and they have 57 townhouses propo proposed.

So what's being proposed is orders of magnitude greater than what has been proposed on South on South on uh on uh Fairfield Avenue.

And I might note that no there has been no objections to that complex and that development that I know of on Fairfield Avenue with the 57 townhouses.

However, you need to wrap it up.

You've hit three minutes, if you could conclude, please.

Um I I think that we need to if they if we need to I I I think I've I've made the most major points.

I think it's mostly in violation of the master plan and the intent of the master plan.

And uh the we should think about townhouses at the density that is also similar to what's already here, and I think a model would be the Fairfield Avenue division sub uh subdivision that's taking place.

I think that would be very appropriate.

Thank you.

Next we have Father Carlos Rodriguez.

Father, can you unmute?

There you go.

Can you hear us?

Father, you're unmuted.

You can speak.

I think it's he might be trying to speak, but they're not to hear.

Yeah.

I don't understand.

Father.

Okay.

Um.

Father, why don't you try to see if you can um make it so you can speak.

In the meantime, I don't see any other hands, so why don't we go to the uh the applicant?

Yep.

There we have another hand.

Okay, Mike, you're just gonna have to hold a little while longer.

Yeah, Mr.

Dave Adams.

Dave, can you unmute.

Okay.

Um while we're waiting for the two people to see if they could speak.

Um Mike, you want to go ahead and begin responding to the public comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh let me uh just go in reverse order.

And uh first of all, let me say I appreciate all the comments that were made, and I understand they're made in uh good faith and with good intentions.

Mr.

Zarella points out that his most salient point is the master plan, and I would just note for the record that the authors of the master plan, the planning board of the city of Stanford, have issued letters unanimously supporting the two proposals that are before you.

So it's certainly consistent with the master plan, and even the authors of the master plan found that.

Um, uh updating the traffic report.

The traffic report has always included data concerning uh the wing skating facility.

Um in terms of her request for permit parking, uh frankly I have no objection to that because we feel we have more than sufficient parking on site and to the extent we don't want people from our site parking on the streets.

Uh that's fine.

I would note that uh a universal theme through the comments was the traffic.

I would just remind people that again we had a facility there was used by Pitney Bowes, was used by other people that had as many as 400 employees, and frankly, I think this proposal will generate less traffic to the extent that it was pointed out that Connair still is there.

They've always had their office building there, but this site was used by Pitney Bowes and others, and ultimately by Connair when they purchased it for industrial warehouse type purposes, and it was separate and apart from the corporate office.

So the industrial facility that existed on this site is no longer there and it's not being used right now.

It's got to be put to a new use.

The traffic studies we've produced indicates that there'll be no degradation in terms of level of service.

And frankly, uh we think that the proposal that's before you uh deserves your full support.

And again, I would just note that we have submitted 40 letters from people in and around that waterside neighborhood uh supporting this project.

And we would encourage you to see fit to approve it in all respects.

Okay, thank you.

Benita, do we have any other members of the public?

Um, we we still have Father uh Rodriguez um trying to speak.

Maybe we can go um back to him.

We have Mr.

Dave Adams and then Mr.

Zarilla has the hand raised again.

So have Mr.

Kennard.

Okay.

So Father Rodriguez, can you speak now?

Okay, Mr.

Adams is ready to speak.

Mr.

Adams, uh would you like to take your name and address?

Um give you a comment.

David, should I move um back to the speakers of spoken already?

Sure.

Okay.

Mr.

Zarella, uh, can you unmute yes?

I uh would like to talk about the um the master plan and the uh Mr.

Kikes um mentioned a point.

Um I'd like to address that, but one point I think is probably critically more important is what it means for the MU1 district land use category and this density and what the qualifications for that means.

And it means that walkability shall be within a 10-minute walk.

Okay.

So a 10-minute walk uh represents I believe half a mile.

And uh it's indicated in the master plan uh specifically, and it states that many many times uh on what that definition of that use.

This this category, this unit, this uh complex is in the far-reaching corner of the waterside.

Now, Mr.

Kesi also mentions often that the and and and also I might add that his I I believe he made a pretty disingenuous statement, and I don't think it's uh a statement that I can overlook in that the planning board did uh change that zone.

However, the land use bureau preemptively changed that category because of the application that was submitted by your by the applicant.

So the after the approval and during the process of the uh the uh the the 2035 comprehensive planning, and only during that time after it was approved, after the application was approved, there's a lot of background noise.

I don't know if everybody can hear that.

Yeah, we can keep keep going.

So as a result of that of that approval, um, through the planning board, land use bureau preemptively changed that zone.

So it wasn't uh it was only through that application that was submitted that the zone was changed.

Now the it was always stated, it's a bit distracting, so I don't know if everybody can hear me.

Yeah, I don't know what's causing that.

I think I'll I'm gonna I'm not I think I'm gonna wait to speak so the noise to subside so I can get it through what I want to say.

Sure.

I wonder if it's everybody could mute for a minute.

Okay, I think it's Mr.

Adams.

Okay, that's it.

Wow, okay, that's weird.

Now I can unmute.

Can you hear me?

Now but you had a lot of people.

Wow, okay.

So I I've been it it it it's all you know grayed out on my side, so I don't have any control over my mute at all.

Uh you you just excuse me, I'm sorry.

So uh hi, my name's Dave Adams, uh 242 Glenbrook Road.

Um, and I wanted to say that I'm not in favor of this project.

Uh I think it is uh as uh I've heard in this meeting uh a number of times uh not reflective or reflective enough of the surrounding community.

Uh and I just have to ask, I mean, but this is a really um it's a nice looking project, and I want to give credit to the uh the the project uh you know developers uh that they they did a beautiful uh job drawing this up, but what is it looking out to?

Um you know, the the 14 acre site.

Um I I just think that this could be better.

Uh and I I just don't think that this particular project is is it's just too much.

And I the other thing that needs to be considered here is you move all of these new people in and you basically match the population of the existing neighborhood of Waterside, and you you have uh taken all of the voting power away from the existing members or the existing residents.

Uh, I think that's something that should be thought about.

All right, thank you, and I hope you have a wonderful evening.

Thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Uh just to clarify the the Yeah, please.

Uh the residential um water side is about uh six and a half thousand people.

So this doesn't this 261 units won't double the size of water side?

I mean, the thing is that um it's units, so it's more than one person, but the the current population of water side is about six and a half thousand people, just to that we all clear on the numbers.

There was something about um staff changing.

Did you remember that a couple minutes ago about staff changing the master plan or the yes, we didn't change the master plan.

It was an uh private application by uh Mr.

Caces' team.

May I finish what I wanted to say.

Uh who is this?

It's uh Salvatore.

I was speaking before, and I wasn't able to because of all the noise.

Sure.

So uh yes, Mr.

Blessing is uh is correct as a result of the application.

That's how the master plan was changed.

So it wasn't the planning board that actually preempted that change in this zone.

So that's what I wanted to address.

Uh Mr.

Kikesi wanted to cede the point that the planning board uh was somehow behind it.

And and and from that standpoint, no, but uh I think that I wanted to just make sure that we understand of what this land use category and where it should be and how the uh comprehensive plan dictates those places.

And we have often heard throughout the whole process of approval through the comprehensive plan.

The most this is a very important point that I think is very important to make is that the comprehensive plan has been intentionally made less descript than the previous master plan because the onus and responsibility would fall on more capable, cogent, direct, specific hands in the zoning board to uh maneuver and be very considerate of where structures are being built instead of being confined to the strict rules of the previous master plan.

And so that was the philosophy and intent of why we ended up with a a comprehensive plan was that was far less detailed, and now the zoning board has to dictate it.

So Mr.

Kicasi, I would hope to think that he needs that should be understood that that current comprehensive plan is extremely broad, but it's very important that the community is considered and we have to remember one thing.

I think as a community as a longtime resident or full of all-time residents of the waterside, is that we have to consider the community first before things get done to disrupt people's assets, and that's what's happening here.

And are we going to leave?

Is this development going to leave the place better than how they found it?

I don't think there's any opposition to the to the residential development.

And I'd like to further add that Mr.

Case Kase can compares it constantly to the industrial zone.

So let's not confuse the people that are in favor of the project to be the same people that are not in that are not that are in uh not in favor to uh of the of the so just because the industrial zone has been so predominant and so awful from a pollution and contamination perspective that this is just that much better because it's not industrial.

I think that it's important to note that we we should have residential.

And there was wasn't one square foot of space in the MG zone reduced during the master plan.

So now it is the planning uh the zoning board job to determine what is appropriate and what is not and and what fits in our community.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it very much.

David, we have a new speaker, Mr.

Gregario Penzino.

Okay, is um you want to check and see if um Father Rodriguez is able to speak?

Yes.

Father Rodriguez, could you would you like to speak?

Uh you should be able to unmute.

Well, Father, keep working on it.

We'll go on to the next speaker.

Mr.

Pantino, uh, would you like to let you to ask in full?

Yeah.

No, no, it's yeah.

We can hear you now.

Hello, Father Carlos, yeah.

Oh, okay.

Father Carlos, please go ahead.

Yes.

You know, I've been listening to everybody's input this evening, and one of the things that really uh bothers me is that if you look at if this this project will have a negative impact on this area, there are two people who should really speak out against it.

It's Inis Aden and it's St.

Clement's Parish.

And neither one of us has spoken against it, right?

If you go to the Brooklyn Institute, uh, they said that in from the year 2000 to 220, 18,000 people move into Stanford, and that was 40% of the state's entire population.

So we have a crisis in housing uh a crisis in housing development here in Stanford.

And I mean, this would clearly help with that housing problem, you know.

And secondly, if you look at the what is being done, if if this project comes to a screeching halt, I don't want to look across every day at that property like uh uh you know, something negative, like an ISO.

We had a property down on Tressia Boulevard, I've been living here 25-30 years now on Treasure Boulevard, and it never got developed, and you pass Trussha Boulevard every day and you see it like an ISO.

And I don't want to see that as an I saw today or any other uh any other day from today.

I want to see something developed there, particularly housing for the people, affordable housing.

Thirdly, uh the previous owner of that place was Mr.

Rosuto, and he was a very kind man and he helped a lot of people with his money nationally and internationally.

And I sure, you know, now that he's deceased, he would love to see that property used for residential purposes and nothing else, because that was the heart that he had.

And it's very emotional for me to see that we we get so much of a pushback and negativity because if the zoning board has already asked for everything and and and the the company uh uh the project, the company who who wants to push forward this project has done everything that the zoning board has requested, why should we not go ahead with it?

Why should we not go ahead with it?

And like I said before, the two people who should be talking out against this place, if it really affects them adversely, it's in Clemens Parish and the golf course in a saddle, and neither one of us is negative towards it.

Good.

Thank you, Father.

You're welcome, God bless.

Um I don't see any other hands raised.

Okay.

Um case, any further comments you'd like to make.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, I think we've made our presentation.

I think we've satisfied the zoning regulations.

This is completely consistent with the master plan as adopted by the planning board.

It's consistent with the planning board's letters to you recommending approval.

It is in our view very much in keeping with the neighborhood.

It will be an improvement to the neighborhood and a welcome addition.

Is appropriate for this site and the neighborhood?

And we respectfully request that you approve the map change and the site plan and special permits.

Okay, thank you.

Board, we are um waiting at this point for um TTP to get back to us on the revised traffic report.

Um does it make sense to continue this then until we get that from TTP.

I would feel more comfortable, Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, so we can ask questions about it if we need to.

Okay.

Um I agree.

Okay.

So um applications uh well, I'm sorry, was there anything before we continue it?

Board, any further questions or comments anyone wants to make.

Okay.

Do you want to discuss the date for the continuation?

Uh Mr.

Kikes.

Um we could continue it to December 1st, but I'm not sure we'll have the letter by that by then.

What is going on tonight?

I need to uh mute a few people here.

Try it again.

There are no open mics, right?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Go ahead, Benita.

Um, so I would just ask Mr.

Cakees what date uh would you like this to be continued to?

Well, I think that may be determined by when we can receive input from TTP.

Right.

Um but as far as the applicant is concerned, we'd like to move this forward uh as soon as we can when you get that report, at which time you know our traffic people can uh be part of the discussion as well.

Benita, we don't have any idea, do we?

Um when to expect the report from TTP.

I don't all I know is that um staff is out this week.

Um, you know, look who is working on the on the review.

Well, look, why don't we continue it until our next meeting?

Um hopefully between now and then the report will come in and um we'll have a chance to review it and applicant can respond to it.

Um and if for some reason it doesn't make it by next Monday, then we'll just have to push it off till the 15th.

Is that Mike?

Did that work?

It'll have to work, your Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Okay, so um applications 224-18 and 225-23 are continued until the next zoning board meeting on December 1st at 6.30 on teens.

Thank you.

Um we now go on to um the next application we have is application 225 29, which is 120 C Long Ridge.

Um that application um uh we're showing on the agenda is also being