All right, let's give it a minute so that I can let everybody in.

Okay.

Give us the word.

Yep.

Okay, I think we can start now.

Okay.

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

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Zoning Board, and it is 6.44 p.m.

on December 15th, 2025.

Apologies for the uh delay in getting the meeting started.

Uh, the members of the board and the staff are holding this meeting by Zoom 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 Bill Morris.

Here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Jerry Bozak.

Here.

Uh Ralph Glessing.

And Vanita Mater.

Yeah.

Good.

Well, you have everyone.

Um during tonight's meeting, the microphones for the board will be on throughout the entire meeting.

The applicant's mics will be on during the public hearing when their application is being heard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we'll let you know when you get to three minutes.

And at that point, we would ask you to uh conclude.

Uh if you have trouble getting on for some reason, please send an email to Vanita and she will do her best to uh get you on to speak.

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

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

And you can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and all of the meeting applications and other materials by going to our website at www.stanfordct.gov slash zoning.

And now we have um the first two applications for tonight continued from uh November 24th.

Uh we have application 224-18 Continental Family Holdings LLC by Michael Cake, 11 Summer Street.

This is a zoning map change relating to 23 Berry Place.

Applicants proposing to rezone 23 Berry Place from the current MG Manufacturing General to the proposed RM1, multiple family district, low density design district, and RMF, multifamily residence design district zoning district.

The second application, uh also for 23 Berry Place is 225-23.

This is the site and architectural plans and or requested uses and special permit.

Applicant is also Continental Family Holdings LLC.

The applicant is proposing to construct 60 townhouses and a 185-unit apartment building with a total of 450 parking spaces and associated amenities.

Good to see you again.

Um, in the meantime, you've provided some additional materials to us.

In fact, I saw that um we got some today, and I'm not to admit I haven't not had a chance to review them, so I'm not sure what they are.

Um, and there's been a staff report and a TTP report issued.

So um why don't you um just um um take it away and um tell us uh about what we've received and any responses uh you have to the reports.

Thank you, Mr.

Stein and members of the board.

Um for the record, my name is Michael Cakeis.

I'm counsel for the applicant on both of the applications before you.

And as the chair indicated, when we last uh met the hearing was postponed uh until tonight, uh, in particular to give TTP an opportunity uh to respond to the latest traffic report which had been submitted by SLR.

I would note for the record that I'm joined this evening uh by Len DeAndrea and Derek Dunay uh of the D'Andrea Engineering Firm, Ravi Ahuya is on.

We have representatives from SLR, our traffic consultant, and Matt Pop as well.

Three things have occurred.

You're correct, Mr.

Chairman.

We have received the report from TTP.

We have also submitted uh revised plans for this project, and third, we have a new staff report.

So let me just in general terms uh respond to all three of those events, uh, and then I'll turn it over to uh Derek and Len who will speak in greater detail.

First of all, we did get today uh the response from TTP who analyzed uh the traffic report submitted by SLR, and quite frankly, we uh have reviewed uh Luke's comments and find them acceptable, and we agree with them.

And I will note for the record that with regard to each of his uh comments, we will agree to any and all of the conditions uh that he has suggested.

I would note for the record a couple of things that the most important uh intersection is probably that at Melrose and Fairfield Avenue, and that remains in a level A or B of service even after this project.

So I think that's important to note.

It's also important to note that there is regular bus service, only a few hundred feet from the entrance to this project, which goes directly to the transportation center, and we think uh many of those people uh living there will use uh public transportation.

Number two, uh the one item where Luke points out that there may be a degradation in level of service.

I'd note that the if it occurs, it would reduce the level of service from a B to a C, which is an acceptable level of service, and to the extent he says that improvements may be needed uh, including signal timing and signal equipment.

We are more than happy to agree uh to make that a condition of this uh application.

Moreover, I would note that if you take the numbers for the traffic generated by this project and compare it to what was there previously, they are very consistent with those numbers, except that the new proposal would not have trucks involved, which is a common occurrence when you have an industrial uh use on the site.

Secondly, we heard the board members loud and clear that you were concerned about the density of the project.

And therefore, we went back to the drawing boards, and our architect and engineers looked for a way to reduce the density and address uh the concern of the board.

And what they've done is eliminate the entire center section of the apartment complex at the rear of the property, eliminating some 16 units, each of which were three bedrooms.

There were only 23 bedroom, 23 three bedroom units in our original proposal.

So now we're down to simply seven three bedroom units, and the rest are mostly two bedroom units with a few one bedroom units.

As a result of that change, we have 24 less parking spaces, which has increased the green space, particularly to the north of the project, which has allowed for a larger dog run, a larger play area for children, certainly with 16 less units and 16 three bedroom units, there'll be less traffic, and frankly, we think there'll be less bedrooms in this proposal than if there had been an R5 proposal.

So we think overall it's an improvement, a dramatic improvement to what was originally proposed, and we hope it addresses the concerns that you've raised.

Finally, let me talk about the staff report that was submitted and we received today.

And I will tell you where we were disappointed to see that the staff is recommending that RMF may be a bit too intense, and they have suggested that an R5 category at the rear of the property might be more appropriate.

We don't agree with that.

And with your permission, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to share my screen just for a minute.

Yeah, please go ahead.

All right.

Can you see that?

Yes.

All right.

So we believe that contrary to the staff report, there really is no single family close to this project.

To the north, it's entirely industrial, as you can see on, and I'm using the actual zoning map that's in the staff report.

It's entirely MG to the north of this project.

Although this category over to the west of our site is and to the south is R 10, it is the golf course.

And the golf course is going to remain a golf course.

And although that's an R 10 category, there are no one family or single family residences on that site.

Across the street is an R6 or two-family zoning district.

What's even more important, I think, is that in the upper north corner of the map that is included in the staff report is a RMF category, which is only a few blocks from here.

And if you look at it in a larger setting, that is 19 acres of RMF property, which is only a few blocks from where our project is located.

So when you consider that there's 19 acres of RMF property abutting the industrial zone and close to our site, we think this is very consistent, keeping in mind that the entire front of the project is in RM1 proposal.

We believe that this site will generate no more traffic than the original use as an industrial complex that was on the site.

And they have recommended approval unanimously of both the zone change we've requested and the site plan and special permits that we've created.

Finally, let me just point out using again the map that's been submitted uh in the staff report that the waterside neighborhood is a mix of units, um, including some high density housing, some very intense industrial uses.

There are office complexes uh and institutional uses, and it's a mix which corresponds and works well uh in that area, and the subject site will generate traffic conditions, which are equivalent to that which existed uh when it was used as an industrial site.

With that said, I'd like to turn it over to Derek who can go into greater detail on the proposal.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Uh, my name is Derek Donay from the firm of D'Andrea Surveying and Engineering.

Um, a professional engineer licensed in the state of Connecticut.

Um, our firm provided the site engineering and surveying services for the applicant.

Um, and as Mr.

K's uh attorney case already said, I'm gonna go over and review the site changes associated with the reduction in units previous uh that he mentioned.

Um we did this in response to concerns by members of the zoning board and some of the nearby neighbors during the last zoning hearing regarding the overall density.

So um, and we just want to emphasize also this is a reduction of three bedroom units, not just a single bedroom unit.

So the three bedrooms, which has more residents would involve more density.

So this is a significant reduction.

Um if I can share the screen.

Mike, will you stop sharing and then I'll share?

Yes.

And then I'll go over all these changes and the impacts in more detail here.

All right.

Okay.

Can everyone see my screen of the architects?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So this was the previously proposed uh apartment building.

So I just want to show you the where the reductions take place.

Uh we had this central core right in the center here with these four C units, and those are each three-bedroom units.

So this was the previous proposal, and I want to show you the new proposal right now.

So we reduce those.

So you have the four floors at four three-bedroom units each, so total of 16 three-bedroom units right here.

Now, with that, that also comes with other benefits and reducing the uh day or eliminating those units.

You get the number one, the much larger apartment building courtyard area.

And this uh the courtyard increased in size from about um 6,400 square feet to uh 11,500.

So uh 5100 square foot increase is uh drastic increase of usable passive usable open space, um, a nice congregation meeting area um for the apartment building.

Um, and then this results because of the reduction in units, and I'll bring up the landscape plan here.

You also get, let me just zoom in, a reduction in the requirements for parking.

So, with that, we were able to reduce the parking in the northern parking lot area here.

And by we took out an entire row.

We took out a total of 24 parking spaces.

Now that resulted in a reduction of parking of another 4200 square feet.

Now, this is a site that we already were reducing impervious on the site by 2.3 acres, and this is another tenth of an acre.

So now our total reduction in impervious is 2.4 acres, which is very significant.

Doesn't happen very often on these proposed developments.

Um you redake out the parking, we are allowed to get a larger uh the dog walk dog park area here, the playground area, um, right where my cursor is showing here.

So those both increased.

The dog park went from 1,500 square feet to uh almost 2300 square feet, and the playground area went up from 2500 to uh a little over 4300 square feet.

So those are significant changes, a lot more usable space.

Uh, I know there was a question before about um additional playground areas, so this provides that on the site.

And so the overall usable open space on the site has increased by uh over 5,000 square feet as compared to what was previously proposed.

Um, the reduction in the parking in this northern parking lot area also allowed for larger traffic islands at the ends of the parking rows.

So you can get uh larger trees here.

It also provides more green space and uh um softer turning curves, which is better for the fire truck accessibility as it goes around the area here.

Um, another thing that Matt Pop uh has done from Environmental Land Solutions is he has added some additional trees right in the front courtyard of uh right in front of the apartment building.

Uh some in this island right in the front here.

So as you look down from Barrie Place, you look down the long driveway here, uh, you know, almost 600 feet.

You have some additional trees that help kind of break up screen the frontage of the building uh from Barry Place.

Uh so the elimination of the 16 three bedroom units also results in fewer vehicle trips in and out of the site.

And one of the benefits that we find of this apartment building, as opposed to just all townhouses, is that it provides units to all levels of accessibility.

Plus, it also provides housing with fewer bedroom options.

Mostly uh the apartment building is now mostly of the two bedroom and one bedroom uh variety.

Uh, therefore, the development as a whole, when you do the three bedroom townhouses, the apartment, the low rise, low rise apartment building.

Now they can serve the housing needs for all types of residents.

You have the larger families, the smaller families, couples, singles, seniors, and other people who don't want to climb stairs.

Um, so overall, we feel this is a development that will serve the overall housing needs of the community at large.

Um, and now I'm going to pass this over to Lendy Andrea, talk some more.

So you bring up uh the zoning map.

Zoning map, sure.

All right.

So this is Lendy Andrea on this site, and um also with uh D S and E, principal with the company.

And uh together, Derek and I have been working on this project for probably a couple of years.

So the first slide is just again to show water side.

Again, we feel it's necessary to do this because a comment was made that would suggest that water side is this tiny little uh unique area in Stanford.

And the reality is it's it's fairly significant.

Uh it is about 672 acres.

And some of these numbers I quote you are not me trying to figure it out, but it's actually can be found on the um City of Stanford website.

It extends as you can see from this slide uh from I-95.

Yeah, let me stop in English.

I 95 all the way down to Long Island Sound, and then from the Stanford Greenwich borderline all the way out to the harbor on the uh east side.

It uh actually includes um 16 different zoning districts.

And quickly running through it's the CN, R5, CB, CWD, DWD, ML, MD, IPD, MG, R6, R7 and a half, R10, R20, RA1, RM1, and even RMF as well.

It also includes um three parks.

Uh Rosa Hartman up here in the northwest corner, um, Pukutse Park down here in the southeast, and the extension of Mill River Park near the harbor.

Some of those uh commercial industrial uses occupy as much as 46% of water side.

And it includes like C W D, that's O and G industries.

Um, this whole midsection is bisected as um attorney Kake said with MG, um, heavy industrial uses.

And then you have some CN scattered along Silicon West Avenue.

What we are asking the zoning board to do is to let us improve water side by by providing a transition from the heavy use MG, which again is in this location right there, um, to a low rise building for RMF four stories in the rear, then to a two and a half story RM towards the front, and then out to the street.

The design was selected because the five acres of the RMF is positioned next to the railroad tracks.

Uh, it's next to an access road that leads to a quite new and successful ice rink.

It's set back about two football fields, if you can imagine that from Barrie Place, and is bounded by the golf course to the west and to the south.

And it's important to note because I don't want this to be anyone to be misled by this.

We are not up against any single family use.

The golf course to the west and south, yes, it's zoned R10, but the golf course has been at this location for about 120 years.

They recently built a new clubhouse.

They have a full membership, and I seriously doubt they're going to be selling this to a residential developer anytime soon.

So you can rest assured it'll stay a golf course for a very, very long term.

TTP reported today that they will look to this project to make improvements to Melrose Place.

Derek and I did walk Melrose Place with Luke from traffic before.

We can't disagree that Melroad Place has been neglected over the years.

No sidewalks, no formalized parking.

So we have certainly agreed to do whatever TTP thinks is best.

The um change of use is important in a complement to the neighborhood as well.

So we're taking this southerly portion of the MG and turning it into residential and basically reversing the traffic pattern.

Instead of people coming to work at a prescribed time and leaving at a prescribed time and having trucks going back and forth, instead, we're going to reverse reverse that, and people may be leaving in the morning and maybe returning in the afternoon and not in a rush hour fashion per se, more of a slow pace.

Again, we've mentioned this before, but we have driven this neighborhood so many times at all the key hours.

We have not recognized seeing, I couldn't believe it, that the traffic is as light as it is.

Then uh let's go to uh the bus route real quick.

One of the things we mentioned, and it's a compliment.

This is a good one here.

If you can point out, Derek, where our site is.

Our site is right here where my cursor is, right on the edge of the golf course, 23 Barrie Place.

And about a minute away, walking distance is the bus stop, just a little bit right there.

Right here at the end section.

That bus stop will take you into Old Greenwich, or it will loop you back around to Southfield Avenue, Bulcoce Park and down into downtown.

Railroad station is what we're showing here.

It's about a 12-minute bus ride.

Let's go to the aerial real quick, please.

Okay.

Perfect.

So something I'd like to point out here when you talk about this location.

So in this circle area here that I'm doing right now, which is basically Carlisle, Congress Street, Burwood, this is a large uh two-family neighborhood.

And our uh development will be fronting on Barry Place and the RF When's we discussed, the RMF in the back.

Um people say, how can it change?

Could it change the characteristic of the neighborhood?

Well, we don't think so, but also anyone living in this area wouldn't be going by Berry Place at all.

There would be absolutely no reason.

Pick any street you want.

And if you're going to Old Greenwich, you shoot over to Fairfield Avenue and you go into Old Greenwich.

If you're in this neighborhood and you want to go to downtown Stanford, you can pick one of two ways.

You could pick Fairfield Avenue, or you could slide down and go down through Southford Avenue.

So if you look at this neighborhood and study it, you would be going out of your way to want to see this building.

I can understand why.

It's going to be a beautiful tree-lined approach to this development.

It'll be a huge compliment and transition from the golf course into the railroad tracks in the heavy industrial area.

And we were trying to do with such a large site is not to do, let's give an example like Camp Avenue, where it's all R5, but to break it up.

We had the opportunity to bring in two different types of housing.

As we know, we're talking about two and a half story uh townhouses in the front.

And then in the back, we have such an opportunity to bring in a low rise building for with elevators, parking underneath the building, which is so great environmentally.

And then this um will then provide housing for the full cross-section of people.

Um kitchen and family room areas and the garage.

So we look at this as saying, great opportunity.

We're not anywhere near the two-family neighborhood.

We're in a nice little tight little secure secluded location, the back of this long piece of property of nine acres, and we're bounded by a golf course and train tracks and a slightly lower MG use with with the um coffee rink.

You only have uh a network of driveways of which you're gonna have your garages facing them.

So again, we have this one central drive that comes up tree-lined and you branch off the little alcoves of home, and then you get back to the back, you drive around, you go underneath.

So this instead um adds a lot of green to it.

It gives us as Derek pointed out, we have a lot more green in this than we would have with an R5.

Because if you think about that and think of Camp Avenue as an example, you come in, you you turn into your garages, you have to back out into it, and you do a number of loops.

This doesn't have that.

So as we look at this and basically a quick conclusion, we're not degrading the traffic conditions because we're removing this truck traffic, and we're actually going in reverse of what it was what it was like when it was a building or a factory of sorts.

Uh you know, provides an appropriate use next to the golf course, next to the railroad tracks and the MG uses.

It's a nice buffer.

And it offers a uh diversity of housing opportunities that I think is very, very important and has been welcomed from day one by St.

Clemens and some of our neighbors.

Um it also with the landscaping plan, it's going to bring back vegetation that this area, this location hasn't seen in probably a hundred years.

Um, with that, that's the um basis of my discussion, and certainly glad to answer any questions you may have.

Okay.

Um why don't we continue with uh the presentation um by attorney cake, and then we'll get to questions from the board.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, I think that pretty much sums up uh the uh presentation that we have with regard to the three new matters, including the response from TTP, our revised plans, uh, and the staff report.

Um I would note that the only matter that we submitted today, which wasn't available before today, uh, is sheet A25 on the architectural plans, which shows some more articulation uh on the ends of each of the townhouses uh along the main driveway to give it a little bit more uh articulation from an architectural standpoint, uh, together with the screening that's already been provided and includes uh new windows uh along that entire access way, which is also uh enhanced by the new trees that are at the front of the apartment complex.

With that, uh we'll conclude our presentation and be happy to answer uh any questions from the board, um, including uh questions that may be directed to our architect or our traffic traffic consultant.

Um just to make sure I understand, other than that sheet, you said A25.

Yes, it's the second to last page in the uh material that was submitted.

Okay, but other than that page, all of the other pages are the same as what we received last week, yes, sir.

Okay, good.

Um Mike, do you feel you've you've had enough time to respond to the staff report?

Or you do, Mr.

Chairman.

You know, just by way of history, I I would note that you know Lynn and Derek indicated they've been working on this for a few years.

We've actually gone back as far as 2018, 2019, and at that point, the city encouraged us not to change this site to residential.

They wanted to keep it in an industrial zone.

So we left it in an industrial zone, and it was marketed for several years uh without success.

So we returned uh to the staff, and our original proposal was to do high-density housing on the entire site.

And the staff at that point, both in the planning board staff and the zoning board staff indicated that they would like to see a transitional zone.

So instead we've reduced the entire front portion of the parcel uh fronting on Barry Place to an RM1 category, uh, which allowed for townhouses, which we are proposing to be for home ownership.

We fully intend to offer these for sale, uh, and it gives a transition to the rear portion uh, which we believe is properly categorized as an RMF, just like the 19 acres I pointed out previously.

I would note that although the rear portion could yield as much as 205 units in an RMF category, we're only proposing 185 units at this point in the rear portion uh of that property.

We also lost some units when we met with Innes Arden and they asked us to make some changes.

We came in with a proposal that was for 261 units, and we listened to you uh and and we heard that you were uh concerned about the density, and we've eliminated the uh 16 three-bedroom units in response to that.

We believe under all the circumstances and and including its impact on the neighborhood, that this is completely consistent with good planning, it's a good project, and it'll be good for Stamford.

And we believe we've had enough time to respond to the staff report, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, good.

Um so let's go to the board.

Uh Bill, do you have any uh questions for any of the applicant uh group?

Uh yeah, I guess it'd be for uh Mr.

Case.

If the zoning change request was approved on the back half of the lot, you'll be entitled with bonuses to 40 units per acre.

Is that correct?

In which zone, Mr.

Morris?

The RMF.

The multifamily one.

Yes.

And we and and I I'm glad you pointed that out because we haven't asked for the bonuses.

But you would be entitled to those bonuses, is that correct?

Well, it's subject to a special permit.

So the only restriction, well, maybe not the right word, but the only thing holding you back from putting up the with the bonus is 40 units per acre is a special permit request.

That's true.

And and and I will state for the record that if you're concerned that if this was approved, there might be some subsequent application to increase the density.

We'd be happy to deed restrict uh the parcel uh so that that can't happen.

We're satisfied at this point to have 185 units in the RMF zone of this property.

Okay, to make sure I understood you correctly, so you would put a deed restriction on that particular part of the property making that statement.

Is that correct?

That's correct, Mr.

Morris.

Um, and I'm not sure this would be in your area, Mike, but um there has been discussion regarding uh, and I believe you made the statement though, saying that whatever TTP wanted you guys would do in order to get your development put together.

Yes.

We do we know what those items are specifically.

Well, looking at Luke's uh correspondence today, um he says that uh the intersection of Selleck Street and Fairfield Avenue may require uh adjustments to signal timing, signal equipment, andor in intersection geometry, and we're uh agreeing to that as a condition in uh the opinion of TTP.

Uh number two, uh they talk about improvements to Melrose Place, and Luke adds in response to the material we've submitted that we've agreed to rebuild Melrose Place, and we've submitted documents to that end as part of the site plan, which he seems happy with, and we're happy uh to work with him to make sure uh he's satisfied with those improvements and whatever he uh might impose on us, we're willing to accept.

And we've submitted documents to that end as part of the site plan, which he seems happy with, and we're happy to work with him to make sure he's satisfied with those improvements.

And whatever he uh might impose on us, we're willing to accept.

I I have to admit though, I would be a little reluctant to approve something which states that certain things may or may not be required.

I I don't feel comfortable about that at all.

I would feel much more comfortable if uh if someone said this is we have to do X, Y, and Z, and that's what we're going to do, but just to say that you'll do whatever TTP says, I don't I'm not very comfortable with that statement myself.

Well, unfortunately, at this point, in response to our proposal, and and uh the DeAndrea firm has submitted plans to re uh configure Melrose Place and rebuild it.

Um Luke has only responded to say we've agreed to make those improvements, and we're happy to do that.

Uh he's also imposed a condition that we post a bond, which would require us to do that, and we're happy to post that bond.

Um it's not unusual to have a condition that says uh that we will uh adhere to the requirements of the transportation traffic and parking department.

Uh and then um lastly, I I read that there appears to be some concerns.

Uh, and I can't remember who made that, but I know there were concerns regarding uh the fact that there's only one entrance exit.

And this would potentially cause a problem with you know, in the morning rush hour to evening rush hour, because there's only one way in, one way out, and it's 100 and some odd cars to be trying to make that movement.

Do you have any comments on that?

Well, frankly, I think uh one curb cut at this site is better than two.

Uh and and frankly, there was only one access way to the site prior to this, and there were some 400 employees uh who both used that one entrance for ingress and egress, and it worked.

Uh and I I would you know note that Neil Olinski of our uh traffic consultant, SLR, is here, and maybe he can better address that uh question.

Good evening.

For the record, Neil O'Linski with SLR.

Yeah, we I mean we we analyze the proposed development with the single driveway, and we're uh with the the amount of traffic that is projected um generate.

We we analyzed it and found that it would operate a level service A at the site driveway intersection.

So we're not concerned at all that there's a single driveway.

All right, thank you.

Uh David, that's it for me for right now.

I may have something else later.

Sure.

Okay.

Um Roseanne.

Uh I don't have anything else at this time.

Okay.

Uh Jerry.

Mr.

Chairman, I it was addressed with Bill's question.

My my overall concern was a deed restriction, and that was addressed.

Um the applicant is willing to uh restrict on that site, and uh that to me is uh it's definitely satisfying as long as you're willing to do that because of those 40 extra units.

So that's that's all I had.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

On that issue, just um I'd like to understand it better.

If there's a deed restriction there, and uh applicant comes back to the board um in a couple of years, the board could vote to remove the deed restriction, right?

It's not permanent.

Well, the deed restriction would run in favor of the city of Stanford, and it would require the city uh to eliminate that deed restriction.

I don't think it's just something that the zoning board by itself could uh waive.

So the zoning board could waive the condition limiting the number of units in there in the rear portion, but you're saying could not waive the deed restriction.

Not if it's in favor of the city of Stanford as opposed to in the favor of the zoning board.

And frankly, I'd be prepared to make it run in favor of both the zoning board and the city of Stanford.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I don't have any other questions right now.

Um why don't we go to the public?

If there's anyone here from the public who wishes to speak on either of these two applications, um please raise your hand.

First, we have Mr.

Jason Kennard.

Okay, and when you speak, please um give us your name and your address.

Um also before he starts, uh Len, could you take this uh screen down so we can see the speakers?

Thank you.

Mr.

Connard, you can go ahead.

But you need to unmute.

If there are others trying wanting to speak, maybe we can go to other speakers.

Um Mr.

Kennard.

Um mute.

I don't have any other hands really still.

Oh, I think he's got it.

Mr.

Connard, you can proceed.

Mr.

Kennard.

Um, if you're trying to speak, we can't hear you yet.

Good evening.

Yes, I can hear you.

Thank you for your patience.

Um, good evening, members of the zoning board, friends and neighbors.

My name is Jason Kennard.

I'm a resident of the Waterside neighborhood.

I currently reside at 150 Southfield Avenue.

Uh previously owned property in the Davenport Association, so I've been here for some time.

Uh I'm here tonight in strong support of the redevelopment at 23 Berry Place.

Uh to start, I really love the thoughtful design of the project.

The 60 attractive townhouses and landscaping along the frontage, it creates an inviting landscape.

Uh, the low rise apartment building toward the rear with one floor living provides a sensitive transition to nearby homes.

Uh, I believe this proposal represents the highest and best use of the long-vacant former industrial property.

Uh features like one floor living will attract empty nesters and downsizers, including you know, from neighboring old Greenwich, bringing stable residents who contributes really pretty strongly to the tax base while adding minimal demand on schools and city services, especially now that they've decreased the three bedroom units.

Uh I believe that transforming this site from industrial to residential, uh the project will backstop future positive development and infrastructure improvements in the waterside neighborhood.

Um and I've seen that quality residential projects like this typically lead to rising property values for surrounding homes.

Uh, I believe we could see an increase in 30% or more uh for the neighborhood in the coming five years, benefiting all current homeowners in the area and attracting new residents, including downsizers from nearby communities.

Conversely, if the rezoning is not approved and the property reverts to its current MG zoning, my fear is it could be sold for heavy industrial use, and we could end up with a massive fulfillment or distribution center like Amazon, uh, which would mean hundreds of employees and you know working 24-7 shifts and constant grade delivery trucks driving through the residential streets every day and night.

Um that outcome would dramatically harm the neighborhood's quality of life, the traffic, the property values.

Uh so in summary, I believe this residential project offers clear community benefits with new housing, increased taxes, neighborhood revitalization, uh, and rising home values while protecting us from a far worse industrial alternative.

I respectfully urge the board to approve the zone change and proposed plan.

Uh thank you all for your time and consideration.

Good.

Thank you.

Next, we have uh Darling Calvill.

Vanina, would you make me a co-presenter, please?

Sure.

Or co-host, whatever.

Yes.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Yeah, hang on one sec.

All right.

Um, I can hear co-host now, David.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Ms.

Cavillo, please proceed.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Darlene Calvillo.

I live in Monroe's place.

And I respectfully I will ask the board to take in consideration the public concerns about the traffic constitution, reduce, reduce available parking.

Other streets are using their roles plays for parking already.

Adding a high density apartment building will significantly increase parking demand.

Parking overflow is already an issue with the wing arena.

Less than 10 minutes.

I have seen 20 cars drive in.

And 90% of the cars drive in mail roles, please, and they speed up.

They don't slow down and they don't care if your people is walking.

So I understand Corner had 400 employees, but they also have shadows, and they also use the local bus, and they were not driving 400 employees.

So if you can please take in consideration these, it will be rightly appreciated.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you.

Next, we have Mr.

Chris Maria.

Hello, good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Um, I own a house at 39 Keith Street and at 229 Southfield Avenue.

I feel that the new residential development is the highest and best use.

Um, projection that we could do.

I'm not in favor of anything with uh heavy industrial use.

I feel that the traffic um possibly could increase, but as the um person that spoke before me did mention that the traffic is um already busy and has been busy.

I don't think anything would change.

I am in favor of the design and the landscaping uh that has been proposed.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Silvana or Syle.

So Saya.

Can you unmute?

Hi, good evening.

My name is Sophia Spigaro, a Sandolo, and thank you so much for this opportunity for giving me this opportunity to speak.

I am definitely in favor.

Sorry, what is your what is your address?

556 Fairfield Avenue.

Okay, thank you.

Um I am definitely in favor of this awesome um proposal here, Joey.

Just lower that.

I can't, I'm hearing myself.

Thank you.

I respect that many neighbors have concerns, and I believe it's important that we look at this proposal thoughtfully and from a long-term perspective for our neighborhood.

This development will likely lead to improvements, such as better roads, sidewalks, lighting, and public services.

These enhancements benefit everyone, not just future residents.

A maintained active community attracts further responsible development rather than decline.

I understand concerns about traffic, noise, and density, but these are issues that can be addressed through proper planning, traffic studies, parking requirements, and community oversight.

Opposition shouldn't mean stopping progress.

It should mean shaping it correctly.

In closing, in the long run, this project represents progress, increased property values, and a stronger neighborhood.

I believe supporting this development is a forward thinking decision that benefits both current homeowners and future residents.

Thank you so much.

Good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mike is I do see Jennifer Tortolani.

Tony, you're now speaking of can you hear me?

Yes, if you can please introduce yourself and give us your address.

Jennifer Tortellani, I live at 109 Burrwood Avenue.

And I'm just I just wanted to speak to say it is true that Waterside is a large area, but this particular area of the neighborhood has taken on quite a bit of housing in recent years.

I've lived in this home for over 25 years, and I know with certainty that the traffic that was created when all of the apartments were put up on Southfield Avenue took about 20 years to resolve.

So I guess my concern, my two concerns, number one is the amount of traffic that will be generated with this and how long it will take to solve for this.

So I very much support the idea of a lot of forward planning before things progress.

How mans people will be allowed to have when they're moving in and how much overflow will occur and where that those cars will be located.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No other hands right now.

Mike, do you want to respond to uh any of the comments?

Wait, we have another hand.

Yes.

Bam Costello.

Hi, I just want to piggyback on what Jen Tortellani said.

Please give us your name.

Pam Castello, uh 15D Lane.

Um the parking is a significant issue in Waterside.

Um we also are experiencing what we're going to be experiencing at the end of Fairfield or close to the end, will be the 60 townhouses, 64 townhouses going up at the same time, probably probably around the same time.

Um, so I don't know how we go about finding an independent traffic study, but it would be a great opportunity to see if we can take that information about the the two bookends uh coming into our Fairfield Ave to check on that and see how how along with the ice skating rink, how much more we can take on Fairfield Ave.

Fairfield Ave was a problem for sure.

It still is at times with the traffic uh from more from the office parks, but since COVID took away that sort of uh or provided work from home, it it died down a little bit.

Um, and it was very very tough to get out of this area.

Um, and I think you'll see a lot of people going into old Greenwich.

So roads will be need will need to be fixed for some of this.

And I'm not sure how we go about with an independent traffic study, but I think that would be very important for the city to look into.

Okay, thank you.

Next we have Mr.

Joe Sandolo.

Oops.

That's a name.

Hello.

Hello.

Yes.

Yep, you're on.

Please introduce yourself and give us your address for the record.

Oh, hi.

My name is Anthony Spadero, and I'm at 556 Fairfield Avenue.

Okay.

So I know the area is growing.

And um, and the choice really isn't growth versus no growth.

It's really planned.

Um development.

And uh I believe that uh structured condo development is a far better um choice than doing commercial or or warehouse with heavier traffic and disruptions.

And I I also believe that there's economic benefits to new residents means increased local spending, um, supports um nearby businesses, improves local tax revenue and strengthens city.

Um I also feel that the um the services um without increasing the taxes would also benefit the homeowners, and I do believe that uh this is a far better um option going residential than kind of than I'm sorry, uh commercial or warehouse space.

So I hope it moves in a positive direction.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you.

Next we have Miss Audrey Iscaro.

Hi, my name is Audrey Ascaro.

I live at 581 Fairfield Avenue, so I am probably one of the closest, other than those on Melrose Place, um, to the proposed development.

And I've been here for over 35 years.

Um, so yes, I've seen a lot of traffic.

Some of that has decreased with as Pam said, the uh the COVID situation of people working from home.

And I do work from home, so I'm here every day, usually looking out my front window.

Um, I am concerned about some of the traffic.

I don't necessarily believe that owners who are going to move into this development are those people who would be taking public transportation.

Um, I don't know what the pricing is of these units, but I would assume that most of those people are going to have cars, one, two, or possibly even three per unit.

Um, so I am concerned about the traffic and the condition of the roads, although obviously we've had a lot of uh uh road repair with all of the gas work that's been done in the neighborhood.

Um they haven't done Fairfield Avenue yet, but hopefully they'll do that soon.

Um so yeah, I do have a concern about the amount of traffic coming in and out.

Um possibly young kids or or you know, young 20-something, 30-somethings with fast speeding cars coming down this street because we do have some already, so that's a concern of mine.

And um don't know what the situation will be with um pet ownership and dogs.

Um we have enough in the neighborhood, and you know, as long as they pick up after their dogs, I'm okay with that.

I have no problem, but you know, we just have to keep some rules and regulations in place, I think, for for homeownership.

Um so I I do have concerns.

I do agree that residential is better than industrial.

Um, I think we just need to plan properly for the type of area we're living in.

Okay, thank you.

Um hands yet, but let's give it a minute.

All right.

Next we have Miss Deborah Marie Amiri.

Sorry if I mispronounced it.

Are you there?

Okay.

Um I don't.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Salvatore Zarella.

Hello, everyone.

Um, my name is Salvatore Zarella, resident of Keith Street.

I uh thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

And there are several things that I've been uh looking at while reviewing some of the comments that came from the applicant.

Uh I may want to reserve uh some time uh to do some calculations on those comments.

However, I'll I'll try to gloss over them and if I need to clarify them, I probably can later.

But what I'd like to um you may not excuse me, you may not you may not have the opportunity later this hearing is closed.

Um just to forewarn um thank you for that.

Um what I'd like to point out um regarding to uh the comments uh that were made by the uh uh the engineer uh was the mix of space um at in the water side.

It is true that there are many different types of uh of zoning attributes throughout the waterside.

However, when we look at it, and I'd have to do some um some deeper calculations on this, but on the surface it appears that there's approximately and and I have to be uh rough calculations, rough depictions, uh approximately five million square feet of space designated to the residential purpose and the heart of the waterside, so we'll call it this side of the waterside train tracks as compared to the other side of the waterside train tracks, where the and the reason why I segment it that way or talk about it in that respect is because of the uh the traffic um patterns and the area itself and how it's being used and how it's segregated.

So and when we think of the use of the land throughout the waterside, it's it is actually more synonymous than most might think, in that most of the Dolphin Cove area, which represents approximately three or four million square feet of space, is around 17,000 square feet of land area per unit.

And when we think of the heart of the waterside, so some between Congress and Burrwood, uh between Fairfield and Southfield, uh, we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of five to six thousand square feet of land uh per unit.

And when we think about what's currently being proposed on the Berry Place site, it's orders of magnitude ratio greater.

So when we think of the predominant area of the waterside that represents uh when you look at a map and you look at the residential space on this side of the train tracks, outside of the MG zone uh represents uh somewhere in the neighborhood of let's say 70 percent.

Um I'm saying this without doing calculations, I'm doing visuals, and I of course you're not I'm not provided with enough time to actually uh get back to you on further in depth, but uh in general I would say it's approximately that.

So based on that, the average square footage is probably somewhere around eight, somewhere between somewhere at seven and ten thousand square feet per unit.

Now, when we think about what's being purports at Berry Place, it's about sixteen hundred and fifty some odd square feet per unit based on the two hundred and forty-five units and the what I would consider the poultry 16 unit reduction.

When we think about what's being proposed at Fairfield on the site with 56 townhouses at the Platex complex, the Berry Place site.

As compared to the Platex complex, is about uh somewhere in the neighborhood of five times more.

I'm sorry, hang on a sec.

What Vanita?

Um he's past three minutes, just letting me know.

Okay, you're you're gonna need to wrap it up, please, Mr.

Zarella.

Well, listen, with with all due respect to the uh to the community, and and I ask respectfully of the board that I'm coming with cogent mathematical information I'd like to present to the zoning board, because I think it's extremely relevant when we make comparisons.

I will need a little bit more time.

If I'm not allowed the time, um, then I guess so be it.

But I want to just clarify that just give us your conclusion, please.

So in conclusion, when we compare the current sites that are being proposed currently, and we look at the 56 townhouses on the nine acres uh for the Platex complex and the nine acres at Berry Place.

Why is there such a massive order of magnitude greater at Berry Place?

And why also when we look at the Long Ridge site with 20 acres, uh that's orders of magnitude even greater with 850 8,550 square feet per unit.

So when we talk about the water side and what's in keeping in the waterside, we cannot ignore the math, the numbers, and the traffic cannot be ignored.

And the traffic study that was performed is flawed.

We've measured cars at 30, 40, 50 cars per hour.

I've measured it at 75 cars per hour, 100 cars per hour, and even as much as 325 cars in an hour.

The skating rink was not accounted in the traffic study, and we like to make sure that the new approved proposed traffic that's going to be coming from the South the Fairfield site at Platex, which is a welcomed edition, we believe, should also be accounted into the overall holistic traffic study.

We will check on that.

Um, but we thank you for your comments tonight.

I'm I'm gonna have to end it here.

Thank you very much for your time.

Um a couple of people have raised the issue of whether uh the skating rink and other developments um were included in the traffic study.

So when the applicant responds to the public, if you would also uh respond to that as well.

Um I think I don't see anyone else here.

So uh Mike, why don't you um please respond to the public?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um first of all, let me say that for the number of people uh who spoke in favor of the project, I thank them and uh we agree with them.

Uh number two, the there were three issues that I heard from uh several people.

First was parking, and I would note that we are the parking provided on site exceeds what is required by zoning.

Ironically, when we first put our plan in front of the board, people complained that there was too much parking, and that maybe we could have more green space.

We still have more parking spaces than are required by uh the zoning regulations, and we're satisfied that this is going to function uh completely with parking on site.

Number two, uh, with regard to our traffic study, number one, uh the traffic study and the updated traffic study took into account the new skating rink and the development at Platex and was was comprehensive, and it is been accepted by TTP.

They use the same numbers in their uh report, and the numbers indicate that the the total in and out uh even during peak, although it may be reversed, would be the equivalent of what was there when this was a fully operational industrial use.

Uh so the traffic should not be any different, except it'll be in the opposite direction.

Uh number three, uh, with regard to Mr.

Zarella's comments, uh, even if we look just south of the train tracks, uh you've got to account for the large portion of MG industrial properties that are there.

Number two, I've already pointed out the 19 acres that already exist as RMF.

And finally, I don't think in his calculations and his analysis, he included any of the more intense residential development on the east side of South Field Avenue, which in our last presentation, we went through each of those developments and in fact indicated that they were very similar and consistent with what's being proposed here.

So we feel, and and I understand whenever there is new development proposed, people are concerned about traffic.

And I understand that, but the traffic reports and the comments made by TTP indicate to me that frankly there will be very little, if any, uh degradation uh in either parking or traffic.

Um I think that's responsive to each of the people who have spoken uh with regard to this.

Having said all of that, I believe, frankly, the applicant here has not tried to overdevelop this site.

The planning board decided to categorize the rear portion as high density multifamily residential.

As Mr.

Morris correctly pointed out, if we had sought the bonuses which are permitted under zoning, we could have had 240, 245 units on the rear portion of this site.

We never came forward with that number.

Uh the front portion is townhouses, which we hope will be home ownership.

Six of which will be BMR units for home ownership in the rear portion.

We first came in with 205, now 245.

We're now down to 185.

Uh frankly, uh this is a developer who has tried to be sensitive and create a transition from Barrie Place to the rear portion, recognizing that the rear portion is surrounded by industrial uses, train tracks, or the golf course.

And this is a a project that you will be proud of.

The city of Stanford will be proud of.

Okay, thank you.

I needed do I see one more member of the public?

Yes.

Why don't we um iPhone three, or can you introduce yourself, please and give us your address.

Hi, this is Father Carlos.

Hello.

Okay, hello, Father Carlos.

This is Father Carlos, 535 Fairfield Avenue, Stanford, Connecticut.

That's in St.

Clements Church.

Um, I have been hearing a lot of uh emotion, and every time when the zoning board have an issue to address in regards to putting up new housing projects and so forth, I like to look at stuff in a very logical way and a very factual way.

And I've gone back to a lot of zoning board meetings, and I see I see the emotion of what I call the chicken little emotion.

The sky's gonna go fall in our heads.

It's too much uh high density stuff and so forth.

When I look back at where that property is today, Pitney Boys used to be there, and there were over 400 employees going in and out every day.

I never heard anyone in the neighborhood say that it's guys going to fall on their head, that it's the high density and it's going to cause traffic and so forth.

Secondly, added to that, I I consulted some neighbors and they said I asked them, was it congested?

Was it uh set back for the people?

No, Father.

And then I also spoke to my maintenance guy, and he said, Father, whenever there's an overflow, the priests before you would allow them to use the parking lot.

And I keep hearing the same thing with the skating rink, it's too much where's the overflow.

I keep getting with the um, you know, the loading dark hat in business.

I allow those people to meet to use the parking lot.

I said climb once, and they're not the ones in the streets.

The ones in the streets, uh day workers who come in and park their car and congest the whole area.

And uh while back there was uh uh no parking uh sign and somebody broke it down.

We see recently on weekends the tractor trailer comes in with about 16 trucks and park it right there at the side of the road.

And this has been going on.

And we I have been dealing with the overflow by allowing people to come and park in the parking lot if they ask me nicely.

So that is not an issue per se, but yet still people keep bringing up that issue.

Secondly, you know, um, like I said, when I look back at the oldest doing meetings that uh that you guys have approved, uh the head, this sky hasn't fallen anybody's head as yet.

And thirdly, if you go to the Brookin Institute, uh they did a survey uh from the year 2000 to the year 2020, and they said 18,000 people have moved into Stamford.

We don't have the last five years.

So there's a great need in Stanford for see for housing and and and and and and and proper, you know, uh uh affordable housing and so forth.

And this project uh would help will help with the housing situation in Stanford.

Anything other than a no vote for this housing will be to destroy my parish.

I don't want an industrial neighborhood.

You know, when we go back to to Melrose, again, people are parking on the streets, and they should not be parking on the streets.

And if you look at Melrose, if you if you look at Melrose, hello.

Yep, you're here.

If you if you look at Melrose, it's a short street, and it's very distinct.

One side is completely residential, and the other side is a mixture of industrial and residential.

How would that pass?

I don't know.

And like I said, there should be signs there with no parking.

And a sidewalk is a sidewalk, it's not a parking place.

And I think the city, the right hand uh in the city, the right hand has to know what a left one is doing.

So when signs are put up there, no parking.

I I think all the congestion and that with the congestion with the traffic and all that would be taken care of.

You know, and a uh uh uh uh a sidewalk is a sidewalk, it is not a parking place.

So I I'm appealing to the zoning board, and I'm appealing to your past experience, I'm uh appealing to your common sense and and appealing to your practical knowledge, your compassion.

Like I said, we need good proper uh housing in in Stanford, and you guys have the power to do that.

I think a negative vote against this complex would be destruction of my parish.

Thank you very much for giving me the time to express myself.

Thank you.

David Mr.

Zarella uh has his hand raised.

Yes, Mr.

Zarella.

Um, this is uh Salvatore Zarella again.

Yes.

Please proceed.

So I the it's I think it's um it's very important to make very clear that I don't think that there is any residences that I know of that are not in favor of residences against the uh industrial.

What I think that is also very important to note is that the industrial area that has been predominantly within our midst for a century or so is something that has become the normal, and anything we do uh to reverse it and put residences there, all of a sudden is better.

I believe that we have a lot of ground to make up for.

There have been a very erosive condition that has occurred there, and I believe that we need to do much better.

The green space there is from Google Earth is a desert in our community.

But I would like to just make sure that the board has recognized that I've submitted uh and collected through our community and the Waterside Association, 85 petitions, 83 that were just submitted to uh the land use office uh shortly.

And I hope that all of those uh the board members have received that.

83 to 85 petitions were submitted, a very clear petition, and I might add, and I want to make very clear that that petition occurred very organically.

There was not one door that was knocked on to retrieve those petitions.

Those petitions were walked over into our association mailbox, and each of those petitions uh and andor emailed.

These are active, and it was all by the way, another thing I wanted to know is that's also very important.

These petitions were collected within the last three days.

So in three days, over 85 petitions outlining what we would appreciate in this area for our area that we live in, is I think very compelling.

And to think that there's so many people that are uh against residential is also a misnomer.

The sky is not falling.

I agree with Father.

Uh and I believe that the uh the volume and the density is what we are addressing.

It is too dense, and we ask it to be reduced in accordance to what's already been proposed on Fairfield Avenue.

Okay, thank you.

Um David, I don't see any other speakers.

Okay.

Um Mike, do you uh anything else you want to say or do your previous comments cover this?

I think our comments cover this.

I think we've we're going around and and arguing the same points, and I think we've made our points.

We think they're compelling, and we think it should be approved.

Okay.

Um good.

Thank you.

I know for myself, I still have some concerns about the incompatibility with the surrounding zoning.

Um, but uh the board will discuss it uh when we take our vote.

Um any other comments from the board before we uh close these applications.

No, not for me.

Nothing for me.

Nothing, Chairman.

Okay.

Then um, we're going to close applications 224-1-8 and uh 225-23.

Um, we will not be voting on those tonight.

Um, I think the board would like some time to to consider this.

So um it will be um put on the agenda for our next meeting on uh January 5th, 2026, um 630 on Zoom.

So Mike, thank you to you and your team.

Good night.

Um the next application we have is uh application 225-24, 492 Glenbrook Road, LLC 488 Glenbrook Road, 37 and 41 Parker Avenue, site and architectural plans and a requested uses and special permit applicants proposing to construct a multifamily residential community containing 19 apartments, 28 off-street parking spaces, and associated site improvements.

Um this um is continued from uh November 24th.

Um I think the board has received um plans responding to requests which staff made and which the board made.

So um if um attorney Klein is able to um if you could please um proceed and and as part of your presentation tonight, just show us where each of those requests was uh responded to.

Sure.

And for the uh as you see, my camera was going on and off.

I'm I'm turning it off.

I'm having some issues.

I you know if any if anyone wants, I'll send you a selfie, but I think we'll be okay without my camera for the record.

Um I'm Jay Klein, I'm a partner at Carmody Law, uh joining you all from our Stanford office here on Washington Boulevard.

Uh my colleague Madison Smith, I believe her camera is working, so you can see her, and she's got a quick PowerPoint presentation that'll point us to those items that you mentioned, David.

So, Madison, if it's okay, why don't you go ahead and share your screen?

Uh just to refresh, I think you all are aware, but uh uh to uh uh uh refresh everyone's recollection.

We are talking about the properties at 488 Glenbrook 37 and 41 Parker Avenue.

Just a reminder of what if if you drove by today, what you'd see at 488 Glenbrook, the squat uh you know uh uh uh warehouse type building.

Interestingly, and I don't know if I mentioned this last time, our applicant still gets phone calls from industrial users to see if this space is available, which I think speaks to the limited supply of that type of space in Lower Fairfield County, right?

But that's obviously not what we want to do here.

This is uh Glenbrook Road side today.

And if you go to the next slide, uh Madison, this is the uh Parker Avenue side today, almost as good looking as the as the Glenbrook Road side.

So uh when we last left things, uh I guess right before Thanksgiving, uh the uh many folks on this board had some questions or I guess comments for how we could enhance the design, some some things we could add to uh uh or or or different design choices uh than the last iterations of plans and your uh staff and Ralph and Vanita uh put together a staff report that reflected some of some of those thoughts as well.

So we're here to show you the result of the uh of that exercise on our side the past several weeks.

I think the best place to start is probably the Glenbrook Road facade.

And I'm gonna show you a rendering uh which was just completed uh earlier today.

So we we we provided this to staff as soon as we were able to receive it and and take a look at it ourselves.

I think this facade really gives you Oh, excuse me.

Any anything the board doesn't have, if you will provide to us, please uh after the meeting.

Sure, whatever, yeah.

We're we're happy to do whatever, obviously, whatever we need to get this uh get this right.

As you go through, can you just tell us which comment from staff these respond to?

Sure.

Uh you know, I think the way I would the way I would describe uh and Vanita, you correct me if I'm wrong.

There were a couple thoughts on the uh on the design of the new building as it relates to the the Glenbrook Road facade, really breaking up the base, middle, and top, providing architectural points of interest and demarcating the new building on 488 Glenbrook Road to the building that uh uh many of you approved a couple of years ago at 492 Glenbrook Road.

The first thing that we did, I'm gonna start at the ground level of the new building.

If you recall when we first filed this application, we were seeking a waiver from the requirement uh for ground level apartments to be uh uh 24 inches above grade.

We've eliminated that request.

In other words, the ground level apartment that we're proposing now is elevated 24 inches above grade.

And you can see the results of that elevation in this rendering in between the gray vehicle and the blue vehicle, you can see steps up to the lobby uh or to the ground level, which was once at grade, I guess back on November 24th, it was at grade.

So that's a comment that we uh you asked us to take a look at, and we incorporated that uh entirely.

Um I will say uh to the extent that folks are concerned about this, the lobby and the ground floor apartment remain ADA accessible because there is an ADA ramp from our parking area into the lobby uh of the building as well.

So that's just something to keep in mind.

Um your architect said it would be level B, I guess.

Yes, correct or ADA.

Yes.

Okay.

So which which on the list of items from staff, which ones did you just cover?

So that was item number.

You know, I don't know the item number off the top of my head.

I'm I because I don't uh what I'm doing is I'm going through facade by facade, but I will try and try and check them off as we as we go here.

Um the next item that I think is worth pointing out is, and this goes with you know the whole idea of creating a base middle and top, is uh incorporating some ASAC paneling on the ground, additional ASAC paneling on the ground level of the apartments, and you can see that again behind some of the some of the vehicles.

Um we've also a little bit up close so we can see what was done there, please.

Yeah, we can screw we can we'll pull up an elevation that shows it in sort of black and white detail in a moment.

I think just kind of want to go through, as I said, the the the whole uh kit and caboodle here on on this on this piece.

Um you see some light fixtures added to the middle band between the top of the first floor and the bottom of the second floor.

We think that helps to break up the facade uh quite a bit, which is helpful.

Uh those are the same lighting fixtures that are all lighting fixtures that we're incorporating on this building are ones that have been used on 492 Glenbrook Road.

I know that was something that Vanita had asked us to take a look at uh in in keeping that uh detail consistent.

And then the last Jay, excuse me, the the band of facade you were just um pointing out where the lights are.

What's behind that?

Is that part of the first floor or the second floor?

That is that is uh sort of in between the first and the second floor.

So it's in between, you know, the space that there's some ceiling of the first floor, then there's some space in between the two floors, and then there is the the uh floor of the second floor.

So that's what that band is in between right there.

Is there just empty space that doesn't need to be there?

No, it's not empty space.

I mean, there's some mechanical, you know, wiring that that is in there.

Um the building height, we're at 33 feet, which is a couple what a foot and a half below the maximum permitted.

So we can't we can't reduce the height of the building any more than we than we already have.

And I don't think that was something that that we were asked to take a look at last time.

So we feel good about the overall height that we've got here.

And I think that band helps to kind of break up.

You see it kind of reads next to the windows and the building next door, it helps to break up the two buildings as you go from right to left or north to south on on Glenbrook Road.

Um the piece that I think is the most attractive, or something that I'm really excited about.

I know others on our team are um are modifications to the roof line here.

You see ASAC brackets and cornice added to the roof line of the building on the you know, the north side and the south side are the two corners of of the building, um, which really create uh I think architectural points of interest, um, but also help to distinguish this building, further distinguish this building from the building at 492 Glenbrook Road.

Uh, and again, help to create that sense of base, middle, and top that we uh really like to see in the village commercial uh zone.

I think the next group of changes um uh best depicted on our rendering for 37 Parker Avenue.

That's perfect, or at the Parker Avenue facade, excuse me, I should say.

Thanks so much for sliding over on that, Madison.

Um, I think the most important uh or certainly an important change on this facade was the uh instruction to provide screening of the parking area along the Parker Avenue uh uh facade.

Um and that's comment number seven, it looks like on the staff memo.

Um you see that that screening is made up of comprised of of a uh split face rock at the base, and then an ASAC panel trim uh on sort of the second tier.

And that that I guess is sort of the first level of the building on the Parker Avenue uh uh facade.

Uh you do see some of the fixtures uh similar to what we have on Glenbrook Road, the light fixtures on that same ASAC uh band uh before you get to the second story apartments, and then um the ASAC uh cornice and trim on the roof line as well.

And distinguishing it, uh distinguishing between the Glenbrook Road facade and the Parker Ave here, rather than being at the corners, um, you know, this uh this treatment is featured in the middle of the building.

We think that uh again provides just some uniqueness to the design and uh is certainly a really attractive feature um uh when when you look at this on the Parker Avenue side.

Um so our next slide, I think we've got a couple more renderings that you all had asked us for, a rendering of the this is a rendering of the south side of the proposed building.

So this is if you were walking up, walking north up Parker Avenue.

Uh this is a depiction of what you'd see.

Something you know that the village commercial district calls for is you know, you don't just want um uh a sorry back.

I'm sorry, back up a sec.

If you're walking up Parker, that would be the west side, or this is this is this the south side of the building.

So you're walking northerly up Parker Avenue towards the church or to uh uh you know uh uh the I guess Nick's pizza if you wanted to go that way.

This is the south side of the building of the proposed building.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So there is a there is a parking lot next door.

I will say it's not uh as populated as it is in this picture here, but there is a parking lot uh next door to us to the south.

Um, in any event, I think what this image does a good job of capturing is you know that the building is not just one continuous in the village commercial, you don't want this, right?

You don't want just like a big rectangle.

You want something that has uh broken up along different points, the building facade, and we've certainly achieved that here.

Um, and certainly the more prominent portions of the facade on Parker Ave feature you know more windows uh uh uh along the along that facade.

You also asked for a uh rendering of the north side of the building, and this is a rendering of the building.

This is a view from the parking lot of 492 Glenbrook Road, and you see those same bump outs and uh elements uh uh that you saw on the south side just from a different angle here uh on the north side, north side of the proposed building looking south from the parking lot that's next door at 492.

Um is there's building do we see the north side of the rest of the building?

This is the rendering that we have uh of the of the north side of the building.

Can we get the rest of the rendering for our next meeting, please?

Um well uh that's something that yeah, we can talk about um with staff.

I just want to run through the the remainder of the changes that we've that we've made here.

Um I just want to make sure we didn't didn't skip that.

No.

So the next image that you'll see is our updated uh, I believe it's our landscape plan or coverage exhibit, but this gives you a sense of of how much green space will be on the property um uh once this project is built.

If you recall from the last time we were together, the property is effectively 100% impervious surface, and that will change once this project is uh is constructed.

And we think that's just an important piece to highlight.

You all asked us to take a harder look at the width of the sidewalks on both Glenbrook Road and Parker Avenue.

Um, what is you know, most projects, you know, uh typically there's one frontage, so you have one sidewalk to do and one standard.

Here we have two different frontages.

So if you go to the next slide, Madison, uh, we can show you the landscape plan, which notes the changes that we've made to the to the sidewalks.

On Glenbrook Road, the sidewalk width was increased.

Uh the walking path was increased to five feet, or I'm sorry, to six feet, excuse me, increased to six feet at the instruction of staff.

That's something that was incorporated.

And then on Parker Avenue, uh, the width of the sidewalk was increased to five feet uh as well.

I do note, and Vanita and Madison and I went back and forth on this.

Interestingly, because of Parker Ave, I think it's like 23, 24 feet wide, uh, the width, the sidewalk requirement on Parker Ave is five feet wide for the walking path.

So we have provided that on the Parker Avenue um facade.

Why don't we go to the next slide?

Uh well, before we go to uh before we go with that, I do think it's worth just pausing for a moment.

Uh again, uh thinking, picturing in our mind's eye what's out there today, and you see the plantings and other uh landscape features that Matt Pop has proposed for us as part of his landscape design, really a welcome enhancement to this property that um you know could could use it, I think to say the least.

Why don't we go to the next slide, um Madison?

I'm sorry.

Here you maybe can see, Mr.

Chair, and if you want to zoom, if I don't know if you can zoom in on that portion, Madison, sort of the top left corner, you can see in better detail.

You see uh in the top left the steps and the elevation of that ground level.

You see the two feet noted uh uh uh as a change uh from the base of the building, uh bumping it up an additional two feet.

Uh we did that all while um you know maintaining a total building height of or keeping a total building height of 33 and a half feet essentially.

Um still I'd say very I don't want to say you know, there's snug floor to ceiling heights at each level.

Looks like they're about eight feet floor to ceiling on each apartment.

Uh uh, and we don't want to go any shorter than that.

Uh I I could go shorter, but most regular people, you know, don't want to do that.

So we can zoom back out of that, Madison.

Um to our next slide.

Oh, a materials board was requested.

And oh yeah, this is terrific.

Thank you.

Um you all requested a materials board from us and Ravi and his team at AWA were able to put this together.

You know, a couple of years ago, we would have brought this uh to the cafeteria and we all would get a chance for a little show and tell and touch and feel these things.

Um, but you're seeing here this evening the hardy siding, ASAC trim, split face block, all those materials that'll be incorporated into the team design that we're all really excited about.

Um why don't we go to the next one, Madison?

And this is just a summary of uh of all the changes uh um you know that we that we incorporated really over the last several weeks, uh uh increasing the elevation of the front uh to two feet, as uh as Ralph and Vanita suggested, uh getting that ADA ramp in as a result of that elevation increase, increasing the width of the sidewalks on both frontages, not just Glenbrook Road, but Parker Avenue as well.

Uh providing additional screening for parking along Parker Avenue, providing more lighting, and then the cornices and brackets along the roof line of of both frontiers, we think is uh really an important delivery to make this project uh even better than it was uh uh quite frankly before.

So in just reviewing Vanita's memo as we're kind of as I'm looking at this image, um, I see we address number four showing the building lighting.

Um, there was a question on on fencing, our landscape plan does show there's an existing um uh uh uh fence that's along the north side of the property.

It's a vinyl fence that's on the north side.

I know there was a question about is there uh maybe a chain link fence?

If you go on Google maps, there is a chain link fence on the northerly boundary, uh, but it is an existing vinyl fence today, and that that's our fence and it'll be maintained.

Um if you go into the uh the next, I guess, table on Vanita's memo about architectural design, uh um comments about contextuality that the building too closely mimicked 492 Glenbrook Road.

We talked about uh, you know, particularly those roof line treatments and uh as a point of distinction between the two buildings, and that actually feeds nicely into comment number two, which says the roof line needs to be accented with a with a boulder cornice.

Um comment number five asks that we incorporate more ASAC trim uh on the ground level of the Glenbrook Road facade.

And we believe we've done that as well.

Um we believe that we've helped to articulate a better base better job of articulating the base, middle, and top of the buildings uh in comment number six.

Uh we can show this, but it's not I know it's been a long night, and you know, you still have a lot to go, but uh kind of a technical request that the rooftop plan that we provided be modified to show compliance with the um the setbacks for all rooftop mechanicals.

We've done that.

Um comment number 10 refers back to I'm sorry, do you have that plan?

Yeah, if you want to see it, we can see it.

I just don't know if you want to, you know, sure.

Why don't you I think just so we can check it off our list?

Sure, okay.

Are you able to pull that up?

Uh Madison.

Yeah, yeah, that just showed the roof.

Um while she's doing that, I will just kind of there are a couple that we can check off of Vanita's memo here.

Uh comment number 13 asked for a boulder cornice.

Again, I think we've really done a nice job with that.

Um streetscape changing the increasing the widths of the sidewalks, comment number 15.

We've done that.

Uh comment number 16, special the the the recommending the building by two feet at grade.

Um we've done that.

I think that's it.

So I do believe, and again, Vanita, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think we checked off everything that you had asked us to look at in your memo.

Uh, Mr.

Chairman, this is the roof plan uh that Vanita asked us to provide in the VC.

All of your mech uh mechanical spaces on the roof have to be set back at least 10 feet.

You see that we exceed that um on all areas, uh both on the Parker Avenue side and the Glenbrook Road side.

Um great.

You you've done a nice job of responding to these uh these requests.

Thanks.

I've got one or two questions for you though on this.

Um on the facade change.

Umita's comment about ASAC trim.

Um applicant changed the Hardy signing to citing the ASAC, and she says windows should be centered between trim panels.

Was that done?

Yeah, why don't we we can pull up the elevation that shows Glenbrook Road?

Uh Madison, if you have a minute.

And I know I saw him on earlier.

Oh, Ravi is here, so he can discuss this as well.

Um if you'd like to hear from our architect.

But Madison will pull up the elevation.

And you can see um if you zoom in on the Glenbrook Road facade, Madison, uh, sort of towards the left where you see that bubble uh sorry, over to the left, that ASAC panel that is bubbled in.

No, no, no, down on the ground level, ground level close to the right, to the right.

There we go.

So that that paneling was was hardy uh in prior iterations and now it's ASAC paneling.

Uh the windows look to be centered within that area to me.

Robbie, is there any other comment you want to add to to this facet of the project?

Okay.

The um it it looks a little odd.

Sorry, to the right of the front door, you've got some sort of trim around the windows.

Then to the left of the door, there's no trim, and then the next one has trim.

Is there uh theory there?

Robbie, go ahead.

You're beginning to talk.

No, see, we have a door and we have a both side of the door, we have a trim.

And then on the left side, it's a jog out because the door is an easy to back.

I'm not seeing the trim to the left of the door.

Can you see those light fixtures?

That is the exact panels there.

I'm talking about around the windows, the way No, on both sides of the door.

Right, what you're saying.

Can we just get it added there, please?

I think Robbie, what David's talking about is you know, there's this there's a detail in the ASEC trim that happens, you know, on either side of the windows on the corners.

Yes.

Um, and that detail is not on one side of the the second row.

Yeah, there's no that's a plain plain ASAP trim, no panels on the side of the windows.

Right.

So is can you add the the trim on one side?

So that you know, when you have the door on either side, there'll be the trim.

We can do that.

Okay.

Okay.

Robbie, was there something else you wanted to mention?

Yeah.

Uh Madison, can you pull out that north elevation rendering?

Yeah.

Um, yeah.

The rendering.

Rendering, rendering.

Oh north.

Next next one.

No.

The north.

Yeah, this see on this side you said extend show the building on the left side, but there's an existing building in front of that.

So that part of the building will not show in the rendering because of the existing buildings.

This is on the north side of the building.

The left side of this rendering, you see this building there.

This is about the car.

Just that is the existing building.

What is when you say the existing building, you mean the next door building?

Next door building, yes.

Yeah.

So that's why you can't see the rest of the building.

Isn't the next door building on the north side the it's uh the building we approved earlier?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, is that it?

No.

No, that's that extends to the left, but we didn't extend the rendering showing the existing building.

I can you show me on a plan.

I don't I don't understand.

Go to the floor plan.

Wait.

The first floor.

Keep going back.

Uh here.

You see this existing residential unit on the top here.

No, there's the one we previously approved.

Is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, it's already built.

492.

Yeah.

So it's only 10 feet away.

So it's so you're saying we're not seeing just you showed us the elevation.

We showed the elevation of the whole thing.

Everything up to that building.

In the rendering, but on the elevation, we show all the way to Glenbrook Road.

Okay, not in the rendering, I meant.

Yeah, not a rendering.

If I if I may, Mr.

Chair, and and you know, Robbie, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you know, the reason why we provided that we were trying to provide renderings of what would be visible, you know, what would what wouldn't be obscured by existing features.

Um, you know, so to provide, I guess, uh not I guess, but to provide an additional rendering of the north side, it wouldn't necessarily be a rendering of something that folks experience, given, you know, not just the building that's built on 492, but I'm thinking even the building uh up the road, uh what what's uh where where the barn used to be, um uh 504 Glenbrook, you know, for folks who are at the intersection there, just just west of the train tracks.

Um you know, that uh that view is obscured to a degree that the view from other facades is not.

So that's why we thought it would not really be a value to provide you know rendering of something that no one no one will or very few people will say.

That's a good point.

Yeah, uh okay.

Couple other things.

We were supposed to get dimensions of the open space on the exhibit.

Is are the dimensions shown?

Yes, the dimensions shown in this this drawing here, which is there.

Tell me what the dimensions are because I'm not seeing them.

What's the up and down dimension?

That's 37 feet and change up, or is it 30 feet and change?

30 feet.

Yeah.

Where does it where does it say that?

Right next to open, there we go.

30 feet.

Is the whole is from top to bottom?

No, don't still.

Well, no.

Well, there's no dimension then below that, right?

Right.

Yeah.

We have the 20 the 27 feet shown.

I mean, it exceeds Mr.

Chair.

Can you if I'm if I may, that's hold on.

Hold on.

The request was to show the dimensions.

That's all.

So next week.

I guess I'm saying that the minimum requirement is 15,007 or 15,000 or 1500 some odd square feet.

This dimension alone exceeds the minimum required.

Um so I we we comply.

Um I I don't know, you know, what what it's gonna get bigger, I guess.

Um it complies, it exceeds the it's just a matter of us being able to look at it and see if we agree with your numbers.

That's all.

So if you could just give us the the dimensions as we previously requested, I appreciate it.

All right.

Um next, do we have an affordability plan?

Yes.

That was provided.

Um did we get that?

Yes.

Um, I mean, let me just double check to make sure anyone on the board have it.

Um the applicant sent it to me right after the last hearing.

So if you don't have it, then it's on me.

Yeah, would you just um send that to us?

Yeah, it can be emailed.

Yeah, of course.

I don't want hard topic of that.

Um we'd asked for calculations on bike spaces and vehicle parking.

Did we get um how you calculated the number of spaces for each?

We did go through that with staff.

Um yeah, yeah.

I mean, it we if you if you provided those calculations to staff, and staff has them, could you send them out?

Um if you didn't send the actual calculations to staff, then um Jay, please send those to us.

Okay.

You know, I I should apologize because I got a little um, you know, uh uh I don't know, my my camera's not showing.

I guess the reason why we we came into this meeting, you know, and and still hope NASA consider approving this this evening, um, is because this application has been pending for some time, and you know, we haven't received any indication that there's no uh a lack of compliance with the open space, the EV spaces, the bike parking spaces with with really anything.

And um, you know, to be frank, the the I think every ask that was made of the applicant at the last meeting.

Um, you know, there wasn't a peep of uh uh you know disagreement.

Every change that was requested, the applicant said yes, sir, yes, ma'am.

And um, you know, what I would ask, I guess, is that you know, we we get some stuff off of our desk for 2025 so that we can move on to other projects.

Not we, yeah, move on to other projects in 2026.

So I appreciate that you did provide the the items that staff asked for.

What I'm going over now are the items that the board asked for.

Um, and we didn't get all of those.

So um we're trying to clean up.

It's not being voted on tonight anyway.

I mean, there's no conditions.

Um we're we're not ready to vote.

Um I and I apologize for the wait if you did have to wait a while to get heard.

Um we have a we've had a full agenda pretty much every week.

So um we're doing our best.

Yeah, no, you guys, that no apologies are needed.

Um, you know, we're always straight up uh honest with each other, right?

So okay.

So let's I think there's just one more item, and that's um someone had requested.

I'm not sure who they wanted to see the setbacks on each side.

Did you provide that?

The setbacks on each side.

I'm not sure.

I'm not I can't remember why it was requested, but aren't they in the plans?

Yeah, okay.

Well I David, just to clear it up, I had asked a question and asked specifically uh on the uh on the south side of the Glenbrook side of the building.

On the Glenbrook Street South side, I think it's almost up against the property line there.

Okay.

So yeah, if you could show us the setbacks that Bill had asked about.

What what is it?

And I'm sorry, uh Mr.

Morris.

What what is it exactly that you're asking to on the south side of your development road?

North of the development.

Glenbrook's on the east side.

Right.

Right, the south side of the east side, I think you saw it.

Gotcha.

I see what you mean.

Yeah.

Yeah, I believe that the building is right up to or against the property line.

And I am I correct in that.

Yes, you are correct.

Can you refresh refresh my memory why you said that could be that way?

Uh when you're within it's either 70 or 75 feet, and I'm pulling up the reg itself so I don't misspeak, but there is a point where there's a zero foot setback.

Um perhaps even required.

And I'm just pulling up the regulation here.

If you care with me one second, I'm so sorry.

It's 70 feet, I think.

70 feet.

Thank you.

I should have just asked Ralph for the you know.

But that is so that's why you have the zero foot setback.

The idea, the idea is that along the street we want the building to touch each other if possible.

So if you provide a side yard, actually it has to be uh 10 feet wide, so you can at least fit a car through it.

But if you built it can be zero feet, yeah.

Yeah, and then beyond the um 70 feet, uh there's a 10 foot wide right, and they have planting so that I could see.

Now on that 70 foot section over there where it's uh basically on the property line.

Do you have um a rendering of some sort that shows what that looks like?

Yeah, that is shown uh uh on our the rendering that we shared a moment ago, but I think what you might be getting at, Mr.

Morris, and thank you for refreshing my recollection.

This might have been what the question was, you know, could there be something done, something more done on that specific.

Yeah, and I and wonder when I think you may made a different colour or something, but I couldn't Yeah.

So what we just call the windows to Yeah yeah.

Can we see can we see the rendering?

Yeah, well, why don't we understand go to the elevations that we're gonna we're gonna pull it up?

Yeah, so this is not this is something that I think you know, someone had asked, and maybe it was you, Mr.

Morris.

Yeah, it was, yeah.

Sounds like some, yeah.

So you know, could there be some you know faux windows installed along this portion of the southerly facade?

And you know, this is an exhibit that shows that, and you know, certainly if you if you all think this is a value add, makes the project better, that you know, could make a condition of approval, you know, building before building permit, your plans have to be revised to incorporate these windows as shown on the sheet or shown in the presentation.

So I'm confused.

This is this with the windows added.

Yes.

So the windows are noted.

Why don't you circle the the faux windows with your cursor?

They're four windows added.

Uh so why would we need to make it a condition if it's already on the plans?

Well, because we aren't well, you know, la last time this was a question asked, gee, well what would it look like with faux windows?

So we're showing you.

So if you if you like it, it can be part of the approval.

If you don't like it, it it doesn't have to be.

Um so it's it's really up to to you guys what what you'd like.

Bill, what do you think?

Well, I think we should have the windows there.

We we did a similar situation in 492.

There was originally no windows, and we had them add windows on the south side of the building, as I recall.

Yeah.

Yes, I agree.

I think we should add them.

What about on the on the first floor?

Why were they not put there?

That I don't know.

You can add there too.

I'm sorry, Robbie.

No, we can add there too, but these are falls window.

These are not see-through windows.

Yeah, yeah, no, I think we all got that part.

Okay, so we could we can add in the first floor too.

Okay.

You know, the one thing I I and and I think this is why it was added as a as a choice or uh, you know, question is as Ralph mentioned, you know, the goal for the VC zone is that at this portion, you know, at this part of the street that buildings are almost touching each other.

Um and the property that's just south of us, um, you know, may one day be developed uh uh under the VC reg.

And you know, I just wonder, you know, having these faux windows on there that and then they're one day covered up in the future, you know.

Is that is that what we want?

Not saying we have religion on it, but I just wanted to put that, put that out there.

I'd say for now it's it improves the building.

Okay.

Yeah, maybe that property there will use uh that side of building as a uh right-of-way to drive in.

Yeah.

Can you can you add the windows and then just include that plan as part of the plans that are sure if we approve in our resolution?

Yeah, then we don't have to make it a condition.

Yeah, that's a great point.

Um I've monopolized most of the time on this application so far.

So, Bill, do you have anything else?

No, aside from the the items I just discussed, that was it for me.

Okay, Roseanne?

Uh no, all the questions have been answered with the revised material.

Great.

Um Jerry.

Sorry, Mr.

Chairman, I was on mute.

No, Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Okay.

So let's go to the public then.

Uh is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application?

Um, either for or against it.

Um, when you're called on, please give us your name and address.

Um looking at the list, I don't see any hands.

No hands from the public.

Okay.

Um so um let me.

Um I have something uh to add.

Um yeah, I'm sorry, I I meant to go to you, Benita and see what else you might have.

Or yeah, no, just wanted to mention, I think they've they've been pretty responsive to all the items that I'd asked for.

Um I think you know, adding the cornice, the brackets, and realigning the windows, all of that works really well.

Just one more suggestion after looking at the rendering today, is that if the cornice band could be continued across the entire building instead of breaking in the middle along Glenbrook Road, I think that might look better because it really does read as one building.

I don't think the break in the cornice will make it look any different.

Um so I that's one change that I'd like them to make.

And you know, I think that could be addressed as a condition because we already see it.

Looks like um Jay, are you guys good with that?

Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um so here's I guess there's a couple of things we'd like to get from you for the next meeting.

And my hope would be we close it and we vote on it at the next meeting.

Um so Venita, um, if we could get conditions for this for that meeting, please.

Um, you're gonna send us the affordability plan.

We're gonna get the calculations on the bike and the vehicle parking.

Um revision showing the ASEC trim around the window to the left of the front door.

Uh six windows on that southeast side of the building and that front roof cornice.

Is there anything I left out?

Okay.

Um so uh Jay, before we uh continue this, anything else you've got.

No, I mean, I I think just to emphasize or reiterate what what Vanita said, you know, our client has been responsive and and reactive to what you all have given them, and we will continue to do so.

I think something else worth noting, you know, this is our second hearing on this application.

If you remember some nine, 12 months ago, we had a hearing or two on the zone, a companion zone change application.

And in all of those hearings and all that time, we haven't received one public comment, one neighbor letter.

No one here this evening, uh, you know, express expressing displeasure with the project.

So I appreciate everyone's time here this evening, and we'll work towards getting this done on uh January 5th.

I hope we continue to have that uh same positivity that night.

Yeah, I think the board um all of us um appreciate all of the the responses the applicant made um to the comments and all of the work that was done, and it's I think it's a good project.

Um and uh sounds like there's been no objection from the board.

So uh we look forward to taking a vote on this uh our next meeting.

Great.

Oh, sorry.

No, go ahead.

I was just gonna ask, then it sounds like this will be continued to Monday, January 5th at 6.30 via virtual some virtual.

Uh I hope Zoom.

Yeah, me too.

For whatever that's worth.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, yes, you've got it.

It's continued to January 5th at 6:30 p.m.

on Zoom.

Okay.

I hope everyone has a great holiday and new year, and we'll see you in 2026.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next, um we have application 225-29120 C Long Ridge, LLC Toll Northeast V Corp, 120 C Long Ridge Road, site and architectural plans and a requested uses and special permit applicants proposing to construct 44 two-story carriage homes and 58 three-story townhouses with associated improvements and amenities.

Um we have received um uh some new plans on this.

So uh I'd ask uh attorney Feinberg, uh welcome.

And can you just um as part of your presentation, just take us through the changes that were made, please?

Sure.

Uh good evening for the record.

My name is Lisa Feinberg.

I'm a partner with Carmody Torrent Sandak and Hennessey.

As you know, uh, we were here on behalf of the applicant and contract purchaser of the property toll northeast v Corp.

Uh, when we last saw you on defense December 1st, you asked us for some additional information.

In the interest of efficiency, we have submitted a written memorandum, which includes the requested information as well as responses to the few other comments received.

The memo was also posted on the zoning board's website for anyone interested in reviewing it.

I know it has been a busy agenda and you still have several items to reach.

So my intention is to be very brief.

However, our entire team is back with me tonight.

So if there's something you think requires further discussion, or you just have any additional questions, then of course you will let me know.

Um Mr.

Chairman, I'm comfortable relying on our written submission given the limited you know, info there.

Um, but I I'm happy to go through it if you'd like me to.

Um okay, let me ask uh Vanita.

Does um do you think all of the items that were raised are covered in this?

Yes.

Um I don't know if you the material they've responded to all the items that the board had asked for.

Um everything related to landscaping and trees.

So I think it's well colored.

Good.

Um let's go to the board.

Uh Jerry, any questions or comments?

No, Ms.

Chairman, I'm good.

Thank you very much.

Okay, Roseanne.

Um, no, and I drove over to um cold springs and looked at the piece of the property that comes out on Cold Springs and on uh whatever that other street, old whatever old garden or north or whatever.

North and south.

Um and yeah, I mean it's it's just uh retaining wall and trees and rocks.

So um my only uh comment is in that section, there's a lot of felled trees, and I don't I don't know what's best for the property, whether they should stay down or whether they should be cleared.

I just think at the conversation the applicant should have.

But I don't have any other questions.

Everything uh was was in the material that was submitted.

Okay.

Um Bill.

Almost said.

Okay, as am I?

Um so uh thank you, um Lisa, for getting us this uh memo outlining all of the changes.

Uh is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application?

Uh either in favor or against it.

If so, uh please raise your hand.

I don't see any hands.

Okay.

Um board, any reason why we shouldn't close this tonight?

No, Ms.

Chairman.

None at all.

Okay.

Um Lisa, before we close, anything else you'd like to say?

Um, I don't think so.

I, you know, I think uh, you know, we've we spent a lot of time at the last meeting walking through all of the details, and we've worked really hard to get you a project that that the city can be proud of and to deliver, you know, what type of product that um folks have really been wanting.

So we hope you will approve it tonight.

Thank you.

Okay.

So uh we are closing application 225-29.

Uh 120C Longridge site and architectural plans and or requested uses and special permit.

And um, I expect that we will be voting on this uh a little later tonight.

Next is application two two five-three four, twelve forty-one East Main Street.

Um associates LLC, 1241 East Main text change.

Applicant is requesting a text change to permit portions of a non-conforming building or structure exempt from building height to be converted into floor area.

Um we did get a revised draft of the text, which um it responded to uh the questions that um uh we had raised, mostly me.

And um we appreciate it.

Thank you, Lisa.

Uh does anyone from the board want to uh discuss it?

No, Chairman.

Nope.

Everyone's good.

Okay.

Lisa, you okay if we go ahead and close it?

I am okay.

So we are closing applications.

Oh, wait, Mr.

Chairman, I think you have to go to the public.

Oh, sure.

Darn, thank you.

Is there anyone for the public who'd like to speak on this application?

No hands as of now.

Let's give it some time.

This is the text change for um 1241 East Main.

No hands to.

Okay.

We are closing application 225-34 1241 East Main Street text change.

Thank you.

Now we go on to um an administrative review is application 225-35, 1241 East Main Street, so see it's LLC, 1241 East Main Street, site and architectural plans and/or requested uses in coastal site plan review.

Uh applicant proposes to convert the vacant office building into approximately 84 residential dwelling rooms.

Um because this is an administrative review.

Um there is no um public comment on this application.

So um do we have uh I think we had had some changes we had talked about.

You want to tell us about those, uh Turney Feinberg or those also uh outline.

Sure.

Um for the record, Lisa Feinberg uh with Carmine Torrent Sandack at Hennessy.

I'm back on behalf of the applicant and owner 1241 East Main Street Associates LLC.

Um as you just noted, Mr.

Chairman, there were a few uh updated materials that you had asked, um, in particular uh clarifying the street tree requirement and then the sidewalk widths.

Um we also just went ahead and provided some letters responding to the municipal departmental reviews.

Um just confirming that we would you know incorporate all of those requirements.

So again, you know, given the limited scope of the requested changes, we weren't planning to make a formal presentation, but if you'd like me to walk through um either of those things, I'd I'd be happy to do so.

Okay.

Um I don't need it, but if anyone on the board would like it, um we can certainly do that.

I'm good, Mr.

Bill or Roseanne.

You know, it's all here.

Okay.

Um any reason why we shouldn't go ahead and close this one then.

No, Ms.

Chairman.

Not by me.

Nothing I'm forgetting, am I?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Um, so we are closing application 225-35 uh 1241 East Main Street, uh site architectural plans and our requested uses and coastal site plan review.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you.

Next, we have a new public hearing.

Um it is application 225-37, 5 Harbor Point Square LL C Harbor Point Master Unit S5 aka zero, Washington Boulevard number S5, general development plan, site and architectural plans and a requested uses and so coastal site plan review.

Applicant is proposing to transfer 34,000 square feet of commercial floor area from block P7 to the to the property to facilitate a new health and wellness use known as BATH house.

Um there is no planning board letter on this uh since it was not required to go to the planning board.

Umita, did we get a certificate of mailing from the applicant on this?

Yes, we did.

And did we get a sign affidavit?

Yes.

Okay.

Um then um uh we are going to uh continue this application uh two two five-three seven to our next meeting on January 5th, 2026 at 630 on Zoom.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, sir.

Just quick question.

Why wasn't just a point of order?

Um why wasn't it going in front of planning?

There's a reason um as Vanita explained to us earlier when uh we asked her the same question.

Uh it's because site plans normally don't go to planning.

Planning just gives us their opinion on whether the project is compatible with the comprehensive plan, and that would be text change, map change, and special permit.

But site plan does not have that required.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So three months from now we'll ask the same question because I also get that rule.

We'll keep asking Vanita, she'll keep telling us.

Okay.

Um we are now into the regular meeting.

And the first item we have tonight is the um approval of the minutes from our last meeting on December 1st.

Um does anyone have any changes to these minutes?

Um Jerry, you were not there, so you can't vote on them.

Exactly.

Can we get a motion to approve the December 1st minutes?

So moved as presented uh this evening.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

All in favor, say aye.

Abstain.

Minutes are approved 301.

Okay.

Next item is um the map change for um 23 Berry Place.

Um, and that one is uh not being voted on tonight.

Next is uh 492 Glenbrook Road, application 225-24.

That is um been continued.

Um application 225-23, which is also 23 place site plan.

Uh that is not being voted on tonight.

Next is application 225-29, 120 C Long Ridge LLC and Toll Northeast V Corp, 120 C Long Ridge Road, site and architectural plans and a requested uses and special permit.

Feel it should not be approved.

Not me.

I'm good.

Okay.

Well we have uh conditions for this then.

Umid if you could bring them up, please.

Um can you see them?

Oh yeah.

Um does it show is this the black line or is this the clean?

Um it is the clean version.

Okay.

All right.

So um did we did we get the correct um yes description?

He did get uh uh an updated description which updates the date and the parcel size.

I do see I just need to update it here.

The reason the description needs to be updated is because of the map adjustment that was made.

Do we know if the map has been recorded?

Well it's got a map number, wouldn't that mean well?

No, those are old map numbers, aren't they?

Yes, yes.

Yeah, there it is.

The the next to the last line just says SLR with no uh number.

Right.

Um it I think that SLR number relates to this previous the older parcels map 1151 yeah, and then here, you know Ralph.

Was it was it you who said we should we should maybe add a condition uh that um the map needs to be recorded in order for this okay while we're on it, yeah that's a good idea.

Let's let's add that right now while we're thinking about it.

It's it's in here.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, and shall we?

Okay, and this is the same description as the one we were just looking at.

Yes, okay.

Any signed by the chair of the planning board?

Okay, any which it has been already great.

Okay.

Any questions on this?

No, um, the can you go back please to the um that number you just put in?

Okay, it is 459.

Okay.

Should I go down to the condition?

Um did the did we get all of the dates updated?

Um double check.

It was the landscaping, right?

Um, I thought I'll you did on the one we looked at today.

You had right changed it.

Yeah.

Would that first bullet is I don't know if that changes from the fifth to the ninth.

Um sorry, um, it will like too much.

R all which prepared by environmental land solutions dated September 1.

I is there on that not the same date.

LP1.

I'm not seeing anything other than LP one two, three, four, and five.

Right.

Um I wonder if the applicant separate.

The landscape rendering was provided separately, I think.

Here's the rendered lands.

Well, that says LP one.

So then this should be nine as well.

Nine one.

There's a color then 12.

It says 12.5.

Okay.

Then I'll okay.

Well, hopefully it's right.

I and I can double check later on.

Okay.

So should we?

Yeah, we should we should review all the um before recording.

We make sure that all the numbers are checked.

Do we have the special permits listed here?

Oh 120 C.

It is the special permit is for the use.

Um there is no additional special permit.

Okay.

Oh, it's just the C D.

Right, right.

Okay.

Okay.

So we start with number one.

Sure.

Um can we uh scroll up?

We're on number four right now.

Yes.

Sorry, I'll go back.

Um, so number one is that the work will conform to the plans.

Number two, the landscape plan.

Um they will before building permit, they will come back and show us uh plans for the open space uh play equipment, etc.

And that'll be approved by staff, and they will complete the that work prior to CO.

Uh number three is our lot line revision that uh they have to file before building permit file the final survey.

Okay, fourth is the BMR fee in lieu of fee and lure affordability plan.

Um they will make the determination whether or not to put the units on site if they are on if they do the fee and lie, then they will pay us approximately three million six hundred and seventy-eight thousand nine hundred and six dollars before building permit.

Um the why did the number come down?

Um they uh they sent me revised uh numbers for the floor average floor area of the different unit types, um, and they you know they showed that it needed to be adjusted based on what they're the correct number was, and we we double check this at the time of payment as well, so you know this number might be slightly different, but it's it has to be accurate to what they get the building permit for so will floor area change depending upon what an individual owner does, or would it still be the same?

It could slightly change if you know somebody you know opts for a bump out versus not um if they have those sort of options in there, so it could okay uh if they if applicant does um elect to do BMR units on site, they will be home ownership units and they'll provide 10 units with a fee in lieu of for the point two fractional unit um prior to issuance of the CO they will submit the final affordability plan, um which will be subject to staff approval uh which will show five units at sixty-five percent of AMI and five units at eighty percent or less of uh median household income uh one just you want to change that to AMI, right?

Uh one just you want to change that to AMI, right?

Yeah, the yeah okay.

Any any discussion on the BMR?

No.

No, Mr.

Chair.

On site pass prior to building permit, they will give us the plans showing the uh publicly accessible amenity space, which is trails, um, which need to comply with our regs prior to CO, they will submit for approval and report on the land records.

David, is that include the uh the the parking spaces also specifically?

Yeah, um so let's let's make sure those are there.

So they've got to give us an easement um depicting the publicly accessible amenity space.

Um and that easement gets recorded.

Um should that also say that it includes the parking spaces?

Is that your point, Bill?

I believe so.

Yeah, but it's not mentioned in the parking requirements either, so I do it's got to be met in sub place.

Um how many?

Do we know how many was it?

Four or six or four, yeah.

Ten.

Anyone go for 20?

Um yeah, there it is.

One, two, yeah, it looks like four.

Okay, including can you just say the four past parking spaces?

I think okay.

Um such easement agreement will be uh subject to review by staff and recorded on the land records.

Um issue with this was that uh the applicant was concerned that the if the BAS is supposed to be uh completed uh pri you know with the first building, it will be too early in the construction process because you know the houses would get built over approximately a three-year time period, so it will be a construction site, and do we want the public to be in the PAS that early when they wouldn't have would not have otherwise reached that area uh of construction?

They'll be starting from the back and coming towards Long Ridge.

So this would be this may not be the first thing that gets finished, but do we I think it might make more sense for it to be later in the process, as would have been for any other like multifamily building, then you know the landscaping and the public access gets um done at the end.

So it should be prior to the issue issuance of the final CO.

Could be the final or maybe somewhere in between it's fine to be the final.

Yeah, I don't think you want public in there while there's dump trucks driving around and cement trucks and makes sense.

Of the so it would be the CO for the last unit.

The applicant had offered or said that you know, when they did the clubhouse, and that maybe maybe it had it's timed so it's such that the site is more in control, they were open to yeah.

There's no date for the clubhouse though.

There is so it's yeah, but it might be in a better construction phase than how how long do we know how long it'll be total uh oh maybe like two-thirds of the way in like two out of three years.

That's fine with me if people agree.

Yeah, fine with it.

Yeah, sure.

Fine, or you can go to the final CO as far as I can see.

Yeah, final CO also.

Okay, so why don't we say issuance of the CEO for the whatever the how many units are there?

102.

Oh, here how many?

I'm sorry, one hundred and two, I believe.

Um.

Oh, and here's another suggestion, I guess.

Um two years following building permit, whichever comes first.

That works for me as well.

Yeah, that I'd take that also.

It's whatever else wants.

Everyone fine with with what Benita has here.

Yes.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

No.

Roseanne?

Yep.

Okay.

So let's let's go with this.

You can.

Okay.

Vehicle parking.

Uh prior to issuance of the CO for the final building, they will provide all of the parking.

Um, and then it for 230 self-parking spaces with 104 electric charging spaces, one per dwelling unit, uh, and 10% of the visitor parking.

And then the last sentence is that each unit prior to each unit getting its CO, it will have its two parking space.

So they may not have all the parking spaces in, but is each unit gets completed, it will have its two.

Uh the applicant prior to building permit will contribute 150,000 to TTP for safety and operational updates to traffic signal on Long Ridge and 50,000 for pedestrian upgrade to the Bullshead area.

Yeah.

What about a contribution to put a cop in the middle of the street to stop people from blocking Long Ridge Road or blocking the other streets?

Okay.

Um there was a sidewalk fee in lieu for um old Barn Road North and Cold Spring Road, roughly 49,115, since they're not putting sidewalks there.

Uh signage, uh subject to staff approval, and we have the compliance with the comments from the various city departments, TTP, Environmental Protection Board, Engineering, Fire Marshall, WPCA.

Um there'll be a photometric plan prior to building permit, which is approved by staff.

Um easements, all um applicant will submit and report on the land records and easement map showing all easements on the property, including um sidewalks, public sidewalks, um which are on the property.

Uh there will be street trees planted by applicant, um not less than three on Long Ridge Road, and they will submit a bond in the amount of one thousand dollars for each tree for a total of not less than three thousand dollars.

Then they will maintain the existing trees along Long Ridge Road and Cold Spring Road.

So these these existing trees are trees that the applicant did not have to plant because they were already there.

So this just requires that they agree to maintain them.

Um then there's uh a fee and loo for trees.

Uh there are four trees that are not being planted in on old barn road north, and applicant will pay $10,000 fee and loo payment.

And they may plant them at alternate locations if they want, and that's the end of our site specific conditions, and we have our general conditions.

Um any discussion.

If not, can we get a motion?

Sure, Mr.

Chairman.

I move that we approve application number 225-29, 120C to Long Ridge Road, uh, as uh with the conditions as uh amended this evening.

Uh second that, Mr.

Chairman Okay.

Is there any further discussion?

Okay.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

The application is approved uh four zero.

Next, we have uh two applications for 1241 East Main Street.

Uh first is application 225-34, which is the text change.

Um I guess you want to put it up.

Not that anyone wants to see it, but let's put it up.

So um, I think we should um you want to vote on the other one first?

No, no, no.

I definitely should vote on this one, but we can mention the changes.

Um this isn't the one that we receive.

Um this is the one that I sent.

Um, so this yeah, yeah.

It's not the original one we got at the very beginning, but it's the one you would have gotten in the last few days.

Yes.

Afternoon, you mean?

Yeah, then two that one.

Yeah.

Well, it's basically where we started out with just some more a little clarification.

And then I guess okay.

Um does anyone want to know what was changed in it?

Well, we we got it highlighted.

Yes, really.

Okay, yeah, good.

So um is there anyone who is um opposed to approving this uh this text change?

No, Ms.

Chairman.

No.

No.

Okay.

Um is there any discussion on it?

No.

Can we get a motion then to approve application 225-34?

The text change is presented tonight.

I'll make the motion to approve uh 225-34 as presented this evening.

Second.

Okay, any further discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Application 225-34 is approved uh 40.

Next, we have application 225-35, 1241 East Main Street Associates LLC, 1241 East Main Street, site and architectural plans and a requested uses in coastal site plan.

Um and I see we have conditions.

Um let's see.

Is there anything uh we should be looking at before we get to the conditions themselves?

Um, I think the certificate kind of captures all the new material, um, all the changes that were made in response to the comments.

Um, you know, the landscape plan was updated.

Um all of that incorporated here.

Um, and there are a couple of things that David, you and I had discussed about you know some of the trees on home court.

Was it is it home court?

This one.

Sure if I'm saying the right thing.

I think so.

Yes.

Well, when we get there, I'm sorry, say that again, Bill.

I I thought it was Houston Terrace.

We have to do that.

Well, this is Terrace on one side, and then the other street is yeah.

Well, the other side is home court.

Yeah, I'll it's between those.

But we'll we'll get to that when we get down there.

Right.

I mean, that what I meant to say is that they're there not too many um unique conditions here.

It's you know, capturing the usual conditions that we have for multifamily.

Yeah, yeah.

Um okay.

So uh these will sound familiar.

Uh so all work will conform to the uh plans.

Condition one.

Condition two is uh landscape plan uh prior to building permit.

Applicant will submit plans for space at grade and on the rooftop, um open space uh to show programming, play equipment, plantings, rooftop landscaping, etc.

Subject to approval by staff, and plans need to be completed prior to issuance of the CL.

Um three is the affordability plan.

Uh they'll submit a final affordability plan um conforming to the draft that we are approving tonight, uh, subject to staff approval.

Um plan um will provide for six BMR units uh for people families earning 50 percent of AMI.

That sounds right.

Number four vehicle parking, 115 self-parking spaces, including not less than 12 EV charging spaces.

Um if they have more self-parking, then the EV will will automatically go up.

Yes.

Uh and um the spaces will be as close as possible the building entrance, unless uh the fire marshal says they should move, and the uh parking spaces will be unassigned.

Now, this is one that I asked be included.

Um I just wanted the board to think about it.

The this is um the bundled parking, which um normally doesn't come up, but this project is outside of downtown, and it's um in a residential neighborhood.

So the the concern in the past has been um will tenants in this building not want to pay the fee, the parking fee, but just park on the street and as a result compete with the neighbors for parking, which is I'm I'm sure is pretty tight.

Um anyway, as I mentioned, it's not something we normally have in, but uh I just thought I'd get the board's uh feeling about this one.

No, I I think that's fine.

So just to go over it in my head again, how many units are there?

It's 84.

Yeah, 84 and total number of parking spaces?

115.

Yeah, yeah, they got to be bundled because that's not a lot of parking.

So I mean, one uh you know, result from that could be that suppose some of the units don't have a parking have a car, um, then they will also pay the fee regardless, and then um you know those parking spaces will then be unavailable to those other people who may have more than one cars.

Um doesn't mean you it's it's not assigned parking.

If it's part of your rent, right's gonna sit empty.

Um, no, I mean, I get that's what bundling would mean that you know it is part of the base rent, like one car is included, one parking space is included in the rent.

If we make that mandatory, then we penalize the people who don't have a vehicle.

Unbundling lets the management company add the you know, add it as a as a separate fee for those users who are uh you know who have a car, so yeah, but it then encourages people who don't want to spend money to park on the street.

I I think this is so close to residential, yeah.

We have to be careful about that.

I agree.

The parking spaces aren't assigned, so you're not wasting parking spaces, right?

They won't sit empty.

Um because someone yeah.

Uh Bill, you uh actually.

Okay, but Vanita is right, it does um that that's the other side of bundled parking, is that someone without a car, um in effect is yeah, a spaces included in their rent.

This is far enough from downtown.

There aren't gonna be tons of people without cars, exactly.

This is far enough from downtown there aren't gonna be tons of people without cars, exactly okay.

You want to um unhighlight that please okay.

Um next we have bicycle parking.

There will be 15 no um can we put the word 15 before the paren 15 you see where I'm in line two?

Yes, yeah, please be 15 class A and nine class Baces.

Um class A will be located as close as possible the building entrance and include video surveillance on the uh parking, and there'll be not less than eight uh e-bike charging stations uh there.

Um questions, comments uh bicycle parking performance.

This is all of our bicycle uh requirements.

There'll be a bicycle parking maintenance agreement, they have to submit the plans for the bike racks to TTP and uh part of building permit.

Um add details and notes on the plans showing compliance with the bike parking requirements.

Our bike requirements are longer than our parking requirements.

They are uh this one could really move to the um yeah down to the right by yeah the standard we don't need it here.

Um signage is subject to staff.

Did we did we get his letter?

Yes.

Um could email this right before the meeting.

I sent it to you, I think maybe 30 minutes ago.

Oh yeah, I I have to admit I didn't see it.

Um did anyone read it?

Yeah, I did.

Came in like 8 35, I think.

Oh, okay.

Does it say anything that we should be concerned about?

That's what I recall.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

If you read it, Bill, then I'm good with it.

Um then there's uh they'll comply with the requirements from TTP from environmental protection, from engineering, from the fire marshal, uh W from WPCA.

They'll submit a photometric plan subject to staff approval.

Um we took the word sidewalk out of the other one, and we yeah, thanks.

Um they'll submit an easement agreement showing all um easements on the property that uh the public can use and including the sidewalks if they're located on the property.

Um they'll plant 18 of the required 21 street trees.

Um and they will um put a bond down of 18,000, and then there are three street trees that didn't on the map don't show up as quite being on the street.

So this says they will just move them so they'll be along the sidewalk.

Okay, yeah.

Um then for the three trees uh that they're not planting, they'll pay a fee in lieu of uh 7500, and then the standard conditions be great if the city could find a space in that neighborhood for those excess trees.

Yeah, which uh the city is actually doing a uh tree study and um east side, west side, water side are sort of the focus areas.

So I think they've identified a couple of sites in those neighborhoods.

Good.

Yeah, that would, and if we can um we can um somehow direct the trees that aren't being planted uh to those places.

Okay.

Um is there any discussion on the these conditions?

Yeah, Mr.

Sherman.

Nope.

Can we get a motion to approve application 225-35 with the conditions as presented tonight?

So moved.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Okay, all in favor say aye.

I okay, it's approved uh 4-0.

Um next is the application 22537, which is the Harbor Point Bath House.

That's been continued.

Um application 224-36, just 300 main street um special permit.

They were requesting an extension of time.

Um this was the one that uh um let's see, they're requesting a one-year extension.

Um that's the hotel, right?

Oh I'm sorry.

What was the address?

300 main.

Is that um it's the hotel, isn't it?

That's the old bank building, right?

That's becoming uh yeah.

Yeah, um, they said that they are uh vigorously taking steps to advance the construction, they finalized construction drawings, filed an application for a building perm.

So it's moving along, and um but they uh won't have it by the current expiration, which is February 25th of uh 2026.

So they're asking for one year extension to February 25 of 2027.

Um I'm I move that we approve the extension of time for 300 main street uh from February 25th, 2026 to February 25th, 2027.

I'll second that.

Okay, any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh it's approved 40.

And last, we have uh um 223-48.

Um due to a clerical error, they'd requested a one-year extension instead of a two-year extension.

So they're they're coming back now for the two-year extension.

So they're asking for an extension to February 20th 2028.

We we were didn't last meeting, didn't we extend that already?

Yeah, we did a one year, and they had they Tom, it was a typo that they asked for one year.

So yeah, yeah.

So um we are um being asked for to go through February 28.

I moved that we granted two a corrected request for extension of time to two years for application number two two three-48.

And I'll make that second, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, and that's to February 20th, 2028.

Yes, is that two years?

That's two years.

Yeah, okay.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, it's approved for zero.

Um Bill, you'll be able to throw away some papers now.

I certainly hope so.

Oh, forget though.

Yeah.

On the on the Glimbrook Road application, we you didn't close it, did you?

No, because they needed to give us a couple of more items.

It just came to me a little while ago when I was looking at something else.

Wasn't there Venita?

Wasn't there a letter from the fire marshal asking us to have them change location of one of the EV EV spaces because they couldn't get to what a fire entrance?

That's right.

So just remember, make that note when we get to it.

Well, yeah, but the the um do we do we say that already?

I can't remember.

Uh I don't think yeah, maybe not.

Maybe it could be no, it was just a point of discussion on that meeting.

That was what we want.

Okay.

Okay, yeah.

So that's a good point, Bill.

Let's let's make sure that gets included.

Um, so what do we have on for our January 5th meeting?

So we have the bath house, that's hard point s5.

Um, then we have you know, continuation of plan book road.

Um can we if everyone is is okay with that?

Can we vote on that next time?

Yeah, yes, Mr.

Please.

Um, so we just need the the conditions for that.

Yeah.

Um then we have two of our own text changes.

One is a cleanup and the other is the comprehensive plan update, just updating the references throughout the regulations, changing all the references of to mass from master plan to comprehensive categories, yeah.

And what Ralph?

There's different categories.

So it was master plan category one was like very low density residential.

Now it's uh comprehensive plan category res one.

Okay.

Okay.

Good.

Um 23 Berry place.

Oh, oh yes.

Um, so the hearing was closed, so then it'll be on for the deliberation.

I'm sorry, Panita.

No, did we close the hearing on this place?

Yeah, we did.

Okay.

Um so we'll just that one needs um there's a vote.

A vote.

Yeah.

There are a few other applications, but I I think we have this might be enough for that date.

There are a few more applications that we need to schedule.

Anything of interest?

Um who's up next.

There's a conversion at 1150 Summer Street for a daycare center.

Um the daycare center.

Yeah.

Well, yeah.

Let's put that on.

Yeah, I need daycare centers.

Yeah.

We can get that one started.

Um then, you know, other applications.

I think uh there's 80 Lockwood Avenue.

That's um that's the the mosque.

It's a mosque.

Okay.

Right.

Um, and then we have a couple of more text changes.

Uh by us, that's R6, and then CG district.

Then um What is the home goods uh parking lot extension?

Yes, actually the applicant is you know redesigning some of it.

So they said, you know, they need a little bit more time.

Which come back with a modified proposal.

Which one is that?

Home goods.

Home goods parking lot.

Oh, okay.

Parking lot.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um they're redesigning it.

Yes.

They modified home goods to move over to Lord and Taylor.

That would uh be good.

Um, it sounds like for our next meeting we have um enough to keep us out of trouble.

Keep us in trouble, you mean?

Yeah, that uh anything anything significant coming up down the pipe.

Um some you know, more conversions.

Wow.

77 Broad Street 77 177, I think.

It's on 77 broad.

Is that over by near um Macy's?

Yes.

On like Grey Rock towards Grey Rock and Broad?

That that's it.

That's the indeed building.

Indeed, right?

Right.

Oh, okay.

They want to convert to uh apartments as well.

Yes, geez, I have those for the office buildings that we were gonna be keeping ones downtown.

That's not good.

We can't get rid of all the apartment buildings, or I mean all the office buildings, but I've also heard that is that and indeed is one that's been pretty empty because they had a good remote work policy, so they've not been occupied for some time.

And layoffs, I think too.

I mean, we still need jobs in town.

also heard that is that and indeed is one that's been pretty empty because they had a good remote work policy so they've not been occupied for some time and layoffs I think too I mean we still need jobs in town I think David is frozen okay he's left us during the medium didn't tell us are we gonna be stuck here now well listen gang have a great great holiday absolutely happy Hanukkah also happy Hanukkah see you guys next year at Christmas oh and happy new year they're on my phone so make making a motion it won't let me back in ah okay David I've put you on speaker so thank you yeah so making a motion what did you say is happening with indeed um it's a conversion indeed right now I understand that but you were starting to say something about you had heard something about indeed so it's not uh it's not been fully occupied they they're not using their office space well yeah um that's a nice building it is too bad to leave lose it uh from office but can understand them wanting to convert it okay um oh recording in contract back i second jerry's motion david you're muted when it did jerry move something uh yeah to adjourn that's good happy Hanukkah most most important motion of the evening okay and merry christmas thank you thanks everybody okay thank you bye bye