Let's give it a minute to get all the attendees in.

David, I think we can get started.

Okay.

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

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

on March 9, 2026.

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

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

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

Bill Morris.

Here.

Roseanne McManus?

Here.

Jerry Bozak.

Here.

And Peter Rustin.

Yeah.

And um Peter.

So everyone knows Peter is our uh newest uh alternate on the board, and it is great to have him.

So uh Peter, uh welcome.

Thank you so much.

Um and um now for the staff, uh Ralph Blessing.

Here and Vanita Monter.

Here.

Uh during tonight's meeting, the board's microphones will be out, will be on throughout the meeting.

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

However, I would ask the applicant 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 will have an opportunity to speak.

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

Here is the procedure for the public to let us know that you'd like to speak.

If you came in through Zoom, please use the raise your hand function and you will be unmuted when it's 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 you are called on to speak.

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

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

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

If you're trying to get on to speak and having an issue, please send an email to Vanita and she will uh get you on.

Vanita's email address is V Mater.

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

You can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and the meeting applications and other materials by going to our website www.stanford ct.gov slash zoning.

Um please let the uh minutes reflect that um Peter Rustin is being seated as a voting member uh at tonight's meeting.

And um can I get a motion please to put applications 225-43 and 225-4 on the agenda?

These are the uh these are the um items relating to 1150 Summer Street that um were inadvertently left off the agenda and they need to be continued.

So can we get a motion to add them to the agenda?

So move second third.

Uh any discussion?

No.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Um opposed.

Abstentions?

Okay.

Uh so applications 225-43 and 225-44 have been added to the agenda.

Um these items are continued until the March 30, 2026 zoning board meeting at 6:30 on Zoom.

Um, next we have application 225-48, children's learning centers of Fairfield County, Inc., 60 Palmer's Hill Road, site and architectural plans and or requested uses.

Applicants proposing to adaptively reuse the existing two-story building and construct a new daycare facility connected to the existing building, add 60 surface parking spaces, an outdoor pavilion, outdoor play area, 11 classrooms, and a gross motor space.

The proposed facility is anticipated to serve up to 220 children.

Are you uh presenting tonight?

Uh yes.

I will lead the presentation tonight.

Um with Noel Apine and other members of our team, should they be necessary.

First, like to welcome the newest planning and zoning member.

Good to have number five uh on board.

Um you joined a very simple application, so it shouldn't be a problem.

They're all simple, aren't they?

That's true.

That is true.

So we I'd like our presentation tonight, is is brief.

Um I'd like to start off by um addressing the um 77 Havemeyer uh residents.

Um, because there's sort of three different levels of them.

I'd like to apologize to those residents who wanted to work cooperatively with us and were willing to take the leap of faith that we would get this done and done right.

Um we put them in a spot by asking them to take a leap of faith, and now we have decided that we will take the leap of faith in terms of not operating or opening until we either have the cut through from 64 to 60, or the city finishes the improvements to the intersection.

So we could have done that earlier, probably should have, and so we apologize to those residents that were willing to sort of work with us.

Uh we're disappointed with those residents that elected to cut off communications, fire one attorney, get another, communicate, not communicate except for last-minute things, and also for the residents or resident who would videotape children and the program over there, intimidating people like their ICE agents, they should be ashamed of themselves.

I offered them videos of any hour of the day, any day of the week.

They sought nothing.

I'd like to apologize to the zoning board, putting the high-paid zoning board members in a position to have to adjudicate this matter, and say to you that we will take the leap of faith that we will make this happen.

CLC has been around over 100 years, it knows what it's doing.

We will serve uh the neighborhood, um, and we'll get this done right.

So it's pretty simple where we are now.

If I could share my screen.

Sure.

Oh, Vanita, am I a co-host?

Yes.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Can you see my screen?

Yes.

Okay.

Let me just get everybody out of the way.

Um again, um, particularly for our newest member.

We're talking about CLC, Children's Learning Center, which is located here and has been for decades, which we're talking about this property here, 60 Palmer's Hill Road, where family and children's services was here for decades.

Um, and then we have this sort of keyhole here that is owned by Edge Hill.

And we have had a cooperative cooperative working relationship with Edge Hill for decades, many, many decades.

Uh, had the pleasure of writing the zoning, getting all these approvals as well as all for 77, as well as what we just recently did with CLC.

And as you can see from this aerial, and I think I'll blow it up just a little bit.

We already use their property.

We already can drive through here.

Uh when this parking lot, which was recently resurfaced by the city of Stamford, we parked here on their property.

So we have a Rick, I'm sorry.

I'm is your cursor showing us different places?

There it is.

Yeah, I see that.

Okay.

Thanks.

So this was the parking lot, the old United Way property, which we came in and got approved for a parking lot for Ed Shell.

So we've had a terrific working relationship.

We've had no problem over the decades.

Um, and we anticipate that that will continue.

We have been hamstrung because they in a recapitalization mode, and we're unable to make a final decision.

We did submit you know emails to you showing the communications, their understanding and willingness to help solve problems by connecting here as we show, so that um all the traffic for the new building would enter here and then exit uh on Door Oliver Drive.

And obviously, absent that you saw Matt Canonez later saying that the city is committed to expanding um their info their uh intersection improvement to include this.

Uh more importantly, working with Edge Hill is the solution for drainage.

Our drainage plan as supported by the city engineer can be modified to include whatever um levels of uh um studies, whether it's the 1.0 or the 1.3 or all the different things that are not even in our drainage manual, but um are in a state manual, we're happy to abide by any and all of those uh prior to uh building permit, so that the drainage will be reduced, but just reducing uh the drainage slightly is really not all that hopefully will happen here.

Hopefully, we'll be able to implement the plan that we've described, which is to put in catch basins, pick up the water before it runs down and into 7, impound it here and meter it out so that it's greatly reduced.

So we think we will be able to accomplish both of those things in any event.

We know we have solutions that will mitigate any of the impacts, and we know that the drainage system that's on this property now is not helpful, so it will be when we are done.

So we're here to say uh that we are ready to move forward um with us taking the leap of faith that we can make uh these connections happen, or we will wait until the city can um uh implement the intersectional improvements, and I think with that everything else I think we've said.

Okay, thank you.

Um does anyone else from your team want to speak, including um Mr.

Le Pine?

I think we'll Mr.

Le Pine will save him for the end.

Oh, okay.

Batting cleanup, yes, exactly.

Okay, um board uh questions for Mr.

Redness.

Uh Bill.

No, nothing Roseanne, nothing, Jerry.

No, but I'd like to say thank you for continuously coming back, and I appreciate all the details.

Thank you.

Peter, any questions?

Okay, and um, my only question is on that uh design you just showed us on that plan.

Where would the um fire department ask for a turnaround?

Can you show us where that would be?

There is well, a there would be no need for a turnaround because you can drive straight through, you don't have to turn around.

Show us can you just bring that up again, please?

Sure.

So uh first of all, you know, this is door.

This is door, you see my cursor, yeah.

Okay, so it would so we'd uh meet at the bottom of the parking lot, I guess.

So in other words, if if there were to have an issue here, um, they could come in this way and service the building.

Yeah.

If they came in this way, uh, with this design as it's shown here, we're we're going to say no exit here and make everybody go out this way.

But the fire department, of course, can do whatever it needs to do.

So if it came in this way, it would just go this way and fight the fire.

And then it could drive out this way.

So either way, they will have uh a way to do it.

The fire department also could come in off of this parking lot, park right here, and here's the building right here.

So there's plenty of places and ways that the fire department, should it ever become needed, I think it's a sprinkler building.

Um, you know, would have easy access and egress to the site and from the site.

Okay.

But their request was specifically for turnaround.

Well, that that was operating.

If this doesn't happen, what we would do is we would create a turnaround here.

So if for whatever reason this doesn't happen, we will have to satisfy the fire department either through you know, accessing over in here, which is you know, right there at the building, or we'd create a turnaround here so they could go back out.

Now the over in here that you just pointed to next to the edge hill park parking lot is edge hills property, right?

No, this area, this this area here is edge hill property, which the fire department has the perfect right to go on to fight a fire.

Similarly, they could, you know, park right here and fight a fire.

You know, should the fire is an emergency and it's you know not an everyday occurrence.

But if it had to be on our site, we would create a three-point turn in this area here for them, which could be done with grass pavers or something else, should that become necessary, which again, we don't think it will.

Well, hopefully, uh you will have uh the entrance from 64.

So um correct.

That would that would solve a lot of issues.

Okay, why don't we go to the public?

Um I see uh attorney uh Pierce is here.

Um could we um put him on, please?

Yeah.

You go.

Hi, I think I've been promoted now.

Yes, you have.

Okay.

Uh good evening and uh members of the board.

Um, thank you for um letting us speak again.

I represent uh I'm gonna I'm gonna turn with Conan Wolf uh in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Um I represent the Palmer Hill Community Association.

Um, and to reiterate the association as opposed to the project um as presented, uh you know, the route that uh keeps being shown to the board is not what's before the board.

Um so since the last hearing, um you know the applicant has not submitted anything new on parking or drainage issues.

Um they've not supplied the parking operations plan that the board requested.

They've not shown the board how queuing will work at the site, they've not done anything that the board had asked them to do.

And since the last meeting, as as the board has noted, the fire marshal commented that there need to be a turnaround.

Um, there is not access straight through access uh to Palmer Cell Road from the site, other than Door Alvar.

So going into that parking area is a is one way in, one way out.

Um, they can't guarantee that uh the fence won't be there and that the fire department will be able to enter that area without knocking down the fence.

They certainly could enter from 60, you know, from from 64 and come and to the extent they can reach the site with water spraying from 64, but that's not what they asked for.

They asked for either uh straight line access in through that area or a turnaround.

Uh we don't know how the turnaround's gonna work.

They haven't designed it.

Uh it's possible it impacts parking or other site issues.

It's possible it exact exacerbates the other um operational problems with the site that we've discussed at prior meetings.

Um the cut through.

Um, we appreciate them saying tonight for the first time, uh, which is what we've been asking for for since the very beginning and before I was even hired, that they'd not um uh that they that they cut through to 60.

Um, so we're happy to hear that they will, you know, agree not to open until that happens.

But the traffic infrastructure improvements really have nothing to do with the issues that we're raising.

So that is not an acceptable condition if that is an alternative that allows them to open.

That work has nothing to do with the operational conditions internal to the site, it's nothing to do with door oliver drive.

If implemented, it does nothing to resolve the problem of concentrated drop-off and pickup times for the 220 children on the constrained dead end uh site with fewer parking spaces than the existing facility has, um, no dedicated drop-off area and shared access with residents and emergency traffic on the site on the on door all of our drive.

Um their reliance on the existing site, it's of no value.

Um the um site has, as we showed in the documents that were submitted today, has dramatically different conditions.

It's got uh fewer students, it's got more parking relative to the number of students that is a separate dedicated area for employees.

It has uh separate egress and ingress, so there's a smooth flow of traffic.

It's an apple's orange comparison, so you know it doesn't help to establish anything about their use of what is proposed for this site.

Um we saw the city traffic operations review.

It still doesn't address the real issue to the to the board, which is the traffic issues internal to the site.

Um, and again, the letter from the COO, same thing.

The infrastructure improvements again, they don't do anything to control these issues.

We're not talking about queuing on Palmer Hill, Palmer's Hill Road coming into Door Oliver Drive.

We're talking about queuing on Door Oliver Drive into the site, and they've done nothing to address that.

Um for the benefit of the board, I just want to if I could share my screen.

Yes.

I just want to point to a couple of things.

Okay.

So this is their not yet.

There we go.

Okay, so this is their site plan.

So I mean, the property boundary is right here.

So just to be clear, none of this is theirs right here.

This is edge hill, and the note on the plan is encroachment, no record easement.

So the encroachment that is identified on their site plan is the play area, the containers, the chain link fence, all this other stuff.

There's an encroachment of a road, and there's a so I don't believe it's shown here, but there's a chain link fence that's around here.

So if you were to do a turnaround, it's got to go somewhere in here.

I don't know how they fit that in without impacting the rest of the site.

Um then coming back to, I just want to briefly come back to some of the um, let's see.

Here it is.

All right.

So I just want to compare the two sites.

This is this is submitted today.

Um compares the proposed CLC facility or the existing CLC facility with the proposed facility and identifies the differences.

This is the existing site, shows the amount of parking and the wide entrances.

Again, the existing site, drop-off and pickup area in the front.

Here's the CLC parking lot.

You know, larger parking area relative to the size of the site.

Um there are no dedicated pickup and drop-off spots in this plan.

Um again, this is the intersection that we're talking about.

This is up the hill is edge hill.

This turn in this sharp right hand turn in is the site that's proposed for the daycare.

And then over here is the Palmer Hill uh community association.

So we have this three-point intersection where and the queuing is going to be right here, blocking Edge Hill's access to the road and blocking our access to the road.

Here's a delivery vehicle.

Again, the congestion and queuing, creating issues for emergency vehicles is what this simulates what it would happen if you had queuing and um trucks on the road.

So uh for these reasons and as expressed in the prior hearings, we we asked the board not to um reject the use permanently, but we're asking us that for the board not to approve it prematurely.

Um there they they seem confident that they will get access over the edge hill property.

We'd ask that the board deny this without prejudice to allow them to return with a plan that demonstrates that access, uh demonstrates safe emergency access, workable on-site circulation, realistic parking operations, um, rather than their assumption that this is all going to work itself out later.

So we asked that you deny it without prejudice.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on this application?

Okay.

Um board, any questions for attorney peers?

Okay.

Um, redness.

Do you want to conclude?

Yes.

I just say a couple of things quickly.

Um, and then Noah can conclude.

Um I'm glad that the uh information was shared where we sit right on the uh survey, no record easement.

Okay.

We we have we don't hide anything.

We've been very upfront about all of this uh with decades of experience working on all of these projects and watching them cooperatively.

I think there's been nothing in the record that supports any facts that support their queuing uh fears.

Um they have opinions, they have pictures that don't show any dates, don't show you know whose vehicles they are or whether they were staged or we have we have no information from them other than their um opinions.

So again, we think we have covered everything that needs to be covered and between the engineering letter and the director of operations and the traffic letter that uh we've satisfied what we need to satisfy to get this approved, and we will continue to uh work with everybody to make it um function properly.

And we'd like to have Noel Apine, the president of the board address the board last.

Just introduce yourself for the record, please.

Sure.

Thank you, Chair Stein.

Uh I'm Noah Lepine.

I serve as uh board chair for CLC, and um I really want to thank uh all the members of the zoning board for uh for your time and consideration on this matter.

Um thank you for the tax change special permit and for helping us to move this project forward.

I also want to thank Rick Redness, uh, who I want to remind everyone, he is doing this work on our behalf as a volunteer uh with his time and his skills, and it's truly extraordinary.

Uh I I myself am a Stanford resident.

Uh, I've been a longtime volunteer and supporter of CLC.

My family's involvement with CLC goes back more than 40 years, although my mom wouldn't like me telling people that, but it's true.

Uh, and I volunteer because I believe firmly that providing access to affordable, safe, high-quality, early childhood education is one of the best investments that our city can make.

It elevates our school performance, uh, including increasing high school graduation rates.

It reduces long-term cost to the city, and it helps break the cycle of poverty.

And we've been doing this work at CLC in Stanford for over 125 years.

Now, Head Start, which this facility would be built to support, launched in 1965 as part of President Johnson's war on poverty, and it serves income eligible families, and it's endured bipartisan support for over 60 years because it works.

It's administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, which is interesting and important because it reflects all of the research that shows roughly 80% of human to brain development happens by the age of five.

So these programs deliver not just school readiness, but education, socialization, health, and nutrition.

We are one of Connecticut's two largest early childhood providers, and we're the largest food provider for children under five in the state.

And one-third of Stanford's kindergarten classes are CLC graduates.

And our data shows they consistently outperform peers without early education.

Head start's also critical for the workforce infrastructure in our town.

It enables parents to work knowing that their children are safe and cared for.

So the program we want to preserve here with this building is not optional.

It's essential.

And we've approached this project with consistent collaboration and humility.

At every turn, we're seeking input.

We're looking to find solutions with those who are willing to work openly and honestly back with us.

We want to protect this critical program, and we want to improve the property beyond its current conditions.

We're committed to making 60 Palmers work for everyone, the neighbors, our parents, our teachers, and most of all our students.

And I really view this as a moment for Stanford to be the best version of itself, something I've seen time and time again.

It's a city I was raised in.

It's a city where my wife and I chose to raise our family.

It's a city where I ran my businesses and the city where I choose to give back.

And this project is not about perceived inconveniences or individual objections.

It's about supporting neighbors in greatest need and acting in accordance with our city's values.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you.

Board, before we close this, um, any final questions.

Okay.

Then we are closing application 225-48.

And thank you all for your presentations tonight.

Thank you.

Next, we are going on to application 225-47, City of Stanford zoning board zoning text change.

The purpose of this text change is to add comprehensive regulations to the CL Limited Commercial District.

Um section 5H.

Currently, the C L District is only roughly defined by the use regulations contained in Appendix A and the bulk regulations in Appendix B and does not contain any site and urban design requirements.

Appendices A and B would be updated accordingly.

In addition, a definition for arterial street would be added to section three and the regulations for large scale development review, section 2e, adjusted.

Also proposed are changes to the drive-through use standards and regulations in section four.

Roseanne, could you read the planning board letter, please?

Certainly.

February 11th, 2026, to Mr.

David Stein, Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZD application number 225-47 text change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

During its regular during its meeting held on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026, planning board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance to the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

The purpose of the text change is to add comprehensive regulations to the CL Limited Commercial District, Section 5H.

Currently, the C L District is only roughly defined by the use regulations contained in Appendix A and the bulk regulations in Appendix B and does not contain any site and urban design requirements.

Appendices A and B would be updated accordingly.

In addition, a definition for arterial street would be added to section three and the regulations for large scale development review 2E adjusted.

Also proposed our changes to the drive-through use standards and regulations in section four.

Rough blessing, land use bureau made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously recommended approval of ZB application number 225-47 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gazano, Chair.

Thank you.

Boy, would I.

Okay.

Yes, I'm happy to present uh this application.

Let me just share my screen.

Okay.

Um tonight we're going to talk about application number 225-47, uh, which includes proposed changes to the CL district.

So uh the intent um of this revised CL district is really to uh create regulations for uh large-scale um often auto-dependent uh uses uh that uh you can find on uh Stanford's far west side on the Greenwich border, um, around Bullshead, uh, but also in other places, the Newfood Green Shopping Center or the shopping center on Hope Street.

So the idea is to um make uh improvements to the urban design um of those uh uses and also to better integrate them into the uh respective um neighborhoods.

Um in the uh letter from um the planning board, you heard that the CL district is only uh roughly defined.

This what you see here in front of you is the CL district.

So we have section five L H on top, which basically refers you to the appendices.

Uh and then uh you have the bulk regulations that are uh in appendix B of the zoning regulations, and then there's the use table uh in appendix A, but that's all for um the CL district.

Um the CL district um is one of the um what we call orphan districts.

Um so those are all the districts that have similarly um rudimentary rules um and regulations.

Uh and those uh districts include the CC, the center city district, the CG district that we talked about last meeting, uh the CI district, uh the CL, which we're talking about tonight, and the CN district.

And uh the goal is to uh replace uh or to um amend all those districts um to have uh more urban design regulations uh and and uh better regulations that they have now.

Um so uh what you can see here is um for uh some of them um we are hopefully in the final stretch of getting those regulations approved.

Uh some of them are drafted.

Uh the CC, which is the center city district, of course, is very complex, and uh we're talking to a lot of people about the CC district.

So um hopefully this will be uh moving forward soon.

Um we also have a draft uh for the CN district, which we hope to file um shortly.

Uh for the CI district, um, the jury is out uh a little bit.

Um the plan is probably to replace them with a variety of other districts, be it the CL or the CN, depending on where uh those districts um are uh located um currently.

So as I said before, the purpose is really to um uh create uh a district that matches the new master plan category that was introduced uh with the 2035 master plan uh that's master plan category CLRF commercial large format retail.

Uh and uh in the master plan, you see uh the page uh on the right here.

Um there's there's a few locations in town uh that would be uh eligible um for the CL district.

Um and I believe I mentioned them uh pretty much all uh before.

So once again, those are auto-oriented commercial areas.

Um they are usually along a Terial roads, and oftentimes um they include um big box um format stores.

Um that's really the intent of um the district to regulate uh those types of uses.

So um what you see here is um a comparison of the bulk regulations uh between uh the new regulations, the proposed CL regulations, and uh the current uh CL regulations as it exists in the appendices for the most part.

Um so one big change is that we um changing the minimum lot size from currently 4,000 square feet to two acres.

Uh the intent here, of course, is um that we want uh larger scale retail uh in uh this district.

Um so we want to avoid what is really important the minimum lot size is uh when it comes to um subdivisions that we don't uh generate um like small lots through subdivisions that cannot uh adjust uh or or um accommodate those large retail uh uses um for existing smaller lots the implications are very little, they're grandfathered in.

Plus, we also uh added a regulation that basically says if you are below the minimum lot size, uh those uh lots can be developed based on the regulations that are in place.

Um with regard to the other regulations, uh you see that uh a lot of excuse me a sec.

Just so I understand that you mean if there's a lot that's 4,000 square feet that's currently zoned C L, then they could develop as a uh CL property.

Correct.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

And we added this in the CL regulations, but it's actually something that is uh generally a zoning principle uh that is applied, but but we just wanted to make sure.

It they're all grandfathered.

Yes.

Um what you see is that a lot of the regulations actually are not proposed to change uh or only slightly change.

So uh the floor area ratio is staying the same, uh the building coverage uh is staying the same.

Um the building height uh we increase um slightly um because um usually um commercial floor-to-ceiling heights are higher than um residential floor-to-ceiling heights.

Um but uh one other important aspect is that we um uh uh create um better protections for neighboring single family or generally residential uses.

So for example, um if you are within 100 feet of a single family district and the lower density multifamily districts, you cannot exceed a building height of two stories.

Um we increase uh the yard requirements in particular when you are uh budding on uh a single family or a low density multifamily district, and the same is true for the rear setback as well.

Also, uh what was not regulated before was lot coverage, so the amount of uh pervious or imperial surface.

So uh we are proposing to add a maximum lot coverage um of 80 percent.

Um, and currently um you were able to uh basically uh pave the whole lot area um uh because there were no regulations in place to regulate that.

So the idea here is that we manage stormwater better and we allow um for more planting and green uh in those types of developments.

Um a big change um has to do with urban design uh considerations that we try to uh incorporate into uh the new CL district.

So one of the things is we try to encourage reducing the number of curb cuts.

So what you see here is the new field green um uh shopping center, and uh obviously this shopping center is is uh grandfathered in.

Um, but with the new regulations, uh what would happen if you were to develop this shopping center now nowadays or after the approval, hopefully of these regulations is that we would uh try to reduce the number uh of curb cuts um uh through um a variety of mechanisms in the zoning regulations.

Um another thing that we would try to do uh would be to align uh curb cuts with existing intersections so that entrances to shopping centers uh for example would be aligned with traffic signals uh to make it easier for everyone to get in and out of those shopping centers.

Um another thing uh that the new zoning regulations encourage is to move the buildings uh closer to the street.

So uh imagine you are a neighbor uh in this neighborhood and you just want to walk over.

Uh the first thing you have to do is to cross a huge parking lot to uh get to the stores that are here.

So we're trying to turn it around a little bit, uh, have the buildings align the street and have the parking behind the buildings so uh that it's uh better accessible um for uh um pedestrians uh and and cyclists.

Um another thing that we are uh proposing to do, or that the regulations are uh proposed to do is to uh move the um drive-thru uses and that includes gas stations to the interior of the site.

Um the idea being that if there is uh a long queue, uh that it would be interior to the site and not go out um to uh the street, and it's just also a little bit better uh covered from view.

Uh and uh I already mentioned that we're proposing wider setbacks um from uh neighboring uses to protect those better.

And last not least, um together with the um parking lot planting requirements that we already have in place and the new uh limitations for impervious surface.

Um the uh newer shopping centers uh would also be overall greener and have a uh larger uh tree canopy and more plantings uh than uh what we often see now.

Some other urban design considerations that we're trying to take into account is uh we want to avoid uh blank walls um along sort of the the shopping um facades.

Um another one uh another thing that we're trying to do is create better pedestrian connections.

What you see here, uh you have a crosswalk, but then there is no clear pedestrian path.

So um we uh would ask for um safe uh pedestrian routes through the parking lots uh to get to the stores.

And uh what I also mentioned before, there would be a larger buffer between uh neighboring uses and those buffers also would have to be uh planted so that there's just um a better distance, uh more distance and and a green buffer um between those uses and the neighboring uses.

Um a couple of things have changed between uh when uh the text was filed and uh now that it's uh back to you.

Um we uh or I have uh emailed you the latest version of the text uh earlier today.

It's also posted on a website.

Um of or most of the changes were actually uh based on comments that we received uh from other city agencies.

So um the Transportation Bureau had some uh in sites and inputs on uh the regulations for uh drive-throughs that we were proposing.

Um another thing that we did was uh originally we wanted to create uh um a definition for arterial street uh where particular um regulations apply, for example, wider sidewalks.

Um we uh got rid of that and instead merged it with um commercial streets.

Um I think that just makes it easier and and is less confusing than having like another uh street category uh in there substantively, I don't think it's a big change.

And uh one item that um the uh the law department was concerned about was uh that originally we had proposed to allow some uses in some areas but not in others.

So um uh we uh got rid of that distinction.

So um uh now all the uses uh that are currently pretty much allowed in the CL with a few exceptions um uh will be allowed everywhere.

Um but I also send out that that list uh that excerpt from um appendix A that uh over all the changes, the uses that are permitted in the CL district are um relatively uh minimal and and mostly it is uh what is permitted um now.

Um I believe we got a red line in our package.

Uh yes, it's dated 218.

Is that the same as the one that you sent out?

Correct, yeah.

That should be the same.

Yeah.

So it's the same as the one you emailed today.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone had it.

Okay.

Good.

Just want to make sure we don't need to read one more draft.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So uh yeah, that's that's pretty much it, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

And I I commend you for going through and trying to um uh get rid of these orphan districts and and actually have regulations for them.

So um this is this is good.

Uh Jerry, any questions?

Right now, Ms.

Chairman, I'm just taking that all in.

I think it's uh I think it's go I'm glad that we're consolidating it all and uh and kind of uh putting it under you know one mantle.

So that's great.

It's good work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ralph.

Thank you.

Uh Roseanne.

Um yes, it was interesting that you used uh the Newfield Green shopping center as an example.

Um I'm probably there at least three times a week.

Um and you call out the curb cuts.

So one was for the bank, which I don't even consider part of the shopping center because it's you can't get to it.

Well, it's on the end, so I guess it is, but I don't know what curb cut you'd get rid of.

You know, the the first one into the shopping center is people are going to the grocery store.

The middle ones for people are going to CBS or the bakery, or some of the smaller um stores.

I I I for traffic flow and not backing up onto the street and not making it unsafe in the parking lot.

I can't imagine getting rid of any of those curb cuts.

So it's it's just a comment, really, not a question, but I just can't for that shopping center, I can't even imagine the curb cuts.

I love all the greens.

I love adding more buffer space, especially to um single family residences.

I uh all that to me is perfect.

Um and I I know it's a planning thing with getting rid of curb cuts, but um it worries me, but I you know, most everything is I mean, the the uh it doesn't mean that you have to get rid of curb cuts.

Uh the idea is to study where you can get rid of um uh cuts.

Of course, the idea, I mean the idea is to uh provide safe circulation for cars and uh minimize um potential conflicts with uh with pedestrians, right?

If it was a more of a downtown shopping center, I could see all that.

Yeah, yeah.

So it's it's not a requirement or nothing in the text says, oh, you can only have one curb cut um per shopping center.

Uh it's really um that uh it uh uh has to be studied or should be studied.

Yeah, and uh the thing is also um it's probably more an issue with like uh smaller um shopping centers or individual stores uh that are next to each other.

So you might have uh one exit and entrance next to another, um uh which could be easily combined.

Uh and and the way actually uh we we're trying to encourage that is uh that you can get relief from parking um uh uh requirements if you decide to work with your neighbor and have a common um uh entrance uh and exit.

So it's it's not punitive um or or any like hard and fast uh limitation to say hey you can only have one uh uh curb cut.

It's really trying to encourage to plan smarter, right when it comes to uh uh the number of curb cuts.

That makes a lot of sense, yeah.

Yeah, I don't have any other questions.

Okay.

This was Ms.

Chairman.

Could you comment?

So this isn't really speaking about this, is just using it as as a is uh um a comparative, it's not about Newfield itself because that's right, because it was uh grandfathered and okay, yeah.

No, and and it's it's really too uh, I mean, I can I can talk about design regulations all day long.

I think it's just don't get in the start.

Oh, that's okay, please.

I think it's it's just if you have an example of what it would look like in practice, um that has nothing to do with with like oh the Newfield Green shopping center should go away.

It's really no no no if we were building it today, yes, exactly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh Bill, any question?

Yeah, Ralph, I like to talk a little bit about your idea uh uh in moving the buildings closer to the street and do in under new developments.

Typically, uh the back of those type of buildings were used for deliveries, and it was big tracker trails, those type of trucks.

How do you going to coordinate that type of delivery action with the parking for your customers?

And B, how close to the street do you intend on the building being?

I mean, would it still be a driveway to be parking in front of the building, or is it gonna be a landscape area?

I'm trying to get a feel for what it is we're trying to accomplish.

Yeah, so um there uh uh the idea is that there should be as little um uh uh parking in front of a building as possible.

Um so uh along uh the commercial streets, um we uh basically the setback requirement is 15 feet from the curb.

So uh you have space for uh street trees, and um you also uh have a nice wide sidewalk uh uh there.

Um the the you're absolutely right about um the uh the loading, which happens rightly so uh behind the building, and and obviously we don't want to uh uh have loading and unloading on the street.

So uh there's another requirement uh in there that says that um the loading has to be internal to the site, so you cannot access the loading dock or anything from the street directly.

It has also uh um uh to be on the site so that you don't impact any streets.

So uh in many instances that might mean uh that you have sort of pods in a parking lot um where you have uh one uh facade facing the street and the parking uh uh one facade facing uh the parking lot for the customers who came by car, and one side uh that is available for uh loading and unloading.

Do we have anything like that in Stanford?

Oh my question.

Yeah, um, I mean, all those uh shopping centers that were built were not built according to those regulations.

So I know I no, I was curious if somebody had the foresight that we would be trying to do this, that they would have tried to build something like that.

I think you know what Bedford Street to some extent, you know, you have parking and loading in the back, and um the storefronts facing the street, so the CVS in the corner has all the loading in the back.

Um you can park in the parking lot of the garage.

So that's kind of the idea to make it a little bit more attractive from the fine, yeah.

But see, but but those aren't large stores, those are all small establishments.

I don't view that as a an example.

I mean, honestly, I I'm just trying to envision what this could possibly uh look like, and it would you wouldn't even have uh even have uh driving in front of these uh new buildings, it would just be for pedestrian traffic.

Yeah, yeah.

Ralph, where is the section that requires the buildings be close to the street?

I mean, it says uh what the way the way it enforces that is that it says you can't have parking in front of the building between the building lines, so there is no uh so there's a setback requirement of 15 feet.

Um, and then it says uh that uh you can't park in front of the building.

Got it.

No parking permitted in front in the front yard between the building line.

Okay, and with regard to the loading, you can have the loading to the side of the building, and they can also be parking uh along the sides of the building.

So um I think there's there's enough enough uh design flexibility to allow for all those different goals coming together.

I don't know.

I personally I'm just having trouble envisioning how this is gonna work, but I'll have to uh think about it a little more.

Um other comment real quick, Ralph, is when we talk about the lot coverage, I would suggest that we add the word maximum lot coverage as opposed to just say lot coverage, there's no confusion about that it's not a minimum, that type of thing.

Yeah, um and just to clarify that when it comes to the height of the uh buildings and abutting districts, I believe the terminology you used.

So okay, so it would whatever that district allows would be the maximum height of this uh new area.

Um what it would do is generally the the building height as it is now is four stories, right?

Um, but the new regulation would basically say if you are within uh a hundred feet of uh a residential single family or low density um um district, um you could only go up to two stories.

So that's and and currently you would be able to go up to four stories.

Would that Ralph would that only be the portion of this shopping center that's within a hundred feet?

Yes.

So the part that extends farther away could be four stories.

Yes.

But with the whole idea of pushing the buildings to the street, I mean that's basically another tool to incentivize people to have the um the buildings closer to the street, because if they're closer to the back, they might have to put in some sort of stepped building, uh, which is which is uh more expensive and and probably less attractive um uh than moving it to the street.

Interesting.

Um, probably we'll have some more questions, but I'm good right now.

I guess about this a little more.

Peter, any questions?

Yeah, so just I'm trying to visualize this.

This would at least in intent relate to big box stores such as Home Depot, stuff like that, correct?

Yes.

And you're thinking of having the parking in the back of the buildings, correct?

In the back or to the sides of the buildings.

So tell me why that is a good idea.

So uh the as I said before, um, so obviously a lot of people uh go to those uh stores, those types of stores by car.

Um, but there might also be people um who uh um and I mean that's probably not the case for the Home Depot, but if you have a big supermarket or something like that, uh it functions as like a neighborhood store.

So for people who walk there, um uh uh you first have to cross a ginormous parking lot in order to get to the store.

So the idea is to put the move the building closer to the street, um, and uh make it easier for pedestrians to get there, but at the same time, of course, also make it easier for the people who arrive by car um to access the store.

So uh that's that's really uh the point.

Plus the thing is also that uh from from an urban design perspective, a parking lot is in very rare instances a particularly attractive site.

So um having uh um a building closer to the street um will uh create a more um active streetscape and just make the street um uh a little bit more uh attractive than uh just looking at a uh at a parking lot.

Um that's that's the the general idea.

Okay, I understand that, and that makes sense.

I guess one question I have is is there any study or research to say how many people uh use cars versus pedestrian traffic for these particular stores?

Because it seems to me, for example, that with a Home Depot, uh people go there by cars, they're picking up stuff.

Whereas would they say a supermarket, I completely understand how they'd be walking in the front, maybe pedestrian traffic, they're only picking up a couple things.

Wouldn't that kind of be an inconvenience for people who are saying going to a home depot and have to go around the back?

And then the people who are building the stores that have to build two facades, right?

I mean, the thing is also you could have the building sort of perpendicular to the street.

So you you basically have the short front on the street and uh the parking to the side, which doesn't make a difference one way or the other, um, uh in terms of convenience.

Um so I think you you can you can achieve both um uh at the same time, and then on the third side, uh in the in the back or the other side of the building, you could have your loading operations um be out of the way um uh from both the parking lot and uh uh the street.

So it's it's not just that it's necessarily about uh as with the example for the Newfield Green shopping center, that you push the whole thing just a couple hundred feet over, um, you you rearrange the buildings differently, and that could mean that the buildings are now perpendicular uh uh to the street and uh so on.

Um you you rearrange the buildings differently, and that could mean that the buildings are now perpendicular uh uh to the street and and uh so on.

You know, okay, cool.

In Los Angeles, if if folks have been there, um particularly in uh like Ventura Boulevard and other major streets, they have the stores right up on the street, the driveway goes along the side of the building, and then the parking is behind the building.

So um, and it I think it works very well there.

Uh yes, Jerry.

Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted to, and and Ralph, if this was considered, and then obviously um being California and Florida, um, this isn't isn't a problem, but knowing just growing up and doing that type of work, it may be a challenge if you're putting parking on the side of a building and to the back, because when you're doing snow maintenance, part of snow maintenance is you you know how you maintain or um uh work with that type.

You kind of lose snow through the longer runs.

And if you're the challenge would be, I can see, especially this year, if you have parking on a side of a building indoor a back, you're not able to lose that volume as much.

So that may be a consideration.

I don't know if that was considered in doing something like that.

I mean, uh obviously all those things, uh every larger development, the parking needs to be reviewed by um uh the transportation department.

And um if they weren't before after this winter, they're certainly aware of uh snow.

Uh I mean, uh every every parking lot uh uh needs to have snow shelves, and I think actually also like the the planting areas can help with uh uh with that with that type of issue.

The same thing as like uh um a planting strip along the street um uh in the winter operates as a as a snow shelf.

Yeah, um so I mean the the the thing is that uh this will still read as like shopping centers.

Um so you will still see parking from the street.

Uh it's not that it's totally tucked behind the building.

Um, but um you will you will have um uh more accessibility uh for for pedestrians from uh the street, and you won't have situations where I mean there's this places uh um along High Ridge Road, for example, where uh you park directly in front of the building, and uh when you when you pull out, you pull out backwards.

Uh there's no sidewalk into the traffic.

Um uh which which is uh obviously uh uh a dangerous situation and it creates conflicts with uh pedestrians, uh you won't see that uh anymore with with those regulations.

I take one good example on highlight is the trade digital um grocery store.

That's you know the building itself is kind of perpendicular to the street.

Yeah.

You can see more of the facade, somebody can easily walk on the sidewalk and get to.

I mean, the the sidewalk is not really that continuous, but if you did have continuous sidewalk, people could walk to it more easily.

Can I ask a question, David?

Yeah.

Um Ralph, do we have a map with all the uh CL districts on it?

That's uh we don't have a map with the CL districts.

Um the what I can offer here, and I can I can make uh uh a map if that's something that people want.

Um but can I make this anyway?

Yeah, it can be texted to us next week.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I mean, there's there's really there's really a handful.

So we're talking, we're talking about um the the west side, west main street along um the um uh the Greenwich border, basically that that type of shopping area, and those actually would have to be rezoned to C L.

Those are currently not uh CL.

So um uh the Bullshead um area, uh the um the Whole Foods, uh that is zone CL.

Um, and then there's uh the Newfield Green um uh shopping center, and then there's the one on on Hope Street.

Um so it's it's really I would think it's it's a handful of uh uh destinations in town.

Um and uh and maybe on the map include the those areas that you think should be moved to see out.

Yeah, yeah.

That'd be helpful.

Yeah, I can I can definitely do that.

Yeah, that's great.

Thank you.

David, can I uh can I stick with one more question on this if you don't mind?

Sure.

I was just curious, and as I'm sitting here thinking about this, is that Rob is it?

Do you think that the majority of large developments have these large stores in them, all put the stores in the back and a parking in the front?

From functionality point of view, cost point of view.

I mean, there had to be it didn't happen by magic.

There must be a reason to do it that way.

Um what was the old theory?

I think uh I'm not sure if there was a big theory behind it.

Uh one one thing is visibility of the store.

Um, so you have like a big old poll sign uh um uh on the street, and also um sort of the availability of of parking, so if you drive by and see, oh, there's a lot of parking there.

And I mean, it's I think it it just uh speaking of of not having a theory.

I mean, it it was built for for uh automotive use, so they didn't think about um uh urban design.

I mean, why why are there so many parking lots that don't have any trees?

It's cheaper to not plant trees, and and uh there was very little concern for uh stormwater runoff.

Um, and um, so uh it's I think as as time goes on, uh planners and architects hopefully become a little bit more sophisticated in what they're doing.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

Ralph, I just have one question.

Um in the two e section on large scale development review, we pulled um CL out of that.

Why is that because we include the review um requirements in uh I believe it's uh section H5?

Five H6, yeah.

Okay.

And there's the large scale development review uh is is in there.

So the idea is rather than uh for for all the districts that we're doing uh new, uh the idea is to move the review requirements to the district regulations, so you don't have to remember.

Oh, is this a district where you have large-scale development review?

You have it with um the district regulations.

Um got it.

Okay.

Board, any other questions before we go to the public.

No, okay.

Is there anyone from the public here who would like to speak on this application, either uh for or against it?

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

Yeah, Mr.

Barry Michelson.

Uh yes, good good evening.

Uh one my first concern may have already been addressed.

I didn't see it in the draft that I read or in the chart having to do with uh the height on parts are uh development that may be close to residential districts, and there was discussion.

I saw Ralph's presentation, and I'm glad that was uh uh uh taking care of because uh 40 40 or 45 four stories or 45 feet could have a direct ramification for any kind of uh uh impact on on residential zones.

The other question the other comment, and there's only three that I had that was one.

The other one was, and I believe it's section five uh point uh hold five paragraph B.

And this is something that I've seen before.

The zoning authority is ultimately rests with the zoning board, and there's language in the regulation that basically uh uh subjects or or or or conditions.

I don't remember the exact verbiage.

I looked at it a while ago.

Uh uh subject to other approval authorities.

I don't know what other approval authorities there are.

Statutes give it to you.

I don't know why there's any attempt to even give it away to others.

Uh certainly, which which section is that?

Five H, what?

I think well, I don't have the the regulation in front of me.

It's I believe 5.h.5, paragraph B.

B as a boy.

Yes.

And the new regulation.

It was in that curve cut.

No, that's paragraph B.

And it talks about it talks about uh reviewing uh authorities, whatever they may be.

Okay.

So 5HB.

Is that what H5B?

He said 5H5.

It may be the what there's two 5H5s.

So the second one should be 5H6, and that's application and review procedure.

So it may be in that one.

Oh, so we need to correct that.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

I just went by the what I had.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I don't have access to a printer.

Okay.

What's next, Barry?

Okay.

The only other one I had is, and and Ralph may have touched on it.

Uh, under the statutes, we don't have to really homogenize all of our zones.

Um we have different zones to protect and and provide for different uses.

So we have a overall a balanced uh uh uh community in terms of development and different kinds of uh in type types of different kinds of uses, and just by homogenizing, and we kind of marginalized perhaps some of our uses, especially uh like some of our industrial uses, and I'm not sure that applies here necessarily, but I just wanted to make that comment that we've been hadn't we've all on an overall basis, we'd be kind of homogenizing our zones as to as far as the uses, and we do have tremendous needs for, especially with smaller contractors to have yards and places where they can bring their vehicles.

It's a real concern.

And that's that's all I've got.

Those those three points.

Okay, Barry, did you give us your address?

Uh I don't drive Stanford.

I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, have a good evening.

Thank you, Barry.

Okay, you're welcome.

Take care, all.

Hi.

Hi, thanks for having us will have fun.

Hello.

This is Sue Halpern, 30 Elmcraft Road.

And thank you, uh, Mr.

Reston for stepping up to the zoning board.

You're working with a very knowledgeable and thoughtful group of people.

So welcome.

Uh it's good to welcome.

Um, I I certainly appreciate the design guidelines, you know, to add more trees and planting strips.

I think that's great.

You know, it's all great.

But I just have a question on page two of your um proposed text change, where under development standards, um, letter D, that RDD.

I I'm just wondering is is uh does that have something to do with residential use in in these districts?

And I'm thinking like the Lord and Taylor um complex, for instance.

I mean, if that's to be redeveloped, could they add residential use in there too?

I'm not sure what that RDD stands for.

Okay.

Any other questions?

No, thank you.

Okay, good, Sue.

Thank you.

And we'll get to the answers to the questions when we finish with the uh all the public comment.

Next we have Mr.

Dave Adams.

Uh good evening, uh ladies and gentlemen of the zoning board.

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak.

Uh my name's Dave Adams.

I live in Glenbrook, and um I did go over uh the red line for this for these changes.

By the way, uh Ralph, awesome uh slideshow because that made it a lot less confusing, especially with some of the um you know, changes to development standards and whatnot.

Uh, but my my questions really revolve around uh, you know, later down in the document, uh there's a lot of red-lined or uh red uh colored text.

And I'm I'm confused as to whether or not this is this is the additional language.

This is the definition of commercial street.

And uh and even though it's crossed out, it's it's right it's uh struck out, it's the section on arterial streets, which lists you know, High Ridge Road, Long Ridge Road, West Main Street.

Um I guess my question really revolves around like uh in terms of uh designating as a commercial street.

I see that a lot of these uh streets are segments of streets.

So we're looking at Washington Boulevard from um, I'm sorry, we're looking at Broad Street from Washington Boulevard to Grahar Place.

We're looking at uh Bedford, uh, you know, you're looking at a lot of these definitions that are on the the this the streets to be identified as commercial uh segments, you know, parameters of the DSSD.

Um but when we look at uh roads like Glenbrook Road and Hope Street, which are I mean, Hope Street's a contiguous road.

It keeps going all you know all the way up.

Um Glenbrook Road uh is is you know, some of it's commercial and and some of it's residential.

So uh I understand this is about bulk bulk standards.

Um why are uh you know why is Glambrook Road uh being treated differently than say that section of Broad Street where you know is the southern end of uh the DSSD.

Uh that's really my question.

I was just a little confused as to I don't know.

I just found the red line confusing.

Sorry, thank you.

Okay, thanks, Dave.

Is there anyone else from the public who'd like to speak?

If I if I'm so hot, uh Chair Stein, I just want to say that I I'm I'm in favor of that these changes.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have Miss Monica.

Good evening.

Good evening, Monika Twal from 37 Hanrahan Street.

Uh listening to your uh proposal.

I oppose the text change.

It seems uh it is why fix something if it's not broken.

Uh you mentioned these are orphan districts.

Uh really they're destination districts.

These are places where homeowners, residents drive to go because they're quite a distance from their home.

So they go.

Uh there's a lot of red flags here.

Uh this reduces parking, it increases traffic and likely more confusion and accident prone.

You are asking for more traffic signals.

Whoa, we're trying to get rid of traffic signals.

Um, you know, uh imagine a traffic signal from uh on Newfield Avenue, that little area.

Now there's wonderful, you cut you call them cut curves, right?

But I call them entrances and exits.

And those are very helpful.

You can enter from the back on New Field Avenue.

And what this new field is just an example.

A wonderful well planned area.

It's not too high, it's not too dense, it's not too um big, it's not the height is good, the building size is great, the loading is in the back.

Everything about it is excellent.

So these new uh not common sense uh urban design developments, which has nothing to do with uh zoning, uh is not is not appropriate.

So that's why I oppose it.

Uh what else did I notice?

Uh you're you're saying that you want to bring these buildings up front.

Uh that that also is very very confusing for older for older people who uh gosh, I like I said, it's up in your face.

And who wants that?

You want to drive in, you want to look what you're you're you're looking from the road, you're seeing what you're what department stores or uh uh retail stores you want to get to, and they're right there from your bird's eye view from the street.

You know, and plus there's signs.

We always had big signs that say uh TJ Maxx, whatever, whatever, whatever uh stores you're going to.

It says right on the big big signs.

Uh so the wording is also Mr.

Blessing.

You're you you you you you connive yourself to make it look like this is this is a great big idea, but no, it's actually a very bad idea.

Very bad.

Uh what are my final thoughts here before my three minutes?

Like I said, it's less parking.

Um and all these uses allowed everywhere.

That's concerning.

That's concerning.

So someone who's in this neighborhood, residential neighborhood that lives not too far away, all of a sudden it's going to have.

A sex shop, uh, a dispensary, a smoke shop.

All these in one in one area.

Yeah.

What's wrong with that?

Scary.

That's a bit scary.

Um, and how much time do I have?

And this is a blank slate for any type of commercial, uh, commercial stuff when you have uh anything's allowed.

Uh okay.

You need to finish up, please.

Well, that's what I asked.

What's what's uh so I I oppose this.

This is very terrible idea.

Okay, thank you.

You're very welcome.

Um Ralph, uh do you want to respond to uh the public comment?

Uh sure.

Um let's start at the beginning.

Um I um actually share Mr.

Um Michelson's uh concern about homogenizing zoning uh districts.

Um I think for example uh some of the state legislation that is currently under discussion allowing residential uses everywhere is um problematic uh because you need districts like the CL where you have those uh larger destination uses and and having uh residential in them uh doesn't make uh uh a whole lot of sense.

So um uh in the long run, um I think uh we want to get rid of residential uses in the CL district.

Um currently uh because some areas uh that are currently zoned CL have residential uses, we left it in, but I think that's something uh in the long run uh that we would get rid of.

Um uh Ms.

Halpern's question about the RDD, the residential density divider.

So that basically limits the number um of units.

So uh you take the floor area that is allowed in um uh that district and divide it by that number, uh, and that gives you the number of units that is permitted in that district, and that's actually not a change.

So residential is currently allowed in the CL district.

As I said, I think in the long run, we want to get rid of the residential uh in uh the CL district.

Um and the residential density uh uh is not proposed to change.

So residential is currently allowed uh at the same densities um uh as uh as it currently is.

Um with regard for the definition of commercial street, um so I admit that's a little bit confusing.

That's actually why we got rid of the arterial street.

Um, because um arterial street is also sort of a traffic engineering uh definition.

Um so uh we went with commercial street, and what commercial street really does is or the the the impact uh commercial street has uh is that the sidewalks have to be wider on a commercial street.

It has nothing else to do, it doesn't propose to widen the street or narrowing the street or anything like that.

Um it just means that uh the sidewalks have to be wider.

Um because on a commercial street, uh you tend to have stores and more uh people moving along the street.

So we want um uh wider uh uh sidewalks, but it has nothing to do with with the overall street uh um uh geometry.

Um with regard to um uh the um parking, uh the parking is not um uh proposed to change, so it's exactly the same um uh parking requirement um as we have now.

Um I'm just checking, but I'm pretty sure we allow um adult establishments not in the CL district, uh, but only in the uh um industrial districts, and we're not proposing any change that that is as it has always been.

Um so uh on uh the website um there is a spreadsheet that has all uh the uses um that are proposed to be allowed uh or are currently allowed in the CL district, and uh when a change is proposed that uh uh is highlighted uh in yellow.

Um so um for example uh one of the changes uh we're making is bed and breakfasts will no longer be allowed uh in a CL district, neither will be uh boarding or rooming houses.

Um but um this this may be two handfuls of uses uh that are actually proposed to be changed.

Um so and and really with with and and uh coming back to the homogeneization homogenization of uh zoning districts.

Um uh I I agree that we uh need to maintain industrially zoned land, and I think we also need to protect uh land like in the C L district, that is for larger commercial uses.

Uh we need them.

Uh we we don't want to get rid of them.

Um but um I think we just want them to better fit uh into um uh our community, and that is what uh those uh design guidelines um are uh proposing to do.

Yeah, and I would note there's no change in smoke shops, they've not been added, and um uh cannabis dispensaries, there's no change on that one.

So um uh none of the three categories that were concerned have been um uh added to these regulations.

Um yes, Jerry.

So voting on this, it does not affect uh the um the elimination of the residential usage right now.

Correct residential is currently allowed, and it's not proposed to change uh anytime soon because we have some CL districts actually near downtown.

Correct where we already have uh residential uses, so we didn't want to make them non-conforming.

I think what we need to do is uh we need to look where we have the C L districts, so we need to rezone, for example, uh the areas along the Greenwich border, we have to rezone to CL.

Uh and the areas near downtown have to become something else, and then uh we can make the CL uh a non-residential uh district.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um other um questions or discussion from the board.

Uh okay.

Um Ralph, you're gonna get us a list of um or a map of where the CL is in the city.

Yeah.

Um board um do we want to uh close this or you want to keep it open so we can discuss it further on the CL uh locations?

I like to discuss it further, but that's just me.

I I might have questions when I get the map.

So if we need to leave it open to do that.

Okay, so let's do that.

Anything else before we continue this?

No.

Okay.

Um so we are continuing application 225-4-7 to our next meeting on March 30, 2026 at 6.30 on Zoom.

We've now completed the uh the public hearing portion of our meeting, and we're going into the regular meeting.

Um the first item we have here is well.

I would note that the uh agenda shows that the regular meeting uh start time is 9:30.

So uh I think we're doing pretty good here.

Um first item is approval of the minutes from our last meeting on March 2nd.

Um does anyone have any uh comments or corrections to those minutes?

No, Mr.

Chairman.

Can we get a motion?

Ms.

Chairman, I believe we approve the minutes of the March 2nd, 2020 26 meeting as presented.

I'll make a second.

Okay, uh any further discussion?

Um Peter, this is not one you can vote on.

Um all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

It they're approved for zero.

Now uh pending applications.

First penning application is uh application 225-48 children's learning centers of Fairfield County, 60 Palmer's Hill Road, site and architectural plans and a requested uses.

Um is there anyone who opposes this application?

No.

Okay.

Good.

Um, so let's take a look at the conditions for this.

Uh if you could bring them up, please, Vanita.

And is yes, do we need to make any changes after what we heard this evening?

Um good question, Vanita.

As the you know, different materials coming in today.

One from the director of operations.

And you know, the information that was discussed before regarding the the access between the two CLC sites.

I think we've captured them in the conditions, and we can take a look at it together.

Okay, well, as we go through, let's take a look and um and see.

Sure.

Okay, look a little bigger.

There we go.

All right.

Um good.

Are there any um any findings that we have here?

Um no, this is a site plan application.

So okay.

Okay.

Uh we've added uh the letter from uh Matt Canyones.

Yes.

Oh, here are yeah.

It's I yeah, I think it's a letter rather than the memo, but uh that's okay.

So in the whereas clauses, we have our um history.

Yes.

Okay.

Umita, this was the one, wasn't it, where there were some um things that were included that you and I were discussing whether they should stay in or not.

Yes.

Um, I think we have kept the ones that are relevant to the site plan.

Uh okay.

Good.

Okay, so for the site specific conditions, um we have um the work, all work will conform to the plans.

Um, let's use the try to use the red line.

This so these are the changes that were made today.

Yes.

Um the uh draft you would have received um, I guess last week.

Um okay, so the applicant will provide a revised landscape plan to add some additional uh trees and uh plantings.

This was uh the recommendation of EPB staff, and those will be implemented prior to CO.

Any uh discussion on that?

Okay, next is vehicle access.

And the way it's um now written is that there's uh two alternatives.

First, prior to CO, the traffic improvements that uh were described in uh Matt's letter, which is the improvements to the uh Dora Oliver Palmer's Hill Road Um intersection.

Uh those improvements will be made prior to CO.

And if not, then uh the alternative is that the applicant will uh implement the uh access through 60 for Palmer's Hill Road, which is across the Edge Hill property, um, which was what we had talked about earlier.

Um, but now we're looking at these as alternatives.

Um what do people think of this?

Well did you sure I can understand the mechanics of this, uh Mr.

Chairman?

Under this format which we're looking at now, is that how much of the uh are they not even gonna start this project until they know whether this is going the new traffic uh signalization is going to be done?

Or are they gonna how they do that?

How's this gonna work?

Uh question.

Vanita or Alph, what do you think?

By the time they get uh come to a building permit, I think they will need to know and need to have a better understanding that you know that uh the traffic signalization is going to happen or not.

I'm my assumption is that they will have to, you know, they will pursue the connection and have that, you know.

That's because that's more in their control or somewhat more in their control.

Um, but you know, they'll not have to exercise it if the traffic improvements come into play.

Um so I mean I think it's um maybe a matter of you know a few more months or you know, a short period of time before they get more clarity on which isn't the state approval required for the traffic signal modernization.

Um not sure of that.

There's a big state road.

Yeah, but it wasn't there something in uh in the letter that uh state is maybe state funds that are paying a part of this grant funded, I think.

Right.

Um so they they there is a bigger project, and the city can expand that to include the signal traffic signal and the left-hand lane here.

So um I think it's it's in good shape, otherwise you know, you wouldn't have had the letter from uh the director of operations.

Um and keep keep in mind that they're being uh they have to leave the current site where they are.

So I don't think they've got the time to sit and wait on this.

I think they've got to move forward um with this project.

And um and I would think they'd want to try to get the connection through 64 Palmer's hill road.

But that's but that's not Bill's question.

Is it going to be completely is that going to be ironed out prior to the construction?

Well, it has to be.

They will have, yeah.

Yeah, my understanding is that they're working on it uh now.

Um but there are um I mean there's different parties involved.

So um uh they uh but obviously they're trying to figure this out as soon as possible.

And I mean they won't be able to um get a co unless either one of those options um uh works and is operational.

Yeah.

Remember, they were they were willing, Bill, they were willing to go with just the requirement of the connection through 64 Palm or so road.

They offered that up.

Yeah.

Um so they they have to be feeling pretty good about their ability to get that.

Well, I'm sure they can get I assume they'll be able to get the uh the 60, you know, the access to 64 Palmer's road.

I I'm not sure though about the uh the traffic modernization, how long that'll take in order to complete the project.

Yeah, one more question regarding the the access from 64 Palmer's old road, isn't that gonna require EPV permit?

Um yes, it will, but uh, I think we got to let it be.

How close the wetlands is that road get um I don't I mean it is you know it might be in the upland review area, so they they will have to get the permit, but I we got we got the letter from Bob Clausi saying that you know this can be you know it is a feasible option and there can be mitigation if necessary um to allow the connection.

Okay.

I think what we're probably gonna see is the connection through 64 Palmer's Hill Road, and then when the city is able to complete the uh intersection improvements, it'll get done, but the the project may be finished by then.

Yeah, it's probably maybe more likely, but okay.

Okay.

Let's go on, keep going.

Um circulation and parking plan.

Uh we did ask them to give us a uh circulation and parking plan.

Um they were not able to get it to us before the meeting.

Um they will get it to us um for our approval before building permit.

So if we have issues with it, we will um we can discuss it at our meeting.

It'll be subject to our approval.

Any uh discussion on that?

Okay, vehicle parking 60 spaces, six electric vehicle, and X number for parents.

Bill, I know you had a concern about this one.

Can you just scroll up a little bit more, Vanina?

So we can see the last item.

Yeah, um, I I thought they were gonna come back with some sort of a designation, which you were going to be for pickup and but they haven't.

So I guess we'll have to make that conditional.

Well the permit, I guess.

Or we pick the number.

Well, so it's part of number four.

We're gonna see it before a building permit.

But isn't the they I believe they need uh how many parking spaces do they need to have for their uh workers?

They're 45 staff, is that right?

Yes.

That's required by zoning, 45 spaces.

I mean, the requirement is one and a quarter for for a staff.

So, you know, if they have 45 staff, you know, they'll need parking for them, and then you have um the additional for for children, so other parents.

So um the the idea is that you know, maybe you know, we can restrict maybe some spaces for the for the drop-off and pickup time, you know, because so that you know at other times that's not the peak time, you know, those shares spaces can be used for either in the if they have to have 45 for the the workers, that only leaves 15 spaces for drop off and pickup, correct?

I think that is a that is a good way to cut it, cut this uh right.

It's not a lot, but it's yeah, they do comply with our parking requirements.

So yeah, that's what I I went back and looked at that after I mentioned it last night and I saw that.

Yeah, okay.

So I think it's gonna be a little short, but okay.

Um folks good with that.

Okay.

Um next.

We have a couple of yes.

Is their daycare really only open till 5 30?

It is.

Yes, that's how they the current location also operates.

I I feel that it's too too little.

No, that's for a working parent.

Uh I mean, I I don't know any place else that's not open till six.

Six or six thirty is I mean, I would say that you know, we keep this a little bit more flexible if they decide to have longer hours.

Well, they've been open for 40 years, so I'm sure they know how late they need to be open.

Yep.

But I'm just shocked at that.

Yeah, I mean, we could we could say it shall be you know, not that leads to the case.

I know with a lot of retail stores, we want to or other applicants.

We we want to limit how late they could be open, but like we don't care if they stay open till six or six thirty, do we?

No.

In fact, it kind of helps, you know, disperse the the traffic and parking, it kind of spreads it out.

Yeah, people have more technical.

I just am afraid if we put that in there, A.

What happens if they want to stay open longer?

They have to come back to us and we have to change.

How about if we say the the normal hours shall be at least 7.30 to 5.30?

Is that don't think well, what if they don't want to open till eight?

I mean it's their business, but I don't know why we're limiting them.

Yeah.

Why do we even have to put that in there?

Say that again, uh Ralph.

7 to 6.30.

How about the the No, then you'd have to reword the whole thing.

How about the child daycare center may be open?

Yes.

And then it's up to them.

Yeah.

From 6 a.m., 6.30.

6 30 to what 7 p.m.

30 or yeah, 7.

Might as well give them the maximum flexibility and then they can figure that out.

Yeah.

Okay.

The next one is they can't queue their cars for pickup or drop off on door Oliver Drive, which is one of the issues we've been hearing about.

And I've I've gone a number of times in the last month.

And they I don't ever see a queue currently.

I think they know how to do it.

Great.

Good.

Um next they will uh in their parking management plan, they'll have uh provisions for special events, including attendance or um and off site parking if needed.

And uh this is the 15 spaces for pickup and drop off is repeated here.

Anything else we should be adding?

Did we say that this is during um um certain hours, or is that kind of assumed that the drop off and pick up?

Should we say during peak hours?

No, I think we want that's not that many spaces.

Um it should be all right.

Yeah, I mean I I think otherwise because you know, during the daytime, there would might be a handful of people picking up or dropping off.

So I guess so.

Why does it matter if there's not a time there?

Um, I mean, then that leaves it open for employees.

I mean, I think it wouldn't matter, but maybe we can look at what um should we say the same signs that are currently on the um property?

Why I mean I don't know why we treat it any different to what the um have any signage for right now.

I I don't think we can yeah, I I think we should stick with this, and um I have a feeling that if someone needs a space, they're gonna park in yeah, okay.

Next we have bicycle parking.

Okay for any kids who want to ride.

Yeah, on that street getting there, nobody's riding that bike.

We have a bicycle parking performance uh paragraph that we have in every up in every approval.

Um what we heard from them was that you know some of these like you know, the bike parking may be a little bit too except excessive for a daycare use and for nonprofit daycare to accommodate so you know we could look at this and then EVs.

Yeah, that's a good idea, Vanita.

And where that's located, you can get yourself killed riding a bike there, okay, and um photometric plan, which will come back to staff for approval signage comes back to staff for approval parking management plan, which we didn't see will come to us um initially and then finals for to staff anything else.

Um I think some of this might be not relevant, like because this is it relates to residential um parking.

Okay.

Um you want to pull out that sentence?

Yeah, definitely.

And then all the transportation department, yes, yeah.

We've got to get used to uh the name change.

That's why we have to change the zoning regulations all the time because they change the name.

Yeah, it's not our fault.

Um okay, so um, yeah, and then again, yeah.

Yeah, I think it's in a couple of places.

Okay.

We have uh so we've got transportation comments that applicant apply with are we on on to 13 or 13, yeah.

EPB comments.

They haven't changed their name, have they?

No.

In the last 40 years.

Oh, good.

Um so we have EPB comments, engineering bureau comments.

We'll be complied with keep going.

Can you scroll up a little more?

Please, Vanita.

No, I'm sorry.

Yeah, that way.

Yeah.

Did you want to change that?

Yeah.

Fire Marsh.

Um, fire marshal's comments.

We'll be complied with.

WPCA comments will be complied with.

And that ends the site specific um conditions.

Is there any anything else in the conditions that uh anyone can think of that to be added or changed?

Do we move for they do have to have water?

Yeah.

Um drainage maintenance agreement, that's an important one as we've heard.

Okay.

Um is there any discussion on the conditions or the application?

I think it covers everything from the city.

I think it does also, and it's a great project.

So um I mean, there's there's a lot of requirements that the city have asked for that uh that will make this work.

Yeah.

Good.

Uh if there's no um discussion, can we get a motion to approve uh application two two five-48 with the conditions as uh discussed tonight?

Um I'll move.

I'll second.

Okay, any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Uh application two two five-48 is approved uh four zero.

Next, we have application two two five-three eight, uh, which is City of Stanford Zoning Board's uh text change to the uh CG similar to the CL we were talking about earlier tonight.

This is also a um a text change to um rescue and orphan district um is there any discussion on this application, Jerry Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

This is the one that you had um expressed some concern about in our last meeting about the zoning board approvals.

Mr.

Chairman, it was something that you and I also had discussed.

And I think that we have to be cautious.

I believe that we have great staff now, but I also don't feel that we should unilaterally immediately give our um oversight away.

And I think there should be certain provisions, and I think that uh there's some of these items in here that I think we should be able to uh you know kind of um modify.

Okay.

Uh this is in five Five.

Um does anyone before that?

I think it's five F six.

I think that's the same.

Same typo error as we did.

Yep.

Yep.

Okay.

The also there was a reference, a cross reference to in the other one to the five Five, which should have been five F six.

I don't know if it shows up here with me one second.

Um well, you know what?

Before we get there, um the lot coverage.

I think Bill, you had suggested adding the word maximum.

Um on the other one.

Is that correct?

Is that a change you would want on this one as well?

I would think it would be appropriate.

Okay.

So there's no confusion.

Okay.

So that's five F4 Mimita.

It's the very last.

Yeah.

I added it here.

Okay, and it would be both for CG one and CG2.

I put it in the first column.

Oh, we so it says maximum lot coverage now.

Yeah, we can say, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Continuing on.

I'm assuming no one has any changes until we get to page six.

Or are there any?

Have there been some changes made since this draft?

No.

Okay.

Oh, how about the red that we're seeing?

So that's the difference between the filed version and uh the last comments or the last version that was sent out prior to the last hearing.

So there were no changes since the last hearing, or since since you've last seen this, or it was emailed to your last.

So is this still the September 15th draft we're working off of?

It's the uh 213 2026 draft.

Did we get that?

You should have gotten it like before the last um uh meeting.

Okay.

Um for some reason I don't have it.

Can you just slowly scroll up and show us what changes were made from the filed version?

Yeah, so here this is just updating uh the comprehensive plan categories.

Okay.

Okay.

Sustainability uh yes, we took that out because we're working on an update to the scorecard.

Okay.

Which we hope will be done by Earth Day.

And then uh once the new scorecard is approved, we'll add a provision for a certain uh grade to be achieved to all zoning districts.

So we want to do it comprehensively rather than with um sort of a uh the a scorecard that is outdated and making that a requirement.

Okay, um changes here.

Um we eliminated the downtown boulevards um because they really um aren't any uh regulations that pertain to them.

Okay, so this has become six.

Yeah, okay.

So here is where we we have some of these issues.

Um so let's just walk through them.

The first one is change of use renovations or alterations, increasing building area by less than five percent.

Um or adding interior floor area of less than five thousand square feet.

Um and that's just the zoning permit from the ZEO, yes.

Okay, then the next one is um the same.

Am I right?

It's the same, but it would be more than five percent of building floor area increases or um increasing additional floor area by five thousand square feet or more.

Um I'd like to propose that we reduce the twenty thousand um the size of the lot from twenty thousand to um ten thousand square feet.

I like it, yeah.

I mean, this this is only for renovations, this is not new construction.

Yeah, but even then, I mean, we even for example, the uh you know, the WWE building.

Um, we certainly had suggestions on that one that improved it.

Um so I think even on renovations and alterations, um it could be significant.

I mean, it can it can increase the size of the building, right?

The WWE building was very big, definitely more than 20,000 square foot.

I I understand.

I'm just pointing out that there are buildings where um they may not be doing much to the building, but still it when it came to us.

I think we we um it benefited from a hearing before the zoning board.

I mean, the the current the current um threshold for large-scale development is 30,000 square feet of floor area being added.

Right, I think that's that's too large.

Um but this one you can increase floor area by five percent or more.

This could be a you know, it's significant increase in uh the building.

Sorry, it's the building area, a significant significant increase in the size of the building.

Um it's not just a renovation.

So I think there's an overall, you know, push to kind of you know facilitate conversions and reduce the administrative burden on for conversions, you know, from the state as well.

And I think this if we increase the review requirements, that kind of goes contrary, you know, contrary to that.

You know, change of use is many times, you know, they'll they will happen, you know, organically, and you know, they they have to still go through the building permit process, and through the fire marshal, but you know, the building department, um, engineering EPB, all of them still look at it.

Um so I think in the you don't want to want people to get you know stuck when they're kind of just making you know improvements and um you know they expect some something like that to be just a building permit, and then they have they realize that it has needs to go through a board review.

I don't think it's not it's 20,000 square feet, and and I think it's important to have a review by this board.

I thought yeah, it's not about the renovations, it's about the additional floor area.

Exactly.

But can we settle on 15,000 to keep both sides happy?

Well, do you have things takes it?

If you go for just a zoning permit, is it that means that uh hypothetically uh our budding property uh owner may not know anything about this until they put the shovel in the ground?

Well, having a uh come to I think we should I think 10,000 is is really a better number here.

Um people, you know, peep there should be an opportunity for um the public to hear about this.

I don't think we should give away our oversight on this yeah, and and the review.

I mean, I would argue this increases your oversight and review, like this would have triggered like for the for the WWE building.

This would have brought the WWE building in front of you.

Yeah, come before you because um under current regulations, they added less than 30,000 square feet, 30,000 square feet is the threshold for large-scale development review.

Um so they added internally like 20,000 square feet, whatever it was, and uh you never saw it here.

You would have seen it was an administrative approval by the board.

Yeah, I think we need the the review.

I I'm not comfortable having projects um move forward, especially if they're large size projects, if they're without us taking a look at them.

I mean, you're also aware what happens on the state level that uh the state basically take away, took away um the zoning board abilities to regulate residential parking requirements um with HB 8002.

Um they did, and there's nothing we can do about that, but yes, we don't have to give it away here.

Um I mean it's just saying that um if the state thinks that um and that has nothing to do with this zoning board, it might have to do with zoning boards and planning commissions and other places that uh if the state feels that uh regulations are a hindrance, they might take them away from local control.

Right.

I think we have to have that discussion when it occurs.

I don't think we should automatically kind of give that that away at this point.

I mean yeah, it's it's harder for us to bring it back under under our um under our review once it's gone.

That's I guess that's my overall concern.

I guess you know, and my my thought on this was um this uh our board and and the staff, our staff yourself are very thoughtful.

What if we get into a position that it is not and it's becomes adversarial?

We've given those controls away, and it's very hard for us to make you know to to recapture that and and the battle that we may have with the state as well.

So um that's just uh just an opinion.

Well, you are the board, so 10,000 is um so I guess we do the same thing here.

Yes.

Now that one okay, so this is um change of use increase in um building area by five percent or more additional.

Okay.

So this is 10,000 square feet or more, but there's no board involvement here, right?

No, there is.

This is a board review.

Um, yes.

Um it doesn't get referred to um the planning board.

Yes, okay, but we've got it, we've got to pull it out of large scale development review as well.

So yeah, that that's down here, the large scale development review.

That's for new construction.

Okay.

That we'll get to that in in a second.

Um this is like an architectural plan review is present to two G uh 2D is a zoning board approval.

What are the what are the two asterisk?

Uh the two asterisk.

Oh, we took that out because we added the large scale to the um the new development.

Um so d large scale development, it's goes to the that goes to the planning board.

It's a special permit with with public hearing and and everything.

This is an administrative board review here.

Um and I would I would just add here that this currently, you know, this doesn't come to you.

Um and it will potentially increase the number of applications that have to come to the board.

Um, and if we do that for all the districts, it could snowball.

And you know, it it kind of takes away from what's more important, like you want to focus your attention and time on the biggest applications rather than spreading it out amongst you know all different you know, small changes happening in buildings all over the city.

So I don't think it's small changes when it you can increase floor area by 5,000 square feet or more.

Um and floor and building area by five percent or more.

I mean, five sometimes you know, people convert areas within the garage.

It's not going to be visible, like uh, you know, and they're recapturing space that they already have, like for existing buildings, that may also be a scenario.

Um, and then suddenly they have to come to the board.

And so sometimes it's a matter of them, you know, kind of going through the building permit process and then realizing that they are behind because they they needed a zoning board approval, or it could be you know somebody looking at a property and trying to assess how easy it is to change it or improve it, and then they you know, then they realize that that it's not simply a building permit process, it it's a board review that throws their timeline back and kind of things leaves a lot of uncertainty.

So yeah, because we have all of these conversations when people you know ask us what what's the process, what's the timeline?

Um, and I would hate for things that are not that significant just to be held up.

So basically, so these are things we don't see now.

You don't.

I mean, I guess preserving what we're seeing now, but do we want to see more than we're seeing now?

I I think we do.

What what has happened in town that we don't see that we don't like to me the only thing is, you know, it's nothing that's approved by anybody when houses are converted into eight apartments, right?

No approval altogether, but I haven't seen anything in town that I'd say, oh, that looks terrible.

Well, it's not that it looks terrible, it's did if we have a say in it, we'll make it better.

Um it and yeah, that is true.

That is true, but it also can cause a lot of delays.

Because then it's not an you know, a given for them that you know they can have they can you know build the way it's not a given if they've got to go to the ZEO either.

I don't I'd like to think that there's no such thing as a given when they have to come to the city for approval.

Right.

I mean, they have to meet the zoning requirements.

That's what the zoning enforcement officer, but apart from that, you know, being able to find you know, be placed on the agenda, because you know, the smaller the project, you know, it it gets the pri the priority is kind of um given accordingly.

Um so either we're compromising more important projects and larger projects and putting the smaller ones ahead of them, or we're pushing the small ones in the back.

So it it is a juggle between you know what gets you know more time and attention from the board.

I mean, the thing is also like most family lots are larger than 10,000 square feet.

Yeah.

Well, you you can have a three-acre single family lot.

Exactly.

No one's suggesting that require any zoning board review, and they can clear cut three acres of woodlands and they can, and that we don't have uh jurisdiction over that, but in terms of these types of properties, I think we we do need to have a look at them.

Let's look at the next one.

New so a new construction.

Um I that's another one I think we should be looking at.

Um I don't think we have it here.

I would actually I would combine the last two there and into one.

Um just uh give us the authority to review it.

Just as you have to authority to review it.

Zoning permit, which understand no here you don't.

This one you don't yeah.

I think I think new construction we should be looking at.

All new construction, yeah.

Everything, every size.

Every what, Roseanne?

Everything of every size.

You currently only at large scale uh development, yeah.

Right, and I think 30,000 square feet is too much.

There's there are a lot of projects that would be less than that.

Why not we reduce it to 20,000?

I I don't want it to 10.

We will be here till midnight every Monday.

It will significantly increase if we treat all districts the same.

It's it is multifold of what you're doing right now.

Then at a minimum, we on this first one we should have administrative approval.

Um we all I think there's a certain distinction.

There are certain districts that you know are that we have more of control over, like the you know, the village commercial district or you know, the RHD.

Um but you know, there are other commercial districts where you know where you want you know, businesses to kind of operate or grow as needed.

So yes, but I think we should have a look at it.

Administrative review seems to be a good middle ground.

And I'm I'm okay with the 20,000 square feet there, Jerry.

What do you think here?

Sorry, Mr.

Chairman, I was on mute.

Are you okay with administrative approval?

I am there.

Yes.

Bill, Roseanne, what do you think?

I tell you, and maybe because of the latest hour and I had a very busy day, but I'm having trouble, be honest with you.

Determining what we had.

And how we get to know it and why we did that.

Why did we change it?

Interesting.

And and adding too many colors, too many lines, and I'd like another.

I don't know what we had, and I don't know what we're getting.

Just like you, Bill, I want another column that says what we had this approval, and now we're saying this approval.

I want to see where we didn't ever see these things.

And have a conversation of why we need to see them now.

Yeah, I think so.

I mean, I can appreciate you know staff's position, you know, we we're creating more work on things we shouldn't be, but I can't see what it is that we're doing.

Right.

Right.

We can we can do that for next time.

If that's that would be that would be very helpful.

But I think we're gonna at least for myself.

Okay.

So for now, let's let's leave these changes here and then have a column that shows what it is currently.

Whether it's the staff currently does it, and now it's going to this person on staff, or the board had it, and now it's going here, or the board didn't have it.

And why are we thinking it and why are we changing?

Yes.

And why, Jerry?

That's good.

Okay.

Um after this.

Um, okay.

So Ralph, we need to do the same kind of amendment to 2E2.

Right that we did in the CL, which is take take CG out.

Yeah.

Um I'm also doing this.

So I'm also doing this for the CL.

Yes.

The same exercise.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, but we don't have any in the CG, we don't have the change.

We don't have CG removed from large scale development review, do we?

No.

Okay.

So that can we add that um same thing later on to the CL?

To the CG.

So we have large scale development review here.

Yeah, we're not giving up any large scale approval, right?

No, no.

It in CL, we took out the C in large scale development review, we took the CO out of it.

Why did we do that?

No, we added it back in here.

So we took it out of the section, the section for large scale development.

So the the section for large scale development, and that's part of the reason.

Where did it go?

So it I didn't see it in here.

So here, this is the proposed change to take the CL.

I this is for this is for the CG.

So it has the CG here, but it adds large scale development review in back here.

That's what I was looking for, the place where it came out of 2e.

So that's that's fine.

Yeah, um.

Okay.

If there's nothing else, why don't we um well let me ask.

Does anyone have any other comments or discussion on the CG?

No, this here area here appears to be harder to discussion.

So yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

And I think that what we'll I think we're looking at your screen right now.

Yeah.

We're looking at Wikipedia.

Is that uh Polish?

That's not me.

Nothing to do with it.

Okay.

So um let's um put this off then until our next meeting.

Okay, so we prepare that the table, and then for we do the same thing for the CL, and we also prepare a map for the CL.

Yeah.

Excellent.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's see what's next.

Next is the CL, which was continued.

Then we go into administrative review.

Huh.

Anyone want to take a break?

Ralph, you you have to go, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Thanks for thank you.

Have a good night.

Okay.

Bye-bye.

Anyone want a break or should we keep going?

We can take a five minutes if you don't mind.

Good.

Let's do it's nine oh two.

Why don't we get back at uh give Rosanna another minute?

Okay.

Um the zoning board meeting of uh March 9th, 2026 is now resuming after a break.

The next application we have is uh administrative review, meaning there's no public hearing on application two two five-four five RMS one seventy-seven Broad Street LLC, one seventy-seven Broad Street owner LLC, one seventy-seven Broad Street, site and architectural plans and a requested uses.

Applicant is proposing to convert the existing sixteen-story one hundred and eighty thousand square foot office building into two hundred and twenty-six residential apartments.

Take it away.

And just a correction there.

I think uh the um uh agenda pulled from the uh original submission.

It was since updated.

It's two hundred and thirty-one units, and your revised materials should all reflect that.

Um but uh Vanita, can I ask you to also promote uh Randy Salvatore?

Uh who's the owner and applicant on this one?

Um our design team is here as well, but um they can be available for questions uh if there's anything that that we can't answer.

Um I do have some visuals, so I'll share my screen here.

And we are here for uh one seventy-seven Broad Street.

Um it's the building that is facing Broad Street between Grey Rock Place and Suburban Avenue.

Uh, it's between Canterbury Green and the Stanford Town Center, um, and across from believe Park Grove and the Asher at the corner here.

And what we're looking to do is take this legally nonconforming office building and convert it to residential.

So the overall property is almost two acres and encompasses most of the block.

Um, but the property is broken up into several uh condo units.

So what uh RMS has purchased is unit one, which is the 177 building, and unit three, which is the parking garage uh that has the uh amenity plaza on top of it.

Unit two is the builtmore, which is broken up into 161 uh subunits uh of condominiums, residential.

Um here's a couple different views of the building, uh, which I'm sure everybody's familiar with, but just to make sure we're talking about the indeed building.

Uh, this is the the view from Broad Street.

Uh, this is the view more from the corner of broad and gray rock.

So you're kind of looking at the side of 177 here, and the built more residential condominium uh is this building here on the right.

This is a view from Suburban Ave, which is you know a smaller side street, um, but they have vehicular access from Suburban Ave into the garage here.

And then this is the view from Main Street, which is the south side of the property, and there's a secondary garage entrance and exit here.

Um, this open area to the right is an existing loading area, which is not really needed even for the office building, um, and certainly won't be needed for the the residential um and is as part of the conversion going to be uh absorbed for uh amenity space, which I'll walk everyone through as we go through the plans.

Um really the only exterior changes to the building are very minor and more cosmetic, trying to give it a little bit more of a residential feel at the pedestrian level.

So there's uh a new entry vestibule and an overhang that uh will be done at the Broad Street and the main street entrances.

Um, and then really just kind of warming up uh some of the the ground floor area with some accents that give it more of a wood look and feel, and that that'll that's better represented on some of the uh renderings that we have that'll go through.

But this is a look at the main entrance on Broad Street, so a new entry canopy here uh at the main pedestrian entrance, and then similarly treating the south entrance.

Uh this is next to the garage where they're in filling uh the big loading bay.

And this brick element is just meant to represent the the neighboring building.

The rest of this building is actually set back further.

Um, and here's the the rendering that we submitted with the application that shows what's happening here.

So new entry vestibule here, and then wrapping some of the existing columns with this wood look and a similar kind of wood slat um over this uh vacant uh portion of the of the building here.

Um here are some updated that give it's a little bit more of a realistic um rendered.

Uh we're same view uh on the broad street side.

And then this is the look at the the entire building from the broad street.

So you can see just changes to some of the columns matching the um what's happening with the entry canopy, and then that theme kind of flows uh inside in the lobby, which we'll show you as well.

Um this is the view from uh the corner.

So this is suburban av to your left, um, and the the Broad Street side here again.

And we have that kind of zoomed in.

So they're they're carrying that element of how they're treating uh the columns uh along the rest of the building.

Um, and this is the interior view of the of the lobby space.

So you can see how that theme kind of persists through this really um spacious double height lobby.

And then I'll just walk you quickly through some of the floor plans.

Um, this is the ground level, which will have the lobby area that we just showed, and a co-working space that'll be uh an amenity to the residents.

This is the garage entrance off of uh suburban avenue.

Uh we have our class A bike room right off of that entrance, um, some mechanical space here, fire command.

Um, the class B bikes are nicely tucked away behind this planter and conveniently located right next to the front entrance.

Um, and so this is the kind of north half of the building, and then I'm gonna switch to the south half.

So this is the main street garage entrance.

This is where we're in filling that that void of uh the former loading area, and what they're creating here is a really impressive um amenity package and athletic facility for the for the residents.

Um and Randy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the uh the condo owners at 161 will also be able to have the option to access uh some of these amenities as well.

So we have a half-court basketball, um, a racket court here, some climbing walls, um, golf simulator.

It's a really impressive uh amenity package.

Um just moving up the floor plans here.

Uh this is well, the lobby's kind of double height, so this is open to below.

Um same thing here.

There's a small mezzanine space here where my cursor is that will have more kind of billiard type games.

There's a mini bowling alley here, and then this area connects um to some of the other fitness and wellness uh areas that are uh on the north side of the building shown here.

So there's some women's and men's locker rooms, and then that connects to the gym area.

So this is now the plaza level, uh, which is kind of the main indoor and outdoor amenity level.

So this is all of the indoor amenity space.

There are we do start to have some units on this level uh facing broad street and suburban avenue here.

Um, but this is all interior amenity space that spills out into outdoor space.

Um this kind of zigzag hedge line just kind of lines uh the edge of the building.

So everything on this side of that is under the upper stories of the building.

Uh, this side is open to the sky.

And we have our our landscaping plans that'll show that in a little bit uh better context.

Um then as we move up the building floors five through nine on the left, uh, which is pretty much all residential.

Um we are the the proposed building is very heavy.

Um excuse me, as I go through my notes here, on um studios, um, as is kind of a common case um when you're doing conversions because you're so limited uh with your your window line, it makes it more difficult to achieve a lot of uh larger units with multiple bedrooms because they all uh have a light and air requirement.

Um so we have 168 out of the 231 uh are proposed to be studios.

Um and then as we move up the building here with floors 10 through 12, the floor plates get smaller as we go up.

So this is just some uh becomes some patio space for the units over here.

Um, and then as we go up uh again, it's the building steps.

Um so this is floors 14 to 15, and then the top residential floor here on the right side, and then above that we actually have some rooftop amenity space.

So the pool deck will be at the very top of the building, um, just uh kind of quiet enjoyment uh lounge chairs, um, lounge space and and the pool.

Um this was our street tree calculation, but I think it's also helpful to understand um the the width and uh of the sidewalks that surround the entire site.

So uh what's shown in pink is the part that's on the private property, and the kind of orange is is the the sidewalk that's in the the public right of way, but all publicly accessible and you know, 16 feet wide on the broad street side, and it grows to uh I think over 20 or 25 feet in in portions along Gray Rock and on the main street side.

Um, and then this is just a colored up plan showing the usable open space, um, which exists both at the ground and at the plaza level.

Um so this is a dog run area over here shown in yellow, um, which is uh for the residents that will be for residents of of the buildings.

Um it's lined by a planter wall, part of which exists today, and we're just extending that along uh the edge of the the public access sidewalk portion uh around to the front.

Um some outdoor patio space in the front area, the blue area is the at the plaza level, so that's raised uh above grade.

Um, and just uh a lot of open plaza space um that will be you know programmed uh a bit more um as we move towards construction, but that's all existing now.

Uh it's getting redone with new pavers.

Um then there's an existing lawn area of over 10,000 square feet, so about a quarter acre of a lawn space that exists and will be maintained, um, which is a really nice feature, not very common uh on a downtown building.

And I think that's the bulk of the presentation.

Um, but happy to answer any questions that you have that wasn't covered in uh the presentation or submitted materials.

Hey, Ray, where is the street tree calculation?

Uh it's within the landscape set.

Okay, I'm I'm looking at that and I don't see it.

What page?

Give me one second.

Let me, I don't have the I pulled from it for the the uh PowerPoint here.

Let me uh just look back through the submitted materials and find what sheet that's on.

So that should be the second sheet, and it's SPL-1.1.

I've got SPL one, two point one, three.

Nope, there should be an SPL 1.1.

There's a second set of field if this one's different.

There it is.

Okay, there are two sets here.

Okay, yeah, it's it should have been swapped out.

Uh I guess you got both.

Yeah.

Um, I got it.

Okay.

Um looks like an excellent project.

Um I'm glad to see that we're having another conversion of an office building to uh to um multi-family.

This is yeah, we're really excited when Randy brought this one uh to us.

It's you know, it's a it's a really good looking building.

Um they don't need to do a lot to it.

Um it's in the application materials, but they are adding operable windows for all units.

Um and then just approving the aesthetics at the pedestrian level, but it it's a tremendous site for residential.

Um, and what they're able to do with the amenity package um is is pretty impressive.

And the building is already vacant.

They are moving forward with construction documents and looking to get going on this as soon as possible.

Great.

Um Peter, you want to start?

Uh I'm gonna pass for now.

Okay.

Jerry.

Um Roseanne.

Um I may have missed it, but are you doing anything to the roof?

The only thing that they're doing on the roof, which um is a smaller floor plate than the rest of the building, is uh creating this amenity area.

So they'll be uh they'll be bringing the stair tower up.

So there's a little the elevators will come up.

There's a little um kind of entry vestibule, um, and then creating this outdoor space here.

And is there a landscape plan for the roof?

The the the plan is shown on the architecturals.

Um, I don't know that the landscape plan uh programmed this space, but um it'll likely be you know lined with um with planter boxes for for trees and bushes.

Would love to see that would love to encourage as much green on the roof as possible.

Um when we when you have it complete, I would love to see it.

Sure.

I think we all need to start doing as much green on our roofs as possible.

I mean, I know it's different once a roof's already built because you have to do a lot of reinforcement if you're putting a lot of green up there, but anything at all possible would be appreciated.

Is that something that you could have for us for our next meeting?

Um I I don't I don't need it to vote on it, David.

It would just be a it would come to us when it's available.

Yeah, happy to share that.

Okay, and that's my only question.

Otherwise, uh yeah, I think it's looking good.

Okay.

Um too bad there's so many studios.

Uh it's a nice looking project, right?

Um, I really can't find anything wrong with it.

Uh, as Roseanne just said stated though, too many studios, but I understand why you have them.

Um it does serve a need in in the market, RMS wouldn't be doing it if they didn't see a market for it.

Oh, I'm sure, but uh it does enable that kind of um you know, young professional kids trying to get out of their parents' house and operating.

I'm glad you went uh you guys decided to go with that extra step and make them operable windows.

That was a nice touch.

Yeah, other than that, unless I hear some other concerns right to a public hearing, I have no issues at all.

Sure.

David, I have one more thing I forgot.

Yeah.

So it was kind of odd because this is a conversion that we got a comment that the stairwells.

Um they're in the wrong places.

I I assume we have to ignore that comment because it's a building that's already built.

Well, there's a lot of vanita about that.

Yeah, where did it I I think it was in the fire?

Oh, it's I I can speak to that.

Yeah.

So it wasn't necessarily that that the stairs were in the wrong places.

They just wanted confirmation that it met there.

There's a building code with with distances and separations of stairs.

And the architect responded to that and actually met on site with them and walked through the building and went over all things fire code related.

Um, and I believe you should have uh a second response from them saying that they were they were good to go and proceed uh to building permit.

Okay, I'll look through my email.

I I don't think we got that.

Umita, would you just send that out to the board?

I please thanks.

Um done.

Okay.

Um couple of things.

Um Ray, is it is uh this required to have uh publicly accessible amenity space?

Uh it is not as a conversion.

Okay, why not?

Uh that's the way the regulation reads.

The conversions.

Yeah.

Right.

The doubt.

Um will there be a uh any place uh child play area?

They don't it there is a space suitable for child play area.

There's a quarter acre lawn here.

Um, but they're not planning to have any programmed uh equipment if that's what you're asking.

Yeah.

Um the zoning chart says um that it's non-conforming as to FAR, but existing non-conformity to be correct converted.

Yes.

What does that mean?

So that's under section 10.

Um the building is about 2.3 uh FAR of its uh non-residential space.

Um the base requirement is 2.0.

Um, this was done under older regulations that don't exist anymore.

So it's a legally non-conforming because it never received um what would what would now require a special permit uh for up to 2.5 non-residential floor area.

Um so uh as a conversion, you know, residential doesn't have the floor error requirement.

I see.

So because you're getting rid of all of the non-residential correct.

Yeah, there's no longer a non-conformative okay.

Um that's even better for converting and making it conforming.

Um you say that EV is not applicable.

Uh correct.

It it doesn't trigger any of the requirements under the applicability section.

Um, because we're not adding any parking requirement, uh, nor are we creating any new parking spaces.

They're all existing.

I thought it said it did apply.

I don't believe so.

They are voluntarily doing a handful of them, and obviously if the the need increases, they they will increase.

But this is similar to um uh the recent conversion that we did at 460 Summer Street.

It was treated the same way.

Well, it says in 10 F2D, it says residential conversion shall comply with sidewalk bike and EV parking requirements.

Right.

So if you go to the applicability section of the um EV section in section 12.

Yeah.

Yeah, it it doesn't trigger any of those requirements.

What section is that?

Do you know?

It's 12 either, I think L.

Twelve million.

Sounds so 12L1, it's on page 12-36 of the version that I have.

Yep.

No, I I see it.

Um I'm assuming trip generation will be less.

Yes, you you should have that in your package.

Okay.

Okay.

The only one that would apply is as determined by the zoning board.

Correct.

And okay.

So it's up to the board if we want to increase the amount of um EV spaces.

How many are being provided?

They're they're starting with five.

Okay.

Uh and out of how many spaces?

Um, the the required spaces.

Well, it's a it's a it's a 480 plus space garage, some of which are for uh the built more condominiums, but that is um far more than the parking spaces that are required uh for the building.

Okay, how many are required?

Give me a one second, let me pull that up.

Let me stop sharing for a second.

While you're doing that, I have a question for Benita.

Um is there a staff report on this?

Staff report.

We had discussions with the applicant um going through you know any questions that we had on our issues.

Um, but I didn't do a staff report for this.

Okay.

The staff report is also for the board um as well.

So the subtotal for the building is about two hundred and three spaces with the applicable reduction, it's a hundred and ninety-three required spaces.

Um again.

I guess the question for the the board is do we want to see more than five EV spaces?

Not for me.

I don't a good landlord is gonna put more in if they get requests, and it's gonna be a good landlord.

Uh Ray, will you for next meeting give us uh separate PMP and TDMP documents, please?

Those aren't required.

But they're provided, right?

No.

Okay.

Yes, it is.

I'm looking at it right now.

Oh I'm sorry.

I I may be confusing this with another one.

Um can we make that a condition of approval?

Do we really need to come back to the board for that?

Sorry, say that again.

I lost and can we include that in an approval condition?

Do we really need to come back for that?

We're gonna can um we need to get separate documents.

Um it's it's not in the regulations that they need to be separate documents.

Yeah, but we had requested that.

So no, I understand, but this had already been submitted, and um this is one where all of the parking is existing and well overparked, so I don't know that it's a really a critical element of this application at all.

It's it's not, it's just harder to review when you combine it.

Can we I disagree?

Making it a can a condition on this one, but going forward, can we?

Oh, yeah, well, that's already in my notes.

They're gonna be separate from from here on.

This one was submitted before that.

Okay.

Um we're waiting for the uh traffic and WPCA.

Is that correct, Benita?

Um traffic department.

Let's see double check.

Um I believe, you know, that is that might be right, but also, you know, because this is sorry, you may be right, but I think you know, this given the excess of parking here.

I I don't think you know they'll have yeah, we're supposed to get them though.

So will you for the next meeting?

Will you have them for us, please?

Sure.

Um, I think that's all I have.

Um so the only thing we need are those last two letters.

Um so um why don't we um well board?

Is there anything else?

Um any other questions?

Not for me.

Nothing.

No, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Um so um why don't we continue this application until uh our next meeting um on March 30 30th uh 6 30 p.m.

on Zoom?

Um and I I think the only thing we need are those two letters yeah okay thank you good thank you Randy uh excellent project thank you very much thank you looks good okay okay good right thank you right um next we have uh application two two three-4 fork which is the Pacific House and Micah Development Co.

for 66 Stillwater Avenue uh this is an 18 unit deeply affordable residential building they're requesting an extension of time um uh this one is is two years and I don't have the date in front of me anyone have that it's March 12 2028 thank you um any discussion on this uh if not can we get a motion to approve the extension of time i want to make that motion chairman to approve the extension of time for Pacific House second okay uh any further discussion all in favor say aye aye aye aye aye yeah okay it's approved uh five zero last we have the fee and loo um the fee and loo uh for Saint John's the uh as folks know uh we directed that Fee and Lu funds from two projects um go to uh St.

John's for renovation uh the applications were 213-44 and 218-19 um Atlantic station and um Lenar is that uh the Smith Yes okay so they were supposed to go for renovation um the they asked for several extensions of time uh they have no extensions left and um the right now the our approval say that the funds go to um uh to the renovation of the round towers um I see we have uh attorney vitti here um uh it I've come up with a list of what I think we need to do uh the approvals we need to give this in order to um uh make this work and have the funds go to uh the new building um as I think uh Benita sent it out uh but uh attorney v are you okay with with what we propose to do here um I don't I don't know if uh I've seen the proposal um I think it might have been like late uh this evening it came at 805 I yeah I think I sent it to Nick maybe a little bit before that but maybe well look we'll go through it if you if you think we're missing anything you call her sure sure and you know would it be okay if uh you bring up no cook as well who's here uh in representation of St.

John's urban development corp as well sure um and I'll maybe stop sharing and begin to do it discussing it um David let me know when you want me to share that list yeah go ahead and and put it up okay we've got two applications as I mentioned both of which need um a series of amendments to make it work um I don't see why we can't do it all as one motion but Vanita can you bring up the list of um what we need to do yeah okay do you see it not yet not yet it hasn't popped up yet there you go okay so

Um I don't see why we can't do it all as one motion.

But Vanita, can you bring up the list of um what we need to do?

Yeah.

Okay.

Do you see it?

Not yet.

Not yet.

It hasn't popped up yet.

There you go.

Okay.

So a little bigger.

There, oh I think we can see that.

Okay.

So as I mentioned, each of the approvals um originally permitted um several extensions of time and they've all been used up.

So the first thing we need to do is permit one more extension of time, uh, so that we can um extend the time that these funds can um go to Saint John's.

Um and folks, just stop me if anywhere along here with questions or comments or discussion.

Um the next thing we need to do for each of these uh two original approvals is to permit the funds to be used by Saint John Urban Development Corp for the development project that we approved under application two twenty-five-46.

Um the third sorry, no no, I'm in agreement thus far.

Okay.

The third is that um we've been told that they should hear about all of their funding um relatively soon.

So the third one says that they have six months until September to get their funding in place.

And to show us that it's been um obtained from the other funders.

What this means is you know, we we've held these funds now for I don't know, seven years.

Um it's been quite a while.

So this says, look, if they're not going to be able to get the other funding for the the project, then we don't have to keep uh these funds locked up and they can go for other affordable housing projects.

So they this says six months for them to complete getting the other funding for the project.

Since that's a hard and fast cutoff.

Do we think that's enough time?

I don't want that money to go anywhere.

I told they told us at the Affordable Housing Trust Fund that it would be before that.

And I don't know, Vinita, do you were you able to get Noel up?

Because he's there's no the the six months.

So and I'll defer to Noel a bit on this, but um I will say that the funding is is is varied and is coming from a mul multiple different layers of of financing.

Um a lot of which will be outside the applicant's control as to you know whether third parties have approved financing and funding for the entirety of the capital stack.

I believe six months is probably a bit tight, for instance, and I and I do agree with uh Ms.

McManus that you know this is a hard and fast rule.

Uh maybe we can provide a little bit of flexibility with the board where we're coming back to you and reporting on the financing, just by way of example.

If we were, you know, say there's 10 different layers of financing where we need approval on, and we've got eight of them, or say it's 75% complete and we're waiting on different funding sources for approval.

Uh we would like the ability to come back to the board and and show them that hey, this is the progress we've made, but we need a little bit more time because some of this is simply out of our control to get the complete capital stack in in place.

But you have you have an idea, so why don't you tell us what I know it's out of your control, but we can't hold the money indefinitely.

No here.

So give us an idea of what your different dates are.

Noel, do you have a better sense on the financing commitment?

Yeah, I you know, and and the big unknown is with CHAPA.

Um, the uh low-income housing tax credit application is due this month.

Uh it'll be three months before we hear back on that uh aspect of the funding.

It's possible that they may even break up the funding and the tax credit allocation over multiple years.

Um, in which case we wouldn't meet the benchmark.

We would meet it partially, but not entirely.

And the the problem is that if this money is going to get clawed back, or if there's a drop dead date that makes the underwriting for the under or for the other lenders that much more difficult.

Um, I certainly understand the concerns.

I understand um uh you know they're certainly valid.

Um I I just maybe there's another way to benchmark it than uh uh you know, just having all of the funds allocated.

The other thing to keep in mind it's just just committed, no, not allocated.

Uh understood.

Um we were just informed today uh that the community investment fund SIF has awarded the project a sizable uh grant, which is gonna cover it.

Excellent.

That's great.

Cover the relocation and the abatement for one building.

We we are moving forward.

And you know, to date, we have spent uh we're pushing three million dollars in pre-construction expenses.

So that's great, but we've got seven and a half million that's been tied up for seven or eight years.

So we but none of us want this money to go anywhere else.

Well, the uh the only other place it would go is to other affordable housing.

I understand that, but it's what we voted for it to be.

We did so how long do we keep it in limbo.

What's another year?

It's been eight years.

This is another year project that you is other projects could use it.

So you're certainly I'm not voting for it if we don't give this more time.

You're you're not gonna get as many units.

Um, you know, this money represents less than 10% of the project expenses for this project.

However, without it, the project goes away.

You know, the the financing is such that if we lose a chunk like this, it's back to the drawing board.

And rather than 305 affordable units, you're gonna have a mix.

Um and so give us give us your schedule.

Well, I think we we have to the extent that we can.

The the funding application, you the the main um trance funding is with CHAFA and Joh.

That consolidated application is due this month.

Um we don't know what they're going to do.

It could be um, you know, they they could award us right away.

They could tell us to come back next year, which won't impact our um uh construction schedule.

Uh it's just going because again, we've got the money to start the project.

We don't we have we don't have the money for the demo in the vertical construction.

So, you know, um I I again I I certainly understand the concern.

Um I I just don't know that I have a perfect solution for you other than to um uh to beg for your patience because this is an important part of this project.

This is an important project, and unfortunately in the affordable world, um you know, there's there's some things that are out of our control.

And what complicates it with the state is that this is the biggest project the state has ever done.

Uh it is the biggest affordable only project, uh, as St.

John's was uh originally done by a uh a private nonprofit developer.

So um I I completely understand the frustration.

Um I just I I beg a little more patience because we are we are on the road.

Okay.

Um why do we have to write this so it's so draw the line?

You gotta have some line.

Yeah.

Yes, you have to have some lines, but I'm we've been hearing this for seven years.

So I'm okay with a year if the rest of the board is.

I I don't know why I it's not about the time.

What if they show us that they got two-thirds of their funding, we're still not gonna give, we're still not gonna, we're gonna let the money go away.

They can't wait for the last third.

I think part of the problem, David, is that on the the scenario which you presented here is that there's no means of a extension if need be.

Right.

Okay, so let's build in the right to grant the extension.

I think we're getting closer.

Yeah, I I think if you provide a bit of that flexibility, and perhaps I'm just kind of spitballing, but you know, see stick to the original plan of of yearly extensions with the ability to come back to the board and report if we need more time.

The board may allow it.

Um similar similar to what the proposals have been to date.

And make it a year out from now, not September.

Yeah, I think six months is is just too tight.

We know September's not gonna be realistic anyway.

We we don't know that, Roseanne.

That's not what they they told the affordable housing trust fund.

The two people from St.

John's have told us it's not realistic.

Um both of us Noel and Nick have both just told us that.

Yeah, I'm fine with a year.

Um, let's say how can you come back to us?

What every couple of months?

Every six months?

I would say no, no, no, no.

We need we need reports more than that.

Quarterly?

Do they need to come?

With quarterly.

Could this just submit and email the report to us rather than you know appearing at the meeting?

No, let's have them here.

Yeah.

So we we can ask questions.

So okay.

So then um the next to the last line in number three, Vanita should be 2027.

Um, and then let's say you want to add a new item that they'll report back to us quarterly.

Um in person on the status of the other funding.

And just the way number three reads now, it's it's it's an automatic reversal to the affordable housing trust fund.

Can we we change will yeah, we'll hold on.

Hey, hold on, please.

Let's work one thing at a time.

Let's finish number four.

Okay.

Um, and did we want to add an extension here than yeah, that should go in number three, right?

Um, the zoning board um with the right of the zoning board to extend it.

Are we good on three?

Noel and Nick.

I yeah, is logged in.

I don't want to give up our power to the AHTF.

When well when we voted to have this funds go to St.

John's.

We did.

But they've run according to the agreement that we voted on, they ran out of time.

And I'm the one who pressed every couple of months to get an update, but you know, but you're also looking at a much better project than what the funding is.

Agreed.

That's what that's why we're doing this.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um unfortunately, if this project doesn't happen, Roseanne, the only place it can go to is the affordable housing trust fund.

I I get that, but I don't want to be the one to make that happen because we didn't give them enough time to get their funding.

Okay.

We don't get their funding, there's nothing we can do.

Right.

Um if they meet number three, then they'll have two years, and you you guys have to tell me if that makes sense.

Um I think we were told by the affordable housing trust fund that it'll be a three-year project.

I think overall four years from now.

Yeah, I think three years is the vertical construction.

Um we have 12 to 18 months on demo remediation and demo.

See?

So four.

So you want to make that 36 to 48.

We want to make it four years then.

I think that that would be more workable.

Oh basically that would be 30.

Or it would be March of 31, right?

Right.

After number three.

And then we need to fix the date at the bottom to the same thing.

Um, number six.

Should we just says we'll we will read Benita?

Yes.

What are you doing?

Do we want to add the extension language here?

Yeah, I um I'm on the same page as Benita, because if there's an underlying extension in number three, then that should correlate to the overall timing on number five.

Okay.

Everyone good with that.

Yes.

Um, number six, um, just says we'll read the agreements to mean the construction of the project rather than renovation of the towers.

And which we need to do, and then seven is we're giving our consent to consolidating the two escrow agreements into one new one with it with probably a different escrow agent because the current escrow agents don't want to continue, and they shouldn't have to continue to hold on to these funds.

Correct, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, so any further discussion or um is it is three the way we want it.

Um it's extend for a year with the right to extend further.

Um what what well let's look at what's the concept you want that's different?

Well we'll be released to the urge with the right of zone to extend the term.

This language isn't perfect.

I think it doesn't, I mean I I I it kind of says what we wanted to say, but almost your legally still.

You know what?

Why don't you move that language the right to extend the term, put it up after March 9, 2027 in the top line?

That's okay, I think then so Bill.

Does that work better there?

Yeah, I I think so, but I'd like some comment from the uh one of the attorneys that are here to make sure this is covers all the bases.

Yeah, the then is just yeah, it doesn't sound um just yeah, what I think this might be the if definitely I would I would put that I would put that um extension up at the top okay, extend it for a year with the right to extend it further.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, no, no, yes, yeah, it makes much more sense.

I and I think further is an important word to put in after term, yeah.

I think yeah, you're right.

Um yeah, right there where your cursor is before the comma.

Oh yeah, before the comma.

Yes, and while we're at it, it says if evidence of all the other funding is not provided by 3927 comment as may be extended, yeah.

Yeah.

Such date may be extended.

Yeah, I was gonna say subject to extensions there.

Yeah, then that looks much better.

Yeah, we can be extended.

Yeah, comma.

Yeah, that's better.

Perfect.

That's a lot better.

Yeah.

I know this was a lot of work for Benita and David going through all those documents.

I can't imagine how long it took you guys.

Because David, I see your hand all over this.

Yeah.

David, David wrote this.

Why we like having an attorney on the board.

Okay.

What do we think?

Good.

Everyone happy?

Yep.

For me.

Yep.

I'll be happy when it's all built.

Amen.

Noel.

Yes, sir.

Would you please provide us before our next meeting with just an outline of the funding?

And what you believe are the dates or that the periods when you would expect to receive the funds.

Yeah, I gotta work with uh David McCarthy from Heritage on that because he's got the uh um he's got more of a critical path information and in his fingertips than I do, but uh we'd be happy to.

Okay, our meeting is on the 30th, so if you get that to the board before that, please.

Sure.

So just a list of your capital stack and the uh the dates that's expected.

Yeah, I think most of that was in the pro forma that we provided with the zoning submission, but I'll um it probably didn't have dates.

Um, so we'll we'll update it with that information.

Yeah, I don't think there was a zoning submission.

I think we got a letter from Nick, but I think that was it.

I think we talk about the site non application.

Yeah, the the site approval.

Oh, with that one, okay.

If you just give us an updated one then, please.

Sure.

Excellent.

Um can I get a motion to approve this?

Go ahead, Bill.

Yeah, well, uh I'm happy to do that, and we want this approval to say what exactly that we move to approve the six steps or seven.

Are we up to seven now?

Yeah, however many steps we have, seven steps, yeah.

Um the list of approvals necessary for the St.

John's Fee and Lou requirements.

I would I would add that it's a modification of the underlying conditions for the prior zoning approvals, too, because that's that's what essentially your you're authorizing, right?

So therefore I move that we approve the modification of the St.

John Fee and Lou funding extensions as just no that's not that's not quite right.

We've we've kind of met mashed a couple of ideas together.

Um, so it's modification of the um prior approvals, yeah.

They yeah, let's put in the application.

It's yeah, prior 13-44 and 218.

You got it.

Okay.

Excellent.

Um that makes sense.

But all your lawyers just to facilitate the fee and loo funding.

Okay, it's because it's more than an extension.

Yeah, good.

Nick.

I I'm good with that.

So therefore you want a motion which states that uh I move to approve the modification of the prior approvals of application 213-4 and 218-19, which were to facilitate to facilitate the St.

John's urban development, whatever C is fee and Lou Venture.

I second it.

All right, any further discussion?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Um.

Peter, are you still there?

Yes.

I'm here.

Okay.

I there you are.

You voted yes?

Yes, I did.

Okay.

Good.

So it's approved 5-0.

Um.

Good luck to all of you.

Yeah.

Vanita, for that document, before you send it into cyberspace.

Will you put on that it was approved at um the meeting on this date?

Yeah, but put on that it was approved so that we have it in the file.

Okay.

And then let's we've put this in a in an approval letter.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good.

So Nick and uh Noel, good luck on this.

Good luck, guys.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you so much for your time.

Very much appreciated.

Sure.

You're welcome.

Okay.

So good night.

This was our um our last item on tonight's agenda.

So Vanita, what do we have on for our next meeting on the 30th?

So we have some of the text amendments that were continued from tonight.

So the CL district, the CG was also continued, right?

And then in terms of new applications, we have uh 35 Dadis Avenue.

Uh that's independent senior living.

Um, just not a people's head.

Um and we also have 1150 Summer Street.

That's the map change and GDP that was continued from tonight.

Uh do you think they'll be ready?

Um I yes, that's what they told me.

Um, I will double check, you know, because we do need if there are any modifications, we need to look at the new materials.

I haven't seen that yet.

Um, but I think that's the only items of public hearing, correct?

That and then 35 data saving you as well.

That's a special department.

Um what is that one?

Uh senior housing, similar to what we did at Via Mill.

I have a small-ish.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

We've uh yeah, okay, okay.

Um, David and Vanilla Vanita, I won't be here for the next meeting.

Oh okay.

Oh Peter, I hope you can be here.

I'll be here.

Great.

The meeting and otherwise.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, um, folks, uh it sounds like our next one will have a few things to do.

And um, can we get a motion to adjourn?

Go ahead, Peter.

I move to the next slide.

Peter, make a motion.

I move to adjourn.

There you go.

Second.

Good.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, everybody.

Good week, everybody.

You too.