Vanita.

Yes.

Keith got the uh packet.

Yes.

Okay.

Good.

Good.

David, I think we can get started.

Okay.

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

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Zoning Board, and it is 6.33 on April 13th, 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.

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

Bill Morris?

Here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Jerry Bozak, are you back on yet?

Okay.

Well, Jerry is here.

And our newest member, Keith Walker.

Here.

And now the staff uh Bureau Chief Ralph Blessing.

Here.

And okay.

Good.

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

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

However, we would ask the applicant to please mute their mics when not speaking in order to reduce background noise.

The first part of uh tonight's meeting after our update and discussion, uh, will be the public hearing during which the public will have the opportunity to speak.

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

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

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

If you called in on one of the telephone conference call phone numbers, please press star nine and this will raise your hand and then press star six to unmute when you are called on with speech when members of the public speak, please give us your name and address for the record and whether you're in favor of or opposed to the application.

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

If you have a problem trying to speak, you can't get through for some reason.

Send an email to Vanita.

Her email address is V M-A-T-H-U-R at Stamford C T dot gov and she will get you on.

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

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

The first uh well first I want to formally welcome uh Keith Walker to the zoning board.

Um Keith is uh just joined us, and um it's nice to have you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh the first item we have is the election of the officers.

Um our bylaws provide that when a new member joins, uh, we need to elect a new chair and a new secretary.

Um this hasn't happened in quite a while.

Um, but now that Keith has joined us, it's uh triggered this requirement.

So um first uh we need uh to elect the chair.

Uminations are open.

I I'd like to nominate David Stein as chair of the zoning board.

I'd like to make the second to that nomination.

Thank you.

Jerry, you want to make a speech?

Uh no, no.

Just kidding.

Jerry, don't you want to run against him and be chair?

Yeah, no, no, no.

Thank you very much.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any other nominations?

Don't you dare, Ralph.

Don't you dare.

No other nominations.

Okay.

Uh nominations are closed.

Um all in favor of David Stein for chair say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Abstentions.

Okay.

David Stein is elected chair.

Next is Secretary.

Can we get a nomination for secretary?

Well, I'd like to nominate Bill Morris, who has done a great job.

Yeah.

And I'm sure we'll continue.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Any other nominations?

Okay.

Nominations are closed.

All in favor of Bill Morris for Secretary, say aye.

Okay.

Congratulations, Bill.

Thank you.

No right into paradise.

Okay.

Next item we have is the discussion of possible revisions to our BMR regulations.

We got an excellent report last week from Emily Gordon on some of the issues that we're facing regarding our um BMR program.

And she brought to it our attention at least two items.

The first is that there are almost uh in 2025, almost no on-site units, which meant that almost every developer used the fee and loo payment to satisfy their obligation.

Um and another issue that uh she raised was that there's um a need for units at less than 50% of AMI, which is not being satisfied.

Um were there any other issues that um I think there were probably at least one more that um you raised.

I think those are the main ones.

The three-bedroom uh vacancy.

I think it's something to keep our eye on, definitely.

Um and and see if that's a continuing issue or just kind of a uh kind of a blip just because of the reports that we received at the time.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so um board members, any other issues that anyone wants to add to that list.

No, I think the only thing I'd like to say is over the years, we've had various people come before us and speak about um the units, and and we've had people tell us that BMR units are the only way to go, and people that have told us that fee and loo is the only way to go.

Um and I've always been able to see both sides of it.

Um but I think because of a one-year report, I'm not sure that we should uh change our regulation on whether or not we will allow the developers to pay a fee and lo instead of having the on-site units.

I I think we should wait at least uh two or three years to make that decision.

But that's just my opinion.

I think the the issue if the the question is what do we want to what adjustments do we want to make to our regulations, if any, in order to um address the issues that um Emily had raised.

Um so the purpose of this discussion is just to see if what people think um we should do with the regs.

Um if there are changes, for example, I guess there's you know, one thought that came up last time was do we incentivize um developers to put units on site, for example, increase the bonus they get um for on-site units.

Um I think Ralph raised that one.

And um I think that's a good suggestion.

Um are there others.

Anyone Bill?

The only thing I is that you know, and also part of uh Emma's report was the fact that Fee and Lou, we get more bang for our buck.

So I don't think we want to overreact.

Yeah, we just got and I uh and I agree with Roseanne.

Maybe we should wait a little while before we uh make any changes, but I'm flexible.

You know, the I think the theory was that we were hoping that Fee and Lou and on site would be relatively equal.

Um that hasn't happened, at least not in 2025.

Um just in the short term.

Um it may work itself out or it may need some adjustment.

Um so David, can I can I weigh in for a second?

You sure can.

Sure.

So I haven't had a chance to read your report, Emily.

If if if I can get a copy of it, that would be awesome.

Um I had discussed with Ralph because one of the questions had had come up.

And my my concern, and I had asked this question without seeing it is is how the numbers actually calculated to determine what the fee and lieu is.

Because looking at it from a developer's side of the equation, by paying a fee and lieu, it is a line item on a development budget, and it's no different.

And I use this example, you know, vertical transportation consultant, two dollars, fee and lieu three dollars.

A that's they look at it as an expense.

And the question is, are you calculating it based upon what?

And there has to be a calculation made so that there is an incentive to balance the AMR perspective, but at the same time forcing, and I hate to use the word forcing, but it is forcing a developer to think about putting a unit um that'll be a BMR unit within a complex.

They still have to build four walls, and they still have to put in a bathroom and a and and a uh a kitchen.

But the question is is you know, what are the economics of the deal?

Um, and you know, uh around the country, they sort of step up the fee and lie.

So at the end of the day, the developer still has the income coming in, it's a below market income, and it satisfies the community for affordable housing, and you know, there can be a happy mix.

So I I'm I'm really just I'd I'd love to look at how it's calculated to see if those numbers could actually force the hands of uh you know someone looking at a project.

Yeah, I I appreciate that.

Um I think that that's exactly where I'm kind of at with it is it's it's less of like swinging the pendulum kind of to Roseanne's point back to where things were you know a year or two ago in the regulations, but more um reassessing that uh the fee and loo and it it is uh per square foot number and it's it varies based on the zoning district and the type of development.

So conversion has a has a lower cost per square foot.

Um senior housing has a lower cost per square foot, but generally it's kind of based on the the zoning district.

Um and and I I do think that there's a question of um whether that needs to be re-looked at, and that would be I think the first starting place.

And um we did talk about at the last meeting how the area meeting income um for a few reasons um basically um plummeted by 17 and a half percent last year.

And that means the income limits go down that much, but it also means the rents go down that much.

So that means that every developer collecting rent is supposed to be collecting that much lower, Ben.

So we ended up freezing the um the rents in in the program and the income limits in the program just to kind of like stabilize things.

But I think that also, and Ralph brought it up at the meeting last the last meeting that that's a calculation in this, right?

Because it if you can only if the rents you're allowed to calculate um are that much lower, well, now the fee and lieu is that much more kind of valuable.

So I mean, I might even suggest that even at a very basic level, increasing the fee and lie at the same percentage as that, which would be the 17% plus whatever the normal annual increase is, which they basically didn't see.

Um, so something like 20, 21%, maybe that does something to start to like equate it a little bit, but but yeah, if if um and I I did some kind of like math of what you know, what is every landlord kind of foregoing from the market rate versus like the the BMR rate, and then when you look at that compared to the fee and loo, it it does seem low.

It seems like that would be if you had the cash, you know, that that would be the way to to go.

So I I do think like maybe look looking at the fee and lieu, and even if it was a simple calculation to say, hey, we're at least just adjusting based on that AMI to start, could be a could be a place to start.

The other thing um that happened in the last year.

So first of all, we did get only half as many units approved last year than the year before.

Um so um yes, the number of of and the percentage of of BMRs on site provided was was very low.

Um, so that's that's one thing.

Um, but the other thing is also the product that we've seen the last year was very different from the years before.

So last year we had all the like townhouse developments, the like uh 800 Longwood Road, um the one down on Fairfield Avenue, um uh uh all those types of of uh developments which are um very different uh uh in size uh and in cost and also ownership structures, those are all, or in many instances, those are ownership units.

Um what we've seen the years before, which were uh rental units in high-rise apartments, or not necessarily high-rise, but but uh apartment buildings.

So Ralph, is your point that townhouses tend to be fee and loo more than um and because we're getting more townhouses, we're getting more fee and lieu.

And then we also offer that all the rentals were conversions, it looked like too, which also has a lower percentage of requirements.

So we also just didn't get a as much from that as you would have from kind of a new new construction.

Yeah.

But um, I mean, uh a townhouse uh uh that that sells for one and a half million dollars, the the fee and loo that we're charging for that is uh probably uh very low.

Um that's also because of that specific product, we've seen more um uh buyouts right than we would have seen with like apartment buildings.

If all the units we gotten were apartment buildings, then the story would probably be a little bit different.

Right.

I mean, one thing that we did see that worked well was that the because it was per square footed square foot basis, uh some of the townhouses were larger.

Uh so that kind of balanced things out compared to when we had per unit fee and loo.

So um the same thing.

But it was also yeah.

But also the the per square footage fee uh for townhouses in those districts in those zoning districts is lower than uh what we've seen in uh in downtown on the south end or the higher density uh district.

So yes, there's there's larger units, but the fee per square foot is uh lower.

So Ralph, do you think that we need to look at townhouses as a separate product and treat them a little differently?

I think I mean uh first of all, um I think it's good that we now have someone with real estate uh experience on the board uh who can uh probably help us with uh readjusting um the uh the fee and loo payments.

Um and um I would think uh I mean I think the general structure of the fee and loo is okay, like having a uh per square footage fee uh um differentiated by different zoning districts because the the zoning districts they are different different construction types.

So in in a in a CD district, you will get townhouses in a CG1 district, you will get stick builds in uh the CC district, you will get uh high-rise construction, those all come with different prices attached to them.

So um, but I think it's it's like readjusting um uh the different uh um the different fees.

Okay.

Anyone have anything else they want to add?

So uh I know this if you can go with me on this just a little bit, and I sort of touch upon this when I was at the border reps.

You know, when I was thinking the fee and lieu of, right?

to them so um but i think it's it's like readjusting um uh the different uh um the different fees okay anyone have anything else they want to add so uh i know this if you can go with me on this just a little bit and i sort of touch upon this when i was at the board of reps you know when i was thinking the fee and lieu of right and the um the on-site housing it's something that i think also was very stark to me that okay it's great that we take the fee and lieu of and you get the affordable housing credits and then we have the trust fund and then we have as we acquire that money then we have to a developer that develops those sites it seems to be and please correct me if I'm wrong it seems that when they have that the that money from the the the the um the affordable trust the housing trust um it it it tends to be now we're in certain areas of Stanford and I think it's counterintuitive what this board wants to do uh you know in regards to having on-site housing and I was I have to tell you I was so proud of this board how we stood firm with 100 Clinton Avenue because we really were um we're strong about having the on-site housing there and if you notice on the west side we're doing a lot of this developing over there because why the property's more affordable and and we can we can develop but it doesn't do I think what the mission of this board really wants is into having that on-site housing everywhere in Stanford not just in a certain pockets because I think then we're going backwards 50 years in creating these areas of just having affordability and I think that's counterintuitive to what this mission of this board I I get a feeling of what this board really wants to do with the fee in lieu of in on site housing.

So I think I and Ralph I think the increasing you know increasing it for develop on the development side I think that's it's a great start.

Does that make sense at all?

Yes.

Yeah because it I think what you're talking about is the economic diversity that we had discussed that in a quote luxury building you are going to have people of different incomes where you have on site.

So I think you make a good point that we the fee in lieu does does move us away from that yeah I think another item to consider uh and and that's probab that's probably uh a little bit more complicated um item is also uh we got rid of the um option to meet the fee uh in lieu requirement or uh the the BMR requirement by um offsite uh construction which um we did I think so and and land donation and things like that but we are running in a situation now where land in Stanford is sort of the the the critical issue with providing um affordable housing so um um i think around those issues is something uh that we should do um as well because um what we've seen that the the affordable housing trust fund is a lot of projects um that are redeveloping land that they already have uh because that's cheap and and but no one we one of the reasons why we haven't seen uh a whole lot of new product coming online is because there's simply no land available or not at a price that makes it uh uh reasonable for for uh affordable housing development so I think um as part um of uh that whole discussion that's also something we should keep in mind I think it's it's two issues really it's uh finding the right balance between on-site versus versus fee and lieu obviously we don't want to give the fee and loo uh away like if we can get more money through fee and loo by all means we should we should do that um but the other thing is also looking forward with with land being sort of the critical factor what can we do um to uh make sure we have enough to build affordable housing and to build new affordable housing rather than what what um Chata Oak is doing um uh over on Ursula place um and and what they've done in in other places renovation or yes rehabbing rather than new units yeah yeah yeah I think I never understood David why you and Ralph were pretty against renovation we've we've given a fair amount of money to um charter o for the renovation no no no I know but um and the housing trust fund you said you didn't want the money used for renovation and well I I I never understood that well my concern is that um we don't renovation doesn't increase the number of units of affordable housing that we have it it's not like it serves anyone new it serves the people who are there um and that's great because some of the housing really needs to be rehabbed I think it's kind of a balance we should try to find new projects that provide

And I I never understood that.

Well my concern is that um we don't renovation doesn't increase the number of units of affordable housing that we have.

It's it's not like it serves anyone new, it serves the people who are there.

Um that's great because some of the housing really needs to be rehabbed.

I think it's kind of a balance.

We should try to find new projects that provide new housing um as well as rehabbing existing housing.

Because if we don't rehab, they'll fall apart and they won't be housing for anybody.

You're right.

I mean, yeah.

I mean, I think that's why St.

John's uh is such a great project because obviously it it it uh rehabs the units uh that are there, but it also increases uh the stock.

So um and and I think that's also uh looking forward and and speaking about um like the the scarcity of land, maybe there's more opportunities to do rehab and at the same time adding uh to the stock on land uh that we already have, or a charter oak has or or in Spirica or whoever uh the affordable housing provider is.

Yeah, and I just wanted to go back with what Ralph was saying about um the kind of off-site units.

That was I mean, there haven't been a lot of projects like that, but I will say um that something that I think rental properties are seeing across the board, but it's becoming more of an issue for affordable properties, especially is uh increased operating costs and insurance is a huge problem right now, and so those operating costs are a problem in all buildings, they're a problem in mixed income buildings, but then they're especially a problem for a hundred percent restricted affordable buildings where they can't raise their rent, right?

So if if their costs increase, they don't have anyone to pass it on to.

And um there was there there is an off-site building, so a developer who built, you know, they they built the unit the BMR units off-site and they're now selling that building.

And from my perspective, it feels like because the the development happened in a separate building, they were able to kind of say, well, we can just offload that kind of off of our books and make it kind of someone else's issue or problem, and we can go on with our market rate units in this separate building.

So I think that it's not to say that off-site can't be done, but to Ralph's point, it if it if it is done, it should be done very carefully and and be sure that there's a significant upside to it, because I think what we don't want to see happen is for there to be this separation between on like market rate, off-site VMRs, and now we really are seeing these developments being treated very differently, the maintenance or the upkeep or the operations of the buildings and potentially kind of selling those VMR units off because they're not they're they're not something that's maybe making that developer or the owner money anymore.

So those that would be my um just I think something that needs to be considered in like the off-site discussion.

That's a good point.

When we I think with DLT, we have done one of those where the whole building was affordable, and um it hadn't occurred to me that it could run into problems with its operating costs, but that's I figured the owner would make sure that it's kept up and um taken care of, but it is something to be concerned about.

Maybe we don't want to have that as an option for uh for meeting it a BMR requirement that of a completely separate all BMR building.

Or if it is at least maybe making sure it's under the care of a of a nonprofit, or like I said, making sure we're getting significant upside from it, and it's not just here's my 10 required units in a completely different, you know, you know, to Jerry's point, a different completely completely different area or you know, completely different management building, um, whatever that is, and you know, the question is whether that's a purpose.

But some of our not-for-profit low-income housing is not kept up, it's not just I agree, yeah, you know, for profit developers, you know.

Yeah I think you know to that point I think increasing the Fiend loo to an amount that's that's comparable to what the the cost burden would have been with the BMR on site is a good idea but but still keep it to a point where we get some some money to be able to support a nonprofits because you know there we want to have you know be able to support you know um nonprofits like St.

John's or Charter Oak that want to keep their um stock uh maintained yeah but I think it's important for those those training wheels around those nonprofits because if not then you may find a pathway that the city starts to take care of those things um you know we have to be very careful it's a slippery slope too so I think you know because the item that was in the paper for you know since uh you know last year you know um you know we we had to do something to take care of those folks up there you know elevators were down and heating and things like that so yeah um so we have to really create those training wheels around those you know that support you know that ran out of money right yeah I mean I think but it's it's a conversation we need to have with all of the not for profits if we're about to give them some money for a new project.

Absolutely what do you do with your old projects yeah and I think that's why too um there is you know the at the trust fund and um you know whether it's community development or the trust fund just um making sure that you know we're we're working with there there's vetting of these nonprofits that we're looking at um how they've been a good partner to the city in the past and what their projects have looked like in the past and experience is a huge part of that um so I think that having that kind of due diligence um is really important.

Can can fee and fee and lo funds be used in a situation as Roseanne was talking about for the maintenance of a building if the building can no longer afford it or is that not a possibility.

Correct not for operating cost but it could be used for um like substantial renovations like they need a new roof or or what whatever elevated system yeah so it's it's only expenses.

Yeah it's only brick and mortar um actually the the linkage fee which the board of reps uh uh increased and is now like two million two and a half million yeah two million um that can be used more flexibly so that could be used for example for like rent vouchers which um is would be very difficult or rent let's call it rent subsidies uh uh for which is not a whole lot of money and um which also would be very difficult to administer um but um linkage fee is not only brick and mortar money it it can go to other um uh expenses um as well but fee and loo and that is that is uh state statutes is is limited to capital of okay state investments they'll learn is that eliminates that possibility all right thanks okay um anything further um i i think when we look at percentages we should look and see if we want to increase the amount for office conversions to residential i mean that's a much um lower expense for the applicant and it's our lowest i think it's our lowest percentage for um bmr's right yes yeah that and senior it's been seven percent and um i think is it is it something we're looking at tonight one of the text amendments is raising it to eight percent um but i'll raise my hand to say 10 well uh we I think that that's something we should look at and I think we should put that on the list of um uh ideas for where we want to um amend our regulation yeah because we'll be getting bunch more of a bunch more of those in the next in the coming years you know that the tension is you want to encourage building owners to convert um and so we want to make it you know favorable to them but on the other hand it is pretty low the BMR percentage is pretty low so that you don't want to discourage it but we need

Yeah, because we'll be getting bunch more of a bunch more of those in the next in the coming years.

You know, that the tension is you want to encourage building owners to convert.

Um and so we want to make it you know favorable to them, but on the other hand, it is pretty low.

The BMR percentage is pretty low.

Yeah, so that you don't want to discourage it, but we need our BMRs also.

Yeah, and so the rationale our rationale, we're trying to get the office building turned over to residential.

So we we took that into the original considerations and calculations.

Yes.

So we gotta be careful.

We don't make this to the point where nothing happens.

Yeah.

And I I just want to also point out, remember again that the AMI is kind of what it did go down, and um we're we we just froze it.

But so basically, um, I think that the um managers today would have thought they would be charging maybe three or four percent higher in rent this year than they are now, and and they're gonna keep seeing that kind of um, I assume we'll keep that frozen, but that's going to be another thing that um kind of eats away at any uh feasibility of of the program.

So the program's basically going to operate differently moving forward.

So just um I think be prepared for that.

That you know what we're asking of the developers is now more, even though we haven't changed our regulations at all.

But that's the assumption that that's gonna stay low, and and I would bet there's a lot of people who would say that's not gonna happen.

Well, I think the issue is that they changed the geographic areas that they use to determine the AMI.

Yes, and doing that.

Yeah, yeah.

Um that's gonna change.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, with without the uh um the change in geography, the uh the AMI probably would have gone up um a couple percent.

Right.

Um but uh because it was such a steep decrease last year, and um we decided to freeze it.

We'll probably have to freeze it for like another two or three years uh moving uh moving forward uh before it catches up, and then once it's caught up, then uh it will go back to like the annual like two, three, four percent um uh that that we've seen in the past.

So we we have to wait for incomes to rise in this new area, yeah.

Okay, because otherwise all our existing tenants become income ineligible, yes, and need to find new units, so it's and the managers today who aren't happy with me freezing it would be less happy if we dropped it by 17.

So um multifaceted, yes, yes.

Lastly, they were very happy that we froze it.

Yeah, well, they still thought we should have raised it, but the uh I don't I I think I asked this at the last meeting, but is there uh uh another mechanism which we can use to calculate uh AMI besides the one we're using?

Since that seems to be somewhat flexible.

Do we have a really any discretion?

Um it is our program.

So uh the problem is any building that's already in the program would have to use the existing um rules and regulations.

So so then if you were to change anything drastically, you would basically have two different programs.

You'd have one program under the old program and one program under kind of new regulations, which would probably make it more confusing.

And I would also say that the AMI is is is the standard.

That's what everybody's using.

It's really unfortunate that but the whole state of this is the whole state of Connecticut, it's not just Stanford that got put in this weird limbo period, um, where we're all trying to figure out where the AMI is going in our particular region and and how to kind of fill in the gaps in the in the meantime.

Um Emily, following up on Bill's question, there was a change in the geographic area that's used to determine AMI.

So um that could we change it on our own to um make the AMI go up?

I mean, we can in theory pick our own numbers.

Um, but um someone won't have to pick the numbers, and uh as Emily said, the the AMI and the hot numbers are sort of the the standard that everyone uses.

So uh I mean the Census Bureau um they uh have numbers for Stanford for for median income um uh that we could use um but in the past we've been relying on uh the the hot numbers and everyone else does.

Yeah the the median income for Stanford isn't adjusted for household size, so that's why it's not kind of an apples to apples.

Um so it is um I think it's really unfortunate that this this happened because it makes it more complicated, but um, but the reality is this is the this is what everyone else is using.

So when we're trying to compare our program to the voucher program to the trust fund program, which is you know working with people using tax credits, everybody's using the same standard, and that's kind of the value of using the AMI is us being able to like compare ourselves to others and to be able to kind of immerse ourselves in the with the rest of the housing world.

Um if we were to separate ourselves, I think it would be much more um challenging.

And and everything, everything's flawed, so there's no perfect number.

This is kind of as long as we know the flaws with this number, I think that we're in we're in okay shape.

Well, you should have changed.

We're done as a result of a federal action, correct?

Yes, so there's a chance that the action can change once again.

Yeah, so the reason it happened is because all of the counties were changed.

Um all of the so Fairfield County in Connecticut is um used to be a kind of count, it used to be the county for data collection purposes at the Census Bureau.

It was changed to be West Cog, which is West Cog is our local council of government.

And so um that was changed across the whole state of Connecticut.

So because that change was made across the state and that all the counties were changed for kind of data collection purposes at the Census Bureau, that's why this all changed.

So yes, if we were to go back to Fairfield County, um for the next census, I assume would be where it would be triggered.

Um, but I doubt that that would happen again.

It seems it's shocking that it happened in the first place, I think.

Um also presumably that was something that was initiated by the state, like the the Census Bureau.

Um uh they don't care how how the pie is sliced, but um I think uh on the state level, they wanted to be able to say uh or or have like clear geographies, like okay, the the unemployment rate in this cog is so and so many percent without having to sort of argue, oh, but uh we only have the county uh uh census numbers and the counties don't mean anything because we don't have county government.

Um so uh that was probably the the uh the idea and probably the AMIs and and sort of the the might even have been sort of an unintended consequence of the whole I think so uh it it it affects everything, it affects all uh uh data that that is produced by uh um the Census Bureau.

Emily, I I just have a quick question.

So is the is the AMI um calculated based upon current numbers as opposed to a delivery date of the units?

Yeah, it's based on current numbers, and even those current numbers are based on past data.

So I think the AMI might be based on I don't know if it's like the last four years or you know, so it's it's right.

So you're looking at it historically, even though what's going to be delivered in the future, right?

So you're kind of getting double.

Well when they when they units are delivered, they use the then current AMI.

Yes, so we but the current is still the past because it's based on past data.

So you're always getting kind of that delayed, but it is updated.

Yeah, I was just thinking if there was a workaround on that, but it that's tough.

One so one thing that the fee and loo is that you know we apply the construction cost index um at the time of payment.

Um so that's one way to adjust the fee and lo aspect.

Um but the the AMI, the on-site AMI rents, those are based on the past years.

Um got it.

Okay.

Um, Ralph, could we ask you to come up with a list of some ideas and just with it flesh it out with some detail on it and um and then let's take a look at it.

And um based on all these discussions.

Good.

Well, this has been good.

Um David, could I have one more thing?

It would be uh I don't know if it could happen, but in my mind would be an ideal situation if we could receive uh some thoughts on this entire process from developers.

How they see it.

Well, it makes them go one way or another, that type of thing.

I I think that I would I think it could be helpful.

I think it might be helpful to have that not in a context of a current project.

So yeah.

Right.

Well, I I didn't mean to take one building and say this is how you do it.

Just to try to understand the entire concept, how people take this into consideration when they do the development.

That's all.

Yeah, something more than just uh the BMR requirements too high, and you should lower it.

Yeah, no, that's not uh that's not what I was looking for.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, I think that would be good to get their input on it in general.

Um, there must be someone out there, maybe one of the universities has a person that you know sort of the uh grand poopah of all this type of thinking.

Anyway, Bill, I uh I'm I'm happy to to uh to to help in that degree, but I'm just warning you you you talk to one developer, you might get three different answers depending on how he wants to swing it.

Yeah, but your point is is valid, and that's why I raised it originally about what you know how they look at it in certain ways as far as a line item on a development budget as opposed to the future value of of the unit and putting a cap rate on how much income they're receiving from a unit.

But I I think it's it's uh it's definitely a discussion that needs to be had.

Yeah, yeah.

And I'm I'm sure these guys run the uh amount of rent loss versus putting up the fee and loo up front, and their computer model is uh takes all of that into account.

Correct, because they're gonna look at it as either in whatever it is, three, five, seven years.

What's the value of that particular unit when I go to either sell or refinance, and how much income will I receive, and how much income did I not receive during that time period as opposed to the check I wrote from day one and and the cost of money during that time period, yeah.

Yeah, I I think there's an opportunity for it for the city to manage this process.

It's not you know, it's it's a hard one, but I I think there's there's an opportunity here for us.

Yeah, and I think I think Jerry, I think you raised a really good point that you have to have affordable within you know different communities and within different buildings.

Absolutely.

Yeah, okay.

Um let's move on.

Uh we're now into the um first of all, thank you, everyone.

I think this we we've got a lot of ideas here.

Um we're now in the public hearing portion of our meeting.

Um the first item on uh the agenda is application two two five four three, which is the map change for 1150 Summer Street.

Um that's the uh uh map change to create the uh day care within the office building.

That hearing has been continued until May 4th, 2026, uh 630 on Zoom.

Um it's companion application, which is a general development plan.

Uh they convert the office to a daycare center.

Um application 225-44.

That's also been continued until May 4th, 2026.

Um, next we have application 226-01, 35 terrace LLC special permit.

That's to develop uh the property in the six senior uh slash disabled units.

That hearing uh has been continued until April 27th, 2026.

Um our agenda says the 20th, but uh we are going to be moving our meeting to the 27th.

So um that application will be heard on the 27th at 6:30 on Zoom.

The next application is one we will discuss tonight.

Application 226-06.

Uh it's a zoning board uh text change application.

Uh purpose of this text change is to make corrections to various sections of the zoning regulations and add a new definition for temporary signs.

Um we had opened that uh at our last meeting, but uh had no uh discussion on it.

So um Ralph, could you please uh uh take us through this one?

Uh did we read the planning board letter?

Yes, we did.

Okay.

Yeah, we actually in the meetings, the minutes meetings.

Yep, we opened and continued.

Yeah, just just making sure.

Okay.

So good.

Just uh so uh let me share my screen.

Can you see my presentation?

Yes.

Yes, we have a couple coming up today.

Um so um 22606 um is um as the chair mentioned, uh a cleanup and regulations for temporary signs.

Uh so uh the cleanup um is really um very minor.

It's um updates to um uh references in many sections, so it refers still to the master plan instead of the comprehensive plan.

It refers to zoning regulation uh um numbers that don't exist anymore.

Uh so it's that type um of uh um changes that we're proposing in uh table 12.6 location of parking areas and spaces in yards.

Uh there's a footnote, the footnote is in the wrong column, so we're moving it to the right uh column.

And then uh as you all know, the uh transportation um and parking bureau um is now the transportation department.

So we are updating all references from TTP to transportation department.

So um the the biggest uh change is really um for uh the temporary signs.

So uh we're proposing to add a section uh or definition to section 3B, which is the definitions uh section.

And the reason really is that we don't have um any uh regulations for temporary signs.

So we treat every sign the same as a permanent sign.

Um and uh obviously that is that is very burdensome.

Um and uh we want to make it easier um for uh those types of signs uh to be uh put up.

And in many instances, those are for like special events, uh like I don't know, the fireworks at Cove Island or an event at Mill River Park or uh those um like uh now leasing signs at uh new buildings.

Um so um yeah, the the purpose really is to make it easier for for or create regulations for those signs to be posted.

And um in the definition, we say that a temporary sign is a sign that is displayed for uh three months or less.

Um and uh that signs uh that are displayed for uh less than seven days, uh, they don't need a permit.

So that would um really um uh affect signs for uh special events uh and those kinds of things.

Um also um uh for lawn signs, you we clarify in the zoning regulations that you don't need um uh uh a permit.

Um this has never been enforced anyway, but we want to make clear that for lawn signs, um uh no permit is needed.

Um signs, however, that are up for more than seven days and up to uh uh 30 days, they will need a permit.

Um, but uh they will get uh special uh locational and uh size standards.

So um uh you will be allowed to put them on other places on the building um uh or make them uh a different size than the type of signs uh that are permanently uh fixed to a building.

So once again, if you have a banner hanging down from the side of your building says now leasing or grand opening or something like that, um there is a little bit more um leeway.

Um we also want to make sure that those signs get removed uh after the three months.

Um so uh we're putting in a requirement for uh posting a bond.

Um so uh that would only be returned after uh the sign uh is removed.

And uh in order to make sure uh that this regulation isn't abused, we also say that you can only have one temporary sign per property uh within one calendar year.

So you cannot say, okay, I'm putting up a sign for three months and then I'm putting up another temporary sign for three months and another one for three months.

You can only have one temporary sign uh within uh uh one calendar year.

Uh and uh that's pretty much it.

Um I also want to say that we are working on uh regulations on a comprehensive overhaul of the sign regulations.

Um so uh this is really more of like a um quick fix um to address uh the issue of of temporary signs.

Um, but there will be uh forthcoming a um change uh that affects all um uh the sign regulations and hopefully we'll make the sign regulations um a little bit more uh logical uh um uh in the regulations.

And um, yeah, if you have any questions, please go ahead.

Bill thank you.

Bill, any questions?

No, it all sounds pretty uh reasonable to me.

I no.

Okay.

Same with me.

I don't have any questions.

Jerry?

No, no, no, Sherry.

I had one, I had just one quick question.

When I was I was reading in one of the presentations, it said um urban design considerations, it said avoid blank walls.

Did I get this right?

Am I reading the the right?

I don't think that was in regards to this uh regulation.

Okay, yeah, okay.

Maybe I wrote down the wrong thing.

Okay.

There were several four of them for tonight.

So got it.

Okay.

Uh okay.

Uh why don't we go to the um public?

Uh if there's anyone from the public who'd like to speak on this application, either for or against it, um, please raise your hand.

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

Um, I don't see any hands raised here.

Okay.

Um any uh final questions from the board before we close this.

Not for me.

No.

No, Ms.

Chairman.

Um Ralph, anything else you want to add?

Okay, then uh application 226 um six is closed.

Um Ralph, what's our timing?

Can can this wait until um the meeting of the 27th to vote on?

Um I think it would be better if we can vote on it today.

Okay.

We normally I know we normally try to wait until the next meeting to vote, but I also know this may have some urgency behind it.

So uh you'd rather do it tonight.

Yeah, okay.

And nothing controversial about it.

None.

No.

We're gonna take the meeting out of order and vote on it right now.

Get it over with.

Sure.

Can we have a vote?

Wait, wait one sec.

What Ralph?

Oh, one thing I wanted to mention was that um the planning board, as you know from the planning board letter, um, recommended disapproval uh of this application because they thought that this was overly complicated and burdensome, so they didn't have a problem with temporary signs.

Uh they said um we shouldn't regulate it, but what they forgot in their denial was that if we don't regulate it, you can't have it.

So that's um uh why um uh we think without this regulations being approved, temporary sign would still be treated as permanent sign with all the process you have to go through and the limitations you have to go through.

So uh that's that's why we did it.

We didn't want uh we didn't do it to make it more complicated for people, we actually did it um to make it easier for people.

Bill, did you make a motion?

No, I started to with go ahead.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I move that we take our meeting out of order and to consider application number two two six-06 for approval.

Uh any discussion?

All in favor of taking the agenda out of order, say aye.

Aye.

Uh okay, that motion is approved.

Um, we are now uh deliberating and voting on application two two six-06.

Um is there any uh discussion on this application?

No.

Can we get a motion to uh approve it then?

Mr.

Chairman, I'll move that we approve application number two six-06 as discussed and presented this evening.

I'll second that, Mr.

German.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Application 226-06 is approved 5-0.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I move that we go back to our regular order.

There's a second.

I'll second it.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, we are back in regular order.

The next item we have is application 226-02.

It's a zoning map change.

Applicant is proposing a map change to McKeithan Park from the current R5 zoning district to P zoning district, which is part, and zero Maitland Road from the current R7 and a half zoning district to the P zoning district.

Um Roseanne, could you read the uh planning board letter on this, please?

Certainly.

Application 226-02.

Um, Stanford zoning board map change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

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

Applicant is proposing a map change to McKeithan Park from the current R5 zoning district to the P zoning district and zero Maitland Road from the current R7 and a half zoning district to the P zoning district.

Ralph Blessing, Land Use Bureau Chief made a presentation and answered question from the board.

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously recommended approval of ZB application number 226-02 and found this to be in general harmony with the RES 1 residential single family future land use category.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gadzenho, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Um Ralph, I am assuming that a uh sign and mailing were not required.

No.

Okay, good.

Okay.

You want to um take us through this, please?

Yes, give me one second.

Okay, so the uh map change we're talking about is or the area for the map change is on uh the east side.

Um the two parks or proposed parks are relatively close together.

So um you have um Cortland Avenue over here, uh, and then Route One is uh down here.

And uh the two areas we're talking about, you see McKeithon Park um on the left.

Uh so it is called McKeithan Park, it is used as a park, it has a playground on it.

Um actually the areas around it to the north and uh the west are uh public housing.

Um so uh this this has been uh a park um for quite some time, but uh as is the case for uh quite a few in Stanford, uh it has never been zoned park.

So uh we were actually approached by the parks and recreation commission uh in helping them uh zoning uh pieces that are land pieces of land that are used as park, rezoning them to park.

Um the uh goal of that is uh first of all to make it uh uh more visible on zoning maps where the parks are, and second of all, um parks are uh more protected.

So a park, um uh if you want to uh get rid of a park, if it if it has less than 20,000 square feet, uh you need to swap property one to one.

So if you take away one square foot of parkland, you have to replace it with one square foot of parkland.

Uh and if uh a park you want to uh D map uh is larger than 20,000 square feet, there's actually a referendum required um to uh get rid of that park.

Um so uh once again uh the parks and recreation commission um approached us um to help them um with uh this undertaking.

Um and actually Veterans Park uh is not zoned as a park.

Um uh even though obviously everyone you would ask would say yes, it's a park.

Um so um what we're proposing to do is change the zoning um for uh McKeithan Park, uh which is located here from currently R5 to P.

And then uh while we were doing our research, we discovered that there's actually uh a city-owned parcel here on the intersection of Judy Lane and Maitland.

Um that is not used for anything.

So you see a picture of that parcel uh on your right.

Um and we are proposing uh that parcel to be rezoned from currently R7 and a half um to uh park as well.

Um the goal is not to create or to build a playground or anything like there.

Um the uh idea is really um to use this um as a passive open space area uh in an area of town, the east side where there aren't that many parks um uh to begin with and to uh protect uh that land um from further uh or future development.

So that's really all um there is uh to this application.

Um there will be more uh applications like this coming down the pike uh when we sort of go through the list um of all the parks uh that are used as such um but are not mapped um on uh the city zoning map um uh as such parks.

I mentioned um Veterans Park, um I think Columbus Park might not be uh mapped as park.

Um so uh there will be a couple of those applications coming, uh coming along, and with that I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Um I have no questions.

Okay, Jerry?

No, Mr.

Thank you, Roseanne.

You're on mute.

Do we know if the city um keeps up this parcel on Maitland Road?

Any upkeep to it?

Is you know, is it cleaned up?

Is it grass mode?

Um I would doubt it, but also making it a park might actually create a higher profile for those uh for those areas.

Um so um I mean one discussion that I had with with folks was maybe this uh parcel could be used to create some sort of microforest um to improve air quality in this area.

So um it's uh uh I mean from currently it's really just changing the zoning designation.

Um there's no specific plans to it, but uh maybe it it raises the profile.

And I mean the the uh comprehensive plan was also um uh had had some recommendations um to create more parkland in in areas of town where there aren't any uh or or few uh major parks.

Okay, the map your map does show a possible future part adjacent to it.

So maybe it could get combined with that someday.

Yeah.

Anything else?

Nothing else.

Bill I seen no reason why we shouldn't do this.

There's no downside, so issues.

Yeah, hey Rob, I got one question.

In the um staff report, I didn't sorry, in the narrative, there's a photo of it.

Um looks like a kind of a dirt road.

Is that Judy Lane or Maitland Road?

Wherever Judy Lane, there's Judy.

Yeah.

Is that the road that runs along it?

Yeah, so Judy is the I think the picture you're referring to is sort of a dead end.

That's that's Judy Lane.

That's I think looking down this way here.

Okay.

Yeah, the truck parked in it.

Um yeah.

No, I mean it's it's a street end, they're using it for parking.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Uh why don't we go to the public then?

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

Uh give us your name and your address.

What else we have, Mr.

Dave Adams.

Good evening, uh members of the zoning board.

Uh my name is David Adams, and I am uh from Glenbrook Road in in Glenbrook.

And uh I just want to speak in favor of this particular item.

Uh I'm very familiar with the plot of land uh on Maitland and Judy.

Uh it's uh it's kind of a swampy area.

And um, you know, it it doesn't it doesn't have a ton of um there's nothing going on there, but there is you know, from time to time there's a bunch of garbage that ends up uh back there.

And if this becomes a park, um I think that that would be uh you know uh of benefit.

Perhaps you know it might be able to be uh cleaned out of the refuse uh more frequently.

And uh I would uh I just happen to know that it's uh um fairly close to a friend of mine's property, and uh I don't know what your considerations are for how you're whether or not you're gonna name this this this park, but um think about that next door neighbor uh who I'm I'm sure you all know.

So um, and I think that that uh you know it it would be a nice thing to do.

But anyway, I think this is a good well, I'm sorry.

You want to give us a hint who that is?

Oh, that's that's Nina Sherwood.

Ah, okay.

Okay.

So thank you.

Um think of think think about it, because she worked hard for the city.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Ms.

Sue Hatlin.

Hi, good evening.

This is Sue Halpern, 30 on Craft Road.

Welcome, Mr.

Walker, to the zoning board.

It's nice to see a new face.

It's great.

And you have some good company.

You have some good company there.

So good luck.

I think I just want to say this is great.

You know, I'm always I'm always talking about trees and green space.

And I think this is great.

And I hope we can find more property that you can convert to parkland.

And you know, I like Ralph's idea that microforests, you know, they um the Aspitech Land Trust did a presentation at Mill River a couple of weeks ago about the Miowacki, I think it's called forest.

And um, you know, that that's a a great idea that you know I like to see used in a number of places.

So great idea.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, Sue.

Um, I don't see any other hands.

Okay.

Um Ralph, anything to say before we close this?

No, I think I'm good.

Okay.

Board members, any final question.

No, Ms.

Chairman.

No.

Okay.

Then uh application 226-02 is closed.

Next.

We have application 226-03, City of Stanford zoning board zoning text change.

The purpose of this text change is to update and streamline various sections of the City of Stanford zoning regulations.

Changes include new or updated definition, Section 3B, new standards and regulations, Section 4.

Publicly accessible amenity spaces passion six, BMR regulation, section seven, signs, section 11, mobility, section 12, and appendix B bulk regulations.

Changes are minor in character.

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

Certainly.

February 11th, 2026 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application number 226-03 Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

Here, Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board.

During its meeting held on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026, the Planning Board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

The purpose of the text change is to update and streamline various sections of the City of Stanford zoning regulations.

Changes include new or updated language to definitions, Section 3.

Use standard regulations, Section 4, publicly accessible amenity spaces, pause, section six, BMR regulations, section seven, signs, section 11, mobility, section 12, and appendix B, bulk regulations.

Changes are minor in character.

Ralph 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 226-03 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Getsino Chair.

Good.

Thank you.

Ralph.

Want to take us through this.

Yes.

And there were some changes made today on this.

And those were sent out, correct?

Yes.

Those were sent out.

They were also relatively small, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone has the latest version.

So that we're all talking about the same.

What happened was the recommendations from the traffic department.

Got incorporated into the uh draft.

And uh so what you saw today was the updated draft with those recommendations included.

So like uh the first um application we talked about tonight.

Uh there's also a sort of uh uh bouquet of text changes.

Uh most of them uh very small in character.

Um so um one thing, for example.

Well yeah, Ralph, I think bouquet sounds much better than cleanup, by the way.

It also smells better.

So uh one of the changes uh in 3B is um that we are um allowing uh taller fences in industrial districts.

Um because we heard from a lot of people in industrial areas that six feet uh is is not particularly high, and and obviously there's there's like uh uh security concerns there.

Um and we're also making it easier for um fences in residential areas to be taller than uh the six or eight feet um uh currently you need a special permit, which seems a little bit uh of um uh overregulation for increasing uh the height um of a fence.

Um we are also adding um a couple of items to the list of permitted obstructions that can be uh in yards.

Um so one uh for example, bus or hiking shelters.

Uh that issue actually occurred with one of our PASs that the question came up hey, can we put like our little hiking shelter with the map for the PAAS in front of the building?

Uh uh is it a permitted obstruction?

So we're clarifying that.

Um we also um going to limit uh the height of flag poles um uh to 30 feet to make sure uh that it's uniform uh around the city.

Um 3B, the definitions for access way locked, it's literally um just adding um an illustrative graphic uh to make uh the rules um a little bit uh easier to understand.

Uh removing the definition for propane filling station um from 3B, which is sort of the zoning terms to a use definition, which this is um, and we are also adding uh a definition for change of use because um oftentimes uh in our regulations we refer to change of use that you do have to do something or you don't have to do anything if you're just changing the use of a building.

So we just wanted to make sure uh that it's very clear uh in the regulations um that uh what a change of use is.

Um in uh section 12, the mobility section, uh, we propose to move uh the street tree section um from uh mobility to a new section 9G, which is the sustainability section.

Uh we're also making a few very minor language updates there.

Um but I also wanted to announce that um with Earth Day approaching, we actually filed today um a zoning tax change that would uh increase uh sustainability requirements and uh tree protection requirements.

Um moving uh that uh regulation to there um is is part of a larger effort um to make um uh uh additions to the to the zoning regulations to improve sustainability.

But once again, this was just filed.

Um you will you will see this uh in a couple of weeks.

Um we also propose to increase the BMR requirements um for uh conversions from office space to residential.

It's proposed to go from uh seven to eight percent, and we're proposing to increase um uh the fee in Lou amount per square foot from 125 to 150 dollars.

Um as we've heard and discussed earlier today, um this is also just the beginning of probably um a larger uh revision of um the uh the the BMR um requirements.

Um and then um in uh appendix B uh it this is really just correcting a typo uh um by adjusting the uh minimum lot frontage in the R10 district.

So um the biggest item uh in this tax change has to do with um PAAS.

Um the first thing we're doing is we are uh expanding the districts where uh waterfront public access is required.

So uh in this list here, um oops, sorry, I wanted to show and not change it in this list here.

Here you see all the districts um where if this tax changes approved, uh waterfront access will be required.

In many of those uh it already is um, but we think uh it is um a good thing to expand it, and just as a reminder, um waterfront access is also not only um uh required um on Long Island Sound, it's also required along uh the rivers.

So the Mill River, uh Roten River and the Mianus River, those are the ones where we require um waterfront um access.

Um the other thing that we're proposing is um two different types of waterfront access.

So um in the South End, for example, um we we have a very built-up environment.

Um so for this area we have uh um standards that require a 12 foot wide uh public path uh along the water or boardwalk with lights with benches and all those things, but um along uh some of the rivers, um the area we're talking about is very natural, so we don't want to uh interfere too much with those areas.

So we created two different standards for uh natural areas, natural waterfronts and built up areas.

Um the standard for the natural area, you can actually see on uh your uh right.

So in those areas, what is required is really a three-foot-wide trail uh with a two-foot wide clearing on either side and and 10 feet in height.

Um and basically it has the same requirements as the trails uh standards that we have.

So there has to be a parking uh at the beginning at the trailhead, there has to be parking, there has to be like a little uh shelter with a map.

Um obviously it has to be um uh uh there have to be signs to allow for uh uh orientation uh and so on and so forth.

Uh no lighting to not interfere with uh nature and and the animals in the area.

Um we made some minor updates to the uh standards for trails, and um the other thing uh that we're working on that is also a little bit of a work in progress, are uh to establish sign standards for uh PAS.

And what we came up with, and I want to comment here uh Vanita and our new planner Kendall, who came up with the signs.

So um those will be uh the signs that uh we want to be at any uh publicly accessible um uh amenity space to make it very clear for people.

This is a um place where the public is invited.

Uh this is when this plaza is open, the rules and the contact information um for uh if there are any problems um that that people can contact the manager uh and and tell them what's wrong um uh with uh that particular publicly accessible amenity space.

The goal is to also um have um uh um signage, other signage standardized so that that there is um uh a common theme with all those publicly accessible um amenity spaces.

Some of the things that were added um based on the comments from um the transportation department in that uh revision that I sent to you today um were uh bike parking requirements, um, and also requirement that all signage on uh and PAS at least has a city logo on it, uh, so that it's clear uh that it's that it's public um uh access um area.

Um they made some suggestions for uh mobility requirements in addition to the uh ADA um and uh those types of things.

So those were the things that that comments from the transportation department that were added uh in the latest version, and um this is it for this application.

Well, this you and um your staff did a great job on this.

Thank you.

Um a lot of a lot of work went into this.

One other item that I think is worth mentioning is that there is um a limit on the number of smoke shops that's included.

Yes.

Yes.

Which is important because I know a lot of people are concerned about that.

Yes.

Yeah so yeah so that's the number uh the number of smoke shops um we would be um uh limiting uh uh the number of smoke shops to one for every 15000 uh residents so that would bring the number to eight or nine um we have more than 60 in Stanford right now uh so uh we have a long way to go uh and unfortunately all the existing smoke shops they are grandfathered in um but uh this regulation we actually uh and and uh we worked with liberation programs and the Stanford Prevention Council uh which is an alliance of uh liberation programs with Stanford public schools and parent organizations um we've we've been working with them very closely on uh the smoke shop and the cannabis um regulations so um this is uh the outcome uh of uh uh of that interaction and discussion with uh those groups um so uh that is also something um that we are uh uh proposing I think our smoke shop regulations are already so strict that um uh the cap is is mostly symbolic but nonetheless I think it's a good thing to have uh that limitation and uh in your package you should have found a letter from the health department um that uh is in support um uh of that tax change um uh as well and this is the residential conversions um the uh the the increase in the BMR requirement uh and the increase in the fee and loo that I've mentioned before good thank you um let's go to the board uh Bill yeah Ralph could you spend a little time and go over the um the applicable standards which you're uh you have put into the uh the publicly accessible waterfront area the widths the reason you the widths you did the uh I know it's along the rivers there we're on minimum of 30 feet wide is that too wide is there enough air to do all that that type of stuff um I mean for for the um natural um uh areas um the uh the only thing that is really allowed in in those areas is the path and uh there's also requirement to keep it out as much as possible of wetlands and things like that.

Um so um the uh the 30 foot uh width of the publicly accessible waterfront areas uh that's been uh a number that that has been around for quite some time um uh we believe that's a good number uh to allow um for um uh uh a good multi-use path in the build-up areas uh that can be used by cyclists and and pedestrians so uh the minimum width for that usually uh in the planning literature is uh 10 or 12 feet um so 12 feet is what mill river uses so uh the idea is obviously that that mill river and the waterfront areas and connections uh they work together um seamlessly uh and then you have on both sides um uh uh space for plantings uh seeding and uh and those kinds of things so that's that's the idea uh behind the 30 foot uh width of but well the trail is three feet in the natural areas right yes yes so in the natural areas the trail that's actually the same requirements as we have for the trails uh in uh in the other PAS uh if you recall um 900 long ridge road uh 800 long ridge road they have to provide this PAS the trail PAS 120 longward road um and those were uh sort of the the the standards um those were based on um uh trails uh and and guidelines for trails uh in uh in other parts of the country so we we did a little bit of research what what a trail is supposed to look like um the idea being that it's that it's very unobtrusive and doesn't uh interfere uh uh much with the natural environment so the idea really here is uh you want to uh have people go out in nature and enjoy nature

Um those were based on um uh trails uh and and guidelines for trails uh in uh in other parts of the country.

So we we did a little bit of research what what a trail is supposed to look like.

Um the idea being that it's that it's very unobtrusive and doesn't uh interfere uh uh much with the natural environment.

So the idea really here is uh you want to uh have people go out in nature and enjoy nature but not um uh uh interfere with uh the the natural um environment uh in a in a harmful way.

So that's that's why we created those distinctions.

Ralph, and when you're dealing with long island sound area in an area where you have uh riprap that's slanted, you did the where do you measure the 30 feet from?

High water mark, low water mark?

Um I would think we would probably measure it from the coastal jurisdiction line.

Um I said it again.

I didn't hear that.

The the coastal jurisdiction line.

What is that, Ralph?

Uh so that is a line that is established by the state.

Um that is so and the reason for uh why we measure from there is that basically everything uh water ward or seaward of uh the coastal jurisdiction line, we don't even have jurisdiction, so it's all deep uh deeps requirement and everything up from the coastal jurisdiction line, uh landward is is where actually zoning applies and and where we have jurisdiction um over uh um the land.

And how is that line determined or who determines that line?

That's done by by uh deep deep?

Okay, yeah.

So you see on uh actually if you look at all the the coastal applications um that are on the water, um, it should show uh the coastal uh jurisdiction line um uh on them.

And I mean, other than like sort of the high water line or the low water line, it's it's it's fixed and and uh so okay.

I'll just make sure that we knew where it was is and uh on uh for for the along the rivers, um it's it's uh 30 feet from the river bank uh as determined by a survey.

Okay.

Um my notes here for bad.

And actually, uh the the other thing that I wanted to mention, so the the area of uh the the coastal access, the total area actually is measured 40 feet in the 30 feet are sort of the most narrow part it can go down to.

So uh you always have to have at least 30 feet, but uh it can uh um bulge out um or has to bulge out in order to to meet the 40 feet uh uh requirements.

So you could have I don't know, like a little plaza or like a little waterfront access uh area.

Um so the the 30 feet is really the the the width of the minimum width of the strip along the water.

That's in number three, I believe, where you're talking about it's either the greater of the five percent of lot area or 40 okay.

40 feet, yeah.

That's why you have the in the 30 feet, okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I might have one more question, but you can go back to me, Dave.

I can't seem to find my note.

Okay, though.

Um Roseanne.

Uh nothing from me.

Okay, Jerry?

Couple things.

If I could um I I'm a little bit concerned about the go out of order here, uh about the flag uniform flag height.

I that's something I'm gonna get pushed back with because the 34 30 feet with everybody being uniformed, it's not something that I'm in favor of.

But um the uh I I always want to know how this works.

So Ralph, with the the PAS uh public access, where does um does the liability of the city take um get alleviated?

So I'm looking at down on the point or or um the we have a few public access points here down in Chapin.

Um is does the city place garbage cans there?

want to know how this works so Ralph with the the PAS uh public access where does um does the liability of the city take um get alleviated so I I'm looking at down on the point or or um the we have a few public access points here down in Japan um a it is does the city place garbage cans there are they required to take care of that site at what point is it the liability of the city if they're going to take care of that um are we placing signs there and if we're putting signs there is there parking you know is there park enforcement with that um because as much as we want folks to utilize that that public space in its raw form uh people tend to um leave their items um behind so at what point do we the city jump over that threshold and then we assume responsibility if somebody gets hurt i i just don't know how that all works yeah so um that is generally all uh laid out in the public uh access easement um so uh i mean the the property owner it's still the property owner's property um and uh they are responsible for uh for example for the maintenance um of uh those areas uh oftentimes in conjunction with uh the public access easement there's also a landscape maintenance agreement so if for example they don't take care of the plantings or or the pathways and things like that yeah uh that's that's an enforceable um uh agreement um and also uh with regard to liability i mean they they basically have to give the city uh they they uh have to hold the city lines yes indemnification um uh for for everything that that happens there would be so it would be no different than the public plaza in front of a building um if there's someone trips and falls the building owner is responsible even though we required them to put the pause in gotcha makes sense okay um i think that's it and the um yeah i i remember the whole uh the line the water line and dp and the state about that was the fit the i think that was back about uh 15 years with todd's point right when they had that public access of being able what the city actually owned greenwich owned and what was actually part of uh deep's restriction and or non-restriction of travel is that where that came from that was clearly that was defined yeah that was the issue of where the state jurisdiction was the city right what was public and what was private with the city or municipal interesting yeah thank you that's it must chairman okay keith yeah I said one question maybe you can explain to me because there was so much in here in the end there's a street tree planning requirement and I was just trying to understand what was what you were doing or what you were trying to achieve there uh so that is actually uh in this application just being moved to a new section uh to the sustainability uh section so this has been around uh for quite some time so um basically what it does is for every new development um uh a developer has to plant street trees um the distance requirements and the species they are all um defined in uh uh the street tree planting uh manual which is available on uh the website so if you go to the zoning regulations uh on the website all the way at the bottom um there is uh the street tree planting manual which is all the rules and regulations and basically depending on uh the type of the trees um so we have categorized them in small and medium and large trees there's different distance requirements from like 20 feet to uh 40 feet or whatever the the the numbers are um and uh yeah that's that's basically it so and if you can't uh plant the uh the the required number of trees there might be like um underground utilities or things like that curb cuts all those those kinds of things uh or or visibility uh restrictions um uh you have to make a fee and loo payment uh that fee and loop payment goes into the tree fund and uh the tree fund uses that to um plant trees in like sidewalks where where the street trees are gone or or or in a in a in a bad condition okay thank you pete the one the one addition we made in this uh tax change is the location of the trees um we we run into situations where the owner will say okay i want to set the tree back quite a ways from the street basically to put in the front lawn of their property um and that that doesn't really fit with the idea that these are supposed to go along the street so we come up with some requirements of exactly where they have to go in relation to the street or the sidewalk

Um we run into situations where the owner will say, okay, I want to set the tree back quite a ways from the street, basically to put in the front lawn of their property.

And that doesn't really fit with the idea that these are supposed to go along the street.

So we come up with some requirements of exactly where they have to go in relation to the street or the sidewalk.

And it also has become like an issue uh in in like the more rural areas where you where you already have trees next to the street where they basically say, hey, those are all street trees.

Uh which which ones count as a street trees and and which ones uh don't.

Yeah.

And yeah, that's a real issue because uh if they if they don't count, then um the the applicant will have to pay a fee in lieu or plant another tree.

So you will see that.

I'm sure.

Okay.

Um any other questions from the board before we go to the public.

Yeah, I found it, David.

It has to do with the lighting requirements.

Sometimes there are light requirements and sometimes your restricted lighting requirements.

Could you explain the differences in which areas?

So in the built-up areas, we do have a lighting requirement, and also the the um publicly accessible waterfront has to be open for 24-7.

And in the natural areas, uh, we don't want light.

Uh, I think actually this week is like international dark sky week or something like that.

So obviously, uh uh light, artificial light can can disturb wildlife.

So in the natural areas, we don't want light, and and the uh they don't have to be uh they only have to be open from uh dawn to dusk.

Okay, dawn to dusk.

Okay.

All right, so that's what I wanted to know.

Thanks.

That's it for me right now, David.

Okay.

Uh there's nothing else from the board.

Why don't we go to the public?

If there's anyone from the public who'd like to speak on this application uh for or against it, or just ask questions, um, please raise your hand.

Uh and when you're called on, give us your name and address the um I don't see any hands yet.

Okay.

Um, I think we can close this.

Uh Ralph, any anything you want to say before we close it?

No.

Board, any final uh thoughts, questions?

No, but I assume we're going to discuss the BMR requirement during deliberations.

Um discuss any of it.

Um the we just got to keep in mind that raising the BMR would um I think would be a substantive change that would require that we go back and renotice this.

Um so if we want to make a a change to increase the BMR um or the fee and loo, I think we would have to do it by a separate amendment.

Okay.

You answered my question.

Um application two two six-03 is closed.

We're moving right along here.

Next, application 226-04, City of Stanford zoning board zoning text change.

The purpose of this proposed text amendment is to align the regulations for the R6 district with the general structure of the zoning regulations, add additional development safeguards and special standards for already permitted non-residential uses.

The text change would also streamline the additional parking requirements for large dwellings in section 12 D1 of the regulations.

On this certainly, February 11th, 2026 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair City and Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 226-04 Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board, during its meeting held on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026, the planning board reviewed the above captioned application, referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

The purpose of the this proposed text amendment is to align the regulations for the R6 district with the general structure of the zoning regulations, add additional development safeguards and special standards for already permitted non-residential uses.

The tax change would also streamline the additional parking requirements for large dwellings in section 12 D1 of the regulation.

Ralph Blessing Land Use Bureau made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously recommended approval of ZD application 226-04 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gets and our chair.

Thank you.

Ralph.

So this text change is about the R6 district regulations.

So the R6 is a two-family district.

So if you have a lot size of at least 5,000 square feet, you can have a single family dwelling.

If you have uh 6,000 square feet or more, you can have uh a two-family dwelling.

So on the top you can see what it what it generally looks like.

Um it's as I said, it's it's uh generally speaking uh a two-family district.

Um what we uh wanted to add was um we wanted to bring it in the same structure as uh the other newer zoning uh districts we have.

Um so we were adding in requirements that uh the older uh districts generally uh do not um allow for.

Um we kept the density the same, so we we didn't want to make any changes with that.

Um but one thing uh that we realized was a problem is that the R6 district is actually one of the districts where you're not uh allowed to park in front of the building.

However, uh the side yards uh requirement is only six feet.

So uh you don't really have a place to park your car um if you build um uh according to the current regulations.

So um what we said was that uh under the new regulations, one side yard can be six feet as is currently, but the other side yard has to be uh 10 feet in order to allow for driveway or uh a parking uh spot.

Um in order to make up for that, we uh reduced the front setback requirement.

Uh we reduced it from uh 25 feet to 15 feet.

Um, but we also increased the reasset uh back from uh 30 feet to 35 feet, and we created standards for uh non-residential uses.

So in in most or all residential districts, you can have uh certain special uh permit uses like schools, libraries, um houses of worship, uh those kinds of things.

Um they didn't have separate standards, so uh we added standards for those.

Um, but I want to be very clear we're not allowing any new uses to be allowed uh in uh the R6 district.

Um the other thing that we've been doing um uh when we are revising zoning districts is we add lot coverage restrictions.

Um so in addition to the stormwater management uh um requirements in the drainage manual, obviously limiting um uh pervious uh surface on um lots uh helps with um stormwater management.

So this is something that didn't exist in the R6 before.

Uh so we decided uh to add that uh here um as well.

So uh what you see here is um uh a comparison uh between the current uh in blue and the proposed regulations.

Uh and you will see that in many instances um uh the regulations don't really change.

Um it's uh really more the details um uh where we make changes.

So uh here, for example, the density uh remains the same.

Um the frontage and the lot size requirements uh remain the same.

Um the building height remains the same.

Um I already talked about um the front yards.

We're proposing to reduce those uh to 15 feet, but instead having uh uh deeper um rear yard requirements, and I already talked about uh the 10 feet on one side um versus uh what's currently the case, six feet on each either side um to allow for parking or to make it possible to park a car uh without parking in front um uh of the building.

And for non-residential uses currently, there are no standards, no separate standards.

Um, so we're proposing um to uh create standards uh for those special permit uses, and uh of course we try to um be uh aligned with um the standards for single and two family dwellings uh um for those um special permit uses.

Um well I'm sorry, going back, did I understand you to say that there was no parking permitted in front of the on the street in front, or just the front yard.

The front yard.

Gotcha.

Okay.

You can you can park in the street, but the problem is also uh in many instances uh when when the whole front yard is paved over, there's no room on the street to park because everything is a curb cut.

So um that will actually help with um uh on-street parking.

Okay, thank you.

Um and this is just uh an illustration of the regulations we just um talked about.

So we have the front setback, which is uh uh 15 feet.

Um, of course, if you have a garage within the building, you can have a driveway in front of it and park uh on that driveway.

But if you don't have a garage in the building, uh now there's the 10-foot uh side yard requirement.

So you can either park in the driveway or you can have a parking area or garage in the back, and the 10 feet is sufficient for you to uh get your your car past uh the house.

Um and uh once again um we have the same minimum requirement for uh single family uh dwelling, 50 feet lot uh frontage and 5,000 square feet lot area, and uh 6,000 square feet and 60 feet lot frontage for uh two family.

Um so that's that's not changing, and the same is true for uh the building height.

Uh it maxes out at two and a half stories or um 30 feet.

Um obviously only areas that are taller than uh or where the floor to ceiling height is more than seven and one-third of an inch count uh as floor area or as um habitable uh space.

But this is just an illustration um for uh uh what we just looked at um in the table.

And that's it for tonight.

Okay.

Um okay, thank you.

Uh questions, Keith.

Um I I'm not aware you said other uses.

Um can this area be used?

Um, is it just residential or can a two-family house have both a residential and a um home office commercial use as part of it?

Uh you can always have home occupation.

Um you can have uh an uh accessory professional office.

So if you are um I don't know, a surveyor, for example, um uh you can have an office in that building if uh you live in that building, and you can have up to two employees there who do not work in the building.

occupation um you can have uh an uh accessory professional office so if you are um i don't know a surveyor for example um uh you can have an office in that building if uh you live in that building and you can have up to two employees there who do not work in the building but that's a rec uh uh a regulation that applies to all residential districts right but but what about what about it what about um you know people that use something had come up I think it was either it it might have been I don't know maybe the question was asked to you Jerry someone had asked the question about one of the districts where people were having a home office but their home office became sort of a a place where they park commercial vehicles and it became a uh a a problem so I guess what I'm getting at is in this district I know you're doing the right thing by creating the ability to park but is there any restriction on someone you know creating a uh um a place to park commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood I guess that's my question so that's that's already prohibited um so you can park in a residential uh um in any residential area one um uh commercial vehicle that is a small truck like a pickup truck not the ones with like the two wheels in the back only an a a normal pickup truck only one of them idea being you're coming home uh from work for lunch um uh you can park your car there or or your pickup truck but you cannot park more than one uh commercial vehicle and you're not allowed to park trucks like heavy heavy trucks more than three quarter ton uh that's that's prohibited and you can't have um I mean I guess you could have the office of a landscaping business where you where you do the the um the accounting but you can't store the equipment there you can't uh uh that's that's not allowed got it okay unless it's on that Ralph correct me if I want unless it's on the property not on the street correct that was a diff differentiate like you can't you can't uh have a landscaping business in a residential district you can't park the the trucks in the street and you would not allow to park them uh on the proper only one truck yeah interesting okay and a small truck yeah yeah that was my only question thank you that is that is probably one of the most frequent zoning complaints uh and violations are um all the landscapers who operate out of their backyard um pretty much but it's it's not allowed Jerry I'm good thank you Mr.

Chairman Roseanne nothing from me William no I think I'm set David Okay then um why don't we go to the public there's anyone from the public who'd like to speak on this um please raise your hand uh when you're called on give us your name and your address um yeah Mr.

Dave Adams I uh again uh Dave Adams uh Glenrook Road um I just wanted to you know uh get some clarification you said commercial vehicles uh and a light pickup truck but I mean is this being uh I know this is a constant complaint but is this uh is there deference uh applied to um you know vehicles that have combination plates and you know it's it's kind of like uh you know we when we created the combination plate uh we you know we created this gray zone between commercial and and residential uses um all of my vehicles have combination plates um so I'm just interested as to what what what do you mean by a light pickup truck what do you mean by um I do you understand my question I'm sorry um I think I think I do I mean it's it's um so the the light truck um is uh three quarter ton okay so that's I I have a half ton truck so that my my my truck wouldn't necessarily be applicable here yes so you would be yeah you would be below that yeah all right that was my question thank you very much yeah um I don't see other any other hands David okay um Ralph anything uh to add before we close I I just want to reiterate that we change nothing with regard to uses that are allowed or not allowed um in

Yeah.

All right.

That was my question.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

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

Okay.

Um Ralph, anything uh to add before we close?

I I just want to reiterate that we changed nothing with regard to uses that are allowed or not allowed um in uh uh in the R6 district.

Um so it's it's really um about those few smaller changes with regard to setbacks.

Um and the lot coverage limitation that we're introducing uh so that people can't pave over their backyards or front yards um uh anymore uh in order to improve um uh storm water management.

So that's that's really the the goal of this district.

So all those those um uh amendments, it's not intended to to um increase density or anything like that.

Ralph, how how are we doing that on on the front lot coverage of front houses or dwellings?

Are is that is that complaint coming down because I see a lot more of that happening on Bedford Street, the higher end of bed streets are going up to the uh up to the ridges.

Because a lot of those conversions from old homes are going into businesses over there as you're coming up to Bedford, and they're utilizing the front lawns as parking spaces.

White stone, but still parking spaces.

Yeah, I mean it it depends on the district.

So um I don't think uh um on Bedford, we have we have a lot of those R6 uh districts.

Right, right.

So you might be you might be allowed to do that uh uh in those particular districts.

We got the R6, yeah, and of course uh it's also uh whatever is grandfathered in is grandfathered in.

So if you had uh if you were parking your car in front of your house for the last 20 years, right?

Um we we cannot make Europe out your your um uh parking um uh area.

Thank you.

From we hear from a lot of residents in residential areas that um they are upset uh about neighbors parking uh in the front yard and taking away um on-street parking spaces um because all of a sudden the whole front of the building is is a parking lot that no one can use.

Um and Jerry anecdotally we do see like zoning permit applications come in where the zoning where the zoning enforcement uh officers will tell tell them that you know you're no longer permitted to have the parking that you're proposing.

So I think it is having the effect that we wanted.

So okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um we are now uh through with the public hearing portion of our meeting and into the um regular meeting.

And the first item we have is from the minutes from March 30th, 2026.

Um I don't think we can vote on them, Dave.

Well, it's a problem because you and I are the only two here.

Um I guess we're gonna have to wait till um Peter is here.

Yep.

Um he can vote even if he's not seated.

Um these will have to wait.

Next, we have uh CSPR 1224 Paul E.

Brunich, 106 Carter Drive proposing to construct a pool, expand the pool patio on landscaping.

The property is within the cam boundary.

Umita, can you take us through this, please?

Sure.

Um, so this property is a coastal property, it's located partially in the VE zone, but mostly in the AE zone.

Um, and the improvements that they're proposing, they're all in within the AE zone.

Um, and we have a positive recommendation from all the departments, including uh EPB and letter from Jacqueline Chapman dated April 1st.

We have the engineering report from Susan Kiskin dated December 18th, 2025, and April 1st, 2026.

We have a deep report from Karen Michaels dated January 16th, and a hardware management commission letter dated February 2nd.

So there's standard conditions stated in the EPB and engineering letters.

Good.

Is there any discussion?

No questions.

I just had a question.

In reading through this, there was a performance bond of a thousand dollars.

And I apologize.

I don't remember exactly what which section it.

Why is it so little?

Um actually I like performance bond usually is based on the cost.

I don't I've I can't think of a thousand dollars.

I know there's a street tree, thousand dollar bond that we ask, but it's separate.

This that usually doesn't apply for coastal applications, so I'll have to look where you where the thousand dollar bond maybe, but in general, like for all this site work, uh um drainage, all of that is based on the actual cost plus a 15% contingency.

And that should be a condition that EPB has in their letter.

That's standard condition.

So I'm pretty sure that shouldn't have changed here.

Um yeah, I wonder what the thousand dollars was.

That is a very low number.

Oh, wait, hold on.

Uh it I see number seven in the EPB letter.

The permit he shall submit a performance bond to secure the timely and proper performance of project activities.

The bond shall consist of thousand dollars as surety for erosion and sediment controls and 100% of the estimated cost of the drainage system.

Okay.

Um so I guess it's that portion is just for this uh erosion and sediment control element, and that maybe us amount that they feel is the minimum or the standard, and I can I can talk to them because typically generally I've seen a more you know, there's no flat number in there, but it's really cost-based.

Right.

I I'm just I'm just thinking of where it's located.

If something went, you know, if there was a rain event or uh some sort of event or that thousand dollars would be gone in uh very quickly.

Yeah, yeah.

So right, this would cover the sediment and erosion control is really through the construction process, but you're right, you know, there could be a rain event during that process that yeah, all of a sudden whatever's going on there ends up in uh in the ocean.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

That was my only question.

Okay.

Any other questions or discussion?

Yeah.

All right.

Can we get a motion to approve CSPR 1224 with uh the comments from EPB engineering deep and harbor management?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, any further discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Is that everyone?

Yeah.

Okay.

All opposed, abstentions.

Uh CSPR 1224 is approved by zero.

Next, we have CSPR 1229, Mark and Lisa Hellman, 34 Saddle Rock Road, proposing to remove existing tennis court and patio area, construct a new swimming pool, pergola and patio areas with associated site work.

The property is within the cam boundary.

Umita.

Yes.

Um, so this property is not on the water, but not too far.

Um, so it's mostly in the it's all of it is in the AEE flood zone.

Um, they are um reducing the total amount of impervious because they're taking away the tennis courts, about 4,000 square feet less of impervious uh coverage with this proposal.

So that's positive.

Um all of the improvements will be will have to follow the FEMA guidelines for um flood protection.

Um we have a positive recommendation from EPV um from Lindsay Tomazowski dated March 24th.

Um the engineering report from Vilera Capella dated March 26th.

No issues that we should be aware of.

Okay.

Any questions or discussion on this?

No, sure.

No.

No.

Okay.

Can we get a motion to approve CSPR 1229 with comments?

Subject comments from EPB Engineering Deep and Harbor Management Commission.

Come on, motion to approve.

There you go.

Okay.

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

No, sure.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

It's approved 5-0.

Now we're um let's see.

1150 summer is continued to May 4th.

35 terrace.

Continue to April 27th.

We'll vote next time on the three other applications we heard tonight.

And the last item we have is a request.

Application 223-4-6 butter cannabis.

Uh special permit.

They are requesting an extension of time.

I'd ask uh for a little more information on why.

And I think that was sent around today this afternoon.

And it seemed to be the normal reasons for uh for delay.

Um Keith, this was one where we denied it, and they sued us, which is why you see a in the papers a stipulation of settlement.

Um we uh agreed that they could uh put in the dispensary subject to certain conditions.

Got it.

Um so they want to extend to looks like June 30th, 2027.

We'll make that motion.

Is there a second for application on 223-4-6 extension of time?

I'll second.

Okay, any discussion questions?

Uh seems pretty normal.

Objections.

Okay.

Uh, all in favor of the extension say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh the extension.

Well, opposed abstentions.

Okay.

The extension is approved 5-0.

And that does it for tonight.

He don't think this is the way it always is.

Yeah.

You know what?

I see all of you smiling right now.

I know it's not the way it is.

No, this is we'd be taking our mid-meeting break about now.

Yeah.

Um, so our next meeting is now on the 27th.

Um do we need to do anything?

Umita, like, I don't know.

Cancel the old one and schedule the new one, or yes.

We need to cancel uh the old one and technically the one on the 27th will be a special meeting.

Special.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, is there anything on the agenda?

Well, we have the terrace avenue.

Uh, that we'll continue to hear.

We've got the three applications to vote on that we closed tonight.

Anything else on?

No, no unification.

Right.

And the minutes.

Yes.

And the minutes.

And the minutes.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, not even nine o'clock yet.

What are we going to do?

What am I doing with myself?

Yes.

Okay.

Um good.

Well, um, so in the meantime, um, Ralph, you guys will work on some BMR.

Yes.

We'll work with ideas.

Yes, we'll work with Emily.

And uh, we'll have something for you.

Okay.

Good.

Good.

Anything else before we adjourn?

Sure.

I move that we adjourn.

I will second that.

Okay.

All in favor.

All right.

We're adjourned.

Good night.

Good night, everybody.

Keith, make sure you reach out to any of us if you have questions.

Thank you so much.

Yep.

Appreciate it.

Please do.

Okay.

And oh, can Keith get a copy of the regs?

Do we have uh I don't know if you use paper or not, Keith.

Either one.

If you want it, it's available.

If not, it's online.

Yeah, let us let us know.

Um we'll we'll happy to print you one.

Um the other thing that's available is um uh the zoning map, which shows all of the zoning districts in the city, um, which sometimes can be helpful um when you're doing this stuff.

How do I get Emily's report?

Um I'll I'll remind her.

Okay, send an email.

Yeah, terrific.

Thank you so much.

When you asked for it, so yeah, okay yeah.

I'll make I'll make sure she remembers it.

Yeah.

Great.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

All right, everyone.

Good night, everybody.

Good night.