All right, I think we can get started.

Good.

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

I'm David Stein, chair of the zoning board, and it is 6 32 on May 18th, 2026.

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

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

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

Bill Morris.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Jerry Bozak.

Here.

Keith Walker.

Here.

Peter Rustin.

Here.

And now for the staff.

Ralph Blessing.

Yeah.

Manita Mater.

Here.

Great.

You have everyone.

The board's microphones will be open throughout tonight's hearing.

Applicants' mics will be open during the public hearing when their application is being heard.

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

The first part of the meeting tonight is the public hearing during which the public will have an opportunity to speak.

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

Here'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 and called on when it is your turn to speak.

If you came in by telephone conference call phone number, please press star 9 and this will raise your hand and then press star 6 to unmute when you were called on.

When members of the public speak, please give us your name and address for the record and whether you are in favor of or opposed 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 speaking, such as raising raise your hand and nothing happens, please send an email to Benita and she will uh make sure you get on.

And Vanita's email address is VMATHUR at Stanford C T.gov.

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

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

There are two applications that deal with 1150 Summer Street.

The first is application 225-43, and it is the map change.

Applicant is seeking a zoning map change.

The second application is application 225-44.

Also Summer EPLLC, 1150 Summer Street, and that's the general development plan.

An applicant is proposing to convert the existing office building to include a child daycare center use, including proposed improvements and additions.

Are we hearing this one tonight, Benita?

Um I was expecting some comments from the applicant response as to whether they're proceeding tonight or they want a continuation.

I haven't heard from them and I also don't see them on the list.

So I'm not I'm not sure if we can have the hearing.

Okay.

And I did hear from someone from the public who wanted to speak, but um, you know, either we hold a hearing or we continue it.

Sorry.

I'd say we continue it.

Um so uh we will continue uh both of these applications, 225-43 and 225-4-4, uh until our next meeting, which is on when?

June 8th.

June 8th 2026 at 6 30 p.m.

on Zoom.

Okay.

Continuing on, we have a new public hearing.

It's application 226-07, 29 Melrose Place, LLC, 27, 29, and 31 Melrose Place and 445 Fairfield Avenue map change.

Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current R6, one and two family districts, zoning district to the MG General Industrial District Zoning District.

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

Absolutely.

Uh dated April 15th, 2026 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZD application number 226-07 Melrose Place LLC.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board, during its meeting held on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, the Planning Board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current R6, one and two family zoning district to the MG General Industrial Zoning District.

Benita Mateur, principal planner, made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After a brief discussion, the planning board unanimously recommended approval of ZB application 226-07.

Found this to be in general harmony with the comprehensive plan 11 industrial flex future land use category.

Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board Jennifer Godzenno Chair.

Thank you.

We did.

And how about the certificate of mailing?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I see uh the attorney Hennessy has appeared.

Um Bill, you want to uh proceed?

I will be happy to do so.

Thank you.

Uh and for the record, Mr.

Chairman, I'm William Hennessy uh from the firm of Carmody Tour Sandack and Hennessy, and I practice out of our Stanford offices at 1055 Washington Boulevard, and I'm here with my colleague Madison Smith, who will be helping me present tonight.

We would both like to uh begin, however, by uh uh recognizing and uh frankly thanking our newest members who I see here, Mr.

Walker and Mr.

Rustin.

Uh if you uh folks don't know it already, you're you're involved with a very uh esteemed group of uh planning and zoning officials who have great experience and uh I'm sure you will find it a rewarding thing.

And uh as residents of Stanford, we deeply appreciate the service that you all put in to all of this.

So uh with with that, let me begin by presenting this application, uh, which uh we are here on behalf of one of the four properties uh that is being rezoned.

And I'll explain how that all occurred in a moment.

And that is property known as 29 Melrose Place, LLC.

The um and that is a a special purpose entity uh owned and controlled by Stephen Goldblum, who many of you uh may uh know.

Uh the Goldblum family has been in town for many years and owns uh the I would say a large amount of property, including uh through various entities and family uh combinations, most of the 30 odd acres to the north of 29 Melrose.

Uh and uh Mr.

Gobblem's here, he can answer uh probably more questions than I can about the historic use of the property, about the types of users and the patterns that follow, and what has occurred here since uh since uh actually since zoning was uh put in place on this uh uh in this town.

Melison, why don't we advance to the first image we have?

The the uh the the application before you tonight is really kind of simple.

Uh there are uh four properties uh that uh all abut each other and to their as a combined uh site, which they are not combined, they're owned by four different entities, uh both to the west and to their north are uh abut MG property, and to their uh east and south, they have butt R6 zone property.

And how they got here in that zone is somewhat uh interesting.

And the application simply seeks to take these properties and put them or in our view return them to the MG zone so that they can once again become productive and people will be encouraged to invest in them and tenant them in a maybe a better manner than they've all been able to.

So our story uh really uh begins.

Well, the reason we got involved with all four of them is Mr.

Goldbull called uh about a year ago and said uh his longtime tenant at 29, why don't we zero in a bit there, Madison?

Uh his his longtime tenant at 29 uh Melrose.

And can you hover the arrow over 29 Melrose?

Uh uh had um uh been for personal reasons been uh compelled to vacate the property and uh it had been there for many, many years, decades perhaps, uh as a roofing contractor and used the property uh for his roofing contracting business as well as the administrative office and maybe even stayed there from time to time.

Uh and he was interested in reletting the property, obviously, uh and it was in the R6 zone, uh, but it was legal non-conforming, and he we was wondering about you know what the chances were of putting it back in the MG zone, particularly since uh they had an interest in the property to the north of it, and uh had uh through family connections uh uh an interest and ownership interest in the property that we call uh 445 uh Fairfield Avenue, which uh is being hovered over right now.

That's the left extreme, the lot to the extreme left.

Um I hope that's all visible toward uh for you.

Uh and that building uh was uh formerly known as 35 Melrose.

It was a standalone lot on Melrose until it was uh combined with property to its north, and the buildings actually uh function as one.

Uh they uh they uh so that is a legal non-conforming building that functions very well.

I think it's tenanted by uh someone who uh is a telephone service provider and sells telephones to the business industry.

So it functions very well, it works well uh and uh Mr.

Loboum was wondering whether there was an opportunity to you know put a small building on 29 Melrose, but of course, in order to do that, he would need either some kind of use variance, which of course is not allowed in uh residential zone, or uh a rezoning.

So I said, gee, you know, when you drive by the property, you go look at it, you see this line of four properties, and you say to yourself, do we have the street image viewed up next?

And you say, geez, this this is not this is not all it can be.

There's the there's work that can be done here.

Um, and uh so we sat with Ralph and Vanita, and uh we were asked by Ralph and Vanita to sort of study the zoning history, which which we had, and so we told them, you know, when zoning was first adopted in this town, uh, these four properties, as well as the other bordering properties uh to the east on Melrose, in other words, all of the properties on the north side of Melrose were in the MG industrial zone.

And that was a that that's a condition that existed for many, many years until the comprehensive rezoning efforts of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

If you if you if you don't really recall, in late 77, the planning board did a comprehensive master plan change, and it was comprehensive.

Uh and it was challenged in court and ultimately overturned, and that resulted in the same plan being, and it was overturned on technical reasons.

So the same plan essentially was readopted in 1981, and that became what we call the 1981 master plan.

Shortly after that, your predecessors on the zoning board endeavored to study basically every square inch of the town and uh did a comprehensive rezoning uh of the entire city.

And that resulted in this uh these uh this area of town, the north side of Melrose, being placed in a master plan category of medium uh medium to low density residential and a zoning category of R6.

The R6 was a brand new zone constructed at the time uh to allow for, I would say the very, very light uh uh uh conversion of single-family homes to uh two-family homes.

They had to be on larger lots, there had to be a history to it, uh, otherwise they weren't allowed to convert, and there was limitations on the second unit conversions.

It was not unlike a rudimentary ADU rig.

And the um uh the balance of it was all going to be single family zones.

Uh, I think it was a noble experiment, uh, but the R6 was never really right.

And you folks just did some work on it recently to try to make it a little more, I think, user-friendly or rational.

Uh, and that may be it, but it never cured the problem here.

So when the rezoning occurred, when this went from manufacturing to residential, uh, all these properties that had been used by uh uh industrial or commercial users uh instantly became legal nonconforming.

And at that point in time, it really became hard or harder to tenant the spaces and to invest in the spaces and move them forward.

Now, in the short term, it didn't much matter probably because the existing tenants were there.

But when you get some years down the road, as we are now, some you know, almost 40 odd 50 years down the road, you see the effects of that.

Now, these types of properties that can sustain or can be attractive to small mom and pop type businesses or service providers or small-scale commercial uh operations that need a home uh to conduct their business, they become incredibly valuable, and they're rare in town and they're very sought after.

Uh, maybe go back to the aerial for a second that just shows the four.

So if we look at these, it's it's pretty good indication of the kinds of users.

Uh on the left, we have the 30 445 Fairfield building, that one there, which I indicated is a you know, sort of a service uh business for uh telephone uh sales and uh service.

Uh the next property uh is uh a basically, I believe it's used for storage and warehousing uh purposes.

Um the next is 29 Melrose, our client, it's 5,000 square foot.

What it's really uh uh a roofing contractor's yard, it's his business, uh the whole operate, the whole roofing operation was run out of there.

And then the next one down is uh a landscape uh family landscape operation.

So all of these are here, they function to either they integrate or they don't integrate to various degrees, but they're there, and they're kind of stuck in that zone.

So when you peel it back to a let's go back to the original image, you know, you're left thinking, gee, what can we do or what can we do here better?

And we sat with Ralph and Vanita, and Ralph and Vanita said, well, we don't want you to rezone just one of these properties.

That that's not gonna do it.

Uh we hear what you're saying.

The we'll call it the noble experiment of the zoning board in trying to encourage or push development toward a residential use on this site.

You know, maybe it was wise, but it failed.

Here we are almost a half a century later, and nothing good has come of it.

Uh, what if it went back to MG?

Some kind of commercial that would allow it to be sort of released the handcuffs from it, if you will.

Um, and uh we said, okay, but you know, we don't represent these other entities.

And uh we talked to our client, and he said, Well, actually, you know, my family's involved in the former 35 Fairfield, now 445.

And I don't know, there might my neighbors on the other two sides of me, uh, Mr.

Sinise, the landscaper and Mr.

Titelbaum, the uh owner of the uh of the uh uh storage uh and warehousing facility, which I believe is what it's used for.

Uh they might be interested, but I don't really know.

So I said, well, uh, I went back to Ralph and Vanita.

I said, why don't we do this?

Why don't why don't we file on behalf of 29 milrose and the city can file on behalf of the others?

And Ralph said, thank you.

But no, I want you to make a college try to, you know, talk to these folks and see if they would become involved.

And so we did, and they agreed to become involved.

And they have given you in your files, you would see, letters uh authorizing us to file an application uh to have their property rezoned and returned to MG, and they all have a good story uh how they, you know, would do things a little bit differently to help their business become better.

And they I think they also understand that in doing so, there are rules that come with that uh that uh uh would apply to how they landscape and where the parking could be and all that stuff.

And I think you probably saw that in the neatest notes to you.

So that's really uh uh why we're here.

Now knowing that this uh could affect some people or could impact some people, we uh uh with our clients' instruction, uh wrote to uh the neighbors uh across the street, didn't what wrote to a wide variety of people, uh, but we did write to the ones uh on Melrose and uh and um before we filed and told them we'd be filing this and uh it invited them to call us or to contact us if they had questions.

And we also told them that there was no scheduled dates yet, uh, and we hadn't even filed, but when we did, we'd keep them apprised.

We heard from two people, um, and uh we provided uh responses and invited further inquiry, one followed up and uh uh and we provided further uh uh answers to further questions and invited, you know, a meeting, but hadn't heard.

Uh so you know, uh I I point that out because you know, uh last yesterday I opened my emails to find that a you know, petition had been filed and so forth.

And I understand it.

Uh and I would have hoped we could have had that dialogue earlier.

But the reality is in the long term, the value created uh because of the market's need for these sort of sites, will prevent these sites from ever becoming residential.

Um, and if you look at just 29, can we zero in on that somehow?

So this is a vacant site right now, not a big it's it's without a tenant right now.

Um it's bordered by, you know, a warehouse on one side, a landscaper on the other, and a factory to the north.

It's it's not only not going to become a residential site, it's not a good residential site, and nor are any of these.

Uh they will be what they are in one fashion or another.

They will continue on as legal non conforming, uh, or they will become some kind of zoned conforming.

And uh with it uh come the rules and regulations attended to uh being in an MG zone.

So what would happen is if Mr.

Kolboom, for instance, wanted to take down that house and build a commercial building, he would have to comply with the landscaping setbacks of the MG zone when are the butts in R6 and uh all sorts of site improvements would occur.

You know, the stormwater would be managed uh uh and you wouldn't have a 19, probably a 1940 stormwater system, which basically consists of uh nothing, you know, the rain hits the ground and rolls off.

Um there would there would be direction and requirements and modernization uh of the entire site, which we think is beneficial uh to the entire area and frankly to the property owners too.

So you know that is essentially uh what um what uh what what our application is.

There is no proposal to do anything with these buildings right now, and it would probably f whatever is done in the future, if anything is done uh on one or all of the sites, uh, would probably uh uh cater to that small type business or service business uh that would be attractive, and many of which are in the uh park just to the north of this.

And uh, you know, I was telling the when we were at the planning board last month, you know, I said that that very day, the um copy uh our copy machine was being serviced, and uh the fellow working on it said, Oh, I hear you you do real estate and zoning.

If if you ever find a you know small site that you know, you know, our business is growing really nicely, but we need a place to park a couple of vans and to store equipment and you know, for us to have the administrative office and that sort of thing.

Let me know.

And I was like, well, this could this is that kind of thing.

You know, there's cabinet makers in here, there's small service businesses, there's HVAC uh companies, there's floor covering companies, uh, hardwood floor guy, there's a sign company, uh there's all that sort of thing in the uh buildings uh just to the just to the north of uh uh this and they are the type of business I think you'd find here.

And the landscaper is probably a perfect example of the type of tenant that might be there.

And I think he would tell you he he if he could grow his building a little bit, he'd love to uh just uh you know put more stuff inside and keep it from outside, which is probably a good thing for the neighborhood.

So uh if you have questions, I'm happy to take them.

Uh Mr.

Goldblum's here.

I'm sure if you have questions of him, he'd be delighted to answer them.

And I'm sure some of our neighbors would like to express concerns.

Okay.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

Um, let's go to the board.

Um, Bill Morris.

As you mentioned earlier, uh a large number of people don't think that this is a very good idea.

And there uh appears that they're concerned about the adverse effect it's gonna have on their property values and also the quality of life.

Why are they wrong?

Because what's there now is regulated only by a loose body of law called the law surrounding legal nonconforming uses.

Uh so what's there now is perfectly legal and continue.

And you can see from Mr.

Morris from what's there, it's it's it frankly is not pretty, you know, and uh the the level of activity that's taking place is the same level of activity that will take place under a more regulated uh uh regimen.

If if somebody can now invest in their building, and can say, hmm, uh I'll put money in and I'll upgrade the entire site and the building, and I'll have to play by the new rules, not that these buildings are all playing by the 1951 rules, right?

If play by the new 2026 rules in terms of sidewalks, landscaping buffers, drainage, uh uh opaque signing, uh fencing, that sort of thing, it's a better result in the long run.

It is.

This is not a good result.

And this is what, you know, it's it's interesting.

I was teaching um uh at the Yukon Law School for years, and if I had this right now, this would be an object lesson in why the textbooks are wrong.

Textbooks will tell you uh that making a property non-conforming over time results in its being converted to a conforming use.

And that's bolding.

You know, I've been doing this now for almost as long.

I've been doing this for exactly as long as this has been non-conforming.

And I will tell you, what happens in reality is making properties non-conforming makes them more valuable and really prevents their conversion in almost every circumstance.

Well, where if my issue is that the picture which you're painting, there's no guarantee that that's going to happen.

I guarantee you're asking for is to get the change to industrial zoning.

And after that, all bets are off.

And I think that's part of the problem why the neighbors, the residential neighbors, are against this.

Well, but let me just respond to that by saying I don't think that it there's any one of these uh properties that uh there's a guarantee something will happen.

Well, let's begin with the property at the extreme left.

Okay.

You have uh a building that is in two zones.

Okay, that there's a zone line that runs through 445 Fairfield.

The building goes to the north.

So part of the building's in a residential zone, and the vast majority of the buildings in an industrial zone, and everything to the buildings north and uh west is in an industrial zone.

It's an industrial building, it's legal non-conforming industrial, and you can see it there.

Um, there's no reason that's in an R6 zone.

It's that's bad zone.

That's a mistake.

You go to the next building and you see, and there's an object lesson in how it's tough to invest in a building that is just completely non-conforming.

I mean, you'd have to, you know, go through the process of sitting with the building department and the zoning enforcement officer and saying, okay, now I want to put a different tenant in here.

And uh is that tenant going to want to pay enough to finance the uh the changes in the building?

It's difficult when the building gets this old.

You look at 29, which was where we started uh with Mr.

Goldblum, and you say, okay, you gotta basically a roofing contractor.

It's a good thing it's got a big backyard and it's 100% paved because you know you got this little structure.

It used to be a house at one point in the front, and it's been used for a bunch of different things, uh, including a roofing contractor.

And now what could happen to that?

That building could go away and it could wind up looking a lot like 35 or 445.

That's what I would predict.

And there could be some kind of surface business in there.

The landscapers, you know, uh he seems good uh shepherd of the property.

Uh could something happen there?

I don't know.

I, you know, just from talking to them, it sounds like they have a robust business and they're very happy to be where they are.

Probably not a lot would happen there.

But if you were to try to attract a good credit tenant now, and you had to go borrow some money from a commercial bank and put that and commit to putting that money in the property.

Um you'd have a hard time getting financing being legal non-conformity.

So you're stuck.

You're stuck.

So this would be an incentive to be unstuck, if you will.

Now, Mr.

Goldblum can go out and say, geez, you know what?

I've got I've got a cabinet maker at 445, and he's starting to outgrow his facility.

He'd be a great tenant in a brand new building here.

Maybe I'll build him a grand new building and he'll give me a 10 10 year and I'll give them a 10-year lease and he'll sign a lease for 10 years and we'll be happy.

And that's good, that's a good news here, probably.

So that's the way I'd answer that question.

I hope I did.

You did, but you see, I can see the benefits to the property owner.

That's obvious.

I can't envision here, and I don't think the residents, a voting residents can vision it, is how are they benefiting from this?

Well, let's take a look at um, uh, let's go back to the aerial and take a look at uh 35.

Uh I call it 35 or 445, and I apologize because the assessors got us a little confused, but that the uh let's call it the Goldblum property to the left, right?

That's the most modern one.

That's the one most recently done.

And that was done probably um, I don't know, 45 years ago now, right?

But I would call that probably in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, that's probably the best, right?

And that is an antiquated version and a dated version of the quality of what could be there.

So I don't know that you can, there's anything that can be done to force somebody to go uh invest in their property and create a better uh situation for the street, but right now you're preventing them from even doing that, and that's the problem.

So at the end of the day, what could happen here?

It what we hope would happen is that the the uses across the street become rebuilt, reinvested in, and the street becomes much more attractive and a better place.

All right, we'll see what the members of the uh public obviously this evening.

Thanks, David.

That's it for right now, maybe more later.

Okay.

I I'd like to follow up on that if I could.

Um attorney Hennessy, I think what one of your points is that the properties look pretty run down now, and until the the zoning is changed, then um there's no incentive for the owners to improve them.

And and therefore if the zoning's changed, the people who live nearby will live around property, it's a little nicer.

Um but I think the other there's some uses in the MG that um that it sounds like could be um could be used.

Um if we change it to MG, and I was just taking a quick look and tell me if if I'm wrong on these.

I saw junkyard, manufacturing, petroleum products, bulk storage, metal plating, and storage of road construction equipment.

Now, if this is if we make this change, then any of those uses could come in as of right, correct?

They could.

So it it seems to me that the the risk to the neighbors, the residential neighbors, is that um they go from these kind of more benign uses to a junkyard or a uh petroleum bulk storage facility.

How is that beneficial to the residential neighbors?

It's not.

Let me let me tell you how we got to the MG.

Uh you know, when we sat with Ralph and Vanita, we said this used to be MG.

What do we do with this?

You know, what it what what zone do we have?

So we thought of the uh the more uh I would say intense commercial zones, uh, but they seem completely inappropriate because they're more geared, things like the CL, Mr.

Stein's things like that.

That that's not shouldn't be here.

It's not master plan for that, you know.

It's it's and and they're not good uses for here, and they're not attractive uses for here, they're bad.

So then we switched to like the NXD, and we realized that that whole zone was created for properties much bigger than this, uh, you know, and but it addressed some of the interaction of the conflict abuses.

And uh then we talked about the ML, and and then it was basically your staff who said, listen, it if if we're planners and we're looking at where zone lines are, this sh should be MG, just like everything to the west and to the north.

That's what it should be.

Um, so it and and and we were encouraged to do that.

Um I would also say that some of these uses that you described.

Well, first of all, many of them are impractical and won't go here, but uh they could probably go there now.

They probably could, because you know, under the definition of non-conforming in our section 10, many of them could go there today.

If it's rezoned, uh nobody is going to uh put a uh for instance a junkyard or I don't think you could fit a petroleum storage or things like that.

Some of the more you uh a sausage factory, I think is whatever, meat processing or something like that.

You know, that that's not gonna go here.

But that's not uh but I'm I'm not here to quibble, Mr.

Stein, and nor is my client about the appropriate zone.

If you know, if an ML makes people feel better, because many of those more um I'm gonna use I'm gonna use the term uh seemingly uh noxious larger larger intensity industrial uses are not permitted in the ML.

Maybe that's actually not none of the ones I listed are permitted in the ML.

So you're right.

So none of the ones listed are on anybody's uh wish list for their property.

So let's so bear that in mind as we go through this, you know.

Um I mean, uh by the way, you know what nobody is here pounding the table about that.

We are just trying to solve a problem.

This is a problem, and and ignoring it isn't gonna solve it.

It's just gonna perpetuate what's been going on for 45 years, the slow degradation of this and the degradation of the neighborhood.

We're trying to help everybody.

That's the spirit.

I think I think um it's to me it's clear that the zoning here, the uh the R6 is the wrong zoning for this property.

Right.

Um, okay.

Thank you.

Uh Roseanne.

Um, so I assume back in 1984 zone was changed, maybe did everyone hope that property owners would convert to residential?

Yes, ma'am, that's exactly true, Ms.

McMahon.

And in and in 22 years, none of these property owners ever considered doing that.

It's more like 42.

42, yeah.

Sorry, 42.

Right, that's correct.

Um, so for the record, um what's the largest structure that could go on one of these properties um if we do approve this uh zoning change?

Well, it it I think Vanita has done a more scientific analysis than us, but I would tell you if you and and I'm gonna be very transparent, but if you compare the building bulk allowed in the R6 to the building bulk allowed on the in the MG, the MG allows much more.

It allows greater height and great it's an FAR-driven uh zone.

Uh but on these small sites, you never it's impossible to get to your maximum building because you also have to do things like park an automobile, you know, and that's just uh an exercise in geometry, you know.

A parking space is nine by eighteen and you require five parking spaces, you know, that means you can probably that's probably half your property is parking, right?

And so, you know, I don't know, it you can get a 1.0 FAR on this, which means that uh on a 5,000 square foot lot, you get a 5,000 square foot building, but and you can go four stories, but nobody's gonna build a four-story building for you know a cabinet maker or uh uh uh you know a uh small service business.

So it's it's you know, I'll leave it to Vanita, who I think has done a more detailed uh analysis of this, and she can probably explain it better.

But uh more it's clear that more building is allowed in the MG, but it you still need to park the site, you know, be able to maneuver a car, you have to have a 10-foot landscape buffer set back.

Uh there's all sorts of things.

Right.

So, you know, the the FAR and the MG district is more, it's is 1.0 um versus the R6, which has a 0.5, so technically the size of the building could be double, but you know, there's many more um uh requirements of an industrial or commercial property like loading and parking that restrict the amount of building that you can build.

Um, so you know, you could, you know, you could have a the maximum permitted floor area could be like 5,600 in on the one of the larger properties, like 29 or 31.

Um, compared to like three some of them already have like 31 Melrose, it's already five four thousand five hundred uh square feet.

So it's pretty much close to what uh you could build.

So, but you know you're allowed um you know more height, so you could shift the building around a little bit to kind of fit fit it better.

Um but at the same time you there's um more buffer requirements, more screening requirements.

Um also there's streetscape and sidewalk, everything kind of cuts into the property.

Um, so you'll in no case you're you'll be left with a large building.

Um it kind of falls squeezed, squeezes into uh and the uh you know smaller, a smaller footprint.

Um additionally, they're all separate parcels, not own, not contiguous, and they're not owned by the same entity, at least for now, so they're it doesn't lend itself to an assemblage unless um you know there's sale of properties.

Um so I think some all of these factors together don't lend themselves to you know a big uh use.

Um also Melrose Place itself is a you know is a you know narrower street, it's not a major thoroughfare, so it doesn't lend itself to a heavy industrial type of use.

Thank you.

Good.

Um thanks, Jerry.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, well, I definitely think after 42 years that the R6 is kind of um it's it's uh it's a failed uh zone at that point.

I don't know.

Um I'm glad, Chairman, you brought that the MG zone and the usage there, and I think that's something that the I'm waiting to hear from the residents.

I don't know if it's a I think there's there is a spot to meet in the middle, whether that's the ML zone or it's an MG zone.

I just think that uh, you know, I think I'd like to hear from the public a little bit more, but I do want to say that I I appreciate um attorney Hennessy in really trying to resolve this problem because I I definitely think that uh there is a solution here, and I just think that we need to um we just need to find it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Keith.

Yes.

So um I went to the site today and and obviously it it needs a refresh.

Um with that being said, I just want to clarify you do not have a tenant, you don't have a plan, you don't have anything at this moment.

You just want a change.

Right.

Well, uh let me answer this way, and I see uh uh my client, Mr.

Goldblum's on the phone.

He could probably talk to you best.

I mean, there's wide experience in this kind of property, and he's the one that came to me a year ago, as I indicated, saying uh lost the tenant.

Uh it's empty.

Uh you know, it's it's I I'd be willing to spend some money, but I'm in the wrong zone.

I can't.

Uh can we talk to the city about that?

And that's what's brought us here.

So let me invite him to try to answer that question because frankly, Mr.

Walker, he's probably better equipped, and he's probably thought about it a heck of a lot more than I have.

So is that okay?

Yeah, that is, and uh Mr.

Goldblum, just introduce yourself, please, for the record.

After you unmute.

Yeah, you're you're muted, Steve.

There you go.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for uh taking the time to hear the application.

Um could would you mind Steve?

Introduce yourself?

Oh my god.

I'm Steven Goblum.

I am the owner of the property.

Um Mr.

Chairman uh Mr.

Bozak, would you mind just reasking your question?

Oh, that was Mr.

Walker.

Oh, Mr.

Warner, my my question are is, what are your plans for the site specifically?

Oh, right now we do not have any.

It's when the tenant vacated, we're left with quite a mess.

And the property has been um with the broker and not even a nibble.

Um, the inside of the building is in very rough shape.

Um it needs to come down, and some building needs to go there at some point, but we don't have any plans yet because residential is just not something that we think will fit in that property.

Okay, so have you approached as it was sort of hinted at at a landscape business at a um, you know, cabinet um company, as a you know, company that stores widgets, or you know, uh well and on and on and on.

Fair enough.

We own the property behind directly behind this, which is 445.

And in that property, there are cabinet makers, there are electricians, there is an HAVAC contractor.

Um, there is an ice cream manufacturer, there is um, there used to be a cold brew coffee person in there now.

Instead, in his place, there is uh a person who um both installs and repairs restaurant kitchen hoods.

There are photographers, there's a whole yeah, no, no, no.

I guess it and I apologize for cutting you off, but my my point is that you're basically coming to this board and say, approve this, and we'll do the right thing by you, to David's point of their various uses that could adversely impact um the city, the neighbors, etc.

I I feel like this application would be far different if you had um a a plan and and to um Mr.

Morris's first question.

It it there's a lot of unknown here.

And you and it was said we were encouraged to do that, but it sounds like you are encouraging the town to do that, and I know I'm splitting hairs in that regard.

Um, but it's it's just like okay, seems like a good guy.

Owen's real estate, it's been in the town a long time.

His attorneys obviously knows everything, saying the right things, but it's like, you know, just being frank, why should we trust you?

Or or why should we do something that's outside of our purview without knowing what you're going to build?

Well, I think that's fair, and I think that our goal is to build something along the 35 Melrose model, just up to date.

Um we I personally am not a big fan of landscapers either.

Uh we don't have them on our and our properties, and we do like to keep things neater and um better organized.

Now, in terms of the particular zone, I was looking at the appendix A today for both MG and ML.

And there's a little bit, we believe, and after consultation with Bill, that the site does not lend itself at all to the larger, more noxious uses, quite frankly.

And the ML zone has some pretty significant gaps.

Halfway through, and Bill can point this out, because I don't have it in front of me.

There is something that prohibits it calls the manufacturer and assembly, I think, of various items.

One of them is you couldn't even have a chocolate maker in there if you wanted to, under the definition, because candy makers were prohibited in an ML zone.

And those are the kind of uses that we have.

We have mom and pop uses that are used to support families and community members, and that's what you get.

And if you can't have the cabinet makers and you can't have a candy shop, and you can't have those kind of things, what are you gonna put there?

It's not gonna be a great retail spot, it's not gonna be uh, it will never be uh uh, you know, one of the junkyard of those places, just it's too small.

You need something that is more than the ML, and that can only be provided with an MG.

Okay, I just have one last question.

I guess this is more for the the the staff.

If this area is rezoned, could the other buildings then are they now in encompassed in that zone?

And if you lost a tenant or or bought the property next door, could they then be combined?

And whatever is in the in that zone could now be put together and be built without our approval.

Um so um there's there's two things.

The first thing that I wanted to clarify is also that um a rezoning is not conditioned.

So once you grant a rezoning, uh you can do whatever is allowed uh in the district.

So uh what could happen conversely is someone comes in and says, Hey, I want to bring a cabinet maker in, please give me the MG district.

Uh once it's rezoned, they can turn around and also put a junkyard in.

So uh that's there is in that sense no uh uh no guarantee.

Um the MG district is uh an as of right district, so uh everything that's happening uh that is less than 30,000 square feet in floor area does not need uh approval from the zoning board.

So um uh if you were to uh combine those lots, I mean I think we've been saying each of those lots is about 5,000 square feet, maybe a little bit more, so that would get you to 20,000 square feet, so probably it would be under um uh the the threshold for uh a large-scale um uh development review.

Um so uh short answer is uh yes.

If someone was able to buy up all those four properties, they could um uh um use it for any of the uses in uh DMG district, but the other thing is that um how likely is uh did we see certain uses?

I mean, bulk oil storage, uh 20,000 square feet, who's doing bulk oil storage on uh on a site like that.

Um and I mean the the other thing is that what we've seen a big demand for is exactly sort of the the small uh um business owners uh that we've been talking about.

I mean, landscapers like them or not, that's one of the biggest issues with with zoning uh in the city.

Those are the guys who open up shop in residential areas um and and try to get away with it, uh, because there is no land for them to, and and that's sort of the the need um uh that we have um right now.

Thank you.

May I just say something uh respond to something, Mr.

Walker mentioned.

Yeah, sure.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Yeah, because I I think Mr.

Walker hit on something that is important.

You know, it it's the why should we trust you?

kind of thing, you know.

You know, I see, you know, this is like a good solution if you do what you're you're we're being told you're going to do.

One of the problems with this is is these lots are so tiny, they under our zoning regulation, they escape the uh the site plan review of the zoning board.

So, you know, it's built into the reg that that there's certain amount of trust that you actually file uh an application to build a building and it has to comport with the rules and it has to get signed off by the zoning enforcement officer in the building department, but it doesn't go to the zoning board, it's too small scale for that.

Um and the other thing is as Ralph said exactly, um it under Connecticut law, you cannot condition a map change.

So we're asking you to change the zoning map to allow for certain uses, but you can't say, okay, we'll allow you to change the zoning map, but so long as you don't uh build a building to more than half of your allowed FAR.

You're you're powerless to do that under Connecticut law.

So these are all problems we have, and I think that's what Mr.

Stein was going after earlier when he said, gee, I'm looking down the list of uses here, and I agree it's impractical for you to put uh, you know, uh a vinegar and saw uh sauerkraut plant here, which is one of the uses.

Uh, but you know, how do I know you own?

I mean, how do I know it's not gonna do that?

And that's uh where I think Mr.

Stein, you were headed.

The last thing I'll say is to Mr.

Goldblum's point, when we look down, it that we have an appendix A in the back of the zoning reg that's basically just an Excel spreadsheet of uses, right?

And it shows what's allowed in different zones.

Many, many, many of our uses are the same words.

It's completely, I guess what I'm saying is it's largely uh uh archaic.

The same terms that were used in the 1940s are still with us.

So when I look here and I see something like, oh my God, we are prevented from uh manufacturing Excelsior.

I'm like, who manufactures Excelsior anymore?

And are we really concerned about a sausage and vinegar plant?

Which is allowed in one zone, but not in the other.

Uh so it's it's tough to, we could probably separate from this application, uh continue on as Ralph and Vanita have done for years and trying to modernize the zoning regs.

This is certainly the MG and the ML uses are certainly in need of a little, you know, uh the modernization.

So I don't know if any of that makes sense to you, Mr.

Walker.

If you think it's responsive, but that that that what it's like.

So it makes perfect sense.

I I I've been in the real estate business for 35 years.

I I I understand what you're saying.

Um I guess at the end of the day, you you answered the most important question that I had is what's the plan?

And the answer you answered honestly.

So, we the plan is to get it rezoned so that we can go out and get the best tenant possible that fits on a 5,000 square foot lot and put them in there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Mr.

Chairman, can I just follow up one more thing with Ms.

Tennessee before we move on?

Yeah.

The what I see as a large problem here is the fact that your client doesn't own all the lots.

So that he may intend to fix his lot to make it, you know, the ballroom for lack of a better term.

But there's no guarantee, oh lots are gonna change it all.

They may stay the same for the next 40 years.

That's true.

But if you don't do anything, guaranteed all four will just continue to, you know, I think that's why you don't have a plan because there's more than one property owner.

So how are you ever gonna come up with a tools consolidated?

How do you come up with a plan?

Well, I don't uh well, I think you could come up with a plan for a 5,000 square foot law.

Let's say, let's say uh, you know, you approve this, and Mr.

Goldblum was able to go to the marketplace and say, hey, uh, you know what?

I have an MG zone site, uh, and I'm willing to build a new building for the right tenant.

And uh somebody called him next week and said, you know what?

I am in um uh I'm looking around here.

I am in the uh uh well, talk about our cake.

I was gonna say I'm looking at a bookcase.

I'm in the book business.

That that's a bad business.

Uh I am in the uh high-end art business.

I uh do uh high-end picture frames for uh important pieces of art.

Uh and that's an allowed use in the MLMG zone to either one.

And I'd like to do it.

I have security issues, I have all sorts of issues.

Some of these paintings are worth a lot.

Uh and I'm I need a state-of-the-art building, and uh I need to know uh that uh when I put my security systems in and my clients are coming here and used to, I need a long-term lease.

Now, Mr.

Goldman's gonna say, I'll spend real money on that building for that for that tenant, right?

He could he could that's an absolute perfect use for this.

Or my copy guy who can't find a place to run his copy machine repair business and drives down from Stratford and half his employees uh are on I-95 uh for half their lives.

Uh, he would be a perfect tenant for this.

And Mr.

Goldblum would say, I'm gonna go to First County Bank and I'm gonna borrow some money and I'm gonna build them a great new building and we'll make it beautiful.

That's maybe it maybe it doesn't happen, Mr.

Morris, all at once.

Maybe it happens one by one by one.

Yeah, but the landscaper may be very happy there and not want to move, so he may never move.

That that's entirely possible.

And I think that's what I'm having fault with this.

Okay.

If I could just jump in for a second, that will happen whether you approve this or not.

The landscaper's gonna stay there anyway.

Because there's no place else for him to go.

And because he's legal, not he's legal there.

Right, exactly.

If I could just hop in for a sec.

Um, I that's thank you, Mr.

Morris.

I would just ask uh the uh board to remember that we were originally going to bring the application just on behalf of 29 Melrose.

And at the behest of the zoning uh folks, we included the neighbors.

It was um never my intention to try to create an assemblage here.

Uh we are the owners of 35 Mel Rose or the back end of 445 there.

And it's the goal, if we can do it, to create something similar to that.

That building has not missed a month's rent in 35, 40 years.

It's 3300 feet, it's nice on the inside, open space, a little bit of office.

It is perfect for these people.

There was a record guy in there, there was an air purification guy in there for years.

Um, and now there's the telephone guy.

It's the these are the kind of uses that we're looking for.

These are the kind of uses that get attracted to this type of building on this type of little postage stamp of a property.

Um, and that's what we're gunning for, and that's what we would want to recreate.

And we think that we're stuck and can't really do anything right now with what we have.

Um, okay, why don't we move on to um Peter?

Hi there.

Um, couple questions.

Uh I understand that you are representing um the owner of 35, but these lots could be assembled, correct?

Were they all to be sold in the ones of time?

Okay, and how how many square feet would these properties amassed be?

Give us one second, we'll we'll do that.

But in round numbers, I will tell you uh probably 20,000.

Okay, and less than 30.

That's close enough, Bill.

Yeah, that's fine.

I don't need a pinpoint, but I guess the the concern I have is although I hear you and respect the fact that your client's property is is minimal in size and would only engender a relatively, I don't know what the word is, inoffensive small kind of business.

But if these properties were to be amassed and you have an MG zone, uh you could have the something that is maybe offensive to the neighbors, much more so than what you have here.

And I took the liberty of just hopping on the Google Maps uh to take a look at the street.

I didn't have time to go take a look at it today, but I was impressed uh at looking at the houses across the street because they're they're quite well tended uh it's almost a different street you look at your properties uh subject of this application they look at the neighbors across the street they're lovely little homes and I'd be interested in hearing their perspectives on this but um I can see their point in that they are clearly taking care of their properties and I can see how they do not want um something that is uh out of character with the nature of their homes I understand that you're saying that yeah uh what could we possibly put in my little postage stamp of a property but I guess if these are amassed and amalgamated maybe you have a different result that's all I've got.

I think Mr.

Russell I I haven't heard from the neighbors yet but I've read their petitions and and so forth and I think you're exactly right but let me just say to you the the conflict exists and it wasn't created by the zoning board it was created by just how the city developed before zoning when zoning first came here that it was MG on one side of the road and residential on the other that was judged to be not not right.

So almost 50 almost half a century ago somebody said well let's fix that let's make all these properties residential D zone and what you saw happen was they became legal nonconforming and that and what I'm suggesting to you is what what certainly helped create the situation of incompatibility it exacerbated the in uh the incompatibility and if I was a neighbor I would look across the street and say gee I I wish some of these properties not all because they're not all terribly uh tended uh was a little better and uh the question is how can we achieve that you know what what can we do uh that uh what we're suggesting to what can you do to to soften that incompatibility there will I I will submit to you there will never be complete compatibility here.

There will never be cute little row houses like there are on the or cute little one or two family houses some of them big houses on the south side of the road as there are in the north side of the road but we can do better than what's there and and this application is an attempt to give the property owners the tools to do better.

Okay thank you um okay I just got a couple of items um I think Jerry was right when he said it's clear that the current zoning is the wrong zoning for this property um but that but questions whether the MG is the right answer and I I feel the same way I I think we we should think about um BML or a different zone that's that won't permit all of the uses that the MG does um that said um just a bit of housekeeping Benita can we get comments from traffic and the fire marshal or they I noticed I can ask for that for them they have not weighed in um and the Mr Zarella in his letter says that this is zoned mu one in or it's the comprehensive plan category mu one i'm but I also see it referred to as I1 is it which I'm assuming is different um is is it I one it is I one north side of Melrose place is I one the south side is MG1.

Okay then maybe I just misread what he was saying um okay that's all I have though um why don't we go to the public um and if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application.

Please raise your hand um and um we'd like to hear from you.

That's get a minute.

Okay.

First, we have Ms.

Darling.

Please proceed.

Good evening, boy.

My name is Darling Calvillo.

I live on 34 Melrose, place across from 35 and 29 rows.

And I understand the applicant says the zoning change is to address not confirming using allowed improvement, but I would like more like clarity about the permanent zones.

But you guys already mentioned that.

I'm concerned about the long-term impact.

These could have in our neighborhood trafficking and speeding cars already are a problem in this area.

And on 35 mil rows, they already tried to put like a couple of trailers to drive in there, and they try to use my driveway.

And I think that's a little bit disrespectful too because I have a gate, and sometimes they try to open it to get access to my driveway to my property.

So we also already experienced the parking issues from the restaurants across the street to from Loudin Lodge, because their employee come to the Melrose place to park.

They block the driveways too.

We already have problems on the restaurants blocking the sidewalks, parking on top of sidewalks when the kids are going to school.

So my concern is not only about that current owner plant, but also why we could allow in the future once the zoning is changed permanently.

I respectfully ask the board to be careful and carefully consider the impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood before approving this application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't see other hands yet.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Next we have Mr.

Salvador Zarella.

Okay, please unmute.

Introduce yourself and give us your address.

Hello everyone.

Yes.

Yes.

My name is Salvatore Zarella.

I am a resident of Keith Street.

On the water side.

And I have uh submitted uh a letter uh dated uh 516 20 uh 25 uh outlining uh a longer version of many of the points also related to the MU1 uh category and please reference that um because I will not have enough time to make my brief comments.

So but I'd like to basically you know thank the board um for hearing this.

Uh I'm here tonight on behalf of my residents on Melrose Place and the waterside neighbors.

Uh I want to begin by saying I really you know I I'm relieved that this matter does not end with the planning board and that this board now has the opportunity to hear directly from the residents who live uh with the consequences of this decision.

One thing I hear often from residents is they don't care what we think, quote unquote.

This is what I hear.

Um this is discouraging, at least for me.

It creates a sense of hopelessness that causes many people to stay home, to stay quiet, and become less involved because they don't believe their voices make a difference.

Sometimes public hearings are poorly attended, and it may look like many people don't care, but I believe the opposite is often true.

Many people care deeply.

They simply do not believe their participation will change the outcome, which is probably the reason why.

Over the past few days, I've been very surprised by how many residents on Melrose Place and Berry Place told me they did not know what was happening, did not understand what was being proposed and did not realize the potential impact this could have on their street in their in their neighborhood.

When I explained it to them, many of them were shocked.

They couldn't believe that a zoning change of this magnitude can move forward without more people clearly understanding what was at stake.

This is not an you know a remote industrial parcel.

This is not a buffer area.

This is a residential street with existing homes, families, neighbors, and people who have already lived with more surrounding industrial impact than most neighbors would ever have asked to accept.

Residents deserve to know their residential street will be treated like a residential street.

People live on Melrose Place, they walk there, they park there, raise their families there, and rely on the zoning.

At some point, the line has to stop moving closer to people's homes.

This application asks for the board to place MG industrial zoning directly next to the existing houses on an active residential street.

Once that happens, it can't easily be undone.

When a decision can affect the future of an entire residential street, residents should not only be technically notified, they should have meaningful, they should be really be meaningfully informed.

Fundamentally, this pink elephant in the room has essentially doubled in size.

This is a residential street, and the zones, the this zone change intended should not drive residents out.

So respectfully, I asked the board to take a fresh look, listen to the residents, and recognize the seriousness of placing this industrial zone directly on a residential street.

Please protect the residents residential character of Melrose and deny application, this application.

I also believe there's a serious disconnect between the official disnotification process, which is what Hennessy may be surprised about, and what the residents actually understand about the future impact of their homes, their streets, their community.

When a decision can affect the future, an entire residential street, residents should not only be technically notified, they should be meaningfully informed.

Please also consider the MU-1 master plan designation, which my understanding is on both sides of the street for this neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, sure.

Miss Um Cavallo.

I think I think she might be the most impacted person of everybody involved.

And I will say, she has been the most active in terms of seeking uh answers to questions.

She is the person that re uh that responded to our letter, which we sent before this application was filed.

She is the person who followed up and uh was the most interested.

Uh and some of her concerns have nothing to do with the zoning.

They have to do with the nature of this neighborhood.

This is uh a neighborhood that was developed, and it's not just our side of the street, it's the restaurant up the street.

It's what's happening on Fairfield Avenue.

Uh, and there's a lot of change in this area.

You know better than even I do with Barry Place and other things.

There's a lot going on down here.

Melrose Place will be impacted in some ways better, in some ways worse by all of this change.

Change brings change.

That's what it is.

And change will occur here.

What we're trying to do with this application is take a situation that is not good and make it better by giving the property owners the opportunity to make it better.

And that's it.

It's not going to be a cure-all for everything.

Like I I never said it was, and it it will take time.

Mr.

Morris pointed that out.

Uh, but to her, I would say she has been the most resolute in terms of trying to understand the impacts, and I understand that sometimes people will park in front of her house because they're at the restaurant up the street.

We're not that problem.

We're a different sort of problem.

We're a quality of life problem directly across the street, and we think we can improve that.

In terms of what Mr.

Zarella said about meaningful information, you know, I wrote to the impacted neighbors before the application was filed.

Then they got their official letters.

There are four signs, large signs in front of the property.

There are uh newspaper notices, there's internet notices.

And every one of them ends with, if you have questions, call, and here's what's happened.

And some people did.

Mr.

Zarella didn't, but uh that's I just point that out as a as a as a fact.

This property, uh, unlike what he said is in the I-1.

The planning board, when it completed its comprehensive plan, looked at this issue and said, gee, what our predecessors did in the 1981 plan by putting this in a residential land use category, it didn't work.

Failed experiment.

Let's go back.

And they didn't put it in their most intense uh category for industrial.

They put it in the one just below, the one that would accept all of these uses we've been talking about, like the uses that could go there, the small mama pop things, the HVAC, the electrician, the floor guy, the sign company, the R2.

That's where they see this going.

They know there's a conflict.

Uh Mr.

Zarella said this is uh, and that's the land use category it's in, the I-1.

Uh, Mr.

Zarella said this is not a buffer area.

Well, it's not a buffer area.

He's right, but that's the problem.

There's no buffer.

There is no buffer area because there is no buffer.

That's our conundrum here.

We have industrial uses that are there legally and will remain there directly across the street from residential uses.

Our job, all of our jobs, mostly your job, I would respectfully submit, is to find a way to soften that conflict and create some kind of functional buffer.

And we think that rezoning this property is the way to do it.

Because while it's in the R6 zone, nothing will happen except what's been happening.

There will be a steady deterioration of the properties.

There'll be continued to be subject to low investment, just enough to keep them going.

That'll keep Mr.

Walker, you're in the business.

You know that it's going to attract tenants that aren't so good, that you might not want, that misbehave, that you're always chasing around, whereas a high quality, high-credit tenant might go there if the property's reasonable.

So somebody like Mr.

Goldblunt can go out and say, listen, I can build you a new building.

I can build you a brand new facility and you'll love it, and I'll pay for it, and you'll pay me rent for it, good rent.

Just like he accomplished down at the street at the 445-35.

That's that's what we think is the good solution to this conundrum.

Um, that's about all I have to say.

Um if you have more questions, we're happy to answer them.

We're happy to listen to any ideas you have on how best to solve this problem.

Uh, we we'd like that.

Okay, good.

Umita, I see um we have at least one more speaker.

Yeah, Mr.

Dave Adams.

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

Uh, my name is Dave Adams.

I am from uh I live in uh Glenbrook Road in Glenbrook, and uh, you know, I this was this this issue is brought to my attention uh earlier this week.

Uh, I unfortunately I haven't been able to pay that much attention to it, but I did hear earlier that um there isn't necessarily uh clear understanding as to why this particular uh industrial designation needs to be needs to be uh used.

Um why we can't be using something more of a commercial designation, um that would fit the neighborhood better.

Uh obviously uh there were intentions back in 1981 uh to make this a residential area, and that once these companies were, you know, uh at the end of their life cycle that they would uh this this area would be remediated and that it would become residential.

Um, you know, as as a lot of our non-complying uh, you know, properties uh do uh across the city.

Why do we want to return it to the way it was?

Uh you know, I I find it very against the uh the norm that we're gonna take uh a piece of property that you know we found to be non-conforming, and you know, every time I hear uh, you know, uh Chief Blessing talk about this.

Um we don't really walk back on the non-conformings.

Um we find a way to remediate the situation and move forward.

So uh I'm just a little confused as to why the applicant chose this particular designation rather than another designation that was a little um you know more appropriate uh and and that maybe you know subjective.

So uh I you know I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, go ahead.

We have Ms.

Darling again.

Hi, I just would like to respond to Mr.

Um William or Mr.

Hennessy.

Um I was the one who talked to the neighbors, and unfortunately they were not able to attend today, but they were able to sign, and they do get affected.

And I'm sorry that about that.

You think that the traffic doesn't affect I have a seven-year-old uh once sometimes walk to the bars that I see him and the cars are going fast.

And um, it does affect me because of the trailers driving down.

And I mean, I am a mother and very concerned, and I have other two kids too, and I'm not the only one.

I have neighbors who kids walk to the school, and they have to be very precautious about it.

Because on very place, all the cars driving down, they go just fast and they don't follow the stop.

So I do, I am very concerned because you know nobody respect about the signs and they just drive fast.

They they do don't care.

So that's my main concern about changing and making a building and more cars are coming to the street, and it's already very narrow.

And we already have a problem with the winds every now too.

The teens are driving fast in there and they don't stop.

They don't really care.

So I'm sorry that it seems that I'm the only one, but we I am not.

We are a lot of people very concerned.

And please just take in consideration that thank you.

Thank you.

Um, David, that's all uh that we haven't done the speakers.

Um we have Mr.

Sarella who wants to speak again.

Uh hello.

Uh can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you uh for allowing me to respond to Mr.

Hennessy's um comments.

Um with regards to the explanation and the notification, I think it's a very important point.

This is not just an issue uh for this particular case.

I think it's just a policy that's been developed over the the many years, and I know that Mr.

Hennessy is following the rules of notification.

However, the planning board did make a unanimous decision.

Um those notifications do not hit as hard and the explanations, the understanding to the layperson, the residents of the area, for them to truly grasp and understand what is really happening, is primarily sugarcoated in so many ways when these things are explained to them.

And as I pointed out in my pre my state, the many of these residents had no idea what was really happening right in front of their street.

Now, I might add that um I d I don't think I believe it's a bit in general disingenuous.

Moving on to the topic and the question related to the impact.

That and the reason why I say it's disingenuous to claim that the one most affected um was Darling, related to issues totally unrelated.

That I think is just a whole a total redress of the concerns.

It's totally related to the impact of what's actually happening current day in the MG zone and this and what's happening in this district.

And yes, there is no buffer.

Exactly.

That's uh something that the master plan seeks to resolve.

So I'm glad that you recognize that there is no buffer.

That's the that's the problem here.

And so these aren't advantages, these are disadvantages that need to be addressed.

And the R6 zone, or whichever designation was chosen in the early 80s with regards to residential uh zoning was done for a reason because of the disjointed behavior between the industrial MG zone on the north side of the street and the residences on the south side street.

So they sought to and to create the uniformity necessary to undo that.

Intent is essentially driving the residents out, because no new residents will want to come in to any industrial condition.

So I think that this is a very important point that must be made, they should not be mixed, and the buffer areas should remain.

Thank you very much for allowing me to respond.

Good, thank you.

I board, any uh final questions for uh the applicant.

No, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm good.

Uh, not for me.

I would um I think we should close this.

Um, is there anyone who would like to keep it open?

I'm not asking the applicant.

Um anyone on the board who thinks this should stay open.

Okay, you have to leave it open for the uh traffic and engineering, or you have a fire marshal.

No, I don't think we need to.

I think we'll we can get those and deal with them.

Uh, attorney Hennessy uh anything you want to say before we close this.

Um no, uh everybody who spoke uh for the second time.

Uh I think I covered everything that that that they had said.

Uh I would just like to say, Ms.

Darling, I I never meant to uh indicate that or uh sensitivities to traffic uh were unjustified.

I I believe that they are.

Uh Melrose is a busy street, and there's a lot of change gonna happen there.

Uh, but I don't think this application relates to that.

The uses that are allowed that are going on there now that were going on when she bought her house are going to continue there unless the zone is changed and they quite possibly diminish.

But we don't know what those uses are.

We do know that a roofing contractor, a storage place, a landscaper and telephone repair folks are there.

The zoning's there.

Thank you.

Nothing there.

Okay.

Um then we uh we are closing application 226-07, and um thank you to attorneys Hennessy and Smith and to Mr.

Goldblum.

And um I expect that this application will be put on the uh regular meeting agenda at our next meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we are now um uh going into our regular meeting, and the first item we have is the approval of the minutes.

From August, sorry, April 27th, 2026.

Um, does anyone have any uh corrections or uh changes to it?

No.

No.

Okay.

Bill, can we get a motion to approve?

Mr.

Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes from the April 27, 2026 uh meeting as uh presented.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Further discussion.

Um, let me just go in and uh Peter.

Okay.

So those are the four people.

Uh we have to upstain.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Um okay, so it's approved uh 4-0.

Uh next, we have CSPR 1225, Alexandra Mock 265 Willowbrook Avenue requesting authorization for site regrading and addition of boulders to the backyard.

These improvements were conducted for erosion control and protection of the dwelling.

The property is within the cam boundary.

Umita, can you uh take us through this and just explain um why why the work was done before it came to us?

Um so they was an uh that on the property, but it was compromised over time and with you know coastal erosion and you know and you know over time being covered by seashells.

So the owner used boulders from the property itself to create a barrier.

Um and that was uh discovered by you know EPB.

They you know they obviously asked the applicant to file an application to authorize or legalize that uh improvement.

So they'd also done some filling just to stabilize because the erosion was the residents.

That's why they had the owner had made those uh you know changes.

So um they've now kind of uh provided the uh the EPB with all the uh um documents that that are needed, and EPP has um asked them to um you know prepare you know uh additional documentation regarding um uh flood evacuation and other uh controls that are needed for uh typical coastal reviews.

So uh I think they've closed the loop on the improvements that are made.

The um uh D in their letter um December 29th said um uh under the statute uh the applicant needs to show um says the law requires the zoning board to promote non-structural solutions to flood and erosion problems, except in those instances where structural alternatives prove unavoidable and necessary to protect residential structures.

Um they go on to say, however, the applicant is not shown that a feasible non-damaging or less damaging alternative exists to protect the residential structure.

Um, nor has it been shown that any mitigation measures were explored.

Um, and therefore their recommendation is that we require the applicant to provide that.

Um has that been provided?

Um I have not seen that.

Um the applicant's landscape architect is um in attendance.

I can put them on so they can speak to it.

Sure, go ahead.

Uh good evening.

Uh Alexandra Mock, uh representing the applicant.

Tonight with me is also our assigned engineer and an attorney uh to answer all your questions.

We we've been reviewed by the engineering department by uh DEP and the environmental Protection uh board.

And we did address all the uh comments and questions they provided.

And I do remember that the DEP letter was concerned about the alternatives and why structural.

We do not feel that our uh protection is structural.

The first uh thing is that the entire properties would have been the flood zone.

So uh moving the uh residents somewhere else which could be better protected is not an uh uh an option.

Um also raising the houses uh cost prohibitive.

Um there was a wall uh which was just like rebuilt a little bit, and it's hard, it's even difficult to call this a wall.

This is basically a line of boulders, um, some of them are a large um and uh there was some sand added behind the boulders just to raise the grant a little bit.

Um the uh grading was uh very minimal.

Um tonight with uh with me is uh and also we are proposing mitigation, which I would like to talk about at the end.

So maybe I will just uh let our attorney to introduce our project and just follow the order.

Then uh Tim uh is going to be talking about engineering, and I will uh conclude with the proposed mitigation measures.

Uh Vanita, can you let uh our attorney and engineer in, please?

Thank you.

And when they come in, if they would please introduce themselves for the record.

Uh good evening everyone.

Um happy to be here.

My name is John Casey.

I'm a partner with the law firm of Robinson and Cole.

We represent the applicant.

Uh the property is actually owned by a trust.

Heidi Moeller and Pierre Moller are the trustees, uh, just so we have that for the record.

Uh as you said, Mr.

Chairman, this is a project, it is an after-the-fact application to uh approve some minor site grading, uh as well as the relocation of rocks and uh you could call them boulders that were on the property already, uh as well as a new planting scheme that uh Alexa Alex will get to describe to you.

I would actually ask if uh Tim DeBartolomeo could be promoted.

He is our site engineer.

Well, before we we get there, why was the work done without before the application was brought to us?

Uh sometimes, Mr.

Chairman, people are just unaware of permitting requirements.

They this is something that if it was done a hundred yards up the road, uh it wouldn't be a problem at all.

There's less than two feet of fill.

It's relocating existing rocks, there are boulders on the property in probably 99.9% of the state.

This wouldn't even require a permit.

So some people unfortunately just are not sensitive to uh the permitting requirements.

Uh you know, we spoke to Heidi, I think, and Alex has spoken to her more than we I have, but um, sorry, who is Heidi?

Heidi is the we'll call her the property owner.

She's a resident at the site.

Trustee.

Trustee, yep, on-site resident, yeah.

So I I think that's the best uh explanation I can provide.

If I may I I if I may, I have a few more um uh a little bit more information to add.

So this was done uh during COVID, and as you we all know, the uh the government center was uh closed, and uh the owner was trying to um explore whether or not she needed a permit, but I think that was a little bit confusing, and I I believe that the reason that Adri Single department told her not was because she probably didn't really explain exactly what she's doing.

She was just adding whether or not, she can add a few boulders to the property line, and basically maybe she didn't say that this is a coastal area.

She did also contact the DP.

Uh, this is above the coastal jurisdiction line, so uh they didn't really have jurisdiction.

Um and uh she did reach out to the building department from what I recall from our uh conversation.

Um and I'm not sure which other departments, but um again, I think that was a little bit of uh misunderstanding and the fact that during the COVID uh it was very difficult to sometimes communicate with the uh departments.

Well, okay, I don't know if that's true, but um we continue to meet during COVID certainly.

Yeah, right.

And I would I would ask Mr.

Chairman and members of the board, excuse me, that um, you know, people are perfect, but I would but I would just ask you to look at this application, like not whether um someone should be punished for doing something uh that they did without a permit, but if you got a permit prior to the work, is it something that is permissible?

And so I think a little um you know, a little uh consideration.

Um knowing, as I said, not everyone is fully sensitive to all the permitting requirements that are necessary, especially along the shore.

Um, so we would ask that you look at this application.

You know, is this something you could permit?

And I think after you hear from Tim and Alex, uh, we think this is something that definitely could be permitted.

You raised, you know, the the DEP letter.

Tim wrote a point by point response to that letter.

And uh I think it's appropriate for him to go through his analysis because I think this really comes down to was the work or does the work have an impact on coastal resources, on any flooding, on any neighboring properties, and without giving too much away, the answer to all those questions is no, but Tim will be the one who can explain it uh technically.

So with that, I would ask to turn it over to Tim Debart Lameo to describe the application.

Okay, please proceed.

All right, thank you, John.

Uh Tim DeBartolomeo, uh Sound Engineering Associates.

Um thank you.

Uh Commissioners, and uh let me share.

I'll share my screen.

Um I have the uh documents queued up here.

Um so we um initially I was uh contacted by uh by the owner uh to help her understand what what she needed to do because she was she was told that you know what she had done did not have a permit.

So we said, okay, well, what exactly do you have here?

So we had gotten um fortunately she had a she had a survey uh that was done uh in 2016 uh that showed uh pre-construction conditions.

So we were very fortunate to actually have um information uh that was that close to you know pre-construction work that that we could find and relatively recent.

Um so the first thing we did was let's get us let's get a topographic survey of what's there now and get a uh a conditions site plan and compare the two.

Okay, so that's that was the first step.

And uh what we found, and I'm gonna flip through this a little bit disjointedly because I was just wanted to get to this site plan here, and I just want to describe the area here a little bit.

Um, and this property is at the foot of Willowbrook Avenue.

Um facing, you know, facing Long Island Sound, uh immediately, you know, almost immediately adjacent to uh Cummings Beach.

Uh there's maybe one or two properties to the uh to the west, um, and uh, but it's and then there's the the foot of Willow Willowbrook Road, which is I also a public access way uh directly to her east.

It is in a flood zone, and it's a flood zone, it is in a VE, part of the property is in a VE 15, and part of the property is in an AE14, and this line right here is the flood zone line.

This is the dwelling.

This area over here is the beach.

This is all sandy beach, and this structure is partially what was constructed, partially what was there.

Um, and the minor grading and fill happened in this hatch zone here.

Okay, so that's the work that we were looking at.

Um, so we looked at this and uh very quickly came to the um to the conclusion that this this really was a minor um uh activity to begin with.

Um the amount of uh grading that happened at what was at maximum two feet.

Okay, and and uh that is actually coincidentally the limit uh by which FEMA allows you to perform filling in in a flood zone in a VE flood zone uh without really having to do uh an engineering analysis.

Um so uh so we again there was there was this condition that allowed us to feel pretty good that what she was doing was was gonna was gonna turn out to be just fine.

So we look we we then we got this letter from the DEP along the way.

Um and one other point here all the work that occurred occurred landward of the coastal jurisdiction line and landward of the Connecticut DEEP uh jurisdiction line.

So this is a complete uh local uh uh issue.

It does it does have the um uh the uh according to can't the cam act, it does get a referral to the state, and the state has the ability to comment on it as as an ad as in an advisory role.

Uh, but that's really it.

There's no approvals uh necessary from the DEEP.

So they but they did ask for a more in-depth analysis, which we did, even though, like I said, FEMA does not necessarily require that.

So just to walk you through this analysis, looking at it from well, literally 30,000 feet.

This is Long Island Sound, and here's the property.

And as you can see, there's Westcott Cove, and it has some exposure.

This is the range of wave exposure to the property.

Um there's you know, it is protected by Chapan Point on the west, and it is protected by Greenway Island, and you know, the the area up against uh Cove Island Park uh to the east.

There's uh maximum fetch is uh 11 miles to Long Island Sound.

I mean to Long Island rather.

So we looked at that.

We also we also looked at um, we developed a a wave model, um, and we looked at what the how the waves um approach the um the property and the results of that wave uh model answered our questions uh to the to the point, and the best slide for this is this graphic right here um and um this image shows a condition where we chose the worst condition where where she had placed the most amount of material, and I'm just gonna zoom in over here a little bit, and this orangey area here and these stones here.

This is the this is what she placed here, okay um there is a buried wall behind this uh this is natural beach this little light blue area here is a difference in this beach grade between pre- and post work which is attributable to natural beach accretion it comes and goes with the seasons it could have been a little lower could have been a little higher depending on the time of the year that we that the that the uh the survey was done okay um this is what excuse me i yes um um are you answering the question about whether that a feasible less damaging alternative weather one exists uh I'm getting I'm getting to that or that okay can you um speed it up a little bit please certainly um so this is the this is where the flood zone occurs so this is where the uh base flood elevation drops from elevation 15 to elevation 14 so our model shows uh that in no instance does the was there a um measurable difference between the wave conditions uh before construction after construction and the question came to us about why not just take it out why not you know instead of spending what she had to spend to do this way this this costly way of analysis why not just take the material out and and you know restore it well the answer to that is what you would be left with is a disturbed shoreline that was all that was disturbed during construction all right how you would how you would stabilize this area over here it would be subject to erosion um and that in my view would be a worse condition leave making her undo what she did would leave us with a worse condition than what she has there today so that is I believe the answer to the question well well why this should not be um uh undone so along with the fact that there is no significant impact to coastal resources uh and on top of all of that um uh miss mock is is uh has generated a uh a planting plan as a mitigation uh component to which I don't even believe is necessary but nonetheless we're off it is being offered up as as an opportunity to um to further improve conditions uh by uh adding some some additional uh uh beach grass and uh and offering some some additional uh erosion protection so with with that I think we've we've um we've addressed the issue um the the shoreline was simply pushed out uh uh several feet and uh the conditions you know she it's not as if she built a 10 foot high seawall here it was just some really minor uh grading and some adding of some boulders here that you can't even can't can't even call a wall it's in my view not really even a structure it's more like a um a living shoreline if you will uh so it's it really is a um uh uh innocuous activity uh from a technical perspective.

Um so I believe we answered all the questions in this report here that was that was submitted back in February and part of our application, which you should have a copy of uh that addresses all the questions that at the DEP has uh has requested.

Tim and Mr.

Chairman, if I could add to your question, the the statutes, the coastal permitting statutes uh that are applicable here, you know, as you pointed out as is in the original deep letter, um allow structural uh solutions to protect the pre-1995 home where there's no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative.

So to Tim's point, when you typically structural solutions are considered to be vertical seawalls or significant amount of stone riprap, something like that.

So the statute itself defines feasible less alternative, uh less environmentally damaging alternative um to include, but not limited to.

And Alex touched on two of these relocation of an inhabited structure.

That that's not uh feasible here because the house is basically right up against its uh property line, uh elevation of an inhabited structure that's uh infeasible due to the cost and the nature of the house.

Um, but the third one uh feasible less environmentally damaging alternative.

It's it's the restoration or creation of a dune or vegetated slope or living shoreline techniques.

As Tim said, he described this as a living shoreline technique, um, which, and it says utilizing a variety of structural and organic materials, um, such as tidal wetland plants, uh Alex will talk about the plants.

This is really isn't a tidal wetland, um, submerged aquatic vegetation.

This isn't below the mean high water line.

Um, so uh submerge aquatic vegetation isn't appropriate here.

Uh core fiber log, sand fill, and stone to provide shoreline protection and maintain or restore coastal resources and habitat.

So I think uh, and I've worked on a few of these along the shore uh in the many years I've done coastal permitting.

Uh the this combination of stone, sand fill, uh vegetation is typically and regularly considered a living shoreline.

Um, and it would fall into the category of feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives.

Um, okay.

I listen, all we can we're not experts in this.

Yep.

For whatever reason the legislature has assigned these cam applications to the zoning board.

All we can go on is a is our experts, either state or local, and the state says applicant has not shown that a feasible less damaging alternative exists.

So that that is that that was dated that letter was in December.

We responded to that in February.

And there's been no subsequent response since that time, Mr.

Chairman.

Good.

Okay.

I'll share um we we also received uh uh letter of consistency from the harbor management commission on this matter.

Yes.

Yeah, no, we have all of the documents um in the file.

Uh board members, uh, does anyone have any questions for any of our um?

I think Mr.

Chairman that Alex wanted to share the planting plan and go over some of the habitat benefits.

Um, so yes, and uh, actually uh we read uh DEP uh letter very carefully and uh we're uh consider all the options and alternatives and DEP uh was suggesting.

So I did come up with the planting plan.

So as you remember, um what was just said by John, reading from DEP.stone uh plants, uh natural, uh natural occurring peach sand.

It's all uh portion of the restoration, and this is a self-restoration.

So this is not a wall again.

Uh the uh boulders are not cemented in.

They don't have any footing.

The basically large boulders which are which were placed along the line of previously um occurred area.

Um what we're doing we're adding a 10-foot uh buffer, which the beach grass, this is going to be restoring the natural uh environment.

This is the area where dunes usually form at the beach setting.

So uh the grass is going to offer shelter and also potentially breeding grounds for insects and um and birds.

Uh the most important uh beach grass actually has a very important role at the beach environment uh because it captures the blown sand, stabilizers for fruit system, and then they have both uh ground part of the grass captures the uh sand which is being blown uh by wind, and instead of losing it, it's actually capturing it and and uh building the uh keeping the sand inside and building the elevation, and that's how the dunes are being formed, and also uh from usually one to three beach grasses, the grass is spread, so it is expected that the area is going to have more cover over time, it's going to be uh capturing more uh sand uh from uh from the wind.

Uh and uh it's going to be naturally uh protecting itself, and instead of losing and being exposed to erosion, we are going to have actually uh uh additional growth, and together with the boulders in the front and the deep root system of the beach grass.

This is going to be a very successful uh protection structure uh for the um for the house, and uh at the same time giving environmental benefits.

Okay.

Board, any questions for any of our panelists here?

None, okay.

Soon that there's a landscape maintenance agreement.

We will be happy to uh sign the landscape maintenance agreement.

Yes, yes, that's part of the conditions from the one.

Okay, thank you.

Um, what are the conditions that uh we have for this?

Sure.

Um, one moment.

Uh we have uh EPB conditions in the report from Pamphas, he did it April 24th.

Um we have the engineering report from Susan Kiskin dated November 25th.

Um, and you know, yeah, you the deep letter was dated December 29th, 2025, and we also got comments from the harbor management commission um dated January 2nd and April 30th of this year.

So the only conditions were EPB and engineering, yes.

Okay, okay.

Um, that's good.

Um board.

Uh if there are no other questions, can we get a motion on this uh quotation?

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I move that we approve uh CSPR, and I don't have a number here in front of me.

1225 as uh submitted this evening with conditions contained from the EPB and engineering.

I make a second, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, good.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed abstentions.

It's approved uh five zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep, thank you.

Thank you all.

Okay.

Next, we have CSPR 1230, City of Stanford Engineering Department, 1125 Cove Road, proposing to replace existing tennis courts with two new tennis courts and two pickleball courts within the existing footprint and include a new handicap access route.

The property is within the camp boundary.

Benita, yes, so right.

This is uh in Cove Island Park um on the western side uh of the parking lot.

So currently there's four tennis courts and one basketball court.

Just a correction to the description.

What's being proposed is three new tennis courts and two uh two pickleball courts, and then the basketball court was just going to be uh uh resurfaced.

So um in addition to that, what's happening is that there's going to be a new ADA connection, pedestrian connection between the parking lot and the tennis courts.

So that's the scope, uh, you know, improving the existing sports facilities and making them more accessible.

Good.

Are there any questions for uh Vanita on this or discussion of this?

No, sir.

No, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, can we get get a motion to approve CSPR 1230?

Oh, I'm sorry.

What are the conditions we have?

Yes, we have an uh EPB report from Lindsay Thomas Guzoski dated April 2nd, 2026.

We have an engineering report by Susan Kiskin dated March 31st, 2026.

Um, then we have letters from uh deep, a letter from Deep dated April 10, 2026, and the harbor management commission's uh letter dated April 30th, 2026.

Okay, can we get a motion to um approve this CSPR with the uh subject to the conditions and letters that uh Vanita just listed?

I'll make that motion, Mr.

Chairman.

Second, any further discussion all in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed, abstentions, it's approved 5.0 next uh application 226-01 35 Terrace Avenue, special permit.

Um okay, so this one um Peter, you will be seated for the uh you were here for it um for the uh deliberation and vote.

Um Keith.

Um you can um you'll get to listen and watch and all that.

Uh is there anyone who's opposed to this uh application?

No, no, no.

No.

No, and and I want to just make sure we say for the record that four houses could go on this property um in normal non-zoning, doesn't come to us for approval, don't need fences, don't need any planting, don't need anything to protect it from any neighbors.

So um to me, this seems like a much better deal.

I I think you're right.

I agree.

Um, okay, why don't we um take a look at the conditions that uh Vanita has prepared for this?

All right, can you see my screen?

Yes, and it's nice and big.

Thank you.

This is good.

Um, so what we're talking about as is Roseanne, as you just said, is two extra units of over and above what's permitted as of right.

Um, and these are for seniors or disabled person.

Which to me also says, you know, probably no kids.

I mean, there might be some if there's a disabled, which means a lot less traffic.

Yes, I think you're right.

Okay, why don't we um this is uh special permit, right?

Are there uh any findings or um there is um there's findings?

Um, the psych the normal ones, yes.

Okay, the date, uh yeah.

Okay, so this is the same as what came out today, right?

Yes, and had this been sent out previously to the board, it was, yeah.

Um, for the meeting that we have uh we had to postpone.

Okay, did this one this version change from what people had seen for that meeting?

Very you know, minor changes.

Uh um Peter had some good suggestions and clarifications and language.

That's right.

That's right.

Peter, thank you for uh your suggestions there.

Okay, so uh condition one the work will conform to the plans.

Um condition two, uh the fence will be made of wood and um it'll be uh added to the landscape plan.

Are folks good with that?

Yes, yes, Mr.

Uh three, they will consolidate the property.

Uh four, there will be 12 parking spaces, self-parking spaces, um, and uh one space per unit will be wired to receive at least a level two wall box for EV charging.

So they um they won't get the wall box, but it will be wired for the box if someone wants to put it in.

Uh the um number five, the in order to comply with our regs, uh their deed restriction, um, needs to be filed on the land records that each of the six units is inhabited full time by at least one person who is a senior or who has a proven disability, and um that the applicant will comply with all of the other requirements of the independent living facility definition in our regulations, and um the these deed restrictions will provide that they the requirement to enforce them is on the applicant if units are rented out, or it's on the homeowners association uh for any units that are owned by individual owners.

So the HOA is required to um enforce the seniorslash uh disabled person requirement.

Um for who can live there.

Any discussion on number five?

The deed restrictions, not a discussion, but I have a question for staff, and I think I've asked this before.

I'm really sorry.

We can't set the age of the senior, we have to follow the state age.

Is that correct?

Because it's like so much younger than I would think.

Because none of us are seniors, none of us.

Uh we don't have to.

Um we just aligned it with federal regulations, so hard and and the federal government uses 55.

Okay, but you're saying we could change that if we wanted to make it younger or older.

Younger.

45.

Okay.

Number six, um, as uh it was discussed at the meeting, the uh if the units are owner-occupied and there's an HOA, then the HOA is responsible for snow and trash removal and landscaping, all areas, um, including private walks and lawns.

Um, because it's very possible the the occupant will be disabled.

Um if the units are rented out, then the maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner.

Any uh discussion on this?

I think it's fine.

Not one we've had in the past, but it it's I think it's worth keeping for future projects like this.

Number seven, um all the units will comply with the accessibility standards um for type B units.

Um, that means that they uh they'll have uh certain width of uh doorways.

Uh they won't have steps into the unit.

Um they may not have things like the um grab bars, but they will be um built uh to take the ground bar.

So the uh walls will have this studs or whatever is needed inside to attach those two, and that's become our standard, the type B for um these independent living units, um, number eight signage approved by the staff nine photometric plan approved by the staff, ten street trees, they'll have to provide six street trees um along the street and submit a bond of a thousand dollars each uh to guarantee the survival of the trees for three growing seasons, uh then there is compliance with comments from the Transportation Department, the WPCA, the EPB, Engineering Bureau, Building Department, and Fire Marshal, and that's it.

Yes, is there anything else that anyone thinks uh should be in these conditions?

Okay, any discussion on this application?

Okay.

Um can we get a motion to approve application 226-01?

Um the special permit with the conditions as uh presented tonight, so moved second, okay.

Any further discussion all in favor say aye?

Aye.

Opposed.

I don't think Jerry can uh vote.

That's true because I wasn't at that meeting, Mr.

Chairman.

I have to abstain.

Okay.

Even though I saw the you know, I reviewed the tapes.

Am I able to vote on that?

Yeah.

If you saw them, if you watch the tape of the meeting, you missed, then you qualify.

Okay.

Then I'll take that back.

Well, Bill, thank you for thank you.

Looking out for me, Bill.

I don't get you in trouble.

I appreciate it.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed abstentions, okay.

The application is approved 5-0.

Um we now go on to uh, well, it's the 1150 Summer Street.

Uh is has been continued.

Melrose Place uh we uh hopefully we'll uh deliberate on that next meeting.

Next, um application 222-24, C View House, LLC and C View property owner LLC 68 C View Avenue, uh requesting minor modifications to the approval to allow for eight additional residential units, removal of the marina office building, reduction of sixty five hundred square feet of office space, an increase in usable open space among other changes.

The building will have 63 units and 128 parking spaces with the modification.

I think any discussion on this application.

Do we need to hear from the applicant?

Does the board want to hear from Attorney Hennessy or Attorney Miles?

I would just like a little bit of an update, Mr.

Chairman.

The last time where we left, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it was we are waiting for FEMA, and we had a um some of the outer wall, Jess and they had to figure out how they were doing because they were in violation of FEMA, or they were having a challenge from FEMA that they needed to correct.

So I I haven't uh I was not aware of any updates from that.

Okay.

Attorney Hennessy, you want to uh explain to us the tortured history of this uh project and how you solved the riddle.

Yes, sir.

Um, and uh you've heard a lot from me tonight, and I'm getting a karma type feeling that you want a very brief explanation of this.

Oh, you are very perceptive.

Uh so uh uh Mr.

Bozak, you're right.

This is a building totally out of compliance with the FEMA reg.

Uh, and uh the goal is to bring it 100% into compliance with the AE zone regulations.

If you recollect, we had an ongoing problem, a dispute, uh, interpretational dispute with FEMA over whether this tiny little pie-shaped sliver of the parking deck, which hung over a VE zone, made the entire structure uh compelled to comply with the VE regs, which is impossible.

So we uh we argued uh the interpretation, uh they were resolute and wouldn't change.

Deep took their position.

Uh we then um thought that we could solve the problem, and we thought that this was a two uh two to three million dollar problem because of the post-tension design of the garage.

Yes.

So uh we went to the zoning board of appeals after being in front of you last uh July, and um we argued that since the FEMA regs applicable to Stanford were contained in the zoning regulations, that the ZBA could apply a rational uh uh interpretation to them and give us a variance.

And uh we had a very long hearing, it was an unusual ZBA hearing.

Uh Deep actually sent representatives to speak against us and uh uh rattle a sword to the ZBA, and we failed to get the four votes we needed at the ZBA.

So then the client said, Well, we better figure out what the real cost of all this is in today's dollars, and then commissioned uh its uh uh project uh engineers to uh do a real cost analysis of the road because we have to rebuild C View Avenue.

Uh and so Mr.

Uh Denise from uh D'Andrea spent a lot of time with the engineering department on the final road design.

We got final cost numbers on that, and it's higher than we anticipated, but it works.

Um we then uh went through the same analysis for uh other things on the building, like like bringing the uh base of the building up to meet the AE regulations again.

The news is the same.

Um good uh numbers that we had, fairly accurate, although a little bit low, but we can live with them.

And then when uh we went to uh a firm called uh uh forgot their name here.

Uh post they are the firm, the structural engineering firm for uh post-tensioning uh uh solutions.

They're uh T-strata strengthening solutions.

Um, they said, Well, yeah, it can be done.

Good news.

Uh, the bad news is it's not a two to three million dollar fix, it's a three to four million dollar fix.

Uh and so we're struggling to how to optimize the building to make more value again, and we've got it down, and the solution I think is elegant.

We will cut the building to make FEMA and deep happy uh at the three to four million dollar number.

And to solve the other problem with the marina building, we will actually remove the building.

If you remember that was a it looks the same, but it's a separate building.

We will demolish and remove that building in its entirety.

And instead, what we'll do is um uh replace it and some of the other uh parking area at grade with four units, and uh we anticipate they'll be valuable units because now we have parking spots, car parking spots looking at the water.

We'll replace that with units, and we'll do that on the deck above it because we're still very much over parked, and we'll get rid of the 6,800 square feet of office space we had.

We'll just convert that to residential and fill in uh one of the rows of parking with the residential use.

That that is where the eight units come, four on the ground, four above.

Uh, and the rest of the changes are just operational, I would say, to the reaction of the engineering department, fire marshal to make the ground plane more functional for emergency vehicles.

And the result of that, I think everyone would agree.

I know staff agrees.

The uh access uh path to the public boardwalk is um going to be uh greatly simplified, much more elegant and uh nice.

Uh it's straighter, it's more intuitive, it's less cirtuitous, uh, and it gets you to a knob at the end of the uh boardwalk.

That's that's nice where there'll be bike racks and so forth.

So that's basically what we have an image to show you if you'd like to see it.

This will be a very, I think, beautiful project.

I will tell you, we've been at it a long time, Mr.

Stein.

Um, so I remember being out in California with my daughter who's telling us she was happy because she was pregnant uh and starting to work on this application.

My grandson just turned five.

Uh we hope to be uh in the uh construction phase when he starts kindergarten uh in September, and we hope to have people living in the building by the time he's you know in uh first grade uh uh graduating uh the first grade.

So, that's our goal.

Megan, do you have an image to show, or does Colin uh uh this is worth seeing, I think Vanita, can you make Colin Joyce from our architecture team?

Good evening, everyone.

Well, came up from Vanita and staff while we're waiting for this as to the public assets, the operational nature of it.

Uh so the the way this works is uh it's owned by the uh the private entity.

You can leave that for now.

Um, and it will be owned by the condominium association.

These will be owner-occupied condos, and uh it will be maintained by and required to be maintained by the private property owner, the association, and the city's rights extend just to use and the city being the public, there'll be reasonable rules and regulations established.

This will be a dawn to dusk uh availability, and um uh the liability aspects of it are uh uh wholly outside the city's worry, unless the city were to obviously do something, uh, which is hard to believe.

So, um, so can we go to the next one?

That's the existing building, and that's that that's what we're shooting for.

Wow, and you see where the boardwalk broadens up since when the marina building goes away up there at the right, up in that area.

That's let's see the see the existing again.

Where's the marina building?

Is it that corner it's that whole white block down there, David?

Ah, okay.

It's actually two stories.

Um, and then can we go to the third slide that shows the child play area?

You had asked for an indoor child play area.

I'm sorry, let's go to the it the proposed for a second.

Okay, wow.

Much better looks great we have a an let's get to that image with with the uh child play area uh the indoor child play area and uh toggle keep going there we go i don't know if there's a way to blow that up the image at the top is the plan play area and I point this out so you see the quality of the thought and the and how advanced the thought is this has been designed uh our clients are looking forward to close to actually buy the property and to begin demo uh this summer that's yeah that's not the standard child play area that we see very nice thank you very much I'm happy to answer questions but I didn't summed it up two uh two questions uh turn Hannesy uh how'd you make out with the the neighbors um marina bay everything that's both of our neighbors both of our neighbors uh we we've got agreement with to be able to uh enter their property and uh perform the road uh relocation work for and the way though in both cases the moorings and marina bay it really affects uh the grading from the new road into their property because the new road would be a couple feet higher so we need to get in there and feather it out okay of course and I think there was one of the issues that existed last time something with the bulkhead oh yeah well the bulkhead yeah I think I I've heard and I think I'm right but I'm that uh there's a common bulkhead that goes along the waterfront there and um they have concerns about the condition of theirs and they're gonna repair ours I I think is in better shape uh obviously there needs to be a reserve and you know a plan to replace it it's not it will not be uh it's something done in the first order got it that's it thank you thank you okay any other questions for uh the applicant or their attorney yeah so glad this has been worked out okay so um like everything else we need a letter um of approval uh with some conditions so Vanita can you uh bring that up please and just bring it off the press from Vanita uh you want to um just give me one second okay so this is the approval letter for the minor modification okay you want to take us through what um I think you go ahead yeah so I've enumerated what the changes are um between this and the initial approval so the number of units is increasing to 63 with the addition of eight additional units um 6500 square feet of office space is being removed um there was initially going to be office space in the building um then the the number of parking spaces is coming down to 132 um this is because some of this is be now being used for residential the entrance to the building is being enhanced um there's a canopy that's being created to kind of make it more attractive and sheltered um and there's landscaping that will be uh done you know in the turnaround area um the obviously the one of the bigger changes is the slicing of the building to take it entirely out of the VE zone.

So, in addition to all of that, they've made enhancements to the open space.

It increases by more than 20,000 square feet.

The public access plan is um is is simpler.

And now that the marina building is gone, that corner is opened up.

So the access to the boardwalk is easier um it's a straight connection.

Rather than it was hugging the building first and then getting to the boardwalk.

The overall building design has changed and upgraded.

And, you know, one of the previous conditions was the child play area, which they've now defined.

All of these changes are listed in these plans.

And what we've stated in this approval letter is that, you know, all the detailed plans that were submitted, they will all need to be updated to reflect these changes.

So the previous sets will have to be all updated.

And that typically happens prior to the building permit.

And then we get to the conditions for this modification.

We got a letter from Susan Kiskin today.

And she's, you know, reviewed this several times.

There's more than 60 conditions that she had, but she went through all the previous conditions, and the list is much shorter because the applicant was able to address many of her concerns and questions over time.

The second condition is actually from.

Sorry, the need on that first bullet point.

It's we normally say the applicant will comply with the comments.

Sure.

Thanks.

The second point is actually one of the conditions in the engineering letter, but I just called it out because it was discussed during meetings that we recently had where the engineering department, the transportation department felt strongly that they wanted all the paving and the street furniture to be, you know, that there needs to be an agreement in place that because the applicant is conducting the work in the city of City right of way to elevate C View Avenue and some of this is a non-standard material.

It is better quality or like you know, you know, different designs, but it will be the responsibility of the applicant to maintain.

So that will have to be all codified in agreement prior to the building permit.

So that's I just called that out separately.

Yeah.

In the second line there, can we say um of the second bullet point?

Second line shall be reviewed and approved.

See, like yeah, keep going.

One more.

Oh, here.

No, second bullet point.

Okay.

Second line.

Um, yeah.

Okay.

Um, so you know, all the fixtures will have to be approved by the departments, and then the maintenance responsibility will be called out in the um in the maintenance agreement.

And that's codified in this next bullet here.

Um, then moving on to some of the boardwalk improvements.

Any uh new furniture will have to be uh flood resilient per the FEMA requirements.

So that was a condition that EPV wanted um for us to include.

Um then we have a condition related to the public access easement.

Um so the boardwalk will be uh they all of the boardwalk and then all the access coming from CVU Avenue to the boardwalk, all of that will have to be um shown on a map, an easement map, and then an agreement that goes with it that can contains all the requirements that they have to abide by uh to keep the property open and you know available to the public.

So this agreement will be reviewed by staff and the law department.

Then the next one it talks about the billow market rate obligation.

The this application always included the fee and loo um option for meeting the BMR requirement.

Given that the the floor area that's subject to uh the the BMR requirement that has changed.

So here we have the new calculation, adding the new floor area and using the current percentage of PMR requirement.

That's eight percent.

And this is an approximate calculation of how much that fee would be using to uh you know this year's construction cost index, but the actual payment when the actual payment gets made, we'll we'll have to recalculate it using that year's construction cost index.

So it's roughly 1.8 million dollars.

Um, and you know, the affordable housing trust fund already is looking forward to having this payment being made because there's interest in the funds being used for projects.

Ralph.

Um, yes, you may want to uh change the budget number for affordable housing trust fund.

Yeah, we change them all the time.

So yeah, I know, but it for the anticipated, which um for the for the next year's budget we we have a much bigger buffer um for expected field loop payment.

So we didn't just go with like specific numbers.

Um I think we put in three million um as a sort of a baseline of expected payments.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Um, and then finally we just uh added a condition that you know this approval letter be recorded on the Stanford Land Records so that's so as to um have a full record of you know all the changes and the conditions to accompany this zoning certificate that was originally filed.

Good.

Any questions or discussion on this?

No, I like the project, really good project.

Yeah, repurposing really nice.

Yeah, and the um it's it's fortunate that the applicant was able to find a company that could um chop off that corner without the building suffering uh catastrophic loss.

Yeah, uh okay.

Um if there's no discussion on this, um, can we get a motion to approve um these modifications and the uh conditions?

So moved, second.

Okay, any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, abstentions.

Uh this is approved 5-0.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Thank you.

We'll keep it posted.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Next application 223-12 landmark square.

Um this is uh landmark square building three demolition and a replacement with a 400 unit apartment building uh requesting extension of time uh two year of two years through July 25th, 2028.

Um, it is do you happen to know if anything is happening on this?

Um what I understand is that they're seeking financing and this being a high rise tower, you know, it is more challenging than other the stick built buildings.

So that's what's okay.

Any discussion okay can we get a motion to approve the extension of time to july 25th 2028 so motion to approve second second third any further discussion all in favor say aye aye opposed abstentions it's approved five zero next we have application two two three-one four arm and hotel this is the uh um prayer room uh they're seeking extension of time uh through June 28th of 2028 um any discussion you got a motion to approve so moved second second um hold on a sector um i don't think you can do that then i withdraw my motion okay uh i'll move it what's what's the date david 6 28 28 so move second okay any further discussion all in favor say aye aye opposed abstentions it's approved five zero next application two one two-05 um uh site and architectural plan BBSF LLC requesting approval of a 325 thousand square foot 17 story office tower parking garage and associated landscaping at one station place um metro green project this thing is still around it got a second life during COVID oh wow okay and why is why is this one five years is it is it tied to to a pro prior approval uh is this a GDP it is a general development plan gets more time got it okay um it's it's referred to in the letter as uh final plan but it's um it's tied to a GDP it is GDP okay so that's that's it thank you uh it's seeking extension to August 7th of 2031 um any discussion okay can we get a motion to approve the extension to approve second second third okay any further discussion all in favor say aye aye opposed abstention approved five zero thank you that's it okay um our next meeting you said um vanita's June 8th is that right yes and what do we have on the agenda um I believe you have one of our own text amendments the sustainability text amendment ah that'll be interesting okay um we may not have other new applications they may not be ready and just yeah I don't think anything else would be ready by then okay and then the um 1150 summer, possibly, maybe.

Right.

And um the other one.

Melrose, please.

Melrose, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good.

Um anything else we need to discuss before we adjourn.

Okay.

Uh, can we get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Great holiday weekend, everybody.

You too.

Be safe.

Bye-bye.