Good.

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

I'm David Stein, Chair of the Zoning Board, and it is 6 32 on June 22nd, 2026.

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

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

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

Phil Morris.

Jerry Bozak.

Keith Walker.

Here.

And Peter Rustin.

Sure.

And for the staff, Ralph Lessing.

Here.

And Benita Matter.

During tonight's meeting, the board's microphones will be on.

The applicants' mics will be on during the public hearing for their application, which there won't be one tonight.

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

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

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

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

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

The board requests that members of public limits your comments to it so that everyone will have a chance to speak.

The meeting is being recorded and will be posted on the board's website.gov slash zone.

One announcement before we start, the two applications for 1150 Summer Street that would be the map change and the general development plan application.

Those have been withdrawn by the applicant.

And in order to for us to hear them, they'll have to be refiled.

So they are not being heard and they're no longer active.

So we have uh for tonight a public hearing continued from our meeting of June 8th, application 22608, City of Stanford Zoning Board, zoning text change.

The purpose of this text amendment is to strengthen the zone relations with regard to sustainability.

It would require to one, achieving a certain grade on the sustainability scorecard for certain developments, two, adding solar panels or roofs to larger newly constructed roofs, and three establishing standards for tree protection for zoning board application.

This would implement several strategies and supporting actions from the city's 2035 comprehensive plan.

Specifically, strategy 11 significantly expand Stanford's green infrastructure, such as street trees and bioswales, and strategy 14, improve energy efficiency in Stanford's building.

So let me share my screen.

Okay.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this application.

I won't go through the whole presentation, but just as a little uh refresher, and as the chair has um already mentioned, there's three main goals with this application.

The first one is to make the sustainability scorecard a requirement or achieving a certain uh grade on the scorecard requirement.

The scorecard has been a requirement, it needs to be filled out and the rating needs to be posted, but um the new thing is that uh now you have to achieve um a B or C rating depending on which zoning district you're located in.

Um the second uh um aspect of this text change is to add measures for tree protection.

Um the zoning board has already been reviewing applications uh with regard uh to tree protection.

Um so uh this is really formalizing a policy uh that has been in place and adding uh standards uh to those procedures.

So if you recall many um uh applications that you've reviewed, you wanted to see which trees are being cut down, and you had asked applicants for uh replacing trees uh that needed to come down as part of the redevelopment, um, and it's also uh adding to other uh tree-related um zoning regulations such as the street tree planting requirement, and um the third item is that roofs over a size of five thousand square feet would need to provide either um uh a solar roof so solar panels um or a green roof.

Uh a green roof is basically um a vegetated roof, and uh the uh advantages of a green roof are that they reduce the urban heat island effect, they extend the lifetime of uh roofs uh and they add insulation um to roofs.

So as I said, I won't go into the details that I presented the last time.

Um but um I just wanted to um add the following information.

So um as uh the chair mentioned uh in its introduction.

Um those measures, sustainability measures are uh things that um are in the 2035 comprehensive plan, and uh one of the items the comprehensive plan highlighted is um the urban heat island effect.

So um what you see here on the map um on the left of your screen are the relative temperatures uh in Stamford, and as you can see, uh the red areas are the hotter areas and the green and blue areas the uh the cooler areas.

Um, so um areas that are heavily vegetated, um, like in North Stanford and the more uh single-family suburban areas in town, uh, they tend to be cooler, um, and uh areas that have um a lot of impervious surface roofs, streets, parking lots, and so on, uh tend to be uh much hotter.

Uh um due to um the surface qualities of those different uh materials.

Um not sure if you saw it, but um uh the other day there was an article in the New York Times that uh basically um stated that um heat is probably uh one of the deadliest consequences of uh climate change.

Uh so heat waves uh that will become more common and already happening.

Europe at the moment is experiencing a heat wave.

Those heat waves actually have significant public health consequences, especially for older people, people with pre-existing conditions, children, and so on and so forth.

And obviously, it also affects people more who live in substandard housing, may not have air conditioning, and so on and so forth.

So urban heat island effect is very much significant impact of climate change, and that's why um we've been uh pushing those three changes to the zoning regulations.

Um there were some concerns that people brought up with regard to uh the cost um of green roofs and solar roofs.

Um I did a little bit of research um with regard to green roofs.

Um the literature is a little bit divided.

There were some studies that said they are a little bit more expensive than uh conventional roofs, other studies said they are a little bit cheaper than conventional roofs.

Um but uh there are benefits um for uh individual property owners that come with green roofs.

Uh one is what I've already mentioned the extended lifetime of a roof up to two times.

Um there are uh lower energy costs due to the additional insulation that a green roof provides, and there can be lower costs for additional stormwater uh management um features.

So the city of Stanford has a pretty comprehensive stormwater management uh manual uh that requires to manage one inch for new development of rainwater on site.

Um so um obviously if you can manage some of that stormwater uh through a green roof that takes off cost for other uh management features like pervious pavers or detention system retention systems uh that would need to be uh installed, and um some of the authors of those different studies also point out that um a property that can be uh marketed as green um usually uh generates higher values and uh and more um uh rent.

So those are just the um uh benefits for the property owners.

Um I think uh and that's what where the literature is also um uh where the literature literature is actually much clearer, is that green roofs have um social benefits such as cooling down neighborhoods, um increasing uh public health outcomes, um those often uh are not or cannot be uh expressed in dollar values.

Um but um all the the articles or many of the articles that I saw were very clear in those uh general uh societal or community benefits of green roofs.

Um solar roofs on the other hand have come uh a long way over the last couple of years, so um without any subsidies, um, they generally pay probably uh in less than 10 years, uh, seven and a half years.

Um but um I want to highlight that in Connecticut in particular uh there is a number of subsidies available even now with uh the federal government having pulled out of subsidies for for solar roofs and things like that.

Um so uh the Connecticut Green Bank, for example, they provide uh no cash down uh models or uh models where you can basically lease your roof to um uh solar energy provider um where you actually make uh uh make money through leasing out your roof um uh that offset um some of the cost uh that is uh caused by installing uh solar panels um on your roof so the seven and a half to let's say ten years is really sort of the the uh uh most time uh uh it would take for a solar roof um to pay uh for itself um and um electricity prices are probably not going to go down any time soon uh so taking that into account um a solar roof might uh pay for itself even faster um than that so this is just um additional information that was not in the previous presentation uh that i wanted to um uh put into the record um i also wanted to mention that uh we received in addition to the uh public uh testimony um from last week we uh received additional emails um in support um of uh uh the sustainability text amendments um and um we also uh received uh um a letter from or an email from uh the stanford hospital uh which uh uh had some concerns about the cost of those measures for non-profit organizations um but i believe a representative of the Stanford Hospital is here tonight and and will share uh their concerns and uh with that I uh will end my presentation for now good thank you Ralph and um yeah I have to say this um well first that information was um very helpful because um we have heard some concerns about higher costs so it's it's good to understand that um any additional cost would be pretty limited.

Um and I'd also want to say that I can't remember an application receiving so much public support um in the past this is um this is great um if only all the zoning board applications got this much support uh but it is it is good to see this is clearly something which has um um widespread appeal and um for both the health and the environmental reasons so um well let me start with the board uh to see if anyone has any questions or wants to bring up anything um Bill.

Well let me first uh stay for the record that I did have the opportunity to watch the uh video of the last meeting where this public hearing started so I will be able to pull it on the application one quick question I do have uh for Ralph is that why is there a difference uh in a minimum grade required in different zones so um the uh so there's two things so um uh different grades are uh required for uh rehabs versus new construction.

So that's one component.

So we think uh it is more difficult for rehabs to achieve um a B grade.

So uh the rehabs only need to achieve a C grade.

Um and uh we um the the difference in uh zoning districts uh has to do with uh different areas um in town.

Um we believe that areas uh where we require B, those are the more densely uh uh developed areas uh they have an advantage um because a lot of the points or some of the points you get have to do with uh being close to the train station, for example.

So if you're close to the train station, you automatically get a higher rating um uh than uh areas that are a little bit further afield, and we try to capture that with um uh um basically the different zoning districts that are closer to downtown and the south end.

Uh that is that is part of that.

I should make it more equitable for the entire city, then as opposed to just not done it.

Alright, that makes sense.

Uh and then uh you talked about it a little bit in the meeting, but I didn't catch all of it.

Um at what point does the actual the scorecard process start?

It's like a at the pre-app uh meeting or later on in the process.

Uh it starts.

So the first draft um needs to be done.

Uh so if the if the application comes to the zoning board, it needs to become uh it needs to come to you uh at the time uh you uh hear an application.

Um so that's the first time.

Uh the second time it has to be done uh at the time of the building permit and then uh at the time of the CO.

The idea being um that we want people to think about sustainability and the scorecard not as an afterthought, so we don't want to slap them at the at the end of the process, and oh, by the way, you didn't do A, B, and C, or you could have done A, B and C to make your building more efficient.

So um uh you supposed to or you're required to submit um a scorecard um uh three times when it comes to a board.

Uh you're required to do it two times if it's an as of right application.

So it's building permit and uh CO for applications that the zoning board doesn't see, which are smaller projects um usually.

So this will appear on a list of items which is you're required when they come to the first meeting with staff.

They're gonna say you have to have this.

So they they start the process early as opposed to after they bring the first sets of plans.

Um I mean people should be aware, um, but with the with the approval of the board, uh, which is uh usually at the beginning of the development process, we know one has or or in rare instances people come in with uh finished uh construction plans when they come to the when they come to the zoning board.

So uh we really want to have people thinking about um uh those sustainability measures uh at a very early stage of the project uh because that makes it cheaper if you include those things um uh right from the start rather than adding them on later as a sort of an afterthought.

Alright, well thank you, Ralph.

And I just like to agree with David.

I find it very uh enlightening that so many residents in our community have really got on top of this and got involved with this particular process and decided.

It's I find it absolutely amazing, actually.

Very invigorating.

Thanks, Dave.

Yeah, hey.

If we could follow up on um just the sustainability scorecard, um, I see that there's an exception for buildings that are uh more than 50% affordable or non-residential operated by 501c3.

Um is that.

Are we sure we want to carve all of that out?

I mean um obviously it's up to you.

Um the uh uh there's often limitations um when it comes to affordable housing, uh uh with with the financing uh that uh for whichever reason um uh money that is uh allocated to um affordable housing, uh it's very difficult to use uh to cover cost for sustainability measures.

Um the other hand um obviously um I would argue uh affordable housing should be as green um as other housing.

Um we we shouldn't uh uh have uh like different classes of housing and and uh it shouldn't be a matter of income if you live in a in a green building or a not green building, but there are the realities of uh limitations for um affordable housing uh production uh that uh it's it's difficult sometimes to get financing for those types of features.

Okay, and I believe also the changes in federal legislation and and funding in recent months have made it more difficult to get money for those types of measures in affordable housing.

Okay, yeah, Keith.

Yeah, so I I guess the question is, and maybe it's tied into a different section, you sort of have you give us a little leeway in the I think it was the standard section talking about um if permitted by zoning board special permit approval based upon a finding that the physical characteristics or the use of the roof prohibited installation of a solar or green roof.

So aren't you giving the zoning board an option if if uh if a affordable housing is project is not able to get financing because of these restrictions?

Can't we then make a decision at that time?

Like, why do we have to give it up front to David's point today if there's an option in the future for us to all get together and say, well, this is reasonable, they're not gonna be able to build a project because of this.

Um so uh I think and I think you raise a good point.

I think that this might be in two different sections.

The one might be uh related to the scorecard, where there's the exception to uh the um affordable housing and the uh non-profit organizations, and we have the special permit uh for uh the green roofslash solar roofs.

So uh maybe uh there would also so the way that one says where it can't physically be built, it doesn't for the green or solar, it doesn't say it's you know can't be financed.

Yeah, yeah.

So um there might be um a way of um uh basically maybe screw uh streamlining it and say um hey for both the uh sustainability scorecard and the green and solar roofs uh there's there's a way out uh through a special permit process.

Um so that that would be uh an option um uh as well.

I mean the idea obviously is that with regard to a um solar roof or a green roof, um there might be situations where a roof or construction just doesn't work um for uh a green roof and a solar roof.

Um I think those would be very limited instances.

Um but um I think it's it's a good thing to have a way out there, but obviously I would hope that the solar uh that the the zoning board uses a very strict uh measure of uh approving those types um of special permits and we wanted to make sure that people uh don't just come in and say uh hey it's too expensive uh we're not we're not doing it right um david just one more thing uh as an aside uh i work on projects that are both fanny may financed and also HUD financed and we have to provide um energy scorecards um showing the sustainability work that's being done within an existing structure not even a new structure so there is an effort from on a federal level to to encourage and and force owners to make sure that these projects um do adhere to some of the ideas that we're proposing as a as a group Keith if when that information is provided is there a minimum score they need to obtain or any requirements other than just showing what the score is there is there is um there is a scorecard that has to be produced that shows you are meeting those requirements interesting okay so uh there are even on um projects that are advanced by the government they do have requirements correct okay good Roseanne anything um so I'm in favor of moving all this talk forward and um giving the board some authority of you know whether we make the not for profits do 25% of the roof or do something that we see but to put it in our hands rather than a a clear you don't have to do anything kind of slate.

And I have a question and when I was I was so intent listening to Keith I completely forgot what I was gonna ask.

I'll think of it or raise my hand.

We'll come back.

Jared yeah I agree with Roseanne a hundred percent in regards we need to keep some percent of 25% or something is still in our the board hand uh besides just say compliance you know slate so absolutely yeah I I also agree with both of you on that uh key anything else no no I I think this is really wonderful and and to your point um you all have said the the the feedback is really amazing yeah yeah okay um there's Peter did I get I didn't get to you yet uh no uh but I think it's it's a great idea I'm I'm so impressed that we are taking this potential step forward.

I'm uh very very encouraged by the the level of public support for this and I think we should be at the forefront of this kind of thing.

Good good but I remembered what I was gonna say.

Oh okay.

Just that it's really more for Keith and Peter as we on the board know we've had a scorecard for a while and when a project comes to us the scorecard is pretty much meaningless um it is really not till it advances further so I think we kind of have to have that in our heads that you know nobody's coming to us with a B plus on their scorecard when they put in the application, it really doesn't change till later on.

Sure.

Um, which I'm fine with because that's just the natural process.

But it may not change later on, it may not be when it comes to us, and it may end up being not very good in the end.

Right but we are requiring certain things, so you know, under this text change.

Yes, under this text change.

Yes.

And saying it first when it came to us, it was a little frustrating because everybody had, you know, a D and a C minus on their scorecard when they brought their applications to us, but it changes by the time they get to the um building permit and CO.

Yeah, I also wanted to add that we um, I mean, the the scorecard when we uh first rolled it out, um, it was admittedly very tough to get a good grade uh on the scorecard.

Um, but we uh over the course of time we have we have worked with uh sustainability consultants and reviewed, excuse me, um requirements.

So I think now uh it is realistic.

You have to you have to invest the work.

Um, but it uh I think it is uh it is realistic to get a B or C, depending on the type of project um you have.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um board, anything else before we go to the public?

No, sure.

No.

Okay.

No.

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

We have Mr.

Jason Klein.

Jason, please proceed.

Hey, can you folks hear me?

Yes.

Oh, perfect.

Okay, gotcha, gotcha.

I put my jacket and tie on for nothing.

No, I'm just kidding.

Uh, for the record, Jay Klein of Carmody Law, and I'm here uh tonight speaking on behalf of Stanford Hospital, uh client of our firm.

Uh, first of all, I just want to thank you all for the opportunity to share our thoughts on this important proposal.

I uh not just myself, but the hospital echoes what a lot of what a lot of you have said already is that this is an important step uh in enhancing uh uh and and encouraging sustainability efforts uh across the city of Stanford.

And I do want to point out that the hospital, you know, those aren't just empty words.

I think the hospital has demonstrated its commitment to sustainability just in the past several years.

Uh I think it was what 2023, uh they installed fuel cells not only on their main campus on the west side, but also on the Tully Health Center.

Uh and back in 2016, when the new building opened its doors, that building was the first uh to receive lead health care certification.

Um, so uh coming to this conversation uh entirely supportive of the agenda that that you all have discussed here this evening.

Um as you may be aware, uh the hospital is expecting to file applications with you all soon, proposing the construction of a new treatment facility to serve the Bennett Cancer Center on the main campus.

Uh it's an important milestone, not just in uh the evolution of cancer center treatment in the region, but in the hospital's overall message for the city and the state as well.

Um the zoning uh I'm sorry, the the the hospital uh has taken a look at the language that's proposed and uh uh consulted with a general contractor to estimate what the cost of the solar roof and green roof uh amendments, what impact that could have on this project and the additional construction expenses are projected to be uh uh over one million dollars.

So it is a substantial impact, it's a meaningful impact on what the hospital is looking to do over on the main campus.

And we anticipate that it's a substantial impact for other nonprofits that serve a wide uh wide variety of uh important community purposes here in Stanford.

Um with that said, you know, we're really pleased and happy to hear, you know, we had sent a letter asking that you consider an exemption, you know, for nonprofits such as the hospital from these new standards.

Um, but something that we had not considered and heard from Ralph and Ms.

McManus and Mr.

Bozak, you know, this idea for the zoning board to retain some authority, uh perhaps through special permit uh review to allow flexibility, not not a full sum waiver, but flexibility for you to consider uh projects on a case-by-case basis and understanding the need and what's feasible and what's possible.

Um, so we do ask that you keep that in your head as you're deliberating on this and ultimately uh decide uh on the proposal.

So uh I know that Laura Jordan uh of the hospital, the director of government and community relations is here just to share some more about the efforts the hospital's already undertaking in terms of sustainability.

Uh, but again, we do share in the mission here, appreciate what we're hearing this evening, and um look forward to the continued partnership and collaboration between uh the city and the hospital.

So thanks so much for this opportunity, folks.

Thank you, Jason.

Good.

Thank you.

Yeah, Miss Laura Jordan next.

Hi, good evening, uh Chair Stein and members of the zoning board and Laura Jordan, director of government community relations for Stanford Health.

Um, I want to echo attorney Klein's comments.

Um, Stanford Health uh is supportive over all of this um provision, and um we hope you will put Stanford Health in the support column.

It's nice to hear that there is so much community support, and it is an appealing proposal.

Um, however, we were not planning on this additional requirement as we are well under the way and with our master facility plan that you all see shortly, and it would create an additional cost to the hospital.

I did want to provide a little more color to the commitment that the hospital has already demonstrated towards sustainability.

The fuel cells that we put online in 2023 provide about 68% of the electric needs of the hospital itself, about 65% of the Tully uh health center's electric needs.

Um, as you know, this is a lower greenhouse gas emission um uh process, that there are no nitrogen dioxide emissions, there are no sulfur oxides, there's no particulate matter.

Um, it's much cleaner energy that we're using, and we've made that commitment.

Um we continue to look at ways that we can innovate.

Um we also note that this the use of the fuel cells decreases the load on the grid, which is important, especially in extreme heat and extreme cold.

So the city has that benefit.

And just to highlight some other initiatives that we have undertaken, we use a shuttle to support mass uh transportation.

Uh we use LED lighting and we use um what we call occupancy controls.

If no one's in a room and uh we sense that the lights go off.

So there's we're always looking at ways to improve, and we do support uh sustainability efforts.

We just ask that um, as Attorney Klein uh indicated that there'd be some flexibility, especially, you know, with projects that are underway and uh projects from nonprofits that are serving the community.

These projects are going to be supporting cancer patients, behavioral health patients, rehab patients, and uh provide better parking for the community.

So uh that's all I wanted to add to attorney Klein's comments.

Thank you.

Thanks, Laura.

Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak on this?

We have a few more.

First, we have Mr.

Michael Moore.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

My name is Michael Moore.

I serve as the president of Stanford Downtown.

I'm speaking tonight regarding application 22626-08.

We should thank the zoning board for allowing the public hearing begun on June 8th to remain open for additional comment.

Stanford Downtown asked the zoning board to postpone any action regarding this application.

So our organization and its stakeholders may further consider the proposed language.

The proposed requirements regarding green rooms and their associated capital costs have raised concerns.

Conversations with representatives from the development community revealed changes in capital markets, specifically rising inflation and interest rates, have made both new construction and renovation projects more difficult to finance in Stanford.

Furthermore, financial incentives in the form of payment in lieu of taxes and incentives to remediate environmentally contaminated brownfields offered in Westchester County, are making that region a more competitive alternative to Stanford.

I respectfully asked to pause any action on this application until stakeholders from the development community can fully vet the cost implications to formulate proposals to offset any such costs.

I also asked to have representatives from the development community meet with the zoning board to discuss the prospects for future development activity.

Any slowdown in construction will limit the number of residential units we may bring to the market and thus negatively impact any momentum that has been achieved in reducing rents.

Such a slowdown residential rents, excuse me.

Such a slowdown may also negatively impact Stanford's ability to convert excess commercial office space into uses that are now in greater demand.

As I noted in my comments from June 8th, my organization recognizes the importance of incorporating sustainable practices into our built environment and the need to enhance green infrastructure within our public realm.

I concur with Mr.

Blessing's concerns regarding the urban island heat effect.

As stated on June 8th, our organization partnered closely with the city to create Stanford Street Dream Annual.

At that time, I also acknowledge Mayor Simmons' leadership regarding sustainability.

That said, may I ask for additional time to consider the impact of the proposal as Stanford Downtown is not ready to offer an endorsement of this amendment.

I greatly appreciate your consideration.

Thank you, Mike.

Next, we have Miss Diana Collage.

Hi there.

I just wanted to um kind of my interpretation of, I think Keith Walker.

Hold on one sec.

Could you just introduce yourself and give us your address, please?

Oh, sure, yes.

Uh, my name is Diana Collage.

Um, I'm a district seven resident.

Um I'm a well environmental studies student.

Um I volunteer on the urban forestry working group for some context.

Um I just wanted to speak to Keith Walker's comment about the affordable housing exemption.

Um I do think that was a great point to raise because I concern that because there is that exemption in place already, you know, affordable housing that possibly could find the funding to support something like a green roof or a solar roof or more trees would possibly just cop out of that because of the convenience of the exception, and I concern that that would increase, you know, more inequality because obviously for people living in affordable housing, they are already more likely to experience, you know, the stress of, you know, higher heat and less greenery and less tree canopy.

Um, so I think taking that as by case-by-case, you know, basis with the board is a really great idea, actually.

Um, and yeah, that was kind of the only thing I wanted to add.

I'm really grateful for this.

I think this is a very like future forward step for us, and this isn't this is an amazing opportunity to bring back a lot of what Stanford has already implemented.

Um, I think we should be bold, and I think we should make the move to just be a little bit more unique and innovative like other cities are.

Um, because there really is no reason not to.

So thank you all for your diligence in this.

Thank you.

Um those are all the speakers that we have.

Okay, Ralph.

Um, is there anything you'd like to respond to or do you think it's been covered already?

Um, I think um it's uh uh pretty much been covered.

Um I uh have what uh what I said before uh in the introduction.

Um I uh tried to provide some um uh background on the cost uh that is involved with green roofs uh and solar roofs.

Um obviously, if the of the board wishes to hear more about that.

Um I'm I'm uh happy uh to provide that.

Um I think with regard to um healthcare facilities, uh and maybe that's that's something to consider.

Um maybe uh we can also think about sort of alternative ways to compliance that we've already done with the scorecard.

Um so for example, if you are uh lead certified, you don't have to do or you're going for lead certification, you don't have to do um uh the scorecard.

Um so if uh the hospital follows some other um sustainability standard, maybe that could be used as a um uh way for them to meet their sustainability um uh requirement.

Um, but I think uh that um the board has a good foundation for for making um a decision um on this application.

Okay, good.

Um board um before we close this application, is there anything else anyone would like to um bring up?

Yeah, Roseanne.

Um so Ralph, um, with regards to some of uh Mike's questions, um when would the major developers in Stanford have seen this text from you?

Um originally um I mean uh usually how it works is that um when an application gets filed, it gets sent to everyone on uh the distribution list.

Um I don't know for sure, but I assume that uh the DSSD is signed up.

Um so uh they uh they would see it then.

But I I assume all the developers in town are on our list that they want to see everything we send out.

I would I would think so.

I mean we have we have I think around 150 entities on uh uh on our list.

And then of course there's the public notifications um uh in the newspaper.

Uh I mean for for a citywide tax change, there's obviously no signposting, um, but uh it's posted according to uh the law in the newspaper twice.

Um but the the earliest way really to see an application is through uh the registry and and everyone can sign up to receive uh or be put on that registry.

And that would have been like in March for the April planning board meeting.

About um I mean it it's uh it's at the time of filing.

So uh it's I would think it's like one or two days after the filing uh that it goes out to um the the mailing list.

I I'm I'm just thinking that everybody has really seen this for a number of months.

Probably yes.

I think you're right, Roseanne.

That's all for me.

Okay.

Um anyone else on the board have anything?

No, Mr.

Chairman, nope.

No, okay.

Then we are closing application two two six-08.

And um, it will go on to the agenda for our next meeting for um deliberation.

We're we're not gonna vote tonight.

Um, we're gonna give it one meeting.

Um, which is what we've we've tried to do on on major things.

Um, we we tried wait between have a meeting between one of those.

We don't have any well, yeah, no, fine.

Okay.

Um that concludes the uh public hearing.

Um we're now into the regular meeting.

Um and the first item we have is the approval of the minutes of June 8th, 2026.

Do we have any um changes or corrections to those minutes?

No, Mr.

Chairman.

Nothing.

Okay, can we get a motion to approve them then?

I'll make the motion to approve the midges as such, Mr.

Chairman.

For a second.

Okay, any further discussion?

Um who is we had who at that meeting, Benita?

Um, yeah, Keith, Jerry, Roseanne, and you okay.

So um those four people will be voting.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, abstentions, the minutes.

You're abstaining, right?

Correct, okay.

So the minutes are approved for 0-1.

Uh next we have CSPR 1233, Gary Cali for Rachel Kilcullen, 46 settle rock road.

Applicant is proposing to remove existing decks, stall a soap pool, anchor and anti-buoyancy pad for FEMA requirements and construct a FEMA-rated platform.

The property is within the CAM boundary.

Uh Vanita, can you uh take us through this one, please?

Sure.

Um, this is you know a straightforward application and that it meets the zoning requirements and flood coverage, building coverage, even if the change in the pool.

Um they all the improvements will be in the AE zone, um, and they'll be built to um the standards FEMA standards for that uh flood zone.

Um we have a positive recommendation from all the departments.

Um we have a deep letter dated May 15th from Karen Michaels.

We have an engineering uh bureau letter from Belletta Capell date dated May 26th with some conditions.

You have an EPB letter dated June 8th from Lindsay Tomasowski with some conditions.

Um and we have a harbor management commission letter dated May 29th.

Um, you have deep engineering, EPB, EV, okay.

Okay.

Is there any any questions or discussion on this application?

No.

If not, can we get a motion to approve CSPR 1233 with the um conditions uh and letters from deep engineering EPB and Harbor Management Commission?

So moved.

Second, second, third.

Okay, any further discussion?

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Opposed abstentions.

Wait, Roseanne, were you uh in favor?

Yeah.

Okay, so it's approved 5-0.

Um and that brings us to the end of tonight's agenda.

Um Ralph, would it be?

I'm thinking now ahead to our next meeting.

Um regarding the uh sustainability tax change.

Is it appropriate if any board members have um thoughts on this to send them to you?

Does this need to wait until we we need and deliberate?

Um if it's if it's questions, um I think it is appropriate.

Obviously, um uh you cannot discuss it amongst yourself uh if it's not uh within I meant directly to you.

Yeah, no, that's that that's not a problem.

There's any questions or comments um then uh that's that that shouldn't be a problem, but obviously the deliberation needs to happen in a public uh venue.

Oh absolutely, yeah.

So if there is um language changes, I mean uh the thing is obviously the the point of uh the public process is uh to allow for changes that are within uh the scope of um uh the application, so uh we cannot widen the scope, but uh when it comes to clarifications uh um and things like that, those would be appropriate changes uh that that can be made uh and uh and suggested.

Okay, good.

Um, we came in in under an hour.

That's that's not bad.

Um what do we have for um our next meeting, Benita?

So when is that?

The next meeting is July 6th.

Um we have an application tentatively on the agenda.

Um it's the map change related to uh the McDonald's drive-thru.

Um, they want to add a lane.

Um, so you know the departments are still reviewing it.

I want to you know make sure that you know the comments that you've gotten so far have been addressed, and any other department comments can all come in in time for that uh meeting.

If that happens, then you know we can have it scheduled.

If not, then you know we won't have any new applications that meeting.

Okay, is that it?

That's it.

Uh okay.

Um and then we have one more meeting in July, and yes.

Then we're uh off for August.

Yeah.

Okay.

What for the meeting after that, after the sixth?

Um, so there is a pending application for the historic bonus uh for 25 de Beralin.

But you know, the Harbor, sorry, the uh historic preservation commission needs to review it.

They'll do that in July, and then uh planning board does not meet in July, they'll meet in August.

So that puts it on the September schedule for us, unfortunately.

So they didn't we already do a short, it didn't want to do a shortcut.

That didn't make it it got denied, so um we denied it.

But they come back with a revised application, yes.

That was with the window frame.

That was the door frame.

Yes.

Uh there might be some of our own applications.

Um that uh we will be able to squeeze in.

So um there is one for uh a map change on Pacific Street uh to rezone to uh VC that is being heard by the planning board tomorrow.

And uh so yeah, that's that's probably the only one because the the planning board will be out um starting uh July 1st for a month.

Okay, and I think there are some other text changes um that you've been working on, Ralph, but those would would have to wait then until planning board comes back in August.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, good um okay can we get a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second okay we are adjourned thank you have a good night night on all happy fourth happy fourth guys