David, we can get started.

Okay.

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

Uh it is uh Monday, July 6, 2026.

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

Uh public is in attendance both on video conference and teleconference.

I'm David Stein, chair of the zoning board, and I'd like to uh start with a roll call of the board and the staff.

Uh Bill Morris here.

Roseanne McManus.

Here.

Jerry Bozak.

Here.

Keith Walker.

Here.

Um and now for um our staff, uh Ralph Blessing?

Yeah.

And Vanita Mater.

Yes.

Uh this is a regular meeting, not a public hearing, because the one item on the uh agenda has been closed, so it's uh we will be deliberating and voting on that.

And um this meeting is being recorded and will be posted at the zoning board's website.

Uh you can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and the applications and other materials for the um one item on the agenda by going to our website at www.stanford ct.gov slash zoning.

Wow.

Uh okay.

I don't have our agenda in front of me.

What's the is the first item the minutes?

I believe it is.

Okay.

So um we have the minutes from our last meeting.

And um, which is uh is that the second 22nd?

Yeah, of June.

Okay.

Um does anyone have any changes to those minutes?

Well, Mr.

Chairman.

Nope.

Can we get a motion to approve them, please?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes as they are.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Uh, any further discussion?

No.

Um, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Abstentions.

The minutes are approved.

Um please give me one second.

Okay.

Um the next item we have is um for our regular meeting, is application 226-08.

Um, it is a zoning text change.

The purpose of this text amendment is to strengthen the zoning regulations with regard to sustainability.

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

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 fourteen, improve energy efficiency in Stanford's buildings.

Is there anyone uh who is opposed to this uh application?

I'm sure no good.

Okay.

Um good.

Uh would anyone like to uh say anything about it?

Uh I I think that one thing I'd like to say is it it's kind of in a group of um uh policies that we need to look at on a regular basis to update because this is always changing, it can always be improved.

And I think we just need to make sure that we're regularly looking at it and strengthening it whenever possible.

Good point.

Good.

Um Ralph, you wanna I think you had sent out a slightly revised draft.

Anything you want to say about that?

Um the changes I can actually uh if if you want me to share the text, uh, you want to why don't you put it up?

Yeah, so um the version that was shared is dated 623 2026, um, and the uh changes are actually redlined and they were uh minimal um some like language changes.

Um this was something we had discussed a while ago that the DBH of the um replacement trees uh we increased that from 1.5 to two uh inches, and uh then also um there was an added provision uh that um for affordable housing, that uh the roof coverage, the green roof or the solar roof, um uh can be as low as 25 uh percent um to uh not uh create uh uh additional uh hurdles for the development of affordable housing, and I believe those were really the changes uh that um uh were made since the last time we talked about this.

Yeah, I think we've got some some really important um environmental um improvements here.

I know that the issue with the trees is one we've struggled with where um when there's a new development trees larger trees will be taken down, and although new trees are planted, they're they never um are the same size, they're much smaller, and um what this does is requires that an equal amount of trees be planted in terms of the um the uh DBH, the uh diameter of the trees.

So I think that's a significant improvement um in the uh trees in the city, uh, particularly because we have areas that have a shortage of trees.

Um, I think the solar or green roof is a a new construction is a significant step forward for Stanford.

Um, this transforms um roof space that would be uh underutilized into a uh powerful tool for the environment.

Um it lowers the urban heat island effect, captures stormwater runoff, um, and um it creates renewable energy or vegetation on the roof, um, which decreases the building's uh carbon footprint.

And uh so I think uh what we have here is really an excellent step forward um for Stanford in terms of uh um environmental improvement in this city.

Um is there any other discussion on this?

I have a uh question.

Yes, sir.

I I said it to Ralph this afternoon, but I guess I must slip through the cracks.

Oh, sorry about that.

That's what I um they had to do, and I thought I read somewhere while we were deliberating on this or in the records.

Excuse me, that there was a two-year look back at a site prior to them uh submitting an application to make sure that trees weren't cut earlier than the application was made.

Am I correct on that?

Uh I think that might have been in an in an earlier version, it's not in there anymore.

Uh because the law department had some concerns about that.

Oh so that would allow a developer then to clear cut the site before the application comes in.

Yeah, and really we um there's there's nothing we can do about that.

There's no requirement to uh replant.

I mean, the the issue is really enforcement uh and being able to document that.

Um so that's the reason why the law department had had issues with that.

Yeah, I guess the best we can say is that generally it has not been cut by the time it an application comes to us.

Um but it maybe hopefully that won't change, but I guess it could.

Well, how about obtaining uh uh a statement by the the applicant saying that he's not cut large number of trees in a certain amount of time prior to his application?

Would that be acceptable?

Um what would the purpose of that be, Bill?

To verify that somebody doesn't go in uh you know a year before, I mean, they're in order to do an application, but before that, go in there and cut down a large number of trees, which we have no way of verifying.

So was that I'm sorry, what is anyone else have a thought on this?

Well, I mean, I like the way the direction that Bill's going.

Um but it'd be nice if we could put some real teeth behind it and say, I don't know.

Bill, are you are you concerned with people who are gonna then build something as of right or someone who are gonna then come to us for approvals?

They're gonna come to the board after the uh the c I don't say I don't know we use the word clear cutting, but a substantial number of large trees get taken down, which does happen rather than of course, but but there's two different ways the individual would build.

They they'd either be coming to us or they'd be going directly to the city without our consent.

Because if they're coming back to us, we have the power to um, you know, work with it within our power to ensure that the trees are planted accordingly in the uh using what we've created here tonight to ensure that that the plant the trees get replanted.

Well, the downside is we don't know what was there.

Right.

That's the problem.

First, Keith, the way this is drafted is it's directed at people who are coming to us for approval.

So it's not directed at someone who has an as of right.

Um, so we're not we're not regulating that at all.

Mr.

Chairman?

Yes.

So I'd like to go back to um ask uh Ralph.

So what what was the opinion of uh that's kind of struck me?

What was the opinion of the legal department and how do they have any bearing on this board in regards to um uh if we have germane and um substantial opinion in regards to not cutting down the trees if they're coming to this board?

Where do where does the law department stand in that?

I'm I'm just curious to see what how they came back at you and saying, well, we should do that.

Obviously, I I can't speak for the law department but um they've always been not only for trees uh we also have a provision um not sure if it's still in the regulations or not but there's also been a provision for example in the BMR section about um uh a look back for the natural occurring affordable housing and that's in here yeah they've still that's yeah they've always been concerned about those types of regulations um I think mostly because of the uh enforceability but I but again back to the point is and what Bill had brought up and I think chairman is alluding to is it was a good piece of uh writing that was in that you know in the first uh proposal I want to know what standing the law department had to say that we should remove that you know if it would have just slid by without Bill bringing that up and I think that's really important.

I mean the the point of the of the or the law department I guess with with all the referrals we do every department contributes its its own uh point of view and uh the law department's point of view presumably is that um they look at it mainly from uh if the city gets sued um then uh uh can we the city the zoning board can we win the lawsuit and um so with all those look back uh provisions um uh they are always highly skeptical uh that that is something so i'll have i'll have the legal department come on the board on channel again and say this would be a dog of a case this is this is what uh i no i i think we sh we can do better than what we've got here i agree um so what if we what if we require that the applicant as part of their application show the trees that were taken down in the last two years then we're and certify that that's what it is then we've it's not us saying to them hey you took these trees down um it's them telling us that they took them down that's good Mr.

Chairman I think that's what you were saying though weren't you well it was actually I didn't say it as well you just said it put it that way but I like the way you said I think I mean it accomplishes the goal which I had mine yeah what can we Ralph do you have the language that original language let's see if I have it somewhere it might it might be more difficult uh to find it than to draft something new let me see I wonder if I've got it um well I used to have it but I couldn't find that either today so I I was too diligent in cleaning up the my files are what would we have called this um it's I guess it's sustainability yes uh it's the the text is sustainability yeah okay I have one from early June I suspect that by then it was uh already gone the protection Ralph, are you taking a look?

I'm looking at yeah.

Okay.

In terms of asking for that information, should we include the languages when where we talk about the survey that needs to be provided?

So that survey should include any trees removed in the past.

Where is um maybe they show them differently than what's there right now?

Here, I've got some language.

Um it's we had it under 9G three.

Um, applicability, um and it was let's see here.

Okay.

Ralph, can you put the text back up?

Okay, you see the in A, three three lines from the bottom of A.

It says all trees with a DVH of four inches or larger proposed to be removed.

Um, it was right there, and it it said proposed to be removed or which were removed in the prior 24 months.

Um, you want to add it here?

No, it was proposed, it was after proposed to be removed or were removed in the prior twenty-four months.

So it's the applicant is showing us what the trees are, right?

They're putting them on the survey.

What is what's the thinking on this?

Bill, does this?

I mean, yeah, that that I think it's a genuine step in the right direction.

I mean, the object of the exercise is to make sure that the air doesn't get you know cleared prior to the application process.

Which happens all the time.

Okay, so now they're marked on the survey.

Um where do we where do we now have the requirement that they um replacement trees?

Yes, I think that's uh.

Well, you you're gonna have to change that first line, because it says are proposed to be removed, or it's uh or should say were removed in the last to Bill's point.

Yeah, I think you're.

Yeah, so after proposed to be removed or were removed within the twenty-four months prior to the filing of the applicable application.

Like that.

Yeah.

Um Jerry.

I'm here.

What do you think?

This work.

I like it.

Roseanne.

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

Eve.

Yeah.

Good change.

Bill, since you brought this up.

Thank you.

Yes.

I'm glad you thought of that.

Um this is good.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um, Keith, did you want to bring up I know you had a concern?

I had you want to raise it.

Yeah, I have um just two things.

One first, I I I want to sort of piggyback on on what Roseanne just brought up.

Um I think that this is a really good start.

Um, obviously the the public um weighed in significantly and really feels like this is something that is going to benefit the city of Stanford.

Um, but sometimes you need to just start and see where it goes from here.

And to Roseanne's point, let it breathe a little and and if necessary, we can we can see how we're doing and tweak and change and and go from there.

But I think it's a really great, great start, and um I'm excited that I am a part of this.

Um one thing that I felt speaking of legal departments, um I think the carve outs for affordable and non-profit in regard to the score, um, and also to the text change that was put in this evening.

Um I don't know whether the legal department reviewed this.

Um I am concerned about this because I think that you're creating a carve out, one that is unnecessary, and two, it can open the city up to potential lawsuits um to be challenged by both affordable and nonprofits, and at the same time it could be challenged by for profits.

Um in the argument of why them, why why us?

And I'm um I'm skeptical on the fact that we have these carve outs.

We have provisions in this amendment that give us some latitude um to to work with the applicant, and I'd rather see those those exist than having these carve outs, which could be problematic down the Ralph, you want to take this to the first carve out, which would be the um uh scorecard.

Yeah.

Uh so this would be this footnotes here, uh footnote here.

Uh it's on page one.

So the footnote, the asterisk says developments, redevelopments and substantial renovations, alterations were more than 50% of the dwelling units are affordable units, yada yada yada.

Will be required to complete the sustainability scorecard, but not be subject to meeting the minimum ratings in the table above.

Bill, what do you think?

Well, it's okay.

I just thought never crossed uh cross my mind to be honest with you.

I thought it was pretty much straightforward.

We've carved out things before for uh for affordable units.

In this case, I don't see it as a problem, but it could be a problem.

I don't I don't see it as one though.

In in this line.

Oh Sam.

Yeah.

No, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Who is that?

That was me, David.

Oh, okay.

Go ahead, Danita.

Yeah, I think it makes sense because when we're looking at affordable housing, you know, the main priority and you know, is the creation of affordable housing, they don't have the the room or buffer in their portfolio, you know, in their financial spreadsheets to increase the rent to cover the additional costs for for-profit, you know, if they have additional cost related to sustainability, they can always, you know, change, you know, change the rent structure or you know, the sale price, but here they're you know, the affordable housing is limited, so there is no, you know, in there's no room there, and you know, in terms of their sources of funding, um, the funding sometimes is strictly uh related to, you know, the housing itself and any add-on may or may not be uh covered um you know by their funding sources entirely, so it can become a challenge.

You know, we I think we try to promote uh the sustainability measures in all cases.

I think we could the board could still uh nudge them on that, but I think you know, having a certain requirement where it could become a roadblock for them, we you know, weighing it against the the goal of the affordable housing.

I think we we don't want it to entirely block a project for for one you know a couple of points, you know, on the scorecard.

I I I think you just made the argument for me.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm afraid of.

I understand we don't want to be a hurdle for affordability, and that's not the argument I'm making.

I don't want it to be a situation where the for-profit developer is using this language and saying you put this in why is it for them and not for me?

Um and just an FYI, yeah.

Um there are there are plenty of um financing hurdles in both affordable and non-affordable, where they are now requiring um easy things like like what what's in here?

I mean the the green roof is a little more problematic um from a cost perspective, but this is this is I don't know.

To me, it's it's pretty straightforward.

I mean, I may for this entire package.

I I just uh I'm surprised the legal department didn't weigh in.

That's all.

Wouldn't this is not the first time we've had a exception for affordable affordable units affordable housing.

Um it's I think because it's a policy goal of the cities to create more affordable housing.

Uh the question is would this be a as Benita says, would this be a roadblock in some way to doing that?

I mean, one way of dealing with it could be not making it a general uh uh exemption, but make it dependent on like special permit approval or something like that.

So they have to prove that they have an issue with finding the financing interesting i mean, of course, then we create more process, which also makes it more difficult for affordable housing, but yeah they're gonna be in front of us anyway um yes i mean the scorecard actually, you know, is applicable to all development as of right, and um what approval so i mean you know we could you know see if if removing this exemption creates issues and then address it then you know that's another way to look at it but you know we thought hearing from you know some of the nonprofits and uh affordable housing developments in the past uh when we had discussed items about you know like green roofs or you know other sustainability measures um they they kind of told us that they had had issues with you know making the numbers work i mean i understand keith's point but i think if the legal department has reviewed it um and it's what we want then i think we should keep it Gary um I think it was an exceptional point that uh keep Keith made um I'm okay either way whether we put it here in the special permitting but uh what does strike me is that it would create longer process so I'm fine with keeping the language in yeah that's the last thing I want to do yeah is what process or process right oh but I do reach the cost yeah exactly significantly I might add okay it sorry go ahead no I think we we must move forward with it the language is there's been kind of policy of the city so yeah I would I would agree I would I would keep this in as is um my only my one question about it is we say where non-residential uses are operated um do we but that doesn't have a percentage in it right um I was thinking the same thing um can we're talking about a building that's all that is all non profit I don't know exactly what that would be maybe uh I'm not sure are there any that are out there that are um well CLC and many okay yeah you're thinking about a mix David like if it's like partly nonprofit and partly for profit is that your concern you want to yeah or I don't want them sticking in a couple of nonprofit uses and say okay if you know 10% is um operated by nonprofits and 90% is uh well shouldn't it be 50% like the residential that's what I was thinking yeah yeah I mean what if we say either that or take it out um one or the other I mean what what if we say that uh they don't have to for for the new developments here they don't have to get a B but they have to get a C and get rid of the whole I mean a C seems to be reasonably uh achievable so if we said that have a footnote here at the B that basically says hey if you are an affordable housing provider we okay if you only get a C.

So the footnote we'd leave the footnote in but at the end of it say shall be required to achieve a rating of C.

Yeah.

Is that is that gonna be a significant hurdle for you I think it should be fine.

I mean, we we can see when it comes up if it becomes an issue, you know.

Um I it's I think it'll still uh you know they'll have to push that boundaries, but you know, we do want um those buildings to be sustainable as well, but if it becomes a real problem, we could then address it.

I think if it helps um, you know, makes everybody a little bit more comfortable.

We could try for that.

Like I think um achieving a C, they'll still have to, you know, puts make some efforts, but um, I think that's still fair given that all developments doing it, Bill and others, I can go with the C requirement.

See, yes, definitely C requirement.

Yeah, it's fine.

Okay.

Um, so we'll revisit if we have to if it becomes an issue.

Yeah, exactly.

You know, we you may see they make they could do better, so we'll raise it to a B, right?

Yep.

Um so what about the um you want to just say that again?

Can you want to just leave the come out or should we add something about the 50%?

Um, I guess if we would add the 50%, it sounds like um we could we we could say in that blue area there, or where at least 50% of the non-residential uses, or or at least or where at least 50% of the non-residential uses are operated, or where at least 50% of floor area are occupied by yeah okay, yeah, it's probably better uh um shall you want to say shall be re well, not shall be required to achieve um what are we a rating of C on the sustainability scorecard?

People good on that works for me, it's fine, um do we okay?

Ralph, do we need gross floor area or it doesn't matter?

And then add yeah, we can say gross.

Um okay, okay.

Okay.

Anything else on this one?

Does this, Ralph, does this footnote cover?

Can you scroll up to the chart again?

Does it need to be so we're deleting it here?

It's hard to see because it's so it would be deleted here, it would just be with the B.

What about all other districts?

Don't we want it in all districts?

I mean, if we just have to footnote here, doesn't this just mean.

Yeah.

That in all other districts.

Yeah.

Because the requirement is anyway.

Anyway.

Can you I'm sorry, are you putting it next to the B or in the line above the B?

The B.

This goes away.

Okay.

Well, it just goes away.

So it only applies to those districts, right?

I mean, we can add in all other districts.

Or just for the where you say all other districts there in the chart, just put the footnote there as well.

Or maybe you why not leave it at the heading?

Okay.

Yes, that's a good idea.

It'll just cover all districts.

Right.

Covers all.

Now why?

Okay.

Okay.

Now there was a second place, Keith, that you mentioned.

Well, there was a new addition that was put in prior to this meeting.

This one here, yeah.

I didn't really understand that one.

This is green solar green may be reduced to 25%.

Where more than 50% of the units are affordable, subject to special permit.

I don't have a problem with that.

I mean, it gives us the authority to make the decision, right?

Um and it still requires a certain portion of the roof feed.

What is the what is the reason for the carve out?

I think it's the same thing that Vanita was explaining before, and and that is that um if you've got a building that's uh 50% affordable, it means it's it's getting subsidies from various governmental um entities, including us, or I'm like the affordable housing trust fund.

And the idea is to um not make it to make it a little easier for them to um provide the affordable housing, right?

I think one thing I'd say, you know, maybe what we don't want is to have you know have the trade-off between like them building more affordable units versus you know having the green roof with fewer units, so that you know we don't want to add additional burden and you know the need for the units may kind of override the requirement, right?

But they're gonna tell you what they want to tell you as opposed to us telling them what to do, you need just give us an example of how that would work.

Me?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so let's let's think about this.

If there is I don't know, if they're reducing the size of the roof by five thousand,000 the size of the green roof by five thousand square feet at twenty-five dollars a square foot of building.

And I'm I'm estimating numbers here.

Ralph, you can correct me if I'm if I'm way off on this thing.

It's gonna they've now either saved or it would cost them a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars,000.

Okay.

In construction costs up front.

Um that doesn't take into account the savings that they will probably get by having a a green roof on electric and doing the right thing for the environment.

So they're gonna take that 125,000.

Are they gonna say, oh, I'm going to build more units with that money, or I can afford to build more units with that money?

Like I'm I'm trying I just I'm trying to understand it from a carve-out perspective.

I you know, I think the what we have like there because they're these nonprofits.

I think the mission is creation of housing.

There's no other, and you know, if it's a non-profit, there is no other venue for the use of that money other than creation of the housing.

That's what we're assuming here.

So, you know, if there is they they try to kind of maximize the number of units based on the budget.

So I mean, I think if you're one, you know, if we were to remove this, then we'll just have to, you know, if and if it becomes an issue, we'll have to just take that into consideration at that point.

We you know, when somebody comes in for the development and the text is an issue, then it's just an additional step to make those adjustments at that time.

Um, so that's why we've kind of put this provision in.

Um, assuming um the issue, but um so I think you know, you know, when there's you know what we've seen from you know previous affordable housing developments is that they've they're really their goal is to maximize either replacement of the units that that are existing or you know creating the number total number of units, uh the maximum number of units, so that's how the performer works versus a for-profit where you know in the the goal is to kind of minimize the cost and you know in increase the the profit.

Right, right.

No, it uh listen, it makes it makes sense.

I I guess you're you're you're you're balancing um two objectives of uh you know the community and the plan and and which one is most beneficial.

I I I get it.

Okay.

I yeah, no, I think, you know, Pete, I I agree with you that you know, we you should expect the same high standards from all different types of development that we've seen.

There have there are examples of affordable developments that f figure out ways to do this.

Right, right, okay.

I I I hear the why from you.

A little more clear than I did prior to this.

I mean, I I don't really have a problem.

On the other hand, you could say, hey, if we build affordable housing without emergency exits, then it would be even cheaper.

You would be able to sort of yeah, build even more affordable units, right?

So yeah, I'm I you know, I think both goals are important, so you know, however, the board wants to go this way, you know, we can.

I don't I I I understand a little bit more why why you have this in here.

I don't really just leave it in as is, and if every affordable housing development comes in and wants that special permit, then that's probably um a sign that something is wrong.

If no one comes in and wants that special permit, then we might be able to get rid of it a later day.

Yeah.

Well, well.

If it's here, they're gonna ask for it.

Probably.

I mean unless they're very unusual developer.

Right.

I mean, I think you there's some, you know, developments that kind of take the entire route that you know they want to be, you know, a shiny example from a sustainability perspective, and you know, they could outdo others like you know uh Charter Oak outdoes other buildings in terms of design so whether or not it costs them more because they feel that it's important.

But being a special permit kind of gives us a you know a little bit more control here than it just being an outright fever.

Right understood.

Four any thoughts are you good with this chairman me too yeah I'm I'm okay with it I understand a little better now.

Can we um would people be okay if we added in to this the same thing we said in that footnote which is it has to be a non profit a 501c free nonprofit.

Sure.

I mean that is really in addition right for the non-residential uses I mean we we can we should probably still put it in but well that's what I was wondering about whether it only applied to that or would it apply to uh a for-profit I mean this would apply also to a for-profit I mean there are for profit affordable housing developers so well as as we see with Saint John uh the new Saint John development okay I mean we can add this I would leave it as is and see where it goes yeah should that be not less than 25% um right yes it should be that'd be a major change that was yeah that was um I think we that was a drafting glitch yeah um are we good with this yes yep okay is there anything else in this um text amendment that anyone would like to uh discuss um I think in one of the public comments we received there was an issue with the with the solar canopies that the 20 the 15 feet might be too low let's see they have to be at least five feet and do not exceed 15 feet in height okay i think you're right because if it's over a parking lot is that enough space like if you have a truck or a big van yeah so yeah did the public comment give a suggested height I don't remember okay I remember 20 feet but I wouldn't 15 feet doesn't I don't have a problem with 15 feet going to most of the underpasses on the 95 are how high they're not 20 feet i no they're but it's the top of them talk about the underpad yeah right but the top of the solar panels it can't be higher than 15 feet i don't know how much space they need well no that I think the question is how how far off the ground are they?

How much height do you need for the vehicles that'll be parked under them?

Yeah um so I think what they said was 25 feet.

I'm looking at some of the comments from before um I wouldn't go that far.

But I'm just wondering if 20 is the 15, the 15 feet and the five feet from the property line came basically from.

That's the rules we have for um accessory structures.

Yeah.

That's that's where those numbers are coming from.

But yeah.

I mean you have to get a normal size, the normal size vehicles under there and then leave the room for the panels themselves.

Yeah, and the structure to hold the panels.

I'm I'm good with 20 feet if that's fine.

Yeah.

I try and envision at home uh at um Costco how high they are, and I think you're probably right.

They are 115 feet.

Let's stick with 20.

Yeah, and let's not go to 25 until we find out from somebody that can't be done.

So we go to just a special permit.

Exactly.

Oh, is is everyone good with the 20?

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Ralph, you want to change the 15 that's spelled out to 20.

Oh, yes.

Okay.

Okay.

What else do we have?

Anything else, Ralph or Benita, that you um yeah, I think in the same comment that we were talking about uh in terms of the height of these solar canopies, there was a suggestion to allow the the solar to be located, you know, at this, you know, this is roughly the same amount on another portion of the property.

Um so suppose there's a new building which doesn't lend itself to the solar if they could do this the required amount on a different building on the same property.

That was just a suggestion.

I don't have a have thoughts one way or the other, but just wanted to can you say that again?

So um suppose you have multiple buildings, one existing, one proposed, and the proposed has this requirement uh allowing them to meet the requirement on a different building.

Well, is this a requirement?

No, this is not a requirement.

This is this is an option.

But what we could do is for the solar roofs, instead of saying it has to be on the roof, you can meet it by putting the required area over your parking lot.

Yeah, so you know, you could use the roof for amenities and you know do the do the solar elsewhere.

It currently says if you have if you're using half your roof for amenities, then you don't have to do the um solar panels or the green roof.

Um I'm not sure that that's a that's a good idea.

Um what if we were to say if you if you're not gonna put it on the roof because half of it is amenity that then you would have to do the solar canopy.

Yeah, but if you don't have a parking lot, right?

If your parking's all underground under the building.

I mean, we we could add something that basically says, hey, you can also meet this requirement by putting solar canopies over a parking lot or parking structure or whatever.

Um but we could add here something that the amenity space needs to be planted or something that look yeah not like astro turf or something like that.

Yes, I think that will make a difference and help us kind of push push the envelope on what what kind of amenities we get.

Like, you know, the that's one of the things that we see often is the you know, the amenity spaces don't, they're not always green um so we would add landscaped yeah as a requirement and I think there should be um the board should be able to say uh yeah you've done it or you haven't done it so it's often provided however at least 50% of the amenity are landscaped or something well yeah but then are you solving for the actual issue of what you're trying to create here because there are benefits to a green roof and a solar you know roof just having plants up there is not uh I think it sort of takes away with what you're trying to do.

I I is there a way to say that if if if they're gonna use it as amenity space they have to come to us and and solve for for what we're trying to do in an in another form.

Well if we I mean the issue the issue was raised the other night by the hospital um it if they are you know doing other things for sustainability they're they're trying to achieve the same goal that we are I mean it it does make sense you can't just you just can't just say oh I'm gonna have a a roof deck so my tenants can sun up therefore I'm not putting in solar or a green roof I think that defeats what we're trying to do.

Yeah that's what has bothered me um on the other hand you don't want to deprive them of the ability to have amenity space up there correct so and the thing is we do have a requirement for usable open space yeah that's also our own requirement it has to be open so it just can't be internal so it has to be open to the sky and like for downtown buildings that ends up being the roof what if what if we were to say amenity or open space um which is landscape to the satisfaction of the zoning board does that get us there I think it will give us more control over what that space although we all I mean we already pass on the landscaping up there.

Yes but I think it could be more you know there's no yeah you know it it's it's a many times it's hardscape and bave you know just paved or astroturf.

Yeah I don't know what a Roseanne what do you think I I want it well the thing is I mean if there if somebody's building a building and a parking garage this requires green or solar on both if there's two roofs each roof has to have it um if it's going to be amenity space or usable open space which we have been pushing and pushing we have to be able to let them do something else I don't know what else well is does the is the landscaping?

Well, there's something else.

Landscaping helps, but there's only gonna be, you know, if somebody puts a pool on the roof and sitting areas, you know, there's only going to be so much landscaping, but I think we should absolutely require the landscaping, yes.

It's just not that much, green.

Yeah right but I think we certainly should require landscaping on amenity roofs.

Bill, what do you think?

Well, I'm just I'm worried that we could be limiting the solar use of the roofs by going down this roof.

Which has you know, significant amount of importance.

Yeah, yeah.

One thing should we remove the the word amenity here?

Because that's more fluid.

Usable open space V is the amount that we require, amenity could be anything, um, yeah.

You don't, you know, they could just call the plane roof as you know, some kind of sport uh facility and call that I think that's a good point.

Um because we have definition for usable open space, yeah.

Yeah, right.

Yes, you would have to come out in the next sentence as well.

Yeah, remove the second one.

Uh and maybe say required usable open space.

So I mean if they're they're providing more than what's required.

Well, that doesn't, that's an interesting idea.

I don't know that putting required systems.

Yeah, it can get confusing.

They could say, okay, I'm supposed to put in 20 feet and I'll put in 50 feet to get up to my yeah.

It would be nice if there was something else that they could do.

I mean, the useful, you know, I think the the usable open space could be a green roof like a combination.

I think if they're able to show us that it function as a green roof in conjunction with the amenity, I mean it because it can be both, it can be functional land usable.

But needed is usable open space require landscaping?

Yes, so do we still need that line in there saying which is landscape to satisfaction of zoning work?

Well, it gives us a little more control over how much landscaping there is, yeah.

But do we?

Ralph and Vanita, and I guess anyone, if the if 50% is usable open space, is there no room left for green roof or solar?

I mean, not necessarily, but but the the point was that we don't want to get into a discussion uh for every project.

Oh, can you get us three percent more?

Um uh green roof or or solar roof, but leave it at like give us 50 percent.

No, but this is 50 percent usable, but not the remaining portion of the roof, the other 50% is not all used for um, I don't know, air conditioning units and that kind of thing.

If there's still space there, couldn't they put in a lesser amount of green or solar?

I mean, in many instances there there is more space.

It depends a little bit on like the the the systems you use.

If you have individual units, uh you have more of them and they're more spread out rather than like one central cooling tower or something like that.

So um well, the individual units aren't they usually in the apartments?

No, usually they have the condensers on the roof, okay?

Um I guess the question is can the roof can the roof accommodate both?

Yeah, and I'm not sure if it's a small space that's left for solar, I'm not sure it can be put in because I'm not sure they would install it if it was a small number of panels.

Does the setup to capture the power and everything?

I'm not sure if there's a minimum amount, but I don't know the answer to that.

That's just kind of a question.

That would leave us with the green roof option if in that case.

Yeah.

Could do you could we move, but I don't know.

Could we combine that this with C or reduce the amount percentage required?

If this is being used as open space, usable open space.

Say that again, Vanita.

Should could we do we want to fold it into C?

Um to reduce the amount required of the green solar green roof, if if it's primarily used as usable open space.

So here it's the solar green roof requirement is being I see I see what you're saying.

You're saying so.

Would say to not less than 25% of the roof area where one 50% of the dwelling units are affordable, or two 50% of the roof area is used as usable open space?

No, or just have a new number four that basically says maybe the number four to less than 50% if a significant uh area subject to special permit approval if a significant area of the roof is used for usable open space.

I don't understand.

How is it all you've done is renumber it from D to four, right?

Or is there some other change?

I mean, first of all, it would add the special permit requirement.

So they would have to come in and basically say okay, this is our amenity space, and this is so D currently just says that you are not required to provide it, yeah.

If you're constrained constrained by usable open space, yeah, putting it under C will uh you know require them to request a special permit and ask for a reduction, not a viver.

Okay, so would there be a minimum?

May want to put a minimum or not.

I think we can you could leave it open if if that's what about to not the same thing to not less than 25% in effect they would have to share the amenity space with one of these uses.

I mean, what if they provide the greatest amenity deck roof in Stamford?

Yeah.

Do we then still require them to put solar panels on there?

Well, why not?

So then what happens when the next guy comes along but doesn't provide the greatest deck in Stanford?

Shouldn't shouldn't to Venita's point, shouldn't we be making it a requirement?

And they should be doing it, and then through special permit, if for some reason they change the open space, so can't we start with the solar panel or a green roof and and and work backwards instead of doing the other way?

I agree with you, Keith.

So how would that you're creating a standard?

Okay.

So what would you say?

Well, I it it in concept.

In concept, I'm sort of eliminating D, and and saying if if the the threshold is for them to create a green roof or or a solar roof that encompasses 50% of the outdoor space.

So it it's it's basically if they say to us, we're not gonna do this because 50% is gonna be X.

What I'm saying is 50% should be green.

And if you want to reduce it, you need to come to us for a special permit.

That's that's that's my suggestion.

I mean, I would say in four the the cases they come in and say, hey, we have 30% of our roof is usable open space.

Um we only want to do 20% at max um green roof or solar roof, then I think the board could say, hold on a second, show us your roof plan, your mechanical equipment only takes up 20% of the roof.

So it doesn't give us more.

Isn't that what we say in two already?

That the roof, the characteristics of the roof prohibit, although that's that's a kind of all or nothing.

Um I guess we can separate that out.

I think in number two is where they're gonna we're gonna end up with that anyway, because they're gonna come to us and say we can't do 50 percent the roof doesn't permit it, and um if a significant amount of the roof is used as usable open space.

Well, do we it is the the other part of that that's unsaid is that there is not room for green or solar, right?

You know, going back to Keith's one of Keith's original points is that we're sort of doing backwards.

We're basically saying here that usable open space, we prefer that over.

Green and solar.

Solar or green roof, which is what we're saying here, which may not be the case.

I would be that's what it says to me.

But we're also not reducing our usable open space requirement.

You know, for you sometimes, you know, you have taller buildings, but the roof size stays the same.

So they, you know, they need that usable open space, the roof space.

Well, maybe it should be the other way around that the percentage of usable open space may be reduced in order to meet this green or solar requirement.

I don't know.

I mean that's a little bit like with the uh the affordable housing.

I think that's like a quality of life thing.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I think you know, because you you could cut go down some percentage in the solar roof and you know create that balance.

So why don't we go use the language we have in C to not less than 25%?

Yeah, right.

Yeah, I mean, I think they could incor then they could try to incorporate the green roofs as part of the usable open space, yeah.

Right, so their amenity could be, you know, the green roof could be part of their amenity, right?

And they'll if they decide, or they'll do solar and work around the um, well, if you want to put it in you want to try to put it into three, um, so it's not less than where more than or if more than 30% of the roof is used as usable open space, or more than folks.

What do you think?

Jerry.

You're on mute.

Or maybe you you're just not speaking.

No, I was on mute.

I was on mute.

No, I like the revision I like the revision, Mr.

Chairman, Bill.

Um, I'm reading it right now.

Yeah.

Maybe reduce it.

Or 30% of the roof.

Is used for open.

So if they use more than 30% of the roof for open space, subject to special permit.

They can reduce their solar or green roof.

Right.

Yeah, I can go with that.

I can live with that one.

I guess we should change that into where we got a couple of things.

Um Roseanne.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, get that out of there.

Yeah.

Well, you're reading, Keith.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm reading too.

Okay.

I I think it's a start.

I I don't think it it it really forces the hand as strong as it should be, but I I can live with it.

Yeah, I feel the same way.

You know, the the the and and and we're not new york city, but New York City said, you know what, this is what you gotta do.

Figure out a way to do it, and people did.

See, that's what I'm thinking.

That they'll figure out a way to do both up there.

I mean, we can increase this to 40%, yeah.

Or do we increase the the twenty-five percent?

Or that?

Yeah, make it thirty percent, thirty percent of roof area.

Might be easier if we go ahead.

I think I like it.

This is pretty good.

I I I think Keith had the right thought in this little question about it.

No question about that.

Much better.

I think when staff starts to get, you know, comments on this and and architects and engineers get involved, getting back to Rosanne's original point, that this is gonna be a probably a working document.

Roseanne?

Yeah, no, I'm I'm good.

I think this is a good start, and we'll just have to keep an eye on it for a long time.

Absolutely.

Um, Ralph, in the in number three there on the third line where it says subject.

Oh, um, yeah, yeah.

Not more than thirty percent of the word there, or more than it's clear the special permit approval would apply to both of them, you wanna would you mind moving it to where the cursor is?

What the subject, yeah.

Can we move it?

Shall we move it here?

Yeah, okay, that's good.

You know, about where shouldn't it shouldn't it just be up in the intro?

I mean, if we're going I mean number two, well that one, yeah.

This should be right.

Okay.

Or one or you wanna put two?

No, it goes um either well we've got the where in there already.

Okay, that's good.

No, uh yes, yeah, now you got it.

Now, okay.

So if they use less than thirty percent of the roof for usable open space, then they've got to do the whole thing, yeah.

Okay, okay.

Does anyone have any any other comments on this?

No.

Okay.

What else do we have to talk about on this?

Hey, Roseanne, you said something kind of interesting.

You said that they would have to put solar panels on the garage and on the building.

Yeah, the roofs.

Okay.

Is that the way we I'm fine with that, by the way.

The way we've seen it.

I mean, if the top level of a garage is used for parking.

Right.

Then you can't use.

Then it's is that a roof?

I don't think so.

I don't think that's the roof then.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't think so either, although they certainly could put a solar canopy on it.

Yeah.

They sure could.

I mean, we don't.

Let's face it, we don't have a lot of space where anybody's gonna build a building in a separate garage.

So that I mean the thing is that's true.

If you integrate the building in the garage, the garage doesn't count as floor area, which is a huge incentive.

I think I think the Gansor Center has a separate garage.

Yeah, but the parking on the the proposed cancer center.

Ah that's good.

They need it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um we finished with this.

It is 7.58.

City business comes first.

That's true.

I think.

Well, they have to they have to do the national anthems first and stuff, so yeah, yeah.

I think this is terrific.

I'm with Keith.

I'm proud to be part of it.

Yeah.

Even though I had nothing to do with it other than voting for it.

That's a lot.

Yeah.

Um, okay.

If there's nothing else, um, can we get a motion to approve the uh text change as amended tonight?

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

Is there any further discussion?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye, opposed, abstentions.

It is approved.

Congratulations.

Um, we did good.

And thank you to staff for developing this, pushing it through the city, getting everybody's support behind it.

We appreciate it.

For sure.

Yes, Ralph and Vanita.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We can write everything we want if you don't vote.

No.

Right.

Um, that's the end of the agenda, correct?

That's right.

Okay.

Um, can we get a uh motion to adjourn then?

So moved.

Or second, whichever.

Good.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Good night, everyone.

Have a good night.

See you in good luck.