Planning Board - Regular Meeting

And Ashley may be joining late. So that's good.

All right. Good evening. This is the Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 meeting of the Stanford Planning Board. First on our agenda are our planning board meeting minutes. However, if I could have a motion to... move up our requests for authorization, supplemental capital projects that'll allow, um, if we have at least one more member join so that we have quorum for the minutes.

Okay. So moved.

All right. I have one second. All right. And passes. Um, so, um, On our agenda now are items, requests for authorization, supplemental capital, project appropriation requests. The first is a Roxbury school replacement project, number CPB221, total amount requested. is $44 million. This request is to amend the fiscal year capital budget for 26-27 for the construction of a new school at 751 West Hill Road. This increases the state authorizations to align with the grant commitment of $130 million with a 60% reimbursement by the state of Connecticut. The previously authorized local share will not be decreased This request will increase the state share of project costs. And presenting on this item, if you can introduce yourself for the record, please.

Good evening. My name is Catherine Lovalbo, Director of School Construction for the City of Stanford. Is it all right if I share my screen? Please. I'm also joined by Director of Operations Matt Quinonez and the City Engineer Lou Casolo. I think we also have Anthony Romano here from OPM.

Great. Thanks, Katherine. And you can also share your screen. Go ahead.

Wonderful.

And noting for Leslie that Jeremy Linder joined at 6.35, 6.34.

A little afraid to go into presenter mode, so I'm going to kind of stick with this. It's been a little finicky. I know that some of your members have joined us for our school construction meetings and updates, so I'll try and keep this brief, but I wanted to give you a quick overview of the new Roxbury K-8 school and some updates on our progress to date. This is a K through eight. It's a school that is currently a K through five and will be transforming into a K through eight. We have commenced phase one of construction. It started in July of this year and is set to complete in December. That phase of construction includes geothermal wells, site preparation and enabling for what is, which includes some parking lots and site safety fencing, demolition of modulars that were installed in the 1990s, I think 1994, 95. and everything in preparation for our phase two construction project. The reason we started phase one is because with the schools, this site is gonna be an occupied campus and we're building in the fields beyond. So there is sensitivity for us starting and completing certain work during summer recess where it's more efficient for us to do that work now. So that's why we started a phase one before moving into phase two. Phase two bidding is scheduled for August at the end of this month, probably August 30th or so, maybe it slips into the first week of September. We've completed our state review, which is part of this process, building committee review and a presentation to the board of education. Construction's approximately 18 months and the new school is set to open in August, 2028. After the new school opens, we will then demolish the existing building and restore the landscaping. This is the existing school, constructed in 1955. It has energy-inefficient single pane windows, a number of inefficiencies were just standard practice in 1955, but is well beyond its useful life. And again, the modular classrooms, which you can see at the north and south, far north and far south of the site. Beyond is the play fields. The school is closest to West Hill Road. The new school will sit further back into the site. It is accessed from a parent drop-off loop that is improved and lengthened off of Roxbury Road and then a parent or bus loop from West Hill Road. It takes advantage of the slope of the site so that you could actually enter on the first floor for the kindergarten levels and they can come right out onto a secured play space. But if you enter from West Hill Roadside, you enter into what is the gymnasium and auditorium areas on the second floor. This is what we are doing today. What we have started in the enabling and we are rapidly coming to a close on that so that temporary parking is going to be available and temporary play spaces are going to be set up for when the students return to school. We just ran a test run of the buses. and are just buttoning up the new circulation patterns that we're going to have on West Hill. And I included some photos so that you could see the work that we were doing. We're very proud of it. This is ONG Construction, our construction manager at risk. TSKP Studio is the architectural team. And we have Arcadis as an owner's rep out there. So we have a lot of documentation, a lot of oversight and eyes on the project. Let's see if we'll go to the next slide. All right. We are starting to install our geothermal wells. On the left-hand side, the green truck is a truck for geothermal installation. They are also paving, as you can see, in the middle of July and August. It's a very, very tough job. You can see our green truck in the distance and this is the new temporary parking lot. Paving at this point is completed and they're finishing erecting fences. The geothermal well drilling is what's really going to go into December. But you can see kind of how far away it is from the existing school. This will be the building construction proper. And this is that demolition phase once the new school is occupied. But to get to the numbers for you, We have, we do estimating at each phase of the project. So we wanted to wait to timing of this to come once we completed our CD estimate. CD estimating, you know, there weren't many anomalies. You can see design and estimating contingency. That reduces, it starts somewhere up, it can be as high as like 10%. the beginning of a project in schematic design. And it reduces as we march towards construction documents. So that's something we regularly see. We reduced our construction contingency from 3% to 2%. You see escalation. We're estimating that coming down a little bit. And so ultimately, our total construction costs came down ever so slightly. Our phase one came in, as you can see, a little less than a million dollars under budget, under what was estimated. So that was a good sign. We hope to continue to have that favorable bidding. There's obviously a lot of outreach and work done when you partner with a construction manager. There's a lot of excitement about this project and its neighbor, the West Hill High School. So we like to see that from our partners and people that are watching this project. I think we're hoping that this is a big draw. There are some budget management tools, the PV panels, which are an alternate in the bid. We have a 30 year roof warranty and light monitors. Those aren't in the base bid, but we will be monitoring, hoping we can add them in the budget. I would say there was a good sign with West Hill. We were able to add PV panels. We bid it as an alternate and we were able to add them in. So it doesn't mean, sometimes people think that, I don't know where this misconception comes from, but that it's something that doesn't end up in the project. We've had a lot of success using alternate strategically and being able to include them in our projects. Again, just pointing out that this was in the safe debt letter that recently went through the budget. This was the amount that was estimated. You are not asking for bonding above that number. and then our our requests so i know i kind of flew through that and i'm happy to to take any any questions um i just want to you know thank the planning board for their continued engagement on this project um we really appreciate having your membership and all your comments and an oversight thank you very much um and glad that there's this opportunity to increase the amount of the state grant reimbursement

Are there any questions from the planning board on this item? Seeing none, it's pretty straightforward to just be able to accept the additional funds. Can I have a motion on this item?

I move.

Move for approval from Drew, second. Second from Chad, all in favor, raise your hand.

Jeremy? Yep, I'm going to abstain, Jennifer. Okay.

Oh, sorry?

Abstain.

Abstain, right, because, okay. All right, so three in approval and one abstention. All right. The second item on supplemental capital project appropriations is West Broad Street Road Bridge. number 04065 uh project number 001361 total amount requested seven million four hundred and sixty two thousand five hundred dollars um background i read in the first couple sentences and then allow uh our city representative to do the rest So on April 21st, 2026, the mayor received a biennial bridge inspection report from the state of Connecticut Department of Transportation's Transportation Bridge Safety Principal Engineer stating the condition of bridge number 04065, known as the West Broad Street Bridge, is poor and recommended the city post-wait restriction signage for vehicles which the city completed. Following this, a preliminary grant application was submitted to CDOT's local bridge program for fiscal year 2027. And the mayor has received a letter indicating a conditional commitment. I'll pause there. And if you could introduce yourself for the record.

Good evening, Lou Cancello, City Engineer. The request tonight is for, as your chair indicated, $7,462,500 for the rehabilitation of West Broad Street Bridge. I have a pretty simple presentation that I can show just to better familiarize your board with what's happening there. So I'll just share my screen. Can you see that?

Yes. I can see it now, yes.

Okay, great. So I'll just go through this quickly because you have a lot on your agenda. You're probably very familiar with the bridge span itself. It's a very well-used artery through Stanford. It's basically between – You know, the Goodwill over there and the formerly known as Trump Tower at Broad Street. Bridges rated in poor condition. That's its location. So I just wanted to mention, as an advisory for Connecticut DOT in April, I received a notice after one of their inspections to introduce a weight restriction signage based on the bridge's condition, which I did. You can see in the light, I'm sorry, in the stand pole here. There's weight limit restrictions on all approaches. So it's visible. And the other advisory from Condot was to engage the services of a professional engineering firm at the earliest opportunity. And once the funding authorization is in place, which I'm seeking this August, I will begin preparing an RFP for that service. In terms of the grant application, this is a 50-50 grant. I did apply for this grant in the past, 2024. It was not funded by Condot. So I tried again. And I submit a number of applications every year. In 2026, we did receive a conditional funding commitment for $3.7 million. Just so you know, the overall state totals for this is $16 million. So if you divide that through, this is around 22% of the state's funding cap for this program. So happy to get it. It's a competitive process. I have some existing photos here. You can see the superstructure deterioration. It's throughout. Bearing pad deterioration. They support the steel beams spanning the... The bridge crossing, there's additional, you know, sidewalk deterioration, all this deterioration under the bridge rails themselves, a lot of spalling. and things like that um here's a elevation of one of the bridge abutments um you know a lot of cracking here um and um this was a project that i took on a couple years ago there was a deck failure in a portion of the travel lane so i remediated that by removing the concrete surface and cleaning up the areas around the rebar and recasting that as an interim repair back in 2022. I went out there today just to see how it was holding up, and there are cracks radiating to the surface, so it's doing its job. I mean, it's held up pretty well for four years. I didn't expect much more than that because this is not a through-deck repair. It's a It's an interim deck repair, and there's a lot of traffic on the bridge. So there is some decking, some cracking there in the deck that remains. Next steps, once I have funding authorization, I'll prepare an RFP for design. get into design and all the permitting associated with that. I don't expect heavy permitting because this isn't going to be a full bridge replacement. This is a rehab project, similar to the Richmond Hill Avenue project I did a number of years ago behind the former RBS. Once the bid documents are completed, publicly bid the project and then get into construction. So that's a snapshot of what the project entails. So I'm seeking your approval of the funding request. I didn't have the opportunity to do this through the regular capital budget process because I didn't realize that I was going to be getting the commitment to fund letter this year. I had submitted three applications and this was the one that got approved. approved. So with that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Lou, just a really quick one. While Catherine's presentation kind of revealed that the construction market relative to costs are stabilizing as opposed to rampantly escalating, I'm just curious if when this is bid, if the bids do come in higher, do the terms of the grant Allow the state to continue to pick up 50%, even though it's a bigger number.

Basically, yes, for eligible items, they will reimburse what the city expense and if it's done well, and you can start tracking expenses. Yes, that should be recoverable. But that is something that we'll talk about with the local bridge program. I have a very good rapport with them, and that should be how it works. But again, money is money, and the state doesn't have very much. They had $16 million to allocate to all municipalities for this program. which is really what, to be honest with you, Chad, that's what I submit for Stanford. And so I'm submitting the entire state allocation and getting 22% of it, which is good, but I need more. The other thing to remember is this is a bridge rehab, so it's just like renovating an old house. You're going to find things that could be more or could be less in terms of our approach to this. But at this point, we did our best to estimate what the overall cost would be, and we're hopeful we're pretty close. But if it turns out that things are better than we think, You know, for example, like we could potentially rehabilitate the steel beams and not go all new. You know, we'll definitely consider those type of things. This is one of Stanford's biggest bridges. It's five lanes. And it's a big span. And it carries a lot of traffic. So between this and Tresser Boulevard, you know, these are vital pieces of infrastructure that need to be maintained. I mean, I don't have to say that. That's a given. So I'm fortunate that we got some money for this. And, you know, eager to look forward to getting into the process of design.

Okay.

Thank you.

Jeremy's hand.

uh thank you uh lou thank you for the presentation i do have one question um i know you mentioned that this was left out of the the capital budget for uh this upcoming year and you put in two others that did not receive state uh you know grants now did with this getting the state grant and not being included in the budget and the other bridges being included in the budget and not receiving, you know, those grants to sort of proceed with this project or with those projects, sorry. Does this project, you know, are we looking for additional monies? Are we looking to reallocate the money that we assigned to those projects to this project? You know, I know, you know, we're in a, you know, you know, spending, you know, we want to try to, you know, inhibit any additional spending. So I guess that would be my question for you.

So the other projects weren't funded. So they don't exist. So I'm going to continue to pursue opportunities with the state to continue asking for funds This program rolls out once a year. The applications are due in May. So I'm going to continue to put in the applications for those other projects. And if those other projects do need some like shoring up or anything to kind of keep them alive, I will do that to the greatest extent possible. So this one won't draw off any money from those other ones because there isn't money for the other ones. So this is really just a 50-50 match. And the amount of money that I'll be spending this year, I'm asking for the authorization, because with the authorization, the mayor can sign the conditional commitment letter that the city has the authorizations to move forward. You know, the city... basically approves of the project and is allowing the project to move forward. In terms of spending, I'll be pretty much in design with this for well over a year, maybe longer. And then the project will go into construction in the future years. So not all the money will be spent this year, but the authorization is needed in order to basically endorse the project to move it forward.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any further questions? Do we have a motion on this item then? I move. Jeremy, move for approval. I have a second.

Second.

Second from Drew. All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And I agree that I feel fortunate that we were able to get this additional state funding to move this project forward. All right. Our next item on capital, and then we'll go back and do the minutes after this. Yearwood Center Renovations Project CP 9238 total amount requested $60,641. Sorry, was that a?

No, sorry. That was me thinking, okay, I need to keep Lou on to talk about this project. Sorry.

A total amount requested $60,641.25. This request provides funding for the installation of a 15-inch reinforced concrete pipe backflow preventer at the Yearwood Center as a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation measure following repairs completed because of Hurricane Ida. The backflow preventer will reduce the risk of future building flooding by preventing stormwater flooding in the basement kitchen and a dental clinic during heavy rainfall events. The project is eligible for FEMA mitigation reimbursement and will improve the long-term resilience of the facility while reducing the potential for future flood-related damage.

Good evening once again. This project is basically a backflow preventer. The basement area of the Earwood Center is prone to flooding. The pipe sizes of the storm drainage in this area are such that there's capacity issues. and it tends to back up into the basement of the Yearwood Center. There are a lot of floor drains and other drains in and around the dental clinic, the kitchen, et cetera, that have back flowed into the building. By putting a backflow preventer on the outgoing storm line, It'll prevent water from coming in that direction. It's a big backflow preventer, so it requires some site work, a manhole, and this and that's really the work. We do have the project funded 100% through the Hazard Mitigation Program of FEMA. So that's the funding source. So I'm just asking for the authorization of 60,000, 641 and 25 cents. The project has been bid and the award is pending the authorization because I put in a requisition for the purchase order, but I have to have an account that's funded. And OPM has set up the account number for me. We just need the authorization to be approved and I'll get the work started. The work is time sensitive. It has to be completed, I believe, by the end of September. The construction activity is probably about a week or week and a half to do this work. So that's why I'm here tonight.

Right. Are there any questions on this item, which again, the funding source will be fully reimbursed by FEMA? Seeing none, I have a motion on this item.

Yeah, Jennifer, I'll make a motion for approval.

All right. Do I have a second on that motion? Second from Jeff. All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes unanimously. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you all for your time.

So returning to the planning board meeting minutes from the special meeting of July 23rd, 2026, now that we have quorum on the minutes. Again, reminder, the agenda item was the appropriation for additional renovations for the Yearwood Center and closeouts for other budget lines to support that. Are there any questions about or amendments to the minutes? All right. Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the minutes of July 23rd?

I'll move.

All right. Move for approval from Chet. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second from Jeremy. All in favor for those who are present? And it passes with the three of us. Thank you. Okay. Next in our slate of zoning board referrals. First, we have ZB application 226-11, Vanderson. First subdivisions. Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped over the subdivisions. I scrolled too far. Okay. And it's the second subdivision that we'll have to table. All right. So subdivisions, subdivision number 3098 and subdivision number 3103, Alexandra Mock representing Peter Levine, South Lake Drive modification to section 10, of the subdivision regulations. Applicant is requesting a modification to the subdivision standards of section 13 to allow the existing shared access to 116 and 120 South Lake Drive to be maintained at its current width, which does not meet the requirements of 18 feet as per section 10.1.4 of the regulations.

If you could introduce yourself for the record. Good evening, Alexandra Mock, environmental analyst. And tonight with me is Peter Levine, who is the owner of Lot 36 or 120 South Lake Drive. Also, Juan Paredes is here with me. He is our project engineer. And I believe that Stones, who are the grand tours for the Eastman are here tonight, just in case you have any questions. I'm going to go quickly over a presentation. So I'm going to be sharing my presentation. Okay, slideshow from the beginning. So here we go. These are the boundaries of 120 South Lake Drive or also known as lot number 36 Wallenberg. Wallenberg Drive is over here. South Lake Drive is to the north. The driveway, which is the subject of the discussion tonight, It's over here. We can also call this common drive or shared driveway. In here, next to the 120 South Lake Drive is 116, which are the neighbors who are sharing or the grantor of the easement to the shared driveway. The existing access is over here, as you can see from South Lake Drive, comes towards 120 to the north and 116 to the south. We don't have the development shown on the survey. I'm going to show this to you later on. but currently the driveway is more than 10 feet wide, and it was installed in 1985. Just quickly going to the history, this is 116 South Lake. That was the subdivision when this lot was created, known also as Lot 7B. And you can see that this is the original access by this property to the South Lake Drive. At that time, the South Lake Drive ended here, but currently continues farther to the west. This is lot number 36 Wallenberg or 120 South Lake Drive. And that was the subdivision which created this lot. In the neighborhood is a lot which is lot 34. This is 36. And as you can see, they all have frontage on Wallenberg Drive. but this is not the shape as you remember from the previous slide, the shape of the current property. So what happened in 1995, there was a lot line revision between 33, which used to be here, and 36, which used to be here. And the lot line revision, which is here, cut off lot 36, number 36 from Wallenberg, giving a narrow access to almost the cul-de-sac of the drive. The access was not really a good idea to begin with. I wasn't there when it was created, so I can't really speak to the reasons why, but most likely the wetland area, which is very extensive in the middle of both lots, was the barrier why the access couldn't be granted on this side. And probably this was the only dry area actually to get to Wallenberg. The access, as I said, was very difficult. Here's the ledge outcrop, which runs through the center portion of this access. You can see this on this photograph. Here you have the car as a scale. The arrows are showing more or less the path of the access. And then you can see the ledge outprop over here. There's 36 feet drop along the entire length of the driveway. So it's very steep and it's 50% slope at the steepest areas. So basically this driveway is not really, would never be approved as a driveway with the existing topography. So the owner of lot 136 has to look for different remedies to gain access. So they reached out to the neighbor 160 South Lake and they were granted the existing portion of the or the access, existing access, I think it's fair to say, or correct to say, of 116. At that time, the access as existed was granted with an easement for drainage over here. This access also allowed for utilities, utility connection. In the process, also a small area here was granted to 116 South Lake to address some septic setbacks. At the time of the easement and the subdivisions in 1997, the subdivision regulations did not specify the width of the driveway. There's a talk about the length, but not really. There was no particular width the driveway is supposed to be complying with. So during the easement, the grantee and grantor were not aware of the particular width needed for the access. So today, because of the current subdivision regulations required 18 feet wide drive, common drive, we are here to request that the board considers that the existing drive, which is more than 10 feet wide, could be maintained. And the main reason for that are the environmental reasons. Those reasons were brought to light during the review process. The first one was in 2005 with EPB, when the lot received an approval for site development. Unfortunately, since then, the permit expired, the lot was not developed, and now we are back to EPB for a new development process. permit. As you can see, this is the existing again Common Drive and here's a vernal pool and in red you have the outline of 120 South Lake and then also along the Common Drive We have another potential vernal pool. This area was never studied. I did study the vernal pool at the site, but when studying this pool, I've heard a lot of calls coming from the other and I'm 99% certain that this is also a vernal pool. So during the previous EPB review and approval, a lot of effort was made to preserve this unique environment, this wooded area and this unique wetland environment. And here's the original access to Wallenberg. This access was cut off, but by a one conservation easement over here and here The second conservation easement, EPB wanted to make sure that nobody ever had an idea to actually use this access because this will require that the area around the vernal pool and very sensitive wetland will be cleared to create this access. Therefore, we did grant those two easements and this yellow is an open space which is associated with the original subdivision. This is the currently proposed site development. As you can see here is the common drive, and this is how we're going to be connecting to it. So this is the proposed driveway, very small residence, septic, stormwater detention system. And if you notice, we are actually 100 feet away from the Werner Pool and also outside of 75-foot upland review area. Why the environmental reasons and why this habitat is so unique? This area was started by two professionals and the first ecological inventory and wetland assessment report was issued by Drew Associates in May 2004. This was associated with the first review and approval of the EPB. And during this study, the individual or the scientist found wood frogs and spotted salamanders, also seen at the site spotted toro, which now is listed as a species of special concern. I have all those characters here displayed for you. They are really nice critters. They're also very sensitive because salamanders and wood frogs, they breathe through their skin. So they are very sensitive to the dry environment. They basically can be exposed to sun and high temperatures. Those two love being in the liver. They like to hide underneath the logs, anywhere which preserves moisture. They need to be in the woodland. They need to be under the closed tree canopy, which provides shade all the time. And for those critters crossing wide driveway, it's a really life-threatening event because asphalt is hot. It's exposed them most of the time to full sun, and this is a really dangerous situation for them. Now, another study was done this year, and that was because when we reapplied last year with EPB, and we had to then withdraw the application because EPB requested that additional study of the vernal pool is going to be done, so we had to wait for the spring season when those critters move to the vernal pool and they breed. So I did the study over this spring and I found also wood frogs and spotted salamanders, just like the study before. But in addition to it, I also found a fairy shrimp. And these are the lower crustaceans that are to the right on the slide. And they actually are the earliest in the Werner Pool and maybe that's the reason why this crater was missed the first time around. You have to really start early to monitor the water column and see what's in it. And they actually have a very short period of existence. They basically hatch, they are there for several weeks and then they lay their eggs in the leaf litter in the vernal pool and then they disappear. Now the spotted salamander and the wood frog, they're actually terrestrial critters and they live in the woodland. And as recommended by Dr. Clemens, who actually were very fortunate to be involved in our wetland application because he was the one not only the author of the most used guide, but also he's one of the biggest experts in our area on amphibians. So he did review our application and make recommendations. So it is very important that we not only preserve the wetland or the vernal pool for those critters, because this is the area where they're being only during the breeding period and that's where the eggs hatch and the larva develops, but then the adult stage, basically they leaving the vernal pool and they marching to the woodland, they dispersing. This is why it is very important that the area where they dispersing through is being again moist, shaded, and they can walk all the way, disperse 750 feet away from the vernal pool even further. So we did study the habitat because that was the requirement of Dr. Clements and also Environmental Protection Board. And Dr. Clements in his reference came with two different zones, well actually three. So the first one is the Werner Pool itself, which is in blue. And then we have 100 foot ring around the pool, which is the Werner Pool envelope. And this is a very critical part of this area because this is where The breeding time happens when the amphibians are coming to the pool and they gather there and they start their breeding. And also the juveniles, where the pool starts drying out in the early summer, they also disperse from the pool. And this first 100 feet is critical for their survival because they like to stay there for a little longer before they develop their strength and could disperse further. Another critical area is the terrestrial, the critical terrestrial habitat. And this is 750 feet around the edge of the burnout pool. And this is the area where the adults live during the outside of the breeding time. And this is the wooded area, which they need for survival. Now in red, here's the Covent Drive section. As you can see, it is located within the critical terrestrial habitat. And here's our development, which actually all the structures were managed to pull out of the Werner Pohl envelope. That was one of the requests by Dr. Clements that we do this. Um, so the whole area here, because we have, uh, so this is the more or less where the residence is going to be, uh, proposed or it is proposed. Here are our neighbor's stones. And then in the yellow, that other developments, uh, but then around us, we have this huge stream corridor. We have the, the lake. We have many other vernal pools and associated wetland areas. And you can see the clear patterns are how the amphibians are dispersing and how they connecting to different wetland habitats. So in order to make sure that we are preserving those habitats and the most important, preserving the connections, because as I mentioned, they actually can migrate pretty far, we have to make sure that the pathways which are preserved by the Stanford Land Trust or conservation, land preservation, conservation area, let me see. I will find the... the right name for it. But anyway, this is the area preserved and it will never be developed. And basically those two, us and the neighbors of 116 South Lake are going to be the last ones, which are kind of penetrating into this wooded area. We have to make sure that the driveway here, the common drive, will be passable by amphibians and they have good connection between the wetland, which is along the common drive and also the wetland here on this side of the woodland. As you may read some of the, I'm sorry. As you may see the letters of recommendations or maybe concerns, which, EPB submitted with this application. There were six of them. I hope I made a fair summary of it. So Bob Closey, who is the author of the letter representing the EPB as their director, executive director, points out six concerns. The first one is that if we have to expand the driveway, to 18 feet, we will have to go all the way to the edge of the wetland. And then most likely, because there's a drop in elevation, we will have to build a retaining wall along the edge of this wetland, which means that the wood frogs and salamanders, they would not be able to climb over the wall. and walls are major obstruction for the dispersal. So this will have a major impact on the habitat as a physical barrier. And then in order to expand the drive, even one foot wider, we will have to remove nine trees. And the largest of those trees is 36 inch, DBH, which is the diameter of the breast height, which will also impact the habitat because this will be loss of the tree canopy, which is really important. And then introduction of the sunlight, which will cause a problem with amphibians and especially their them being prone to desiccation and also create a wider barrier for them to cross. Also, the driveway improvement will require drainage, so this will be additional disturbance, excavation, et cetera. Now, catch basins are traps for amphibians because it's a basin which basically when they hop around or move around, they don't see it and they just slip through the grid and get into the catch basin being trapped there and never be able to get out of catch basin. And then curbs also will prevent them from crossing the driveway. So this will have like direct impact to the habitat and the health of this habitat. Also Bob was about the existing Eastman language, which the neighbors or the grantor is saying that when the easement was granted, the understanding was that the driveway is going to be kept in the same condition, means that the width and the length is not going to change. Also the current cover, which is the asphalt, is going to be maintained and any damage to it during the site development would be repaired and brought to the same existing condition. And also Bob is pointing out that the presence of the Stanford Land Conservation Trust, which is in the back of us, this is the wooded preserved area, grants that there will be no more lots which will try to connect to this driveway. Therefore, this driveway will always serve only two properties. And here's the driveway. So this is my car. and the car is basically parked where the new driveway is going to be joining the existing driveway. As you can see, the driveway is the section of the common, the portion of the common stretch is pretty straight. And you can see that from each entrance of each driveway, you can see all the way to the South Lake Street, So you can actually see if there's any cars which try to enter and are engaged in moving along the driveway. In such case, any car which wants to join the drive can stop and wait for the upcoming car to pass. Here's the view from the entrance from the south lake and you can see that this is my car parked at the same location so this is going to be the area where the new driveway is going to be coming in and you can clearly see the both entrances of both driveways clearly from the road Here are some trees which you can see that are pretty sizable. This is more or less the edge of the wetland area and this is what I was talking about that if we're going to be expanding the driveway here we'll have to put a low retaining wall but even curbs are obstacles for salamanders and wood frogs to pass so this is going to be a problem and this is basically the vernal pool area along the driveway also we do have natural blouts so like for example here you have this level area which has a pretty dense lawn And it's pretty compacted, I would say. So if you have to pull out of the driveway because there's a car coming from the different direction, this shouldn't be a problem. It's not going to cause any problems because it's not too soft. It's just a natural pullout area. Here's another one, which is actually closer to the entrance from the proposed new driveway. So here's another perfectly natural pull-out area, which could be used if needed and wouldn't really require any additional improvements. Now, Bob also suggested, not suggested, but stated that if any improvements to these common drives are being made, then EPP will have to receive an application. And probably this is going to be a very difficult one because of the burnout pool here and all those large trees. So in summary, the lot and the access were established without a proper feasibility study, as I showed you, the original one from Wallenberg had just two steep slopes and was never realistic to be a proper access. The old subdivision regulations did not specify a width of the common drive at the time of both subdivisions and access easements. The common drive is located within one of the best preserved and highest quality wetland watercourse system in Stanford. There has been protected by the Stanford Land Conservation Trust, open space and conservation easements located at 120 South Lake. But the conversation with the fire marshal, the fire apparatus is eight feet wide, therefore a 10 plus wide common drag should be adequate for easy access. The common portion of the driveway is straight, allowing good visibility all the way to the road and has natural pullover areas. And this is all I have to say and thank you for your patience and attention. And we're here to answer your questions. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from the board on this application? Chuck, were you trying to?

I was, I was just, forgive me, I was just trying to get back to, there we go. Yes, thank you very much, Alexandra. I am curious, we talk about the fire department, ideally requiring 18 feet Just out of curiosity, did the fire marshal indicate to you why they feel 18 feet is necessary in light of the actual trucks being eight feet wide?

Actually, this is not a fire marshal requirement. This is the subdivision requirement. But also, the way I understand this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that basically the subdivision regulations saying that 18 feet or as required by the fire marshal. Now, I didn't have the conversation, but Mr. Levine and also our site engineer had two conversations at least with fire marshal. And I know that the fire marshal also spoke with Lindsay And he basically said that he does not have jurisdiction over single families. And he was very reluctant to put anything in writing for us. So we really struggled with it. But I just wanted to know, you know, how, why, physically, if he has to, if something happens and he has to come in with his fire truck, how much space would be needed. And that's when he said that eight feet, the apparatus is eight feet wide.

So the reason that the subdivision regulations specify since 1955 have specified that shared driveways shall have a width and turning area satisfactory to the fire department having jurisdiction is because the fire department, their jurisdiction ends at the right of way. So in order to have some regulation and control for fire safety and emergency access to single family homes, the subdivision regulations regulate access to single family homes and they refer to the fire department and the to the fire marshal and the fire marshal has stated equivocally again and again they can't they don't have jurisdiction but they can make a recommendation and their recommendation is 18 feet and that is 10 feet to allow for the truck to get down the driveway and four feet on either side to allow for turns, pullovers, anything like that. That's their ideal width.

I see that Juan has raised hand. Can we listen to him? Because he had the conversation with the fire marshal. If you could introduce yourself for the record, please.

Sure. Good evening, everyone. Juan Prevedes. I'm a licensed professional engineer out of Stanford, Connecticut. Thank you for the opportunity to present this very interesting application tonight. I just wanted to chime in that no municipality has a strict requirement for a single family or even a two-family turning radii fire truck. That would be excessive in nature. Certainly, fire departments in the state have certain guidelines where they need to get their equipment to fight a fire in certain instances. But for this particular project, we've had several conversations with the fire marshal. And just as the subdivision regulations were clear back when the subdivision was created, when the lot was modified, when the easement between the two private parties were created, it clearly states satisfactory to the fire marshal regulations. jurisdiction, in which case he has stated that this particular application, and for that matter, single and two family dwellings are not within his jurisdiction. Just one more clarification. The geometry of the fire engine, eight feet wide, would be able to drive down this driveway to a certain point at which fighters could use the hoses and and fight any fire that could happen.

Okay. All right. Thank you for that information. The other thing that I was curious about in your presentation, Alexandra, you mentioned you talk about curbs and retaining walls. And I'm just curious, I see from your photographs, thanks very much for those, that the existing road basically does not look like it's paved. It almost looks like it's a gravel road. Is that an illusion?

No, actually, it is an asphalt road. It's not an illusion. And I did talk to Stans about... the access and they said that they were anticipating since 2005 that something is going to be built on the adjacent lot and therefore they just waited for the development to happen so they don't have to repair the driveway. And they actually can cooperate with the adjacent property on the driveway, how they're supposed to be paid for, etc, etc. So, but it is an asphalt driveway, yes.

Okay, but it is curbless. So why would a new road, basically the drainage of In this particular case, you know, curbs are really intended to force, you know, the stormwater management to flow toward catch basins. But in this particular case, this is thriving and seems to be benefiting from the fact that stormwater is not captured by the road. It's allowed to run off on either side. Why couldn't that concept be maintained even if the roadway was made wider?

Probably Juan can speak to it, but before I pass this on him, I believe that the current regulations, some more regulations in Stanford would not allow this. But also, if you think about it, stormwater runoff in asphalt is usually the most polluted water. And vernal pool and the water quality in vernal pool is very sensitive, especially the critters which are breeding in vernal pools are very sensitive to the changes of the not only water temperature, but chemistry, pH, and obviously pollutants. The wider drive where you have the more warm or hot storm water will be flowing towards the wetland, which is not a good thing. and also the more pollutants is going to be washed off the driveway. So again, one can speak to it, how the stipend regulations will not allow this to happen. And again, you're right, the curbs are needed to direct the stormwater to the catch basins, and the catch basins and the curbs are not really good for the habitat.

Mm-hmm. Well, I appreciate that, that explanation. Just kind of anecdotally, it appears for the last 35 years, this has functioned in this basic condition. So it doesn't, in your professional judgment, has the... the species and the pools been adversely impacted by the runoff from this asphalt road?

So when we did the study of the different rings, as I showed, we were studying how much of the areas is developed. And there are certain criteria developed by Dr. Clements that, for example, The critical terrestrial habitat, which is the area between 100 and 750, if developed more than 25%, then the quality of the vernal pools start declining. You observe less of the breeding, less quality, et cetera, et cetera. Now, this area actually is only 17% affected and the immediate area, which is the envelope has no development whatsoever. That's why this is such a high quality environment. And this asphalt, I mean, the access is here. It was built prior to the wetland regulations. And we can remove what's existing. But I think making it worse would be not a very good decision.

I certainly appreciate that. Lindsay, you know, on First Avenue, probably subsequent to however you know, the decision on this matter gets, gets made. We, it sounds like we should be recommending, you know, revision to the subdivision regulations to eliminate these issues that, that no one wants jurisdiction for. So that we don't continue to have these kinds of debates across years and without anyone being able to make a definitive recommendation.

I'm sorry, can you be more clear about what you mean by that?

Yeah, the fire marshals basically saying the subdivision regulation, which was undoubtedly written at the time based on fire recommendations, requires the common driveway to be 18 feet. But for, you know, common driveways serving one to two homes, the fire marshal basically says it's he has no jurisdiction over it.

So the fire marshal can't tell private citizens they can't do that, but they can advise the city on setting regulations. So I advise the city and they have advised the city that 18 feet is what they would like ideally. And that's what we've put in our regulations.

Yeah. So, but if they're prepared to endorse a solution that allows the something less than the 18 to continue.

I don't think they are. I don't think they are. Unless one is going to get the fire marshal to do that in writing, I would not put my eggs in that basket because the fire marshal has also come over to me and said 18 feet. So- I'm very confused by this conversation that happened.

We actually have an email from the fire marshal, which was done a long time ago, and that was the first time we've heard about the 18-foot access from Susan Kiskin, who is the town engineer. Juan, can you find this email and share it with us? I will stop sharing my slides so we can...

I don't want too very too far from what the like the modification like what the standard is to meet the like the threshold for requesting a modification um is have they made a case of extreme hardship in meeting the subdivision regulations? But, yeah.

Well, just to elaborate a little bit on that, yes, the fire marshal may provide recommendations and it may have been done so implicitly in the fact that certain guidelines are in the subdivision regulations, 18 feet wide. However, he was also free to recommend or say that this is dangerous, right? He could have also said that the existing conditions is not ideal. I don't recommend it. So we don't have that. So it's like a little bit of an inversed sort of summary of what he said.

He doesn't have jurisdiction to say that one.

Right. But so he could have just said it's not a good idea, but he just he just didn't say it. My point with this is primarily this is an environmental issue. Secondary, this property has been landlocked through the land use agencies, you know, concerns for many reasons. Right. Be it environmental to be at the subdivision regulations. But the creation of the easement granted admittedly a private easement between private neighbors. the creation of the easement has limited what any future owner of this lot, 120, can and cannot do on this parcel, right? So on this driveway. So the grantor of the easement has explicitly interpreted the language of the easement to say that whatever work happens on this lot, the driveway needs to be put back in its existing conditions. And the interpretation of the grantor says, is that the existing conditions includes the geometry of the driveway. So yes, the hardship of this is the highly sensitive nature to the environment, the species that benefit from its habitat, but also the buildup of restrictions to access this lot that resulted in the creation of an easement that is highly restrictive on what can and cannot be done on the driveway. Furthermore, there is no regulation that requires a fire truck to be able to get in and out of a single family or a two-family dwelling. There would be no lots that could be buildable anywhere in Connecticut. So that is the hardship. Also, not to get into the weeds of it, back in 2005, when the current regulations were in place, this was not an issue.

Ashley's hand.

Thank you. So I find it a very compelling argument to modify the regulations to protect the vernal pools. I'm familiar with Dr. Clemens's work professionally. He is very well respected, and I think his recommendations are worth following.

Any other questions or comments from our board members? I mean, I'll just note, I think, given the, I think that the main question that I had was whether, even if undeveloped, whether there were areas alongside the driveway that in the unlikely event of An emergency could be used to kind of pull aside if there were some sort of obstruction in the driveway. It does seem like there are sufficient places that could be used in that way. And so given that, I think that the request for this modification for the slot seems appropriate. like it will not cause detrimental public impact. I see in the packet that there is also the letter from the neighboring property insisting upon keeping the driveway as is. I see your hand, Juan. Did you have an additional comment?

No, I just picked up my mistake. My apologies.

Um, so, um, do I have a motion on this item and, uh, I do have a question though, because the application materials do include a pullover site plan. Um, so that is included in the application. Uh. Is that part of the. Consideration here or.

It is not. Lindsay, thank you for bringing that up. During the process of figuring out whether a pullover is physically or if there is a geometry for it, that's what we created. But ultimately, we do believe that there is a natural pullover area. Because of the many reasons that we stated, this pullover, if we were to create one, would have to be paved, which would be detrimental to the environment. And also, in contrast to the interpretation of the grantor of the easement, not to modify the geometry of the driveway. However, we included it to demonstrate that there is room, there's area for what is typical of a pullover, a pull-off, 35 feet in length, 11 feet in wide. So there is room for it, but it is not the intent of this application to consider it for approval.

Okay. So, Lindsay, if I could just understand the clarification you're looking for was whether the designation of the natural pullover is formally included in the site plan?

No, when this concern was originally identified that the driveway was too narrow and access was going to be an issue. The city has requested the applicant provide a pull off and they provided a site plan with 280 foot square foot pull out passing area as well as grassy pavers and plastic ring sub base. So all of these materials are included in the proposal that they provided in their application. So I was wondering if that was what they plan to move forward with because I noted in the material, it says if needed. But in the application, they said they would provide it in this material here, it says if needed. So I would like clarification.

The clarification would be like the many times when we have these types of applications in exactly this application in front of EPB, We are asked to provide alternatives right now, whereas this alternative has the geometrical component. And then our interpretation is that that geometrical component can be done on this natural area. The intent is to keep the driveway as is. And the presentation today was intended to demonstrate the detrimental impact on the environment if we were to expand on the impervious areas or any other surface for this driveway. Whereas it is some, it is a demonstration that there is a geometry for a natural pull over. We don't intend to, we would like not to include it as an alternative.

I see your hand.

Yes, thank you. But one in this particular case, one of the while there are natural to pull off areas, as you note, the deficiencies, I assume, is whether they, you know, in in torrential rains, let's call it just for sake of discussion, whether the the what's there can support a vehicle. That's ultimately what the what. is at issue by those pull-off lanes. And I suspect the plastic stabilization grid that you've shown to address those comments is designed to do exactly that and still allow the entire area to be permeable. So why... keeping the driveway exactly the way it is, not adding curbs in this particular case, but in these localized areas that you yourselves have identified as natural ones, make them basically add these stabilization grids for sake of discussion.

Yeah, what we had is, this is one of those projects that there are so many components that we need to be mindful of, certainly the environmental, the zoning, the engineering, but also the interaction that we need to have with the grantors of the easement that again have expressed great concern just to the existing geometry of this driveway. I think we have those neighbors present at this meeting. We also have the owner of this parcel. Let me speak a little bit more on that. But the intent really is to keep the existing geometry as is. I don't know if the owner here today or the grantor of the easement is prepared to make some sort of, and again, that would be a little bit outside of, you know, what you may or may not be able to exercise over a private agreement. But I don't know that they will be able to accept those as a conditioned or It's an acceptable change to the geometry of the driveway.

I just would like to add that any changes to the driveway will have to go to Environmental Protection Board. And as I mentioned before, this is our second time around with EPB. We did exhaust the entire time for the review of our first application. There were so many issues with the vernal pool, with the habitat, environmental sensitivity. And now we were forced, not really forced, but because this is, after my study, this was pronounced that this is a very high quality, probably one of the highest quality environments, wetland, upland habitats in Stanford. So we really have to put all our intentions to preserve it because it is something very unique, especially for the city of Stanford. And we were forced basically with our development to remove all the elements outside. So let's go just, so this is the whole property. As you can see, this one in yellow is the conservation easement which contains the vernal pool and wetlands, then we're granted those two easements. And then on the top of it, we also have to be outside of the 100-foot vernal pool envelope, which is shown here. So we had to shrink the house, we had to move the driveway, we had to move the septic system, we now had to force the stormwater infiltration system underneath the driveway because there's no more space available. And then we have the 75 foot upland review area, which we also have to be outside of. And as I calculated out of 2.7 acres, we're basically ending up with 0.43 acres. acre to develop with all those restrictions. So, and again, this is our, we'll have to withdraw the application. We'll have to resubmit and we're still in the process and there's no guarantee that this is going to be the end. We may actually run out of time again. And just thinking about now applying for the additional pullovers or pullover, on the common drive, which actually then we will have to work with our neighbors because they are the grantors. So they actually own this. So they will have to apply for it. And then they will have to go through the costs of hiring an engineer and doing the study again. And we probably will have to now study the second vernal pool, which now will push us to another spring season because that's the time when you do the study. So... This is our second year trying to fight for this development, and I hope you can help us because this common drive, it really could be another problem, which I'm not sure how long we're going to be wrestling with. And as I mentioned, the property owner of this lot is not interested in wider driveway. They feel that it's very safe as I show you that you can see all the way to South Lake and you can see upcoming vehicles. So if you see it, you're not engaging and you're not getting on the driveway, you wait until the vehicle comes. The same from this driveway, you have a straight view to the street, so and then just in case um somebody doesn't pay attention we have two pullovers one here and one uh natural pullovers and one like closer to the street which are like very strategically located kind of one-third part so uh it's not like you know someone is not going to have any other way to pass there is actually a way um and you know I've seen so many scenic old roads which are very curvy and very narrow and somehow, you know, the traffic is moving through and surprisingly, there are less actually accidents than on busy straight roads in the city. So they both actually agree to keeping the driveway the way it is. And again, you know, if this is the opportunity for you to contribute, into the protection of the natural environment. And this is a really huge deal because the land preservation preserves 40 plus acres. This is the drinking water watershed. Therefore, this is like really, really crucial that we preserve this unique habitat.

But also, just to add to the point, you would not be approving a driveway only because of the potential contribution to improving the area. But also, you wouldn't be approving something to the detriment of the safety of the vehicles coming in and out of these two single-family homes. This picture is perfect. The line of sight is not obstructed. signed. Somebody at the end of this photo on South Lake Drive does not need to negotiate with the uncommon traffic of a single family. They can wait, they can queue on the road and let the other vehicles pass. And our understanding of a driveway shared by two single families is that this These two vehicles coinciding should be should be very rare in you know the parties being affect directly impacted by this are the ones advocating and required requesting that they'd be allowed to keep this drive with the way it is.

Ashley's hand.

yeah I just like to add, I would be concerned that if they were to add some of the grass create in the areas indicated that it would affect the root systems of the existing trees. And these are some really nice mature trees that I would like to see preserved. So I think between the tree preservation and the vernal pool protection and the fact that this is just two single family homes, it's not like this is a roadway providing access to a whole subdivision. It's just two houses. I really think there's a compelling reason to approve this modification request.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I'm assuming that the... Well, while I'm in favor of preserving the environmental conditions as well, I suspect the fire department's reluctance to say anything more definitive is frankly one of liability because the homeowners here are part of the public. And so to the extent that they have a fire in their homes that the fire department can't get to for whatever reason as a direct result of this, that creates liability on the city's part.

Was a truck turning? There's a program called Auto Turn that you can run on driveways and roadways to make sure that a truck can access it. Was that run on this site?

No, we did not do that. That would be a requirement for a larger subdivision, and the fire marshal could have. requested us if he believed that to be an issue. However, there is sufficient width between the trees to navigate the large engines.

Well, I believe we've kind of, I think we've received as much information as we can receive on this application. And so with that, I want to see if there is a motion from the board on this application.

I'll make the motion to approve the modification.

Do I have a second on that motion? No seconds. All right. Second from Drew. All in favor, raise your hand. All right. And it passes.

Great.

Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right. Next on the subdivision agenda is subdivision 3009. I'm aware that the applicant's representative was not able to be present this evening and so would like to request a motion to table this item.

Jennifer, I'll make that motion to table this item.

All right. Do I have a second on the table? Second from Chach. All in favor of tabling this to future agenda? And that passes. All right. And our third subdivision item, which will hopefully be more straightforward, subdivision 4056, Sanford Lane, request for a second 90-day extension of time to file the final map with a new expiration date of November 16th, 2026. I don't know that We have a presenter. I don't know.

No, it was Joe Capalbo was representing both of them. But this one was just it's just an extension of time. And it's not really ever been too much of a concern. So we're proceeding with this one. We decided to hold on the new field.

All right. There are no questions from the board. A motion on the extension of time.

I move.

Move approval from Drew. Second from Ashley. All in favor, place your hand. And it passes. All right. Zoning Board Referrals. The first item under Zoning Board Referrals is ZB Application 226-11, Vanderson Digest Shoe 25, Dabera Lane, Site and Architectural Plans and or Requested Uses Special Permit, Coastal Site Plan Review and Application. for approval for addition to the Stanford Cultural Resources inventory. The applicant is proposing to preserve the existing historic structure, remove a portion in the rear, and construct two additional dwelling units with garages and patios. If you could introduce yourself for the record.

Hi, my name is Elena Kalman. I'm an architect. And I'm representing Wanders and the Gesso on this application. I believe you guys looked at similar application about a year ago. That was approved by your board, but ultimately was not approved by zoning. So we made certain changes and are applying again. The changes include, I don't know, should I share the screen? Because I could show you some stuff. I don't know if you could let me share screen.

Yep, you have the, yep, you can.

Share. Okay, screen two. And then at the bottom, you have to click share again once you've selected your screen. Yep.

Yep, there you go.

Okay. So... Now, you're looking at the neighborhood. It's a small street. It's very closely located to 95. Here are the houses around it. There are some one family houses. There are some small scale developments. And here is the existing cottage. It's a very interesting piece of property because it's the only remaining piece of Webb's kind of, it was a large mansion and this little cottage was one of the minor structures in the property. And it had a kind of a function of a gardener's cottage, but also sort of a entry point to the property. Everything else is gone, but Webb's family was very prominent. They were related to Hoyts. It's one of the main, you know, families of Stamford. So the history of this property property is much more important than the architectural significance of the building itself. Though it's kind of an interesting little cottage because it's very unusual to have such an elaborate door on a tiny little cottage. It was done, again, as an introduction of the property. Therefore, that's how it was done. Here it is. Now, originally, we were going to take it down and have a new building constructed. with preserving the door and constructing the new structure as a historic, what is called recreation, or there is a term here in Stanford, critical reconstruction of the building and zoning board was not crazy about that. They said nothing of the historic structure remains. So now what we are proposing to do is keeping a large portion of the original structure. If you look at that side facade, you see two windows close to the street. We think this is the part of the original structure. Everything else are the additions. So we are going to take basically all of that structure starting from my cursor from this point to the back we are going to take down but we are preserving the front portion of the house and because of the the heights the original um the decision that we originally had to take it down and reconstruct was to come up with a decent height of the ceiling on the first floor Right now, it's about seven feet. Right now, under the new scheme that we are entertaining at this point, we are just going to open the entire structure, have a couple of tie beams, and treat this entire portion of the house as a living room, with bedrooms being elsewhere in addition. So that's what we are thinking about. This is what it will look like. We are going to restore and clean up and reuse the existing door. We are going to add details to the windows. Presently, the windows are vinyl, very cheap windows, and they don't have any trim. We are going to have azic trim with historic details. And we are going to use hardy plank, which looks like real wood. So we are going to just, you know, kind of change the materials in the facade to make it look more historic. And on the back of it is what you see is the addition. And this is what It will look like from the side. There are two windows, one of them is covered by the tree, but there are two existing windows on this side of the building. And the new portion of the building is two stories from this side, which looks basically like the house development across the street. hopefully a little more attractive with, again, more details, with better materials. We are using hardy plank on the entire development, architectural shingles, windows with some, you know, definition and trim. We are going to have fence, six foot fence and four feet close to the street between our new development and neighbors. And we are going to have trees added to kind of soften it up. So this is all my descriptions going through that. And what we are asking for, we are going under 8%. 8.4 regulations which give certain benefits for historic preservation. What we are trying to achieve is we would like to build, my client would like to build three apartments rather than 2.55, which would be as of right. So we are asking for additional half a unit. And that's what these two density regulations are pertaining to. We are trying to do slightly bigger building coverage. We are allowed for 25%. We are asking for 26% coverage. And we are basically height is as of right. And parking, instead of two parking spaces per unit, we have five parking spaces for three dwelling units. So we are asking for, again, a little bit of latitude with the parking. We have more open space than is required. We have a lot of green on the property. We are required to have 225 square feet of open area and we are providing 1,020 square feet of open space. Okay, so now I'll show you. Okay, so here is the site plan. Each of the unit will have patio and private garden on the back the first unit which has that you know double height kind of living dining room will have parking space right next to it. And that's the smallest dwelling unit. The other two dwelling units will each have a garage and parking space in the back. And here is the open area in the back. So we feel that This is a unique opportunity to have housing for families, which Stanford really, really needs. You know, most of the residential fund that has been developed right now is basically oriented towards single people or really small couple or something like that. One bedroom, sometimes two bedrooms, sometimes zero bedrooms. What we are trying to do here is first unit will have two bedrooms, but these two units will have three bedrooms with a family room, or you could count it even as a four bedrooms. This is a first floor plan. So this is existing historic structure opened to the top and one bedroom on the first floor. The other two units will have garage opening into the living dining area. And living dining area, of course, has another door from the driveway with a kitchen on the first floor and half a bath. And then second floor, unit A just has one more bedroom on the second floor. Unit B and C each has two bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor. And units B and C, also have a fourth bedroom on the third floor with an attic space. This is the roof. I can try to turn it around.

If I may, I think since this is on referral, I appreciate the walkthrough of the architectural plans. I think in our jurisdiction as the planning board with this on furl, really we're looking at one, whether as preserved and integrated here, whether to accept the historic structure to the Stanford Cultural Resources Inventory. We do have a letter from the Historic Preservation Board that they recommend that addition, and so I think the sort of remaining jurisdiction for us is as presented whether this site and architectural plan seem consistent with the comprehensive plan purposes. So with that as the framing of our jurisdiction, do any of the planning board members have any further questions or clarifications on the proposal? All right. Seeing none, do I have a motion on this item? Chet?

I'll move approval.

All right. Do I have a second on that motion? Second. Second from Ashley. All in favor, please raise your hand. And it passes. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Um, so last on our agenda were two items, which, uh, the applicant, uh, Stanford hospital has, uh, requested, uh, tabled so that they have sufficient opportunity to review, uh, comments that have come from, uh, the land use bureau. Um, do I have, uh, I'll need separate motions, uh, to table. Um, so I have a motion on ZB application 226-17. To table, first from Jeremy. Do I have a second? A second from Chet. I think I saw your hand first. All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes. Second motion to table, ZB application 226-18, also from Stanford Hospital. First from Chet, second from Jeremy. All in favor, raise your hand. All right. And it passes. All right. Well, thank you very much, everyone. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is August 25th, which is the first day of school. And following that, our meetings. That's a tough night. Yeah, that's okay. It's the morning, really, that is the complicated part.

For sure.

Um, and then our following meetings will be September 8th and September 22nd. All right.

My daughter is only three and a half and has already started to say, I'm tired. I don't want to get out of bed.

Saying that forever.

All right. Um, well, uh, thank you very much. And for those of you who are headed out on more summer travels, uh, Wishing you a lovely time. All right.

Good evening. Have a great night. Thanks. Have a good night. Bye. Good night.

Time is 820.