Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is the Tuesday, August 25th meeting of the Samford Planning Board. First on our agenda is the Planning Board meeting minutes from August 11th. For members who were present, are there any questions or corrections to those minutes?

No.

Okay. Hearing none, can I have a motion to approve minutes?

I move. Okay. I'm abstaining.

Okay. Second. All right. So all in favor, raise your hand and pass this. Okay. Thank you. Next on our list is a request for authorization supplemental capital project appropriation requests. Our item is for fire apparatus project C63005, total request of $150,783.07. The funds were issued as part of an insurance settlement for an apparatus involved in a motor vehicle accident. The request is for these funds to be allocated to our apparatus account so the damaged unit can be replaced. Seems pretty straightforward. But if you could introduce yourself for the record and tell us anything else we need to know.

This is Assistant Chief Mike Robles from the fire department. That's pretty it. It's pretty simple. We had an apparatus that was involved in a motor vehicle accident and it had substantial damage and we decided not to repair it. And we're going to look to replace the apparatus.

Any questions from the board? No. Jeremy, is that a motion or a question?

That'd be a motion to approve. Okay.

Motion for approval. Do I have a second? Second from chat. All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Next on our agenda, subdivisions. Subdivision 31. At 3009, Joseph J. Capalbo, the second Esquire representing Joseph Altamura at 1589 Newfield Avenue, modification of conditions. Applicant is requesting a modification to condition one of the planning board certificate dated December 20th, 1978. And I note that this is tabled from the August 11th meeting. So if our applicant's representative could please introduce yourself for the record.

I think we're all set. Could you hear me now?

Yes, we can, Joe. Yes, we can, Joe.

Okay, hi. Good evening, everybody. Joseph Capalbo. I'm an attorney here in Stanford. I represent the applicant, Mr. Altamira. And this, I say an applicant. It's not really an application. We're making a request to modify a condition that was part of a subdivision which was approved in 1978. Okay. I think you have a copy of that approval and the subdivision map that we submitted. Both of those documents reflect that this two-lot subdivision shall be served by one common driveway. Now, for a lot of reasons, we think that circumstances have changed over the last 48 years, but we believe that these lots are probably better served, at least this one, with its own driveway to the north for a lot of reasons, which I'll get into. But first, I just want to point out that we did do some research, and I believe Lindsay did as well, to try to determine... what the reason was that they would put that condition in to start with. And we were, at least I know I was unable to come up with any reason why it was originally imposed, you know, back in 1978. But, you know, that being the case, what we hope to do is put the driveway to the north side of this lot, which we think would be much better off, not only for this lot, but for for the area as well. And the reasons for that are, number one, that's where the utilities are and it will allow us to hook up. And utilities are water, gas, and electric. There's no sewer up there. But we can hook up in that corner and it would cause a lot less disruption to Newfield Avenue because we can come directly in off the street at that point. Another reason is the engineers have told us that based upon the topography of the land and the contours, it would be a lot easier for them to control and contain the water runoff that would come from this particular lot. And, you know, common driveways can be a problem at times. They require mutual easements and maintenance agreements that sometimes are an issue. But the last point I would make is that even if this driveway is moved, it is in compliance with all of today's standards that we would require if this were a subdivision today. And by that, I mean that There are the sight lines. There are 250 foot sight line, both North and South. If you come out of this new driveway and it meets the standards that the traffic department would require. So, you know, that being said, I mean, it's a pretty simple request. I can't understand why it was, this condition was imposed to start with. And we're hoping that, you know, and we're asking that you would lift it tonight. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Questions from the board. Robbie, I see your hand. And I'm hearing an echo. I think it's coming from Joe. So I'm just going to mute Joe for right now.

And then when you want to talk, you can unmute yourself, okay? Sure.

Sorry about that.

It's all good.

All right. Robbie, go ahead.

Yeah, hey, Joe, are there any vegetation or trees that are going to be destroyed in creating the second driveway? Do you know?

Yeah, good question. I don't believe that any trees will be affected by this. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Any other questions?

I do just want to note a few things, one of which is that we did run this by transportation department. And they said that, you know, adding a driveway at this location would not be detrimental to the flow of traffic. And the only thing that we would require as the planning board If this is approved, would be the superseding certificate, which would remove the condition. There's currently two conditions in their certificate. One says that they shall be served by a common driveway. Another is that they shall follow the condition set forth in a specific letter. So we would remove the common driveway condition from the superseding certificate. And then also require a new subdivision map because the current map has a note that's included in the submission letter saying parcel C and D to be served by one common driveway onto Newfield. So that's going to be our city record. So that would just be the conditions of the approval if approved.

Um, you were on mute.

Yep. Sorry. Um, I have one really quick one. Sorry for any, um, um, reverberation. I was just curious. This is 1978, so it precedes all of us, of course. Was this two-lot subdivision part of a larger subdivision? Is that why they're lot C and D as opposed to A and B or something else?

When I went back and looked, this was just a simple two-lot subdivision. And, you know, I think I provided a copy of the subdivision map. It was not part of a larger subdivision. And if you look at the approval, I think it was a lot simpler in those days as well compared to what you would receive today. But no, it was a simple two-lot subdivision. For the life of me, we couldn't figure out why they put that condition in there, but nevertheless, it is. And... I don't know why. It was not part of a larger subdivision, though, to answer your question.

Well, so this subdivision here was definitely a two-lot subdivision, this subdivision 3009. But the origin of these two lots could have been part of a larger subdivision. I would need to do much more research in order to determine that. However, you can see on the original map that to the north, east, and west are lots of And it's referencing map numbers that this map is not referencing. So it could be that parcels A and B to the north were part of the same subdivision as C and D. But with the information we have available, we can't make that call.

If I could, I would venture to say that at one time, this two-lot subdivision was part of a broader subdivision, right?

Yeah, it used to be huge lots.

When that was, I don't know. We didn't go back that far. But for purposes of this approval, this was just a two-lot subdivision. But it had to be that one lot that was subdivided into two lots had to be at one time part of a larger subdivision at some point.

Okay. It was just, frankly, idle curiosity. So not germane to the issue at hand. So sorry.

Okay. Do I have a motion on this?

All right.

Do I have a second? Second. Second from Drew. All in favor, raise your hand. And the motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, everybody. Have a good evening.

Thanks, you too.

You as well. Thank you. Next on the agenda under subdivisions is subdivision 4063, 13 Wire Mill Road, request for a 90-day extension, or is that, I think that's the latest agenda I have.

Yeah, I think so.

Oh, it's not in the memo. Um, okay. Well, it's a, yeah. Okay. Sorry. So you can ignore my face and keep, keep going. I guess I, I, I guess I missed that one. I apologize, but you know, it's a low stakes one. So, yes.

Um, so, uh, again, subdivision four zero six three 13 wire mill road request for a 90 day extension of time to the final map with a new expiration date of January 4th, 2027. What was the extension that we did at the last meeting? That was Newfield?

No, no. Well, actually, I think we tipped this matter up, if I'm visualizing the lot properly, in June or late May, just before we broke.

I'm pulling up the last week's agenda.

I mean, these extensions are pretty routine. I just wanted to make sure that there isn't an error.

That was, yeah, Newfield Avenue.

Okay.

Yep.

Just making sure. It looked like this is a later expiration than the other from what I recall as well. All right. So again, pretty straightforward request for a 90-day extension of time. Any move, Jeremy, for approval?

No moves.

I have a second. Second from Chet. All in favor, raise your hand.

And it passes. All right. Sorry. Newfield was a modification. The one, the 90-day extension last week, or two weeks ago, was Sanford Lane. All right.

Now we are on zoning board referrals. We have ZB application 226-27, City of Stanford Transportation Department, text change. The purpose of this text change is to implement the changes required by PA 2501 Public Act 2501 with regard to residential parking requirements and to update and streamline the mobility section in alignment with the city's comprehensive plan. If you could introduce yourself for the record and go ahead.

Awesome. Good evening, everyone. Luke Buttonweiser, Senior Transportation Planner in the Transportation Department. Happy and thank you for having me tonight to talk about the proposed changes that we submitted to the Zoning Board related to Section 12 of the City's Zoning Regulations, which refer to mobility and parking. This has been a text change has been kind of worked on by city staff from both transportation and land use for quite a few months now. It's really a great team effort that we were able to put together. A lot of it stems from a recent public act, 2501, coming into compliance with that act, as well as, you know, I think pertinent, especially to this board, implementing some actions of the city comprehensive plan, I was able to find ST 15.1, ST 19.6, ST 30.1 of the comp plan all relate to parking, whether that be right-sizing parking, bike parking, and general mobility, which I wanted to just kind of bring to light as part of this text change. I do not have a formal presentation for you tonight, but I can kind of just give you a brief overview. Of what we're proposing to the zoning board and be happy to take questions from there on out that that sounds like a plan. Great. Um, so essentially the background of this all kind of came from was the Connecticut State Legislature passed November 2025 public act 2501 which the formal an act concerning housing growth. This is later known as House Bill 8002. So essentially, it has various provisions related to housing growth, housing development within the state and municipalities. But tonight, you know, there are some provisions related to parking. So tonight we're kind of talking about those and how we're planning on implementing them. So again, this is the city implementing and coming into compliance with recently passed state law. So one of the items was municipalities cannot require parking for residential developments with 16 or fewer units. And also based off of those uh units we can uh municipalities we can set those standards but there's also ways for um developers to uh maybe not challenge but present their own findings for parking requirements through developing their own parking assessments and also setting aside traffic mitigation and congestion mitigation areas where we're able to still have parking requirements um you'll see that kind of takes its form through a familiar way of how we do parking which is our category one category two and category three parking um areas within the our zoning map our zoning text already so we want to kind of take what we have now um and use that to kind of come into compliance um with uh the state act so that's a little about state act but we also want to take this opportunity To more holistically review our section 12 mobility standards as it is. So we did things such as update requirements for driveways and parking structures, right? So we had some requirements about the design of parking structures and parking garages that are really a little more regulated by the building code. um you know access frames we want to take this opportunity you know to have regulations that still ensure uh safety that still you know mitigate uh neighborhood impacts possibly from development but also you know let the market let engineers do what they need to do not being overly restrictive by zoning one maybe cut some red tape here and there so we're able to take advantage of that um we did change parking requirements working on streamlining those parking requirements So I mentioned eliminating parking requirements for developments with 16 or fewer units, except in those traffic mitigation zones. It's also noted that the State Act limits the maximum parking requirements for studio and one bedrooms to one space per unit. and no more than two spaces per two unit but we already were below that so we're not increasing or there's nothing we have to modify or lend to our parking requirements for bedrooms our parking categories map has been updated I mentioned that's kind of how we're implementing the traffic mitigation zones so we've expanded parking category one to better pick up areas where there's you know in proximity to transit a little bit more walkable overlays better with the comp plan map Um, and category two, uh, which is our traffic mitigation area is informed by our parking study informed, um, by the comp plan map, um, specifically the um you know res two and kind of in more of our outer ring uh urban neighborhoods really so the west side waterside east side you'll see that when you look at the parking categories um updating uh parking um ratios based off the parking uh study Also setting just kind of a general limit if it's not listed because there's sometimes questions. I mean, what are the parking ratios for certain properties or uses that aren't listed? We also decided to go for a straight chart format. A lot of times it's just very text-based. So we figured streamlining all the parking requirements based off those zones, based off uses in a simple chart. Also, we would be exempting parking for areas less than an acre in size from parking requirements in Category 1. Currently, it's 25,000 square feet. So, we're bringing that up to an acre. Adding and changing, modifying loading zone requirements, modifying fee and lieu payments for parking reduction. So, we reduce the upfront one-time costs since it's never really taken advantage of, as well as implementing what we like to call an annual payment for parking or for fee and lieu of parking reduction. upgrading and modifying some bicycle parking requirements as well as modifying electric vehicle charging and again parking loading management plans have kind of come up as you notice just a little more information that we're going to be requiring when it comes to delivery loading trash loading different kind of heavy vehicle loading and unloading for new developments and updating i mentioned including that parking use assessment which is a requirement in public act 25 1. And just updating kind of some minor items throughout the text. So that's kind of the high level summary. I'm happy to take any questions. I know that's kind of a lot, but I'm happy to take any questions.

Yeah. Luke, thanks so much for that. I seem to recall that there was some, I was about to characterize it as a fair amount, but I don't recall that per se, of debate in the legislature about this item, especially as it pertains generally applied in municipality cities that already had some neighborhoods that considered themselves very congested. Do you happen to know if the act built in any kind of... process or strategy for exempting certain developments or insensitive in these sensitive neighborhoods?

So I think the closest thing, if I'm understanding your question, is going to be those traffic congestion mitigation zones where you still actually have parking requirements for midsize developments where you basically have that 4 to 16 dwelling unit range. I'm happy to pull up a map to go over It is included in the text change, but basically what is now category two is acting as our traffic and congestion mitigation zones. It's worth noting that those mitigation zones can be no larger than 4% of the total land area of Stanford. So people may ask, oh, why don't you just do everywhere? We can't. All right. So we really took a look at know we're been hearing those complaints um where the parking study that we completed a few years ago found some over parking and also overlaying that with zoning um right so you know we didn't want to use that space up in places that you know our only single family for instance right um we were trying to use a little more of those denser inner ring neighborhoods glenbrook east side cove waterside west side where we're seeing those much more prevalent, so those 4 to 16-unit buildings, where we are hearing concerns about on-street parking. So that is the relief valve, so to speak, is using that Category 2, which is our traffic mitigation zone.

Okay. Thank you for answering that. I appreciate that.

Yeah. I'll say, as far as I can tell, it seems like that's pretty reasonably targeted, as you said. Yeah.

overlap this parking map with the comp plan map, you'll see some similarities between the land use zones and the parking categories.

Praveen, I see your hand.

Yeah. So you covered a lot of ground there, and it's very hard for me to go through each one of them. But are these changes prospective or retrospective? For example, If there is an apartment or a building now which has got less than 16 units, but they have parking space now already for those units, are they now allowed to take advantage of this new regulation and reuse those parking spaces or something else, or this is only for going forward, these new rules will apply?

I hope I'm understanding your question a little bit. So you're saying, like, let's say I built a 14-unit building before these regulations, which, you know, okay. And could I use those 14 parking spaces for something else? Gotcha. So if you're in those traffic mitigation zones, no, you would still be requiring within compliance with the parking regulations. But in theory, with the new regulations, you could come back, you know, if it's as of right, or you can spend for a building permit that can get reviewed, making sure it's still in compliance with zoning. If it's not as of right, you go back through the board process essentially for your land use approvals. But you would be able to modify that, you know, develop your property as you see fit in compliance with the regulations.

Yeah. and what is the benefit of that to the city sorry i understand you know we want to encourage you know the new development to be in line with uh our objectives but existing developments because i hear both sides i mean the traffic study that we did showed we have excessive parking in certain areas in downtown, et cetera. But I personally have struggled to get parking whenever I went to downtown, but it's anecdotal. So I cannot, I cannot hold it. So there is a feeling that, you know, public parking is at a, you know, especially if you go down near the library and so on. Right. And we don't want to now have the residents being asked to park on the street because the developer took advantage of a change in the regulation and

that's all the parking space they had before gotcha um so you know i think the intent of the public act which we're complying with is to encourage you know more housing development um we are sensitive that in our kind of those neighborhoods where there are parking challenges i think that's why you see why you know parking category one um again we that is where i think That is where we have, right, that increase to parking availability. That's also where a lot of street parking is metered. So there is that higher turnover rate, but we are trying to encourage and enhance, especially in downtown areas, you know, things like shared parking, which is a goal, the comp plan strategy, for instance. But it's, you know, about right now. sizing and using our infrastructure most efficiently i would say our parking infrastructure which could be you know building a apartment building can be um you know our parking garage apartment building can be a big cost driver um i've spoken with developers um about this uh text change and you know i think what you'll see is like if you're on the margin this is gonna be really helpful for you You may have some cases where you have a really small lot where you will take advantage and just have zero parking on site. But I know developers say the market still demands, in many cases, parking on site. But if you can lose 10 spaces and be able to go in the black on your development but still have 40 spaces on your site, I think that's what you're going to be seeing a lot of in the market. And I think we want to give the market that flexibility. and i think that's generally what you're going to be seeing um i think you know people are still going to want parking on site um but it may not be as much as you know the government says we need it to be um so we're giving that flexibility really to everybody yeah sorry just to boil it down a little bit more so it costs money to build parking and so by requiring less parking where it's not needed it should bring down the cost of housing yeah that is

I mean, I've never seen the benefit being passed on to the tenants or to somebody else. But putting that aside, this is mandated by the state. There's nothing for us to discuss or anything. We're just rubber stamping your complaints to the state regulations, right?

I mean, a significant majority of what we're implementing is based off state statute, correct?

Okay, got it.

Okay, any further questions?

All right. Does this member of the planning board have any comments in there, Jeremy? No. Okay, I thought your dog might have a comment.

Who knows? Do I have a motion on this item? I know parking is exciting. I'll move. All right. So enter your motion for approval. Do I have a second? I will move the second.

I'm going to abstain, Jennifer.

You're going to abstain. All right. So Ravi is abstaining. All in favor, please raise your hand. All right. OK. So we have three in support. We have one abstention do we two abstentions okay all right um so the motion does pass with three and two abstentions thank you very much i want to have a great night okay thank you okay um let me pull our agenda back up um all right next on our agenda is zb application 226-17 Stanford Hospital, 171 Stillwater Avenue and 17 and 0 Stillwater Place map change. Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current VC or Village Commercial District zoning district to the HCDD Hospital Complex Design District zoning district. This item was tabled from our last August 11th, 2026 meetings. If you could introduce yourself for the record and go ahead and present.

Great. Thanks so much, everyone. For the record, my name is Jay Klein. I'm a lawyer at Carmody, Torrance, Sandak, and Hennessy here tonight with my partner, Lisa Feinberg, coming from our offices on Washington Boulevard. We are here tonight on behalf of the Stanford Hospital, our client, an entity that many of us are familiar with. Joining us this evening as well is Ed Oldak, the Executive Director of Facilities Management for the hospital. This is a I think we're excited to be a part of this application, I think from an importance to the community, very important project. But as far as planning and zoning goes, it's a pretty straightforward set of applications before you tonight, a pretty standard zone change and straightforward special permit associated with the continued development of the hospital campus at One Hospital Plaza. It really boils down to relocating a couple of existing uses that are already on the property and adding a couple of parcels to the campus as well. If it's okay, Madam Chair, I have a quick presentation to facilitate our conversation here. I'll share my screen to put that on. The hospital campus, it's currently about 30 acres in size, number of buildings on it, most recently the specialty building constructed a few years ago, little over a million square feet of floor area devoted to the various medical uses that are located on the campus. about 1,400 parking spaces on the site today. There is an extensive history to the growth of Stanford Hospital. We won't get into all of that, but I think important to recognize that that growth has always been conducted really in collaboration and partnership with a number of important stakeholders, not just the hospital, but the folks in the city of Stanford and in City Hall, our neighbors on the West Side community, the Vita Health District and countless others. And that collaboration has led to a really state-of-the-art hospital facility that not only provides the community with a terrific level of care, but it receives national recognition over and over again for the services it provides. And I think the hospital's ability to continue to maintain that level of service is because they're always looking at how they can get better and provide the community with top-level care as the medical profession and field and levels of treatment change over time. And that's really what brings us here tonight. There are really four key components to this project. The first is the relocation of the Bennett Cancer Center from its current location on the campus to a brand new building that I will show you in a minute. That's a $275 million investment and project that will result in a structure that's entirely devoted to the treatment of cancer patients. We are also proposing to relocate behavioral health treatment facilities and inpatient rehab facilities, which are currently located in this building. Behavioral health will be located into the cancer center's old home, and inpatient rehab will be relocated to a specialty building. And another part of this is, we were talking about parking a moment ago, we're going to talk a little about parking tonight too, because we always want to make sure that there's enough parking on the campus for patients, doctors, staff, folks visiting loved ones at the hospital. And this application proposes adding additional parking for all of those populations in the form of a new parking structure and surface parking lots off of Spruce Street and Stillwater Avenue. Most of the hospital is located in the HCDD zone, the zone that you mentioned earlier, Madam Chair. That was originally created, again, in partnership and consultation with the folks in City Hall. The hospital's mission is to provide modern 21st century care, and it was determined that in order to make that happen, there needed to be a modern facility. flexible zoning tool that would ensure that the hospital could grow and change with the changing and evolving health demands of the people that it serves. It's important to know that the HCDD is not limited to large institutional cancer center buildings or special surgery buildings, but there are a number of other residential, commercial, transitional uses. Those uses are intentionally incorporated into the HCDD because we want to make sure that there's an appropriate transition from the surrounding neighborhood into the hospital campus as well. So this is a map that shows sort of the reshuffling of the existing health services on the hospital campus. Mentioned behavioral health will be located in the Cancer Center's old home. The Van Munching, that's the name for the rehab unit, will be located into existing space in the recently constructed or recently completed specialty building. And the new Bennett Cancer Center building and associated parking structure will be located on the southwest corner of the hospital campus. And this is the GDP map that we had to file as part of our application that just shows all of those areas called out. We're going to pause and get into the parking piece of this, which is also related to the zoning map amendment that's before you all. As I mentioned before, always important to make sure there's an appropriate level of parking for everyone that needs to be coming to the hospital or finds themselves coming to the hospital, which could be at any time, right? 24 to 24-7 operation. And so a number of years ago, the hospital purchased this piece called Lot 2 Spruce Street and 0.7 acres of property along Stillwater Avenue. and uh have located a number of parking spaces on both parcels 21 parking spaces on spruce street and i believe it's 49 spaces on stillwater avenue When we first, you know, before we even filed any of these zoning applications, we sat with your staff, talked with folks, you know, Lindsay, her colleagues, Ralph and Benita, and immediately the response to, you know, having parking on Stillwater Avenue was that there needs to be an appropriate buffer, a significant landscaped area so that there's not just a parking lot on the street. And we provided that. There's a 20-foot landscape buffer that will be located along Stillwater Avenue. But in consultation with your staff, we also took it a step further, again, understanding that the hope is that for the long term, there's something more active on the Stillwater Avenue frontage of the site. So you see this red dashed line on our plan, and I can zoom in if you can't see it. That line, you see tracks with the rear of the COC building at 215 Stillwater Avenue. We've designed this parking lot, or the hospital has designed this parking lot, so that The front of it, which is about 75 feet off of the Stillwater Avenue frontage, can one day be redeveloped into another one of those uses that's permitted in the HCDD, a non-institutional use, something, you know, neighborhood retail or perhaps staff housing, something like that. And it'll, as you see with this red line, really track nicely and continue the established streetscape that COC established just west of us on Stillwater Avenue. So that will be something that will happen in the future. We'll still have over 30 parking spaces located behind that 75-foot buffer once this piece is developed with something new. And I should also mention that any activity, any future activity that would go on in this area would come back to not just the zoning board, but to all of you, because every new use in the HCDD requires a special permit approval which of course you all determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not is is in conformance uh uh with the city's you know long-term housing goals um in order to land this parking lot here we do need to rezone it from the v's its current VC zoning the Stillwater assemblage, current VC zoning to the HCDD zone. I believe your staff prepared a report that outlined how this is in conformance, not just the comprehensive plan categories that are applicable to the Stillwater Avenue and Stillwater Place parcels specifically, but generally also is in conformance with the comprehensive plan's recognition of the important partnership and And synergy that exists between the city and the hospital, you know, one of the top job creator in the city and also an important resource for all of us when we need it. Of course, another piece, a little more exciting than parking perhaps, is the new Cancer Center building. This is a rendering of what we project the Cancer Center could look like. It'll, again, be located in the southwest corner of the hospital campus. It is 73,000 square feet and really intended not – to an increase in activity, but really just to allow the modernization that continued and really ever-present modernization of cancer treatment in the community. This is one of the renderings that we've prepared for it. And you see another rendering here as well. So this is all part of the special permit that's before you. And I will zoom out so that you can see these other renderings as well. The last thing I'd point out, you know, is that I believe you've seen them and staff has been kind enough to let us know there are a number of letters of support, supporters that have come in and said they're in favor of these applications, important key stakeholders like Building One Community, our neighbors, Charter Oak, Domus, Liberation Programs. Optimist Health, Health Silver Source, Ferguson Library, the Chamber of Commerce. I may be leaving some out, some that have perhaps come in just in the past several days. All of these organizations, all of us recognize the importance of the hospital, the importance of seeing it continue to succeed. And we hope that you will join them in supporting this terrific project. So I'll pause there and happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

I have a question. Thank you for your presentation. With the new cancer center, how many parking spots is that removing from operation? And then How many are you replacing it with? I know parking is a big issue on that campus.

Right, right. So what we will have, and I didn't share an image of it because we don't have a rendering of it yet. We will have one when it goes to final site plan for the zoning board. There's a parking structure that's proposed to be located next to the Cancer Center 2, and that'll have 355 parking spaces inside of it. The Stillwater lot will have 49 spaces until we replace that 75 foot buffer, and then there'll be 21 spaces on the Spruce Street lot. I think to get to all that, to get to your question, there are 1,400 parking spaces on the site today. There'll be 1,696, nearly 1,700 parking spaces by the time this project is complete.

Yeah, I'd like to ask. Jay, this may be a question for both you and Lindsey. I'm not quite sure. Well, I'm certainly in support of the overall mission of the Stanford Health. My question right now deals with the transitional nature of that buffer between the existing neighborhood and the hospital property. Personally, part of the purpose of the VC zoning, as I understand it, was to create some street frontage with some commonality in architectural form and some continuity of facade and things of that sort, which, frankly, a green buffer just doesn't do. So is there anything else that has been studied and perhaps discarded or has not yet been studied but potentially could be incorporated that creates a little bit more of a gesture toward that architectural continuity? Along the streetscape and separation from the parking behind.

Yes, and that will be in a future that will be if you consider this project in phases, you know, phase one is what you're seeing here this evening and then a future phase would be. a complete redevelopment, I shouldn't say complete, but a development of that 75-foot buffer on Stillwater Avenue. So that portion of Stillwater Avenue will not be a parking lot forever. It's our intention that that space would be decommissioned in the future and redeveloped with uses, could be staff housing, could be the neighborhood retail uses that the HCDD allows, and Any one of those proposals would come back to you all for review because they're special permit uses. And there'd also be public hearings held by the zoning board where, you know, questions like building design and things of that nature would I'm sure, be a big part of the discussion. So I want to be clear that that parking area, again, in that first 75 feet of Stillwater Avenue is not the forever plan. That's a temporary plan. And we will come back with something, I think, more soon. in keeping with with your vision and everyone's vision for for stillwater avenue um i will say in the meantime the buffer that we do have along stillwater avenue it's i think essentially double the minimum required i think we're required to have 10 feet we've got nearly 20 feet uh with a number of dozens of green giant or you know of evergreen plantings and fencings and things of that nature um but that is temporary and we will have a more permanent a vision for that property in the future, consistent with your comments.

And while I appreciate everything that you've suggested and have offered, the word temporary always makes me unsettled because that temporary could be for the next 20 years.

I don't think that will be the case here. You know, we want to make sure, again, you know, that everyone who needs a parking space at the hospital has a parking space. And I believe as Mr. McKay mentioned in his comments, well, construction of the cancer center building and other, you know, exciting pieces that we shared with you this evening are underway. There will be fewer parking spaces for a period of time. So having these parking spaces on Stillwater Avenue during that construction period will be, I think, important and helpful to the operations of the hospital. You know, we will be going to the zoning board for a public hearing on these applications. And because there's a GDP special permit component, you know, there may be a condition of approval, you know, related to the temporary nature of the Stillwater parking lot.

Okay. So then let me ask my follow-up question of Lindsay then. Lindsay, you're certainly more knowledgeable of the two different zones and what they can accommodate and what they can't. Is there any building use type or land use type that is envisioned as appropriate for a VC that would not be an envisioned use in an HCDD?

So I think as I said in my memo, there are some uses in the HCD district that might not be best suited for a frontage on Stillwater, such as like a hospital use. However, the site might not really be able to accommodate that with the parking constraints and the size of the site as it is. And in addition, and kind of more to our point, that the comprehensive plan is still remaining with MU1 on Stillwater and Res 2 a little further in. So that is still sending the message to the hospital and everyone that the city still envisions that as an active frontage in the future, even if the zoning is aligned with the hospital. So there are uses in the HCDD that do align. And what Jay has been saying is that, you know, in the future that there is the potential for that on that site.

Yeah, that's a, if I could just interject and echo what Lindsay said, I think that's a really good point. The, the maintaining these properties or the fact that they are in ME1 and RES2 comprehensive plan categories, that's your, I don't know if insurance is the right word, but that, that, you know, that, that, that ensures that the future uses will, you know, be in keeping with that streetscape, that vision for the streetscape, that, that. you all have. And again, just the special permit review process, the nature of that process as well provides assurances too. That was a good point, Lindsay.

But clearly this whole, actually, Jay, if it's possible that you can put up your overall site plan with the yellow boundary. Sure. Back on. Yeah, yeah. So you can see that certainly this entire tongue that sticks out from the main body of the campus was an afterthought. I was going to ask when those parcels were acquired by the hospital, but you did answer and say a number of years ago, and I suspect it was before the VC zoning was even developed in Stanford. but there's nothing to stop other contiguous uses. On the other side of Stillwater Place, to the west of it or to the east of it, from individual lots coming up for sale and the hospital acquiring them and wanting to turn those also into the HCDD zone. So I'm concerned about that kind of expansion of the hospital zone along Stillwater, which this is the first step of such, you know, doing.

Can I jump in for a second, Jay? This is Lisa Feinberg for the record. I think your concerns have been echoed over and over again by staff. It has been made incredibly clear to us and to the hospital that the city is not going to entertain the hospital primary functions meeting the street of Stillwater, that that is, that the plan for Stillwater has been for a very long time. I mean, the hospital has, as Jay said, partnered with Charter Oak Communities and the Vita Health and Wellness District to ensure that that is going to be a neighborhood commercial feel along Stillwater Avenue. So notwithstanding everyone's strong support for the hospital and what they're trying to do, which is incredible, for our community. It was made immensely clear that we could not have a parking lot on Stillwater Avenue. And so that's how we arrived at the 75-foot buffer. I can tell you that the hospital has committed, you asked about the temporary nature, they've committed to getting rid of the parking within that 75-foot buffer as soon as the new parking garage comes into play. So it's not a this could be a 20 year thing. And they're happy to accept a condition of approval from the zoning board to that extent. If that's something that you wanted to include in your letter to the zoning board, that would be perfectly acceptable to the hospital to ensure that it's not for the extended long term. It's just part of the process. You all know when there's construction taking place, particularly within a facility like this, which is very different from any other business. I mean, the hospital has to operate 24-7 every single day of the year. It can't go out of commission and say, you know, sorry, we're closed for business. It has to stay open. And so we need this flexibility in order to ensure that that that can happen. And that's really the long and short of it. The other thing, the last thing I'll say, and then I'll hand things back over to Jay, is that I'm probably telling you something that you already know, but a special permit is a permitted use, yes, but it's very different from an as-of-right permitted use. A special permit use is permitted in certain circumstances. So, for example, if you go into North Stanford, you can have schools and you can have churches by special permit, but it has to fit in the right place, right? They have to make sure, you all have to make sure, and the zoning board has to make sure that it's not going to create adverse impacts for the rest of the neighborhood. And so that's why that title of the types of uses, every single use in the HCVD requires a special permit. That's why that's so important because if the hospital wanted to come and say, oh, we'd like to put our loading dock here on Stillwater Avenue, it's part of the hospital. You all could say, no, that's not in keeping with the underlying comprehensive plan.

or uh the the long-term goals for the city and so no you know we're not going to endorse that so to the extent that that's helpful well i appreciate that um but at the same time i'm i i if you were i'm not asking you to do this but if you were to zoom in on this tongue this this uh collection of parcels that sticks out from the main boundary of the hospital site. You'll see closer to the primary road, Hospital Plaza, you know, the end of this site, I guess the north end of this site, there's other green space that could be temporarily additional parking right now that can be um incorporated and and allowing you to get rid of those eight spaces or whatever that are along still water immediately so i i oh i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt um no please we we know we we you know believe it or not when you think well how long you know how much thought could go into designing a park

as this exercise at least has taught me, a lot of thought, you know, because we've just, you know, we want to make sure, as Lisa and others have said here, want to make sure that there's enough parking during the construction process that will be going on to help realize this nearly $300 million investment that's being made. And, you know, not only do you have the comprehensive plan that Lindsay mentioned as assurances, but you have the fact that the hospital, committed to taking these spaces you know off the map decommissioning them once this parking lot is is open and ready to you know take vehicles and no one wants that to happen quicker than than the folks that we're working with at the hospital so we have we have designed this lot you know that the

the the geometry is such that you know we really have you know made sure to thoughtfully put this uh lay this thing out we're trying to show with that red line is that this is a hundred percent in keeping with the neighborhood which has the commercial along the street and the parking to the rear so sure that is the plan for Stillwater Avenue

Now, is this parking lot on Stillwater Avenue going to be utilized for construction worker parking during construction or employee parking for the hospital? And what's the plan for parking during construction?

This will be for folks, hospital employees, perhaps some patient, but certainly for employees. Construction, I believe the folks who will be involved in the construction will have to park off-site, I believe. There.

What's that? There's a parking issue over there. Yeah. You're introducing 150 workers at a clip to build that?

It's going to need some parking spaces. Well, we have to file a construction management plan with any project, you know, because these buildings have to get built, right? So we will have to file a construction management plan that's approved by zoning board staff that, you know, dictates things like when, you know, a number of workers trips in and out, you know, where they'll be parking, things of that nature. So that'll all be, you know, part of the, I think we have to file that before we get a building permit. So that'll be taken care of.

So in this regard, given that this the issue really is about parking at temporary and long term for staff and visitors and employees and medical professionals and the like, the new garage that's being contemplated for the cancer center, is there are there Does the design incorporate some elements that allow it to readily expand?

That's a good question.

I don't believe so, no. I mean, it's envisioned to have 300, not envisioned, it's designed to have 355 parking spaces. And I believe, as I might've mentioned earlier, when you compare the existing number of spaces on site today, which is around 1400, we'll have nearly 1700 parking spaces available on the hospital to hospital staff, visitors, patients when this project is done. So a significant increase in the amount of parking available.

But I can tell you that the hospital leadership is laser focused on right-sizing parking and planning for the future. I mean, we have some of the best leadership at Stanford Hospital that is really, truly thoughtful about the future of Stanford and the community. And that's what this project's about. And we're talking about a $275 million investment in our community. I mean, what a tremendous opportunity for us. And that's all thanks, not in totality, but in strong part to that leadership and that vision. And I was lucky enough to be part of the planning. I guess it was 10 years ago at this point for when they did the specialty tower, but the hospital is constantly looking at the needs of the campus and the needs of the broader community. And so that's what you're seeing here is a response to that need, including the parking.

Understood. Well, you know, how it's being immediately envisioned to be used is one thing, but the text change and the, and the map change is a different matter entirely. I, I, Am I incorrect in assuming that as a temporary use, couldn't you still build parking in that VC zone, you know, on Stillwater, just as you've proposed, without requiring a map change and zone change to the HCDD?

No, sorry. No, you can go ahead.

It's all good.

Our understanding is that no, we could not. In fact, if we could, we certainly would have left it in the VC zone because that would have been a much simpler path, but it's not permitted.

Yeah, the hospital related zoning couldn't happen in the VC district.

Well, hospital-related, meaning anything for the hospital, whether it's a medical use or not.

The hospital-related parking, sorry. Parking could not happen in the VC district.

Okay. But I guess what I'm asking is, what is hospital-related? So... Yeah, please.

No, I think, yeah, well, as Lindsay said, you know, we all realize that we want to make sure the hospital has enough parking. So to make sure that the Stillwater parcel, Stillwater assemblage can be a part of that solution, we need to rezone it to the HCDD. And then I think maybe to the heart of your or the follow up to it, I guess. The first 75 feet, again, you know, there are non-institutional uses that that portion of the parcel can be put to. And that the hospital is committed to, you know, I think the hospital has demonstrated for decades, you know, an interest in that or not an interest, has collaborated with the city, with the neighborhood, and will continue that.

you have every reason to believe that that collaboration will continue in the permanent redesign of that first 75 feet of the property along Stillwater Avenue if I could just interject for clarity because you were talking about a zone change and a map change this is a zone change not a map change I think everyone just froze okay am I back Okay. So the request is for a zone change. A map change would be a change to the master plan category, which is not what is in front of us. And so by not doing the map change, it allows us to retain that ability for the special permit review for what comes in the future for conformance with the comprehensive plan categories of the ME1 and the ME2 and the RETS2. Um, so, and then I, I will also just, um, I think interject broadly. I mean, so I, I share the concerns about having parking frontage and, and that, you know, I understand that it's not just about, you know, creating a buffer, but it's that we want something more active. I understand. And so I, I do, um, Well, my inclination is to... to support this so that the project can move forward. I also do want to note that in looking at the Transportation Demand Management Plan, I find it to be really lacking, honestly. It doesn't really propose any mitigations to actually shift and reduce the parking demand, right? We will never pave our way out of a parking issue. I understand that this is an area of town that has a lot of parking constraints for a variety of reasons. And I think that given Stanford Hospital's position as a major employer, that there is an opportunity to, with a more comprehensive transportation demand management plan, to do more to facilitate and incentivize for employees in particular, to be traveling by means other than single occupancy vehicle. And, you know, I mean, this, you know, the 75 spaces that would front still water, it's like 4% of your overall parking supply, right? So I think that with thoughtful planning and incentives, you may actually be able to avoid needing to put these spaces in at all. And I'll also just say from personal experience, so one of my very first job out of college actually was working for a hospital in a kind of similarly like urban suburban area like this. And they actually had a very aggressive transportation demand management program in place, which I was just looking up. They actually did a national case study on it over the course of about 15 or 20 years, they reduced the single occupancy vehicle commuting by employees by I think about 40%. And I also remember at the time, so part of the mix was if you were an employee, you had to pay for your parking, right? And then if you didn't park and you didn't, then there were actually incentives Like I would run to work one day a week because eventually I moved within a distance where that was possible. And I actually got paid like $5. And the reason why the hospital said that they were doing this was because building one parking space was going to cost like $275,000 for structured parking. And it was actually a lot less expensive in the long run to just pay employees to not drive. So, anyway, I'll just say I think it's possible to, through policy, actually completely eliminate the need for this lot. And so I don't know that this is exactly a condition, but I would really like to strongly encourage revisiting and revamping the Transportation Demand Management Plan to incorporate some more proactive strategies rather than just trying to, like, parking lot build your way out of a constrained situation.

Yeah, that I think understood. And something that I just want to let you know, Madam Chair and other members of the board here, is that the TDM that we filed with this, it's not as robust as you're accustomed to because we have filed a general development plan, not a final site plan. So when we do file that final site plan, the TDM PMP, that will be more robust. There'll be a couple more, at least, pages to both of those documents. And we'll certainly, I think your comments are well said and well put, and we'll be having those at the top of our minds when we're putting those documents together.

Great. And that will also improve the sustainability score for the project as well. Jeremy, I had seen your hand earlier.

No, I don't have it.

Any other questions or comments from the board? All right. Do I have a motion on this item?

Yeah, Jennifer, I think the motion, if you could help to craft with all this governance we discussed or suggestions we made, you know, that's what I think we should put forth. I think the suggestions were around the temporary nature of this space, of this parking space, active traffic management to reduce the need for parking spaces, and then bringing the lot in alignment with the existing Stillwater landscape, streetscape. I think if we can draft a resolution with combining all that as the solutions, then maybe the board would be okay to approve it, I think.

Okay. Jennifer, are we looking to do these as two separate applications, since there's two separate ZBE applications, or is one?

This is one application.

It's two. It's an exchange and special permit.

Yeah. So there's one for the map change that we'll have to read in and vote on and then one for the special permit to read in and vote on.

So I'll make a motion for approval for ZB application 226-17, Stanford Hospital, 117 Stillwater Avenue and 17 and 0 Stillwater Place map change. And

Sarah Silver, The. Sarah Silver, And with the conditions, do you want to clear.

Dan Bothell, This is just for a map change for the zoning map, I think the special permit is where we need to stipulate those conditions. Dan Bothell, agree.

Sarah Silver, Do I have a second on that motion.

Dan Bothell, Second.

Sarah Silver, All right, all in favor raise your hand. Sarah Silver, All right, and it passes. um so i can can again make a motion for zb application 226-18 for the special permit hold on jeremy did did you read that second agenda item into the record jennifer i um i did not actually okay so we should read the second agenda item in and sorry for the slight confusion there um so um This now is ZB application 226-18, Stanford Hospital, 1 and 29 Hospital Plaza, 31 Wright Street, Spruce Street, Lot 2, 171 Stillwater Avenue, 0 and 17 Stillwater Place, special permit. Applicant is proposing to construct a 73,000 square foot cancer center, a special permit use with a connected parking structure containing plus or minus 355 parking spaces. And the special permit is to allow for the construction of the cancer building and infill project, as well as the surface parking. So the conditions that we had discussed, one which already appears in the in the map that's been presented so far is that the design of the parking with frontage on Stillwater Place is designed in such a way that it facilitates future development that is consistent with its master plan category. and that the parking that is within that transition zone, the 75 foot transition zone will be, that that parking will be taken out of commission as soon as the structured parking that the hospital is building is completed. So that's the temporariness of the parking.

Christopher McConkey, certificate of occupancy for use. Christopher McConkey, Once the certificate of occupancy for use of that parking structure is is. Christopher McConkey, provided to the hospital, then. Christopher McConkey, That would would sort of be a good timeline duration right to include in that special permit Okay, thank you for that precision on the.

Christopher McConkey, On the certificate so that's condition one both. ensuring that that portion of it is temporary and it's tied to the construction timeline approval of occupancy for the lot. And then the second condition being that the applicant update the transportation demand management plan in order to pursue ways to decrease the single occupancy mode share of its employees and determining methods to reduce or eliminate the need for this lot where possible. Am I missing anything from the conditions for the special permit? Okay. So do I have a motion on this item? Move for approval from Jeremy. Do I have a second? Second from Ravi. All in favor? Please raise your hand. And it passes.

Thanks so much, everyone.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone. Have a great evening.

Thanks, everybody. All right, next we have zoning board of appeals referrals, DB application 034-26, Brendan Hutchings, 19 Berkeley Street, variance of table 12-2, location of parking areas and loading spaces in yards and section 12-B-1, tandem parking permitted in certain zoning districts. Applicant owns a two-story, two-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and a rear wood deck. Applicant is requesting a variance from section 12B1 to allow for tandem parking in the RMF district where tandem parking is prohibited and a variance from section 12C1B to allow for one parking space between the building lines where no parking between building lines is permitted.

Lindsay do we I know we don't always have representatives for ZBA referrals so if you do not if you want to comment on this I'm not seeing anybody with the last name of Hutchings so unless that's 4085 the phone number 4085 I think it's fair to say that the applicant is not here Um, I know this applicant has worked closely with. The zoning board of appeals planner to try and figure out how to accommodate what they would like to do, which is essentially give. one of the two units a little bit more space. So I think it's actually quite a nice benefit that they're getting rid of some of the parking that's in the front yard between the building lines. They're turning it into a grassy area. And in order to do so, they need to get these variances to allow for and really kind of legalize some of the parking in between the building lines. So I think it is kind of making a not so great situation a bit better. And it's good for the streetscape, which is important in the MU3 category that it's located in.

And I was just looking to see, given the prior item around the parking regulation, so this would be in that congestion mitigation zone, correct? I was just thinking about which parking requirements would still be applicable here, but it seems like it still would be.

Yeah.

All right. Any questions on this item? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Ravi, move for approval. Second from Jeremy.

I did have one question. Sorry. Oh, okay. I guess, Lindsay, with the existing condition of this being an asphalt parking area, you know, sort of lot line to lot line, what's the conduit in how, you know, this is enforced or that the new grass area is... you know, it is not, well, not per se parked on, but right. But I guess, you know, not to say that I think of the worst in people, but I know in some of these congested areas, right, we get plans before us that seem like a great idea in theory, but may not be executed in the day to day once this leaves our

know board yes so uh once they if they get approval for this variance then they would need to uh pull a building permit to get the work done on the interior um and the zoning board of appeals staff would be included on the review of that building permit um and they would confirm so for the closure of that building permit the zoning board of appeals

person will go out and review and say, okay, this meets the plan. The grassy area has been planted. Theoretically, we're following what was done here.

Yeah.

Okay. You can use my hand as a second too, Jennifer.

Okay. All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes. Okay. Thank you. Next, CBA application 035-2647 Wellington Drive. Lisa Piper Gilbert, architect representing Cliff Rodgerson, variants of Section 5X4 development standards. Applicant owns a two-story single-family dwelling with rear deck, rear stone patio, and shed. Applicant is proposing to enclose an existing entryway. which is a permitted obstruction and is requesting a front street line setback of 35.8 feet in lieu of the 40 feet required and a center street line setback of 60.8 feet in lieu of the 65 feet required in an RA1 zone.

So we actually almost didn't even get this. We might not have needed to refer this, but I decided on being cautious and referring this, getting this to us. As it's stated here, it's There's pretty much already two columns that go up the two stories and it's just adding the walls. So, you know, it's somewhat of an existing condition. The walls will kind of be that added bulk that triggers the planning board review. um it's in a res one category which is our lowest density future land use category i don't think in enclosing this area um it's it's not increasing the building footprint um it's such a minor change in the bulk i don't think it's going to really negatively impact the ability for this area to continue to be a res one area okay yeah and the um

the variation from the requirements. It's not wild either.

It's pretty marginal. Yeah.

All right. Any questions on this item? Do I have a motion on this item?

I'll move.

Drew, move for approval. Do I have a second? Second from Ravi. All in favor? And it passes. Thank you. Next, we have ZBA application 036-26 Pierre Christian D. Frey, AIA architect representing Kamud V. Desai at 144 Shadow Ridge Road, variants of Section 5X4 development standards. Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a shed and is proposing to construct a two-story single car garage addition with new living space on the second floor and a new entry landing with a portico. Applicant is requesting A, a front property line setback of 39.4 feet. in lieu of the 40 feet required be a combined side yard setback of 16.6 feet in lieu of the 20 feet required and see a side yard setback of 5.9 feet in lieu of the 10 feet required in an R10 zone. This was before us in May of 2026 with a similar request. which we had recommended denial without prejudice. All right. I know that our applicant is on. I don't know if Lindsay, you wanted to offer any comments and then we can allow the applicant to speak.

Sure. I did note the past reason for recommending denial of the application. It looks like they tried to reduce some of the variance, especially with the front side, but I think that the concern was, sorry, with the front setback, but I think the concern was with the side setback. So glad that the applicant is here and perhaps they can shed some light on the request.

All right. If you could introduce yourself for the record, please.

I think you'll need to unmute. Yes. Vijay, if you would. Oh, there you go. You're unmuted.

Yeah, hi, thank you. My name is Vijay Desai. I am the son of the property owner, Kumar Desai. I believe Christian, who's the architect, is presenting. Christian, I don't know if he's... I think I'm just supposed to be silent.

Yeah, sorry, I did not see Christian there. I've just promoted him to panelist, so he's going to be rejoining right now.

Okay.

Thank you, Vijay.

Thank you.

So Christian, whenever you're ready to, if you want to speak to the application, you can unmute yourself.

There we go. Okay, can everybody hear me now? Yes. Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you for adding me in as a panelist. I was wondering why I couldn't see myself in here, but here I am. My name is Christian Frey. I'm an architect. My company is PCDF Architecture, and I'm the architect of record for this project for Camus Desai, as mentioned before. Yeah, I'll just start. I'll be very brief. It's pretty straightforward what we are requesting. And I think... The big takeaway I'm hoping tonight is that we went to the last ZBA hearing and were denied without prejudice. We heard after that that we could have presented to the planning board beforehand like as of tonight, but we never received that information. So be that as it may, we we would have presented last May to this board as well. But I can see why the previous application was probably denied. We had you know, we came we came before you and certainly the ZBA with a request for five variances, which. was quite a lot, probably too many, as we had been advised by the zoning department. It seemed like it was too many. So we have cut that down now to three variances that we're requesting. As mentioned before, it's the front setback has been improved in that we pulled the proposed addition back, little bit more and then we also took the two foot overhanging roof over the garage door off the project which obviously would have projected two feet forward as much as well so that was the first one then the side yard which was the big question, was originally 14 feet. We've reduced that to 13 foot two and a half, which doesn't sound like much, but we're trying to maintain a 12 foot clear single car garage space inside the new addition. The length of the proposed addition was originally 34 feet. We've reduced that to 33 feet. So, you know, the whole thing, we brought it down and we have the overall coverage is now just under the max, where I think before we were just slightly over the max, which was probably, I think, one of the original five variances. So, you know, we've definitely done, I think, our homework to improve the situation here and You know what we're proposing is essentially an addition to this house that. You know, basically, the three house, the three neighboring houses to the left of this house down Shadow Ridge Road have basically already all had this same kind of addition. The only difference is that all the other houses are sort of mirrored to this footprint so that their additions are on the right-hand side, whereas this addition is on the left-hand side, but that's where this house ended up when it was originally built, and that's where the driveway is. So that was, again, the only place we could put this addition. There was no room on the right side of the house. to do this. And so, you know, all of this, we've taken that all into account. And, you know, we're requesting the minimum necessary, you know, for relief to, you know, get this additional living space for the family at this property. So I guess at this point, if you have any questions... I'm happy to answer any questions and hopefully clarify any questions you might have.

I got a question. Have you guys looked at shifting the structure back by a foot so that you don't need the frontage variance?

We looked at that, but the reason we pushed it forward is that the driveway all the other houses have this same kind of issue and they all pushed a little bit forward is that the driveways are all sort of sloping downhill towards the house. So by pushing it back further towards the back and even pushing it back from the front, you know, to create a sort of relief architecturally would create a situation where we'd be going downhill into the garage and which would be kind of problematic for a number of reasons, but not any of the least would be, you know, water runoff down the driveway would come straight down into the garage. So by pulling it a little bit forward, right where we're proposing it now, the driveway sort of crests out and levels out. So we could basically, as part of this work, we could flatten that area out a little bit in the driveway and just you know, create a positive drainage away from the garage by just sort of helping the pitch slightly before it starts dropping at that corner of the house there. So we did look at that quite a bit to try to figure that out.

It's not even a foot, you know.

Yeah, but if you saw it in a photograph, it drops quite quickly right at that corner. It drops basically to the back of the house where the driveway is essentially at the lower level. So it drops in sort of the side. The house is, let's say, 20 feet deep. It drops basically like, let's say, eight or nine feet.

which is pretty steep. I mean, I think a few inches on the 40-foot setback is not really terribly concerning to me, but I think it's more the six-foot side yard setback that remains. So if you could speak a little more to the challengers or the hardship that are leading to that.

Yeah, because basically if we bring it back, let's say, to seven feet, let's say, for argument's sake, or eight feet, anything further back would be helpful. But then we end up with a garage situation that's basically too narrow for a decent-sized car to get in there and have enough room to get in and out of the car without sort of sneaking out sideways and trying to sort of slide your way down, you know, beside the car to get in and out. And, you know, the, the setback to the property line there, there's a, there's a, like a sort of a six foot high vinyl fence. And then the, the, the neighboring house is about, if I remember correctly, I don't have, I should have brought a photo to show you, but it's about five or six feet back from the fence on the other side. So it's, it's, it's, we think it's far enough back, you know, compared to like, it's relatively as close to the neighboring house as the other houses are further down the street.

No, I understand the intention is, is for a garage and it looks to be an in-law suite here or some type of, you know, additional studio-style living space. And with regard to that side yard setback, there does seem to be ample room at the back of the property that if this was brought down and shifted for a turn behind the property, that the garage could be sort of perpendicular to the house. Was that looked at at all?

That was also looked at, but going past that addition on the back of the house and putting, let's say, a single car garage back there, there basically is just not enough space for a proper sort of turnaround, let's say, to drive into the garage and then pull out of the garage and then proceed up the driveway. Plus, We found that we were getting extremely close, if not going to be slightly over the rear yard setback. And then also that the wetlands, you know, setback, which is back there as well. So we wanted to keep away from all of that. Plus, the other thing is that if there was some sort of way to get an addition back there, it would essentially eliminate any kind of backyard and be just a lot more impervious coverage on the lot. which we were trying to avoid too. This basically doesn't really add impervious coverage on the lot because we're basically taking an area that is now paved driveway and building a structure on that portion of the paved driveway. So it's essentially a net zero in terms of additional impervious coverage. So we were looking at that too. And while you were speaking, I looked up the neighboring house is, we measured it sort of just on site. So the fence that I was mentioning before is essentially on the property line or six inches to one side or the other of the property line. But the wall of the neighboring house directly to the left of this house is 12 feet back from that fence. So essentially, there would be, in essence, let's say, 18 feet or more between the two houses.

Jennifer, you're on mute.

Sorry. I thought I saw a hand from... uh bj decide did you still have a comment yeah i'm sorry i wasn't sure if i'm allowed to say anything or not but i just yeah i think christian just corrected the the distance between the houses that's what i was going to say thank you yeah i i think that the challenge with that though is it assumes that that existing condition continues um because there's nothing to restrict the neighboring property from building to their um their side yard setback. Other questions or comments from the board?

I will just add one other quick thing, if I may, that one of the biggest drivers of this project was to keep as much green space and lawn as possible as opposed to you know, losing more greenery, let's say, to driveway and, you know, and paved areas and things like that. So, you know, we tried all kinds of different ways short of building an underground tunnel to put this garage. But we really tried. I mean, certainly, and that's why I think, you know, we're, as I said, we're, you know, we're looking for the minimum necessary to achieve what we're looking for.

Um, yeah. So, I mean, I understand the, um, in terms of the design options that this, in terms of, uh, impervious surface minimizes that I, I think the kind of overall broader question though, is, is the, you know, the desire for a garage in this location is that, I mean, cause it's, it's, you know, like you don't have to have a garage, right? So no, that's not right. So that's, that's not, I think, I think the challenge here is like, where, where is the hardship? Like I hear what you're saying about, like you tried multiple ways to configure this design in order to best work with the constraints and try to figure out how to minimize impacts and And it still stands that it is not that the applicant is entitled to a garage as an addition on their house.

No, we understand that. I think the other thing, it's not really a hardship, but like what we said at the last zoning hearing is that one of the other drivers of this is that the owner of the house would like to age in place and as such as... As she gets older, she would like to have a covered sort of indoor kind of parking that she can drive in, get out of her car, and either walk in herself or be assisted into the house that way, which makes it a lot easier, as we know. It's beautiful weather now, but, you know, in a few short months, it's going to be nasty outside. And that's, you know, for a person then that's, you know, getting up in years, that becomes an even bigger issue than it is for the rest of us.

I see your hand. I'd like to add a comment.

Yeah, absolutely. You know, so my mother's 80 years old. She's already older and she's got severe arthritis, both knee replaced and arthritis. So as Christian mentioned, I know that's not considered a hardship. But this planning is for the purposes of her health condition and her inability to weather the storm and so forth. And that's really the main driver of why we're doing this. Again, she wants to stay in the home. She can't really afford to go anywhere else. And I know the concerns were as outlined. So we want the minimum to just to have the garage and parking space to allow her. She has a Honda Accord. It's a midsize car. And for her to for me, I can navigate, you know, I can squeeze through a door with minimal space. But she needs at least two feet of space in the door for her safely to get out, grab her walker and navigate past that car. So just to give you some insight about I know that's not considered hardship, but to give you a sense of why we need this sort of 12 feet garage to allow her to navigate that.

Thank you for that context.

Sure. Thank you.

And another thing I might add, if I might, that, again, this is just, again, to give more context. You probably might have seen that this very similar edition was proposed back in the early 2000s and at that time received a variance approval to go ahead and build this edition. And then that was never done at the time because of cost. Turned out to be much more than originally anticipated. And then Mr. Desai ended up getting sick. And as we all know, Life happens when we're making plans. And, you know, then it never it never went forward. And then fast forward, you know, to where we are today. And now, you know, his his, you know, wife is looking for the same kind of thing and and to do this so she can stay in the home and age in place, as we said before. So. And I know zoning regulations and things have changed since the early 2000s, but the concept that we're looking at here is the same as what it was then.

I mean, so to one, I mean, so this is on referral, right? So that's ultimately up to the ZBA. I'll just note, I mean, as an urban planner, I have a complicated relationship with zoning because I think part of our charge here is to determine, you know, how well does this request to vary from the regulation? Like, is it justified based on the criteria we're ought to use? And also, you know, but from a bigger picture, is this actually injurious to the neighborhood to have this variation in the side yard, like from like a big, big picture standpoint, probably not. And we have to hold sort of in terms of precedent though, for other properties that come before us, you know, what does it mean or what does it do if we grant or recommend a variance of this nature? Before I take your hands, actually, I do want to actually see of the board if folks feel ready for a motion on this.

Well, I think normally, not necessarily, but we would like to have some meeting of the minds. I would not say consensus always, but among the board members, we would like to have some agreement. And I sensed that probably all of us are not on the same page here. I personally speaking for myself, I would be inclined to approve it because of all the efforts the applicant has made towards mitigating the variance. And it doesn't hurt the overall neighborhood, right? If the other houses adjacent have the same kind of know construction i mean why would this isn't heard that now technically yes they are probably you know not in compliance with our regulations but i think that's what that's what we're here to approve and interpret and approve those and but that would be just me i don't know if the other members of the board feel that way so comments from other members

I'll add a couple of comments, if I may. Christian, I appreciate this effort that you've made to try to not resolve, but lessen the impact of some previous variances. I think I was probably the original board member who commented on the width of the overall addition relative to its encroachment on the side yard. And while I like Ravi am inclined to support your request. I too would have liked to have seen some effort relative to the width of the garage. I know that 12 would be ideal. 11 is probably doable, given that very few cars today are in excess of 5 and 1 half, 6 feet wide. And I have grown accustomed to this myself by favoring one side of my single bay garage to give myself the necessary clearance on the driver's side. I would have liked to have seen an 11-foot width or some effort in that relative to that variance as well, which I believe can still be done. But nevertheless, like Ravi, the requests are relatively minor in nature. Yes, they potentially establish precedent, but not really since other people well before you and the Desai's have had to deal with these same kinds of issues and some of them got approved in the past and some of them did not. But in any event, so I would be inclined to support this where you've taken it thus far, even though I'll be on record as saying that I still believe that the width of the garage there could have been a little bit more movement in that regard.

So hearing that, I think I'm... I think so the challenge is like, what is the hardship? There's not a hardship exactly, but I think I'm similarly inclined toward recommending approval. And it sounds like a big part of the rationale, again, is... that this design reduces the impervious cover and reduces the potential for flooding in the property in comparison to other designs that would comply but would create other issues. You know, certainly we're trying to lessen the amount of impervious cover that we have. um, in our community. So I, I would hold that as rationale for deviating from the, um, from the regulation, even if it's not a hardship per se. Um, so I'll put that forward as, um, as a motion for approval. Um, do I have a second? Okay. Second from, I think Ravi, I saw you a second before all in favor, raise your hand. Any abstentions? And vote for denial. Okay. So we have three in favor recommending three recommending approval to recommending denial then. And so now it goes on to ZBA to make a final determination. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So next on our docket, ZPA application 037-26, Daniel Chappelle, Carmody Torrance, Sendak, and Hennessy LLP representing Toby Schaefer, 262 Strybury Hill Avenue, variants of Section 5X4E, Section 5X4G, Section 5X4H2 development standards, and Appendix B, Table 2, schedule of requirements. The applicant owns a single-family dwelling with an attached garage and deck and is proposing to construct a 342.56 square foot addition. The applicant is requesting A, allowance of building coverage of 27.98% in lieu of the 20% maximum allowed, B, lot coverage of 40.13 in lieu of the 40% maximum allowed, and C, a rear yard setback of 17.8 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required in an R10 zone. Um, so we have a representative of the applicant, um, and, uh, I don't know if Lindsay, you have any comment before, um, they do not just going to pass it up to Dan.

Okay.

Good evening. I may share my screen.

Thank you.

Okay. Can everyone see?

Yes.

All right. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Dan Chappell. I'm an associate at Carmody Torrance Sandak in Hennessey with offices located at 1055 Washington Boulevard in Stanford, Connecticut. With me tonight is Megan Miles, a partner at Carmody Torrance Sandak in Hennessey. and Toby Schaefer, who is the owner of 262 Strawberry Hill Avenue. She is also the applicant for this application. And we are both here tonight on behalf of Ms. Schaefer. And as you know, we're here because we're on referral from the ZBA for an application requesting variances for building coverage, lot coverage, and setback, or the rear yard setback. So the property is, outlined in green here uh it is to the west of strawberry hill avenue and it is bordered on the west south and east by single family homes uh and it's bordered to the north by a nursing home and then there are some condos across the street uh on the other side of strawberry strawberry hill ave uh and it's located in the res one uh comprehensive plan category, which is residential and family. And it is in the R10 zone. So the home was built in 1986 and Ms. Schaefer has lived in the house since it was built. So we're going on 40 years now. And she's been a Stanford resident for 42 years. She's 72 and lives alone in the home and her children live out of state. She would like to age in place in the home where she's lived for almost four decades, but all of the bedrooms are on the second floor and it will become difficult for her to access these bedrooms as her level of mobility decreases. She would like to construct a first floor suite with a bedroom and bathroom, which would allow her to move about her house freely without the need to use stairs. And we are seeking variances to permit building coverage of 27.98% in lieu of 20% lot coverage in lieu of of 40.13 in lieu of the 40% maximum and a rear yard setback of 17.8 feet in lieu of the 30 foot minimum. So our hardship stems from the fact that this property is located on a 50 foot right of way, which is known as Vincent Avenue. It's shown on the survey here. And it was created when the properties were subdivided. And it's mostly made up of pervious area that is not actually considered part of miss shaffer's property so you can see here it's 50 feet wide and this dotted area here is uh it shows the paved area so it's ru there's a roughly nine foot wide paved area here which is supposed to be a private road but it's really more like a driveway And then there's a 14-foot wide grassy area here that appears to be part of Ms. Schaefer's lawn. She's treated it as her lawn. She mows it as her lawn, but it is not considered part of her property. And then on the other side, there's a 27-foot wide area of pervious land, and it has a lot of mature trees on it. And again, that's not considered part of her property, but really functions as a part of her property. And it can't be built on because it is a right of way. So throughout time, Ms. Schaefer has paid for the entire cost of maintaining and repairing this paved driveway. And it only serves her property and her neighbor's property at 75 Vincent Avenue to the west. So she's really treated it as if it's part of her property. And again, it can't be built on. So I have a few photos of the right-of-way just to show you how narrow it is and how much pervious area there is. So this is Ms. Schaefer's driveway that's on her property. And then it leads out to the right-of-way, which again is shown as a private road. So you see here, this is all lawn area that is technically part of the right-of-way, but it's all grassy area. And then on the other side, this is the nursing home to the north here. And there are a lot of mature trees and pervious trees area. So here's another picture too, just showing this. This is what's called the private road, but it's really more like a driveway. And then this is her neighbor's home at 75 Vincent Avenue. And then this is the area to the rear of the home where Ms. Schaefer would like to put the addition. Again, it's about 342 square feet. It would consist of a bedroom and a bathroom and some closet space. And it would not project farther out into the rear yard setback than what's currently there now, which is a kitchen addition. So it would really be in line with what's there now and really have minimal impact because this area is to the rear of the property and it's not visible from the street because, or from Strawberry Hill Avenue because there's a property in between per property in the road. So it's really not going to be very visible. And so it's our position that the application and our variance requests comply with the comprehensive plan. And so again, the property is in the res one residential single family land use category. which is intended to provide for single family dwellings. And the property is a single family dwelling and will remain a single family dwelling. So it's in keeping with that purpose. Additionally, the comprehensive plan notes that Stanford is experiencing a significant demographic shift. So a large portion of the population is aging. And since 2018, the number of residents age 65 and older has increased by 43%. So now residents in this category now account for one in six residents in the city. And the plan states that a community priority in Stanford is to make it easier to age in place. And so this proposal will be in keeping with that part of the comprehensive plan as well, because it'll make it easier for not only Ms. Schaffer, but any future occupant of the house to age in place. And again, we submit it's, it's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and it will have little, if any visual impact on the broader neighborhood because of its location to the rear of the house, but also because it's blocked by another home and it's going to be in line with the existing structure and not encroach farther into the rear at setback. So With that, we request that you find the proposal is in general harmony with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Category, RES 1. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions from the board? My connection is fuzzing in and out a little bit. Just want to make sure. Okay. No questions?

Okay.

Jennifer, I'll make a motion for approval.

All right. Do we have a second? All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

And just for the record, so I think we're recognizing that the hardship is the... that private road and that it functions as a portion of the property. And so that mitigates the building coverage in particular.

And it's not projecting any farther than the existing setback.

Right. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. We're getting there. VBA application 038-26, Stuart Shanks, architect representing Jovita Carrera, 33 Willowbrook Avenue, variants of Section 5X4 development standards. Applicant owned a single-family dwelling with enclosed front porch, carport, detached garage, deck, and shed, and is proposing to construct a 777- square foot second floor addition to create an accessory dwelling unit above the main house with new stairs and entrance. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 25 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required along Caldwell Avenue and a front street center line setback of 50.4 feet in lieu of the 55 feet required also along Caldwell Avenue in an R7.5 zone. and noting this is a corner lot per the need to refer to which street frontage we are referring to. Lindsay, if you don't have any comment, you can go ahead and have the applicant present briefly. Yep, sounds good.

Hi, I'm Stuart Shanks. I'm the architect at 33 Willowbrook. The client is looking to build an ADU for her adult children. The addition is going to be on top of the existing house. And so all of the setbacks violations are already currently existing. And then the addition is going to be through dormers in the roof. So it's not going to look like a two and a half story house. It's going to look like a one and a half story house. I think the two violations are pretty much the same issue. It's going to be the same offset. And then I think the main kind of problem we're having is if we were to do this anywhere else on the property, the foundation would probably be cost prohibitive for her to do this. So we wouldn't probably end up doing it if we can't get it on the roof of the house. Yeah. I think that's about it.

All right. So again, it doesn't worsen the existing non-conformance. And as we have noted in our memo, the current setbacks are in line with houses on the rest of the street. Again, the hardship being the corner lot also. All right. Questions, comments, motion from the Board of Do I have a motion? Okay. Check. Move approval.

Do I have a second?

A second from Ravi. All in favor? Jeremy, you're off screen. Okay. And it passes. All right. Thank you very much. next we have zba application 039-26 raymond mazzia redness and mead representing kevin b and mary m thaman 13 north meadows lane variants of section 3b defined terms accessory structure applicant owns a two-story single-family home with a shed attached garage patio and deck and is proposing to construct a 16 foot by 40 foot pool and pavilion and is requesting allowance of the pool and pavilion within the front yard accessory structures not permitted in an RA1 zone. And the property is a corner lot requiring two front yard setbacks.

Okay. Good evening, everybody. Ray Mazzeo on behalf of the applicant. And if I may share, I have some visuals that will help us along. So this is the property here. You can see it's on the corner of Newfield Avenue and North Meadows Lane. The Newfield Avenue frontage is a front kind of on a technical basis only. There's no access from it. You can't really see into the property from Newfield Avenue. It's really only a frontage on paper. And then here's what it looks like in the survey. And you can see the property is well buffered along Newfield Avenue. And it's also further encumbered by some other items other than just the two front yards. This is just a shot of what the pavilion would look like that goes along with the pool. And then here, this slide I think really shows how the property is encumbered. So because of the two front yards, anything from the front plane of the house to that front property line, you're not permitted to have accessory structures in that area. And because of the great distance between Newfield Avenue and the primary home, all of this area becomes technically the front yard. There's a conservation easement that also goes along the Newfield Avenue frontage, which actually helps in this case because it really protects that existing landscape buffer along Newfield Avenue. But it does also continue and expand along the rear of the property. So it further prohibits where you can build things. Then you have a minimum distance from the house. You have the minimum side yard setback for accessory structures. And they're also on septic, so there's a minimum distance. distance from the septic field. So when you add up all these things, it really limits where you can put any type of accessory structure. So what they're proposing is to have it to the rear of the main house as it relates to their true frontage on North Meadows Lane. This is the view along Newfield Avenue looking north. So you can see the sign for North Meadows here. So this is what Newfield Avenue with that frontage looks like along their property line. It's really well vegetated and not visible. This is a view from the corner now looking at that same part from the other direction. So Newfield Avenue here. This is the front of their house. So the pool area and pavilion would be tucked in the back behind this large maple tree here. And then this is a view of their home from the other side. So really, I think they've positioned it in about as thoughtful a location as they could, considering adjacent neighbors, their own private enjoyment. It's really just that secondary frontage. It would meet all setbacks. They meet all coverage requirements. It's really just the fact that Newfield creates that technical front yard. So that's really all I had. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I mean, this strikes me as very straightforward, the circumstance of the Two frontages is what creates this issue. They have the conservation easement area, but this still maintains the overall character and intent of a Res 1 area. Questions from the board? Do I have a motion? Probably move approval. Second from Drew. All in favor?

I'm opposing.

Okay, so four in favor, one opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Chet, do you want to note your reasoning for opposition?

Yeah, thank you. The basis of my opposition basically has nothing to do with the pool. It has to do with the accessory structure. I remember when I first moved back to Connecticut and specifically into Stanford, you know, I was told emphatically by the ZBA folks at the time that, you know, they are very, extremely restrictive as to what you can build in that area. in that front yard setback, given that acknowledging that it's a corner lot, I have a corner lot I had wanted to put a condenser in mine within, you know, three feet of the house, and I couldn't do that. So I would be, you know, completely in favor of this if it was simply the pool. It's at grade level. No one would be aware of its existence, but the accessory structure is the item that... to me violates the spirit of the zoning regulation.

Thank you.

And I realized actually, I was going to ask if you wanted to note your production for the record chapter, I should also go back and see if for the prior items where there were the objections. If there was a desire from board members to denote that for the record as well.

Sorry, Jennifer, I didn't hear you properly. Can you repeat?

Just, so in particular, for a ZBA application, 36-26, 144 Shadow Ridge Road, that was a split vote, and I just wanted to go back and see if our board members wanted to note for the record rationale for recommending denial.

Yeah, Jennifer, I can, for myself, 036-26 um you know as was discussed the hardship really wasn't clear uh and that uh you know for me it it sets a precedent um you know in in allowing side yard setbacks without a a real hardship okay i would con i would concur with that that sentiment

Um, you know, just because the other neighbor down the street has that doesn't necessarily mean that we should continue that path forward in that particular area.

That is noted. Um, all right, so now we are Oh, there's so many items. Okay. So we just did item six under ZBA. Item seven, ZBA application 040-26, Money Consulting LLC, representing Christina Poulos and Benjamin Romeo III at 17 Westminster Road. Variance of Appendix B, Table 2, Schedule of Requirements. Applicant owns a single family dwelling with... Amy Nunez, Attached to car garage and is proposing to construct a two story addition consisting of plus or minus nine feet and six inches. Amy Nunez, By 19 feet and 11 inches approximately 190 square feet on the first floor for storage. And approximately 31 feet and seven inches by 19 feet and 11 inches, about 630 square feet on the second floor with a new master bedroom, master bathroom and closet applicant is requesting building coverage of 20.2% in lieu of the 15% max allowed be a side yard setback of 12.3 feet in lieu of the 15 feet required. C, a combined side yard setback of 24.5 feet in lieu of the 35 feet required. And D, a rear yard setback of 44.5 feet in lieu of the 50 feet required in an R20 zone. And just do want to note that the lot is undersized for current zoning and that the proposed addition is aligned with the existing home for the variances for P and C, which are existing conditions.

That's right. The representative there's there's no applicant here or the representatives not here for this application. I will note it's in a res 1, single family, low density, future land use category. The lot was originally created under the R10 zoning. So a 10,000 square foot lot in the current. Our 20 zoning is a pretty significant. Area difference, so the, the setback and the bulk regulations that would normally be applicable to an R20 lot are being applied to 1 that is half the size. So, I do think it's a pretty fair application in terms of trying to do the minimum necessity to afford relief for this. Pretty significant lot. Size issue.

Lindsay, do you know the history of why the slot, which was created under R10, is now zoned for R20?

I don't. I didn't look into it. I can look at the map and see if I can draw some quick conclusions, but I don't have an automatic answer.

Okay, that's all right. I mean, I think, again, it does not worsen the existing nonconformity. Right. and really the hardship is this change in the zoning. I presume that change happened after the development had already occurred on the lot.

Yes. Do we know when the house was built?

Westminster R20. Let's see. Actually, I think They did include a lot of this history in the application materials. So let me just pull those up if you guys don't mind.

Sure. I mean, it seems straightforward, but I think just kind of record to have that in.

So this is in Japan. So I think it was R10. Now it's R20. It's in a coastal area. So they probably rezoned it so that we would lessen development pressure in that coastal area. Let me get this. Okay, I just got to the material.

Looks like 1973 was subdivided.

Okay. Sometime in 2006, Westminster was changed to R20. I see. Okay. So that was pretty recent. Yeah.

Yeah. Very recent.

Yeah. Existing home was built in 1976 when it was zoned R10.

So this... To me, the hardship seems pretty straightforward here.

Yeah. Right. And I think it might also sort of beg a look back at this area in terms of the appropriateness of R20 in an area. Like, I understand the rationale of trying to lessen the development intensity in a coastal zone, but it seems like it's created... some problems that are a bit unnecessary now.

Especially in this inner core, the coastal waterfront properties seem to be a bit larger, but the inner properties are quite small. So if a majority of them are 10,000 square feet, it might be a good idea to just rezone those back to 10,000. Okay, cool. All right, take a look.

Okay, so I have a motion on this item. I'll move to approve based on the hardship of the zone change creating the nonconformance. Yeah. So I have a second. A second from Jeremy. All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes. And we'll just note for the record, given that as this has come up, recommending that Landy Spiro and zoning consider the adjacent lots as well and the appropriateness of the zoning r10 is only about a block and a half north so um wouldn't be out of totally out of left field okay and that is our agenda um so you know after the hiatus we get a lot of things that just flood in so thank you for hang in tight for a longer meeting um so our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are september 8th september 22nd and then in october is when we begin our capital budget meetings uh for uh new uh well drew your new since we did our last capital budget cycle we do meet more frequently in october in particular uh to be able to hear presentations from um various city departments and city organizations that are making capital requests um but the actual deliberation on on those items happens uh later in uh really kind of late november december um i do also want to note i appreciate that in the last couple years chat has leaned in and evaluated projects with me and attended some of the departmental pre-meetings which occur before the presentations to the full board and if there is anyone else on the board who would be interested in being part of that either the pre-review process or some of the kind of evaluating projects against each other I certainly welcome your involvement. Don't have to nod it here, but just wanted to put that invitation out. I presume, Lindsay, the first of the, maybe it's already in my email and I just hadn't seen it, but I presume the first of the pre-meetings will start happening in like mid-September?

I haven't gotten the memo from Tony yet. So let us make a note to Leslie to please send an email to Tony asking him for the letter with the pre-planning meeting dates.

Yeah, so Jennifer, so certainly, you know, if you want me to be involved, let me know. I'll be happy to do it. I think we have found it more effective if a small subgroup does the initial evaluation and comes up with recommendations. Otherwise, the discussion goes on forever. So whether it's you plus somebody else, it's quite fine. I see, I think Leslie sent an email today asking whether we... still want those binders. And I replied to her saying, I personally, I'm quite comfortable with doing it digitally. I don't need to cut down trees for my, so I communicated that to her. I just want a team room, whatever the town has, you know, to have all the contents and we can go online and check it whenever we want. And lastly, you know, about two years ago when I first came in, I think Tony and I think Lindsey, maybe you are very quite helpful. You actually had a briefing meeting on the planning process, how this thing works. And I remember we came to the office and we had a few hours of discussions. And if you do and others might, the newcomers might, might appreciate that probably you can arrange it for them just to know how this process works. Otherwise, you might get confused during the discussions.

Yeah. I think, so Ashley was a board of reps. So she's very familiar with the process at being at the end of it. Jeremy, were you in capital budget last year? You were here last year? Okay. Drew, happy to sit down and anybody else. I'm happy to sit down with Tony and myself and go over. um the documents and and process and terminology because it's uh it's a lot so i'm happy to happy to do that thank you robbie that's a good good tip appreciate it thank you um drew chet and jeremy are you guys all good with electronic documents for capital budget or would you like printouts no electronic Okay. Chet?

I would like printouts of the requests.

I would too, actually. So I was going to note that.

Because during the pre-planning, we take notes and all that kind of stuff.

It's a lot of pages. While I, in general, am, I mean, I think a big driver for the wanting to go electronic for the vast majority of materials is that we review them very quickly and in a more cursory manner. The capital budget sheets themselves are not a lot to mail, but we do actually review them very closely for several weeks. Okay.

Okay, so Chet and Jennifer want hard copies.

I'll take hard copies as well.

Okay, Chet, Jennifer, and Jeremy want hard copies. I'll follow up with Ashley at home. at the office when I'm back at work. My dog is growling, so I'm distracted. Drew and Robbie, he's ready for the meeting to be over to leave the room as well. Drew and Robbie want electronic. I'll follow up with Ashley. All right. Thank you, guys. Have a good night. Bye. It's 9-0-1.