Zoning Board & Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Elena, it's a little hard to read. I'm assuming that's I-95 there?

Yes, it's I-95. It's very hard to read. I apologize. But when you go into PowerPoint, that's how it looks.

Yeah, sure.

So this is I-95. This is Hamilton Avenue. And this is our DeBera Lane. And the location is really very nice because you could walk to the beaches. And the end of the Dibera Lane is kind of very private. Here is some of the neighborhood shots. As you see from across the street, there are going to be condominiums. Along the street, there are some private homes. There are two family homes. There is a big nursing home kind of facing the neighborhood. But it's epic. so really nobody can see it. The property is very interesting because originally the Barrow Lane was a part of a large property and it had a mention of one of the most prominent families in Stamford, it was Eve's Webb property. It was built approximately in beginning of 1900. Eventually the property was subdivided. The main mansion that you see here was lost. And the only part of the property that was remaining was a cottage. that was occupied by a gardener, but also served kind of like a gatehouse into the whole property because it was located near the entry into the property. So the structure was very simple, but even though it was very simple, it had a very ornate front door. I'm sure there were other details that are lost now because the house is covered with vinyl siding. It has vinyl windows. It has vinyl soffits. There is very little detail left. But as I will show you, we are trying to do something a little nicer with it. Now, if you're looking at the way it looks right now, you will see that there are two windows in the front of the kind of that long side wall. And we believe that location of these two windows is the original location. Then there are two windows and a door in the front, which we also believe are original. We believe that starting from somewhere here, the rest is addition. The windows that are located so close together in the rear portion of that front you know, long wall, do not look original. This is not how windows would be located in the beginning of 20th century. They would be located much further apart. So basically, where you see this line, this is where we are cutting off the addition, and we are taking down the rest of the, like... the later, even later addition in the back, and the shed. So the property is going to have a bit of a space in the back. Now, if we were doing development as of right, this would be the wall that's facing the Barrow Lane. and this would be the development. It might actually be longer, but something of that nature. If my client is not allowed to add this 0.45 units to the property, his financing will be very, very, And therefore, the materials used in the building would be much less, much of a lesser quality than what we are proposing. Now, if you look at this blank wall and you look at the condominium across the street, it's basically what you see there. We do not want to repeat that. We want to be better. So this is what we were going to propose, that we were proposing to you a year ago. And as you see, historic house here was replaced with critical reconstruction, and we were doing quite a big, larger, taller addition in the back with much more complex roof lines. We were going to have dormers, and dormers were providing another room, a family room for each of the unit. of the units. Now what we are doing is historical house. It's going to be preserved by my client. The roof on it is not as tall as what we were going to do here. We were going to actually lift it because the house, the way it is right now, has a ceiling on the first floor at seven feet. Of course, we cannot do a nice renovation and leave a seven foot tall ceiling. So what we are proposing to do now is to remove that floor and open the house completely. In the original scheme, we had a bedroom on top of it. Now this window is just another light into one big open space. We will reinforce it by having some tiles on the roof, but it will be one tall, big living room. Therefore, we lost one of the bedrooms that was here. And this is going to be kind of our compromise to make the house look to preserve the existing house the way it is. Now, if you look here, we are adding to all the windows, we are adding a detail with a panel. crown molding above each window. The windows are going to be a historic look windows. We do not have original windows, but it will be six over one. And we will be consistent in doing the same thing here. We will be using much more expensive materials, including hardy plank siding. which in many cases was approved for historic preservation because it has a look of real historic looking wood siding. It has the same proportions and the shadow line, but it lasts considerably longer. And we will use architectural shingles on all the roofs. We will provide a fence separating us from the other property and the trees. We will provide more trees than is required. We will landscape the entire property. We will have private gardens for each of the units. And you see all this green here? This is what's between our property and the nursing home. There is really nobody looking at the other side of our house. This is the view from the street, and you could see some of the private patios and gardens. And again, this is all the greenery between us and the nursing home.

You have a view from the back? Of the vat?

Yes, I will show it. We'll get to it. So here is our site plan showing landscaping along the property line. And there is going to be a landscaping plan that reflects the exact types of trees we are putting down. We have two garages for two new units. And we have three parking spaces on grade.

I'm sorry. Can you go back to that one a second?

Of course.

The landscaping plan, you said, will be provided?

Yes.

When will that be?

In the next week or so.

Okay. It's something we need.

Do we have a landscaping plan? Did it come with latest documents?

We do have a landscape plan from Alexandra Mark.

I just don't have it as a part of my presentation. But was handling it. So that's a bit of an oversight on my part. I should have included it. OK. All right. So moving to next slide. Now you're looking at the first floor. This is the existing historic structure. As you see, it's a little skewed. But it's going to be completely restored. And it's going to be one big open living, dining, kitchen area. From this space, you go into the bedroom. There is going to be one bedroom on the first floor. It's highly desirable because a lot of people, especially, you know, retired people, they love to have a bedroom on the first floor. And then there is going to be stairs going up. The other two units will have a garage and just one big open area with kitchen and living room on the first floor and stairs going up. You can see private patios and landscaping shown on this plan. Yeah, actually on the previous plan, I didn't mention, but we have a huge open space area, 1,028 square feet, which is twice as big as what's required for this kind of development. Okay, second floor. First unit will have just one bedroom on the second floor, and each of the other units will have three bedrooms on the second floor. And the third floor We don't have it in first unit and the second and third unit units B and C will have one additional bedroom or it could be construed as a family room or then on the third floor. This is your view from the street. Much simplified facade comparing to the previous one. This is the side that is visible from the neighbors. And it has a look of two-story house because there are no dormers. We used to have dormers, but now we don't have them. And this is the view which nobody can see. Nobody. This is the view from the huge wall of greenery between us and the nursing home. And this is the part of the house from where you're entering each tzatzir. Then there are a couple of sections that show how it all is working. And this is the zoning table, which you all have as a part of your package. I hope that this explains what we are trying to achieve. And I will give word again to Jim Lani. And he will take it from here. Thank you.

Thank you, Elena.

Thank you guys for letting us talk again.

Once again, for the record, my name is James Lunney, even though it says Elena Kalman underneath my screen. We have a unique opportunity here. It's interesting because when I looked at this project, I was concerned as to if I was going to take apart and try and submit it to the board. And I was looking for somewhere where it fell short. I watched all the previous meetings. I looked at the description of the historic value of the property. Although it was handwritten in very nice penmanship, we had it transcribed into typed so it's easier to read. And when I was looking at all the videos and all the items, and if it had historic value, and I read about it, and it was Eva Weber Hoyt, who's the last surviving William Hoyt from New York. They were millionaire leather merchants. There's streets named after them in Stanford and Darien. This year, they read the Declaration of Independence for the 250th anniversary of our country in the Hoyt House up in the Ridges. So there was definitely historical value. And I was listening to the concerns of the board and especially Chairman Stein. And I think you were correct when you said, really, we have a building that is not really ornate, that's going to be completely removed. and then rebuilt. And I know that in the past in other areas we have as a community allowed and you as a board allowed people to knock down architecturally significant buildings and then rebuild them with that same significance and ornate detail because from the layperson it looks the same and it has a value. In this case, I would only argue that the simplicity of this architecture is its uniqueness and its shallow ceilings and its modestly pitched roofs and very modest, except that they still carry the architecturally significant door in the molding. And I'm sure some of the trim work has been lost. It may even be underneath the vinyl siding. We don't know. but we heard you, and we understand your concern, and I believe we've addressed it. We're going to keep 50% of the structure. So that means 100 years from now, if this is granted by this board, somebody could be sitting in that space that's existed for 200 years. It's over 100 years currently. Our commitment is to save everything that we can save. And it's important, and Elena had touched on it, that there has been an addition to the back of the house. We think that those two windows in the back are new. So we have conservatively said save 50%, but it's probably closer to 100% of the actual old destruction. We don't have the exact percentage, but we are saving it. Our goal is to save the floor joists. The ceiling joists are going to be removed as indicated, but the rafters will be the same. The studs will be the same. Any sheathing that is a period we'll save. And again, when we rip it apart, if we see that there's issues that need to be addressed, we're going to address them. But our goal is to preserve as much of it as we can because you only get to be original once. it's important to note that this particular property can build two units as of right it actually can build 2.55 units as of right and obviously you can't build 0.55 of a unit but i think it's important that what we're asking here for is less than half of a unit so that we can make the full third unit it's also important um This is not a flip. Vanderson is not selling this. He's not building it and selling it. He's going to keep it. So they're going to be rentals. So what it does is it affords the opportunity for somebody that otherwise couldn't live in a nice neighborhood like this that has walking distance to our premier beach at Cove Island Park to live in a great neighborhood. It's a great neighborhood. It's a family neighborhood. The other thing is we as a city have an abundance of studios in one and two bedrooms. We have very few three bedrooms for rental that I'm aware of. And four bedroom, I don't even know if there are any. And so we have the ability here to build a modest space. two bedroom unit on the the 0.45 that we need from the board this evening and the other two are going to be four bedroom units and i i know all of you are members of the community and i know that all of you know somebody whose parents are getting elderly and they need to move back in with them or somebody whose child uh you know it's tough to get out on your own or maybe both And we really don't have a situation where we have rental units for larger families. And I think this gives the board and the city as a whole the opportunity to have that. You know, it's never about cost, but unfortunately, cost is always involved when you're trying to do work. And, you know, when you have this historic density bonus, it's important to note that it's historic density bonus, not necessarily architecturally significant or architecturally ornate. It's historic. And it's supposed to afford the applicant or the person the ability to save something that would otherwise be lost. Because we all know it's a lot easier to knock something down and pour concrete and have somebody come there with the automatic nailers and bang everything out and finish it and be done with it. It takes a special person to want to save something that's historic. And when I first looked at this project, I wasn't sure why. why it wasn't approved. But after reading everything and watching it, I know why it was approved, because we weren't saving what was important. We weren't saving the existing structure. And Chairman Stein mentioned that quite a few times, that what were we really getting? We were getting something rebuilt that was not really architecturally significant. Well, now what we did to address that is, I think it's architecturally significant in its simplicity, as I indicated earlier. But I think what we're getting now is we're actually keeping it. I thought the other project was a very good project. I really did. I looked at it. I thought it was well done. I think this is equally well done, but it addresses the concerns of the board. And what it does allow is it allows my client to get an additional unit. And what that unit will mean is his ability to use hardy board, better shingles, better windows, and build a better project. And I think this better project will actually uplift the neighborhood. I think if you look across the street and at some of the other buildings, I think when it comes time for them to renovate their buildings or to do new siding, I think they will follow suit. I think that the bar will be raised. And in the end result, it will make the project as well as the neighborhood better. I think this is a significant change. building, not in its architecture, but in its history. And it's tied to one of the really founding people in Stanford, one of its, I don't know if I'd say patriarchs, but certainly important enough that their name is on a lot of buildings and a lot of streets. And my concern is that if we don't do something tonight, we're going to lose it. And I think that Vanderson did his part by buying it and making his best effort to get this approved. I think Elena did her job by redesigning it numerous times and coming to something that I think addresses the concerns the board had. I think the board did its job, quite frankly, by not approving the previous application, not because it wasn't a good application, but because it wasn't preserving enough of what we're supposed to be doing here. And I would just do an analogy. Sometimes a 50-year-old piece of china could be very ornate and very colorful, and a 90-year one could have a little bit more, less color, and a 200-year-old piece of china could be very bland. But it's the historical value that we're trying to preserve here. And Stanford has lost way too many buildings. As somebody who was born here, the buildings that we have lost is insurmountable. And I think we have an opportunity here to save it. I think... The important note is really, we're not asking for a lot. And I know that anytime there's an ask, you need to verify what we're asking for. And I really believe we're asking for 45% of a unit in order to keep something that's been around over 100 years. And once this is built, it'll be around for at least another 100 years. 200 years from now, maybe somebody will be before a board meeting like we are tonight and making a case to save it. So I know it's been a long evening for everybody. I appreciate all your time. Vanderson is here if you need to ask him questions. Elaine is here if you need to ask questions. I'm here for any questions. I'm going to let that conclude my presentation because I think you guys understand what's at stake here. And I'm happy to help with any questions that need to be answered.

Thank you, Jim. Okay, let's go to the board. Peter, any questions, comments?

I don't. I wasn't around for the prior application, so I'm not sure I have the context to really ask anything of any real value, so I'll hold off for now and maybe come back.

Well, this application now stands on its own, though, so we all need to look at it and see if it's, if we agree that it, that we like it and it should get the bonus, the historic bonus.

Understood. I'll hold off for now, but maybe circle back.

Okay.

Keith. Yeah. Jim, I just have a question. And I don't know whether I was hearing you correctly, but it almost sounded like if we don't get the .45, the House will be knocked down. And I just want to make sure that that's not an accurate statement.

Well, my statement was, is we're not sure it's going to be knocked down. What I'm saying is that what was represented is we could build two separate units and it would look kind of like, can we share the screen? I'll show you.

No, you don't have to show me. I'm just trying to get clarification. If that's what you're saying, if we don't get the 0.45% We're going to go to plan B and build those two units.

Well, Keith, it's important for you to note that we've been trying to get this approved for like a year now. It's just been sitting. So it's kind of like we have to do something.

Well, you could build it at 255.

Well, no, I couldn't build 255. I can only build two.

Understood. But you could build it as of right.

Right, we could build a two-family as of right, and it would probably be with less architecturally significant materials, and it would probably be bigger and more bulky because we're trying to keep that down. The problem with the existing structure is it's skewed, and it has a stone foundation that's crumbling, and it really is very difficult to work with because... You can't go above it because it doesn't have the headroom. So it really is a very sticky situation. We really don't want to knock it down, but we may not have any other choice.

Okay. So the answer is yes.

The short answer would be more than likely yes.

Okay. Thank you for being honest.

No, no.

I'm going to be honest. I just want to make sure I heard you right. Okay. Thank you. That's the only question I have.

Okay. Roseanne.

Um, now I reviewed the landscaping plan. And now I really don't have any questions about it.

Okay.

Yeah. Jim, I'm not sure if you're gonna do this, you're gonna do this. But can you tell me what the side yard setback is on the west side of the building?

Sure, can you bring it up on the same? And that's the back of the building, Bill, is that right?

Towards the home.

Ah, OK.

The reason being, you know, I went out there again today after looking at it a year or two years ago, and I don't know because of all the rain or not, but it seems like the growth on the west side of the building seems to be a lot closer than it was. Seemed to be a fence there also. I don't see enough room for a patio and everything.

Well, we're at 10.31 from the building to the property line. And then there's a patio at Gray. But the existing structure is skewed, so it's closer.

But on the west side of the historic building, isn't there a section of it that looks like that sticks out towards the property edge? That's correct.

That's being removed. That's being removed. That's part of the addition that we're not keeping.

So on the west side of the historic structure, it looks like a four or five foot wide building. You're going to remove that?

It's a little like a projection. It's going to be removed.

Okay.

I was unaware of that.

Okay. So if you do that, there will be a little over 10 foot setback on the west side is the answer to the question.

Yes. Yes. It's it's it's the new stuff is all going to be 10 feet. And the little piece that's taken out, it's not going to be quite 10 feet, but it's it's skewed. But that that projection is going to be removed to maintain as much of the setback as we can. And obviously, the existing structure is grandfathered in its location. So we can take it apart and leave it as it is. And we're trying to make it as as nice as we can.

OK, now, is there an existing fence on the west side of your building?

There's a chain link fence.

Is that being removed?

Is that your fence? That's not your fence, is it? We don't know if it's ours. But we weren't planning on removing it because we don't think it's ours. It looks like it's closer than 10 feet.

Well, it is...

Well, I can tell you, I didn't measure it out in the field, but the survey are showing that it's more. Can you show us, Jim, show us the survey? Sure, can you bring this up? Do we have the survey? Do you have Lenny's new survey?

Okay.

Vanita, do you have the new survey as part of Lenny's landscape plan? We're going to find it anyway, but I just figured it's not here.

It's in my files. I just didn't prepare to show it at the zoning. But of course I have it. What is the latest one that we have here? Here is the location survey.

Can you share that screen?

Can we have permission to share it?

We can already see it.

Oh, okay, good. Can you zoom? Yeah, make it a little larger, please.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No problem. Let me make the whole thing larger. There you go.

So you see 10-3, 10-3? Yeah, 10-3 here, 10-3 here. So it looks like the chain link fence.

That's not the latest.

That's not the latest one. That was the one that was all being removed. But you could see the underlining setback on it. That's what we're going to maintain.

It looks like the chain link fence there is on the. I'm listening, David. Elena, we can't have you talking on top of Jim. Just one at a time, please.

I have the survey.

Okay. Thank you, Vanita. We don't have it because I think Lenny submitted it right to you after he changed it.

Okay.

Try and turn this a little bit. There we go.

Okay. Can you all see my screen?

I see a screen. I don't know if it's yours, but I see a screen. I don't see yours, Vanita. I think it's ours.

Oh, wait. Let's see. There you go.

All right. Now it says you're started. Yep. There it is.

Yeah, that's the latest.

Yeah, you can see it's nine feet. And the chain link fence appears to be on the other person's property, from what I can read from this survey.

Oh, yeah. And you have a stance proposed on your side.

Yeah. That's probably, was that, were you going to do a new fence and leave the chain link one there?

No.

They're going to leave the existing one because it's not ours.

So is he putting in a fence also?

No. So the proposed fence along the boundary is not going in. No.

It's on the other side. The one that you showed, that we showed an elevation, the one that you showed in the rendering is on the other side of the property.

Right. But then, you know, this plan will need to be updated. Okay. To release that note. Okay.

If you look, it also shows, if you could pan down a little bit, it's also talking about, like, I believe, fences between the properties a little bit. So that's where it is. And I believe that's to give you the privacy in each of the spaces.

Oh, I see. The arrow goes to these.

Yes. Yes.

Okay.

All right.

I go on more before we, unless you got something else on the west side of the building.

If I could just interject, if you need us to put up a fence there, I mean, we would do that.

Well, I was just curious from what I was looking at between that and the fact that you have that sort of a bump out on the historic building kind of threw me off as far as what I saw and what you said you were going to do. So I tried to get an understanding of what it was. That's all.

I understand. And also, with the chain link fence up against the greenery, it really just blends in. So that was part of the reason why we didn't want to do anything here, because it basically just looks like it's greenery. So that was our thought.

Now, over on the east side of the historic building, several of the images you showed tonight, It looks like there's only one going to be one window on the east side of the building. Am I looking at it?

There's another one behind this tree.

There's one hidden behind the tree. Can we zoom in on that? We're not looking at it. Vanita, can we share our screen again, please?

Yeah, let's see your elevation. Zooming in over there.

It's hard to see here.

Well, you can kind of see it if you zoom. Can you see it?

No.

I can't see your screen.

No. I'm not sharing my screen yet. Okay.

Can you show us the elevation, the east elevation, please?

Oh, the elevation? Okay. East. Do you see my screen now?

No, I'm not sharing yet.

There you go. This is an electric. So that's the tree is blocking it. One second, one second. I'm right here, I'm here. All right, relax, relax, relax. See, this is it.

So you can see there's two windows there, one in the front, one in the back. The one further into the site was blocked by the landscaping of the tree.

You can't see.

You're not seeing the screen? You can't see it? Yeah, I can see it.

Present the two windows in the front on the facade.

Those are in the existing location. That's the part of the structure we're saving. So those windows are going to go in the same slot. They're just going to be an updated architecturally significant window. So we're not removing those.

I had enlarged my screen so it was off.

I can see it.

Okay. You can see there's six over one. Okay, Bill, are you done?

No. I think so.

Go ahead. I don't have any questions. I'm a little dubious about whether this is historically significant, but I can live with this.

But that's never our choice, is it? Aren't we told what's historically significant?

Well... It's always your choice. It's always your choice. It's in our regs. It's up to us. It's always your choice.

There hasn't been one that we've approved that I thought was historically significant.

Really? Oh. Okay. Anyway, I have no questions. Is there anything else from the board before we go to the public?

I have a quick question. I want to make sure I understand that two-unit edition would be as of right. Is that correct?

No. They're entitled to two units total. Oh, totally. Gotcha. They're entitled to 2.55 units total, but you can only do two. So they've got the original one, and then they're adding two more. So that's three altogether.

That's what I inartfully meant. Okay, gotcha. Thank you.

Okay, good. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application? If so, please raise your hand and when we call on you, give us your name and address.

First, we have Ms. Sue Halpern. Hi.

Hello, Sue. It's been a while.

It has been. It seems like a long time. Welcome back from vacation.

Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks to have you back. I'm reading in some comments from Judy Narinski. She's under the weather and she asked me to read her comments for her. She's the president of the Historic Neighborhood Program. That's OK with you.

Go ahead. Okay.

I am submitting these comments in support of the DeBera Lane project. I am happy to see that the applicant is respecting the recommendation to save more of the building than the original plan. This is a developer who is listening to Stanford's desire to respect the past and preserve its historic structures and streetscapes. The elements they plan to preserve and materials they plan to use are respectful of the structure's original elements and its time period. It also represents a significant part of Stanford history as the only remaining structure from the estate of Eva Weber, one of the daughters of William Hoyt, who was the last survivor of New York leather merchants, the Hoyt brothers. This may be only one small structure, that in and of itself may not appear to be significant. It was a simple gardener's cottage, but it is also an example of vernacular architecture, which adds to its significance. That's her comment. I just want to say I like it, actually, myself. I think it looks much nicer than the original plan, so I appreciate your work on this. I think it looks great. Thank you.

Thank you, Sue.

Mm-hmm.

Great. Thank you, Sue.

You're welcome.

Next, we have Ms. Annie Quinlew. Ms. Liu, would you like to speak? Elena, could you stop sharing so we can see the speakers?

Good idea. Yeah, can we take down this? There we go.

That beautiful picture? Yeah.

Annie, are you there? You're muted now. You need to unmute. Okay. But we don't hear you.

He's the only speaker. There's nobody else.

Okay.

Is there anyone else? There is one speaker. Ms. Corrine Thompson.

Yes, my name is Corrine Thompson. I live at 38 Dayboro Lane right across the street. I love like the idea of redoing this house and I think the plans they are quite Nice. Um, I am just very concerned over the extra unit, um, the amount of people, anyone that comes to this street, it is, we are packed like sardines here and there's like no parking. Um, I believe my association, we submitted, um, a statement of opposition about these plans.

Um, so I just, we did get it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Um, yeah. So I just wanted to, my personal opinion, I just, yeah, I'm worried about the parking very much on my, um, And also just that many people in those units, I think is going to just develop a ton of traffic. And yeah, that's it.

Okay. Thank you. The applicant will respond when we finish with the public's comments. So thank you. Annie, can you unmute and speak? Okay, you're unmuted. Unfortunately, we're not hearing you. So we're gonna have to move on. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak?

There are no other speakers on the list.

Okay. Jim, would you like to respond to the comment from Ms. Thompson?

Of course. Ms. Thompson, I understand your concern. I've been to the site a bunch of times. I know that people park at the end there. Those are not my client's cars or his tenants. We believe that the parking that we have on the site is going to be suitable. It's also important to note that And sometimes what you have to ask permission to do is way better than what you can do as of right. And we could actually build two bigger homes with more bedrooms and based on the current rules, not have to provide any parking on site, which we don't want to do. So we're trying to be cognizant of the fact that this is a dead end street and people live there and they make it their home. And we're confident that the people that will be living here will assimilate to the neighborhood and be caring of their neighbors. And we're going to provide parking on site, which by the rules as of the state of Connecticut, July 1st, 2026, are no longer required. So it's actually a better project and there's better parking based on this project than if we were not to get this project approved. So I understand your concerns. And I've been to that location many times. And I can tell you, I really think that the two bedroom house that is going to be there is going to be for a young family. And I wouldn't imagine that it was going to cause many parking issues because it's only going to have two bedrooms. and the other ones are built as a right. So really what we're talking about here is a two-bedroom living unit, and it's probably going to afford a young family the ability to live in the neighborhood that you get to enjoy because it is a beautiful neighborhood.

Okay. Board, any other questions or comments? I think we're about ready to close this application. The board Anything else?

Not for me.

No. Okay. Jim or Elena, before we close, anything else you want to add?

I think we are good. Thank you, guys. We just hope that this is what you would like to see on the street.

I would just like to thank you all, new members, old members that have taken part in this process. I'm hopeful that I was able to articulate what we went through to try and address the concerns of the board. I really believe this is a good project and it would be, me as a lifelong member of Stanford, born and raised here, it would be a shame to not keep this. That's my closing arguments. I appreciate all of your time. Thank you very much.

Good, thank you. Sorry, before you go, can you send us the presentation so we can add it to the file? Sure.

Yeah, this PowerPoint.

The PowerPoint, yeah.

Sure, absolutely, Ralph.

Good to see you. Thank you. Good to see you.

Thank you. Good, then we are closing application 226-11.

But including the receipt of the PowerPoint. even though it'll come after we've closed. Yes.

Yep. Now that I've said we've closed, anything else we need, Ralph?

That's it from my end.

Benita?

I think we're good.

Okay, good. It's 9.20. Why don't we take a short break and resume at 9.30? So we'll recess for 10 minutes. OKAY. OKAY. THIS IS THE ZONING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2026. AND IT IS 932. AND WE ARE BACK IN SESSION. THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ON OUR PUBLIC HEARING LIST ARE and 226-13. Both of them relate to a rezoning of a portion of Pacific Street. 226-12 is City of Stanford zoning board map change. Applicant is seeking a Zoning map change from the current RMF Multifamily Residence Design District and CB Community Business District zoning districts to the VC2 Village Commercial District zoning district. Second application is an accompanying text change. That's application 226-13. It's also an application from the zoning board. The purpose of this text change is to designate Pacific Street between Atlantic Street and Dock Street as a commercial street. Roseanne, could you please read the two planning board letters for these?

June 26, 2026 to Mr. David Stein, Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application number 226-12, Stanford Zoning Board Map Change. Dear Mr. Stein and members of the Zoning Board, during its meeting held on Tuesday, June 25, 2026, the Planning Board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter. Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current RMF Multi-Family Residence Design District and CB Community Business Zoning Districts to the VC2 Village Commercial Zoning District. Ralph Blessing, Land Use Bureau Chief, made a presentation and answered questions from the board. After some discussion, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of ZB Application 226-12, With the recommendation, the zoning board consider modifying the zoning district map change line to allow the historic residential structures on Pacific and Henry streets to remain in the RMF zone, multifamily residence design district, and found this to be in general harmony with the 2025 comprehensive plan. Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gazzano, Chair. And... June 26th, 2026. To Mr. David Stein, Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board, regarding ZB application 226-13, Stanford Zoning Board text change. Dear Mr. Stein and members of the Zoning Board, during this meeting held on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026, the Planning Board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter. The purpose of this text changed change is to designate Pacific Street between Atlantic Street and Dock Street as a commercial street. Ralph Blessing, Land Use Bureau Chief, made a presentation and answered questions from the board. After some discussion, the planning board unanimously recommended approval of ZB application 226-13 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2025 comprehensive plan. Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Getzeno, chair.

Good. Thank you. I'd like to ask our land use bureau chief, Barak Blessing, to take us through these two applications, please.

I'm happy to. Let me share my screen. Can you see my screen?

Yep.

Excellent. For the record, Ralph Blessing, Land Use Bureau Chief for the City of Stamford. So we are talking about two related applications today that have to do with the rezoning of parts of Atlantic Street to the VC Village Commercial District. So we're going to talk about the map change first. So the rezoning area is, as I mentioned, located in the south end. So just for orientation, the train station is over here. The Latham wider community center is here. Pacific Street runs through the middle of it. Dock Street is up here. We have Henry Street here, Woodland here, and, sorry, Walter Wheeler is down here.

What is, is that B&H Carding across the street?

This is the B&S Carding site. B&S, yeah. Yeah.

Which, for those who are new on the board, we... I guess it was approved for development.

Yes.

Many years ago and nothing has happened.

Yes.

Other than the lawsuit.

Yes. Um, Continue. So we have three main goals for the rezoning. The first one is to clean up Pacific Street. The second one is to establish Pacific Street as the south main street and also to look at conformance and compliance issues in the corridor. So there are a number of nonconforming uses in the area. So you see here, for example, this auto body shop that I believe now is closed. There's a couple of other industrial And there's also a couple of vacant properties along the corridor that obviously do not make this in all places a very appealing place. So we believe that with the right zoning incentives, we can spur the redevelopment of those sites and get neighborhood or uses that are much more compatible with the neighborhood than what we're seeing today. The proposed map change is also in accordance with the south end neighborhood study that we did a couple of years ago. And for Pacific Street, the study stated that there should be a commercial overlay along Pacific Street and that there should be ground flow retail in order to strengthen the retail corridor and to increase public presence. And we believe that this zoning change will achieve that. The third goal of this rezoning is to increase conformance and compliance. So what you see on the left map is everything in purple are uses that are currently not conforming with zoning. So in particular, on the northern end of the rezoning area, you see a couple of commercial uses that are already existing that do not conform with the RMF district. The RMF district is a residential district that doesn't allow for any residential uses. And you see a couple of other non-conforming uses, industrial uses interspersed. With the proposed rezoning, what do you see on the right side is that we would greatly decrease the conformance issues in the corridor. And obviously one goal of zoning is to reduce conformance and compliance issues.

Ralph? Yes. Can you go back to that for a minute, please? Sure, yeah. Am I correct that there's a section that's already VC there on the right side of Pacific?

Yes, that area here, which is not part of the rezoning area, but the goal is to extend that existing VC district along Pacific Street.

Yeah, we just did that, didn't we? Just a year or so ago, we changed it to VC?

Yeah, it's been a while. Time flies when you're having fun.

Believe me, I know what you mean, Rob.

So yes, that's here actually the firehouse and the historic preservation project with the transfer of development rights.

That's where the old church was.

The church still is and actually needs to be maintained as part of the historic preservation agreements that are in place. Okay. So let's go back to the rezoning area. We briefly talked about this. And the south end is not only from a zoning perspective, but also from a zoning perspective, quite complex. So if we look at the current zoning map here, we have the already existing VC2 zoning district, which is... between Henry and Ludlow over here. And in the neighborhood, we have a couple of higher density districts. So for example, the SRDN, this is the Yale and town area up here. Harbor Point, which is the SRDS down here. the RHD, which is the zoning that was approved for the redevelopment of the BNS carding site, and the TCD, which is the zoning district around the train area. So all those higher density districts allow for taller building, including high rise buildings. However, in between those districts that allow for higher densities, we also have districts that are medium density and allow for buildings that are up to four stories tall. primarily the RMF. A lot of the rezoning area actually is located in the RMF to either side. And that's sort of the core historic district area or what's left of it of the historic structures in that area. So what we're proposing to do is to change the rezoning from currently RMF, which is this area here, and this lot here, and this area down here, and CB, which is basically around the intersection of three sides of the intersection of Pacific, Woodland, and Ludlow. to rezone those areas to VC2. So here is a comparison between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning. And what I would like to stress is that the density that we're proposing is actually not that much higher than what is already allowed. So the goal is not to allow for high rise development or anything like that. So the maximum building height in the VC can be up to five stories, but it has to be set back and can only cover part of the fourth story on a commercial street, and it can only be as high as four stories on side streets, and we will talk about what that means a little bit later. The reason for going to the VC2 district is that the VC2 has way more design controls than both the RMF and the CB. The RMF and the CB are older zoning districts. The VC has very strict requirements with regard to how the ground floors, the retail storefronts, need to be designed. That if you have a ground floor residence, that it has to be set back from the sidewalk and there needs to be planting before it. and so on and so forth. So once again, the goal is not necessarily to increase density. We are bumping the density up a little bit to encourage redevelopment, but allowing for development that is in context with the neighborhood. The setback regulations in the RMF are 15 feet from the street. Almost no building currently existing doesn't meet those requirements because they were built in many instances before zoning. And in the CB, it's 10 feet. Also, very few buildings meet that setback requirement because they usually are aligned with the street and were built before zoning. In the VC district, the setbacks are measured from the curb line to make sure that there's a uniform sidewalk width. And the sidewalk width we want is 15 feet along a commercial street. So you would have a four foot wide planting strip with street trees and an 11 foot wide clear path, obviously along Commercial Street. We hope that there is more pedestrian traffic, so we want wider sidewalks. and along the side streets, the sidewalk requirement is at least 10 feet, also with a four foot wide planting strip and a street tree requirement. The setback requirement in the VC is a little bit more lenient than in the CB and the RMF. The idea being that we want a continuous street wall so that you have a continuous wall of storefronts that are not interrupted by driveways, curb cuts, and those kinds of things. One thing that the VC also does is it actually has a bigger setback when abutting on single family districts. This doesn't apply here really, but there are some design guidelines in there that sort of let the VC step down to lower density areas. What the CB and the RMF also don't have is a lot coverage maximum. So for the VC2, there has to be at least 15% along commercial street and 20% of the lot has to be pervious surface. And I think after the recent rain, it's important that we make sure that all, our zoning is sensitive to stormwater management. And obviously if new development occurs, it would happen according to the new stormwater drainage manual that was not in place when this neighborhood was originally developed.

Ralph, before you go on, can you go back one minute? Yes. The FARs you're recommending over here, the 1.75 and the 1.5 for the residential, would you consider that like a moderate density or high density with all the restrictions that are here?

You know, with Yeah, that's a medium density. It's a little bit higher than the CB and the RMF, I would think. But it's a little bit apples and oranges because the RMF and also the CB partially They don't have a floor area limitation. They only have a unit per acre limitation, which means you can only have so and so many units, but those units can be, I mean, not that anyone would build that, but you could have a 3000 square foot apartment unit So there is no control as to the total floor area that can be built. So in that sense, yes, the density in units per acre is probably higher in the VC2 than in the RMF and the CB, but you know how many square feet of development you get, which is something you don't know in the RMF and the CB.

But with that moderate, I'll call it moderate ratio, do you think that's going to be sufficient enough to sort of spur on development or not to have so many issues we have over the existing VC districts we have now?

I mean, so first of all, we have seen development in the VC districts. The thing is in Glenbrook and Springdale, that's the VC1 district, which actually has lower densities than the VC2. And I mean, we picked the VC2 because of the development that is proposed along Pacific Street where the firehouse is. And that seems to be enough of an incentive to allow for development without creating so much of an incentive that everything gets torn down and replaced by taller buildings. So it's a fine line, but I think we're trying to find the sweet spot here.

So moderate would be an appropriate description then.

Moderate. Yeah.

Thanks.

So what we also did in this instance was we wanted to estimate how much development that rezoning would create. And that goes back to your question about how moderate or not the proposed zoning is. So what we did was a so-called soft site analysis. And a soft site is a site, a parcel that is likely to be redeveloped. Of course, those are all privately owned lots. We cannot hold people to it and make them redevelop their sites. But we use criteria that we think make it likely that a site would get developed. And one of the first things we did was we looked at common ownership. So what you see on the map, the different colors, those are all the different ownership entities. And they own more than, in many instances, more than one lot. So if you look at... this property here on the corner of Henry Street and Pacific Street. This is information from the tax assessor's data. So that's just the address of the ownership. So that's an assemblage of a variety of lots. If you go back to this map, so this is three or four lots that are under common ownership. So, and the criteria we use for identifying a soft site is that it has to be larger than 10,000 square feet. And the current development on site has to be less than 50% of the proposed density. So the idea being, if you have a very small parcel or a parcel that is already built out under the proposed zoning, you're not going to redevelop it. You're not going to tear down a building and replace it with a building that gives you one more unit if you already have 20 units on site. So that's the idea behind the soft site analysis and how to identify soft sites. And based on those criteria, we identified those seven soft sites that you see here, numbers one through seven. Some of them are assemblages that meet some of the criteria. So for example, this property down here is more than 10,000 square feet. However, the units on site are way more than 50% of the proposed density. So I would think it is very unlikely that this parcel here gets redeveloped. the same is true for this parcel here. So even though they meet the size criteria, they don't meet the density criteria for being identified as a soft side.

Ralph, going back for a second, how about the site at northwest corner of Henry and Pacific?

Northwest corner of Henry and Pacific. Oh, this one here? Yeah. Yes, that's the same thing. There are already so many units on site that the new zoning doesn't create sufficient of an incentive for the redevelopment.

Okay, thank you.

So this is basically an analysis of all those different soft sites that we identified. So this is the no change scenario. So if we wouldn't change the zoning, this is the development that would be allowed. under current conditions with the current zoning. So we call it a day. We leave the zoning at RMF and CB. And this is what in theory could be built on those parcels. However, we've seen there hasn't been a lot of development. So probably it's not enough of an incentive to spur redevelopment. And under the proposed zoning, this is what would be allowed. So compared or in comparison, the proposed rezoning would give you plus minus 230 more units if the new zoning was put in place. So what you see here is also that actually even under the current zoning, a lot of the sites that would be redeveloped under the proposed zoning are also likely to be redeveloped under the existing zoning. So the only site that was really added through the rezoning as a soft site was here, 72 Garden Street. The other thing to consider is that under current zoning, with the new state legislation that went into effect, everything under 16 units is exempt from parking. So if some of the units were to be redeveloped under current zoning, they would not have a parking requirement. Under new zoning, because everything is more than 16 units, they all would have to meet the parking requirement. And once again, that's the new state law that went into effect on July 1st. And in one of the next meetings, we will discuss the parking, the consequences this new state legislation has for our parking regulations. Some other considerations for this rezoning are that, as I mentioned before, the VC district has way more robust urban design guidelines than the existing zoning. I mentioned the storefront glazing requirements. I mentioned the requirements for pervious surface. and so on and so forth. And what we've also seen is that the VC has very successfully worked with the historic preservation bonuses that we have under section eight. So there is one project that was approved a long time or relatively long time ago, up on the northern end of the rezoning area, 583 Pacific Street. And then 500 Pacific Street is the proposed development next to the firehouse. So this is the zoning map component of the application and separate application is the text change application. which is 226-13. That is actually a very straightforward application. It basically just says that Pacific Street between Atlantic Street, which is down here somewhere, and Dock Street, which is at the northern end, should be considered a commercial street And what that means is along a commercial street, you can have retail on the ground floor. You cannot have it on a side street, which would be the gray area within the rezoning area. And along the commercial street, you can go up to five stories, but on the side streets like here, where the VC meets the RMF district, you actually cannot go higher than four stories, which is the same building height than is allowed in the RMF district. So the VC district has built in sort of this stepping down towards like the side streets already built in. So in conclusion, I think this is a very moderate rezoning proposal aimed at providing a real neighborhood amenity, a more commercial Pacific Street that has local retail and services. And it also conforms and implements the South End neighborhood study that has been kicking around for a while. And I think it really strengthens sort of the connection or will strengthen the connection between sort of the the west side of the south end where Harbor Point is, and the east side with Yale and town. Currently you have sort of this no man's land in between. a little bit, which is Pacific Street. And I think the VC, the rezoning to VC can make a real difference here. And I also think that the new zoning has big advantages with regard to sustainability. We mentioned the pervious surface requirements, but it has also worked very well with historic preservation. as we've seen on those two examples along Pacific Street. And with that, thank you very much for your attention at this late hour.

Well, thank you for that excellent presentation and for all of your hard work on this rezoning proposal. Let's go to the board. Bill.

The questions I had, I asked before. I just want to say that I think this, unless I hear something different tonight, you know, from either board members or the members of the public, I think this is going to be a good idea to jumpstart development in this area. And I think we should give it a go. But let's see what everybody else has to say.

Okay. Roseanne?

Ralph, can you address the planning board's comments about with regard to the historic buildings on Pacific and Henry Streets?

Yes, let me pull up the, let's see where we have a good map. So I believe it's been a while. So I hope I remember correctly. So I think the concern was about those buildings. So those ones here are the ones that are BMR units and that are protected. And they're also outside the rezoning area. I think the concern was really here for those properties across the street from the Leith and Wider Community Center. And I don't think I fully share the concerns of the planning board, because if you look here, it is actually not a soft site. So it is relatively unlikely that those buildings would be redeveloped because the units that are already in there are almost as many as you could build if you tear everything down and rebuild it. And remember, if you rebuild it, you have to provide parking. So a lot of those existing units here, they don't have parking. So in order to replace them, not only would you have to tear down an existing building and replace it with something new, you would also have to provide parking, which would make the project much more expensive. So in that sense, I think it is not very likely, of course you never know, but based on the soft side analysis that we conducted, I think it's not very likely that those buildings would get torn down.

So they were thinking that it was left in the old district, they wouldn't be torn down.

Yes. And I would argue it doesn't make a difference because we did the analysis and they are totally overbuilt under the existing zoning. So the units that you can have there, there's way more than the RMF allows. And I believe if I recall correctly, If it is rezoned, you get close, but it's only a few fewer units that are already there.

And then my only other question was, did you consider including that VC district and changing that to VC2?

That is already VC2. So we are updating the zoning map as we speak. So the VC1 is the VC district in Glenbrook or the VC districts in Glenbrook and Springdale. And VC2 is everywhere else. So this is an existing VC2 district. As we're updating the zoning map, it'll become clearer that this is a VC2. This will be a VC2 if this gets approved.

Great. That's it for me for now.

Hey, Keith? Ralph, you had mentioned that when Bill had asked the question about spurring interest Is there an application or is there someone interested in redeveloping a site down there currently?

No. I mean, except from the one site that's already in the VC district. And there is that approved project. Let me show you what I'm talking about.

I'm just curious to know what that approved or that project is.

So the approved project here is that's soft side number two.

Is that Andreas?

Yes, that's Andreas Hogg. I mean, it's the same developer who's proposing this here in the VC district. But that's like a historic preservation project that the proposed redevelopment wouldn't be, I don't think, They're coming back to make changes to the project that is already approved.

And what type of use is it going to be?

So that's going to be mixed use. There is already a non-conforming commercial use in there. There's like an office building and they do design of homeware, home textiles and things like that. Okay. And they're also proposing to add some residential units. Got it. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Okay, Peter.

I think it looks like a good idea. I don't have any questions. I think it's well thought out.

And I agree with Peter on that. I feel the same way, and I don't have any questions. So why don't we go to the public? If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on these two applications, please raise your hand when you're called on. Give us your name and address, please.

First, we have Ms. Sue Halpern. Good evening again. This is Sue Halpern, and I live on Elmcroft Road. And I'm commenting as a 40-year resident down in the South End here. Even though there are some good points to this application, I have a few concerns. Most of the properties included in this change are on the National Register of Historic Neighborhoods, and over one-half of the 449 original properties in 1986 in the designated district are gone. Now, I know Roseanne had mentioned the planning board recommended modifying the map change to allow historic residential properties to remain in the RMF zone. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, I think there should be a lot more, but... You didn't mention Willetta Capel's, she's the coordinator, he or she is the coordinator of site plan review. And she stated in her comments that future development may have adverse impacts on existing residential properties, specifically residential properties that will abut future development that are not required to have a side setback in the VC2 zone. This will not only affect the multifamily homes on Pacific and Henry Street, but the two and three family homes on Pacific and East Walnut and Pacific and Woodland Place as well. St. Luke's Church and the Rectory, built in 1888, they're on the corner of Pacific and Woodland Place and are included in this change. And they're considered soft site number five. So I have my concerns about what could happen to this property. Waletta Capel also commented that there could be adverse impacts on traffic. parking is a much larger issue here. With the new regulation that Mr. Blessing had mentioned that no parking spaces are required for any development less than 16 units, Parking will be a major issue in this neighborhood, as it is now, with people from the residents and visitors from the high-rises and people trying to go to the businesses on Pacific Street. They're searching for parking now. We have no public parking lots down here like downtown has. We only have the train station, and that's full with commuters. And just one last thing, I sent to the board around 5.30 tonight photos of the maintenance hole covers that were overflowing yesterday. I know it was unusual to have that much rain, but on Pacific Street and on Henry Street, water and debris were shooting out of the manhole covers, flooding the streets. And, you know, I think this is a time where you have to look at the stress on the infrastructure down here with all this development and the increase in sea levels in this dense area. So I just would like you to consider my concerns about this application. Thank you.

Thank you, Sue. Do we have anyone else from the public who'd like to speak?

Yes, we have Mr. Gary Michael.

Hi, I'm going to second Sue's statement.

Give us your name and address, please.

Sure. My name is Gary Michael. I live in South End in Harbor Point. I'm going to second Sue's point. I'm not sure how many of you guys have come down to South End in the past four years? Have any of you?

Of course we have.

Yeah. Have you visited T's? Have you been to Harbor Point? Where have you gone?

Yeah. Please continue with your comments.

So if you visited, you would know that if you stay in the lock and key buildings, or if you live in BLT, there is no public parking. If you were to try to attempt to park in that neighborhood at any point during the day or in the evening, you'd be unable to do so. And so again, the point is that without any parking as is, where do you expect any of these visitors to park in this new commercial district?

Okay.

That's my comment.

Thank you. We will ask Ralph to respond to the comments when we hear from all of the public.

Next, we have Mr. Dave Adams.

Good evening, zoning board. Thank you again for allowing me to speak. My name is Dave Adams. I'm on Glenbrook Road. Um, and yeah, I'm, you know, I, I unfortunately did not get to look at this before, uh, this meeting. Uh, so please forgive me, but if I can get some clarification, I think that, uh, director blessing headset or chief blessing said that, uh, that this was going to include a parking requirement. Uh, you know, now that the VC two, there would be an inclusion of a parking requirement. Um, I was listening to Ms. Halpern's comments, and she talked about there being removal of the setback so buildings would be able to abut each other. I'm having a hard time reconciling where you would have a parking requirement, but then you wouldn't have any limitations on distance from the property line of the building. Where is this parking going to go if there was such a parking requirement? I've spent a lot of time down there. I'm a big fan of T's Kitchen. Sometimes I go down there and see if local bands went on. This area has been redeveloped by the Department of Transportation. They've narrow the street, you know, widen the sidewalk out, you know, to accommodate, you know, on street, you know, for T's Kitchen and stuff like that. You know, they've taken a lot of parking away. you know, the local shipping, I don't know. It's gotta be a logistics warehouse that's there. They allow the parking lot to be open for, for the evening. So people can park there, but there is no parking down there. And so the parking is a serious issue. You know, a couple of the properties that are there, like, you know, third place is a little higher than this, this cutout, but you know, I don't, What does the board really foresee this all being developed into? I mean, is it going to look like Madison Avenue with, you know, shops in the basement level or the ground level and, you know, residences above? Or, you know, what is the real vision here? And where is this parking going to go? It's limited space there. It's not a huge plot of land. I'm just confused. I'd like some... If we could just go over how that's going to all work, that would be great. I would really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Okay, I don't see any other hands. Ralph, you want to respond to the public's comments?

Sure, I'm happy to. I think Ms. Halpern raised a legitimate concern about historic preservation. I mean, the problem is that the historic district or registered designation doesn't provide any protections. So the proposed rezoning doesn't really take anything away that has not been there to begin with. I just want to sort of reiterate that we've seen the few development projects that have been going on in the rezoning area or next to the rezoning area they were all very conscientious of historic preservation and included historic preservation. And because the VC district requires site plan approval, which the other districts do not, there is also much more ability for the zoning board to ask for historic preservation measures. And really the reason why 583 and 500 Pacific Street were redeveloped with historic preservation in mind is because of the bonus program. that is in place. And in addition to the rezoning gives a 25% density bonus in addition to what is allowed under the current zoning. With regard to the parking, The setbacks have nothing to do with the parking requirement. You have to accommodate the parking that is required under zoning. As I mentioned before, let's see where the table is. Give me one second. So the parking doesn't have to be in a parking lot or anything like that. It can be under the building. If we recall the proposal for the redevelopment of the site on 500 Pacific Street in the existing VC2 district that would have parking, I believe it was on the ground floor and on the first floor to meet the parking requirement. And what I also wanted to demonstrate is that with the proposed rezoning, all those new units will have to be parked. under the current zoning and under the current regulation, those units here that have an asterisk, and it's not many, but those units don't have to be parked. And remember that the parking requirement is not only for residential uses, it's also for commercial uses. It's very low in the VC district, but nonetheless, there is that type of parking requirement. So the other thing about parking in the south end is a lot of the parking issues, I think, have to do with the management of the parking down there. Um, there are, uh, parking spaces in apartment buildings, uh, that you have to pay for on street parking is free. So I think there are very tough discussions to be at how to efficiently manage the parking, um, in, uh, the South end, which, um, has very little to do with the proposed zoning, um, but with overall thinking about parking in the south end.

Okay. I see we have one more hand.

Let's hear from Mr. Michael. This is Gary and Michael again. Yeah, I just wanted to respond to Ralph's comment because I do live here, Ralph, and I just wanted to notify you just to kind of update your expectations. So we do live in one of the buildings. We live in the Allure. There are no empty parking spots in any of... We have two parking garages here, two towers. So there's no available parking in our building whatsoever. There's no available parking in any other buildings in BLT. So that's not going to be a solution. Just letting you know.

Yeah, I think what Ralph's referring to is possibly tenants who park on the street rather than pay to park in the building. I see. And then, you know, one of the issues is or one of the solutions is you bundle the parking so that it's included in the rent. but that's not a perfect solution either.

Yeah. I mean, I think it could be an interesting solution to this and it'd be interesting to hear what like the public's input is, is this has historically been a residential neighborhood. And so even though we have high rise building residentials or multifamily residentials, it would be interesting to see where the, instead of a thoroughbred, a commercial district with very limited parking, we create some kind of like mixed use community where, you know, there's a coffee shop in a home on, you know, a side street like Woodland and a cafe on another random home by the cemetery. And you start to break up this, you know, residential neighborhood into a larger multifamily neighborhood with four or five story buildings throughout, um, because it feels like that's what this neighborhood is. It's not a Madison Avenue commercial district. It's a very walking community. It's a very walking-oriented family community. And I think if we don't over-concentrate certain city blocks and spread out some of the traffic which is already naturally happening by foot you know through cape park and through other through the cemetery i mean there's other areas that people walk um throughout throughout the the south end i i think we're gonna i think we'll have a better solution than trying to kind of concentrate everything on washington street and pacific um And I think another thing to note is, and I don't know if you guys are paying attention at all to what's happening on the boardwalk, but BLT commercial lots are having a very tough time filling those spaces. We've already lost MexiQ, which is on the waterfront. We've lost the Crab Shell on the other side of the water. We've just lost La Fantina within the past seven days. So these commercial districts aren't doing well. And I think that should be like an alarm flag to the board.

Yeah, good point. I mean, I'm not quite sure where this whole Madison Avenue thing came from. What the VC does is it allows on the commercial street for ground floor commercial And the three or four stories on top are residential. So it is a mixed-use district. I just want to be very clear about that. And off the commercial street, so not along Pacific Street, but on the side streets, commercial is not allowed. So it is, together with... the requirements for the sidewalk design and so on and so forth. It's a very thoughtful mixed use district. But the thing is currently where we have commercial activity, they are not allowed by zoning. So we're allowing commercial where it already exists and for modest expansion if that is what people want to do. No one forces anyone to put in the retail. But I want to be very clear, the commercial floor area in the VC district which is only allowed on a commercial street, is limited to 0.25 maximum of the FAR out of 1.75 FAR.

Okay, I see we have one more speaker.

Oh, Mr. Allen.

Oh, and I forgot to... Mr. Adams asked what sort of the vision is. So the vision, the VC district is sort of a like Main Street America kind of district. So the idea is you have ground floor commercial mom and pop shops, small footprint. And then on the upper floors, you do have apartments. And then on the side streets, It would be purely residential. And once again, the building height is restricted to three and four stories on the side streets, which is exactly the same as in the RMF. And on the commercial street, you can go up to five stories, but only if it's set back from the street, the top floor, or it doesn't cover more than 50% of the ceiling of the fourth floor. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay. You're from Mr. Adams, and then let's...

uh close this application for these applications so dave go ahead so um i just want to say uh through you chair to uh chief blessing uh i'm sorry for the madison avenue reference uh yeah i i was trying to identify that that mixed use um as you described it i i I see how that, you know, uh, how that vision, it, it, it works out. And, uh, I just wanted to, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be, uh, the trigger in the room. Uh, I know that this is, this is very complicated. I know for, um, both you and, and the residents of South, the South end, obviously, uh, there's a desire to, uh, tidy up that area in one way or the other. Um, And I appreciate your sensitivity towards the distinctions between the RMF and the CB districts, as you had laid out earlier. I appreciate that. I don't know if it'll be realized in that way in the long run, but I appreciate it. As far as uh parking is concerned i appreciate that you're you're you know i thank you for answering that question because i think you clarified my question and that's it i really appreciate all the hard work you guys do uh i know this is a long night so i'm going to shut up and i hope you have a wonderful evening and again thank you for your service good thank you okay any final things i'm sorry

Any other comments from the board? Okay. Is it okay with the board if we close these applications? Yes. Ralph, is that fine with you?

Absolutely. I mean, I think we try to be very balanced here and try to address a lot of the issues that we have down here. So thank you for your time.

Okay. So we are closing applications 226-12 and 226-13. That concludes the public hearing portion of our meeting. And we now go into our regular meeting. First thing we have is minutes. July 2nd. Does anyone have any changes to it?

Oh, yeah. Because I remember six weeks ago.

So, eight. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Can we get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Approved. Okay. Next, we have July 6th. Do you remember that one any better, Roseanne? It is four days later. Okay. Any changes, corrections to these? No. Okay. Motion to approve? Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? They're approved. Next, CSPR 1235, William Gordiano, 23-31 Dora Street. Applicants proposing to demolish a two-family dwelling and construct five detached dwellings with garages, decks, patios, and denser units. Property is within the CAM boundary. This one's a little bit different than our normal CAM because they're constructing five units here. which if it weren't for the CAM would be as of right. But Vanita, why don't you tell us a little bit more about this?

Sure. So they were assuming that these are as of right, and they were going through the building permit process, but EPB staff you know, notice that it's needed a coastal site plan approval. So I've looked over their materials just to make sure they meet our, you know, zoning requirements. They made refinements in that process. They, you know, provided more detail than they otherwise would need in the building permit process. They're providing two garage spaces for each of the units and they also have two surface parking spaces They've made sure that they meet the light and air requirement. They meet the usable open space requirement. They will also be subject to the sidewalk requirement. But, you know, the traffic bureau looking at this street and in general, like the layout was that there's no other sidewalk on either side of the street. So they don't think a sidewalk makes sense for this small area. portion, so they recommended a fee in lieu would be a better option. for this project. So that's something that we've incorporated in the conditions of approval. It received positive recommendation from all the departments. They partly already reviewed it as part of the building permit system, but we got reports back from EPB Engineering for this application, as well as from DEEP and the Harbor Management Commission. And the applicant's representative has been patiently waiting. He's also available if the board has any questions.

Okay. Does the board have any questions?

No.

Okay. So we do need conditions. It's kind of interesting. Even the as-of-right projects do have to comply with certain requirements such as, you know, the the setbacks and so on, but they also have to comply with sidewalks, street tree, and usable open space. You know, and although we're not, since it as a right wouldn't come to us, so we wouldn't be flagging it, but staff, our staff or building department staff would. Anyway, Monita, you want to put up the proposed conditions?

Sure. So this is our typical approval letter for, oh wait, I have to hit another button. All right, so this is our typical approval letter for Coastal Site Plan applications. We're referencing all the reports from EPB Engineering, the Harbor Management Commission.

Let's- I'm sorry, can we just see the first pair up again? So, oh, I see. The only one that imposed conditions was EPB?

Right.

Okay. So this is sort of like an abbreviated version of our standard condition letter.

Right.

Okay.

This is just a list of plans that's included. This is a reference to the sidewalk requirement.

Okay, so number two says they got to come back with plans that show sidewalk and street trees, or they can request a special permit for fee and lieu for the sidewalk.

Right.

As well as for the trees.

Right. And we are looking at simplifying the process for FinLU for sidewalk as part of, you know, one of the upcoming text amendments. Because, you know, there are times where the board might want to, you know, consider if a FinLU makes sense, but there are other occasions for like small sites, small frontages. where it might be okay for that to be an as of right option. So hopefully that covers it and they don't have to return to the board.

On number two, they're updating the plans. Do they have to be submitted and approved by anyone?

So this would be a condition of the billing permit.

Well, do you want to? Okay. Okay. development plans,

They included the estimate of the fee based on the frontage that they have.

Okay. It doesn't say it's an estimate. Do we say anything normally about how do we do that?

Okay. The final. Yeah. You need to change the A to an N. Oh. Yes. Thanks.

I mean, the final fee usually, that's the same for the fee in Lewis due at the time of the building permit. So it's also adjusted for inflation and those kinds of things.

After we say the two fee and lose there, you want to, in that third line, we say section 9G4, you want to say with payment, due prior to building permit? Okay. Any other comments on number two? Okay.

Then the rest of them are EPB conditions, which includes endorsement by Engineering Bureau.

Okay.

These are all their standard conditions.

That's the maintenance agreement drainage maintenance agreement. You may certify this application.

Sorry, my mouse is running around a little bit. Yeah.

Is this part of our?

It is part of our standard letter.

Okay. Okay. This unusable open space was acceptable.

Yes.

Okay. Does anyone have any comments on this?

Not me.

No. Can we get a motion to approve CSPR 1235 with the conditions as presented?

So moved.

Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed? Abstentions? The application is approved. Next, CSPR 1236, Nancy A. Lovis for J. and Alina Landauer, 203 Ocean Drive West. Applicants proposing to install a new dock. The property is within the CAM boundary. Okay. Vanita, what is this one about?

This one is for construction of a new dock.

Kidding.

It's part of a residence.

Uh-huh.

So it's primarily subject to deep review, but obviously there'll be a landward attachment of the dock. That's why it gets reviewed by us as well, but they have a deep permit for the dock itself.

Okay. And what are the conditions?

Right. We have an EPB letter from Lindsay Tomaszewski dated July 29th, an engineering letter from Belletta Capel dated August 12th. The DEEP letter is from Karen Michaels dated July 10th, and the Harbor Management Commission letter is from August 3rd.

Okay. Any questions? You get a motion on this with to approve with the conditions as listed by the needle.

All we approve of the SDR 1237 with the. Thanks Bill 36.

This one's 1236. That's what I said 1236.

So I get in. OK, so all right. Did I hear a second? Yes, for me. Okay, good. Any further discussion on this one? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? It's approved. Okay. Next, CSPR 1237, Claudia and Glenn Chapman, 2236 Japan Avenue. applicants proposing to construct in addition to the existing residence with a garage and driveway modifications, the property is within the CAM boundary. Anything we should know about this, Vanita?

This is, the improvements are on the landward side. It's, you know, the property's on the water. The applicant is reducing the impervious overall. They're realigning the driveway. You know, it's... It's a decently sized garage addition, but overall, the amount of impervious is coming down. We got positive recommendations from all the departments, including EPB in their letter from August 14th, engineering letter from July 9th, the letter from July 30th, and the Harbor Management Commission's letter from August 21st.

Did you get a signed application?

We do get signed up. When we receive them, we get signed applications, but the digital version is not always the same. Got it. Okay.

As long as you have it, that's the only reason I asked.

Yeah, no, but we can make it a practice to, you know, have them scan the signed version and put, because that's what we're sharing with you. Earlier, we used to send copies and those would always be the signed ones. Yeah, okay.

It would be good to see that it was actually signed.

Right, yeah.

Benita, is there any, did anybody look at site issues? Is it blocking any of you? Who's view? Does anybody stand on Chippean Avenue and want to see the water? That's a CAM requirement. Is it not?

It is.

Thank you. I didn't know that. You learn something every day.

Actually, this won't block the views because it's really not. Let me share the site development plan.

Chippean Avenue, they're not on the water.

It is.

They are on the water, but let's see.

Are they down at the bottom, then?

No, down at the bottom, nobody on Japan's on the water.

This is the addition. This is the garage. This is Japan Avenue, and this is the water. So I don't think this is really blocking views. The house is already here in front of the garage.

Where is the garage? The garage is...

The proposed garage is here. Whatever.

How high is the garage? I believe it's rather substantial, is it not?

It is. I think it might be two stories. The house is two and a half stories.

Yeah. Right.

There's like... workspace or above it. It's a little unit.

So that's the garage. And here's the house. And the water.

Already blocking the water views. Yeah. So this is Japan, I believe. And the water is here.

Okay. Any other questions? Bill, are you comfortable?

I assume somebody in the state must have looked at the view. I was just curious if EPB looked at it, but I'm sure somebody from the state did.

Okay.

Okay. Any other discussion? Can we get a motion to approve CSPR 1237? with the EPB Engineering and Harbor Management Commission conditions?

So moved.

Second. OK. Further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? It's approved 5-0. I'm going to suggest that all of the applications, the ones we heard in the public hearing, we vote on them at the next meeting. Is that all right?

Yeah.

Good. Okay. That takes us to administrative review. The first one is consolidation of the Fee and Lue escrow agreements. The escrow agreements still being discussed so it's not quite ready. Next is approval of the use of funds originating from the development at 860 Canal for Kosciuszko Park boat ramp feasibility study phase two proposed by the Harbor Management Commission. I think everyone has probably read about the discussions that have been going on about the $125,000 for this feasibility study with half coming from the state and half coming from harbor, man