2026-10-26 - Zoning Board

No, no, no, no. Benita, am I a co-host? Yes. Okay, tell me when to start. I think you're ready. Hey, I'd like to welcome everyone and call tonight's zoning board meeting to order. I'm David Stein, chair of the zoning board, and it is 632 on October 26, 2026. The members of the board and the staff are holding this meeting by Zoom video conference. The public is in attendance, both on video conference and by telephone. I'd like to do a roll call of the board and the staff. Bill Morris. Here. Roseanne McManus. Here. Jerry Bozak. Here. Keith Walker. Here. From Pittsburgh. From Pittsburgh. Thank you. Now for the staff, Ralph Blessing. Here. And Benita Mater. Here. Normally, I would go through the process of people making public comment during the public hearing, but there will be no applications tonight that will have a public hearing. So we're going to skip that part. So for anyone who wants the materials or agenda for tonight's meeting, you can go to our website, www. I'm sorry. Yes. www.stamfordct.gov/zoning. Tonight's meeting will be recorded and you can see it where it'll be posted at our website at this site I just mentioned. So let's move into the public hearings that we're not having. The first is application 226-27, city of Stanford transportation department, care of Luke Buttonweiser, zoning text change. Ralph, is this one being continued? Yes, it's being continued. Luke has to go to the board of representatives tonight. And we are also not quite done with our little homework assignment that you gave us last week. Okay. So application 226-27 will be continued to the zoning board meeting on November 9th. Anita, that's correct. That's right. At 6.30 p.m. on Zoom. Next, we have application 226-20 zoning text change. This item is also being continued to November 9th. Is that correct, Ralph? Yes. Okay. So it has been continued to the zoning board meeting on November 9th, 2026, 6.30 p.m. on Zoom. Next, we have the two applications which relate to the McDonald's drive-thru, application 226-09 which is the map change and application 226-10 which is the special permit to install the second drive-thru lane. The applicant has requested that these applications be continued for our next meeting which will be held on November 9th, 6.30 p.m. on Zoom. Next, we have application 226-26 text change. This application relates to the first application that we are continuing. No, I'm wrong. It relates to the second application. It relates to 226-20 because they both involve the ML. So this 226-26 is being continued until our next meeting on November 9th, 2026 with 6.30 p.m. on Zoom. Similarly, application 226-25 which is the map change, companion application 226 is being continued until our next meeting on November 9th, 2026 at 6.30 p.m. on Zoom. Now, we have a new public hearing schedule. It's application 226-29, 110 High Ridge Owner LLC, 110 High Ridge Road map change. The applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current RM1 Multiple Family Low Density Design Zoning District to the CL Limited Business Zoning District consisting of 5.4 acres in area including 0.9 acres of ROW. Roseanne, can you please read the planning board letter for this? Certainly. Dated September 23rd, 2026 to Mr. David Stein, Chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding CV Application 226-29. Lisa Feinberg, Carmody, Torrance, Sandak, and Hennessy LLP representing 110 High Ridge Owner LLC, 110 High Ridge Road map change. Dear Mr. Stein and members of the Zoning Board, during its meeting held on Tuesday, September 22nd, 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 RM1 Multiple Family Low Density Design Zoning District to the CL Limited Business Zoning District consisting of 5.4 acres in area including 0.9 acres of ROW. Lisa Feinberg, Carmody, Torrance, Sandak, Hennessy LLP made a presentation and answered questions from the board. After some discussion, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of CV Application 226-29 and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan MEU 3 mixed use urban future land use category. Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gazzeno, Chair. Thank you. I understand the applicant would like to continue this application. Is the attorney for the applicant here and Granny Feinberg, or I see she's raised her hand. Yes, she's joining. Join us. Yeah. Good evening, everybody. Good evening, Attorney Feinberg. Welcome. Thank you. I understand that you've requested that this be continued until our November 9th meeting. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman. We've received quite a few comments from residents and we'd like the opportunity to take some time and respond. Okay. That's a good idea. We've received a number of them as well, a large number. Hopefully, you'll have a chance to meet with the neighbors and discuss it with them. I'm hopeful that with some additional information, everybody will become significantly less concerned. Good luck. Okay. So, Application 226-29 is continued until the next zoning board meeting on November 9th, 2026 at 6.30 pm on Zoom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. We now go into our regular meeting. First item we have is approval of the minutes from October 19th. Zoom, everyone's had a chance to look over them. Does anyone have any changes or comments? No, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes as they stand. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The minutes are approved 5-0. Next, we go into the pending applications and there are three of them. The first is 226-23 and I guess this has a 2-4 as well. Yeah. 226-24. These involve the elimination of the CSC-D Community Shopping Center Design District. 226-24 is the text change and 226-23 is the map change. So, we start with the text change, correct? I would suggest starting with the map change because the text change is to eliminate the CSC from the regulations. So, if we don't change the map, then we should eliminate the regulations. Okay. Let's start with 226-23 and that's to, I'm sorry, 226-23 is the map change and it is to rezone the district to CL, Limited Business Zoning District. You want to put the map up, please, Vanita? Sure. Ralph, whoever has got it. I have it. Yeah. So, just as a reminder, the only CSC district we have in the city is the Ridray Shopping Center. So, we are proposing to rezone the CSC District to CL. CL has pretty much the same density of the changes we adopted for the CL regulations. It actually has more design controls than the CSC. There is also a tiny one lot up in the northeast corner up here that is currently zoned CN that seems to be a leftover from other zoning actions in the past. So, in order to eliminate the spot zone, it's proposed to change this currency and also to CL. It shouldn't affect what they can do with the property. It's currently a daycare center. The daycare center can continue to operate. Okay. Any questions for Ralph? No. I assume the property owner is all good with this, the one with the dots? We haven't heard from them. We haven't reached out to them. But as I said, it doesn't change anything for them. And we did add the language that they had. Well, that's the text. We'll get to that. Okay. Can I just follow up to Roseanne's point? How do we make sure that your point is well taken, Ralph? But how do we make sure that people actually respond and say they're okay with this? Good point. I mean, we're making a decision on their behalf. I think that we should sort of go the extra step to make sure that they are on board and submit something in writing in the future. Did they get a written notice? They do not. You spoke to their representative though, didn't you? No, that was for the... I thought we're talking about this little piece up here. For the Ridgway Shopping Center, actually the owner or representative for the owner contacted us and they had some concerns that we addressed with the text change. And since we amended the text, they are okay with the map change. I just think it avoids a shade of gray for you, Ralph, that in the future, these people put something in writing that say they're okay with it. Takes you out of the problem. At least that they get notice that there's a hearing and they'll have the opportunity to attend and respond if they want to object. But I agree. I think in the future, we should at least mail notices to the property owners. To do that. In this case, as you pointed out, Ralph, it doesn't make a difference to the rights of the property owner. They can still use their property for the same purpose. So fortunately, to them, it'll be the same. I mean, for the CN, it actually increases the density that they're allowed to have from 0.5 to 1.0. So there's no change in density for the CSC. But the CN, I would argue, is has more flexibility now than they had under the current zone. Okay. Okay. Is there any further discussion on the map change? Okay. Can we get a motion to approve the application 226-23, the map change? So moved. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose? Abstentions. Bill, you disappeared from my screen for a second. You voted yes. Yes, I did. My hand was okay. Okay. Thank you. So application 226-23 is approved. Next is 226-24, which is the text change to the CSC district. It deletes the CSC district from our regulations. And as you see, it's fairly simple. Yeah. And as I mentioned before, we were contacted by the owner of the shopping or the representatives for the ownership of the shopping center. And they had requested adding the clarification that is in red on the screen. I don't think it's a substantive change to the application. It just states that, of course, if there are any nonconformities that they can continue to exist. That's basically just restating what is in section 10 of our regulations. Okay. And yeah, this looks like it is not substantive. Is there any discussion on this text change? Okay. Can we get a motion to approve application 226-24? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Bill, you're gone again. Aye. Aye. There you are. Okay. Good. Application 226-24 is approved at 5-0. Next, we have application 226-28, City of Stanford Zoning Board Zoning Text Change. This is the changes to the CSPR to provide exemptions for certain properties. Ralph, you want to just remind us of what we did and can we put that up? Sure. We need us on the driver's seat for this one. Okay. Benita. Sure. So what we did was clarify some of the text or simplify it. So we had seven different exemptions. Now we're down to four major categories and a few subsections. So the initial language doesn't change. Some of the language in Underline is things that we're moving for clarity. This language here is stating that if a project needs a variance, then it's not exempt. This is also the language that we're moving. Sir, can you just scroll up for a second? Sure. We took out the number. Now we just list the exemptions. No, we do. This should still have a number. I think it's a matter of the numbering. The following are exempted. So we've got one and two and then minor additions and modifications. So then the rest of those, shouldn't they be number three? No, these are subsections of two. And then number three is incidental structures. And number four is fences, walls, locks, utilities. Okay. So going back up to two, minor additions or modifications to principal buildings or accessory buildings, which meet all of these criteria. Okay. So this is, we've changed the criteria for what is required for an exemption. Okay. Anyone have any questions about this part of the text change? No. No. This is language that we're just moving to put it in one place. We've captured this already, change of views. This is also, this was here twice. We've moved it up to under number one. Exterior modifications also go to the subsection of one. This language is not changing. We just corrected a section reference here. And then here we've deleted the exemption of single family homes outside the flood hazard areas. This was based on the state statute change. Again, the last one was, again, the reputation of change of views that we've captured under number one. Any questions on this part of the text change discussion? No, for me. No. No, Mr. Chairman. Okay. And so after seven? That's everything else from the same. Okay. If there are no questions or discussions, can we get a motion to approve application 226-28, please, text change. Sorry, go ahead. No, no, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to approve the text change on 226-28 as it stands. Thank you. Did I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Rosanne. Okay. Any discussion before we vote? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? This application is approved at 5-0. Next is, it's not listed on the agenda, is the CD text change. Can we get a motion, please, to add application 226-14 to the agenda? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So, application 226-14 is the, as I mentioned, the text change for the CD district regulations. Is this, Monita, are you taking us through this, or Raul? Sorry, I was muted. That's me. Okay. And I see we've changed the name of the district. Now, you know, it's going to take years for people to stop using CD. Of course. It will take me years, too, so. Oh, all of us. Yeah. Okay. You want to take us through this? Sure. So, in addition to the name change, we're proposing a couple of other things. So, one thing is we added a purpose section. The district regulations did not have that. We also… I'm sorry. Raul, back up just a second, please. There, right at the, in 5E, there's the name of the district. Then it says 221-20, and that looks like a footnote. Is that correct there? It is a footnote, yes. Yes. And there's a footnote. Is it 21? 21, yes. That's actually, it's not, so, that's a footnote that's not proposed to be, let me just double check. We need idea of the regulations, Andy? Yes. I think that is just a reference to the old section when we reorganized the zoning regulations, when we put everything in section 5, instead of filling it in section, but let's, Vinita, if you could double check that, please. Sure. It did, well, in my regulations that are probably out of date, it says 22. 22, yeah. Is that still correct? That's right, yep. So, let's change that to 22. And where, where are the footnotes? Should be at the bottom of the page. The footnote should be at the bottom of the page, but we didn't copy it, but there's no change proposed to the footnote. Where is, what is this? It's actually in the, right, it's in the regulations, like in the published regulations, it is on the bottom of the page. I think it just needs to be included in this version. I'm not so concerned about where, oh there, okay, I see it. How it got to be 22 instead of 1 is, but is it a mystery to me? Yeah, I mean, we did, we've made other changes to the regulations, so that's helpful. It's okay. Maybe one of the districts got deleted, you know, it could, you know, we don't check. Okay, because then on the next page we have, we go back to footnote 1. Right, I mean, with the BD district being eliminated, it could, I think it might make sense for it to be 21. Well, whichever one you decide it should be, we just need to get the footnote in. Yep. Okay, I'm sorry Ralph, could you please continue? I mean, those are the footnotes for, so those are the footnotes for this table, the footnotes in section 4e5e4, those footnotes refer to the table. Yes, okay. Okay, good. So, as I said, we're adding a purpose section which we didn't have before. We're also adding designation criteria. Some of that information was already in the regulations. So, for example, the regulations say that you can't have a CMC district north of the Merrick Parkway. So, we're taking that over. We updated the comprehensive plan category. MU2 is actually sort of the corporate campus, community campus, comprehensive category. And we also, and this is also information, it was in different places in the old regulations that it has to have a certain minimum area of 15 acres. Okay. The same is true for the, here for this regulation with regard to internal property lines. That is also something that existed or exists in the current regulations. We just moved it up to put it here and we clarified the language a little bit. So, this is basically the section we have deleted which contains a lot of that information. And the minimum area is also something that we moved up to new section 5e2. Rob, I see we took 5e2 out. Does the next section have to be renumbered 5e2 permitted uses or is there a 5e2 above? No, that's updated 5e2's designation criteria. Got it. Okay, that's my question. 5e3 is permitted uses. So, that's correct, the correct numbering. And what we are proposing here, we had like, we're referring to the table in Appendix A, table one, that's the land use schedule. There's no changes proposed to that table. So, all the uses that are currently permitted in the CMC district are also allowed in the future. And we're not adding anything new to that. There's no change to the table proposed. And then with regard to 5e4, the development standards, we talked about this last week when I presented. So, the big change really here is the option for townhouse development where we allow for more building coverage and lot coverage and a higher FAR in order to encourage townhouse development and also just the type of development because they have individual garages and so on. They need generally a little bit more lot coverage than other types of development. In many other respects, you see, for example, the maximum FAR for non-residential development and for other residential development is not changing. We are introducing a residential density divider instead of having the units per acre. So, that gives more control over the square footage that can be built on the site. You see that the building height for four-story development and three-story development is not changing. For the townhouse regulations, we propose a height of 3.5 stories or 45 feet. We believe that's necessary because in a townhome, you often have the parking integrated in the building on the first floor. So, that lifts the building up a little bit. Mr. Chairman, if you remember correctly, we were going to discuss whether we're going to decrease the RDD in the townhouse development area from 2000 to a lower number, I believe. That's, you know, I think you're right, Bill. Was that yours or Rosanne's? I believe I brought it up and then I think, as I recall, Ralph. Yeah, okay. So, I don't think we ever decided it, no. And you just explained what the reason for decreasing it would be? Oh, you'd be able to increase the number of units, the density. Okay. Make it more invite for townhouse development, I guess. Maximum is our effort here. Do you have a suggestion as to the... No, I was leaving it up to Ralph. I'll leave him the math up to him. But unless everybody thinks 2000 is fine, then... Ford, what do you guys think? Rosanne? Well, it's quite a bit more than what's available now. So, what we try to do is to keep the number of units roughly the same, so that the density based on a unit calculation doesn't increase. And I wouldn't want to increase it dramatically. So, maybe if you want to change it, we could go to 1750. Well, okay. Let's see what Jerry? I would rather go a little less than more. So, I would be okay with the 1750. Okay. I was going to say 1850, but 1750 is fine. I think 2000 is on the high end of most townhomes that I've seen. Okay. Bill, you okay with the 1750? Yes. Okay. So, let's make that change. So, Keith, a three-story, three-bedroom townhouse. Yeah. Would that be approximately usually 1400, 1500 feet? It would usually be a little larger. I mean, if you include the half that we're including, because you usually have the garage sort of a lot of times is garage on that entrance level. And then you get into discussion whether that's part of the square footage. So, that's why I was saying 1850. So, would it be easier in the calculations for at the 1850 then, instead of your... I mean, 1750 is fine. So, usually garage is actually not part of the floor area ratio calculation. If it's integrated in the building. Correct. But you usually have that... I mean, some of it and I've seen built, it's sort of on the same level. So, you gain footage on the other side of the garage giving you additional footage. And if you have the garage next to, say, and you have space for a basement, is that still probably within the 1750? I mean, the basement's not included, right? Finished basements? Usually not included. No, it's not. If it's below grade. Questions. Usually, yeah. Yeah, go ahead, Ralph. Usually, a seller is not included. So, everything that's more than 50% below the finished grade does not count towards floor area for floor area ratio. If it's less than 50% below ground, then it usually counts as floor area. Okay. So, it kind of depends on if the building is built into the side of a hill or... Yeah, okay. But this is not, Ralph, just to clarify, this is not the minimum or maximum size of the units, right? No, this is the average... This gives you the number of units. So, you take the lot area, multiply it with the FAR, and divide that by 1750. That gives you the maximum number of units you can have on a piece of land. So, they could be larger for the... Yes, yes. They could be larger. We just don't want to basically make, like, microscopic 1,000 square foot units. Yeah. Because, obviously, if you have more units, you create more traffic and all those things. So, we want to control both for the absolute square footage that can be built. That's something that we haven't done in the past for residential. But we also want to control for the number of units you can build. So, you could... Let's say this gave you 10 units. You could have 10 units, each of which is larger than 1750, where it would have to be the average. It has to be the average. So, you can have a unit that is smaller than that and one that is bigger. Okay. So, I guess, Rosanne, that was a good question you asked. What would the average size be? So, I mean, we can do an example. So, if you have one acre, so we multiply that with 0.6, that would give you a total of 26,136 square feet that you can build. And then you divide that by 1750, that gives you 14 units per acre. So, you cannot exceed the 14, but you also cannot exceed the 26,136 square feet. Within those two, you can have units that are 1,500 square feet and a couple of units that are 2,000 square feet, but you cannot exceed either the square footage or the number of units. So, the 0.6 is the FAR? That's the FAR, yeah. So, even building up doesn't make a difference. And, I mean, you also have, of course, the height limitation. Okay. Yes. Are folks good with the 1750? Yes. Sure. You do. This is an example, Ralph. If it were to stay at the divider of 2,000, the example which you just did, how many units would you end up with per acre? So, you would get 13, so it's not a dramatic difference. You would lose one unit. Or gain one unit. Or gain one unit is better with your house. Since, do we want to do anything with the 1,500 for senior housing or if all units are affordable? No, I'm good with that. Recorders. Was there a ratio of any sort, Ralph, between the square footage for senior housing and for normal units? No. Okay. All right. David, can I ask a question? Because I think you raised a good point. When you say 1,500 for senior housing, I mean, I guess the question is, how many townhomes and whether the townhomes are going to be-- Right. You kind of one-story townhomes. So, how many units are you going to be able to get in under that scenario? I mean, for senior house-- So, this doesn't mean we have the senior housing text, the increased density for senior housing. And in order to get the increased density, you have to make the units ADA ready. And you have to have a bathroom, a kitchen, a bedroom on the first floor. This is just for age-restricted 55 years and older housing. So, there's no requirement to have it just on one floor or one level. Got it. As long as there's main living space on the first floor. Yeah. So, this would give you smaller units than more, but units, but smaller. Yeah. The idea being that, as an empty nester, you might not need as much space. And you also have less disposable income. And therefore, a smaller unit might be more easily affordable than something bigger. Ralph, I remember at the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, we had a discussion about affordable versus BMR. Is it correct to use affordable here, or should it be BMRs? I think it should be affordable. Okay. So, that means it could go up to 80%? Yes. I mean, a lot of those units are, or the townhome units, the idea is that it's home ownership. And what we've seen is that home ownership, even at 65% is difficult. So, our BMR regulations actually for ownership units allow BMR units to be up to 80%. Okay. So, this is assuming that in most cases, they will be ownership rather than rental. Yes. I mean, that's one of the big ideas of this tax change, is to encourage or support what we've seen in the market that a lot of the townhome developments are actually ownership opportunities. Is it, if the garage is on the ground level, can you, I guess if you put the kitchen and bedroom also on that same level, right, aren't you, you're going to have units that cover more ground, wouldn't they have more lot coverage? Yes. That's why we increased the lot coverage to 60%. I mean, once again, this is not like the senior housing where you get the bonus, the density bonus. If you get the density bonus, then you have to have a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom on the first floor, and it has to be ADA ready. This doesn't have to be ADA ready. This is just an age restricted unit. Got it. Okay. So, as you can see, this here is not changing the parking regulations. What's the highlighted part? I don't know what the highlighted part is, because when you click on it, it goes away. Okay. Okay. Good. So, signage regulations don't change. The below market rate housing program requirement doesn't change. What we did change was we added site design requirements. So, for example, there's a requirement for screening, and all projects or all developments in the CD district have to come in for your approval. It's all special permit. So, screening with native plant material, reducing the visual impact of parking areas. So, this is all new, all the design criteria were added or are added as part of this change. We referencing the storm water, the drainage manual, I mean, this is sort of stating the obvious, because you have to follow the storm water management or the drainage manual anyway, but we wanted to make sure that the information is available up front. We added regulation for architectural design. So, for example, high quality building material, changes in building material. They should occur on a horizontal line with heavier materials on the bottom. We suggest some architectural style. So, we want New England architecture, the reduction of the overall bulk and articulation of building facades or no flat building facades and breaking up the facades. So, the perceived bulk of the buildings is reduced, mechanical equipment has to be screened for non-residential uses, the floor to ceiling height has to be at least 12 feet. We also add sidewalks, sidewalk standards within the property. So, obviously, we have sidewalk standards along public streets, but we also added requirements for sidewalks within a development. We're adding requirements for storage and loading areas that they're screened, landscaping, fencing. So, this is all new urban design requirements that we're adding to make those new developments fit within the existing context. And then, lastly, we're adding application review procedure. So, I just wanted to point out that all new development, every use needs a special permit. So, basically, every new development is subject to special permit approval and comes to you. And every new development has site plan approval, is that correct? I mean, that's the special permit is basically for the use and the site plan. And then, we have, obviously, the updating everything that reads CD at the moment needs to be updated to CMC and then this seems a little bit ridiculous, but the asterisk in table 1B1 means that it's a design district, so it's not going to be a design district anymore, but it doesn't matter because everything needs a special permit anyway, so it doesn't matter. Design district just means that a site plan approval has to have a public hearing, but as I said, because every approval is a special permit approval that requires a public hearing, we don't need that asterisk anymore. Okay, is there any discussion on this text change? I have one more question, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. Sure. As far as any regulations, is there a definition for senior housing development that is age restricted as opposed to senior housing development in which you have the ADA requirements? What is the difference in the definitions? So senior housing is actually the same definition. Let me see if I can pull it up real quick. So senior housing means just that it's reserved for people 55 years and older. In the senior housing definition, there's a whole paragraph that gives you a density bonus if you meet certain requirements. So if you make it ADA ready, if you have on the ground floor, the living room, the bathroom, and the dining room, let me see if I can pull it up. Yeah. Well, I got it. I got it wrong. When you talk about senior housing development, if you want the bonus, then you get the ADA requirement restriction. Yes. But it's still senior housing development, as far as the term. Yeah. Okay. I got it. Yeah. So they could come back and ask for the bonus for senior housing, but that's an additional special permit that they would have to ask for. But then it would be ADA required. Again, they would have to provide all the bells and whistles. I just want to make sure we didn't have same term and two different definitions. Yeah. Okay. And a senior is someone 55 or older? Yes. Okay. Good. Any other questions or discussion on this? Sounds good. Okay. It is. I think it's a big improvement and it recognizes or encourages the use of these formally CD areas for housing, which we certainly need. Can we get a motion to approve application 226-14 then? Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve application number 226-14. As discussed and adjusted this evening. Second. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? It is approved. Ralph, someday we're going to need to get a new book. Yes. We are planning for the end of the year. Ah. Okay. Good. Good. Every time we get a new one, it changes. Yes. Do you have any suggestions for the cover color? What haven't we used in a while? Isn't it red in a while? Do we have blue? Red or blue? Yeah, that would, they're both good. I think blue would be nice. Navy blue. Yeah. It's common. They say as much as regulations can be calm. Yes. I read they're very calming when you read them. So that's true. Yeah. So, Monita, what do we have for next time on November 9? So we have all the continuations from tonight. So I imagine that will take up most of the agenda. It's the 110 High Ridge, mobility text change, the McDonald's applications. And then we did schedule two additional application. One is 780 Summer Street. That's a conversion and expansion. A vacant office building, which they're trying to revitalize. Good. That's good to hear. And what's the second one? The second one is the final site plan application for parking lots associated with the Stanford Hospital. Okay. We did the GDP. Right. Okay. Okay. Good. Okay. Well, it sounds like that will be a full meeting if we're ready for all these continuations are heard. Very robust, it'll be. Very robust. Yes. Yeah. About to eat their Wheaties that morning. That's true. Okay. Anything we need to discuss or we adjourn? No. Okay. 731. Pretty good. Yes, exactly an hour. Okay. Can we get a motion to adjourn then? No? Okay. Motion to adjourn. We'll just stay here. Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you all. Good night. Good night.