[4:13] Good evening. Uh, I'd like to welcome

[4:15] everyone to the September 1st meeting of

[4:17] the Milford Planning and Zoning. Um, if

[4:21] you would please stand for the pledge

[4:23] and a moment of silence.

[4:28] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[4:31] United States of America and to the

[4:33] republic for which it stands. One nation

[4:36] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[4:39] justice for all.

[4:51] » Thank you. If you would, Amy, please

[4:53] call the role.

[4:56] Mr. Agnesi

[4:57] » Present.

[4:58] » Mr. Alling has been excused. Mr.

[5:01] Anderson

[5:02] » Present.

[5:02] » Mr. Ferender

[5:04] » Present.

[5:04] » Mr. Collegian

[5:06] » Present.

[5:07] » Mr. Machio

[5:08] » Here.

[5:08] » Mr. Mortimer

[5:09] » Present.

[5:10] » Mr. Saddy

[5:11] » Present.

[5:12] » Mr. Zaheres

[5:14] » Present.

[5:14] » And chairman Quish.

[5:16] » And I am also here. Uh, first order of

[5:18] business, closed by October 6, vote by

[5:21] December 10, is 12 Caroline Street, zone

[5:25] R5, petition of Jeff Adalino for a

[5:27] coastal area site plan review for a

[5:30] single family residence on map 27, block

[5:33] 449, partial 5, of which Carmen Stfano

[5:38] is the owner. Applicant has the floor.

[5:40] If you would just give your name and

[5:41] address for the board. Uh,

[5:42] » Good evening, Jeff Adelino. Can you hear

[5:44] me?

[5:45] » You can hear me. Okay.

[5:49] Everybody else can hear me?

[5:52] » What's that?

[5:53] » How's that? Okay. Uh, good evening. Jeff

[5:57] Adalino, 136 Research Drive, Unit J, in

[5:59] Milford, Connecticut. Um, here on behalf

[6:02] of Carmen Stefano. She's the owner of 12

[6:05] Caroline. I'm a gen general contractor

[6:08] in charge of building the project. Um,

[6:10] here before the board seeking approval

[6:12] for a CAM application. Uh the original

[6:15] dwelling on the property was tore down

[6:17] in 2023.

[6:19] Uh it was non-conforming with the

[6:21] setbacks. I'm showing on the first plan

[6:23] of the site. Uh there's a page before.

[6:26] Yeah, it was built over the setbacks. Uh

[6:29] we designed a new single family dwelling

[6:32] to meet the requirements of today's

[6:34] zoning and building codes for an AE11

[6:36] zone. Uh all pertinent city departments

[6:40] have reviewed the plan and have deemed

[6:42] it zoning compliant. The state has also

[6:45] given us the blessing for the project.

[6:48] Uh the city engineer did a review and a

[6:50] couple issues have been addressed. His

[6:53] only remaining comment is to

[6:56] uh address at the time of the issuing of

[6:59] the CO. He wants a letter stating that

[7:01] the road and the

[7:04] uh garage floor are not meeting his

[7:08] requirements, but there's nothing we can

[7:09] do about it down there. So, um that's

[7:12] about it. Any questions?

[7:14] » Great. Thank you. Um David, if you would

[7:16] uh give us an overview and then we'll

[7:17] open questions to the board.

[7:26] The applicant is proposing to construct

[7:28] a new single family dwelling of 35 ft in

[7:30] height. The city engineer recommends a

[7:32] conditional approval with item one under

[7:35] my recommendations from his letter to

[7:37] the planning and zoning office being the

[7:39] condition. No adverse impacts to coastal

[7:41] resources are anticipated by the

[7:43] proposed project.

[7:47] » Thank you. Are there any questions or

[7:48] comments from the board?

[7:51] » Um, yeah. uh regarding the letter from

[7:53] the engineer you said uh or from from

[7:58] you that the engineer required there's

[7:59] nothing you can do about it. Can you

[8:01] explain the situation with

[8:03] » So I guess down there the elevations are

[8:05] so low. Normally the city engineer wants

[8:07] the garage to be at elevation 18 in

[8:10] above the crown of the road. But with

[8:12] the elevations being so low down there,

[8:14] we can't do that. So, he requires a

[8:16] letter which is in his review

[8:20] um stating that the owner is aware of

[8:21] that. And I guess what he's looking to

[8:23] do is if there's ever future work in

[8:26] that area, everybody knows that the

[8:29] elevations may change. So, I think

[8:31] that's what he's ultimately trying to

[8:32] do.

[8:33] » Understood. Thank you.

[8:34] » Yeah.

[8:35] » Thank you. Any further questions at this

[8:37] point?

[8:40] » Seeing none, I'd hear a motion.

[8:43] » Mr. Chair, this is regarding 12 Caroline

[8:47] Street zone R5. I move to approve with

[8:49] the following condition the petition of

[8:52] Jeff Adelina for a coastal area site

[8:54] plan review for single family residence

[8:56] in map 027

[8:58] block 449 parcel 5 of which Carmen

[9:01] Stephano is the owner and the condition

[9:03] that be as mentioned by Mr. Adeline over

[9:05] number one that the recommendation city

[9:07] engineer and her letter dated August

[9:10] 25th of 2026

[9:12] shall be completed to the satisfaction

[9:14] of the city engineer which apparently is

[9:16] a letter.

[9:17] » Thank you very much.

[9:18] » I second.

[9:19] » We have a motion and a second. Any

[9:20] discussion on the motion?

[9:23] Seeing none, if you would please call

[9:25] the role.

[9:27] » Mr. Agnes

[9:28] » With the motion.

[9:29] » Mr. Anderson

[9:30] » With the motion.

[9:31] » Mr. Furmener

[9:32] » With the motion.

[9:33] » Mr. Collegiian

[9:34] » With the motion.

[9:36] » Mr. Machio

[9:37] » With the motion.

[9:38] » Mr. Mortimer

[9:39] » With the motion.

[9:41] » Mr. Saddy

[9:42] » With the motion.

[9:43] » Mr. Zaher

[9:44] » With the motion.

[9:45] » Chairman Quish

[9:46] » Also with the motion. Good luck with

[9:47] your project.

[9:48] » Thank you. Have a good evening.

[9:50] » Next order of business is 181ic Drive.

[9:54] Excuse [clears throat] me. uh zone R12

[9:56] petition of Alexandra Moch for a coastal

[10:00] area site plan review for a single

[10:02] family residence on map 14 block 17

[10:05] parcel 19 of which David B Cohen and

[10:09] Allison V Cohen are the owners.

[10:11] Applicant has the floor. If you would

[10:12] just state your name and address for the

[10:15] record.

[10:15] » Good evening. Alexandra Mock,

[10:17] environmental consultant, 95 Halpin

[10:20] Avenue, Stanford, Connecticut. Um so

[10:23] this is a 1 one3 acre site uh located in

[10:30] within R12 zone. Um on the east we have

[10:34] Hazatonic drive and uh to the northwest

[10:38] we have Hatonic River.

[10:41] Uh it is a coastal area uh and uh the

[10:45] coastal resources include tidal wetland

[10:47] along the western uh property line. Uh

[10:51] shellfish concentrations associated with

[10:53] the tidal wetland and spartina growth

[10:57] are shorelands and coastal road hazard

[11:00] area.

[11:02] Uh the slaughters uh of the properties

[11:04] served by public water and sewer. Uh the

[11:09] proposed activities is to demolish the

[11:11] existing residence and build a new one

[11:14] FEMA compliant uh together with a an

[11:17] ingground pool and uh pool terrace uh

[11:20] storm water management and new driveway.

[11:24] Uh the project actually is going to

[11:25] cause the huge decrease of impervious

[11:28] surface. We are going to be decreasing

[11:31] the cover uh more than 4,000 square

[11:34] feet. Reason being because uh right now

[11:37] there's a detached garage which is much

[11:40] closer uh to the coastal resource which

[11:43] is the title wetland and the garage

[11:46] itself is going to stay but the driveway

[11:48] which kind of runs past the house all

[11:51] the way to the garage in the back is

[11:54] going to be removed and this is the

[11:56] majority of the impervious surface which

[11:58] we're going to be restoring uh into a

[12:01] permeable area.

[12:03] This is going to be two story residence

[12:05] and uh it's going the height is going to

[12:07] be 33 feet. Um because of the location

[12:12] uh we are not going to be impacting any

[12:14] of the coastal resources. We have a

[12:16] large setback between the coastal

[12:18] resources and the development. Again the

[12:21] site is the house is going to be FEMA

[12:23] compliant. So it's going to be safe and

[12:26] uh respecting the existing uh flood

[12:28] zone. Um, no grading is going to be uh

[12:32] happening with Hind the uh flood zones.

[12:36] Uh, that's all I have to cover.

[12:38] » Great. Thank you. And David, if you

[12:41] would um give us your overview before we

[12:43] open up questions.

[12:45] » The applicants are proposing to demolish

[12:47] the existing single family dwelling and

[12:49] construct a new FEMA compliant single

[12:51] family dwelling. The proposed height is

[12:53] 33 feet. No adverse impacts to coastal

[12:55] resources are expected.

[12:58] » Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions

[13:00] or comments from the board at this time?

[13:03] Seeing none, I'd hear a motion.

[13:07] » Mr. Chair, regarding 181 Husatonic

[13:09] Drive, zone R12, I move to approve

[13:12] petition of Alexander Mo for coastal

[13:15] area site plan review for a single

[13:17] family residence of map 014, block 17,

[13:20] parcel 19, of which David B. Cohen and

[13:22] Alyssa B. Cohen are the owners.

[13:25] » Second. We have a motion and a second.

[13:27] Is there any discussion on the motion?

[13:30] Seeing none, if you would please call

[13:32] the vote.

[13:34] » Mr. Agnesi

[13:35] » With the motion.

[13:36] » Mr. Anderson

[13:37] » With the motion.

[13:38] » Mr. Fender

[13:40] » With the motion.

[13:41] » Mr. Collegian

[13:42] » With the motion.

[13:43] » Mr. Machio

[13:45] » With the motion.

[13:46] » Mr. Mortimer

[13:47] » With the motion.

[13:48] » Mr. Sadi

[13:49] » With the motion.

[13:50] » Mr. Zaheres

[13:51] » With the motion.

[13:52] » Chairman Quish,

[13:53] » I'm also with the motion. Good luck with

[13:54] your project.

[13:55] » Thank you so much.

[13:57] Next order of business is 732 East

[13:59] Broadway, zone R5, petition of James

[14:04] Sackenick for a coastal area site plan

[14:07] review for a single family residence on

[14:08] map 22, block 458, parcel one, of which

[14:13] Sean and Anna Mahon, JTWRS,

[14:17] are the owners. If you would just give

[14:20] your name and address for the record.

[14:22] » Yes, my name is James Sakonic. Uh my

[14:25] office is at 1775

[14:28] Meridan Waterberry Road, Mildale, a part

[14:31] of Southernington, Connecticut.

[14:34] I'm uh a professional engineer and land

[14:37] surveyor and I have uh prepared plans

[14:40] and this coastal site plan review

[14:42] application. Uh this site is in an AE

[14:47] zone. It is outside of the V zone. It is

[14:52] on the shore side of East Broadway,

[14:55] which is kind of a high point. So, it

[14:58] actually drains to the I think they call

[15:00] it the great swamp or the great marsh uh

[15:03] in the back. Uh it is subject to uh the

[15:08] flood area. Obviously, there was a house

[15:13] on the property. That house was damaged

[15:15] in the hurricane. That house was raised

[15:18] on a concrete uh pilings uh and um they

[15:24] have decided to uh for various the house

[15:28] was old uh they removed the house. The

[15:31] pilings are still there. They're going

[15:32] to replace the house with a new house

[15:36] situated so that the uh electrical

[15:39] equipment and all the electrical

[15:40] equipment is above the regulated uh

[15:44] which is the flood plane elevation plus

[15:46] 2 ft and all the living space would be

[15:48] up there. They will have a garage there.

[15:52] That garage is going to be about level

[15:55] with the road, not the one and 1/2t

[15:57] above the road that you may have heard.

[16:01] Um that's okay. We have acknowledged as

[16:04] the town engineer requests that we

[16:06] understand the road might come up

[16:07] someday and that's our problem not the

[16:10] town's problems. We we accept that. Uh

[16:14] so that we are in a the coastal area. We

[16:19] are in a hazard of flood hazard but we

[16:21] have done the customary mitigations to

[16:25] take care of that. uh making sure that

[16:27] we're not increasing drainage, making

[16:30] sure that our uh so we have some on-site

[16:32] retention and incorporated all the

[16:36] customary protections for the coastal

[16:39] resources.

[16:42] » Great. Thank you. Um David, if you would

[16:44] give us an overview, please.

[16:51] The applicant is proposing a major

[16:53] remodel and expansion to an existing

[16:55] single family dwelling unit. Uh this

[16:57] constitutes a substantial improvement

[16:59] which triggers the need for a camera

[17:01] view and flood zone compliance. The

[17:03] house will be 34 and 1158 in height. No

[17:07] adverse impacts to coastal resources are

[17:09] anticipated. A garage floor letter item

[17:12] A of the city engineers review dated

[17:13] 8/19

[17:15] 26 is required prior to permitting.

[17:19] » Great. Thank you. Um is there any

[17:22] questions or comments at this point?

[17:25] » Yes. So obviously this this letter to

[17:28] the engineer it's similar as a situation

[17:31] earlier this you you have this letter

[17:33] for the engineer.

[17:35] » Yes.

[17:35] » Already. So that that requirement has

[17:37] been satisfied. We're happy to satisfy.

[17:40] In fact, we have signed a letter and

[17:42] submitted it to the uh town and if they

[17:45] want a modification in the wording, we'd

[17:46] be happy to do that.

[17:47] » Okay. Thank you.

[17:50] » Great. Any further questions?

[17:53] Seeing none, if you would please call

[17:54] the vote.

[17:59] » Motion.

[17:59] » Oh, I'm sorry. Getting ahead of myself

[18:02] here.

[18:03] » Uh, I'd hear a motion.

[18:05] » Okay. I move to approve with condition

[18:07] the petition of James

[18:10] S. Am I in the right one? Yeah. Second

[18:12] Chick for a coastal site plan review for

[18:15] a single family residence on map 022

[18:18] block 458 parcel one of which Sha and

[18:21] Anna Mayan Mayan JTWRS are the owners.

[18:26] The condition is a garage floor letter

[18:29] item E of the city's engineer review

[18:30] dated 8:19 2026 is required prior to

[18:34] permitting.

[18:35] » Second.

[18:37] » We have a motion and a second. Any

[18:38] discussion on the motion?

[18:41] » Seeing none, if you would please call

[18:44] the vote.

[18:46] » Mr. Agnes

[18:47] » With the motion.

[18:49] » Mr. Anderson

[18:50] » With the motion.

[18:51] » Mr. Fermener

[18:52] » With the motion.

[18:53] » Mr. Collegian

[18:54] » With the motion. Mr. Machio

[18:57] » With the motion.

[18:58] » Mr. Mortimer

[18:59] » With the motion.

[19:00] » Mr. Sadi

[19:01] » With the motion.

[19:02] » Mr. Zaher

[19:03] » With the motion.

[19:04] » Chairman Quish

[19:05] » Also with the motion. Good luck with

[19:07] your project.

[19:07] » Thank you.

[19:19] Next order of business is

[19:22] 131 Milford Point Road, zone R5,

[19:24] petition of Thomas P. Lynch, Esquire for

[19:26] coastal area site plan review for a

[19:30] single family residence on map 006,

[19:33] block 084, parcel 40, of which Eric and

[19:36] Emily Blanchard are the owners.

[19:38] Applicant has the floor.

[19:40] » Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of

[19:41] the board. For the record, Thomas Lynch.

[19:43] Uh I'm an attorney with law offices here

[19:45] in Milford at 63 Cherry Street. And I'm

[19:48] here tonight with my clients, Eric and

[19:50] Emily Blanchard. They're the owners of

[19:52] the property uh located at 131 Milford

[19:55] Point Road. And this is a a CAM site

[19:58] plan application. Um currently on the

[20:01] property, there's two residences.

[20:03] There's the shorefront uh what I'll

[20:05] refer to as the main residence. And what

[20:08] we're uh applying for tonight is uh

[20:12] application for CAM approval for the

[20:14] removal of the cottage which is on the

[20:16] street side of Milford Point Road.

[20:18] [clears throat] Removing that cottage

[20:19] and building a new uh cottage on pilings

[20:22] uh uh in zone classification R5.

[20:26] [clears throat] So this is the last step

[20:28] in the administrative process that we've

[20:30] gone through with this. My clients

[20:32] bought this property uh two years ago.

[20:35] Um the plan is David has on the screen

[20:38] here. You can see it's a very well uh

[20:42] designed beautiful building that Joe

[20:44] Rouso has uh drawn for the Blanchards.

[20:48] Uh the current cottage is not FEMA

[20:51] compliant. It's uh basically uh

[20:54] developed on ground level. This will

[20:56] raise the new structure to uh the

[21:00] standards in the VE zone. Uh the first

[21:02] level will be 15 feet in elevation and

[21:06] the height of the height of the

[21:08] structure is some 34 feet. So uh

[21:10] everything has been reviewed by the

[21:12] zoning department and uh is zoning

[21:14] compliant. Uh the city engineer reviewed

[21:17] the plans. Uh there's a note both in his

[21:20] letter and then David's administrative

[21:22] summary making reference to the um uh

[21:26] the elevation certificate that was uh

[21:28] supplied. Apparently, there were some

[21:30] revisions made to the plans. So, they

[21:33] the revised plans were filed, but the

[21:35] original uh uh elevation certificate was

[21:39] in the file and the city engineer and

[21:41] Steve Harris both uh required that a

[21:45] revised certificate of elevation be uh

[21:48] put together. I was able to get a hold

[21:50] of the engineer today and I emailed this

[21:53] to uh uh David about 3:00 this

[21:56] afternoon. So that requirement uh was

[21:59] noted in the engineers report. He

[22:01] recommended an approval with that

[22:03] condition, but I just want to let you

[22:05] know that that condition has been met

[22:06] and we did supply that to the zoning

[22:08] office and to the uh city engineer. The

[22:12] plans also show a floor plan which uh is

[22:15] basically an open first floor with

[22:18] kitchen and living room with a bedroom

[22:21] and then there'll be a second level

[22:22] bedroom uh up above in a loft style. The

[22:26] other notation that I wanted to make is

[22:28] that uh the city engineer uh noted that

[22:32] with the house raised in the position

[22:34] that it is, it'll be gravel underneath.

[22:36] So there will be no net increase in

[22:39] storm water runoff. So he did not

[22:42] require a storm water mitigation uh

[22:45] system to be designed for this project.

[22:48] Lastly, uh I think most people know in

[22:50] Cedar Beach there is a, you know,

[22:52] parking parking can be a problem down

[22:54] there. Uh with the house or the cottage

[22:57] being raised now, there'll be parking

[22:59] for two off street uh there'll be space

[23:02] for two cars to park off street. So

[23:05] again, that's a notable uh item that I

[23:08] wanted to mention to you. It's it'll be

[23:09] an improvement for the area. So, other

[23:12] than that, I happy to answer if any

[23:14] questions if there are any, but uh um

[23:17] this is going to be a beautiful new

[23:20] structure and an addition to the

[23:22] neighborhood. Thanks.

[23:23] » Thank you, David, if you would give your

[23:25] overview.

[23:27] » The applicants are proposing to raise an

[23:29] existing cottage and construct a new

[23:31] elevated single family dwelling on a

[23:33] property that has two separate uh one

[23:35] family dwellings. The structure that is

[23:37] located closest to Milford Point Road is

[23:38] the subject of this application and will

[23:40] be under 24 ft in height. Concerns have

[23:43] been raised by the city engineer

[23:44] regarding the submitted materials.

[23:46] Number one, the building plan sets are

[23:48] not consistent. Two, the drawings do not

[23:51] meet all the requirements for structures

[23:52] in a Vzone. Three, a new Vzone design

[23:56] certificate is to be issued upon the

[23:57] submission of the final building

[23:59] drawings. Uh if approved by the board,

[24:01] the approval shall be conditioned on the

[24:03] submission of revised building drawings

[24:05] and Vzone design certificate to the full

[24:08] satisfaction of both the city engineer

[24:11] and the Milford flood plane

[24:12] administrator prior to the issuance of a

[24:14] zoning permit. No adverse impacts to

[24:16] coastal resources are anticipated once

[24:18] the above concerns are addressed.

[24:22] » Thank you. Are there any questions or

[24:24] comments from the board?

[24:29] Seeing none.

[24:30] » Yeah. Okay.

[24:31] » Um, yeah, there was a list of concerns

[24:33] by the city engineer. Did did they all

[24:36] have to do with the letter that you gave

[24:39] you sent to uh Mr. Sulcus? Is that

[24:41] » Yes. And then the revised plans which I

[24:43] believe those were were submitted as

[24:45] well too.

[24:46] » So, okay. So, for you David, do these

[24:49] conditions no longer apply?

[24:51] » Uh, they were sent uh to me after I had

[24:54] left the office. I have not had a chance

[24:55] to look at them. So feel free to keep

[24:58] the conditions and if they're met,

[25:00] they're met and they will have met the

[25:03] conditions.

[25:04] » Okay.

[25:04] » And that's and that's fine. That's fine.

[25:08] » Any further questions?

[25:12] » Seeing none, I'd hear a motion.

[25:17] » I move to approve with conditions the

[25:19] petition of Thomas B. Lynch Esquire for

[25:21] coastal area site plan review for single

[25:24] plan residents on map 006 block 084

[25:28] parcel 40 of which Eric and Emily

[25:30] Blanchard are the owners. Conditions are

[25:33] the submission of revised building

[25:35] drawings and a vzone design certificate

[25:38] to the full satisfaction of both the

[25:39] city engineer and the Milford flood uh

[25:42] plane administrator prior to the

[25:44] issuance of a zoning permit.

[25:48] We have a motion and a second. Do we

[25:50] have any discussion on the motion?

[25:55] Seeing none, if you would please call

[25:57] the vote.

[25:59] » Mr. Agnesi

[26:00] » With the motion.

[26:02] » Mr. Anderson

[26:03] » With the motion.

[26:04] » Mr. Fermener

[26:05] » With the motion.

[26:06] » Mr. Collegian

[26:07] » With the motion.

[26:08] » Mr. Machio

[26:09] » With the motion.

[26:10] » Mr. Mortimer

[26:11] » With the motion.

[26:12] » Mr. Saddy

[26:13] » With the motion.

[26:14] » Mr. Zaheres

[26:16] » With the motion. Chairman question.

[26:17] » I'm also with the motion. Good luck with

[26:19] your project.

[26:20] » Thanks so much.

[26:23] » Next order of business is 674 Nogatuck

[26:26] Avenue, zone LI, petition of Christopher

[26:29] Sy for a site plan review with coastal

[26:32] area management to expand and construct

[26:34] a new parking lot on map 23, block 362,

[26:39] parcel 29, of which Christopher Sy is

[26:42] the owner. Applicant has you give

[27:15] If you would Just give your name and

[27:16] address for uh the record.

[27:18] » Sure.

[27:18] » Applicant has the floor.

[27:20] » Yes. Christopher Sy um address at 150

[27:22] Bittersweet a Milford, Connecticut. And

[27:24] I'm here for uh a parking uh expansion

[27:28] at 674 Nogat A. I've given you a

[27:31] narrative uh with some backup, but I

[27:33] just want to get into the administrative

[27:35] summary first if I could. There's some

[27:37] inaccuracies in it. Um number one,

[27:41] there's some pending issues. uh inland

[27:44] wetlands that's already been approved.

[27:46] It was approved on July 2nd. Uh police,

[27:49] I have a tenative approval. It's in the

[27:50] packet. Um and then the other one is the

[27:54] sewer commission which was approved six

[27:56] months ago. So those pending items have

[27:58] all been taken care of. And the police

[28:00] department is has no issues with it, but

[28:02] they have to wait for the police

[28:03] department uh the general meeting on I

[28:06] think the 21st, but that's in your

[28:07] packet.

[28:09] It also mentions the expansion of the

[28:11] parking lot began without proper

[28:13] permits, approvals or permits. That's

[28:15] incorrect. The parking lot that's shown

[28:17] there that was reclaimed, it's existing

[28:19] parking lot. It's been there for 100

[28:21] years or 50 years. It was a 60 parking

[28:24] space parking lot that was there. So, I

[28:27] just want to get into the into the

[28:28] narrative on on some of this stuff.

[28:32] Thank you for giving us the opportunity

[28:33] to present the application for the plan

[28:36] and use approved for 674 Nagatakav. A

[28:39] little background on the site 674

[28:41] Ngatav. It is existing building with

[28:43] 24,000 ft of warehouse space and 2400 ft

[28:47] of office space that we purchased in

[28:49] April of 2025. It sits on two and a half

[28:52] acres approximately in the LI zone.

[28:56] We've been working on the property since

[28:58] June of 2025. The work included uh

[29:01] significant interior renovations. The

[29:03] existing building was a a commercial

[29:05] manufacturer with heavy electricity that

[29:07] was past its useful life with uh

[29:09] transformers that no longer you could

[29:11] repair. So that got all ripped out. We

[29:13] have all permits for all that. All the

[29:15] work that we did. We installed a number

[29:16] of new bathrooms in there. That's where

[29:18] the sewer department approval came in.

[29:20] And we cleaned up the offices because

[29:22] there was a decent amount of mold. Just

[29:23] to give you some background on it. Um,

[29:27] we never had any issues with any of the

[29:29] city departments. On May 15, 2026, we

[29:32] applied for an inland wetlands approval

[29:33] to work within 100 ft of the wetlands.

[29:36] There was a notice of violation issued

[29:37] on June 4th from 2026 for the inland

[29:40] wetlands, which was removed on July 1st

[29:42] and and approval was given for the

[29:44] inland wetlands. We also gave the city

[29:46] $31,000 cash bond and a hold harmless

[29:49] cause for the drainage and planning that

[29:51] we were required on our site plan.

[29:53] During the July 1 meeting, inland

[29:55] wetlands meeting, the inland wetlands

[29:56] board member commented that in all the

[29:58] years reviewing projects, this was one

[30:00] of the best projects we'd ever received.

[30:03] So, we were pretty happy with that. I

[30:04] also want to clear up a little other

[30:06] misinformation.

[30:07] On June 4th, 2026, we received two NOVs,

[30:11] notice of violations, from Steven

[30:12] Harris. One for filling in with 25 ft of

[30:14] a wetlands and the second one for

[30:16] bringing in fill without a permit. Both

[30:18] were rescended by Steven Harris and the

[30:20] zoning department on June 20 29th, 2026

[30:23] after multiple meetings and emails where

[30:25] we proved that the zoning department was

[30:27] wrong in those filings of the novs. We

[30:30] never received an apology for their

[30:32] mistake or retraction publicly. A little

[30:34] disappointing.

[30:36] We have done we have done the work on

[30:38] the property for over two and a half

[30:39] months even though we provided a cash

[30:41] bond and a hold harmless cost to start

[30:43] our drainage work which is approved by

[30:45] the city engineer which according to our

[30:47] zoning regulations would should have

[30:48] been allowed. I should have been issued

[30:49] a zoning permit and I can state that

[30:51] that regulation if you like.

[30:57] David has refused to allow us to be

[30:59] begin this work. And to be blunt, the

[31:00] only time the city planner replies to my

[31:02] numerous emails is when I at least wait

[31:04] at least a week from an email and I have

[31:06] to send an email to the mayor asking for

[31:08] assistance. David has never answered

[31:11] many of my many questions and concerns,

[31:13] which is unacceptable. As a city, as a

[31:15] civil servant, he is here to assist the

[31:17] public, which I am one, and and not put

[31:21] roadblocks in our way. I've requested I

[31:24] know there's a lot of reading on this.

[31:26] I've requested many meetings, many

[31:27] things I wanted to get before the board

[31:29] because I wanted to explain to the board

[31:30] exactly what happened. And I saw the

[31:33] email that David sent uh I think it was

[31:35] the 28th that was to the board for their

[31:38] their review. I totally disagree with

[31:41] his assessment and I'll get into that

[31:43] later. The June June 30th, 2026 response

[31:46] was David that he will review the

[31:48] revised plans. So June 30th, 2026, he

[31:51] had the revised plans for over a week.

[31:54] Hadn't reviewed them. Miraculously, they

[31:56] were never sent out to the inter office

[31:57] departments until the 25th of August.

[32:00] That's why some of these are pending.

[32:01] That's why the police department hasn't

[32:03] been finalized, but they will all be

[32:04] finalized shortly.

[32:09] Okay. Again, I want to clear up some of

[32:10] the inaccuracy stated in the city

[32:12] planners administrative summary dated

[32:14] 82826.

[32:15] The notice of violation is no longer in

[32:17] effect. Even though it was in his

[32:19] letter, he stated that the notice of

[32:20] violation was still there. It's been

[32:21] cleared up and it's been rescended.

[32:24] concerns number one, two, three, and

[32:26] seven in his 2020 uh 828 letter. Um I'm

[32:31] not asking for any waiverss in these

[32:33] sections. It's very clear section 1.14

[32:37] landscaping screening and buffer

[32:38] standards standard areas. These were

[32:41] addressed. The board may allow an

[32:43] alternative plan and I'm talking about

[32:45] specifically the buffer strip right now

[32:47] if it meets or exceeds the standard that

[32:49] the city's looking at. If you look at

[32:51] and you can go back to the the the the

[32:54] minutes from the inland wetlands. The

[32:56] inland wetlands were so so impressed by

[32:58] the the landscaping plan we had. They

[33:00] commented it was one of the best plans

[33:01] we ever seen. Then we go to section 1.4

[33:05] landscaping and buffer strips in regards

[33:06] to the presence of

[33:09] um parking requirements. And again the

[33:12] board at its discretion can have an

[33:16] alternate plan that it meets or exceeds

[33:18] the standards. And I believe our plan

[33:20] meets and exceeds the standards.

[33:23] Um David mentioned

[33:26] number uh four which was a landscape

[33:29] architect. I asked him on multiple

[33:31] emails to confirm there's conflicting um

[33:33] regulations in your guys regulations for

[33:36] this. One allows uh a structural or

[33:39] landscape architect to sign off and

[33:42] another one allows uh an engineer, an

[33:45] architect or a landscape architect for a

[33:47] month. I've asked but he received that

[33:49] today. So number four has been cleared

[33:50] up. Number five and number six were in

[33:53] the plans from uh July 15th.

[33:57] Um number eight a little concerning.

[34:00] They asked for EV parking which we put

[34:02] in in in uh July 15th. Then at the 11th

[34:06] hour he wants to know the the actual

[34:08] make and model and how the

[34:09] infrastructure it shows it right on the

[34:11] plans. There's 11 part EV chargers with

[34:13] chargers there.

[34:16] It's extremely interesting and I'll say

[34:19] this that David has had a full set of

[34:21] plans since July 28th. Yet he did not

[34:23] submit all the documents until August

[34:25] 25th.

[34:27] That was only after I called the mayor

[34:29] multiple times insisting I get before

[34:30] the board.

[34:33] And I will ask you why do you think that

[34:35] was? These revised plans were very

[34:36] simple modifications. The original plans

[34:38] we submitted on July 2nd were he asked

[34:41] for the EV chargers to be located which

[34:43] we did and he asked for a planting bed

[34:45] to be moved which we did.

[34:55] The only thing I will be asking for in a

[34:57] waiver to this board tonight is section

[35:01] 5.1.8 8 and he mentions it in his letter

[35:04] from 828 and that's regards to the board

[35:07] has it as its discretion the right to

[35:10] make adjustments to parking if if it

[35:12] doesn't meet all the needs. It can it

[35:15] can make the judgment that multiple uses

[35:18] have overlap and sometimes they don't.

[35:20] And that's the section that I'm

[35:21] referring to. Um

[35:27] and let me just read it to you. Subject

[35:28] to the site plan review in accordance

[35:30] with article 7 here approve the joint

[35:32] use of space by two or more

[35:34] establishments on the same lot where the

[35:36] total capacity of such spaces less than

[35:38] the sum of the spaces required for each

[35:40] use provided the board finds a capacity

[35:42] to be provided will substantially meet

[35:45] the intent of the requirements for

[35:46] reasons of variation in the probable

[35:48] time of maximum use by the patrons or

[35:50] employees. So let me just give you an

[35:53] example. So we've been running a batting

[35:55] cage. It's it's run by uh three members

[35:57] Milford residents that first-time

[35:59] business owners and they it's it's for

[36:02] young children to come in and practice.

[36:04] It's been very very successful. But what

[36:05] we've learned during this time while

[36:07] they've been running it, it's really a

[36:08] drop off process. Parents don't stay. So

[36:10] we believe that the parking that we show

[36:12] on the plans, we're going to ask for a

[36:14] modification to go to 85 parking spaces

[36:16] instead of 102 that's required. Now, we

[36:20] think it makes sense because the prop

[36:22] the business owner is going to that owns

[36:23] the batting cage is also interested in

[36:25] owning the athletic training facility

[36:27] that's right next to it, which is 10,000

[36:29] square ft. We believe that the

[36:30] requirements should be substantially

[36:32] reduced on that from 40 to about 32. And

[36:35] the elite gym, which was originally 29,

[36:38] we think it should be more like 15 or 16

[36:40] because of, again, it's a drop off. the

[36:42] elite gym. Most gyms they look for 125

[36:45] square feet per parking space, but the

[36:47] gym there is individual training. So

[36:49] there's no more than eight or nine

[36:50] people there at a time. It literally

[36:53] training with each other. So there's not

[36:54] a need for parking. Plus, we're going to

[36:56] have the way they're going to work it.

[36:58] We're going to overlap and make sure

[36:59] that people don't fight, you know, get

[37:00] get into a problem with it. So this

[37:03] project is very important to us and to

[37:04] the city. An example, when we bought the

[37:07] property in in April of 2025, within a

[37:09] month and a half, we had an individual

[37:11] approach us that wanted to double what

[37:12] we paid for it and they wanted to do a

[37:14] different project. We want we didn't

[37:16] want to do that. We wanted to bring a

[37:18] project that brought new business to

[37:19] Devon. I'm very excited. Anyone that

[37:21] knows me knows I'm very involved with

[37:22] the Devon community and we've been

[37:24] working down there for a number of

[37:25] years. So, it will bring five businesses

[37:28] to Devon, a mental health clinic, an

[37:30] elite gym gym that trains one-on-one, a

[37:32] youth batting cage that is needed in

[37:34] Milford owned by first-time business

[37:36] owners, an indoor soccer, baseball, our

[37:39] basketball and lacrosse facility, a

[37:41] small local glass company. Our goal has

[37:44] always our goal always in the project is

[37:47] to be carbon neutral. Most people don't

[37:48] talk about this, but my partner and I

[37:50] spent over $100,000 in insulating

[37:52] underneath of the building along with

[37:54] the roof so that we have a better R

[37:56] value in the building. We put high

[37:58] efficiency gas furnaces on it, a brand

[37:59] new roof, and we're looking once we get

[38:01] use after a year, we're looking to put

[38:03] solar on the building. So, we want to

[38:05] actually be carbon neutral on this

[38:07] project.

[38:10] We're also we're also what most people

[38:13] don't understand is like our last

[38:14] project that we did which was 460

[38:16] Noagata took a we put cultured stone in

[38:18] the front. We're planning on doing that.

[38:19] That's another $30,000. We're not

[38:21] looking to we're good neighbors. We care

[38:23] about it. We've been there since April

[38:25] of 2025. We've had no issues. Um, none

[38:28] of the residents have complained and

[38:29] actually the resident on the next to it,

[38:31] one of the David mentions in his

[38:33] violation or or lack of zoning

[38:35] compliance, which I totally disagree

[38:37] with, is that we have an encroachment.

[38:39] The regs are more for the encroachment

[38:40] when the property owner encroaches in a

[38:43] residential area. The woman in question

[38:45] who sent a letter to the mayor, and I'm

[38:46] happy to provide it to the board, asks,

[38:48] she has a a driveway that encroaches

[38:50] onto our property. She's taking care of

[38:52] an elderly resident. She is encroaching

[38:54] onto our property. I understand that. I

[38:56] want to be a good neighbor. I don't want

[38:58] to rip her driveway out. And I put a

[38:59] letter to David or an email to David

[39:01] asking, "Do you want me to rip the

[39:03] driveway out? Because I will, but I

[39:04] prefer not to." Well, long and short,

[39:06] she sent a letter to the mayor, and I'm

[39:08] asking the board to consider this. It's

[39:10] not me encroaching on her. She's

[39:11] encroaching on us. So, we don't want to

[39:13] rip her drive off. She's taking care of

[39:14] an elderly person, and there's not

[39:16] enough parking in front.

[39:19] I think that's about it, unless uh

[39:22] someone has a question or concern. the

[39:23] documentation's in the back of

[39:25] everything will go through. Here's an

[39:27] example. If you flip to the colored

[39:30] chart where the different parking areas,

[39:33] so a letter came in, and I got to be

[39:35] honest with you, I've been working for

[39:36] this city for I don't know 12 plus

[39:39] years, and I've never had Deep respond

[39:41] in six days in my life. But David

[39:44] somehow got someone to respond up in

[39:45] Deep to say there's a concern. I

[39:47] highlighted the concern. I'm going to

[39:49] eliminate the parking even though the

[39:50] existing parking went five or eight feet

[39:52] past where they're talking about and

[39:54] that will eliminate the concern with

[39:56] with deep. What I'm looking to do is

[39:58] there's three separate phases on this.

[40:00] The first phase, phase one is 50 parking

[40:02] parking spaces. I greatly appreciate if

[40:04] the board would consider at least

[40:05] approving that. I'd like to approve the

[40:07] whole thing, but the 50 parking spaces

[40:09] so I can get the mental health clinic

[40:11] open which has already been permitted. I

[40:12] already have a co for it and I already

[40:15] have uh they just need some more parking

[40:17] for this mental health clinic. And then

[40:19] the second phase you'll see and then the

[40:21] third phase and I probably will be

[40:23] coming back before you to adjust some of

[40:25] the landscaping plans to be honest with

[40:27] you once I get the solar involved. The

[40:29] the the landscape regulations are a

[40:31] great regulation but if you want to put

[40:33] solar on a roof I can't shade the roof.

[40:35] It's it's counterproductive to what we

[40:37] want to do. So, we'll probably be coming

[40:39] back from for you and I'm happy to put

[40:41] another bond in to prove that we're not

[40:42] going to run anywhere. We're not going

[40:43] to do anything bad. We're just trying to

[40:45] get it so that we can opened up this

[40:47] this business for these people.

[40:52] » Okay. Thank you. David, if you would

[40:54] give an overview before we open up for

[40:56] questions.

[40:58] » Sure. I just want to [clears throat]

[41:00] address a few things before I read my

[41:02] report. Um you heard a lot about uh me

[41:05] not circulating the plans till u the uh

[41:09] the later in August. Uh that is true

[41:12] because it has been our custom in

[41:14] practice uh to not circulate plans

[41:17] unless uh plans uh and applications are

[41:20] zoning compliant. Uh this one was not

[41:23] zoning compliant. It was not circulated.

[41:26] But at the insistence of the applicant

[41:29] wanting to come before you, I circulated

[41:31] it. So that's number one. Number two,

[41:34] you heard about EV chargers. The

[41:36] regulations are very clear about what EV

[41:39] chargers are and that information has to

[41:41] be in the plans. Is it a level two? Is

[41:43] it a level three charger? If so, that

[41:45] has to be specified and you have to show

[41:48] all the conduits and everything to prove

[41:50] that in fact it's a level two or level

[41:52] three. And that's not done. The dumpster

[41:55] enclosure, the dumpster enclosure, a

[41:58] version of it, yes, is in the plans, not

[42:00] zoning compliant. The the regulations

[42:03] specifically, uh, require that that

[42:06] dumpster enclosure has to mimic the

[42:07] architecture of the building, and it

[42:09] doesn't. The parking lot coverage, we

[42:12] heard, oh, this is just redoing

[42:13] something that's there. Well, when we

[42:15] look at the board here, we see their uh

[42:18] survey before the uh the the

[42:21] construction. Um, this is the parking

[42:23] area here and it comes around the

[42:25] building and the asphalt just sort of

[42:27] stops here. There's no organized parking

[42:30] and this is what was there when he

[42:33] purchased the building. And we will look

[42:37] at what he would like to do. Well, what

[42:40] he's in the process of doing is he's

[42:42] creating this two totally different

[42:44] parking lots. So, you need to know that.

[42:48] Um, he brought up the Elite Gym. The

[42:51] elite gym is a special exception use

[42:53] that has not sought a special exception

[42:56] yet from this board. We did work with uh

[42:59] uh Chris and the applicant uh because

[43:02] Chris put the guy in without any

[43:04] permits. Um, and we felt bad actually

[43:07] for him. And the agreement was that he

[43:10] would have one-on-one training until

[43:13] this issue is adjudicated and we would

[43:15] figure out what we have for parking in

[43:17] the end and then he could come in for

[43:19] his special exception because his

[43:22] one-on-one training also includes team

[43:24] training.

[43:25] Uh, let's see what else. Uh

[43:31] oh. The um bonds that you keep hearing

[43:34] about um have nothing to do with

[43:36] planning and zoning. Those are wetland

[43:38] bonds. Um and any approvals and how

[43:41] great the landscaping is and this and

[43:43] that is strictly related to uh the

[43:46] issues uh from the initial wetlands

[43:48] violation uh that brought him to the

[43:51] wetlands board. Having said all that, I

[43:53] will now read to you my administrative

[43:55] summary.

[43:59] » [sighs]

[43:59] » Okay.

[44:01] The applicants Chris Sy and Rick Jerzik

[44:04] have applied for a coastal area

[44:05] management and site plan review to

[44:07] expand the parking lot around an

[44:09] existing former warehouse building that

[44:11] is currently being converted into a

[44:13] multi-tenant building containing

[44:15] potential as of right and currently one

[44:17] special exception use. The expansion of

[44:20] the parking lot began without proper

[44:23] approvals and permits being in place.

[44:26] Work has been suspended since a notice

[44:28] of violation was issued on June 4th,

[44:31] 2026. While the CAM and site plan

[44:33] approvals are being sought, plans

[44:36] submitted to the board are required to

[44:37] be certified by me uh as zoning

[44:40] compliant under section 7.1.1

[44:43] of the zoning regulations. As of this

[44:46] writing, the plans are not zoning

[44:48] compliant and therefore cannot be

[44:50] certified.

[44:52] The application has been brought before

[44:54] you on the demand of Mr. Sy who believes

[44:56] that the board can wave any of its

[44:58] regulations under section 7.1.35

[45:03] of the zoning regulations and therefore

[45:05] the plan as submitted can be made zoning

[45:07] compliant by action of this board. This

[45:10] is a misinterpretation of the

[45:11] regulations. I advise the applicants

[45:14] that their interpretation of the waiver

[45:16] provisions uh are incorrect.

[45:19] Their disagreement led to an impass that

[45:21] apparently only the board can resolve.

[45:24] In my tenure serving this board, section

[45:27] 7.1.3.15

[45:29] was never interpreted to wave any zoning

[45:31] regulations because the board cannot

[45:33] legally wave its regulations without

[45:36] specific authority.

[45:38] The only board that can vary or wave a

[45:41] regulation is the zoning board of

[45:42] appeals.

[45:44] In my experience, section 7.1.315

[45:48] has always been interpreted as giving

[45:50] the board and its executive secretary

[45:52] the ability to wave certain requirements

[45:55] of section 7.1 when reviewing

[45:58] submissions for zoning compliance.

[46:01] Section 7.3

[46:03] 7.1.3.15

[46:05] waivers. The board may wave subject to

[46:08] appropriate conditions such requirements

[46:10] of this section 7.1 and the standard

[46:13] standards as set forth in regulations

[46:15] governing uses requiring site plan

[46:18] reviews as in its judgment of the

[46:20] special circumstances and conditions

[46:22] relating to a particular application are

[46:25] not requisite in the interest of the

[46:27] public health, safety and general

[46:28] welfare.

[46:30] When making its determination as to the

[46:33] extent of variation from standards set

[46:35] forth in these regulations, the board

[46:37] shall take into consideration the

[46:40] perspective character of the use, the

[46:42] interests of the city as a whole, and

[46:43] the purpose and intent of these

[46:45] regulations.

[46:47] The most in the most common example of

[46:50] waved requirements of a use subject to

[46:52] section section 7.1 is the single family

[46:55] dwelling coastal area management review,

[46:57] which you heard many of this evening.

[47:00] For a single family uh dwelling uh CAM

[47:03] application, staff routinely waves in

[47:06] accordance with section 7.1.315

[47:09] the requirement for a traffic study

[47:10] under section 7.1.3.2,

[47:13] parking and circulation studies under

[47:15] section 7.1.3

[47:18] and 7.1.34

[47:21] and illumination under section 7.1.3

[47:23] etc. because they are not gerine to a

[47:25] single family cam application.

[47:28] The board does have dis some discretion

[47:31] in choosing a standard in certain

[47:32] circumstances with the most common being

[47:35] the finding of parking adequacy for

[47:37] multiple uses sharing the same parking

[47:39] spaces in section 5.1 uh.8 and

[47:43] alternative plans for landscaping within

[47:46] parking lots under section 514.6

[47:49] subsection 2.

[47:52] The following issues were identified uh

[47:54] with submitted plans that did not allow

[47:57] me to certify the submission as zoning

[47:59] compliant.

[48:01] One, uh provide 5-ft planting buffers

[48:03] around the exterior of the building in

[48:05] accordance with section 5.14.6

[48:08] only partially provided. Uh the response

[48:11] from the applicant is that the

[48:12] requirement can be waved as part of an

[48:14] alternate landscaping plan for the

[48:16] parking lot. No alternative landscaping

[48:18] plan has been provided that demonstrates

[48:20] compliance with the provisions of

[48:21] section 514.6.

[48:24] No reason has been offered as to why the

[48:26] board should wave this requirement.

[48:29] Removing all encroachment areas labeled

[48:32] tarp covered encroachment in the

[48:34] residential zone side yard buffer area

[48:37] strip. Remove asphalt and fencing

[48:40] located in the buffer strip. Why?

[48:42] Because a buffer strip is defined in the

[48:44] regulations and it can't have structures

[48:46] or pavement. The applicants indicated

[48:48] that pavement would be removed if

[48:50] required, but they did not address any

[48:52] of the other encroachments or structures

[48:54] within the buffer.

[48:57] And I just want to add to that the

[48:59] regulations

[49:01] call it a buffer. So it's not whether or

[49:04] not we want to require removal or not.

[49:06] If it's in the buffer, it's got to be

[49:08] removed.

[49:10] The required buffer along the

[49:11] residential zone was compliant at 28 uh

[49:15] feet for the construction of the

[49:16] existing building and I can if you want

[49:19] show you that on the uh survey

[49:23] that existed prior to the changes to the

[49:25] site. The required buffer along the

[49:28] residential zone was compliant for 28 ft

[49:30] for the construction of the existing

[49:31] building. The proposed parking lot

[49:34] expansion reduces the buffer to 15.5 ft

[49:37] in one spot. This change does not comply

[49:40] with sections 3.10.4.2

[49:43] subsection 4 creating a nonconformity

[49:45] that needs to be corrected. No reason

[49:48] has been offered as to why the board

[49:50] should wave this requirement.

[49:52] The landscape plan is not zoning

[49:54] compliant and will not be reviewed until

[49:56] submitted by a licensed landscape

[49:58] architect per section 7.1.2.1.

[50:02] Applicants stated that certification by

[50:04] landscape architect is not required by

[50:05] section 7.1.2.1.

[50:08] Uh this morning we received basically

[50:10] the same plan with uh someone else's

[50:13] stamp on it. It's a landscape

[50:14] architect's plan. Um it has not been

[50:16] reviewed. It was submitted today.

[50:19] Uh as said earlier, a dumpster uh

[50:21] enclosure compliant with regulation

[50:23] section 5.16.4

[50:25] is not provided.

[50:30] Six. Identify and show elevation views

[50:33] of all existing and proposed fencing

[50:35] walls and including heights. Applicants

[50:37] have not provided uh responsive

[50:39] documents. Landscaped islands need to be

[50:42] in the area marked spaces 1 to 21.

[50:44] Applicants state that the board can wave

[50:46] the requirements. See item one above. No

[50:48] reason has been offered as to why the

[50:50] board should do so. Uh and then again,

[50:52] the 10% parking area must be uh EV

[50:55] spaces per section 5.1.910.

[50:58] EV charger types not indicated. Utility

[51:00] infrastructure to EV chargers not shown.

[51:03] applicant needs to provide that

[51:04] information. For the aforementioned

[51:07] reasons, this application does not

[51:09] constitute a zoning compliance

[51:10] submission. I understand why the

[51:13] applicants are pressing this board for a

[51:14] decision on this application. They

[51:16] urgently want to resume work on the site

[51:19] which has been suspended for months.

[51:21] However, any urgency created by the

[51:23] interruption of work in progress is

[51:25] self-created. It should not be a factor

[51:28] in a determination to wave the zoning

[51:30] regulations if in fact there is even a

[51:32] basis in the regulations to do so.

[51:36] Therefore, the applicants are seeking to

[51:37] bypass the normal compliance process

[51:40] that every other applicant hereto for

[51:43] has followed before reaching the PNZ

[51:45] board and are doing so despite clear and

[51:48] consistent advice from staff. Therefore,

[51:51] I must advise this board to deny this

[51:54] application

[51:55] to grant the waiverss the applicants are

[51:58] seeking is not consistent with either

[52:00] the accurate reading of the zoning

[52:02] regulations or past practice. It would

[52:05] thwart the purpose and intent of zoning

[52:07] regulations. Some interpartal reviews

[52:10] are still pending at this uh writing

[52:12] should the board allow the application

[52:14] to proceed.

[52:17] » Thank you. Um,

[52:19] » Can I respond to some of those?

[52:21] » Sure.

[52:22] » I just want to be clear.

[52:25] David and I obviously don't agree on a

[52:27] lot of things. Um, and one of the things

[52:30] I want to be clear on is I am not asking

[52:32] for a waiver for the buffer or the

[52:35] parking requirements. It's very clear in

[52:38] your regulations. It allows an

[52:41] alternative plan which I have submitted.

[52:43] I've asked for a month and a half for

[52:46] David to answer my questions. why I need

[52:48] a landscape architect when it's a

[52:50] conflicting regulation. There's another

[52:51] regulation that says an architect,

[52:53] engineer, or a landscape architect to

[52:56] look at it. Never responded to that

[52:57] question. That's why I'm before the

[52:59] board. His lack of response to my basic

[53:02] questions. Anytime we have a problem, we

[53:05] we address it. Inland Inland Wetlands,

[53:07] we had an issue. We addressed it and we

[53:09] had the plan approved within a month.

[53:11] And I want to be clear, we did not

[53:12] expand the parking lot. The parking lot

[53:15] as it sits right now was the existing

[53:17] parking lot that we reclaimed. It was a

[53:19] 60 parking space parking lot that was

[53:21] there for a manufacturer for 100 years.

[53:24] And in hindsight, hindsight's 2020. I

[53:27] should have just marked it out and been

[53:29] done. But I wanted to put a new parking

[53:30] lot that I'll own up to. I made a

[53:32] mistake. Getting back to the other

[53:34] things, the only thing I'm asking for a

[53:36] waiver on is the idea of a parking. And

[53:39] he mentions it in his letter. David

[53:41] does. and he says the board has a

[53:44] discretion in choosing a standard in

[53:46] certain circumstances with the most

[53:48] common thing but it also has a finding

[53:51] of a parking adequacy for multiple uses

[53:53] sharing the same parking space that's

[53:54] section 5.1.8

[53:57] That is what I'm asking for a waiver.

[53:59] Everything else is in the zoning regs.

[54:01] If you look at this the landscaping

[54:03] plan, you'll be like, it says it's

[54:05] allowed to put all the landscaping in

[54:06] the perimeter of the parking. It's in

[54:08] your regulations. Also in your

[54:10] regulations, I should be allowed to do

[54:13] my drainage work because as long as I

[54:16] have city approval, which I do from the

[54:18] it's in your regulations. It says as

[54:20] long as a city engineer approves the

[54:23] plans, which they have been done. And

[54:25] and here's the thing. He says it's

[54:26] self-imposed. It's not self-imposed.

[54:28] We've been working there for a year and

[54:30] a half, David. And and the truth be

[54:32] told, we went to get a inland wetlands

[54:35] permit. We had an issue with something.

[54:37] We made a mistake. We own up the

[54:39] mistake. We cleared the mistake up. We

[54:41] have a number of businesses. Truthfully,

[54:42] they're not going to hurt me. They're

[54:44] going to hurt a business that wants to

[54:45] open mental health. Another one with a

[54:47] gym. And we're asking for some

[54:49] consideration here. I totally disagree

[54:51] with David's statement and this is the

[54:54] the blunt truth. Most people are not

[54:55] going to get up and speak like I speak

[54:57] because they're afraid of retaliation. I

[54:59] have multiple emails that you'll see

[55:00] that David uses and he twists it. It's

[55:03] unbelievable. And all I'm saying is

[55:06] these these issues like the dumpster

[55:07] enclosure. He says it wasn't there.

[55:09] Well, it was submitted on July 15th. Why

[55:13] did you not respond and say this is why

[55:15] it doesn't meet the regulation? And

[55:17] again, the other issue that you bring

[55:19] up, the landscape plan, we're not asking

[55:21] for a waiver. It's right in your

[55:23] regulations. And I cite

[55:24] » Yeah. address the board. Don't speak

[55:26] directly to David. Okay. Thank you.

[55:27] » I apologize. I apologize.

[55:29] » It's It's one of the things we're trying

[55:32] to help some people to get open. That's

[55:34] our biggest thing. We're And he says,

[55:36] "We're willing to put up a bond. We're

[55:38] willing to do anything that you want us

[55:39] to do, but the plan is a beautiful plan.

[55:43] It's actually going to improve the

[55:44] neighborhood." And in regards to the the

[55:46] the the encroachment, I'm very happy to

[55:50] knock on that lady's door and tell her I

[55:51] got to rip out the asphalt, but I think

[55:53] that's the wrong move. I think the board

[55:55] has its discretion to allow this. That's

[55:58] all. And and I mean, I'm happy to answer

[56:00] the other questions, but it's like some

[56:02] of this stuff is really, you know, we're

[56:05] not asking for waiverss except for

[56:07] parking and that's allowed. Everything

[56:09] else landscaping buffer parking parking

[56:13] landscaping is allowed with an

[56:14] alternative plan and that's what we've

[56:16] submitted.

[56:18] Okay. Um are there any questions from

[56:20] the board at this point?

[56:24] David um could you we did receive um two

[56:28] documents late this afternoon

[56:31] uh in an email.

[56:34] One was from deep. One was

[56:38] I rec

[56:49] Yeah. One was from deep. Um and uh they

[56:52] had a concern about inconsistency and

[56:54] and some of the information and Mr. Sy

[56:56] said that uh that covered a particular

[56:58] area of the parking lot and he was going

[57:00] to eliminate uh some parking spots. I

[57:03] would have to go back and look at that

[57:06] and see if that is compliant. I mean, as

[57:09] I recall the and I can put up the

[57:10] letter, it just talked about um uh uh a

[57:14] discrepancy between some of the

[57:16] information. So, that was one of the

[57:17] things today. And then the other thing I

[57:19] believe was uh is it a staff report? Let

[57:23] me look. Yeah, we got the the inland

[57:25] wetlands uh report today. That's that's

[57:28] what we got.

[57:30] » Okay. So that's our typical

[57:33] um procedure is to have this by Friday

[57:36] before a Tuesday meeting so we have a

[57:37] chance to look at it. Um

[57:40] » If if I can if I can be clear the inland

[57:43] wetlands was approved on July 1st.

[57:45] And yeah, we just got we just got

[57:47] something like it was just released

[57:50] today

[57:50] » For us. And so for the fairness of the

[57:53] board to make an adequate decision and a

[57:56] fair decision for everybody, it's

[57:58] usually we get more time than sometime

[58:01] some people may not have even read it at

[58:03] this point. Um but uh discussion on on

[58:08] maybe looking at this seeing the

[58:11] information that we just received some

[58:14] in front of us handed out. Um my

[58:18] inclination is to consider what's in

[58:20] front of us. Give some time between now

[58:23] and the next meeting for the applicant

[58:26] and staff to

[58:29] try to make right anything that they

[58:31] differ on and come up with something

[58:34] that is

[58:36] less adversarial. It puts us in a very

[58:39] difficult position because there's two

[58:41] positions. I'm not an attorney. I don't

[58:44] know which which one has better

[58:46] precedent or which interpretation

[58:49] is uh most significant. Um, but I will,

[58:53] you know, uh, listen to the board and

[58:56] see if they, if they want to act on it

[58:58] tonight or if they want to considered

[59:00] and give some time for, uh, some, uh,

[59:04] peacemaking. But, Mr. Anderson,

[59:08] » Thank you, Chair. While we have the

[59:10] applicant here, I had a a particular

[59:14] question that I'd like clarification on,

[59:17] which is concerning the AE1 zone and um

[59:23] the deep area of concern. So, what is

[59:28] the AE1 zone and why did deep raise a

[59:34] red flag about those particular parking

[59:37] spaces?

[59:39] So, it it was with the where the

[59:41] existing parking lot was, and I'm happy

[59:43] to show the board this. Um, and Deep

[59:47] believes that it's within the AE11. It's

[59:50] a flood zone. We're going to eliminate

[59:52] those four parking spaces, so it's it

[59:54] won't be an issue. And we're we're

[59:56] showing it on the plan as an area of

[59:57] concern. There was an existing parking

[59:59] lot there. There's a curb there still.

[1:00:01] I'm more than happy to show the board.

[1:00:03] And what I'm asking for the board is

[1:00:04] some consideration. I don't I would ask

[1:00:07] respectfully. We have a difference of

[1:00:09] opinion. The the the city planner and

[1:00:10] myself, I've been going around and

[1:00:12] around for two months on this trying to

[1:00:13] get answers qu questions answered. The

[1:00:16] phase one is the most important thing

[1:00:18] for me. It's outside the wetlands. It's

[1:00:20] outside the uh the the the deep area and

[1:00:25] it's approximately 50 parking spaces. I

[1:00:27] would ask as a compromise would the

[1:00:29] board at least consider allowing me to

[1:00:31] do the drainage work in that area that

[1:00:33] has nothing to do with the rest of the

[1:00:34] parking area. It will give me the 50

[1:00:36] parking spaces I need. It's going to

[1:00:38] take me a few weeks and then I can get

[1:00:39] on the next board and resolve some of

[1:00:40] these issues. But I would highly ask the

[1:00:43] regulations that I've c cited are very

[1:00:46] clear. The landscaping and the buffer I

[1:00:49] can offer an alternative plan and the

[1:00:51] board within their right. It's not a

[1:00:52] waiver. It's within their right to make

[1:00:55] and accept that if it meets or it

[1:00:57] exceeds the plan.

[1:00:59] » Now I and I do understand that. I do

[1:01:02] think though that we

[1:01:04] um are it's is diff kind of different

[1:01:07] than just private business where you you

[1:01:10] know he can horse trade and say yeah go

[1:01:12] ahead and do it. It's like we have a

[1:01:13] specific application in front of us and

[1:01:16] it's not like we can adjust that and

[1:01:18] chop it up into pieces and say, "Okay,

[1:01:20] well, we'll do this here right now and

[1:01:23] we'll chop it up and we'll redesign the

[1:01:26] whole thing in terms of the

[1:01:28] presentation, the application, and take

[1:01:30] it as a partial. I I don't know that we

[1:01:33] actually have the right or the ability

[1:01:34] to do that. So, um I will ask the other

[1:01:37] members of the board what they think,

[1:01:40] but my instinct is that we kind of have

[1:01:42] to we have to um address

[1:01:46] » Chair chairman Kush, I could just stress

[1:01:48] to you in your regulations as long as

[1:01:51] the plan has been approved by the city

[1:01:53] engineer, I can get a zoning permit for

[1:01:55] a specific section.

[1:01:57] » That is not true, Mr. Chair. Just to

[1:01:59] clarify.

[1:02:00] » Yeah. So, this is the problem that we

[1:02:02] have. So, I I'd be interested in what

[1:02:05] the board thinks about it and what we

[1:02:07] think collectively we should do. Mr.

[1:02:09] Saddy,

[1:02:11] » Thank you very much. Um, one of the

[1:02:14] things I've been very consistent with

[1:02:16] when an applicant comes in with a

[1:02:18] complex issue, which is this is a

[1:02:20] complex issue, uh, Mr. Sy, uh, you

[1:02:23] provided us materials which was

[1:02:24] appropriate. We appreciate it. The other

[1:02:27] hand, uh, I haven't even had a chance to

[1:02:28] read all of it yet. I listened to most

[1:02:30] of what you had to say because I think

[1:02:31] that was important and traditionally

[1:02:33] what I've been involved in this I've

[1:02:35] said we kick it down for two two weeks

[1:02:37] out for us to be able to assimilate this

[1:02:39] to make number one an intelligent choice

[1:02:41] and more importantly not only an

[1:02:44] intelligent choice but the appropriate

[1:02:45] choice that we have to make on this. So

[1:02:48] I think that we have to review the uh

[1:02:50] inland wetlands which whether it came in

[1:02:53] today or came in uh I think had a

[1:02:56] different date sometime in July. It

[1:02:58] still is tied into the report that came

[1:03:00] out of deep which was July 1st and I see

[1:03:03] that you did hand that out to us in our

[1:03:05] materials. Um that being said can I ask

[1:03:09] some questions though?

[1:03:10] » Sure.

[1:03:11] » So uh Mr. Sy, um

[1:03:14] the materials you just sent to us

[1:03:17] tonight. Um

[1:03:19] again, this is a one-page document. It's

[1:03:21] in color. Um unfortunately, it's 8 and 1

[1:03:24] half by 11. I don't know the date that's

[1:03:26] actually on it. I can't make it out.

[1:03:28] Assuming it's a recent one, but would

[1:03:31] you just explain uh the phase one? Is

[1:03:34] that the 50 spots? That's a one in red

[1:03:37] that you're talking about is the uh

[1:03:40] mental health business. Is that what

[1:03:42] you're referring to?

[1:03:43] » Yes.

[1:03:43] » Okay.

[1:03:44] » And then we have something that's called

[1:03:46] parking phase two and it's a blue

[1:03:49] marking uh 36 spaces. Could you just

[1:03:51] explain that for us because again we're

[1:03:53] seeing this map for the first time?

[1:03:55] » Sure. I I anticipated that the board

[1:03:58] number one, we had uh the deep review

[1:04:01] letter that came out today, which I was

[1:04:02] pretty shocked by, and we tried to

[1:04:04] respond to say, "Hey, let me show you

[1:04:06] the exact area and let me show you." I

[1:04:09] figured the board would be concerned

[1:04:10] about, hey, can we approve this whole

[1:04:12] thing or can we at least get them

[1:04:13] started. So, we we wanted to highlight

[1:04:16] the different areas to make sure you're

[1:04:18] aware of it. That was done today just to

[1:04:20] say, hey, this is the deep area of

[1:04:21] concern. It's three parking spaces, but

[1:04:23] we made four. And then the rest of the

[1:04:25] area was um the different the parking

[1:04:28] area for the mental health and also for

[1:04:30] the elite gym so that they could have a

[1:04:32] little bit more parking.

[1:04:33] » Okay. But phase two parking phase two is

[1:04:35] the second part of it. Uh we

[1:04:38] self-perform most of the work. So we're

[1:04:39] going to do it in phases. We're not

[1:04:41] going to do the whole parking lot at

[1:04:43] once. So we figured we would show the

[1:04:45] board what we're looking to do.

[1:04:46] » Okay. And then again this is for the

[1:04:49] record. Green phase three 16 phase 16

[1:04:52] spaces. Correct. That would be the the

[1:04:55] last phase.

[1:04:56] » My memory and I think our board's memory

[1:04:58] is that we approved one of the

[1:05:00] businesses that is now operating. It's a

[1:05:02] baseball facility I believe with others.

[1:05:05] » Correct.

[1:05:06] » What What are the spaces that you have

[1:05:08] referred to as either phase one, phase

[1:05:11] two, or phase three are being used by

[1:05:13] that particular business as president?

[1:05:15] » They're they're they're using the

[1:05:16] parking area that abutts the the the

[1:05:18] building. If you're looking at the

[1:05:20] building from the street to the right,

[1:05:21] there's a a paved parking area that's an

[1:05:23] existing parking lot. They're using

[1:05:25] those 15 parking spaces.

[1:05:28] » The one that's parking phase three, the

[1:05:30] green ones.

[1:05:30] » No, no, no, no, no. If you're looking at

[1:05:32] the building from the road, it's uh Let

[1:05:35] me

[1:05:36] » No, it's okay.

[1:05:37] » No, you don't need to do that. Just

[1:05:39] » So, if you're looking at the If If

[1:05:41] you're looking at the building from the

[1:05:42] road, Yes. the existing parking lot to

[1:05:44] the left of the building.

[1:05:45] » Okay. That's part of your 50 spaces.

[1:05:47] » Yes. Well, right now it's 15, but it

[1:05:49] would be expanded to 50.

[1:05:50] » Fair enough. Um, and again, this

[1:05:53] document is the first time. Is this is

[1:05:54] this an actual survey that was been done

[1:05:56] or is this just something was put

[1:05:58] together for the presentation?

[1:05:59] » That was a survey that we took and and

[1:06:00] color copied it. It's an existing survey

[1:06:02] that I'm happy to show it to you. I have

[1:06:04] in the back, but you have the plans

[1:06:05] because that's it right there.

[1:06:07] » I we don't have the color until you gave

[1:06:10] it to us.

[1:06:11] The last question I h I have for you um

[1:06:15] is you said you wanted to start work,

[1:06:17] but I think you said you've been working

[1:06:18] this for over a year and a half now.

[1:06:20] Correct.

[1:06:20] » Yes.

[1:06:21] » I just sitting there going if the two

[1:06:23] weeks will get us to the point where we

[1:06:25] can make an intelligent decision. It's

[1:06:26] probably something we should consider.

[1:06:28] Like you do so in a regular part of your

[1:06:30] business over the years.

[1:06:33] » I'm happy to.

[1:06:33] » Just my observation. Thank you.

[1:06:36] » Any u further questions or comments from

[1:06:39] the board? Yes, Mr. Collision.

[1:06:42] » Mr. Sely, um, when you started this

[1:06:44] expansion, did you have all the proper

[1:06:46] permits and and approvals?

[1:06:48] » Brian, I want to make sure I'm clear. We

[1:06:49] didn't expand the parking lot. The

[1:06:51] parking lot, that's a misrepresentation

[1:06:53] from the city planner, the parking lot

[1:06:55] there, and I'll make sure at the next

[1:06:56] meeting I'll bring a Google map of that

[1:06:58] existing parking lot when we bought the

[1:07:00] property.

[1:07:01] » Not expanded any parking.

[1:07:02] » Let me rephrase that. When you started

[1:07:04] your project, did you have proper

[1:07:06] approvals and permits

[1:07:08] » For which part of the project?

[1:07:10] » Any project.

[1:07:11] » We did site work there for a year and a

[1:07:12] half. We didn't know. And I didn't know,

[1:07:14] and this is the truth, as long as I

[1:07:16] stayed out of the inland wetlands area,

[1:07:17] I thought I was fine. We put new

[1:07:18] sidewalks in. We didn't touch any of the

[1:07:20] asphalt. That wasn't until uh May 29th,

[1:07:24] I think it was. That was what the notice

[1:07:26] of violation was. We held accountability

[1:07:28] for that. We apologized for that and

[1:07:30] within a month, we got it rectified. So,

[1:07:31] so at least that notice of violation was

[1:07:34] appropriate.

[1:07:34] » 100%. We don't argue that.

[1:07:36] » Thank you.

[1:07:38] » The two the two notices of violation

[1:07:39] from the zoning department were

[1:07:41] inappropriate. I just want to make sure

[1:07:43] I put that in the record.

[1:07:45] » Any any further uh questions?

[1:07:49] » Uh just a comment. Uh this is a lot of

[1:07:51] material here. There's a lot of

[1:07:52] conflicting uh opinions and um I've been

[1:07:57] going over this since we've got it and

[1:07:58] we've gotten more material tonight. This

[1:08:00] is just a lot to process. Uh I think the

[1:08:03] addition of the the mental health

[1:08:05] facility and the gym, I think those are

[1:08:07] great additions to the neighborhood. I'm

[1:08:09] very familiar with this area. That

[1:08:12] really would help to bring uh to bring

[1:08:14] the standard up in that neighborhood. Uh

[1:08:17] I think unfortunately

[1:08:21] we need to wait two weeks to process all

[1:08:23] this and to iron out all these

[1:08:24] difficulties and maybe in the next

[1:08:27] meeting we can approve this. At least

[1:08:29] that's my opinion.

[1:08:32] » Thank you. Any other comments or

[1:08:35] questions from the board,

[1:08:37] » Mr. Chair?

[1:08:38] » Yep.

[1:08:39] » Just want to say a couple of things.

[1:08:41] First, um the goal of the project I have

[1:08:45] no issue with. It will improve the

[1:08:47] neighborhood. That that's without a

[1:08:50] doubt. And when things are properly

[1:08:53] permitted, that's a good thing. The

[1:08:55] issue here isn't the improvements and

[1:08:57] know how great they are or not how great

[1:08:59] they are. It's very simply like any

[1:09:03] project that is great in this city. You

[1:09:06] have to follow the rules to get there.

[1:09:08] There is a path to greatness. And right

[1:09:12] now this project is not following that

[1:09:14] path correctly. And you heard multiple

[1:09:17] times tonight the word consideration.

[1:09:20] Please give him consideration. Please

[1:09:22] give him consideration. There's no

[1:09:24] consideration. The consideration is the

[1:09:26] regulations. All we are asking him to do

[1:09:29] is follow the regulatory path correctly

[1:09:33] so he can get to that path of greatness

[1:09:36] that he has talked about.

[1:09:40] » Can I can I talk about that for one

[1:09:42] second, please?

[1:09:43] The reason I wanted to get before the

[1:09:45] board is because no one's going to do

[1:09:46] what I'm doing right now is talking

[1:09:48] about the obstacles that the city

[1:09:50] planner puts in my way, in my partner's

[1:09:52] way. I want to get before the board and

[1:09:54] I probably agree you're not going to

[1:09:55] approve it tonight, but I want to be

[1:09:56] clear. We have asked multiple times for

[1:09:59] clarification from the city planner and

[1:10:01] he has refused to answer basic

[1:10:03] questions. You're you have all the

[1:10:05] information from all the emails I have.

[1:10:07] I've respectfully asked, please read it.

[1:10:10] I'm happy to bring everyone out to the

[1:10:11] lot and we can show them. I'm going to

[1:10:13] get a a survey or not a survey but an

[1:10:15] elevation and show where the existing

[1:10:17] parking lot was as of May May 1st of

[1:10:20] this year. We've never expanded the

[1:10:22] parking lot. We made one mistake. We

[1:10:24] reclaimed the parking lot. We shouldn't

[1:10:26] have. I acknowledge that. But other than

[1:10:28] that, we have been trying to work with

[1:10:29] the city and we were there for a year

[1:10:31] and a half without an issue doing work.

[1:10:33] So, we are not looking to be bad. And I

[1:10:36] I will say, David, I'm not going to

[1:10:38] address it. I apologize. All I'm asking

[1:10:40] is the city official to respond to basic

[1:10:42] questions and please read my emails.

[1:10:46] » Okay.

[1:10:48] Um then uh I would uh either hear a

[1:10:52] motion to put this to it or by

[1:10:55] affirmation got making the motion to

[1:10:59] have this matter continue to the next

[1:11:02] meeting which would be the 15th of

[1:11:05] September if that's accurate.

[1:11:08] We have a motion on the floor. A

[1:11:09] » Second.

[1:11:10] » Have a motion in a second. Any

[1:11:12] discussion on the motion?

[1:11:15] » Seeing none, if you would please uh call

[1:11:17] the role. Call the vote.

[1:11:21] » Mr. Agnesi

[1:11:22] » With the motion.

[1:11:24] » Mr. Anderson

[1:11:25] » With a motion.

[1:11:26] » Mr. Fermener

[1:11:27] » With the motion.

[1:11:28] » Mr. Collegian

[1:11:29] » With the motion.

[1:11:30] » Mr. Machio

[1:11:31] » With the motion.

[1:11:32] » Mr. Mortimer

[1:11:34] » Motion.

[1:11:35] » Mr. Satty

[1:11:36] » With the motion. Mr. Zaheres

[1:11:38] » With the motion.

[1:11:39] » Chairman Ques.

[1:11:40] » I'm also with the motion and I

[1:11:42] understand that there is uh an

[1:11:45] adversarial feeling about this between

[1:11:47] the applicant and the city. I would

[1:11:49] encourage you both to do your very best

[1:11:52] to accommodate the other uh position and

[1:11:56] find a way to make this the easy button

[1:11:59] for us for the next meeting. It's really

[1:12:02] not our place to um adjudicate between

[1:12:07] conflicting things. We'll do what we

[1:12:09] have to do and we'll take a vote and

[1:12:11] it'll be what it is, but I would prefer

[1:12:15] uh that it go more smoothly and that we

[1:12:17] get this built. So, I am in agreement

[1:12:21] with the city planner and with Mr.

[1:12:23] Mortimer that it's an improvement. It's

[1:12:26] good that the overall

[1:12:29] um end effect is is positive for the

[1:12:33] area and uh so I'm hopeful that that

[1:12:36] that uh if there is a hatchet that it

[1:12:40] can be buried and uh and that we show

[1:12:43] that at the next meeting both parties uh

[1:12:47] being able to uh accommodate the other's

[1:12:49] needs. But thank you

[1:12:51] » Mr. Chair. Ju just for the record, all

[1:12:55] I'm looking for is the same thing I

[1:12:57] looked for for every applicant that

[1:12:59] comes before this board in every

[1:13:01] application.

[1:13:02] » I understand that's your position.

[1:13:03] » Listen, listen. And it's very simple

[1:13:05] because it's the law. The law is you

[1:13:07] have to be zoning compliant. That's all

[1:13:10] I want.

[1:13:10] » I understand.

[1:13:11] » Just want you to know that's all I'm

[1:13:12] looking for.

[1:13:13] » And I'm asking you guys to do that with

[1:13:15] yourselves, not not with us as it as the

[1:13:17] middlemen. So, we'll leave it at that.

[1:13:20] Show us next time that we all agree that

[1:13:22] it's done right and it's and it's easy

[1:13:25] for us to approve. Thank you.

[1:13:26] » Thank you.

[1:13:28] » Next order of business is a public

[1:13:30] hearing closed by October 6th. Vote by

[1:13:33] December 10th, 260284

[1:13:36] Quarry Road, space C through F, zone ID,

[1:13:40] petition of Haki Akaya, for special

[1:13:43] exception to operate an indoor

[1:13:45] children's playground on map 91, block

[1:13:49] 807, parcel 1, of which LM Quarry Road 2

[1:13:54] LLC is the owner. If you would give your

[1:13:57] name and address for the board, you will

[1:13:59] have the floor.

[1:14:00] » Thank you. Uh John Wicko, architect at

[1:14:03] 58 Prospect Street. I'm here on behalf

[1:14:07] of Aliv Akaya and representing the owner

[1:14:10] LM Corey Road 2 LLC. Um we're here

[1:14:15] because of a special use required for

[1:14:18] places of entertainment in the ID, the

[1:14:21] industrial zone.

[1:14:23] Um the uh tenant is proposing an indoor

[1:14:29] playground um facility for children and

[1:14:32] families um to use uh during operation

[1:14:37] hours which are Monday through Friday

[1:14:40] 8:30 to 7:30. And on the weekends, the

[1:14:44] most busy time is um

[1:14:47] 8 to 8 o'clock on Saturday and 8:30 to

[1:14:51] 7:30 on Sunday. Um the facility is open

[1:14:56] to the public as a enter and um

[1:15:00] pay by the hour, a rotating hour for um

[1:15:04] for the children that are using the the

[1:15:06] playscape.

[1:15:08] Um, also there on the weekends mostly

[1:15:12] are the parties. There's party rooms

[1:15:15] that um will serve food that's brought

[1:15:18] in. There's no uh preparing of food um

[1:15:22] in this establishment.

[1:15:25] Um

[1:15:27] pretty uh basic standard operation. Um

[1:15:31] the improvements uh include the

[1:15:34] installation of the play equipment which

[1:15:36] is about 2500 square feet. Uh it's a

[1:15:41] pre-manufactured

[1:15:43] um certified equipment that's going to

[1:15:46] be installed um and geared towards uh

[1:15:50] younger children to to use and enjoy for

[1:15:53] entertainment. Um other improvements are

[1:15:57] primarily um cabinetry for reception,

[1:16:00] service counter and coffee bar. Uh there

[1:16:04] is um a storage room that'll be

[1:16:06] constructed at the existing overhead

[1:16:08] door.

[1:16:10] Um the remaining rooms uh which are on

[1:16:14] the outside walls will remain uh and be

[1:16:17] used as parting uh party rooms and the

[1:16:20] lavatories are existing uh and they do

[1:16:23] meet the required building and plumbing

[1:16:25] codes.

[1:16:27] Uh also our gathering uh areas with

[1:16:30] tables for families and um to uh

[1:16:35] uh rest and and eat their snacks that

[1:16:38] they bring.

[1:16:42] And

[1:16:45] I think that's really it on the on the

[1:16:47] site or inside the building. The site

[1:16:50] itself, we um we're we're not proposing

[1:16:53] don't need to do any uh changes to the

[1:16:56] site. It's all zoning compliant. Um we

[1:17:00] have uh zoning data sheet um SP2 that

[1:17:04] that describes those uh compliant areas.

[1:17:08] We did a a parking matrix um based on

[1:17:12] existing occupants

[1:17:15] um and the requirements under 5.1.4

[1:17:20] your parking regulation

[1:17:23] um it's all called out on a um chart

[1:17:27] there. Uh both buildings when you add

[1:17:30] everything up um is are required 186 and

[1:17:35] that includes the playtown needing 53

[1:17:38] spaces. Uh there's a breakdown also in

[1:17:42] that chart of the different areas and

[1:17:44] the um uh density of occupants

[1:17:49] within her space.

[1:17:51] So with with that um

[1:17:55] 186 are required and we have 262 spaces

[1:17:59] on site. So we're in excess of 76

[1:18:03] spaces. So we feel this is going to be a

[1:18:06] a a good use, a good location. Um it's a

[1:18:10] large enough space in this type of

[1:18:12] building that can accommodate the

[1:18:14] structure that she's purchasing and

[1:18:16] installing. Um, so we hope you are

[1:18:19] acting favorably on this application.

[1:18:23] » Thank you. David, if you would give your

[1:18:25] overview.

[1:18:29] » The applicant is looking to establish an

[1:18:31] indoor playground and child's uh party

[1:18:33] facility of 5,931

[1:18:36] square ft in the ID industrial zone. The

[1:18:39] application is for a special exception.

[1:18:42] According to the submission, weekly

[1:18:44] operations run from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30

[1:18:47] p.m. with a maximum of 20 children a

[1:18:49] day. Each play session is an hour long.

[1:18:52] Parking demand is estimated to be a

[1:18:54] maximum of 15 cars depending on whether

[1:18:56] both a party and a playground uses are

[1:19:00] at the same time. Uh no interdep

[1:19:02] departmental issues have been

[1:19:04] identified. Uh the police department

[1:19:06] review is pending. So, if approved, it

[1:19:08] is recommended that the approval be

[1:19:10] conditioned on police approval.

[1:19:13] » Thank you. Um, are there any questions

[1:19:16] of the applicant before we open the

[1:19:17] public hearing?

[1:19:21] » Good evening, Mr. Wick. Good to have you

[1:19:23] back. Um, just so Clare, looking I

[1:19:27] looked at your plans, there are two

[1:19:29] buildings on the property. Is the

[1:19:30] building to the right the one that's

[1:19:31] going to be your applicants or is the

[1:19:33] building on the left? Um, as you come in

[1:19:37] from Cory Road, Cory Road, yes,

[1:19:39] » Is the building on the right. Okay.

[1:19:40] » And in the back right corner is the

[1:19:43] tenant space.

[1:19:44] » Fair enough. And then that's how we get

[1:19:46] all the extra spaces because the

[1:19:47] building that's on the property that's

[1:19:50] to the left may not be used at the same

[1:19:52] time as as this particular applicant's

[1:19:55] use of the property. Correct.

[1:19:56] » Right. There's the various tenants with

[1:19:59] various hours. Um, so there there even

[1:20:03] if it's all occupied, there's still 70

[1:20:07] 76 extra spaces per the regulation.

[1:20:10] » Thank you very much.

[1:20:11] » You're welcome.

[1:20:12] » Any other questions about John?

[1:20:15] » Thanks for coming in tonight, Mr.

[1:20:17] Wickle. I'm just a little confused. I've

[1:20:19] never seen anything like this. There

[1:20:21] seems to be a kit that was provided for

[1:20:25] this entire

[1:20:27] floor containing like a merrygoround and

[1:20:30] » Yeah, a lot of it um is kind of u uh

[1:20:34] graphic. Um but the the facility that

[1:20:39] she's purchasing is is pre-manufactured

[1:20:41] and certified uh for younger kids. So it

[1:20:44] yeah, it kind of it comes in, if I'm not

[1:20:46] mistaken, and you and you assemble it.

[1:20:49] Um there's floor mats and things that

[1:20:51] give it all the activity and and color.

[1:20:55] » Um um

[1:21:00] » Soft playground.

[1:21:01] » Okay. So, as an architect, you you had

[1:21:04] anything to do with that?

[1:21:05] » Yeah. No, we're just [laughter] we're

[1:21:06] here uh we we surveyed the building um

[1:21:10] and we we identified what was existing

[1:21:13] and what they were going to use. The

[1:21:14] only two walls we're putting in is that

[1:21:16] storage area.

[1:21:18] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:21:21] » Any other questions or comments before

[1:21:22] we open up the public hearing?

[1:21:25] Seeing none, this is a public hearing.

[1:21:27] So, if anyone would like to speak to

[1:21:29] this issue, please come up to the

[1:21:31] podium.

[1:21:42] » State your name and address for the

[1:21:43] board.

[1:21:44] » Sarah Brmley, 27 Norway Street. I have

[1:21:47] only seen the plans for a few minutes.

[1:21:49] Um, I commend I think that that children

[1:21:52] need indoor space, need outdoor space.

[1:21:54] They need to be able to move. Uh, and

[1:21:57] especially with climate climate change,

[1:21:59] we need to be planning for more indoor

[1:22:01] play spaces where children can really

[1:22:03] use their large muscles. Um, I not sure

[1:22:07] the the plan that I've seen has

[1:22:09] sufficient like plan for using those

[1:22:12] large muscles. It looks like a lot of

[1:22:14] small areas where children won't really

[1:22:18] be able to run, jump, play the way they

[1:22:21] would be able to outside. So, I guess I

[1:22:23] was a little disappointed that it's so

[1:22:26] gendery color kind of thing like a

[1:22:28] carnival instead when it could have been

[1:22:30] like wow really like nature like rock

[1:22:33] climbing walls and and I kind of like

[1:22:35] that kind of vibe. That's just me. But

[1:22:37] one thing if it's a soft thing I'm as a

[1:22:39] preschool teacher I'd be concerned about

[1:22:41] how you're going to keep that really

[1:22:43] clean

[1:22:45] and I don't know if any of these things

[1:22:46] are things that are your pervey you know

[1:22:49] if it's a safety health and thing or how

[1:22:51] the how much parking is the stuff that

[1:22:53] that's what you all decide so this may

[1:22:56] none of this may be relevant um but I

[1:23:00] just there's some things on that that I

[1:23:02] think are are concerning you know I I

[1:23:05] just wish we p had more indoor space

[1:23:07] where kids can move more than in those

[1:23:10] small areas. Um,

[1:23:13] but whatever. People do need things to

[1:23:15] do with their kids. It's a, you know,

[1:23:17] they don't always have, not all kids

[1:23:19] have money and parents have money to

[1:23:21] take them to a paid place. So, anyway,

[1:23:24] thank you.

[1:23:25] » Thank you.

[1:23:27] » Ball pits. Oh my gosh.

[1:23:31] Any

[1:23:33] um

[1:23:35] any other comments from the public?

[1:23:39] Seeing none, without exception,

[1:23:42] we will close the public comment

[1:23:45] section. Are there any other questions

[1:23:47] or comments from the board?

[1:23:50] David, do you want to Did you already

[1:23:52] give your overview? Yes or no? I'm a

[1:23:57] little spacey today. I'm sorry.

[1:23:59] Um, so without objection, we will close

[1:24:02] the public hearing and if there's no

[1:24:05] questions. Did you want to speak to this

[1:24:07] issue, madam?

[1:24:08] » Yes.

[1:24:10] » Well, can we open up the public hearing

[1:24:12] to let this woman speak? Yes.

[1:24:14] » I spaced out. I don't know if we closed

[1:24:15] it.

[1:24:17] » Yeah. Thank you for that. And you just

[1:24:20] state your name and address for the

[1:24:21] board. I'd appreciate it.

[1:24:22] » My name is Carol Eaton. I live at 20

[1:24:25] Peekquat Street in Milford.

[1:24:28] And I would like to propose a change, a

[1:24:31] broader zone change.

[1:24:35] We need zones specific rather than based

[1:24:38] on lot size. Um, and the reason I'm

[1:24:42] doing this is because I feel that some

[1:24:44] of the people that have lived here for

[1:24:46] many years and have, you know, they have

[1:24:50] their homes here and some of them would

[1:24:52] like to put a small maybe a small

[1:24:54] cottage in the back, a small um

[1:24:59] home maybe for elderly people that that

[1:25:02] are in your family or maybe for um nurse

[1:25:06] cares and nurse to take care of people

[1:25:08] and maybe for a child that doesn't have

[1:25:10] a place to live or maybe a rental. So I

[1:25:13] feel that we have paid for our land and

[1:25:17] we should be able to use it that way.

[1:25:19] I'm sorry, ma'am, but the need to be

[1:25:21] speak to this issue that's in front of

[1:25:24] the board and we do have an ADU

[1:25:26] regulation that will affect that. But if

[1:25:29] you call uh David's office, he can

[1:25:32] explain what regulations we have and

[1:25:34] what procedures we have. If you want to

[1:25:36] change the zoning reg, you're allowed to

[1:25:39] do that by making an application and

[1:25:41] come in in front of the board yourself,

[1:25:43] but not but not during someone else's

[1:25:46] application.

[1:25:47] » Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. I appreciate

[1:25:49] your No, I appreciate you wanting to be

[1:25:51] involved, but give uh David's office a

[1:25:54] call and he'll walk you through and

[1:25:56] he'll help you get what you want to say

[1:25:58] out there.

[1:25:59] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:26:00] » All right. Thank you, ma'am.

[1:26:01] » Bye.

[1:26:04] » Um so again, we'll with uh without

[1:26:07] exception, we'll close the public

[1:26:09] comment and without exception, we'll

[1:26:10] close the public hearing. And I'd hear a

[1:26:13] motion

[1:26:15] » Regarding 260 284 Quarry Road, space C

[1:26:18] through F. I move to approve the

[1:26:20] petition of Haki Akaya for a special

[1:26:23] exception to operate an indoors children

[1:26:25] playground on map 091, block 807, parcel

[1:26:29] 1, of which LM Quarry Road 2 LLC is the

[1:26:33] owner.

[1:26:36] We have a motion and a second. Any

[1:26:37] discussion on the motion?

[1:26:40] Seeing none, would if you would please

[1:26:42] call the vote.

[1:26:46] » Mr. Agnesi

[1:26:47] » With the motion.

[1:26:49] » Mr. Anderson

[1:26:50] » With the motion.

[1:26:51] » Mr. Fermener

[1:26:52] » With the motion.

[1:26:54] » Mr. Collegian

[1:26:55] » With the motion.

[1:26:56] » Mr. Matia

[1:26:57] » With the motion.

[1:26:58] » Mr. Mortimer

[1:26:59] » With the motion.

[1:27:00] » Mr. Sadi

[1:27:01] » With the motion.

[1:27:02] » Mr. Zaheres

[1:27:04] » With the motion.

[1:27:05] » Chairman Ques

[1:27:06] » Also

[1:27:07] » Also with the motion. and wish you good

[1:27:09] luck with your project.

[1:27:12] Next order

[1:27:14] the next order of business is petition

[1:27:18] of the city of Milford for a proposed

[1:27:19] regulation change to existing CDD2

[1:27:23] zoning regulations for the city section

[1:27:25] 3.1.7.

[1:27:27] So, as a little background, we did make

[1:27:30] an alteration to the CDD2

[1:27:33] um some months ago, and it turns out

[1:27:36] that as we looked at its effect and

[1:27:40] potential effect on the uh

[1:27:45] on the zone, it it seemed to have fallen

[1:27:47] short. So there had been some effort to

[1:27:50] to make some adjustments to that to meet

[1:27:55] the goals that we were trying to achieve

[1:27:59] um in a more effective way. So if David

[1:28:02] if you would give us an overview, I'd

[1:28:04] appreciate it.

[1:28:06] » Sure. So when we discussed um fix fixing

[1:28:12] the regulations uh from our last fix um

[1:28:17] we realized and we acknowledged that um

[1:28:22] downtown uh the zoning in downtown uh is

[1:28:25] considered very successful. Um, I don't

[1:28:27] think you'll find anyone in in town who

[1:28:30] uh dislikes uh any of the uh development

[1:28:33] that has occurred downtown over uh the

[1:28:36] past several decades. Uh taking it from

[1:28:40] uh the the the

[1:28:42] less than desirable uh place it had

[1:28:45] become after the mall opened uh to uh

[1:28:48] this vibrant um

[1:28:52] center of the community. Um so using

[1:28:56] that as the uh uh basis uh for uh

[1:29:01] rejuvenation

[1:29:02] um the thinking is uh and the proposal

[1:29:05] is to uh basically transfer uh those

[1:29:09] regulations uh into Debon. Uh Debon uh

[1:29:14] was uh once upon a time a secondary

[1:29:16] downtown back at the turn of the last

[1:29:19] century. uh they, you know, with its uh

[1:29:21] with its trolley line and the uh the

[1:29:24] amusement park and the the summer

[1:29:26] activities, it was it was truly a uh

[1:29:29] multi- uh uh use uh area just like

[1:29:32] downtown.

[1:29:34] Uh the the lots that uh we have in Devon

[1:29:39] are very much like downtown. They they

[1:29:42] vary in size from small to large. uh you

[1:29:45] have housing, you have businesses of

[1:29:48] various kinds. So again the thinking is

[1:29:52] uh let's basically transplant the

[1:29:55] downtown regulations uh to Devon and we

[1:29:58] have done that uh in this proposal. Uh

[1:30:02] we've also included uh in this

[1:30:04] regulation uh because uh we have to uh

[1:30:08] the uh uh addition of uh the uh

[1:30:12] Connecticut general statutes 25-1 which

[1:30:15] uh we had um uh a special meeting about.

[1:30:19] Uh so those regulations are incorporated

[1:30:21] into this um you know which allows u

[1:30:25] middle what's called middle housing to

[1:30:27] be developed and that um will be having

[1:30:30] to change in all the zones uh that are

[1:30:33] residential um uh and I'm sorry that are

[1:30:36] commercial um and Devon is a a

[1:30:40] considered a commercial and residential

[1:30:41] zone. So what that uh means is that uh

[1:30:45] now um anybody who has a commercial

[1:30:49] property can keep it commercial or they

[1:30:52] can convert it uh to um two between two

[1:30:57] and nine units of housing and that's as

[1:31:00] of right uh doesn't even matter well it

[1:31:02] matters what our zoning says because we

[1:31:04] can have standards um so we do have

[1:31:06] standards for housing as we we have um

[1:31:10] but it's an as of right project. Um, and

[1:31:15] the uh statutes allow the planning and

[1:31:18] zoning board uh sort of uh two ways of

[1:31:21] of uh approving it. Um, one is we could

[1:31:25] handle it just like we do now with site

[1:31:27] plan review and every one of those uh

[1:31:30] conversions uh comes to the board or

[1:31:33] because um you have to approve it. Um

[1:31:36] you can allow staff to do it and you

[1:31:39] know the in staff doing it we would just

[1:31:41] be following the regulations because

[1:31:44] that's that's the standard that has to

[1:31:46] be uh in place. Um and that's that part

[1:31:49] of the proposal. You you have to uh give

[1:31:53] some indication uh tonight um which way

[1:31:56] you want to go. And that's that's the

[1:31:58] part that's in red where it says under

[1:32:00] at the beginning middle housing

[1:32:01] allowable by summary review. Um it's

[1:32:04] it's in red because um you need to

[1:32:08] basically decide do you do you want to

[1:32:10] see them or do you want staff to handle

[1:32:12] them? Well, I think that's going to be

[1:32:14] something that we almost handle

[1:32:16] separately from CDD 2 is that we just

[1:32:19] say now or soon or whenever that across

[1:32:24] the board. I don't think we'll change it

[1:32:26] zone by zone by zone.

[1:32:27] » Oh, right. So, it's it's sort of a

[1:32:30] separate motion to say all 25-1s

[1:32:33] will be handled either over the counter

[1:32:36] or by site plan review processes. So,

[1:32:40] yes, but the only regulation before you

[1:32:44] tonight is is is this one. We'll be

[1:32:47] submitting to you. We're going to have

[1:32:49] to submit to you all of the rest of the

[1:32:51] regulations where uh 25-1, you know,

[1:32:54] affects it. And there was a list, as you

[1:32:56] you may recall. Um so, you'll have the

[1:33:00] actual text in front of you showing you

[1:33:01] where it's inserted into each of the

[1:33:04] commercial zones that we have.

[1:33:05] » We can't do that with one broad brush.

[1:33:07] No, because we uh advertise this as the

[1:33:12] CDD2 regulation, not the citywide uh

[1:33:16] change to all the um other zones.

[1:33:19] » So then we could do that all the zones

[1:33:21] next meeting and we could leave this

[1:33:23] section TBD

[1:33:26] » For this application.

[1:33:27] » No, because

[1:33:29] » Yes, we can.

[1:33:30] » No, you can't. And I will explain why.

[1:33:33] boy, it's all about rules and

[1:33:36] regulations. So, we are required to send

[1:33:40] out any zoning amendments to the state

[1:33:44] and to the councils of governments for

[1:33:46] their comments and the state has 35 days

[1:33:50] to get back to us with their comments.

[1:33:53] So, we can't do this at the next

[1:33:56] meeting.

[1:33:56] » Okay, so the next meeting is out, but we

[1:33:59] can do it at a future meeting where we

[1:34:01] can do a broad brush for the whole city.

[1:34:03] We could. Yes,

[1:34:04] » Let's do that.

[1:34:05] » What about the rest of the regulations

[1:34:07] that

[1:34:08] » Well, we could just we could just take

[1:34:09] that language out of this and add it in

[1:34:12] when we do the broad brush.

[1:34:19] » Okay. So,

[1:34:20] » So we could approve this without any

[1:34:22] language to 255.

[1:34:24] » I would not recommend that because

[1:34:26] » Well, I'm not asking you a

[1:34:27] recommendation. I'm saying that we can

[1:34:29] do it legally. So this is what this is

[1:34:32] what's going to occur if you do that

[1:34:34] though someone someone could potentially

[1:34:37] walk in tomorrow you know with one of

[1:34:40] these and

[1:34:42] » Well the same with any other zone

[1:34:44] » That

[1:34:44] » They could walk in so the same

[1:34:45] circumstanc

[1:34:52] » Yeah I mean

[1:34:53] » Okay

[1:34:54] » It just seems to me that we uh

[1:34:58] it seems quite redundant didn't have to

[1:35:00] do it in 12 different zones. So anyway,

[1:35:03] we didn't we didn't plan it well enough.

[1:35:05] Um but that being said, I'll leave it up

[1:35:08] to the board to decide whenever they

[1:35:10] make an emotion if they want to include

[1:35:12] it. And another thing is I think that uh

[1:35:15] the language for boutique hotels should

[1:35:18] be stricken just to say boutique hotels

[1:35:20] and no description of anything that

[1:35:23] could be considered um discretionary you

[1:35:28] know fitting in with whatever

[1:35:31] » Just under 50 units.

[1:35:33] » So

[1:35:35] okay so

[1:35:35] » That's the definition of boutique hotels

[1:35:37] under 50 50 or under.

[1:35:39] » That's your definition. No, that's the

[1:35:41] one that I want to vote on tonight.

[1:35:43] » Okay. So, you understand that that means

[1:35:47] motel. That means a whole bunch of

[1:35:49] different things. There's no That's why

[1:35:51] we we need to come up with the standard

[1:35:52] if we're going to have boutique hotel,

[1:35:55] just like we have standards for hotels

[1:35:56] that are long-term stay and not

[1:35:58] long-term stay. You know, if you just

[1:36:00] want to allow hotels, we we allow hotels

[1:36:03] in certain zones. So I'm just I'm just

[1:36:06] I'm just including it because of the

[1:36:10] discussion the subcommittee had.

[1:36:12] » But as the discussion recently was that

[1:36:15] we can't have too much in there that is

[1:36:18] discretionary. Um and

[1:36:23] we can go back to the language.

[1:36:25] » Oh I'm not saying the language is great.

[1:36:26] No. Yeah. I'm just I'm throwing just

[1:36:29] something out there to have you folks

[1:36:30] think about the language. And clear

[1:36:31] clearly you've done that which is great.

[1:36:34] Um, but if you know I think if you were

[1:36:37] to ask you know I don't know how many

[1:36:39] people what they think a boutique hotel

[1:36:41] is you you may get you know a bunch of

[1:36:43] different answers. So

[1:36:44] » Yeah but we we're not looking for a

[1:36:47] design standard like uh fashionable

[1:36:52] um uniquely styled. It's just like

[1:36:54] anybody can have a different opinion on

[1:36:55] that. That's emphasizing personalized

[1:36:57] services distinctive design. This is too

[1:37:02] um yeah, it's too much like fodder for

[1:37:07] argument. Um

[1:37:16] yeah, I mean I would I would take any

[1:37:18] suggestions from anybody um uh on on how

[1:37:22] to do it. Um, I'm thinking

[1:37:25] uh

[1:37:27] fitting in with the neighborhood. I

[1:37:29] don't know. Under 50 kind of precludes a

[1:37:33] standard

[1:37:34] uh hotel.

[1:37:36] Um,

[1:37:38] but again, we're trying to promote

[1:37:42] business activity. Uh so that that could

[1:37:44] be um a good thing for for Devon getting

[1:37:50] people there to spend money at their

[1:37:53] hotel and at the restaurants and enjoy

[1:37:55] the beach and the different shops and

[1:37:58] stuff. So

[1:38:00] » Can I make a suggestion?

[1:38:01] » Sure.

[1:38:03] » Um it sounds like you just described you

[1:38:05] want a hotel and we do have a definition

[1:38:06] for hotels in here. So if you just want

[1:38:08] to add hotel as a new use in that zone.

[1:38:13] Good enough for me. Then under 50 keeps

[1:38:16] it from being egregious in size.

[1:38:20] » If 50 if 35 is the better number, that

[1:38:24] could be discussed as well. But

[1:38:26] » Yeah, I I I I don't know anything about

[1:38:29] the viability of hotel numbers, whether

[1:38:32] it's 30, you know, what whatever makes

[1:38:34] something viable or not. Um

[1:38:36] » Our our current definition for hotel,

[1:38:39] you know, just I can read it to you. Um,

[1:38:41] a port a building or a portion thereof

[1:38:44] which has um a common entrance and

[1:38:45] common heating system and which contains

[1:38:47] one or more rooming units designed to be

[1:38:49] occupied by individuals or groups of

[1:38:51] individuals for compensation and

[1:38:54] including such businesses as may be

[1:38:55] incidental uh thereto for the sole

[1:38:58] convenience of the occupants. For the

[1:39:00] purposes of these regulations, a hotel

[1:39:02] shall include a tourist home and then we

[1:39:05] go on to define what an extended stay

[1:39:08] hotel is. So, um,

[1:39:10] » Yeah, I mean that's fine. And then and

[1:39:12] as long as it can be part of a mixed use

[1:39:15] so that if there's a restaurant as part

[1:39:16] of it that's not exclusively used for

[1:39:18] the occupants of the hotel, then it

[1:39:22] would satisfy the intent of bringing

[1:39:25] business to the area.

[1:39:28] » Well, then you need a different

[1:39:29] definition.

[1:39:30] » Okay. You just need to strike those two

[1:39:32] words for or those words that say for

[1:39:35] exclusive ancillary use for exclusive

[1:39:38] use of the hotel guests. Just need to

[1:39:43] strike those that language.

[1:39:55] So, we would strike um the words uh for

[1:39:58] the sole convenience of the occupants.

[1:40:00] » Yep.

[1:40:04] » That's the intent.

[1:40:13] But that's being said, I'd open up the

[1:40:14] floor to anyone who has questions or

[1:40:16] comments.

[1:40:17] » Are we just adding the red line?

[1:40:20] » No, no, it's the whole section that's in

[1:40:23] there. We can we can walk through it.

[1:40:24] that that was like the the the big the

[1:40:27] big item that you know I thought the

[1:40:28] board needed to you know provide some

[1:40:30] you know important input on. Um the rest

[1:40:33] of it are u regulations uh that again

[1:40:37] mirror uh the ones from downtown that

[1:40:40] you know where we didn't have them in

[1:40:42] here we've added them in here. Um and

[1:40:44] then we um have we we kept uh some of

[1:40:49] the language that we had previously.

[1:40:52] Uh, and then there's a bonus in here

[1:40:55] for, you know, if um someone wanted to

[1:40:57] do an 830G, they could go up a little

[1:41:00] higher. Uh, but other than that, we

[1:41:02] added uh some extra uses uh like

[1:41:06] boutique hotels. Um and we the big the

[1:41:10] big change in here uh is uh tying it to

[1:41:16] just like downtown having design

[1:41:17] guidelines. Um and uh you know tying the

[1:41:21] developments to section 514 and 516 of

[1:41:26] the regulations which are uh design uh

[1:41:29] that's the design section of our

[1:41:30] regulations.

[1:41:32] and um adding some prohibited uses. And

[1:41:36] this is this is the big one. Um uh the

[1:41:39] the the change in character that uh

[1:41:42] people are looking for uh in that zone.

[1:41:44] Uh you know would it would involve um uh

[1:41:48] the prohibition and of uh commercial

[1:41:51] garages and gasoline stations and repair

[1:41:54] facilities um and the like which are in

[1:41:56] that zone. the ones that are there can

[1:41:58] stay uh but it would render them u uh

[1:42:01] pre-existing legal non-conforming so

[1:42:04] they wouldn't be able to u expand uh and

[1:42:08] when that use goes away it goes away and

[1:42:11] that mirrors uh the language for

[1:42:13] downtown

[1:42:18] » Mr. Chris I have y some questions on

[1:42:20] this too just going to page five which

[1:42:24] is 317.6 6 prohibited uses. Again, this

[1:42:28] is something that I think was changed,

[1:42:30] whatever the reason was, but the first

[1:42:32] thing we see is 317

[1:42:34] 6.1 drive-in or drive-thru windows or

[1:42:37] services. We have at least one, if not

[1:42:40] two

[1:42:41] uh establishments already in that

[1:42:43] district. Uh why are we getting rid of

[1:42:46] drive-ins and drive-throughs?

[1:42:49] We're getting rid of them just like in

[1:42:50] downtown because they're incompatible

[1:42:52] with uh pedestrian growth. We want to

[1:42:56] have a pedestrian uh you know place

[1:42:59] where we have minimal uh interference

[1:43:01] with the pedestrians going down the

[1:43:03] sidewalk. Downtown is the same way. If

[1:43:06] you want to have uh have a drive-thru,

[1:43:08] you know, do it in a different zone that

[1:43:10] has basically larger parcels.

[1:43:13] » We've already done it and we have a

[1:43:15] four-lane road. I just would disagree

[1:43:17] with that. I just think that it's unfair

[1:43:19] to the businesses that they want to put

[1:43:21] a drive-thru. You got one in the CDD3

[1:43:23] because we go 32 feet. We're at

[1:43:26] McDonald's. So, you know, that's two or

[1:43:28] three. But anyway, just my my view, but

[1:43:30] I think that this has got to be kicked

[1:43:32] down the road, Mr. Chair, because I

[1:43:33] think there's more than we need to look

[1:43:34] at. I also want to make sure that we

[1:43:37] spent an hour and a half or so last week

[1:43:39] or two weeks ago with the consultant

[1:43:41] that every change is specifically found

[1:43:45] in this particular document as it will

[1:43:47] be with the rest of the documents that

[1:43:49] we have as we go through each of the

[1:43:50] districts. We're going to have to change

[1:43:52] those no matter what. Thank you.

[1:43:56] » So, let me be clear. You want more time

[1:43:59] to look at this document?

[1:44:01] » Absolutely.

[1:44:02] » Yeah.

[1:44:02] » Okay. But I think that we have to make

[1:44:04] sure because I remember the um document

[1:44:08] I didn't bring home with me to here

[1:44:10] tonight set forth in some of these items

[1:44:13] that are contained in the CDD too did

[1:44:16] require changes pursuant to the the

[1:44:18] public act.

[1:44:19] » So are you going to have the time

[1:44:20] between now and the next meeting to do

[1:44:22] that?

[1:44:22] » I will do find the time.

[1:44:24] » Okay.

[1:44:24] » Thank you.

[1:44:25] » Then I I mean if if if as far as my

[1:44:28] thinking is if one member needs more

[1:44:30] time to look at something then we should

[1:44:32] give it to him. So, I would entertain a

[1:44:34] motion to um push this down to to the

[1:44:39] next week, next meeting um and give

[1:44:42] everybody a chance to make sure they're

[1:44:44] on board with everything. If there are

[1:44:47] questions and concerns, if you would get

[1:44:49] them to staff prior to the meeting so

[1:44:52] that they can also look at them to see

[1:44:56] um whether or not they concur or if they

[1:44:59] want to make an argument that um that

[1:45:02] may may make it better in the long run

[1:45:05] if it convinces the board and the board

[1:45:07] is making a good decision that I would

[1:45:09] say should not stop us from uh maybe

[1:45:12] including CDD3 with a beginning uh

[1:45:18] process in the full hearing so that that

[1:45:22] document also gets a good look if we can

[1:45:24] get that out before the rest of the

[1:45:27] package for the board to consider. A lot

[1:45:30] of it's going to be the same because

[1:45:32] we're looking at cutting and pasting

[1:45:34] CDD3

[1:45:36] um with some MCDD language so it's

[1:45:38] almost the same. So if we could address

[1:45:40] they're separate issues but if we could

[1:45:42] address them at the same meeting I'd

[1:45:43] appreciate that. that yeah, we we can do

[1:45:46] that. That'll just be farther down the

[1:45:48] road because again, we would still

[1:45:50] whatever language we settle on for the

[1:45:53] CDD3. Um I we just have to circulate it.

[1:45:58] » True. But we could address it at this

[1:45:59] meeting.

[1:46:00] » Oh, yeah. I mean, you can you can you

[1:46:01] can chat about it. Sure. Oh, absolutely.

[1:46:02] » And if and if we get to a point where we

[1:46:04] all agree, we could circulate it at the

[1:46:05] same time. You could circulate more than

[1:46:07] one

[1:46:07] » Oh, sure.

[1:46:08] » Change. Yeah.

[1:46:09] » So, let's include it and let's make sure

[1:46:11] that the language that we're proposing

[1:46:13] is in front of the board before, you

[1:46:16] know, as soon as you can get to it, but

[1:46:18] before we get the full package of um

[1:46:20] Cams and Mr. S's

[1:46:24] fun uh project on Natuck A. Um but so if

[1:46:29] there is objection to kicking this down

[1:46:31] the road, please let me know. Go ahead.

[1:46:35] » I have no objection to kicking down the

[1:46:37] road. I just want to make a point. Uh,

[1:46:38] if we're trying to change the character

[1:46:40] of Devon, I don't I think as far as

[1:46:44] hotels go, the last thing we want to do

[1:46:45] is have a motel move in, such as we've

[1:46:50] had in the past, such as like the Devon

[1:46:52] Motel. I don't think we want to go in

[1:46:54] that direction. The boutique hotel would

[1:46:57] be the direction we want to go in and

[1:47:00] and that um

[1:47:03] so that's just the point I want to make.

[1:47:04] And also if we if we just go with hotels

[1:47:08] that we have in 31766 no hotels or motel

[1:47:11] shall be permitted except in accordance

[1:47:13] with 317311

[1:47:15] which would be just hotels we have to

[1:47:19] » No I that's a good that's a very good

[1:47:21] point that we're going to need some kind

[1:47:22] of direction um on that

[1:47:26] » On the on the bright side I can give

[1:47:28] just

[1:47:30] help you uh sleep tonight and that is

[1:47:33] that uh we do define hotel and motel

[1:47:35] differently and the key the key there is

[1:47:38] the hotel you have the common front door

[1:47:41] going into it where a motel you don't

[1:47:43] have that.

[1:47:44] » Okay.

[1:47:45] » You [clears throat] get the old down and

[1:47:46] out door right in front of your car.

[1:47:50] » Um do you have question?

[1:47:53] » Yeah. So we spent months working on

[1:47:57] those CDD2 regulations. I'm not really

[1:48:00] clear what's being changed here and why

[1:48:02] this did not come through the zoning sub

[1:48:04] or the planning subcommittee.

[1:48:08] » Uh it's an applica it's an application

[1:48:10] of the city. That's why

[1:48:13] » Okay who within the city is applying?

[1:48:16] » It's an application of the city.

[1:48:19] It's the city. It would be the city.

[1:48:23] » Okay.

[1:48:23] » Through David's office.

[1:48:25] » Through through my office.

[1:48:26] » Through your office. Okay. So, it's

[1:48:28] » It's doing an end run around the

[1:48:29] planning subcommittee.

[1:48:30] » No, no, it no it's not. The planning

[1:48:32] subcommittee exists for the board to

[1:48:35] discuss its own regulations and

[1:48:37] applications just as we're being the

[1:48:39] city is acting as an applicant like any

[1:48:42] other public applicant that comes for a

[1:48:44] regulation change. They don't go to the

[1:48:46] subcommittee.

[1:48:46] » Okay. Okay. So,

[1:48:48] » You have to make the decision in the end

[1:48:50] obviously, but

[1:48:51] » Sure. Yeah. Sure. But in the intervening

[1:48:53] time before the next meeting, I I would

[1:48:54] really like to see something more

[1:48:56] specific as to what specifically is

[1:48:58] being changed. What are the shortcomings

[1:49:00] that are being referenced that what were

[1:49:02] what was the issue with the previous

[1:49:04] zoning? What's bringing

[1:49:05] » I could I could answer that.

[1:49:07] » Well, one of the issues was the

[1:49:09] requirement of open space. The

[1:49:12] requirement of open space basically

[1:49:14] killed development because we don't have

[1:49:16] a requirement for open space in in urban

[1:49:19] zones like downtown. Uh you it Devon is

[1:49:24] an urban zone. It's not a suburban zone

[1:49:27] like an RA zone. If you choose to live

[1:49:30] there, then you shouldn't have the uh

[1:49:34] expectation that you're going to have

[1:49:36] open space on your property as as a

[1:49:39] renter. Uh but what you do have in Devon

[1:49:42] is u a one minute ride down to the beach

[1:49:47] or a one minute ride over to one of the

[1:49:49] parks that's there. Um which is which is

[1:49:52] a fabulous uh uh attribute of of Devon.

[1:49:56] But having the requirement that we have

[1:49:59] in the current zones for open space um

[1:50:01] it killed the ability to have any

[1:50:03] density uh of uh on those parcels.

[1:50:08] » All right. Great. Um, all the same, if

[1:50:11] you'd be able to provide us with a

[1:50:12] document just showing, I don't know,

[1:50:14] side by side what's different from what

[1:50:16] we did. Thank you.

[1:50:19] » Good, good comment.

[1:50:21] » Yeah, Mr. Chair, just keep in mind this

[1:50:24] is a public hearing. There's members of

[1:50:25] the public to question. We want to have

[1:50:27] them be heard tonight. We wait two, two

[1:50:29] weeks out.

[1:50:32] » Um,

[1:50:36] I don't know. We can we can open it now

[1:50:39] and keep it open.

[1:50:40] » So if uh this is a if there's any other

[1:50:43] comments from the board, we can make

[1:50:46] them now and then if not we will open

[1:50:48] the public hearing.

[1:50:50] » Is there um when it comes to middle

[1:50:53] housing and adding apartment units, is

[1:50:55] there any kind of affordable

[1:50:57] requirement?

[1:51:01] » Mr. Chair, the answer is no.

[1:51:04] So

[1:51:05] this will increase this will lower

[1:51:08] potentially our affordable housing stock

[1:51:12] in a city. Um it will increase the

[1:51:16] market rate housing which there

[1:51:19] therefore would uh make it more

[1:51:22] difficult uh to uh attain um 10% if

[1:51:27] that's what you're looking at. And

[1:51:28] » We can

[1:51:29] » And that

[1:51:30] » Interesting because I know this board

[1:51:33] clamors about affordable housing

[1:51:37] » In almost every application that comes

[1:51:39] in front of us even though we're not

[1:51:41] allowed to request it.

[1:51:42] » Well, on in in in this case, we can we

[1:51:46] can add that language.

[1:51:48] » Uh the statute is clear. The statute

[1:51:51] doesn't that you can have zoning

[1:51:53] standards like what a setback is. You

[1:51:56] cannot add an affordable component to

[1:51:59] 25-1.

[1:52:00] » I'm not talking about 25-1.

[1:52:01] » Oh, okay.

[1:52:02] » I'm talking about the entire zone.

[1:52:04] » Oh, that's that's that's diff that's

[1:52:06] Yeah, that's that's different.

[1:52:07] » We could say that any any um non251

[1:52:13] development over

[1:52:15] 15 units or whatever we feel like we

[1:52:17] want to do needs 10% 15% affordable.

[1:52:21] Now, that could be a roadblock and we

[1:52:23] are finding that it's likely a little

[1:52:25] bit of a roadblock to developers wanting

[1:52:27] to get in. Um, but uh we can try to find

[1:52:31] the Goldilock zone where it's large

[1:52:34] enough so that it's easily absorbed in

[1:52:38] the in the in how it pencils if we

[1:52:41] wanted to.

[1:52:42] » Yeah. But if you allow more housing to

[1:52:45] be built without by lowering our

[1:52:47] affordable percentage, I think a lot of

[1:52:51] citizens in this town will not be happy

[1:52:53] with that.

[1:52:54] » It's possible

[1:52:54] » Because they do not want to see a vast

[1:52:57] majority 830G affordable housing popped

[1:53:00] in all different places.

[1:53:02] » Yeah. No, I understand that's been why

[1:53:04] we're trying to change the zone um uh in

[1:53:08] uh CDD3 as well to include housing where

[1:53:12] there's no housing presently permitted

[1:53:14] and making sure that there is

[1:53:16] affordability as a component. Um but I

[1:53:19] think that it is

[1:53:22] I think that Devon in general

[1:53:26] market rate is more like workforce

[1:53:29] housing. It's not, it doesn't command

[1:53:31] the same rate as downtown Milford will.

[1:53:34] It just is different. It's a different

[1:53:36] market. Um, but so it will be more

[1:53:39] affordable is my guess.

[1:53:44] Well, one of the things that came to

[1:53:45] mind after listening to Mr. Agnes and

[1:53:48] Mr. Zariti is, you know, we spent a lot

[1:53:50] of time on this and there was and I I

[1:53:52] didn't pay attention to read every

[1:53:54] single page. There was a component in

[1:53:56] there. It was a, you know, I think the

[1:53:58] chair had the idea that that there was a

[1:54:00] carrot and a stick and we did have a

[1:54:03] specific

[1:54:04] number of affordable housing in some

[1:54:08] sort of that form. I know we spent a lot

[1:54:10] of time on it and I don't see it in here

[1:54:12] now. I just I don't know why the whole

[1:54:14] thing got changed. So apparently David,

[1:54:16] we just took everything out of CDD2 and

[1:54:19] just called it MCDD2 and then called it

[1:54:21] CDD2.

[1:54:22] » No, no, no. there there are things that

[1:54:23] are in there that were previously in the

[1:54:25] CDD2 including

[1:54:27] » So again that that that list of of what

[1:54:29] what what changes are is is pretty

[1:54:32] important for us to see and if that is

[1:54:34] one of them we may decide that the

[1:54:36] change should have

[1:54:38] » Uh afford an affordability component

[1:54:40] » And uh outside of the 25-1.

[1:54:43] » Yep. Um so uh and again the board

[1:54:46] disagrees internally on the value of

[1:54:49] that. Um

[1:54:51] but uh yeah um

[1:54:56] it it is a public hearing. So if anybody

[1:54:59] would like to speak to the issue, please

[1:55:01] come up. Um we will keep both the public

[1:55:04] hearing and public comment open for next

[1:55:06] week. But so you can speak now or speak

[1:55:08] next week when we have more people. Up

[1:55:09] to you.

[1:55:13] Wait. Okay. So, uh this wi without

[1:55:17] objection this will be uh as they say

[1:55:20] kicked down the the can will be kicked

[1:55:23] down the road and we will have um CDD3

[1:55:27] included. We will have a comparative

[1:55:29] chart of what the CDD2 and the new CDD2

[1:55:34] regs

[1:55:35] prior to uh as soon as you can get them

[1:55:38] just so that we could have time to look

[1:55:40] at it. Okay. Um, next order of business

[1:55:44] is old business. We have none. Leaison

[1:55:47] report.

[1:55:47] » No,

[1:55:48] » Nothing tonight. Um,

[1:55:51] approval of minutes for 84.

[1:55:54] Do we have a motion?

[1:55:58] » No. Without objection. 8:12.

[1:56:02] » Without objection. Minutes are approved.

[1:56:05] Chair's report. Uh, just thank everyone

[1:56:07] for their time. Um, staff report.

[1:56:11] None this evening.

[1:56:12] » Okay, we are adjourned without

[1:56:14] objection.

Planning and Zoning - 09/01/2026

Transcript