[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.