[0:06] Okay, we're recording. Go ahead. >> Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to

[0:11] order this Thursday, September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Mass Planning and Zoting

[0:16] Commission. And um the first item I'd like to do is add an add an

[0:22] item to the agenda. So, we need to get a motion to add an

[0:27] agenda item. I'd like to discuss the venue for the continuation of 26-29.

[0:33] Uh the that's the Mil Road application and um because we I wanted to get a vote

[0:40] from the commission on that, we need to add it as a special agenda item. So,

[0:43] could I have a motion? >> Thank you.

[0:46] » Second, thanks. Everybody following me? Okay. All in favor?

[0:52] » Jen, can you hear? Okay. >> Okay. Great. Um, I thought we'd discuss

[0:57] it when we get down to 26-29 Mil Road. Okay. So, with that out of the way, I'd

[1:03] like to go ahead and read the process for public hearings because we have one

[1:06] public hearing this evening. Um, during the

[1:11] » You're still here. >> I'm going to do that when I get down

[1:15] here. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. During the public hearing, the applicant will be

[1:19] invited to present the application explaining to the commission and others

[1:22] present what is being requested. The applicant or staff will share all

[1:26] application materials on the screen as needed. Comments of town agencies will

[1:30] be read for each application if there are any. Next, there will be clarifying

[1:34] questions from the commissioners. Then there will be an opportunity for

[1:36] clarifying questions and comments from the public attending in person and via

[1:40] Zoom. For Zoom attendance, please raise your hand through the Zoom platform and

[1:44] wait to be called on and unmuted. As this public hearing must be recorded,

[1:48] all attendees must state their names and addresses before asking questions.

[1:52] Public questions and comments should be concise and address issues related to

[1:55] the application. Questions and comments from the public are to be directed to

[1:59] the applicant, not to the commission when necessary for the sake of time and

[2:03] to give everyone a fair chance to speak. They will be limited to 5 minutes or

[2:07] less. Public comments supporting previous comments need not repeat those

[2:10] comments but can simply endorse them. We ask that we we treat each other

[2:15] respectfully throughout the meeting. Personal attacks on the applicants andor

[2:18] commissions commissioners will not be tolerated. The applicant will have an

[2:22] opportunity to address any questions or concerns raised by the commissioners and

[2:26] the public. Once the public hearing is closed, the applicant is free to leave

[2:30] or remain for the balance of the regular meeting during which the commission will

[2:33] try to reach a decision on each application. Each applicant will be

[2:37] notified in writing as to the direct decision of the commission and has a

[2:40] right to appeal to the superior court if desired. Decisions of this m meeting are

[2:45] available the day after the meeting by following the land use department at

[2:48] 203245-55631 after 9:00 a.m. The recording of this

[2:54] meeting will be made available on the town website for viewing. Seated this

[2:58] evening are Mike Fugda. Um Michelle Clark, I would like to see you replace

[3:03] Jen G if that's okay. >> Sure. Um,

[3:08] Vice Chair John Dooza and Secretary John Morgan, Bob O' Conor,

[3:14] Janet Tekken via Zoom, and myself, Carol Snow, chair. Staff present this evening

[3:20] is Aaron Manx, town planner, and the planner read for legal notice.

[3:27] Notice is hereby given that the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission will hold

[3:30] a public hearing on Thursday, September 3rd, 2026, beginning at 7 p.m. in

[3:35] meeting room A, the James Madison room, Town Campus, 8 Campus Drive, Madison,

[3:41] Connecticut 06443. This is a hybrid meeting and attendees

[3:45] may also join via Zoom webinar either through the webinar link or call in

[3:49] information below. The webinar ID is 91581966735.

[3:57] The password is 452138 and the dialin number is 6465588656.

[4:06] The following application will be heard number 26-32

[4:11] plus coastal site plan for 908 Boston Post Road map 39 lot 4 zone R2. the

[4:19] owner applicant, uh, Nicholas and Nancy Robert. Uh, again, this is a coastal

[4:25] site plan application. It's a site plan modification in major downtown village

[4:29] district application to modify porch railings, patio, and walkway for unit in

[4:34] a small cluster housing development. Copies of this application are available

[4:39] for inspection in the land use office. Further details on how to participate in

[4:43] the webinar posted on the town of Madison website, www.mmadisonct.org.

[4:49] org. All written correspondence can be submitted to the land use department via

[4:53] email to land usemisonct.org. Dial 2032455631

[5:01] for assistance. Dated atmadison Connecticut this 14th day of August

[5:05] 2026. Carol Snow chair. This was published once in the New Haven Register

[5:10] on August 20th and once in the source on August 27th.

[5:16] » Thank you, Erin. Could I have a motion then to open 26-32

[5:21] plus a coast site plan for 908 bus second

[5:26] honor any further discussion on the day that open the public hearing

[5:31] good to go. >> Hi my name is Dickson. I'm the architect

[5:34] of general's residence development and I'm the architect for this new owner of

[5:40] this this unit that wants to make some minor modifications which you've seen I

[5:47] think but I'll go over them with you. The one area which is uh visually uh

[5:52] present as with all of these but I think would make a a difference was approved

[5:57] by the Madison Historical Commission, Madison um Madison so Society, the

[6:02] Madison store commission and also advisory council and community parents

[6:07] and accord approved by the homeowners association of the unit. So four

[6:12] approvals so far this I think is the last approval before the direction.

[6:18] The one area that the one area that is I would say visually present is the

[6:23] putting in of a low fence which was which was a railing which was on the

[6:27] original home and the historical commission said they they thought they

[6:31] didn't really need to have it in the fact that we raised up this earth. It's

[6:34] not required by code but they but the homeowners would like to be able to sit

[6:38] up there and they they felt that they need a little bit more of the barrier.

[6:41] So we simply make the barrier that was there before putting back. Um at the at

[6:47] the front we have two walkways that come that come out to the street and they are

[6:52] now just simply 2ft by 3 foot pieces of blue stone with 6 in in between them.

[6:57] They'd like to make them into tiny fashion patterned uh both both units

[7:03] tiny bashlar um walkways walk they're done in sand with black and sand the

[7:10] rear which no one sees but is something that's they change is that we actually

[7:16] have this raised deck that was done by the first owner and these owners would

[7:21] like to have what everybody else has in the entire place which between which

[7:24] between which these straw terraces which are in the area that was designated

[7:28] as an intentional development for for that area. So, we're dropping that down

[7:32] using the same stone walls. Then, the sort of two enhancements are that I

[7:36] think about a project I worked on a while ago, we may be able to we may be

[7:43] able to shroud utility uh boxes with painted wood, which would be really

[7:49] nice. They could do it, but it's been done somewhere else. So, I'm going to

[7:52] ask them to do that. They like to have a two/3 light door, you know, which is

[7:57] sort of what they had before, but they would like to have light come through

[8:00] versus a big door. There's a half there's a there's a 3 foot6 in high wall

[8:05] at the back, which again, nobody sees. They want to put plants on top of that.

[8:10] So, I think that's pretty much all the things that go into

[8:17] » I would ask if you could like slide it down this way and probably put it in

[8:19] front so Janet can see it. >> Yeah,

[8:21] » because it's on the Janet, are you seeing it on?

[8:24] » Oh, I can see it. I can see I can see it on the screen.

[8:27] » Hi, Janet. >> Yeah, thank you. Hi.

[8:32] » Is there any wood? >> Yes. Yes, they made a break. The aka

[8:35] made it very clear. They want wood. And I said, "Well, I hate to get the right

[8:38] wood. There's not a lot of good wood paint anymore." So, they they were

[8:41] saying Newland's quite fine, but it'll be wood. So, that's great.

[8:45] » And who do you need to get permission from about the boxes for the electrical?

[8:49] Uh that would be the baed northeast buildings.

[8:53] » Is that sweet? >> Yeah. And it's uh a ring of hell. So

[8:58] there we go. >> Where's the house?

[9:00] » It's not it's not as bad as conad. And also I'm I'm being a pleasant knowing

[9:04] something somewhere. It's called like oh up in Buffalo there's something called

[9:09] grid and apparently grid in Buffalo is worse than anywhere on the planet. So,

[9:14] um, the hypothes

[9:21] Yeah. >> Oh, this little guy. Yes.

[9:22] » No, no, I'm sorry. The stone the stone stuff.

[9:25] » Yes. The the these the walkways. >> Didn't we have a a height restriction?

[9:30] » This Well, these are at grade the these two guys are are grade walkways.

[9:34] » Okay. >> And then these and these guys here are

[9:36] basically city walls and match the other city walls that are in the place

[9:39] » in height. >> Yes.

[9:40] » Okay. So they're like 18 inches too.

[9:48] » Any questions or comments? Thank you for keeping the spirit of the general rest.

[9:54] » Are you kidding me? We did measure of love. It's been a long

[9:58] and involved process. >> Once he did my wedding

[10:03] every month he does what he does and actually I love his daily ch.

[10:08] » Janet any questions or comments? I I had I was having trouble hearing duo. So,

[10:13] but I think everything looked fine in the drawing.

[10:16] » Yeah. >> And I and I know that area so well that

[10:19] I I know what the wall is going to look like and [clears throat] it'll be great.

[10:23] » I see it from where you're sitting. >> I know, right? I can I can see it out my

[10:28] front window. >> Yeah. [laughter]

[10:31] » Okay. Any other questions or comments? >> Not.

[10:36] » In that case, could I have a motion to close the public hearing? Oh, sorry.

[10:41] » Public >> the public street public.

[10:45] » Thank you. Any questions or comments from

[10:47] » Jim Nordin, 387 Boston Post Road, the uh Belgian block interlocking, right?

[10:53] » Not Belgian block. The the these are just blue stone flush pavers that

[10:58] » So, you're increasing the impervious surface.

[11:00] » No, we're not. They're going to be set in sand and they're exactly the same as

[11:04] » because there is still a storm water runoff problem onto 174

[11:09] » and this will also be set in sand. This will be set in sand.

[11:12] » Good. >> That's actually mandated by aka

[11:15] » this one. AKA made that recommendation >> and the storm water runoff issue. are

[11:19] rough that that would be a Stevens which is maybe not Stevens anymore but that

[11:22] that that's an engineering issue that they

[11:25] » set up and and I think the biggest thing just not germanine to this project

[11:30] » but the reality is it is as Aaron said it's it's a civil issue at this point

[11:35] where it is if the system fails to meet engineering standards that's your

[11:39] recourse. Well, um I was hoping you could somehow mitigate

[11:48] it's it's a it's a different issue. There is still a storm water runoff

[11:52] issue. That's another thing to discuss at some other time. Um my second point

[11:58] is it would be an opportune time now to before you allow a modification to fix

[12:06] the invasive species problem. >> Oh, where's that? You remember we talked

[12:10] about this for a couple years. I agree it was a win-win and you said so too by

[12:17] um they actually have a deed restriction filed with the land records that they're

[12:21] going to remove the invasive species on the riparian buffer next to the fence. I

[12:27] measured it. Aaron uh and I talked about it. She wasn't quite sure how much of

[12:32] the land uh general's residence was responsible for. It's about 15,000

[12:37] square ft. So it's almost half an acre and it's been uh nearly 2 years since

[12:43] that uh requirement was made by you uh in return for giving up that dreaded

[12:49] bench. Remember it gave up the >> can I actually that uh invasive species

[12:55] thing was actually part of the original discussions 5 years ago

[12:59] » right I know when no with me and the idea was it would

[13:06] actually um you know that that that was part of well maybe not written but that

[13:11] was part of the understanding >> right it is written now there's a deed

[13:13] restriction that you demanded because it was unclear how committed they needed

[13:21] to be to remove all the invasive species. And the point was to maintain

[13:26] the visual line of sight >> for Fence Creek because you have a

[13:32] nonwater dependent project and DEP wanted and that was

[13:39] public access to maintain the view. So it's been almost two years. I go by it

[13:43] every day. It's gotten worse, not better.

[13:47] Let me just finish on this. The fragmmites now has invaded up into the

[13:52] native plant riparian buffer which is almost non-existent.

[13:55] » We now have mud wart in there and and we also have Japanese nodweed and tree of

[14:01] heaven. Now to Aaron's credit, I spoke with her last summer about this

[14:07] and I also I also emailed her three times this summer. So I know she's well

[14:12] I know you're on top of it, Aaron. So, it seems like a good opportunity to get

[14:18] the homeowners association to at least work on what they are required by law to

[14:23] do, which is remove invasive species in perpetuity. I have the exact writing

[14:29] from November 2024. How could you forget? We spent six meetings on it. So,

[14:36] am I in fa speaking in favor of this? I'm in favor of this application with

[14:40] conditions that you somehow get the invasive removal project moving forward.

[14:46] And if it's not moving forward, Aaron, go you've been out there. You haven't

[14:51] been out there yet. You know, it is we don't want to be you don't want to be

[14:54] mean, but it's a violation. It's a violation. It's been 2 years. So, it's a

[15:00] good opportunity to you hate to approve a change when

[15:04] there's an outstanding issue. Right. Now's a good time to talk about it and

[15:11] clear it up because it's been two years and it's getting worse, not better.

[15:17] You ask your question because cuz I drive by I live across the street,

[15:20] right? So So I drive by there every day. So So I had seen the um I'd seen

[15:25] fragmitees get big, but you're saying all the other stuff's coming in, too.

[15:29] » Unfortunately, there was a nice strip of native plants planted there. They're

[15:33] almost overwhelmed now. It's getting worse. Yeah,

[15:38] » they there was some brush hoging done I think in winter last year. You can't

[15:42] brush hot f mighty excuse me. Additionally, I noticed today there are

[15:46] three new non-native evergreen trees planted right there.

[15:51] I mean that must be a planting plan. I'm surprised you somebody would put three

[15:56] non-native trees

[16:00] right there in >> there was there was one long time ago.

[16:04] Yeah, but they they planted three trees there recently when they did that little

[16:07] thing down there. >> Yeah. So anyway, I'm not as concerned

[16:11] about that, but the view is not there. And the commitment to maintain invasive

[16:15] species removal, we make sure it was written in perpetuity and that is is a D

[16:22] recorded with the M town of Madison land records. So I don't want to be too

[16:27] strict about it, but can we follow up on that, please? Because they they agreed

[16:32] to do it. Did you want to respond to me at all?

[16:35] » No, I I'm no responsibility for that, but I do know I do know the HOA a little

[16:39] bit and the HOA is is I think has had a change of leadership in the last year as

[16:44] I understand it. And I think the idea that maybe even if you just met with the

[16:48] with them, they would they me actually the planning zoning commission. It's

[16:52] you're required by law to make sure these conditions are met.

[16:55] » Well, then I think I'm happy to meet as a friend,

[16:58] » but it's your legal responsibility. Would that be a zoning enforcement

[17:03] officer issue? >> Office has received a written complaint

[17:07] from Jim and has been informed that our zoning officer would investigate a

[17:13] complaint and from children. >> Good.

[17:15] » Independent. >> I I hear I hear your point about

[17:18] connecting the two, but it it's not really related to this application

[17:22] » except I don't I'm not I'm not a town attorney. I don't think you can approve

[17:26] something if there's an outstanding issue.

[17:29] There's an alleged violation. There is no enforcement

[17:35] action that is underway currently. >> I mean, you've had I've notified you

[17:41] four times for this. You haven't gone out there yet. I mean,

[17:44] » I am not the inspector and >> should be

[17:48] » should be a violation. Doesn't have to be a mean violation, but someone's got

[17:52] to tell the HOA, you said you do this and you were bound to do it by law.

[17:59] Okay, thanks. You're on the record here for saying that. And um I think going

[18:05] back to the application, the non-native and the invasive species

[18:10] aren't really impacting this portion of the site for this application.

[18:17] So I think um did we

[18:22] » Yeah, thank you. Um good evening Carol, Missouri

[18:27] Road. I also have a big opportunity duo and work with him at the time that this

[18:33] general's residence was underway. One of the things that also is related to this

[18:38] whole issue of how things get built and as well as how they how the PNC improved

[18:45] it was that there buffer to prevent the housing from just the the built

[18:55] environment affecting the uh the creeping. And that also was uh written

[19:01] out in a letter by John Cunningham. It was part of the au buffalo placed and

[19:07] I'm sure Done remembers that. >> Oh yeah.

[19:10] » Um >> and actually my memory is this person my

[19:13] memory was they did do some of that native planting in the first year. They

[19:17] did actually do a whole bunch of native plant the first year and I think what I

[19:21] now showing this I think the invasive stuff is done when invasive stuff does

[19:25] which is it takes over the non-invasive stuff. Well, I I think you're right and

[19:29] that's why I'm raising it because it's just related and I think you should just

[19:32] know the whole story that our expectation and what Cunningham

[19:36] outlined, right? And I think we're in drawings as I recall that there would be

[19:41] native trees and shrubs. >> That was in Steven's drawings. But yes,

[19:44] it was in there. >> Steven's drawings.

[19:46] » And it was in there. >> And it was in there that there would be

[19:48] native plantings so that those of us that look at the general residence halls

[19:54] every day don't see all the light of the built environment. And many of us feel

[19:59] as though etc. So I think there's a lot of

[20:04] literature to support the idea that the natural environment is important for the

[20:09] creek and as a consequence of that I think that what has to also be taken

[20:15] into consideration is this issue of what was originally approved by the community

[20:21] and again I had sent this letter to Erin about a month ago I know she's very busy

[20:28] but it's also tied into this whole notion of we're just building and going

[20:33] further, but we're not dealing with the fundamentals. And fundamentals are

[20:37] really important to those of us that live right across the creek and that we

[20:41] see it every day. >> A question.

[20:44] » Um, I hear you and I understand your your concerns. I'm trying to understand

[20:48] where our scope is involved here so that we can make an appropriate determination

[20:54] and consider the request accordingly. What I'm hearing is that the owners of

[21:00] this particular condominium unit are asking for some improvements.

[21:05] » That's all. >> So there's the ownership of the

[21:07] individual condominium asking for improvements to their property.

[21:11] » That's correct. >> Which is in fact a part of a condominium

[21:15] association which then has obligations

[21:21] to in fact uphold the development of the payment. So I the way I'm hearing it is

[21:28] there's there's two separate issues at hand here. And while I understand your

[21:32] concerns, I don't I don't know how we as a planning and zoning would tie those

[21:36] two things together. And I don't know that that the lack of action on one part

[21:43] would have an impact on the relative action of the other

[21:47] » one on one owner >> or the enforcement of the conditions

[21:51] that were set. Right? So obviously >> don't impact this application

[21:57] » and we're not enforcers, >> but that's why public hearings.

[22:02] » Exactly. It's our only chance to say it. I can send emails to people all day

[22:06] long. >> Yeah.

[22:08] » A public hearing. It's a marriage. >> Trust me.

[22:11] » Yeah. Yeah. No, I think I think that's well said and agreed and I don't think

[22:16] you're hearing a real objection to an audience per se. I think what you're

[22:20] hearing is concern that there's a poorest environment there that that were

[22:25] outlined because part of PNZ original approval was that all of the driveways

[22:32] and all would be forest material. It's all black asphalt,

[22:36] » but that wasn't final application >> that but but that came after it wasn't

[22:41] in the final. the final navigation did did actually have all the asphalt and

[22:44] what they did was they calculated all the runoff from that in their design of

[22:49] the groundwater system. So that changed the capacity of the groundwater system

[22:52] to be larger than it was with the with Billy's thing which was which was just

[22:57] gravel and so that made it more expensive and then the question is is

[23:01] the design effective or not and that's the next level. So

[23:04] » I I remember it slightly differently and we can work it out together at some

[23:08] point. But the larger point is I think you understand quite well the

[23:11] frustration with seeing the environment really change. Not really thinking that

[23:16] the owners are at fault necessarily for all these things because I don't think

[23:22] they knew. >> That's correct.

[23:23] » And I didn't think I don't think they knew what was agreed to. And I don't

[23:28] think we heard that. We heard that. >> Yeah. No, that's actually true. I' I've

[23:31] had to deal with all these units. >> Yeah.

[23:33] » And I've had to inform people with all of them and

[23:37] » they're just gaps in information and I try to do my best.

[23:42] » As a matter of fact, when Mad for Trees, which is such a great organization

[23:46] trying to plant trees and native trees in in um in Madison, I suggested to a

[23:51] friend that he asked them if they would like to have some native trees that they

[23:55] could plant as butter. And um they responded in saying they're not allowed

[24:00] to to plant them along the Fence Creek, which is not correct at all. In fact,

[24:06] there were trees there that died because the roots had been uh removed when they

[24:11] dug down to actually just let me finish. >> I just want to correct you. They weren't

[24:16] done. The construction didn't damage them. They all had the the maple plate.

[24:20] » Okay. Well, in any event, we can agree to disagree, but never mind. The point

[24:24] is, but there's a larger point here, and that is that I think the folks that live

[24:29] there don't understand that of course they can plant a buffer there. What they

[24:34] can't do is obscure the view from Boston Post Road to the Fence Creek, which is

[24:40] Jim's concern that now these these natives as well as the fragies have

[24:45] grown too high. But but my point is in support of a larger view of the

[24:50] environment which is simply that the agreement was that there could be a

[24:55] buffer >> for the birds for the other animals and

[24:59] so that we don't see this intense light every night across

[25:03] » and it's it's just really changing the environment. So that's that's really

[25:08] what it's about. I I'm so glad Dud's here listening to this too and hopefully

[25:13] carried back a very positive message that that we don't or I'll speak for

[25:18] myself. I don't think these homeowners are ignoring things as much as just not

[25:23] knowing. >> Well, speaking as a neighbor, I didn't

[25:26] quite get what you said and I have no doubt it's true. I I did I got the fact

[25:30] that the fragmentes came back in because I got fragmentes on my salt wash.

[25:33] They're there all the time. I didn't know that all that other crap was coming

[25:36] back into obviously. >> It's significant. Yeah. Well, that's

[25:40] » the last point is on the plan of conservation development

[25:44] » interest, >> right? The PCD that recently approved uh

[25:48] one of the goals is to uh

[25:53] protect and restore title wetlands. You were big on that one. So, this kind of

[25:58] fits right into a goal that you all set for yourself. Yeah. To restore and

[26:04] protect the title wetlands. Remember, it wasn't that long ago. We appreciate

[26:09] hearing from you. Um, it's on the record. It's an enforcement issue, not

[26:15] us approving a specific application, but we hear you.

[26:19] » Thank you. Maybe do encourage the homeowners to listen to the testimony

[26:24] tonight because that that might >> I agree, but I also think to be honest

[26:28] really would be good maybe to even get John will do this do a sitewalk with

[26:33] John Cunningham out there just out there and look at those invasives and look

[26:37] » I assume there's a plan >> there is there must have been invasive

[26:41] removal plan >> there is there is and and and it would

[26:43] be good to get John out there and say hey if you guys want to do this it

[26:46] involves that and I'm sure that that because it involves their spending money

[26:49] to do that. No, but they'd have to do that. I know,

[26:52] » but they don't know what they have to do, right? That's what I'm saying. I

[26:54] think John would be a better person to get there.

[26:56] » Yeah, John would be a way to connect the problem with the solution. So, I'll I'll

[27:01] try to talk to send a note to John and say, "Hey, can you just go out there and

[27:04] meet with these guys?" >> That's nice, but it's also up to the

[27:06] zoning enforcement officer. >> Yes, agree.

[27:09] » What are the What are the consequences for an infraction of a zoning

[27:12] regulation? When our office receives a complaint, my zoning officer will go out

[27:18] and investigate that. The way that is prioritized is based on workload.

[27:22] » Understood. >> So if if a violation is found, what are

[27:26] the consequences? >> It depends what it is. I mean, sometimes

[27:30] you can start with a phone call to someone and communicate with them of

[27:35] what is going on. Um, you know, I I >> Well, you're allowed to leverage daily

[27:41] fines. I mean, you're not going to do that in this case, but you're going to

[27:45] you can >> typically the land use office doesn't

[27:48] start >> with citations when you receive a

[27:52] complaint or usually the least >> uh

[27:55] » that that's that's what I was asking and and maybe you could carry

[27:58] » trying to work with property owners >> needs to be more mindful of what the

[28:02] regulations are. a complaint has been filed, there could be repercussions if

[28:07] they are found to be in violation of their obligations.

[28:12] » Later stages may involve flocking [laughter]

[28:16] » publicly,

[28:19] but I I but I do actually think that your desire is their desire. I just

[28:24] don't know if they know how to do it because I know these people and they and

[28:27] they like me they they hate the problem is removing invasives is very expensive

[28:34] and time consuming and it can take 10 years and you need an expert to do it.

[28:38] So I'm surprised they agreed to do it but they wanted to get rid of that

[28:41] dreadful bench that they agreed to do it and it's expensive and you have to be on

[28:45] top of it for 10 years >> and I'm happy to talk to them about

[28:52] I'll I'll try to connect you guys. I mean, I know you're talking so much

[28:55] better than the rest. It's not like >> Yeah,

[29:00] it's not very we don't have Sorry, Carol, but the applicant is a good key

[29:06] person here. Nice conduitation. >> Sadly, I've got a I've got a target on

[29:12] my back. [laughter] >> All right. Um,

[29:15] » any other questions or comments? Any other remote?

[29:19] » I'm looking remote. I don't see any hands up. Do you Erin?

[29:23] No. [laughter] >> Right. Any other questions you have? No.

[29:29] Based on what we've heard so far. >> In that case, did I have a motion to

[29:34] close the public hearing and move to deliberations?

[29:37] » Second. >> No, sir.

[29:42] » In favor. >> Okay. Thanks.

[29:45] » Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you. >> I sent this to you based on what they

[29:57] » call

[30:13] it sounds like

[30:19] enforcement officing

[30:33] they filed due process will ensue. >> Yes.

[30:37] » Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[30:38] » And it's not related to this application.

[30:40] » Has no bearing onification.

[30:44] » The elimination. All right. Um >> motion to approve.

[30:47] » Yeah. Second to approve. >> Second.

[30:51] Any further discussion? I think we have a draft.

[30:56] Aaron want me to make

[31:00] you. >> Would you like to?

[31:02] » I

[31:06] following draft resolutions offered. Madison planning and zoning commission

[31:09] approves application 26-32 plus coastal site plan 908 Boston post road 39 lot 4

[31:16] zone R2 owner applicants Nicholas J and Nancy J Robert postal site plan

[31:21] application site planation and major downtown village district

[31:25] modify railway patio walkway per unit small cluster housing development

[31:30] architectural plan titled Robert 908 Boston room as nin 063

[31:36] G SK dated 720 2020 26 by Dickens architect. The site plan entitled

[31:42] Blogber 908 Boston Post Road, Madison, Connecticut 06443.

[31:49] Site plan sheet SK prepared by DOT architect the following conditions. One,

[31:54] that the zoning enforcement officer be notified at least 48 hours prior to

[31:58] commencement of any regulating activity. Two, that any necessary erosion and

[32:02] sedimentation controls be installed prior to any site disturbance and be

[32:05] maintained in duration of construction activities and until the site is

[32:08] sufficiently stabilized to the satisfaction of the zoning enforcement

[32:11] officer. In the event that changes to the improvement plans are required as a

[32:15] result of other agency permitting to support the proposed activity planning

[32:19] and zoning commission resource right to review set changes and may require

[32:22] modification of this. The commission finds that with the above reference

[32:26] conditions, the proposal is consistent with all applicable rules and policies

[32:30] of the coastal management act section 15 of the mass zoning regulations. No

[32:34] anticipated impacts to coastal resources are expected. The effective date of this

[32:38] approval is September 17th, 2026. Any commission?

[32:45] » Any further discussions? All in favor to approve

[32:50] unanimous. Thank you everyone. All right, we have a pending application

[32:56] for 26-15 plus a coastal site plan. This is Garnet Park Road under applicant the

[33:00] town of Madison. Applications are coastal site plan review for the

[33:03] replacement of Garn Garnet Park Road bridge over Bailey Creek

[33:11] representative to present. Kim Fletcher from Barton and Lois, the engineering

[33:16] firm uh from the town is here to present. Kim, did you have anyone else

[33:20] on your team that I needed to promote over?

[33:23] » Uh, I don't think so. I think it's just me.

[33:26] » Okay. Thanks. And will you be screen sharing or do you need me to pull up

[33:31] your presentation? >> Um, is it okay if I share it?

[33:34] » Yeah, sure. Let's

[33:47] see if I if I can figure out technology.

[33:55] » We all >> Yeah. All right. Let me

[34:04] Are you seeing that clearly where from where you're sitting?

[34:09] » Okay. All right. Um so thank you very much for

[34:14] having me here. Uh my name is Kim Fletcher. I'm from Barton and Legudas

[34:18] and I've been working um with the town of Madison uh specifically with Rob

[34:23] Russo on this project for the last few years. Um, so, uh, this is Garnet Park

[34:30] over Bailey Creek in Madison, of course. Um, let's please.

[34:37] [clears throat]

[34:42] Come on. Hold on.

[34:56] Oh, there we go. Okay. Um, so, uh, this is just a picture, quick picture of

[35:01] where we're, uh, what we're talking about. This is the existing bridge. It's

[35:06] two pipes. I'm going to get a little bit more into that in a second here. Um, I

[35:10] just want to show you where it's located first. Um, so it's on Garnet Park, uh, a

[35:17] little bit, um, near Governor's Way, but this whole section of, uh, roadway, you

[35:23] can't tell based on this, but this is all, um, a oneway in and out. So, it's a

[35:28] dead end. Uh, so this bridge is serving that entire community. Um, and so if

[35:33] this bridge fails, then you're essentially trapping these people um, in

[35:37] their neighborhoods. This is a aerial of the same. And this

[35:43] is just showing um what we're here to talk about which is the coastal res

[35:48] resiliency and the coastal plan. And these are all the title wetlands that

[35:52] are in this area.

[35:57] Oh man.

[36:08] There you go. >> There we go. All right. I think I

[36:11] finally figured it out. Um, so like I said, the um existing is a 48 inch and a

[36:18] 60 in um corrugated metal pipe with concrete wing walls and head walls. Um,

[36:25] it was built in the 1960s and uh, as I said, it it carries uh,

[36:31] Garnet Park over Bailey Creek. It's tightly influenced.

[36:36] Um, it's currently 47 feet long from end of pipe to end of pipe with a skew of 20

[36:42] degrees.

[36:46] And this is a picture of the inside of the pipe. So, um, we crawled through it

[36:51] and and we continue to crawl through it uh, every year or so just to make sure

[36:55] that it's not changing um, while we're going through the design and permitting

[36:58] process. But the the pipe has failed and we're seeing some roadway fill um coming

[37:05] through. Uh luckily a lot of that fill is um a stone-like material, so it's not

[37:12] it's not freely flowing out from over the pipe. Um but it is a concern again,

[37:18] especially with this being um the only bridge that's carrying traffic in and

[37:22] out of this neighborhood.

[37:27] This is looking at it from the top. Um, looking north over the bridge and then

[37:31] looking south. The pavement is in uh really good shape. So, we don't see any

[37:36] movement of the actual pavement which tells us that um the structure is stable

[37:41] right now. So, we're not seeing any movement of that pipe. Um although it's

[37:46] failed, we don't see any continuous movement which is good. Um it is an

[37:50] existing buminous overlay and the roadway width is uh 19 and a half and

[37:57] has approximately 600 cars a day.

[38:04] So the existing hydraulics and the existing conditions as you can see

[38:08] there's a lot of um there's a lot of tidal wetlands on either side of the

[38:12] bridge. Um there's a drainage area of uh 0.55 square miles and it has an existing

[38:20] freeboard um of 2.32 and that's using the 50-year riverine storm with a

[38:26] one-year title surge. Um it has a 100redyear discharge of 130 cfs.

[38:38] Uh so I' I've put the regulatory limits on the top right there. So we have the

[38:43] high tide line at 2.65 and the coastal jurisdictional line at 3.7 and mean high

[38:49] water at 2.23. Um and that will come into play in a

[38:53] couple slides. But um just a little bit more. So, we had uh wetland scientists

[38:58] come out and mark out all the flags and uh give us a report of what we're

[39:02] looking at for species and plant type. Um most of the plants I can't pronounce,

[39:09] but I have listed them there. um wildlife uh you know the heron uh

[39:16] muskrats, raccoons, crabs um and we've gone through the IPAC and NDB process to

[39:23] ensure that we have no effect or we're making sure that we're doing our work

[39:28] within the right um timelines to minimize any impacts to these species.

[39:38] So how are we going to fix it? So we have um proposed a 15 by7 box coververt

[39:48] um with one foot of stream bed embedment and we've sized it for again the 50-year

[39:54] riverine flood with a one-year title and the Army Corps and deep regulation

[39:58] requires a 1 foot of freeboard um but when we took a look at the Madison

[40:03] coastal resiliency plan that recommended 24 in of freeboard and so we designed to

[40:10] ensure sure that we were meeting that 24 in freeboard.

[40:15] Um and and also here uh so I had mentioned that the pipes were around 47

[40:21] ft long. Um we've shortened the structure to um uh 28 ft uh

[40:27] perpendicular. And so the wing walls are going to run um parallel to the road.

[40:32] And there'll be bridge rail right on the um on the shoulder of the road to get as

[40:37] much of that structure um out of the water course and the wetlands that we

[40:41] could.

[40:47] So here's looking at just the the covert section and then the culvert elevation.

[40:53] Um as I said it's a a 15t span. It's got a slight skew. So you see the clear span

[40:59] there and it says 15 and some change but that's just because you're you're

[41:03] looking at it on a skew. Um and

[41:08] uh additionally we which I'm not showing here but we're going to have an

[41:14] additional um mud mat under under the bottom slab of one foot of uh concrete.

[41:21] And that's to ensure that we don't uh introduce any kind of scour concern. Um,

[41:27] traditionally box you don't look at scour um just because the nature of what

[41:32] the structure is, but we just with it being a title uh area, we just wanted to

[41:37] ensure that, you know, we had adequate um scour protection for the future. Uh

[41:43] and additionally, we also sized this box covert structurally so that we could in

[41:48] the future raise the road almost 2 feet and we wouldn't need to redesign the

[41:53] box. It could take the extra weight um of the roadway if in the future we need

[41:58] to raise the road just due to increased storms and overt topping and things like

[42:03] that.

[42:08] » Um so just to summarize it's it's a little easier to see because of this one

[42:12] uh with the colors is the orange is the uh box cover and the wing walls. The

[42:18] yellow is the roadway reconstruction. Um, so we try to limit the roadway

[42:22] reconstruction to just what is necessary to tie it back in. Um, and with the

[42:27] existing roadway being like 19 and a half and us um, extending this to a 24

[42:34] foot roadway to meet design um, requirement or I'm sorry, it's 22 foot

[42:39] roadway with shoulders on either side. So that's why it shows 24 on that

[42:43] drawing, but it's um 22 feet for um driving purposes. And that is um due to

[42:50] design requirements through Connecticut um DOT and AASHTO.

[42:58] Um and I'm I'm going to explain the water handling because it it has a lot

[43:02] to do with the impacts. Um again because this area is uh one way in and out, we

[43:10] have no option other than to stage construction so that we can maintain at

[43:15] least alternating one-way traffic in and out. Um so that did add a little bit to

[43:20] our temporary impacts. Um, so during stage one, we'll be removing half of the

[43:29] pipe and installing uh installing the box section there while we uh shift

[43:34] traffic to the west and allow um alternating one way. Once we have that

[43:41] first portion of box in, we'll switch and that's what stage two is. And we'll

[43:45] allow traffic alternating one way on that um eastern side while we build the

[43:51] western portion of it. And then for our third um that would just be installing

[43:56] that last piece of guide rail that we couldn't get to um because the coffer

[44:01] dam and and things were in the way during the stage one and two.

[44:05] » This should be my question. [laughter]

[44:11] » So now how are we going to protect everything? Um so we've had um an inter

[44:18] agency meeting with Army Corps and DEP um and we have reviewed the project with

[44:24] them um over the course of the last two years um and we've come to a plan that I

[44:31] think everybody has um that everybody feels comfortable with. So it's three

[44:38] three kind of boxes. So, we're trying to avoid um as much impact as we possibly

[44:44] can. Um we're maintaining all of our inundation limits. So, what gets wet now

[44:52] during these um changing tides will still get wet after the new box. So,

[44:57] we're not going to be drying up any wetlands.

[45:00] um we're maintaining the same um drainage patterns uh that are existing

[45:06] now and uh avoiding any future uh title wetland impacts where feasible. Um where

[45:14] we can't help it, we're trying to minimize it. So there are limited

[45:18] wetland and water course disturbances associated again with the um temporary

[45:23] condition where we're doing construction and we'll be installing sheeting which

[45:29] will temporarily impact um the wetlands. Uh but we we tried to limit that

[45:35] construction footprint as much as we could while maintaining traffic. Um and

[45:40] then also provide um additional freeboard where we could

[45:45] to help with any sort of future flooding events. And then lastly, where we we we

[45:52] couldn't prevent any, we are going to mitigate. And so ultimately we end up

[45:57] with approximately 185 square ft of permanent impacts. And um when we spoke

[46:04] with deep they thought that this would be a good location for plant trans uh

[46:10] title plant transllocation. Um and so we have hired um Davidson

[46:16] Environmental and he is um he's putting together the final package for the

[46:22] transllocation plan. Um and that will include a minimum of three years of

[46:27] monitoring to ensure that it's established. Um I I think and then after

[46:32] that the contract shows just a like a an hourly rate. So if at 3 years it hasn't

[46:39] established, he'll continue monitoring um and giving recommendations

[46:44] until we have a reestablished wetland.

[46:53] Um and so this one kind of lays out what those impacts are. Um so we have a total

[46:59] wetland wetland impact of 535 square ft. 360 of that is the temporary wetland

[47:07] impact. Um, which is from either removing the existing pipes, uh, work

[47:14] within the coffer dam. Um,

[47:19] yeah, pulling and installing and removing sheet piling, removing the

[47:24] existing structure because we have to extend the sheet piling out a little

[47:28] further than the extents of our new structure because we have to get the old

[47:32] one out. Um, and then from a permanent wetland impact, we have about 175 square

[47:38] feet. Sorry, I said 185 175. Um, but we're cutting that down to below mean

[47:45] high water. So, the areas that were having permanent wetland impacts, we are

[47:49] creating a water course and then we're still going to do a onetoone mitigation

[47:55] with the transllocation to reestablish that wetland area.

[48:02] Um, from a water course uh standpoint, we have uh 1,070 square feet and that's

[48:09] all temporary. We don't have any permanent wetland impact or water course

[48:13] impact. Um, it's all temporary during construction and we're actually creating

[48:19] um water course because the areas where you used to have a pipe and fill between

[48:24] those pipes, that's all going to be water course now.

[48:29] Um and there's no vegetated shallows within the project limits our um wetland

[48:34] scientist

[48:38] um described. So uh this is kind of what I

[48:43] just said. We're create uh we're creating eight uh we're creating

[48:49] 835 square feet of wetland water course from the existing upland review area. So

[48:54] that again is because we're bringing the bridge in to um in closer to the

[49:01] roadway. So instead of it extending out that uh 47 ft and now we're only at 26,

[49:07] there's an area that was um either pipe or roadway fill that now is going to be

[49:12] water course. Um the areas of the current wetlands that is going to be

[49:16] dropped below the mean high water that will be water course. Um

[49:22] and sorry I think I'm repeating myself but yes. Okay. And then hydraulic and

[49:29] flood plane. Um this is the FEMA flood map. Um we are not filling within the

[49:34] flood plane. It's a minor cut in the area.

[49:43] Here's the um hydraulic information. So um obviously the same drainage area.

[49:48] We'll have the same flow rate. The velocities are very slow 38. Um just the

[49:53] tide coming in and the tide going out. Uh the water surface elevation between

[49:58] the existing and the proposed um is remaining the same. Um and we're meeting

[50:03] the freeboard requirement of that 24 in with some uh some buffer there.

[50:16] Um, so this is just kind of a snapshot of all the environmental and species

[50:21] considerations that we looked at. We ran through all of the requirements of the

[50:25] Army Corps and deep um permits to ensure that we're not negatively impacting any

[50:30] of the species uh whether it be federal or state um and ensuring that we're

[50:35] working with all the time of year restrictions in order to um minimize any

[50:39] impacts to those um to those species.

[50:45] And um so this again I I kind of already went over this but it's going to be one

[50:50] to one. Um the the way it'll work is that Davidson right now he is um

[50:56] currently determining which plants that he feels have the um basically the best

[51:02] chance of a transllocation um being successful. uh and he's

[51:08] providing to us a set of plans that we'll include in our um bid package

[51:14] which outlines to the contractor that this transllocation has to happen prior

[51:19] to construction. So that way um these plants are not impacted by the

[51:25] construction that's happening around them. Um and that will be handled both

[51:29] with uh plans and also special provisions that will be included in the

[51:34] in the package. Um and and again, he'll be monitoring this for at least three

[51:38] years to ensure that um these plants live and are thriving. And if they're

[51:43] not, that he would make recommendations in in what to do next. and and within

[51:48] that within the plans um if if the plants die so like if he monitors them

[51:56] for two years let's say and then he goes back and he's like these wetland plants

[52:00] that we have um that we transllocated didn't live at that point that 175 that

[52:07] we're doing a onetoone um uh mitigation for would then become a

[52:13] 3 to one. So at that point we would be mitigating um by planting new wetland

[52:20] um somewhere else to to um account for that loss of wetlands

[52:26] » to remedy situation. >> I'm sorry

[52:30] » to remedy the situation. >> Yes, exactly.

[52:36] Um and so tonight, um I wanted to talk through with you, you know, our coastal

[52:41] site plan, um for any of the questions or comments that you have. Um

[52:46] additionally, we'll be um seeking approvals through local flood

[52:50] management. Um we already have our permit um in process with Army Corps and

[52:55] Deep and we've had continued conversations with them. um this piece,

[53:00] this transllocation piece was the last piece of it. And so they're continuing

[53:04] to review um and we uh will be providing them with Davidson's report once we

[53:11] receive it. Um and then they'll be able to um uh finalize that review. But um

[53:18] from all of our conversations, that was that was the last piece to the puzzle.

[53:25] Um and then just quickly, so the project schedule, uh we hope to put this out to

[53:30] bid by the end of this year. Um that that pipe is in bad shape. It's really

[53:35] important that we get this thing replaced so that we make sure that we

[53:38] have um adequate um roadway for those uh people that live in that neighborhood.

[53:45] Um we are getting funding through the state local bridge program. Uh, so they

[53:51] pay 50% of engineering, construction, and inspection. Um, and so, you know,

[53:57] the the state reviews all plans and specs prior to going out to bid as well.

[54:03] Um, and so everything that we just kind of talked about is listed here. Um, but

[54:09] I'm happy to answer any questions or anything that I've missed. Um, thank you

[54:13] very much for for allowing me to come and talk with you guys.

[54:18] » Thank you, Kim. Thanks, Kim. Um, anyone have questions since that's me?

[54:24] » I have a silly one. Um, how was the failing culbert first discovered?

[54:30] » Um, so a lot we get hired a lot to look at, um, bridges that are under 20 ft

[54:37] because anything over 20 feet is inspected by the state every two years,

[54:41] but towns are responsible for inspecting bridges under 20 feet. Um and so when we

[54:47] were looking at some of the other structures in town, um that one was

[54:51] flagged.

[54:54] » Good. >> Kim, um I saw that fragmitees was listed

[54:58] on your list of species plant species in the area. So will you be able to get rid

[55:02] of that? I mean, are you could that be a goal is to get rid of some of the

[55:06] invasives while you're >> Yes, thank you for mentioning that. I

[55:11] wrote that down and then I didn't say it. Um, uh, part of the spec package is

[55:16] that we are removing any of the invasive species in the area as well.

[55:21] » Great. Good. Super. >> And then I had a question about the new

[55:24] um, culvert that you're putting in, how far

[55:29] down into the muck do you have to go? [laughter]

[55:33] » Um, so [clears throat] for the like permit requirements, you have to go at

[55:37] least one foot. So, we're gonna we're gonna place the bottom of the culvert on

[55:42] top of what we call a mud mat because the soils there are basically muck. And

[55:45] so, we're going to be removing about two feet of that muck and then back filling

[55:49] with like a like a granular material to place the the box cover on top of so

[55:55] that it doesn't um so it has good bearing area.

[55:59] » And I saw that you had hermit crabs and blue crabs listed. Are there muscles and

[56:03] oysters in there at all or are we too far up river? Maybe

[56:07] » they uh they were not listed within um any of the research we did or the um

[56:17] biologists that we uh hired. >> Okay. Yeah, they would they would have

[56:22] listed I think if they saw them. Thanks. Thank you.

[56:26] » Any other questions?

[56:30] What is floorboard mentioned?

[56:32] » Floorboard. Yep. Freeboard. Oh, sorry. Freeboard. freeboard.

[56:36] » Oh, freeboard. Um, that is for uh it's from your water surface elevation for

[56:42] your storm that you're designing for to the roadway surface.

[56:48] » Oh, is it two feet? >> Yes.

[56:54] » Can we kayak through it at low tide? [laughter]

[56:58] » You might be able to. >> I can't I grew up in the on that salt

[57:04] mar so I couldn't resist. I know it really quick. It's like the branch that

[57:07] goes out the neck river. That's >> right.

[57:09] » Yeah, you must know it, too. >> Um Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the all this

[57:14] information. >> Yeah, I think the town has had um three

[57:19] bridge replacements over the last few years and um all of them have gone

[57:23] through inland wetlands um but none of those have been within a coastal zone.

[57:28] So um now you have gotten a a full project description and and land

[57:35] » and you get to work with process deep do I mean all these sort of levels of of

[57:42] governance and agencies >> and and typically in situations like

[57:46] that where there's federal and state permitting the the local takes a a

[57:52] backseat to that permitting. Um which is why we've sort of pushed this

[57:57] application and along for several months here through your statutory limits to

[58:02] allow um the engineers to get to a point where they feel they're going to have if

[58:08] any very little modifications to the design so that they wouldn't have to

[58:12] come back to you. Right. And I think old Sabbrook right now has just had to

[58:17] they've just admitted that they have to replace a bridge that they just put in a

[58:21] year ago. I don't know if any of you saw that. They didn't get it high enough.

[58:24] So, I'm glad to hear that you're going a little extra high um to accommodate, you

[58:30] know, sea level rise and whatever. Or that the road also can be raised without

[58:34] having to disrupt everything underneath. >> That's right.

[58:37] » Because um you know, if the previous one lasted since the 60s, then are you

[58:41] projecting how long this will last? >> They're designed to last 75 to 100

[58:46] years. So we might have higher segment. That

[58:51] might be a different kind of marsh in 100 years like underwater.

[58:56] » All right. Thank you. Um.

[58:58] » Yes. >> Would someone like to make a motion to

[59:01] approve? We have a draft resolution.

[59:06] » Thank you, Michelle. >> Second.

[59:07] » Do you want to read it then? [laughter] >> Why not, John?

[59:12] » Thank you, John. >> The following draft resolution is

[59:14] offered. The Madison Planning and Zoning Commission approves application number

[59:19] 26-15 plus CSP Garnet Park Road owner

[59:24] applicant town of Madison. Application for a coastal state plan review for the

[59:29] replacement of the Garnet Park Road bridge over Bailey Creek as shown

[59:33] application materials with the following conditions. One, that the zoning

[59:37] enforcement officer be notified at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of

[59:41] any regulated activity. Two, that all erosion and sedimentation

[59:47] controls be installed prior to any site disturbance and be maintained for the

[59:51] duration of construction activities and until a site is sufficiently stabilized

[59:55] to the satisfaction of a zoning enforcement officer. In the event that

[1:00:00] changes to the approved plans are required as a result of other agency

[1:00:03] permitting to support the proposed activity, the Madison planning and

[1:00:06] zoning commission reserves the right to review said changes and may require

[1:00:11] modification and disapproval. The commission finds that with the above

[1:00:16] reference conditions, including those imposed by state and f federal

[1:00:20] regulations, proposal is consistent with all

[1:00:23] applicable goals and policies in the coastal management act and section 15 of

[1:00:28] the Madison zoning regulations. The effective date of this approval is

[1:00:32] September 17th, 2026. Second,

[1:00:39] any further discussion in favor? Very well done.

[1:00:44] » It's approved. Good luck. Can't wait to have it.

[1:00:46] » Thank you guys so much. I appreciate it. >> Thank you.

[1:00:52] » All right. Next on the agenda, we have um 26-33 plus coastal site plan for 1321

[1:00:59] Boston Post Road. This is a M um map 31, lot 32,

[1:01:05] zone C, owner applicant JL Bore LLC. application for minor site plan

[1:01:10] modification and coastal site plan to install EV chargers in the parking lot.

[1:01:15] Do we have Yes. So, I wasn't sure if we were going to be moving forward this

[1:01:19] evening, but I do see that Chelsea is here um

[1:01:24] uh I believe for um the application. Um let me just

[1:01:31] confirm. Um this is typically uh EV chargers are considered a minor site

[1:01:37] plan modification. um would go to uh AKA for review as required by the

[1:01:45] regulations. Um in this case um they did uh go before AKA at their August meeting

[1:01:52] and um AKA had no comments. They're standard

[1:01:58] chargers. >> Yeah, standard pedestal. Um there's a

[1:02:02] pedestal in the front of the property. This is the existing vet office next to

[1:02:06] the Dunkin Donuts on Post Road. And then another one in the back parking area for

[1:02:10] cats and dogs. >> Um yes, one for cat owners.

[1:02:16] » No, I think one's for employees, one's for um

[1:02:19] » uh guests. The um the only reason it's before you is because a site plan

[1:02:24] modification triggers a coastal site plan application. Um clearly there are

[1:02:29] no coastal uh impacts associated with this application. Um the only coastal

[1:02:36] resources present on the site um if you're familiar with the location are

[1:02:41] the standard general resources that apply to every single property within

[1:02:46] the coastal zone. >> This is precious across from the Dunk

[1:02:49] McDonald's. >> It's next to the dump.

[1:02:51] » Yeah, it's they share that access driveway. Um so there's very little

[1:02:56] excavation um you know associated with digging out those. Um, so I did um draft

[1:03:03] a a general uh resolution here um for you that I'm happy to share. Um

[1:03:11] I don't know if does the commission have any questions? This is such a

[1:03:15] » minor basic >> application. I'm not sure it

[1:03:19] » requires boilerplate approval language because we can just read one of the ones

[1:03:22] we got and swap out the the name. >> Yep. I'll just I I just am screen

[1:03:26] sharing it for you right now. Um >> and not Are these fast chargers or

[1:03:32] » I think they are fast. Yeah. >> Are they free?

[1:03:36] » I don't think anything's free. >> They they gave in the packet of of

[1:03:41] information they showed gave us.

[1:03:47] » Anyone read that? >> Are you close enough to read?

[1:03:52] » Sure. >> Thank you. While Madison Planning Zoning

[1:03:56] Commission approves application of the 26-33

[1:04:00] Boston Coastal site plan 1321 Boston Post Road map 31 lot 32 zone C owner

[1:04:09] applicant JL LLC application for minor site plan modifications in coastal site

[1:04:16] plan installed EV chargers in parking lot as shown on application documents

[1:04:22] the following conditions. One, that the zoning enforcement officer be notified

[1:04:25] at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of any regulated activity.

[1:04:30] Two, that any necessary erosion and sedimentation controls installed prior

[1:04:33] to any site disturbance and be maintained for the duration of

[1:04:36] construction activities and until the site sufficiently stabilized

[1:04:40] satisfaction zoning enforcement officer. the event that changes to the improved

[1:04:44] plans are required as a result of weather agency permitting to support the

[1:04:49] proposed activity. Madison planning and zoning commission reserves the right to

[1:04:52] review said changes and may require modifications modification of this

[1:04:58] approval. Bishop finds that but with the above

[1:05:02] reference conditions proposal is consistent with all topical goals and

[1:05:06] policies coastal management act in section 15 of mask and zoning

[1:05:12] regulations. No anticipated acts to coastal resources are expected. The

[1:05:17] effective date of this approval is September 17th 2026.

[1:05:22] » Second m further discussion. All in favor?

[1:05:30] » Thank you everybody. >> Thanks for explaining that.

[1:05:35] » Oh, >> next on the agenda 26-34

[1:05:38] plus coastal site plan for 19 Advent Hill Road. Um they've I think we're

[1:05:44] going to >> reschedule. So, if I could have a motion

[1:05:47] to reschedu this was it was schedumber 17th, but we'd like to move the public

[1:05:54] hearing to October 1st. >> Motion.

[1:05:58] » Thank you. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor?

[1:06:03] So, that will get put on the agenda for October 1st. Okay. Then phone 6-29 um

[1:06:09] plus Coastal Sydney for Mill Road. Um, this was the one that was opened on

[1:06:14] September 17th and continued, I'm sorry, opened in August and continued to

[1:06:19] September 17th. And we saw that there was quite a turnout. And the question is

[1:06:24] now um that I wanted to discuss with everybody and take a vote on it was what

[1:06:29] should we do? I had said that we would find a larger space to accommodate the

[1:06:34] public. Um, turns out I think the only option might be Neck River Elementary

[1:06:39] School. Um Erin, you're not keen on a new place for a big for you know a

[1:06:46] public hearing that >> how much more can you get in over there?

[1:06:50] » That room is not available. >> Awesome.

[1:06:52] » Yeah. So and so the question is should we go to all Zoom? I prefer not to do

[1:06:58] that because I have trouble seeing. >> I should not do

[1:07:01] » um and I also feel that it is important to listen to people. So I just wanted to

[1:07:06] get a sense um it would be easier to do Zoom for sure

[1:07:11] is better. Erin, do you want to add some more pluses of from Zoom versus

[1:07:16] » Sure. >> trying to figure out what it

[1:07:18] » given the fact that uh there was a turnout at the last meeting. This room

[1:07:22] has limited capacity. >> Correct.

[1:07:24] » Uh there's limited uh meeting rooms available uh with hybrid capacity due to

[1:07:30] construction projects within the school. this room next door uh meeting room C is

[1:07:35] not available. Um experience that we have had in sharing even if the room was

[1:07:41] available in sharing overflow rooms and things like that. Um you always have to

[1:07:47] consider when there's an application with opposition the potential for

[1:07:51] appeal, the potential for having accurate transcripts, having everyone be

[1:07:57] able to be heard to see. Um, we have one screen here in this room that's

[1:08:02] available for viewing for folks in person. It was my recommendation that

[1:08:07] the um meeting be moved to entirely Zoom to uh best accommodate everyone um for

[1:08:16] visibility and hearing and um Carol expressed concern um about being able to

[1:08:23] see on a smaller screen. Um there are individual accommodations for

[1:08:27] commissioners and any member of the public. Um if there are uh you know a

[1:08:34] need for a larger screen or no access to a computer, things like that, those

[1:08:39] opportunities are always available. Um, Carol did uh request that we have

[1:08:46] consultation from our town attorney um which was done yesterday and um uh

[1:08:52] Carrie Olsen did as well recommend uh the Zoom format entirely. Um but Carol u

[1:08:59] today requested that we bring this to the commission um and open the agenda uh

[1:09:05] for the commission to vote on this. Um, I think this is somewhat unique as the

[1:09:11] commission has in my history at least, um, never voted on a venue or a location

[1:09:18] for a meeting. Um, it's a little unusual and, um, I just wanted to be able to at

[1:09:24] least share uh, at least the background of that. As Carol mentioned, Neck River

[1:09:30] um, elementary school is uh, does have an open cafe

[1:09:35] uh, setting. There have been public information sessions there. Um the

[1:09:40] planning and zoning commission has never had a meeting there. Um the capabilities

[1:09:46] of it are not fully determined at this point. If the commission decides to uh

[1:09:53] vote to hold the meeting there um and there isn't time to do practice runs um

[1:10:00] to do that either. The room is not available until 6:30 the evening of the

[1:10:05] meeting. Um so at 6:30 in the evening uh 200 chairs would have to be assembled

[1:10:11] and it would have to be made available um so that the meeting could begin at

[1:10:17] 7:00. >> That's new information for me too. So

[1:10:20] » well I had I had to look for some of that information this afternoon after

[1:10:24] your >> when we request again it it became

[1:10:27] apparent that it was really Aaron in favor of Zoom and me in favor of in

[1:10:31] person and I didn't feel comfortable making the decision. I wanted to hear

[1:10:34] from commissioners. >> Um,

[1:10:36] » what about And

[1:10:40] » what about the senior center? Didn't we use that one?

[1:10:43] » Yeah, Mike just asked that too. Sorry. It's not going to give you a larger I

[1:10:46] don't think it's big enough actually. >> If you're looking to acco I don't know

[1:10:50] how many people to anticipate in person. I know it would exceed the capacity of

[1:10:55] meeting room day. And the other kind of thing for me too is that when they when

[1:10:59] everyone came out for the you know when we first opened the public hearing and

[1:11:04] then left I said we'll look for a bigger venue and so I felt like okay [laughter]

[1:11:10] » I wanted to just make sure that everybody knows what the options are and

[1:11:14] what the pluses and minuses are of each one and and make a decision if we can.

[1:11:19] » I agree with you. I think we should be in person. I think this was a very

[1:11:25] community

[1:11:29] uh there's a lot of interest and a lot of

[1:11:33] feelings about it and I think that we should give the community an opportunity

[1:11:36] to kind of be heard together and if we can make that happen I think that we

[1:11:40] should >> I guess I guess that's a question is can

[1:11:42] we make it happen >> I think the dynamics are very different

[1:11:46] » in person >> person

[1:11:49] » this is we're not talking about just an in-person meeting this is a hybrid

[1:11:52] meeting of one >> oh hybrid yeah of course get the

[1:11:55] opportunity for and most folks who significant

[1:12:01] session >> right so frankly I think everyone was in

[1:12:05] the room almost there >> there's some

[1:12:11] what are the possibilities were the rules on us being here and public being

[1:12:16] online >> us and applicants being here

[1:12:20] » hybrid hybrid if if the commission is meeting in

[1:12:24] person then the public would need to be met in person unless there was a

[1:12:28] specific accommodation for if you were for example as I explained to Carol if

[1:12:35] there's uh limitations or needing a larger screen you may attend here in

[1:12:40] person so that you have access to a screen if you don't have that at your

[1:12:44] home to participate remotely. Um, and again, we've had uh other hearings where

[1:12:52] a resident did not have access to a computer, something like that. We set

[1:12:56] them up um at a location where they was able to participate

[1:13:01] » coming out of the pandemic, the state legislated how, you know, what the

[1:13:05] options are now post pandemic and post zoom only. And I think you do have to

[1:13:10] accommodate anyone who can't either doesn't have a computer or can't has,

[1:13:15] you know, I have some visual impairment. I have to I would I can't see on my

[1:13:19] laptop plans when they're opened and zooming in. Sometimes I lose resolution

[1:13:25] » and that can be done upon request. It's not that

[1:13:28] » I I would probably come here and use the big screen

[1:13:31] » but we can't then have the public still struggling with why we can't make it

[1:13:34] happen. >> Yeah, I would think what about changing

[1:13:37] the meeting next door? Can they change the date for that? I I that room is

[1:13:42] already >> that that room is already reserved for

[1:13:47] another group. >> Well,

[1:13:50] » your option if you're looking to have a larger venue that's hybrid, the neck

[1:13:55] river elementary school is your only option.

[1:13:58] » So, what is the AV U setup that we have to do at Neck River? And

[1:14:03] » that's something I have no experience doing at Neck River.

[1:14:06] » So, here we have camera and we have screens. You have camera on the

[1:14:10] television. It's it's a independent it's a cafeteria. So the IT department would

[1:14:16] have to set that up. >> It depends whether they have that school

[1:14:19] or not. >> They they bring the in the I would offer

[1:14:23] that it's a brand new building that I would expect them to have

[1:14:29] sufficient capabilities to accommodate if they offer that room for such

[1:14:35] » meetings. Just because we haven't done it before doesn't mean it hasn't done

[1:14:40] » has have other groups used it >> the board of selectman have used it for

[1:14:44] uh an EOI >> and they had a successful hybrid

[1:14:48] sessions. >> It was a hybrid meeting. I don't you

[1:14:52] know you know it's a there are are differences between the planning and

[1:14:57] zoning commission and legal proceedings and and having folks be able to be heard

[1:15:01] and produce transcripts for appeals and things of that nature. So there there

[1:15:08] are unknowns but you know that has not appeals have not been generated. Um I

[1:15:13] don't know what the crowds are or how that sound will transfer. Um the EOI uh

[1:15:21] academy school meeting was a camera on the side and some uh uh projection

[1:15:27] screen. Um it doesn't give the attendees necessarily. It would be sort of this

[1:15:33] side view of that >> and that was recorded. So

[1:15:37] » I don't I I think it was so we could go watch it.

[1:15:40] » You can go watch it but I'm I I'm saying there are unknowns that we have never

[1:15:45] staffed the meeting that way. Um, as I said, there's after school care um in

[1:15:50] that room until 6:30 um every day. Um, and so there are limitations on getting

[1:15:57] the room ready um after 6:30. Um, and I don't know who is available at the

[1:16:05] building through maintenance or it to get that room ready. Um, that's not

[1:16:10] something that falls on your land use staff to uh set up that school venue. So

[1:16:17] if the commission chooses to move forward um with a hybrid meeting um know

[1:16:22] that there's a caveat if the capabilities are not able to be met at

[1:16:28] that room then the meeting um would wouldn't be appropriate to be there

[1:16:34] » two weeks we have at least two weeks to determine a course of action.

[1:16:37] » Yeah. Are we allowed to communicate on this matter via email once we get some

[1:16:42] more uh information around the capabilities

[1:16:46] technically at NAR? >> What information are you

[1:16:51] » can we get it there? Can we get this staff?

[1:16:53] » Can we go look at it and see the room after

[1:16:56] » can the commission go and look at it during school hours? I I don't know.

[1:17:00] » Well, Erin, I also offered to go do practice runs with you if we

[1:17:04] » I'm not able to do that during the day. I can

[1:17:07] » um the school is in session. We are not able to do that during the day. The room

[1:17:13] is used for the elementary school and it is used by afterare until 6:30. We have

[1:17:19] multiple meetings uh between now and that meeting I'm unable to go and do a

[1:17:25] practice run for the commission. >> If some of the commission are able to do

[1:17:28] it at a time that works for the school, is that acceptable?

[1:17:32] » That would have to be coordinated. I don't know that there's it available or

[1:17:36] anyone to do that. I don't have the answer to that.

[1:17:38] » What's your sense of the senior center capacity and and I have I have I don't

[1:17:44] know the number of that and I don't know if the room is available or not

[1:17:48] » but I wonder if that's worth pursuing too because it's true we we had almost

[1:17:51] everybody >> there might be more people coming next

[1:17:55] time. There might be fewer people. Are we allowed to publish?

[1:17:59] » We're unable to find an alternate location. Please note the public the

[1:18:02] room can only accommodate X number first come first serve. We will

[1:18:07] » or and I was also asking if people if the overflow could sit out you know in

[1:18:11] the hallways with their laptops even and >> Zoom there are limitations to fire code

[1:18:17] and and things like that. This is why this isn't typically a decision for the

[1:18:21] commission to make. >> This is typically logistics of staff

[1:18:25] trying to find a venue that could accommodate them. So, I don't have all

[1:18:30] of the answers for you as far as, you know, this room fits 68 people total.

[1:18:36] Um, as you could probably imagine having >> more chairs,

[1:18:43] » but that's only 30ome chairs. >> Yeah.

[1:18:48] » I can't, you know, you you run the risk of a hybrid meeting in this room that

[1:18:53] you cannot fit people. You cannot just bring couches in and things like that.

[1:18:57] that occurred at the last meeting. Um when a room is um you know the fire

[1:19:04] marshall and I've done this previously setting up rooms the fire marshall in

[1:19:08] here measuring and making sure walkways are adequate. If hallways are full, the

[1:19:13] fire marshall will come down and shut the meeting down. It has happened

[1:19:17] before. He was here uh a week and a half ago, two weeks ago for the board of

[1:19:21] selectment meeting. um it it isn't you know so in planning ahead these are

[1:19:28] these are risks that are taken you may have IT challenges at a location that we

[1:19:34] have not had any experience with which could impact potential

[1:19:40] uh transcripts and and legal proceedings if they happen to

[1:19:47] occur after a meeting um or you know as I I I can only give you the information

[1:19:54] that we have, the physical challenges of of staff trying to accommodate these

[1:19:59] rooms um and um what our attorney has recommended. If the commission wants to

[1:20:06] vote to pick a different room, um I have no information on the uh senior center

[1:20:11] for you. Um I simply have uh neck river as your option if you wanted to vote

[1:20:16] this. So I would offer there are many opportunities for the

[1:20:21] public to come attend our meetings and we cannot predict who will show up when

[1:20:26] and where. So I think it's important for us to consider the future

[1:20:31] state of public hearings and if this room can only accommodate a certain

[1:20:35] number of individuals, we should prepare for the maximum number to show up in

[1:20:40] this room and perhaps in the future we might need to consider alternate

[1:20:45] locations. If this is an option in front of us and we have an opportunity to test

[1:20:50] a location such as the school, I think we should

[1:20:54] investigate that so that we are prepared for future public hearings.

[1:20:58] » We're not um >> we're not untested and untried and we

[1:21:04] have an understanding of what limitations are in terms of capacity and

[1:21:08] technology and what the experience for the public as well as the participants

[1:21:11] and the applicants would be. So I I think we should investigate our options

[1:21:15] further. I would offer adding additional chairs with consideration from the fire

[1:21:22] marshall and how could we set up this room in advance to accommodate

[1:21:26] additional audience members in anticipation of the

[1:21:32] Milroad application. I think that should be our first option to look at. Um if

[1:21:38] not then I I would recommend we investigate neck road as an option or

[1:21:42] the senior center. I my vote for an all zoom meeting would

[1:21:48] be the last option.

[1:21:51] » Anybody else? >> Do we have time?

[1:21:53] » A quick comment is that I wonder >> both these arctics and the legality of

[1:21:58] an all meeting >> and we haven't had anything else. So

[1:22:03] this time just because we know there's issues coming up we're treating it

[1:22:07] differently. That doesn't look very good to me.

[1:22:11] » That's a good point. >> Plus we really need the face to face.

[1:22:14] » That was my thought back during the pandemic. Right. But question where did

[1:22:17] the border select committee relocate to after the far?

[1:22:21] » They didn't need to relocate. There weren't enough people in the hallways.

[1:22:24] » Awesome. >> But he was called in to look.

[1:22:27] » And did they have they had extra rows of chairs in here? We set up a room in

[1:22:32] anticipation. This is something that is not unusual to staff. We constantly

[1:22:37] gauge the expectation of who will be at public meetings. Um, and I think your

[1:22:44] staff in particular has gone above and beyond trying to accommodate the public

[1:22:48] and making documents and meetings as accessible as possible. We're probably

[1:22:54] the only commission that has run a dual meeting with Zoom access in another room

[1:23:00] which happened during the Tumine uh hearings. Um people it it it was angry,

[1:23:07] it was unruly. uh the police were here um and the transcripts were not audible

[1:23:13] and that makes a challenge when something is appealed and quite frankly

[1:23:18] it's an unnecessary burden on staff um without any other resources here to man

[1:23:24] two meeting rooms to try to accommodate that.

[1:23:27] the the the point of public accessibility is so that it's not

[1:23:33] necessarily to jam as many people in a room as you're able to to make a

[1:23:39] physical room. It's it's creating opportunities for people to be able to

[1:23:43] participate in a meeting and hear clearly and the commission to be heard

[1:23:48] and to and to see yes visually. um you'll know you fill this room with 68

[1:23:54] people, you have one screen that is visible. This screen does not screen

[1:23:59] share you. So these are things that you are all need to be considered. There's

[1:24:04] no more exploration of options in this room um for

[1:24:09] » you know this is how at our August meeting was it this set up for the rows

[1:24:13] of chairs? >> Yes.

[1:24:14] » Yeah. >> Yes. So

[1:24:17] » you can fit one more row of chairs here. That that is

[1:24:21] » 30 and it says what? >> 689

[1:24:24] of us. >> Yeah.

[1:24:26] » You have to look at the size of the chairs and the furniture that we have in

[1:24:30] here and that includes staff in the commission as well. So although those

[1:24:36] the number in capacity for the square footage for the room may be 68, you may

[1:24:41] not physically be able to fit 68 chairs in this room for people based on the

[1:24:46] furniture that is purchased here. They have arms on them. We we do the best we

[1:24:51] can to limit the distance in between the seats and to maintain the emergency

[1:24:56] aisles, but you have a fixed amount of space here for the public. Got it. Chair

[1:25:02] can't do a reservation.

[1:25:06] » Are we able to add for this meeting? >> Would we be able to add one more row of

[1:25:11] chairs? >> Yes,

[1:25:12] » we have chairs that we can set up if that's where you're looking to go.

[1:25:16] » Know that if you have people in excess, they will be asked to leave the room and

[1:25:22] if they're in the hallways, they have to maintain appropriate aisles and they

[1:25:26] would be asked to participate remotely. The other thing to keep in mind is that

[1:25:30] we haven't even heard this application, you know, right? I

[1:25:36] that's fine. I'm also leaning for just having it here increasing as many

[1:25:39] putting it in as many chairs as we can hoping for the best. See what happens

[1:25:43] but the applicant could still present the application.

[1:25:48] » Worst case is you have to continue the hearing because you can't

[1:25:53] » Exactly. >> I don't have the answer for

[1:25:58] what you're doing. What are you going to do? Do it all. There's no so

[1:26:01] » said them all. >> My perspective is we add another row. We

[1:26:05] can't predict who's going to show when or for whichever hearing we have on any

[1:26:09] given day. >> We have advanced warning on this one

[1:26:13] » by chance. When when I walked in here then I had absolutely no idea we would

[1:26:18] have such a public >> display response.

[1:26:20] » It was incredibly surprising for me. Have we

[1:26:23] » so I don't think on any given session we can anticipate public attendance to that

[1:26:28] degree. Can we make some kind of an announcement for public hearing that you

[1:26:31] know >> space is limited and

[1:26:34] » I think the public is aware of how large this room is and they're going to clam

[1:26:38] when they get here if they want to attend and if they get a seat they get a

[1:26:40] seat. If not I'm sorry they stand in the hallway and if they if they create a

[1:26:46] disturbance they'll be asked to leave. That's just the nature of how we

[1:26:49] operate. >> We really can't have them milling around

[1:26:51] on the back there and nose against your glass, right?

[1:26:54] » Who's to say they didn't show up like that today? We would not have been

[1:26:56] prepared. Well, we weren't prepared for that.

[1:27:02] » Citizens will be behaved. I don't think there's any reason to expect.

[1:27:06] » And if they so choose, they can go sit in their car and join from their phone.

[1:27:10] » Yeah, we'll listen, take notes.

[1:27:14] » I think the best option is accommodate a safe amount of capacity in this room and

[1:27:21] we proceed as planned. Well, then how about we have like the fire marshal here

[1:27:27] or somebody here to kind of manage the thing if it gets out of hand?

[1:27:32] » Sure. >> I don't think I'd worry, but it's of

[1:27:36] course >> prior preparation for

[1:27:39] » certain thoughts. I've already given my opinion

[1:27:46] other opinions to give. Can we request a police officer be here to help with

[1:27:51] crowd control or the the fire marshall come and check to make sure

[1:27:54] » the fire marshall will if the room is crowded the fire marshal will show up?

[1:27:57] » Sure. >> If people are overflowing in the room

[1:28:00] into the hallway the fire marshall will be here to make sure there are no fire

[1:28:03] code violations. >> That's not a police officer maintained

[1:28:09] » role. Okay. So um I guess we could but you

[1:28:16] have to know as the chair it's your responsibility to tell the attendees to

[1:28:22] this meeting how they will have to >> attend the meeting when there's if there

[1:28:27] is no room in this meeting room for them >> what's the

[1:28:31] » and Erin is there any way to in advance >> not the night of when they arrive

[1:28:36] telling them this but >> is there any way to get some

[1:28:38] notification out that we anticipate large

[1:28:43] » maximum capacity. >> I wouldn't even

[1:28:44] » I wouldn't even do that. >> It's almost self-fulfilling prophecy.

[1:28:51] » Okay. I would >> let the public do what it

[1:28:56] » I think one thing you could do I think one thing you could do is ask people

[1:28:59] once they speak and give their opinion and they've said their bit that they're

[1:29:03] going to have to they're going to have to leave and let someone else come in

[1:29:06] that needs to. And you can do it that way too that they can't sit through the

[1:29:10] whole thing and listen here. They can go to their cars or, you know, whatever and

[1:29:15] watch the rest of it if you're going to have it in person. But I think, you

[1:29:19] know, I I got to I think we have to respect the staff. I mean,

[1:29:24] » Aaron knows and I I think we we do she's right. We do

[1:29:30] accommodate everyone on these thing and let everyone speak and which I think is

[1:29:34] wonderful and we have to do that but at the same time we have to think about um

[1:29:39] doing you know being efficient too and if the best way to do it is through a

[1:29:43] zoom you know I think I I personally think we need to respect the staff knows

[1:29:49] best. She sees she sees meetings. She knows

[1:29:54] the co fire, you know, she knows all this stuff and how much what the

[1:29:59] furniture, you know, we have to accommodate and setting up. I mean, when

[1:30:02] I heard that they're going to set up 200 chairs after the kids leave at 6:30 from

[1:30:07] after school in an elementary school where parents are picking up, I think

[1:30:11] that's a disaster waiting to happen. I think that's a really bad idea.

[1:30:16] » Don't think it's necessary. I think we have the means to to hold the

[1:30:22] appropriate session here as we normally do

[1:30:27] » and the public will be determined. >> Yeah, I think

[1:30:32] » I think your your tenure on the commission has not experienced a very

[1:30:35] busy public hearing, a contentious public hearing. So I think it will play

[1:30:40] out and if that's the decision that the commission would like to vote on. Um

[1:30:45] that's what Carol has brought to the floor then

[1:30:49] so we give it a try. That's up to the >> the commission decision at this point.

[1:30:53] » Janet and John you might be in favor of Zoom.

[1:30:56] » I would vote for Zoom. Yeah. >> Do you want to have a full vote on this?

[1:31:00] » Yeah. Yeah. So, how about um first raise your hand if you're willing to try the

[1:31:05] hybrid as usual >> at this location?

[1:31:08] » At this location? >> I'm I'm sorry. Um what are what's

[1:31:18] » If we want to formal Robert's rules, could I have a motion that we have the

[1:31:23] meeting as scheduled as a hybrid in this room?

[1:31:26] » I provide a motion. >> Second. Second discussion on favor

[1:31:35] » and that was to John Duca second. >> Yes.

[1:31:40] » And who was >> opposed is John Morgan and Janet Pin?

[1:31:49] » J are we clear on the options are hybrid here additional seating carry on or

[1:31:56] fully zoom? >> Yeah.

[1:32:00] because said you weren't here during the Tmaine hearings. [laughter] I mean, it's

[1:32:06] it can get pretty full.

[1:32:10] » Boy, Janet, that was something else. >> Wow.

[1:32:13] » I just remember going over to the other room and talking to people who were

[1:32:16] waiting and and them complaining to me because they couldn't be heard. You

[1:32:20] know, we we were here for three hours and we're not allowed to speak. And, you

[1:32:24] know, it was it got pretty heated. Carol, I think you did a great job this

[1:32:30] morning at the top of this session instructing the audience about the

[1:32:35] comments. If you agree with someone, keep your comment.

[1:32:41] » I think that was a lovely addition. >> We have a large number that will limit

[1:32:45] the time for questions and comments. >> State that up front. You have

[1:32:50] » get it all up front and and that I think will help the government.

[1:32:55] » Yeah. timer for each person or for the

[1:32:58] » person total second. >> No, each person was taking two minutes.

[1:33:04] » And there's a timer. Why don't we select time

[1:33:07] » as they are >> handle it as best we can as

[1:33:12] » that work well. >> Okay. All right. Thanks everybody and

[1:33:16] thanks for your input and >> the options. Um, next on the Erin, did

[1:33:24] you want to say anything further about 26-29

[1:33:28] public hearing? >> No.

[1:33:30] » Okay. 26-30128 Samson Rock Drive. This is a site plan

[1:33:35] and major downtown village district of alteration to stand to install a

[1:33:40] standalone unmanned redemption center in the existing parking lot. Um, we already

[1:33:45] have the public hearing scheduled for October 1st.

[1:33:47] » Yes. What is a redemption center? Is this something religious?

[1:33:53] » Throw your clothes. >> The application materials are

[1:33:58] » Yeah, you can look at it >> in there.

[1:34:05] » Okay, but there is you can see on the >> All right. Next is approval of minutes.

[1:34:12] Secretary, >> the August uh 20th uh 2026

[1:34:18] minutes. Uh, Janet, you were absent, correct?

[1:34:21] » I was absent. >> Um, motion to a review or approve the

[1:34:26] minutes. Second.

[1:34:30] » Second. >> Um, I just had a couple of minor wording

[1:34:33] changes. Uh, there was a on page five improved needed to be changed to

[1:34:38] improved. And on page six, uh, they were talking about the, uh, valve walls on

[1:34:44] the course. Uh just changing uh install install warning of flying flying golf

[1:34:52] balls instead of fly golf balls. >> Not really cool golf balls.

[1:35:00] » No. >> Any anybody else have any changes?

[1:35:04] » No changes but it was a long meeting. This is a question of words completion

[1:35:16] [clears throat]

[1:35:19] to approve. >> Motion to approve.

[1:35:20] » Second. >> Second.

[1:35:21] » All in favor? >> Thank you.

[1:35:25] » Thank you, Aaron, for these good minutes. Yes.

[1:35:28] » Okay. Um, couple of remarks. Aaron and I have been planning um a couple of events

[1:35:35] let you know about. One is a an informal session at the surf club of all land use

[1:35:41] related agencies, commissioners, commission

[1:35:46] members. The invite's about to go out, Erin.

[1:35:50] » Yep. We'll send it out probably. Um I was waiting for another flyer um to have

[1:35:55] some final text. So if not tomorrow, it'll go out Tuesday. Um it's it's

[1:36:00] really kind of more of a gathering for land use related boards and commissions

[1:36:05] for us to meet each other, get to know each other, find out

[1:36:09] » completely optional. >> Um just to kind of

[1:36:14] may have food but not enough food to keep you to stay too long.

[1:36:20] » When's the date? >> On strong field that I'm gonna be

[1:36:23] itching a bit at. So, it it should go um I I think we said

[1:36:29] » 5 to 7. >> Yeah. Or 5 to like 6:45, I think.

[1:36:32] Sunset. Nice little sunset and and go. But it's really um you know, not a a a

[1:36:38] venue to be taking notes and things like that. It's really kind of to to put a

[1:36:43] face to these various um boards and committees um who are advisory or

[1:36:50] looking to um move forward their charges, understand what other

[1:36:54] committees charges are, things like that. See how they all kind of play a

[1:36:59] role in um some of the goals and actions of the POC and the strategic plan. um

[1:37:05] kind of grease the skids for uh warming them all up to give some feedback to the

[1:37:12] commission um on October 1st. We're hoping um that commission members are

[1:37:17] available from 6:00 to 7 uh to regular meeting but early

[1:37:21] » to come an hour earlier to allow for a regulation um informal not informal a

[1:37:28] listening session excuse me um before the full commission um

[1:37:32] » with >> and

[1:37:35] our our first >> it's a regular meeting date

[1:37:39] » um and you have regular business that starts at 7 but what we're hoping to do

[1:37:43] is have a listening session that will be available in room C and um via Zoom to

[1:37:49] allow the public um we're going to you know put something in the paper as well

[1:37:54] and and get this flyer out posted for everybody um in advance so they know um

[1:37:59] but there there are people who would like to give some feedback on

[1:38:03] recommended changes to the zoning regulations um also want to kind of

[1:38:08] understand the project itself what is within the realm of this project and

[1:38:13] capabilities and what the commission cannot do. Um, so your consultant will

[1:38:17] be ready to kind of guide that uh discussion, maybe ceue up some good

[1:38:22] questions for the public to get them thinking and and um allow for that hour

[1:38:28] of some feedback and then uh move over here into room A for your regular

[1:38:33] meeting. Um and then um you know based off of that meeting see if um there's a

[1:38:40] need for additional um feedback sessions, things like that, more focused

[1:38:45] groups, that that kind of thing. Um >> sorry, sorry. When when was the date of

[1:38:49] this meeting for all the land use? I didn't hear the date.

[1:38:53] » That was September 24th. >> Oh, soon. I'm sorry.

[1:38:56] » September 24th. >> Yeah.

[1:38:58] » September. And the time was 5. It starts >> 5 6:37 something like that. Yeah. about

[1:39:04] an hour and a half. >> Okay. Sorry, I didn't hear the date.

[1:39:06] » It's not mandatory, but it would be great. It would be nice to go and meet

[1:39:11] everybody. >> Yeah, I don't know how many, you know,

[1:39:16] folks from the various boards and committees will come. Um I, you know, I

[1:39:20] suspect at least one or two from them can come. Um, but you know, you've got

[1:39:25] land use related boards like ZBA or Inland Wetlands and you know, I'm not

[1:39:30] sure how much since their their charge is a little specific. I'm not sure how

[1:39:34] much. >> Um,

[1:39:36] » that's good. >> So, those are the two dates. I would um

[1:39:39] it would be very helpful for staff if anyone has a conflict getting to the 101

[1:39:45] meeting at 6:00 um to let me know. I just want to make sure that at least we

[1:39:50] have the majority of the commission there um to be able to hear from the

[1:39:54] public. Um and again, that's uh in person or Zoom, whichever works. If you

[1:40:01] you know, if you're not able to physically get here by six o'clock, if

[1:40:04] you're able to hop on remotely um before the regular meeting, that's fine as

[1:40:09] well. >> Yeah, good point.

[1:40:10] » It's just a listening session. >> Yes. Yeah, it's a brief a brief overview

[1:40:15] of the project by our consultant and then um listening to uh members of the

[1:40:20] public and any other group who would like to uh share some feedback with

[1:40:24] » mostly listening. >> That's it's not going to be a

[1:40:27] conversation. >> It kind of I think it kind of depends on

[1:40:30] who shows up like if you have a large group and you need to kind of hear from

[1:40:34] a lot of people. if it's a smaller group there. I mean, yes, we encourage

[1:40:39] interactive, you know, uh, conversations here with that. It's not it's not a form

[1:40:45] of public hearing or anything like that. It's really a chance to to start hearing

[1:40:51] from people and to hear the conversation about

[1:40:55] » what is entailed in regulation updates and revisions and things. Okay.

[1:41:00] » But because it is an hour, it's not going to be a long presentation. It's

[1:41:05] really just kind of brief introduction and then letting everybody

[1:41:10] » talk. Sure. I think it sounds great. It's block my calendar.

[1:41:13] » Question on the the surf club thing. Is it considered a meeting?

[1:41:18] » It's it's I mean we'll notice it as a as a gathering. It's not Yeah, it's not a

[1:41:24] um it's a multi-group workshop. It's not um anything

[1:41:29] It's not it's not meant to be boards and commissions giving specific feedback to

[1:41:36] specific members of the commission. That's what the October 1st meeting is

[1:41:41] for the regulations. This is really just to kind of hear from folks, see what

[1:41:46] they're working on. >> The draft that you have of the email to

[1:41:48] send out was great. I thought it just sets the tone of what it's going to be

[1:41:52] like and what the expectations should be for people coming. So I think as we get

[1:41:55] more information out there it'll be I'll put all of

[1:41:58] » it's a general public invite. >> Of course it's a public meeting. It's

[1:42:02] the intent of >> the surf club.

[1:42:05] » Yes. The public can attend. It is not meant to be a a public interact.

[1:42:11] It's >> okay. So that makes sense.

[1:42:14] » It's a meeting designed to allow for various committee members to interact

[1:42:19] and and have conversation. >> Okay.

[1:42:21] » Um that's that's the intent. Great. Thanks. I have a motion to

[1:42:26] adjurnn. I'll make a motion. [laughter] Got a second, third, fourth, and fifth.

[1:42:31] Anybody's got it all in >> favor

[1:42:34] at 8:40. >> Yeah.

[1:42:38] » Thanks, Janet. Thank you. Sorry, I ditched last minute there. Sorry.

[1:42:46] » Yeah. Thank you for explaining.

9/3/26 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting,Town of Madison, Connecticut

Transcript