Plan & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Just I'd like to call this meeting to order. Thursday, February 19th, 2026 at 7:03 p.m. Bloomfield Town Planning and Zoning Commission. Our first quarterly planning meeting. First item on the agenda is a roll call.

Byron Lester here. Renee James here. Dwight Bolton absent. Leon Peters here. Steven Mallette here. Jennifer Marshall Neely is absent. Kevin Goff here. Ola absent. Roger O'Brien present. Ununice Medinter here. You have a quorum. Hey, thank you. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the January 20 22nd, 2026 minutes. Is there a motion?

So moved. Second. It's been moved and second. Any corrections or further discussions?

Mr. Chair, can you can you promote him? Oh, go ahead. Yes. Um, on page three, the heading questions from the commissioner should be changed to comments from the commissioners. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any further corrections? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Oppose extension. Chair both side. I just want to abstain from uh January 29th.

Uh that's the next one. Oh, sorry. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the January 29th, 2026 minutes. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second. Any further discussions, corrections? Mr. Chair. Yes.

Um a few a few items here. Um page one, uh it says a quorum with five regular and two alternates. It should be four regular and two alternates. Um I also question afterwards when we voted to seat the alternates, the vote is 600. I think the vote should probably be 400 and then the two alternates are seated. Um on page two there is a uh it makes a comment I think it's near the bottom uh the applicant has obliged with I think that should it doesn't read well I think it should be changed to has fulfilled and on page three um I think a sentence should be added uh following West Dudleytown Road only I'd like to add a sentence that says He also requested uh the uh or he also asked the applicant if they would be willing to extend the sidewalk an extra approximately 30 ft north to the Blue Hills Fire Department driveway and the applicant consented to this. Those are my comments. Thank you.

Hey, thank you. Dy noted. Any further corrections? Just ask a question on that. Sure. So why wouldn't the vote be six to to nothing if the two alternates voted? We we both voted. No, what he's saying is um we can't vote to seat ourselves. So the four people voted to seat us. Oh, the four people voted to seat us, but later on we voted on the Exactly. That's what he is saying.

Exactly. Okay. Any further corrections? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I. Oppose. Abstension. Abstain.

I also abstain. Motion carries. Next item on the agenda under new business. Um, and just to make sure the public know that this is not a public hearing, so there'll be no questions or or comments. Um, before we get going, I just want to bring the commission to number four, item C. Uh it was brought to the attention of the town planner who brought it to my attention that maybe we should take a further look before we act on number three and that's the proposed text amendment to section 5.5D and 5.5H related to the PEC. Um, we're going to get a the attorney's opinion on that and he's going to work with staff to figure out how we're going to do that. So, with that said, first item under new business, I'll ask the secretary if she would read that.

Mr. Chairman, before you again begin, if I could just make

sure just clarify that. Yeah, we um it's probably it's been determined that it's premature to to discuss that text amendment at this point. um and we will postpone it to a later date. Um and secondly, I just um as introductory remarks um really related to items 4, B, and C. Um as the chairman noted, this is your first planning meeting and uh one of four we intend scheduled that have been scheduled for this year. And the staff put the agenda together for this meeting. But I would urge all of you going forward uh to contact the staff and we will remind you a month before each meeting for any items you would like to see on this agenda. And I would suggest that we may want to keep it as a rolling agenda. You all may suggest two or three items and we may decide that that may be too many items that we want to discuss at a particular meeting or we want to put it off. But I think I the staff really wants this to be the commission's meeting uh and your opportunity to put forth items that are important to you and that you think are important to the community and re and that deserve discussion and potential action by the commission. So, um please please um understand that going forward we will s we we will certainly give you any items that we think might be useful but um we want this to be your meeting and we're going to look for your direct input on the agendas for these four meetings going forward.

Okay. Thank you. Do you want to comment on anything else regarding these items on um on a

no on that item? No. Again, and just to remind the public who may be either in attendance or or on on virtual that this is a basically a working commission meeting uh for discussion among the members. uh and um is not um a hearing a meeting where they will hear uh testimony, comments or questions in in the public hearing format. Uh obviously if any of these items that are discussed um move forward to that point, there will be ample opportunity for the public to have um direct input uh to the commission before the commission acts on any of the items whether they relate to the uh to a specific regulation or to a particular development. And as for item number 4A, the extension for the moratorum, that is because of the existing moratorum on the cannabis regulations expires on March 1 uh because of the statutory requirements for uh processing any any uh amendment to the zoning regulations. Uh we will go beyond that date. Uh we're recommending staff is recommending that the commission extend the uh moratorum until May 1, 2026 and a s simple motion um to do so is all that's required.

Great. Thank you. Uh [clears throat] I'll ask the secretary to read that and then we'll take a motion on it. All right. Um so 4A TPZ request for an extension to existing moratorum related to Canada establishments through May 1st 2026. Okay. At this time the chair entertain a motion to extend this application to May 1st 2026. I move we uh extend the moratorum for cannabis establishments to May 1st 2026. Is there a second? Seconded.

Been moved and second. Any further discussion? Uh Mr. Chair, I have a a question just um I feel like uh last time we talked about an extension, we were like that would be the last time. So is the idea that we're discussing it tonight and we'll have some probably another conversation after this before um there's like a public hearing for that. Do we need a public hearing for that zoning regulation zoning update?

Yes, commissioner. The idea is you would discuss it tonight. Um hopefully um you know all the issues or concerns you may have you express to staff. We will prepare a final um draft which would then begin the formal process be put on your next agenda assigned to public hearing. The public hearing would then be held and presumably subsequent to the public hearing be held the commission would act. Um and we you know unless we hit another bump um we anticipate that can that process can be completed by May one. All right. Thank you. any further. Commissioner O'Brien.

Yeah, I I I had a similar issue in that generally um the courts don't allow moratoriums to go on on infant item particularly if nothing is going on. So I I think that answer is very helpful in the sense that there is something going on because if we extended it previously and now we're extending it tonight and nothing has gone on, I think we'd be in trouble. We we we can't just have a moratorum without doing anything. [snorts]

Okay. Thank you. Uh there's a motion on the floor to extend this to May 1st. Think it's been moved and second. We were in discussions. Any further discussions? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I. Oppose. Abstension. Chair votes. I I'll ask the secretary if she' read item B. um PLC commission review and discussion of revised chapters 4, five, 6, 7, and 8.

Okay, Jonathan, anything you want to say before we start?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I we probably have it a little wrong in the CH because we are starting with chapter three, which is natural resources, not four, three through eight. Um we have distributed these. We have um as requested by the commission, we have over the past few months uh been working with um consultant but with extensive staff participation particularly um with the three staff sitting in front of you. um done revisions to the uh to the chapters of the POC to make them more Bloomfield ccentric and um and um contemporary to um where the commission believes the uh commission uh the community should be uh planning forward and um reflective of the community itself. Um and we think we've we've done a fairly good job of doing that. We have gotten some uh feedback from a couple member couple of members of the commission and couple members of the conservation and energy committee which um was very much involved in the in the review and we appreciate that. I specifically did not distribute those comments so that uh you all would um make your comments based on your own and not be swayed at all by others. Um, our intent is to receive your comments this evening, pro, con, or otherwise, and um and then take them and um finalize these chapters, finalize the executive summary um complete the um u tie in the um the um action items uh which we have waited till this is done so that they reflect uh what's in the in the body of the

report uh finalize the the maps uh and uh hopefully bring it all back to you uh by your March meeting uh so that you could um then act on it and and um forward it to the council under the statutory requirement for the 30 for their 30-day opportunity to comment. They do not have approval pro uh power that rests solely with the TPZ, but the statutes do allow for the legislative body to have a period of time to comment if they so wish. So again, we're looking for your input tonight. We will take that input to finalize the chapters and then uh try and get to you a complete product uh by your meeting in March.

Okay. Thank you. Uh what we're going to do is we're going to open this discussion up. We don't necessarily have to have a question and answer thing. We'll just keep it open and I will start with Commissioner Goff online. Um any comments or questions regarding the PLCD? Uh no I I actually I I uh I have submitted uh written comments and going you know reading through it uh and I you know my basic comment is just to commend staff and um the com you know everyone who's commented the pe the citizens who came and commented the commissioners who commented um I think it's painful that obviously we've been trying to get this done and it's painful that we you know that the staff was forced to sort of say we have to do a rewrite, but I think they've done an excellent job. I think this captures Bloomfield a lot. You know, this is this talks about what's going on in the town and where we're trying to go. Uh I'll be interested to hear what other commissioners have to say about it, but I was very impressed with it. The chapters, um it's a little bit hard to read them obviously. you know, I was doing it with the previous um the previous total one we had to look at the hand, you know, look at the graphs and stuff, but but [clears throat] excuse me. Um but I think this is very near a finished product. I think the things that the director uh mentioned of just sort of putting it back together, getting comments tonight, uh getting comments once it goes out to from the public, um I think we should be in good shape to finally get this wrapped up. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Mallette,

uh, I would also like to thank the staff and and the work. I I was reading through this and I felt like at least a lot of the points that had been brought up by various members and and the public had been incorporated. Um, I I did write a couple notes. Um, I mean, some of them I might just send in in writing. Um, I did see a couple things that I wasn't quite sure on. Uh, there was references to uh the greenhouse gas emissions and the town's 2030 plan. Um, but there was also I was trying to understand some of the consistency between that and um expanding the natural gas which I would have no issues with. Um, so are are we uh in conflict with reducing or eliminating? Um, but in general, you know, efficiency, conservation, that theme is is great as far as I'm concerned. Um, I'm just going to try to skim through. I had to underline a couple things. It wasn't a lot.

If you wanted to send it on in writing, it's Yeah, that'd be very useful. Um, I did have a question. Did did have we established the housing trust fund at this point? The housing trust fund is established. We are in the process, staff is in the process and has been for some time uh preparing the policies and procedures for effectuating the distribution of the funds. Okay. And I we're closer than farther to getting that done. We uh we feel an internal pressure to get that done as soon as possible. and then uh have it um approved by the town council.

But the fund is there and the fund is as I may or may have not told you the fund is being regularly added to um by the percentage of the uh non-residential permit fees that is added on a quarterly basis. So it's growing. Okay. Uh every quarter. Great. Um, I think it's page 26, but they weren't numbered under mobility. I think it's on the first page. Um, Route 178, I believe, includes Laughler. I don't know if the the intention was to capture every street or not. So,

minor catch. Um definitely loved the you know the the idea of the sidewalks and I think it's mentioned in there potentially identifying the areas or the priorities of where we do want to see the connections. Um, so I think it's referenced there. Uh, just, you know, recognizing that was, um, something important we heard from a lot of folks in in some of our last couple hearings. And I think there was a note on facilities. Um, so just this is picky. Um, but it talks about I think it's page 34. Um, under facilities and services, it it talks about um water savings. Um, I think water savings is great, but I don't know if we should say reducing drinking water. [laughter] I think we should just say reducing water usage and remove the drinking. I think we want to hydrate well. Um, that might have been the last small funny one, but um,

sorry about No worries. Uh, I think I made the note about the the the natural gas again. Um, you know, is it consistent with the uh the environmental plan? There's a lot of pages here. So yes,

maybe just the the last note, but it is, you know, put as a a recommended action, too. But I I like that it's in here, the the aggra tourism, and just revisiting that. Um that will that will be helpful for maintaining the the farmland we have um and all the things that go with that. including the um potentially expanding the use at least temporarily from the I don't remember the the state rag but um where you can you don't tax the full property if it's just being unused for forest or farm or things like that. But overall it's it's great. It'll be helpful to see it back with all the the graphs and charts and maps. um it was a little hard to to review without but in general definitely incorporated a lot of stuff that we discussed. Thank you.

Okay. And thank you uh Commissioner Peters.

Yeah. Uh once again, just like um my fellow commissioners have already done, I would like to um commend the staff for their work on um developing this and um pushing this further down. Not going to have too much because I I think I want to review this a little bit more in depth and then send back my comments directly to you. But I think for me the most interesting um chapter was the mobility chapter, which I thought um a lot came from that. and that we've always been talking about uh vehicle safety, traffic studies, and pedestrian safety. So, a lot of the comments that were made with this um are in in alignment what we've been all already discussing. Um you know, sidewalks. Um I would definitely um agree with Commissioner Mlette. This would be a lot easier to digest if we had those areas that are talking about where we lack sidewalks because there's a comment here something um well not something but very very major about uh the transit system and how we're pretty much under service due to the fact that uh we don't have sidewalks in these given places. I live in an area that I don't believe has a prominent um CT transit route and the from my recollection the only stop well the only stop that they have is just a post. So that was concerning. Well that that is the nail on the head exactly what we've been reporting. Um, but it would be it would be good to see where other areas that may benefit from those sidewalks that are closely in alignment with the transit system where we could [clears throat] actually implement these changes so we have more connectivity. U cuz it is kind of interesting to see that which is well not interesting cuz well not surprising to see that our town is primarily uh individuals who drive.

So, we're not even promoting uh a transitoriented city and we're also trying to promote multiple uh various uh lifestyles or uh housing solutions and not all of those housing solutions actually accommodate for cars. So, if we want to have a more diverse community, we should have more diverse um modes of transit. So, I think that should be reflected in this report. I think the biggest thing I thought um but um was the amount of pedestrian and um bicycle accidents or collisions that occur in the in the um area and that was a little bit higher that is reported. Um so once again that aligns with sidewalks and I think we should even encourage the conversation of having a a bike lane. Um other towns are starting to include bike lanes within their their scheme and um we're severely lacking on that. So there's not really an appropriate space for um cyclists to even, you know, integrate with vehicular traffic in a in an effective way. So I think that's those are the things that stuck out to me the most. Um cuz we talked about it, but this obviously goes a lot more in depth about things that I don't think we truly considered. So um I'll leave it there.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, [clears throat] Commissioner O'Brien.

Yes, I I did have the opportunity to mark it up a little bit. Um, I do agree that the ball has been moved um down the field, but I think we're we're not quite there yet. Um, one of the issu issues I have with the pages that I read is that it's the commission's plan and it has a voice um of talking to the commission and sort of pointing the finger at the commission as to what we should be doing. And I just um I had to number the pages because there was no numbers on the pages. So the the chapter um three page seven the word should occurs on that page 13 times

and and and the following page uh page eight it appears seven more times.

So in in two pages the word should appears 20 times. So are we saying are we saying to ourselves that we should be doing something? If we agree that those things should be done the word should again then it should say a goal of this plan is you know I I don't like the sense that somebody else is pointing their finger at us and telling us what we ought to be doing. Uh so but every single chapter is like should be this and should be that and should be something else and we should be doing it. So that's my general comment on on um on chapter three and it goes all the way along if you page nine there's another five shoulds um and page 10 there's another five shoulds. So if we can get if we can put it in an active voice of the commission that would be very helpful. Um and on the housing chapter um the first paragraph at the end it says that strategy two focuses entirely on the need for senior houses housing in the community. I was confused by that because there is a lot more need in the community than senior housing. So I don't know if the word entirely is accurate there. And then the the the last sentence before diversity talks about allowing seniors to remain in their communities. I don't know if that means neighborhoods or the community, but it either should

be the community or their neighborhood. Uh, other than that, it's would be someplace else besides Bloomfield. [snorts] Um, and some of this is cut and paste. And when it was cut and paste, the fonts are different. So on chapter uh four, page three, um the font completely changes to italics. So we ought to have a standard font throughout. [snorts] Uh page four, um it has one, two, three, four, five, six, seven shoulds. Again, uh the zoning regulations should uh support services should uh lower density multifamily options should if [clears throat] if we want those things then they should be a goal of the plan and not say that somebody else should do them. Um again, uh page six, it says the town should pay special consideration to any homeless populations. Um I I think I've made my point on that. Um and then on on page seven it talks about recommendations from another document are carried forward in this document. Where where are they carried forward? We ought to say um on chapter five I would point to that

display over there in the corner what has that has signar and it has Cayman. Um and I would suggest that this first paragraph ought to include signar and Cayman and that sort of thing. um because it sort of highlights the conversion of a former appliance store on Cottage Grove Road to a healthc care facility as a big economic development win and I think we have a lot more wins to talk about than that. Um again on the top of page uh two or three we ought to include the sign complex and the square footage of that um blow our own horn a little bit more. Um the first it the first sentence of the economic development it starts with various elements contribute to Bloomfield's economic well-being. It's kind of weak. We don't know what those various elements are. Um, and then on page four, it says the Bloomfield Center zoning district is currently rather restricted and it calls for not having public hearings on items in the town center. I don't think we want to eliminate the requirement for public hearings on substantial developments in the town center. So I would not support that. Um certainly we can streamline zoning but I don't think we want to eliminate the requirement. And then on page six again seven examples of it says should. So, I don't know who wrote this,

but I didn't like the word should. I think you understand that. Uh, chapter six on mobility. I don't really have much to say on that chapter. Um, I do think that the inclusion of a lot of these things like the traffic calming manual was very good. And I think those manuals should be listed in an appendix to the plan and indicate where they can be found. Like if a member of the public or an or developer wants to look at that traffic common manual, where would they find it? or or it be listed on the on the planning or building department's uh website. Um andam and and also with the complete streets. I thought that was a real real positive win to put that in there. I would just say where do we find it? Uh chapter seven and I'm moving right along. [snorts] Um it talks about um And this [clears throat] is a comment I know I made in August, but this this document says that the Pros Library was built in 1964 and is 60 years old. I don't think so. If you look outside, there's a brand new building. So, that really needs to be changed. Um, I was delighted to see the call for the paper records of the of the building department being digitized. I think that ought to be a high priority. Um, it also talks about Bloomfield High School being built in 1956. It was dramatically renovated. What year was it, Byron?

Probably about 10 years ago, maybe.

Yeah. And so to to let the public think that our that our high school and the town was built in 1956, and I know I made that comment in August and it's still there. The other thing is uh on capital budgeting the um state statutes uh provide a role for the planning and zoning commission in capital budgeting. There's no mention of it here. Um so uh that I just point that out. Then we go to the goals section. Uh the little pages we had all those [clears throat] little goals. if I can just find them. Um, there was a a couple of things. One thing was the AC the document we have in front of us said there are basically three farms in town. There's our farm um and there's the um the uh Wade's farm and one other and I don't know where that is. So it says there's three farms. Then it said we should uh the the commission should consider agra a agriculture um and um there was a proposal for that that came before this commission and they voted it down. So I don't know what's changed why that should be a goal in there. It was a cause of considerable community uproar in a neighborhood that I happen to live in. um with um loud noises loud noises

reverberating off of the mountains into the neighborhood. So, I'm not sure that that's something that we should say that we were interested in particularly and it only affects three properties all of which are heavily surrounded by residential um and the proposal at our farm was opposed by the 60 60 houses in the ihill development and was appro opposed by the um um by the condo development on the other side. Um, which I'm blanking on the name, but Valre. So, I'm not sure that that's a goal that should be in there uh at this time. Um, the other thing that I'm concerned about is it says that that this commission fully endorses the town center plan. The town center plan and I have it is about this thick. There are a lot of things in that plan that we have a statutory responsibility to review and we are required to review it um at the public hearing. And so I don't know that we want to fully fully endorse everything that's in the plan without having something in front of us. One thing that particularly bothers me, um, and I've talked to several members of this commission who had no knowledge of this proposal, but if you look at the town center plan, I don't know how many residents of the town are aware, the plan calls for the closure of

Winstonberry. Uh, it doesn't come through all the way to Tungstus. It's a culde-sac. And so all the traffic that would come down Wintonberry and go up Tungsten will now have to go through the center of town. Well, I'm not sure that that's a good idea. I'm not sure that I want to be sitting at that light any longer than that light now currently is the longest light anywhere in this area to sit there. So without a traffic study, I don't think that's a good idea. It also calls for the relocation of Jerome Avenue. Um well, this commission would have to look at see all those things. So, do we want to endorse a statement in our plan that says we're fully supportive of this? I don't think it's a good idea. Uh and um

Mr. Commissioner, if I could just interrupt for a second, this commission is on record as endorsing the town center plan as adopted by the council.

Yeah, endorsing it. And I was at that meeting, but you can endorse the plan and you can endorse the goals of the plan. This thing said doesn't say we endorse the plan. It says we fully support. Now, what is the word fully in there for? You can endorse a plan. And every plan is subject to change, modification, conditions. So to me, um, somebody snuck that in there to, so then when anything comes back, we're stuck with, well, in the plan of conservation and development, it says you fully support it.

I don't want to get argumentative, but nothing was snuck into [clears throat] these documents. Well, I mean, I'm sorry, but why does it say fully endorsed? I've never seen that in my 50 years in this profession. I've never seen that.

It's just language we used. You object to that. We understand that. We will re re-review that. So I would suggest that we need to add to the plan a under traffic that a traffic study needs to be done. An appropriate traffic study needs to be done on any change of traffic patterns, closures of streets or creation of new streets involving 250 or more cars. a day, then we will have the appropriate information in front of us to make an informed and intelligent decision, which is what the voters of this town elected us to do. Those are my comments.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner James.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm always impressed by Commissioner O'Brien, and he's a tough act to follow. Um, but I will do my best to, you know, bring the bar back down for us down on this end of the table. Um, but and I appreciated the updates. Um, I I'll reserve my comments tonight for um, chapters six and seven. Um, but I'll share some if on the other chapters as well by email. Um, it's no surprise I'm very passionate about housing. So, the housing section or chapters four and five, excuse me. So, the housing section is um where I put a lot of my attention. And I'd say I I appreciated Commissioner O'Brien's comments about just the tone of the PCD. It doesn't seem to like the should does appear a lot throughout um the document. So, um it doesn't feel like some of this is as pressing as I think the discussions we've had and like just the work we've done have actually been. So, um having a a more direct uh an active tone I think will help a lot in this. Um some of the um way it's phrased as well is like um you know there's a page residential zoning district. Most of Bloomfield is zoned for residential development. Um or it's like Bloomfield has a good supply of residents that are traditionally served as starter homes. Um in certain areas I think like especially for things like that, we should put the percentages like what percent of Bloomfield is zoned for residential development. Um how much of the supply of residences are starter homes? Um, and then I think we're available. Uh, I realize we've done a lot of work on this and I don't want to make it too cumbersome, but um, there

was a point on uh, like permit applications. Um, and it was saying that Bloomfield has seen steady permitting levels for single unit structures over the latter part of the last decade. Um, I could kind of like to quantify that a bit as well to say, you know, how many of those permits have we seen in the in the past decade? Um, and then um I think also like I'm just a data and person that's looking for things to be quantified on in the multif family housing. Again, Bloomfield has a moderate share of two family and multif family housing. Like what's the percentage that is? And then I think it would be helpful to have some visual of like what is our distribution of single family. It does say in here single family is 65% of residential units. Um but so what percentage of single family, two family, um three plus and then I don't know how much the apartment buildings you would want to categorize but um just showing that distribution because having a strategy to increase multif family um to include regarding multif family and low uh or just multif family housing I think we need to like specifically call out what it what that is because um there are a lot of bu apartment buildings there are a lot of single family but I think it's that missing middle is that Bloomfield doesn't have a a a large share of. Um and then just for overall strategies within the housing section, um I do believe that strategy one and strategy 4 conflict. Um where we're saying consider removing or just implementing like some of the things from the affordable housing plan. I mean 1.2 Two is consider removing the increased lot size provision provision for two family dwellings and allow two family dwellings on lots that meet the minimum lot size for zoning district provided on-site parking so on and so

forth. But then um in strategy number four um it's to support the diversification of the town's housing stock without adversely impacting single family neighborhoods by providing adequate zoning controls. And I guess I just read that as like um you know, you want more multif family or like to make it easier for multif family, but then also like don't make it worse for single family. But I don't I think once we hear um applications come forward and things like that do come up, opportunities like that do come up. It's a character thing, a character argument that is made. And I think strategy 4 is, you know, calling for preserving a character, but then I just think it's at odds with strategy one. So I think we do need to clarify what's our position on that. Um, and then just for the mobility section um for uh like opportunities to move like pedestrian and bik bicycle safety. Um, I know we can't do everything we do based on one accident, but there was a a very dangerous accident recently in town with involving a pedestrian. Um, and it's not an anomaly that we haven't seen in our district in our area, Harford, West Harford um, across the Harford County of pedestrian safety um, being at risk or bic bicyclist safety being at risk. So, I think it's important that we have a more active tone in that too. um really taking a stronger position just for the safety of our um communities that you know we're not just putting making a traffic calming plan but we're doing something with it. What's like an active strategy to make our streets safer? Um and then I also think we should call out some of the efforts that are going on with the routes. I mean, I know there's a lot of potential like different conversations about routes like um down uh is it Toby behind there? What to do on the Griffin line or even I there is something in here about

connecting the East Coast Greenway. But I think I calling those things out um specifically in the plan would be um advantageous just to because there is so much work that is being done there too that we should um put it in the plan as well. Uh those are my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Medwiner,

thank you. Um, thanks to all the commissioners for their comments. Um, I appreciated it, especially since I am late to the game and um, so I was hoping to hear their feedback before I give mine because my overall feeling reading um, chapters 3 through 8 was that of vagueness. Um, I wasn't sure after reading it and going through, I wasn't sure what the intent of this plan was. It did not come across as a plan. I loved the historic data that was presented as in what is currently there. However, um if all of us should disappear and someone pick up this plan, I don't know if they would know what our intent is, what is it we hope to achieve. There was nothing concrete. There was nothing specific. Our our goals were vague. The strategies were vague. They were left open to interpretation. Um, we mentioned things like multigenerational housing. I don't know what that means. Um, we have chapter 7, for example, had no call well in my I didn't seem to find a call to action in chapter 7. Um, so I wasn't sure what was the I wasn't sure what was the point of chapter 7. Like what was the game plan? What was it? If I'm looking at this for guidance, if we're going to create this document as a working document that we're going to use to guide um approvals or regulations, what is it that this this document doesn't guide me in any way, shape, or form in terms of there's a lot of good information in there, but there's nothing specific in

there like you could do this how, when, why, there's nothing concrete. there was it was just very very vague for me. Um so I wasn't sure. Um I I I assumed then that was because I wasn't very familiar with all the prior um review of the document and that's why I just felt like it was so vague. But I couldn't I I'm hoping that this is not the final product that we move forward with because there was nothing in it that I could bite on to. Um I I don't think it is in our best interest to make um statements that are not clear. um our housing plan we want to increase housing stock by when by how much what percentage we have for example we say the percentage of um how many households are there and we want to increase this by how much that's not stated we want to do this by when I mean t typically when we talk of goals I think I remember from maybe from high school was it high school we learned about smart

okay

specific measurable and I'm like okay there's nothing specific here and and that was my trouble overall. So I don't know I don't want to be critical if this is what we intend to work with. I just didn't feel like this is a document that was a living document that could be worked. It was very vague overall. Chapter 7 was just hanging there. It just ended. It just ended with um Chapter 7 said the town has several storm water drainage improvement and flood mitigation projects planned, in design, underway, and recently completed. These include, and it lists a number of streets, and I'm like, um, are these already where did these fall? Are some of these? And I and I just jumped that one jumped out at me because I actually live on Newport Drive and I know they had done some work. Um, is this saying that there's more work to be done cuz our flooding hasn't changed. We still flood it. Is this saying that it's going to be mitigated? Is this saying that it has already already been mitigated? It's just very vague. I'm sorry I'm the last one, but that was my feeling on it. It was overall the document. Um, for a planning a a a planning and zoning commission, I would really I really feel like we should really consider whether this is the document we'd like to work with.

Mr. Hey, thank you. [clears throat] Yes, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, I I would agree with that. I think what the problem was commissioner is that in the in the document we had originally these these items followed each chapter. So after you got the verbiage then you would go to these these pages which which had the the the action items. Oh, I think the problem the problem I have with the action items

is again it's the tone where it's somebody else saying what the planning and zoning commission should do. There are several action items on here that have other entities one as other entities streamlining the permitting process. Well, funding process can't be streamlined without the planning and zoning commission's input. And yet, we're not listed as anybody that's doing it is listed as somebody else. So when we get this thing back again, I think we need to go through here and see who's been assigned these tasks and whether we agree that some of these tasks are appropriate when they uh but the the other thing about the document is that there's nothing in the document that talks about equitable enforcement of our zoning regulations. There's

nothing that talks about enforcement of our regulations at all.

The only thing that talks about in here is how to um how to eliminate public hearings and how to allow staff sign offs that throughout we ought to just have a staff sign off, no public hearings, blah blah blah. Uh so it's obviously whoever wrote it doesn't have an understanding of the role of zoning and zoning is needs to be equitable and fair and we have to have equitable and fair enforcement. There's nothing in here about it all not mentioned once. So I have a problem with that with that part of it. I understand.

Second thing is I don't know what's happening on future land use. Jonathan says, "Well, we're going to get the maps next time." I prepared uh four pages of verbiage to go with the maps because the verbiage in the original was absolutely flatout wrong. And I don't know where that is. And I hope we don't know at this point. We've reviewed the the land use map which is a critical component of the plan and the verbiage that was in the draft said it was sort of like an advisory thing over in the corner. No, it's in a in a it's an integral part of the plan. I prepared this. I gave it to the staff. I don't know what ever happened to it, but I'm going to give it out to everybody tonight so you can read it. Um, we don't know on the land use map. We all made comments on it. We talked about particular parcels. We talked about changing what was put forward in the original draft. Where is that? What are we going to have? Do we know where the decisions been made? Nothing's happening. And then finally, this is a substantial change. You can't rewrite nine chapters and then say that the public approval process you used a year and a half ago is still valid. It's not valid. You got to start and go back to the council of governments the whole process. You can't simply say we're going to adopt something that we've made wholesale changes on. This was started three years ago. We've hired a consultant twice to rewrite it. So, there's three re there's been the original and two rewrites

and then we're going to say, "Oh, well, it's okay. What you commented on three years ago, we're going to adopt." No,

I understand your comment, but when I said it was vague, for example, if we look at Sorry. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um when I said it was vague. For example, the housing goal number three says maintain the unique character of the town center while accommodating density through thoughtful urban planning [clears throat] design standards and preservations. I don't know what maintaining the unique character of the town means. Um it's it's not that that's not for a for a commission. That's very vague language that could be interpreted. I couldn't agree with you more and I circled about five or six sentences in this document I got tonight that we reviewed tonight that I don't understand whoever wrote the king's English. I don't know what it says.

I understand that part. I was just I mean really I don't it it has a sentence that says this is the goal. I don't know what that sentence means. I just wanted hope that it could be tighter that there's no room for misinterpretation as to what the plan the goal of the plan is and so that when we are when it is being carried out it can be carried out in relation to the plan because the plan is a I couldn't agree with you more this is not a plan. Oh, thank you.

Um, at the last meeting I was not here, so when this information was disseminated, I never got it. And Linda, can you get me a copy of this because I I still don't have this. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. So, I'll have to reserve my comments um for a little bit later when I have a chance to actually go through it. But I do want to thank the commissioners for some very good comments, good feedback, and hopefully staff is capturing this and we can further discuss it. Okay, with that said, is there any more discussion regarding the PLCD? Any anything else commissioners like to say before we move on to the next item? Okay, with that said, I'll ask the secretary if she would uh read I believe we're on item D.

Yeah, we doing Oh, I'm sorry. C. Um C. Solar. Yeah. proposed new sections for solar regulations. Hey, thank you. Jonathan, anything you want to say before we get started? See, did you say no? I have no comments.

Okay. All right. On this one, we'll start. Uh, Commissioner Medweather, any comments regarding the solar section?

Um, regarding the the solar regulations. Yes. Um, there is a bit of the same theme here as in the POC. not to um where we have the sorry um for example in the ground mounted solar um in the in the various different ones I think only one stated that as um in all roof mounted solar permitted on roof on the roofs of principal and accessory buildings in all zones. The other um ground mounted small, ground mounted large and parking lot did not state whether those were restricted to any zones which but could equally be um assumed that they could be in any zone just in all zones as well. I was concerned as to whether there was any clarification as to whether there were any zoning restrictions. Were were they being restricted to any particular zone? Um especially with regards to the large scale ground mounted solar for large scales. I mean I don't know if I'd want that just in the backyard. Um that was not restricted to anywhere. that those that was my biggest comment in terms of are there any restrictions for where the large especially the large scale ground mounted solar could be installed. Um the regulation only stated um that roof mounted could be done in any zone. That's all the comments I have with her.

Okay. Thank you uh Commissioner James.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I know it's not um popular to admit, but I um this is like reading another language almost for me. Uh, I would really feel like a presentation or, you know, a walk through of what we're proposing would be helpful for me to before I comment on uh on proposed regulations. Um, I don't think we've had any discussion on just different options or um, [snorts] kind of what are we being faced with for me to make an educated decision decision or anything?

Yeah, thank you. I apologize uh, Commissioners Linda Lauriano for the record. Um we do have uh Nick uh Gabusta who's our um newest uh member in in our land use division is here to speak on this because he really did uh you know uh spearheaded a lot of uh the regulations here and worked with CEC and um various other you know members on this but he's here to speak on that. I would advise um well I would love him to come up and give just a quick brief presentation um and then that way uh it would probably answer some of your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, please just state your name and where you work I guess and address. Sounds good. [sighs and gasps]

Hi everybody. Uh hold excuse me before you go. Commissioner Goff. Uh yeah, actually um you know I appreciate I guess we didn't have a presentation on this to begin with. Um, and I think that would be helpful obviously. Uh, but since we've started down the um since we've started down the path of getting commissioner comments on the proposed regulations, um, you know, I I would sort of like to suggest we at least go down the row and then, you know, potentially when Nick uh uh addresses this and sort of talks about it, he can address things that have, you know, have come up. Um, that's just my suggestion, but I I will defer to what the chair wishes to do, obviously. Thank you.

Yeah, I I think Commissioner James and maybe a couple other commissioners also feel that it may be helpful for them uh to better understand if they could at least get some sort of um overview on this solar. So, we're going to let him give us a presentation and then we'll start doing some comments. permission to speak. Okay, forgive me. This is my very first TPZ meeting. I'm still getting used to the decorum. I did have a presentation that I intended to give before the comments started. Again, I apologize for uh not raising my hand. I'm not quite sure how this all works yet.

But before you go, can you just state your name and uh for the record?

Good evening for all those who I haven't met yet. My name is Nick Deosto. I'm the environmental planner for the town of Bloomfield. I work in the land use department under my director John Coleman. This is director Linda Lauraniano. Without further ado, uh I I prepared some words to give a overall introduction to what is being proposed as well as the history of solar regulations in Bloomfield. Um I will refer to these regulations as solar regulations moving forward uh just so there's no confusion. And again without further ado, there are multiple reasons why I have been tasked with these regulations. Uh energy demands have continued to increase every year in the United States. At the same time, a majority of energy produced in this country comes from non-renewable resources. Uh these non-renewable resources produce emissions that fuel the looming crisis and current crisis posed by climate change. Renewable energy is a vital component of combat combating climate change and as photovotayic technology that is solar technology continues to become more efficient and cheaper solar has emerged as an important way to reach renewable energy needs and goals. On that note, there is continued interest in Bloomfield and beyond about incorporation of solar projects uh throughout lands in the United States and beyond. Uh next slide please. So why solar regulations? Um, a few uh notes on goals that many of you are probably familiar with. Uh, the state of Connecticut has a goal of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. As I'm sure many of you are aware as well, the town of Bloomfield passed a climate emergency resolution in 2021 to quote, "Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption in town offices, transportation fleets, and the wider community with the goal of an end to greenhouse gas emissions by December 31st, 2030." Now, of course, not all energy produced by a solar field or

solar device in Bloomfield would go to the town. However, it's still an important part to consider those metrics. I'm ready for the next slide, please. Oh, actually, could you please go back one slide? I apologize. I forgot one important point, which is that uh to my knowledge, solar regulations were first introduced in this town in 2020. These have been uh picked up and put down so to speak for about six years for various reasons from what I understand. However, it has been a goal of land use staff to delineate how the town wants to review and implement solar under one megawatt. Next slide, please. How are they created? The first draft of these uh regulations were created by reviewing scientific literature. I reviewed news stories about how communities in Connecticut and uh southern New England generally speaking have reacted to the implementation of solar in their communities. Um I reviewed existing solar regulations in Connecticut and Massachusetts. I reviewed our POC uh mainly the one the draft from 2025 2026 because it still contained the most up-to-date information but also the current one from 2012 I think. Um, I also reviewed our existing zoning regulations, not the ones directly related to solar because at this time there is zero mention of the word solar in all regulations. My point again being I think we need something. Lastly, I was informed in part by discussions around solar topics at CEC meetings, but to be clear, these regulations themselves were not explicitly discussed yet. That feedback period is to come now or very near in the future in March. So based on conversations around solar projects, proposed projects that's also been informed by these regulations. Uh next slide please. So broadly speaking, uh I can also explain the types of solar implementation here as well. Broad points, rooftop solar is allowed as of right in these regulations. If you also

look around town, many rooftops in town currently have solar. Uh currently the way solar on roofs is dealt with uh it's mainly through building which is a department adjacent to ours and land use. Uh but the building permitting requirements are usually what dictate solar rooftops. I'm not really proposing or my staff is not proposing anything too different from what's happening now. In that respect, the uh the matter that is more probably up for discussion at this point uh is how I or we have defined other types of solar developments uh as small scale, large scale and carport. Um the definitions are provided in the first page of these regulations. Um essentially it's kind of like as it seems a small scale will be a ground mounted system uh which is of a smaller variety. they are less than 250 kilowatts. Uh to understand to wrap your head around that 250 kilowatts is would approximately cover one acre of land. So small scale is 1 acre or less generally speaking. Large scale is 250 between 250 kilowatts and 99.9 kilowatts. I say that because it's any anything beyond one megawatt um would be actually a sighting council issue. I think I said 999.9. There we go. Anyway, uh carport kind of what it sounds, sorry, carport is kind of what it sounds like. Uh an example of these if you if you drive near Seabberry, they have carport solar panels. It's those kinds of um setups. Uh and lastly, in addition to defining these ground mounted systems and roof mounted systems, the very important part of these regulations is to consider the past and present environmental and community impacts. So I want to emphasize this is very important to our department and I want to get it right through the feedback period. Next please. So yeah moving forward to be clear this is a draft. It's a starting point. Um this is uh the case by case

basis which I which we determined we could place to start is based off the fact that it seems like there are many sites throughout zones that could be quote unquote ideal locations for solar based on their existing environment their ecology where they are in the community. However, again up for discussion because the final direction for the town is by the people of Bloomfield. What I think is important is that we have a direction so we can you know move forward tell folks you know this is how the town thinks about solar so for when people want to do projects residential or otherwise we can give a direction that's my broad overview hope that was helpful I'll be up here to answer any questions

okay thank you um for this time we'll start with G any questions or comments regarding the solar Yeah. Um, actually I I I I'm glad uh Mr. Gabusta sort of indicated this is a starting point. I think that um well, first of all, I guess I think that the the categories he's tried to break this into make a lot of sense. Um I think the biggest issue is with the large scale ground mounted arrays. Um the small scale arrays are put as an accessory use and I think that makes a lot of sense even in residential areas as long as it has the proper buffering and uh you know some some requirements probably around that. I I know one of the questions that came back either from one or two of the people that commented um on the draft submitted to CEC were exactly how the bulk requirements fit into all of this. And I think you know that that that probably ties in uh it may be enough but I'd like to see how that worked out. Uh carports obviously are very specific uh entity and exist at very few few points in town. Seab very being one of them. Although I think as a as something that would be a um direction where solar would be appropriate is urging more uh more entities that can do carport like things to do them. For example, um some of you may remember that in the 2016 plan for the new Proster Library, uh the bridge over the, you know, bridge connecting the former Riley, you know, now the parking, the former Riley

lumber, uh that bridge was a it was enclosed with a roof and was planned to be solar. Um so I think those are all good. Um my major problem overall with the draft as it stands uh is the same one that uh Commissioner Meditterer uh commented on uh we have at this point in time use based zoning and I do not believe you know largescale solar arrays are essentially commercial or industrial enterprises. So I don't believe they are appropriate in residential zones. Uh, I think we need to specify which zones they would be appropriate to. I certainly think right now those zones would be appropriate. I think one of the things I would like to pursue at a future planning meeting, one of the things I want to see us work on is an agricultural zone. And I know Commissioner O'Brien made some comments about agurism. You can't have agurism until you have agriculture. And uh so I think you know I think an agricultural zone would be an appropriate place to potentially have that as a special permitted use or maybe even perhaps a use by right with certain conditions. Um, but I think, you know, my major my major initial issue with these regulations is that I think all of the pieces should be allowed in specific zones with the exception maybe the carports because I think carports by themselves, the carport type entity is only going to exist in those zones. Um, the that's that's my major major comment. The other comment um well two other comments um there's a section in there about maintenance of these arrays and when it starts talking about maintenance it talks about mowing it talks about rodent control and you know

wherever these are especially they you know they may attract that um you know I'm concerned that we don't have some parameters around that we clearly don't want to allow a large solar array require rodent control and end up getting massive amounts of roticide and killing you know numerous birds and things that prey on them etc. Um or they prey on you know whatever. Uh so I think that you know that needs some clarification. Um I think this is a good starting point. I would certainly you know I certainly think the other thing that we've heard in terms of solar is there are only certain points in the town where it makes sense because of the utility connection. So there should also potentially be some kind of overlay zone that would allow it in these zones in these locations that be that are you know in locations that have these certain characteristics. So that could narrow it more and you know I haven't even seen that map. Um I would be interested to see that map. Um those are my initial comments. Um I think that you know some of the um more subject matter experts on CEC and uh some of our other uh bodies uh will probably have a lot more incisive in input. Uh but from a zoning point of view um I just don't accept the fact that people can put in a 999.9 uh uh uh watt array and you know in a residential zone. I don't think that makes any sense. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Mlette,

I'll echo some of the the comments on the maybe the restrictions on the the large scale arrays. Um, you know, keeping maybe having a little more flexibility with the the small scale. to the the 250 or I'm not sure what the cuto off would be but I'm sure there's some industry standards on what uh where the large and small are. Um thank you for your presentation. Um it was helpful. I very much appreciate you including the decommission plan. Um I know that has come up with some other energy project projects. Um, and I know typically you only think of those things for a nuclear plant, but um, I think it's important for um, a lot of these because they do have a lifespan. Um, and I it might have alluded to it in here or one of the other documents. Um, but sometimes it might be, you know, can that land be reclaimed, especially if it's a, you know, u maybe that the land has been used or polluted, but it's it's good for solar, but maybe over time it can um, you know, be reclaimed. So, I I do appreciate you including that. And then we probably do where it is near residential or or close to probably um more specifics on on buffering and whether or not we have fencing. I can tell you, you know, we've brought up the Seabberry uh installation a couple times. Um there there was a a lot of discussion uh when that went in about screening um from some of the former commissioners. I think it took a long time for that screening to mature. Um, and probably not quite I think we all

thought it could probably be a little better, but um, of course we did support it. It was built. Um, so something to learn from, uh, what has successfully been been installed, but maybe make it better. Okay.

Thank you, U, Commissioner Peters. All right. So, um also glad that uh a decommissioning plan was included. Uh I think my question or thoughts that I should probably be in consideration or awarded within this document is the general life [snorts] cycle or of this just like commissioner um just mentioned of a these um solar panels. I think that would give consideration to the turnaround for this. Um um I think I think one of my concerns with the commit decommissioning plan would be I know it says large scale grounds but uh what happens I guess what happens when if and when that lot is sold to a different company do they now inherit that decommissioning plan or how is that transferred amongst those two? um cuz I feel [clears throat] like that's going to fall through the cracks if that ever occurs. Uh I think one thing that I wrote down was um battery storage cuz this is also written in a way where the solar power is just generating the energy and that's it. But I know some companies or organizations um might consider storing their their power for emergency use. So, how how do we maintain that or how do we regulate where those um structures or underground facilities are are included or stored or things like that? uh roof. I think that would I think that would still apply to uh smaller units as well like uh residential cuz right now most most um structures are just just to support their daily usage but not for not for after sun is gone. Uh what else

was I going to say? I think you already did the the height was set for every square every foot of um Oh, okay. Never mind. Yeah, I think 15 ft sounds appropriate. Is there I don't know. Is there a reason why it would be higher than 15 foot like a structure would be like because I was going through and looking at the heights of typical um cars and and it seems like even like um a U-Haul would be would fall respectively under 15 ft. So, is there any reason why we would I'm I'm glad it's there, but is there any reason why we would assume a structure would be like a car would be parking under these structures that would exceed that clearance. I mean, that's just my only real thought about it. I didn't I don't part of me doesn't want to promote something that's just going to be um offensively high. I don't think the one at C is um terrible. I looked at the it looks like that meets the 15 foot um height restriction that you're proposing. So I think that's good. And just to also echo u Commissioner Medwinter's um comments, I do think the ground mounted uh solar panels definitely should be restricted by particular zones. Um cuz I could see that going a little haywire if there's no actual consideration to where those are placed cuz right now I mean technically that could just that could fall into a residential neighborhood or something like that. So I think I think um we should give more consideration to that. I think that would be all the things that popped up to me.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah. Does the town is the town currently working with any vendors on solar? Uh when you say working, do you mean how do you mean working with them? Well, I had a gentleman knock on ring my door, ring my bell and knock on my door last night at 7:30 saying that he was working with the town of Bloomfield to uh on a solar energy program and he identified himself as from Sun Systems. So, um, is this a is this a scam? Um, I have never heard of that. I'm looking at my directors, too, and they also seem

Yeah. Well, first of all, it was dark, and I didn't was kind of odd that somebody was going around ringing doorbells at dark. It's not a scam, per se. It's just their marketing argument that they use. So, they either tell you they're coming to evaluate your electric bill um with they're working with Eversource. They'll just use anything to get you. No, they said they were working with the town of Bloomfield, right? So, they use it's it's Oh, they should be reported to the police department.

What I [laughter] what I might add is um I assume they came to your house about maybe like installing solar on your roof or on your property. Maybe maybe they were saying this is just a hypothetical, you know, they might say they work with the town because they're contractors who have filed permits and our department and for the for the building. So, they're we're not they're not contracted by the town. They could say they have worked with the That's all I could possibly think of. Otherwise, I have no idea. Yeah,

just um for awareness, um people soliciting and in Bloomfield doortodoor, they need a permit by the town. I I believe the police department is the one who issues those or the town managers. I can verify what uh department is responsible for that but there there is uh kind of like an application process I believe for that. So yeah it was just unusual because they don't but anyhow I I just want to verify they weren't certainly I don't have any comments on these other than why do we need them? Yeah. I mean if if you haven't had them up until now and it's 2026 and there are solar panels all over town. Why do we need them?

Sure. Is may I respond to that question? Okay. Once again, still getting used to things. Um, that's a great question and and almost the most important thing I do want to hammer home is that um uh as I mentioned earlier, solar regulations in town have been a question for about six years. They've gone unanswered. Um, as I mentioned, solar is becoming more and more used. More and more people are knocking on your door. Hopefully not that way, but more and more people are asking, you know, can this project happen? Does the town want this kind of project? And I think one way or another, whatever the town decides, something on paper should be a first step to give people an idea of how the town will react to this or if they don't want it at all. I just I think it's some way because the technology is becoming more and more prevalent, something on paper would be so helpful for that exact reason. Yeah, just identify yourself. Linda Linda

Lauran the record. I believe this also um advances the goals of the you know sustainable CT um with with regards to like certification that the town is trying to seek. Thank you. [clears throat]

I don't have any any further questions. I've administered solar regulations. Uh, and you know, when I was in the town of Enfield, they spent a year and a half deciding the array that they would allow on the roof and what the array was going to be and you have it this way in a square or could you have it over here and down here? Could you have it around the chimney and could you not have it around the chimney? To me, it was much to do about nothing. Most people don't want to put something on the roof that doesn't look nice. Mhm.

And they end up, you know, but they spent a whole year doing that. They finally adopted the regulations. They work fine. Um, nobody has an issue with them. Uh, we have to allow for for these things. I have four or five of my neighbors that have them that that are up. Nobody they don't bother anybody. Um, the only ones that bother anybody is uh the the revolving things in the in the backyards. People don't like those too much. The the the

the standing like if you come down u right at the um the intersection where those two duplexes were that we were talking about. Oh, yeah. Maple Avenue. Just you come the other way on Mountain Road. There's a house right there. as a standing solar thing that revolves in the yard. Those kinds of things do bother folks uh when they go up and they're not aware of them. Um that's my only comment. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner James.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um you know, I do think it's an interesting start. Um there's nothing in the regulations that's like jumping out to me as like a red flag. I guess I'm curious um would the [clears throat] exist would any of these regulations deter any of like the current I mean I I mean large scale or the groundmounted um large scale small scale I think yeah we it should come before zoning but if somebody wants to put solar on their roof are any of these regulations kind of making it harder to do that uh point of cl for is it more difficult for the roofs or for solar in general is your question

is it is it Or is it more difficult for residents to put solar on their homes like they do now? I see. Like, are we adding regulations that are making homeowners lives harder? Gotcha. Understood. Um, in short, no. Uh, what is currently in this proposed draft is

frankly almost like an unwritten rule at this point kind of generally speaking, like I said, there's no current rooftop regulation. It is currently mainly done through building permits and making sure they're up to building code. Um that is the from my the primary way that rooftop solar is is working right now. Um the one thing I will have to confirm uh so one thing I also didn't mention but it seems like people here might be aware is that any solar array over one megawatt becomes a sighting council project. Uh in theory there are some large buildings in Bloomfield that could have enough solar on their roofs in which case it would become more than one megawatt. That I am not sure of. That is not covered in these regulations. But then again, to your point about residents, you know, homeowners, apartments, that kind of thing. That probably wouldn't come up as an issue. But right now, nothing written here would really change the status quo, so to speak. It would just offer clarification to residents who maybe want to look up and say, "Can I do it?" And the answer currently is, and proposed again, is yes, pending building codes.

Great. Thank you for that. Um, and I actually had done No, go ahead. I had actually done um some quick Googling uh but I didn't I'm not really sure where innovation or technology will go in the next couple of years. And you know, it's funny you mentioned whatever that is. I I've never seen that. Um but I'm curious if these regulations make it so that you can't have solar that's not like in this regulation. Oh, sure.

Because it's not said in here, you can't do it. like hypothetical there's a floating solar like solar I actually have heard people you can put solar panels on floating bodies of water that's not covered here of course um yes I think in that case if it's not in the regulations it's not permitted um and therefore it would be caused to revisit them which I again would encourage I would encourage this to be an everchanging you know of course we get something on paper hopefully but as technology changes I think the regulations should be revisited that's my opinion personally. Well,

so based on what you you what's in the regulations in terms of small scale, most of anything less than 250 kilowatt could hypothetically fall under small scale.

Good news is regardless of what this regulation is or what is approved eventually um all solar when you're putting in solar you still need a permit. doesn't override the permitting process. So, that's still there. So, that still has to be approved. Um, I had a question for you in in terms of the draft. Were you looking for this commission to specify give the specifications in terms of um zonings um to spec for us to specify zoning restrictions? um property restrictions like when I say property I meant in terms of size. So yes less than 250 is considered um a small scale but that doesn't mean you can just put it anywhere

were you looking for us to give zoning guidance and um property and lot restrictions in terms of what size can you put on what lot. So if you have a half like if you're going to put in um 100 kilowatt it needs to be small scale it needs to be at least a half acre. I'm just using hypothetical. Were you looking for us for that looking to us for that guidance when you wrote this as your draft?

Uh in writing my draft uh to be broad. I really am interested in any and all feedback from the Bloomfield community. Zoning especially of course you know we work in that that area all the time. As far as your specific inquiry about size and placement in the regulation, uh it is mentioned uh or if it's not mentioned then it is to be implied that these regulations you can see I added comments here are to be in compliance with the bulk bulk requirements of the zone in which it would be which would be the first dictation of size of the array and also placement. So just for my own reference, I printed these out. Sorry I didn't get you all copies, but for example, in a in a residential an R30 zone, the building coverage, which in this case would be the coverage of the panels, is 20% of the lot. For a try and find I here real fast for an I2, it's 50% of the lot. So my the proposed regulations here would are suggesting that in terms of placement and size and this also includes a yard frontage and side and rear yard frontage or spacing rather it would look to the current zoning regulations in which the footprint of the solar would be equivalent to a building footprint. I I did see that you you mentioned accessory use in terms of it would fall into that but

so but in terms of with the zoning restrictions you were looking to us for that guidance especially in terms of large scale. Do you mean do you mean um which zones is permitted in rather? Yes. I'm interested in hearing from the commission as well as eventually feedback from all Bloomfield residents as well. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay, thanks for your presentation. Commission

um just um reiterating that um I hope the right I think the right I don't think the reg I I like the regulations. I think there's nothing again stands out but I don't want any to adopt anything that's going to make it harder for residents. And um Commissioner Ryan mentioned the structures that maybe people don't like. But if if if it does help um you know get to some of the goals environmentally that we're looking for and if it's a preference thing then I feel like maybe it's not the worst to not allow to to allow it. And I would defer to CEC. I do think that you know I I can comment on what I can but they're kind of living breathing these this type of stuff. Um and then also I do think that there was something in the regulations about um it's like you can't have any writing or advertising on it. Um the solar development may not develop display advertising except for manufacturer operator labeling and identification. And a part of me is like [laughter] I usually don't like to be too restrictive, but I do think that should be outlined to be a little bit more restrictive because I think even that allows a little bit of liberty in terms of if your logo is a huge red blinking sign with

glitter and this and that like you could say because that's our logo. It's allowed. But I thought the sign fel chicken sign. [laughter] Um, so just outlining a little bit more of that. Um, you know, Bloomfield, I mean, we we literally have a design review board that I think maybe even going to them and saying what would be, um, something reasonable for solars to be the the display to be certain. Thank you.

Hi, Linda Lauriano. For the record, I just wanted to add some comments on that. Um so uh the design review board uh specifically only focuses on currently the uh Bloomfield zone uh Bloomfield Center District. Um and um also uh these regulations also establishes them uh the solar small scale as accessory and then the large scale as primary use on a lot. And that's important for you to know uh because you'll be making that decision whether or not it would be permissible. Commissioner O'Brien.

Yeah, I think it was last month or the month before we had a gentleman here from the solar company who with respect to putting a large scale solar project on Seabberry in addition to what they have already and the concern of the commission at that time was that it backed up the residential and so forth. So I'm curious uh based upon what was presented a couple of months on anformational basis, what do these regulations do that they make that easier to get approved or harder to get approved? You can.

Sure, I can respond to that. So, as I mentioned, uh the intention behind this first draft was to propose because clear, you know, there's lots of different opinions on where solar how big solar was the case byase basis. In that sense, regardless of what zone that project would be in, they would need to get a special permit. And that special permit would be granted based off of environmental considerations, community considerations, aesthetic considerations. That was the intent by the language currently. So to your to answer your question for that specific project with these regulations proposed there'd be a path but not a guarantee by any means. There'd be several checkpoints in addition to getting permits from the IWWC in addition to bulk requirements in these regulations.

So these regulations are then written so that project can come forward. That's not the case. The case was currently to to Well, you were familiar and you said it would provide a path for that project. It would, but it that's not for this project. That's what I asked earlier when I said why are we doing this

projects and contractors continue to ask uh if these things are feasible and we have to say that there's currently nothing in particular regulations that tell us what we know they have to do is go to the IWWC. We know that we know they have to comply with other bulk requirements. One way or another, our staff would like something in here. I think that is what I'm trying to and what the commission decides is what the commission decides. We're here to offer expertise. However, the only other thing which my assistant director hinted at is currently there are solar ground mounted arrays in town as accessory uses. The one that was proposed that you're talking about would be a principal use. The town to my knowledge does not have a principal use array. And that's a question is does the town want that? And that's what I'm hoping to answer with feedback from you all.

Correct. And just to add to that um you know the way that it was it's being proposed tonight to you uh for your you know just review and uh obviously edits if you wish um it is being proposed in residential zones as primary use through a special permit process. There are some requirements under that. And you know if again case by case there there could be uh you know if should you consider that you know uh these proposal for primary use on certain residential district or zones are permitted. uh restrictions or conditions of approval of you know uh adding added buffers in addition to the you know buffer requirements already. Um that's just you know an avenue or a way should you permit uh solars in as a primary use on a residential lot. If I could chime in um in response to that question, in my opinion, there are two issues driving the development of these regulations. One is that the uh conservation and energy committee have long um desired uh to have um solar regulations in place because they believe solar is an appropriate um energy um resource. uh in the community and solar is not other than rooftop and is not really permitted and they wanted it and so they have requested and and we think it's responsible to respond to them and obviously they can't pass these kinds of regulations. you do. And secondly, yes, there have been and are um solar array developers who have

approached the town about uh installing such in the community and right now they are not permitted and um they have asked um and we have responded to other uses that are not permitted. Um [snorts] so we are developing these not for anyone specific uh but in response to general requests to have them and most particularly from the conservation and energy committees request to have these types of regulations in place. Obviously the decision rests with you. Uh but those in my opinion are the two driving um reasons to present them to you to start the process. you obviously have the um the authority and the deci if you decide that they're not appropriate and you don't want them, that's your um that's your right.

Uh I'm going to make a quick comment and then I'll get to you, Commissioner Goff. I personally we we put solar on our our house about three years ago and we actually love it. Um, this afternoon I I think I read an email that came across from maybe Val making a recommendation regarding zoning districts. And I think part of her email was recommending I believe it might have been West Hartford that was doing solar and uh districts um industrial and commercial. Um and it kind of sounded reasonable for Bloomfield to look at something like that. But in addition to that, I wanted to know could there be like a special permit in the event that say for instance over there where Wheeler is um I'm not sure if that's residential.

Mhm. It is. It is. So if that if a project like that was to move forward Mhm. and if we had adopted regulations for industrial and only commercial that we could have a special permit that would allow certain circumstances such as something like that um to move forward.

Yes, that is along the lines of what I was initially proposing. I I agree in that um it would be subject to scrutiny and I would imagine quite a bit and but that scrutiny would be very valuable to ensure that environmental impacts are mitigated and that it is something that will not negatively impact the community in terms of aesthetics in terms of uh just yeah the community not wanting that certain type of thing in their where they live or where they work or where they where they come by. Yes, I would agree with that proposal. Would be something that I think would be worth looking into. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Goff.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, actually, uh, yeah, you referred to the, uh, the email, the comments we got from Valerie Rosetti. Um, I I I actually I I agree with the chair in terms of, you know, large scale solar arrays are commercial enterprises. I think that we should restrict them to commercial and industrial zones at this point. Um I do not like opening the Pandora's box of oh but you could but we have this one residential property that we could put it on because we can get a special permit etc. Um I think what we need to do is if there are potential sites in town that would qualify they need to be zoned appropriately. Uh, one of the things that I think has been suggested a number of times is that agricultural property, something zoned agricultural could have as a principle or a, you know, some kind of use, you know, as an allowable use, uh, the large-scale solar under certain conditions. in particular making sure that the um soil quality was such that it could be restored to farm that it either was enhanced or would and could be restored to farming in the decommissioning uh stage. So, um, you know, I think, you know, I I I I very strongly think that we should not try to manipulate our zoning regulations for specific properties that someone may or may not want to do something on. I think we should try to come up with a scheme where if it is an appropriate use, the property can be reszoned appropriately so that uh it would make sense. Um so

I'm I'm sort of where you are, but I I don't like the idea of this add-on of a special permit process to allow something that we normally wouldn't allow. Um that's that's my two cents with this. And uh you know I I think I think that's the the biggest problem.

Right. Well well special permit is exactly what it says. It wouldn't be something done all the time. It would take a special permit. So I mean I don't see why we would close the door on something like that. We may not be able to. You may have it zoned for industrial and commercial and it just may not fit all the time in those zones. So having a special permit that may, like I said, the example would be Wheeler, it would still give them an opportunity to install over there even though it's not industrial or commercial. Well, the my that's all I was saying.

Special permit. I I understand uh I understand that. But that, you know, again, as long as we have use zoning, uh I think that it's very um inappropriate to establish something that can be done as a special exception to what we generally think should be. And you know if that's an approp if that is a you know if that is an appropriate place for such a uh array I think it needs to be zoned appropriately for that use. That that's my opinion. I I hear what you're saying.

Okay. Thank you. Um is there any other comments or questions regarding the zoning? Mr. Chair, I would associate myself with Mr. Goff's comments. I I thoroughly agree that it's inappropriate uh to open up a residential zone uh for a special permit for a solar farm. Okay. Duly noted. Um, any further discussion regarding solar, Mr. Chair? Yes, Commissioner Mlette.

Getting a little bit into specifics to help guide the the reddrafting or or the uh the editing. Um it it sounds like for primary use we're leaning towards especially for large scale probably not including residential.

I'm not sure where we're landing necessarily for in residential smaller uh scale that is accessory use andor primary. Um, so I could see I don't know I don't know if we've been specific on that but just to maybe help guide that the reddrafting um industrial primary use commercial primary use um pot I think commissioner gooff brought up that maybe we haven't looked at overlay districts and you know what it might look if if there's you know farmland um that could be used uh for farming energy at least, you know, for 25 years and then maybe relooked at um I'm not sure if that helps kind of start to narrow the path to to what the uh rag would look like before we get a public hearing.

Okay. Thank you. Any further discussions on solar? I'd like to add um under maintenance maintenance plan um a suggestion that I would put forward it says re routine uh mowing weed and pest control or other landscape measures. Um in making that a little bit more specific. I think Bloomfield already has zoning ordinances regarding properties. Um if we could then say that maintenance should meet the Bloomfield basically just let that govern. So then we won't get into it being all over the place. I think if we use the the current ordinances in terms of property we we should be covered there.

Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question of the commission?

Yes. after this discussion quite frankly I'm I'm not clear and you may not want to give me full clarity tonight but I'm not given the choice does the cons is the consensus of the commission that they're happy the way things are now we're basically the only solar installations that are permitted are those that go through the building department um and are basically residential uh related and um because right now we do not allow solar arrays as a principal use anywhere in town. Is the is the commission comfortable with maintaining that posture or do they want us to continue to pursue developing regulations that are suitable for their approval that would in fact allow uh solar arrays as a principal use? I think that's a basic underlying question that the commission needs to address. Um I don't want to put the staff through the process of developing a whole series of regulations in response to your comments this evening that basically lead to the decision that you really don't want to allow them in the first place. Um so I would appreciate some guidance.

I don't know. I think we might need to do a little bit more research on it. Uh, I'm not sure if we can make that decision tonight or if the commission is is uh ready to make a decision like that tonight.

Mr. Sure. Yes. Commissioner Mallette, I I thought we had some consensus that in a industrial or commercial we we would entertain a special permit process for primary use, but there might be some so that that would be at least a starting place. Uh I think I'm definitely hearing hesitation on primary use residential. that that seems to definitely not be something. So, I think there's stuff in the middle that um as far as where we draw the lines and sizes, but I think you know

for direction that the director is looking for um I I didn't hear a big opposition to restricting to industrial commercial or primary use through a special permit. That was a recommendation through the CE, [clears throat] excuse me, CEC, I believe Val put that out today. Um, so I mean, it sounded, you know, reasonable to me. I just wasn't sure if the commission itself being that it was the first time they heard it, if they were ready to adopt it. Oh, well, we wouldn't be adopting anything tonight. Well, [laughter] no. I I I know

I I'm not sure that um the director was asking whether or not I think his question was whether we wanted regulations or we don't want regulations, right? Um, so I think um, whatever you need to do for us to answer whether we think regulations, which is the question that Commission Rogers had asked originally, whether we think moving forward with the regulations um, not necessarily these, but working on it and improving it, whether this commission is interested or have any interest in the staff pursuing working on regulations so that the staff's time is not wasted. Right. Yeah, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair,

Commissioner Goff.

Yes, thank you. Um, yeah, I think that is the question that the director is asking and and I I thought this was a good discussion. Uh, as as uh Mr. Guza pointed out. Uh, I think that CC and some other bodies have been asking for some kind of regulation uh for a long time. So I I think this is a decent draft uh a decent starting point. I think that restricting the large solar arrays to commercial and industrial makes sense. I also would like to comment I want to comment on uh Commissioner Mlette's comment about the small scale. Um and I you know I I'm assuming two 250 is you know one acre is a good um is a good cuto off that could be changed uh based on you know further research or further further thought by uh the planning staff but I do think that having that as an accessory use makes sense. I know places around town where people do have ground mounted solar. Um, the only question I have with that, as I I think I said earlier, um, and I think it came up in one of the things from from the CEC is, you know, clearly you have to have enough land for whatever you're putting on to, uh, to satisfy that. So I I guess I would just like certification or um some kind of uh nod from the plan when the planners go through this that the bulk requirements as we have them now with an accessory use would would satisfy. So um you know I I would like to see this come back for a second round based on the input tonight. Uh but I also you know I also sort of understand the director's point. We don't want to do this forever and ever if we're never going to get any solar arrays, but I think it would be

something good to have in place. And I would like to say that I would be um I think regulations are important. It gives clarification. It gives guidance. It gives direction. And so I would be fully in support of the staff continuing to work on regulations and getting it right. So we have something um specific clear um to guide both us and the public in terms of what our stance is in terms of um solar panels. And I agree with that also. Yep. Same. I'll get to work on a second draft. Thanks very much. Thank you.

Okay. I will ask the secretary to read item D. on the agenda. We wanted to see to this one cannabis. I thought we already we already um made a motion for May 1. That was the extension, but we're doing talking about the the regulation itself. They have a drink here. Okay. Go ahead. Proposed [clears throat and cough] proposed text amendments to section 2.2 and 7.16 related to cannabis establishments. [clears throat]

Jonathan, anything you want to say on that? I'm going to let um Alex make a brieation. Oh, okay. So, state your name and address.

Alex Samlot, zoning enforcement officer for the town of Bloomfield. Happy to be here and uh excited to show you guys where this is. Oh, now there may be some stock animations that I was not aware of, so hopefully there are no obnoxious sound effects. Um, so we shall see. That is not the town's official opinion on anything. Okay. Um, so first first real slides. So I I did an analysis. Um I tried to approach this, you know, coming from the outside. This is a little bit an introduction to my involvement in TPZ uh in this town. So I just wanted to walk everyone through how I review things um because that's I think that's a really interesting point in addition to the regulations themselves. So the review that I did, Bloomfield has basically when doing any type of review, what's the existing data? Um there's a fair amount there's a fair amount of data coming from the town of Bloomfield and its records as well as the surrounding municipalities. So I broke up my analysis into two different sections. um public opinion and the open question of town identity, basically the internals of Bloomfield and how this ties into the PC, our interpretation of the regulations. Um and the concept of town identity was was a trend uh and then comparing that to the abuing uh municipalities and their regulations on cannabis.

Uh next slide please. So starting with the public opinion. Um so this is the internal review of the town of Bloomfield. Um there's been as discussed by council a number of moratorum extensions and a large volume of related comments that I just did a brief analysis of on a surface level. Uh some of this may be familiar to some of the commissioners. Uh going in order just in terms of frequency. I didn't want to do anything dramatic like a word cloud. Um, but you know, something that came up a lot, not in the BCD, uh, that might ring a few bells to maybe an application, uh, but looking at it on a broad scale, also a more thoughtful approach to our buffers, uh, more information and studies. Uh, the PCD was brought up at several of the moratoriums. How does it relate to the PCD and the completion of the PCD? And uh for better or for worse, the terminology not comfortable was said a lot um during application. So it's it's a real point of consideration for the commission. Uh next slide please. So um you know breaking it up into essentially a flowchart uh we have a couple options. uh you know at this point in the short term there just has to be a continued moratorum as discussed earlier as well as the frustration of the ongoing moratorum. We don't need to talk about how long that's been going on, but I'm uh I started my work on this pretty recently and you know this is my take on it. But in analysis of the comments related to the PCD and the mortorium extensions uh you know how much evaluation have we done in terms of cannabis and the PCD? uh and then we have some options working towards uh resolution of the moratorum

with a more comfortable amount of regulation is my take on the feedback um and essentially what I'm proposing basically instead of instead of continuing to be maybe uncomfortable and a perpetual temporal restriction maybe a tighter spatial restriction and lifting the mortorium you know, that's that's been my experience with other towns. Uh, and it's it's a something to think about. But at the end of the day, in terms of the scientific studies, the the state statutes, it it really is a question of how does Bloomfield feel about this? Um, you know, you'll see the surround in the presentation to come. A lot of the surrounding towns have a lot of different opinions and it's really a matter of town identity. So that's the question that I'm posing to you all right now. Next slide please. So I apologize about the font but I do like to have an overview level slide. So transitioning to what the abuing municipalities do and um you know this was confirmed by just quick phone calls with planning staff. So it's not like I had sit down meetings with them but as you guys may be aware it's difficult to keep the online resources up to date. So, I did confirm with town staff in municipalities that didn't have a live code updating software um just what's going on. Starting with East Graanby, um it's limited to their perimeter commerce districts. Uh they had a moratorium, it was later lifted. Uh Simsbury, it's limited to their perimeter industrial uh districts. And in talking with Simsbury town staff, they have a fairly restrictive ordinance. like that's a when evaluating their regs that has to be taken into account. Uh Avon for better or for worse it isn't really much of a model that we can rely on. The language is primarily medical and it is a little bit dated. You know it only under the context that we might not be

able to borrow a lot of language from them. Uh West Harford has a fair amount of permissibility uh a lot of specificity uh primarily with their buffers but no known moratorum. Uh I I did talk to [laughter] I did talk to some West Hartford staff today. That is confirmed. Uh so the town of Windsor kind of a similar situation. It's it's an industrial zone special use. You know, something to think about. Uh town of Harford, a little bit different. Uh various permissible uses and districts. Uh there's a notable exception to neighborhood districts. So that's pretty much the other end of the spectrum. And you know it's a question of town identity. What what type of ranks do we want to borrow? Uh next slide. If uh there's no technical difficulties. So you know this this PowerPoint will be made available um in whatever the usual pipelines you guys have for getting data. Um I don't really intend on going through reggg byreg. what each town is doing, but just looking at a screenshot of their zoning map and kind of on a very overview level, what's allowed and where is it allowed, you can basically

summarize it with by special permit uh the cannabis production facilities, cannabis dispensary uh dispensaries are in those light purple zones on the perimeter. So if you look at the map of the town, if you go to the next slide, basically those light purple and purple areas. So, if we just look at it from a spatial parameter only, um, kind of just on the edge of town is what one of our neighbors is doing. So, Simsberry, I don't really want to dive too much into their language because there's a very restrictive ordinance and um, you know, the the modeling of our existing regulations, you you can't use this as a proxy because so much of it is is handled by the ordinance. Um but you know it's worth noting that's that's another approach. Um again limited limited ability to consider the existing text in Avon. It's it is to some extent a little bit dated. You know there might not be the most interest in updating that aspect of the regs. West Harford has some really interesting buffering. you know, primarily the reason why I included, you know, their text is just they have a a more permissible approach um to what I'm proposing, but I I don't really know the level of controversy. Uh their planner was pretty nice guy. I' I'd be comfortable having a a more in-depth conversation about, you know, just collecting data from other municipalities and how how these more inclusive policies have gone, the ups and downs. Um but that's for me I think the the overlying issue that I'm trying to address is the mortorium itself and when there is some sort of temporal blockage just meaning that over time

this this hasn't been allowed at all via moratorum you know to some extent maybe tighten up the spatial restrictions and over time allow developers with the resources to do those really expensive really in-depth studies show show the research to make people more comfortable with something more like this. I don't necessarily know that that's where Bloomfield is now, but that's the question that I'm posing. Uh, next slide. And that's that's just more continued language. This is just may be useful for your own review at at your own time. Uh, next slide, please. So, again, just just for fun, threw in the map. So basically this it it's more inclusive primarily in those purple areas but you know there there are some other commerce districts with some other activity. Um, you know, before I delve into all of that, you know, the main question I'm posing is, do we want a more restrictive terminology to lift the mortorium and approach this in a way where over time either through through more studies coming out etc. you know, we we want to model something more like this in the future. Uh, next slide. I think Windsor has some really interesting language. Um, you know, there's parts that I agree with, there's parts that I don't. Um, you know, the overlying industrial zone special use is, you know, a common theme and, you know, it's it's a predominant theme that I'm trying to bring up to the commission. Um, you know, I think they have some interesting buffering as well. So, in review of this information, I think it's a good idea to look at their buffering. I I do think it is a little bit oversp specific, but it does include a lot of feedback that was brought up in previous applications.

And then Hartford, similar to West Harford, um a lot more permissibility. Uh however, you know, I don't want to go into all of that until there's been a discussion of does Bloomfield want that at this time. Uh next slide, please. This information is just here so that it's available. Uh next slide please. And then oh actually so this is worth talking about. Um these tables are extremely common in other towns. Um you know especially Harford being the capital. Uh a table of permissible uses and their permitting is a very good useful tool. um in this case you know for your evaluation of cannabis and related industries or I should say activity but overall I think it's it's really interesting concept this type of tableing and maybe whether we could put that in our regulations um just as a model not not this particular table just that basically the x and y axis type of type of thing uh next slide and Then here's a map of Hartford. Uh so the neighborhood zones are essentially marked uh starting with that white and ending with that green. So you know you if you kind of look at this on a macro level to some extent there's some amount of permissibility in all the areas that aren't listed as the neighborhood zones. That's the primary exclusion. Uh next slide please. And then this this essentially is my thoughts on lifting the moratorum. um you know due to town council um planning and zoning feedback feedback from the public basically just taking out some of the permissibility to lift the mortorium and just seeing what comes in collecting more data and over time developing rags

that people are comfortable with. So it would be in addition to updating with the latest public acts and some of the more important definitions uh my regs most notably take out the other zones other than the industrial and I think spatially it's it's a similar spatial model to the other towns that I'm showing you know with the note of the ones that didn't follow that model. Uh next slide please. So yeah, it was it was really fun talking to the other towns. Uh so thank you to them and thank you to you the commission for your consideration. Um you know, it's it's an interesting and deep topic. There's a lot of granularity. You know, how deep you want to go with this and how how far you want to take the ress. You know, I'm all in. But that being said, there's been significant discussion of the moratorum, the length of the mor moratorum, and you know, what we're going to do about that. So, I have proposed text that is in line with these slides and you know for your consideration. I'm curious your thoughts. Thank you.

Okay. Excuse me. Uh Jonathan, anything you want to say?

I think that completes our presentation. I think that Alex has summarized it. We um we have the you know the broad question of um do you want to allow it and if so where. Uh and then secondly um you know at how you know how comfortable you are with um with the uh suggested language that he has in terms of definition and um and require distance requirements and things of that type. I think it's there are two levels of discussion. The first one is do we want to allow it and um if so where and then secondly um how do we want to control it?

Okay, we'll start down with Commissioner Medwin.

Thank you so much Mr. Chair. Um thanks for your presentation. Really appreciate it. Um so again new kid on the block so discussions of the moratorum I am not 100% familiar with however you started off your presentation with two boxes and one of them stated um to the effect that I don't know if this is a if you did a feasibility study or you did some kind of inquiry into the town but basically the um persons were not comfortable. Um and then you proceeded and you showed us the mun the the municipalities surrounding us. As an elected member of the residents and citizens of Bloomfield, my focus is the citizens and residents of Bloomfield. While I appreciate what other towns are doing, um my focus is whether or not myself and the town and the folks here what are their concerns. Too often we hear we did a feasibility study. We asked we did a survey. We asked they said they wanted this but we think this is a better idea. They said they wanted that. We think there they wanted a better idea. If my citizens, if the citizens of Bloomfield and the residents of Bloomfield have said they're not comfortable, then I'm not comfortable either. I am their voice. They're not sitting at this table. And when I sit here, whatever they say is what I tried to convey. So, while I appreciate what Hartford is doing, Hartford residents do not pay taxes here. whether any other town. Don't take it personal. I'm just telling you as an elected member representing the citizens of Bloomfield, um if they're not comfortable, I don't

think I can go any further with looking at um anything else. So, thank you for your time.

Yeah. No, absolutely. And I couldn't agree more. So in collecting that data and you know the the concept of not comfortable, I strongly recommend you review the meeting uh where the 12 Senica application was denied uh for more information on public opinion. Uh that's you know but I couldn't agree more. Um the the point of my analysis is to just demonstrate the whole spectrum. So somewhere in between that might be where it is. Maybe it's all the way in another direction. Uh, that's the question I'm posing.

Um, I appreciate that. Um, I I I'm not sure which of them. I know I was in attendance um of one of the applications which was denied and the the the the public spoke loudly. Oh yeah. Um, they do not want it and therefore as their voice, if they don't want it, I will not vote for it. That's just um so are you recommending uh tighter restriction? Um I I don't Yes, tighter restrictions if the restrictions up and including none. Up and including No,

I believe the residents um was against it because we were trying to put it in the uh town center business center district. Yes, I understand that specific one. However, he started his presentation with two boxes. One said they were not the the the consensus or the predominant voice was that the residents were not comfortable. Was that what you started with? And then the other one was that what you start the two boxes that were on your presentation.

Point of clarification um to both of your points. The not comfortable language was with respect to the other zones. So we do have and I was to some extent a part of the CO process for the fine federal facility. Um that terminology was not used in the industrial districts to even a remotely close extent. Okay. So the not comfortable aspect of it does more so pertain to the other districts most notably the BCD.

Did I misinterpret when you said part of our identity? what were you saying about our identity? What what they responded in terms of how their um the the town folks identity?

Yeah, absolutely. So that identity was discussed with respect to the PCD and to a large extent you know what you're bringing up. Um there's basically each zone has a description and in the PC there's also a description of the type of commerce that we're looking for. Basically, a major comment was what's Bloomfield's identity via the PCD and how does this fit into it? Um, you know, the the most notable context was one particular application may or may not have fit into that depending on who was presenting. Um, but it's mostly the question that I'm asking now. PCD is in some way, shape or form nearing a close to whatever extent you know it is. uh there's been pretty thorough review of it. Um you know the question is are we comfortable because there's been there's been back and forth. Um, so I I I think what I would say is in appreciating the fact that you highlighted um Simsbury, Avon, West Hartford, Hartford, they all have already have that's close enough for us to go to if we need it. Just in the same way, in the same way Windsor Locks and Hartford has bowling alleys. We don't have one. We go there. We We don't have one here. Um, and that's okay. We can drive to go to the bowling alley. We don't always have to have everything right here. Um, and some things, whether it is for safety, whether it is um for whatever reasons if we should choose to restrict it. I don't I've not heard anyone come forward, yay for cannabis, yay. I I've not heard that honestly. I've heard more um opposition and therefore as again I said as an elected position

speaking for the town if that's if the residents say no they're the taxpayers I represent their voice and their taxes so that would be my my take on it. Yeah th and those comments in some way shape or form were also said at other meetings. Appreciate it.

Thank you uh Commissioner James. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um to reading through the proposed changes, um you know, my overall comments is that the cannabis industry in Connecticut is not like this bustling. I think a fear is that, you know, cannabis in Bloomfield could be what liquor stores are or they could be almost everywhere and anywhere. And it's like, you know, we can see the harm that liquor stores do. So, we don't want to mirror that, but I don't see the cannabis industry being that way. I mean, um I don't think that cannabis um retailers are busting down the doors to try to build anywhere in Connecticut. So, really not a huge deal. I think from my recolle recollection of the community comments and the applications that have come before us, it's been the location of it, the magnitude of it, and we needed some regulations that would help us say there are certain areas where this might be appropriate in town. I think the idea of having it in industrial zones makes sense. I don't think the center of town or near residential um properties makes sense for Boomfield. Um, I would like to see the language throughout the regulations updated like you know in um 7.16.4 a lot of the um excuse me a lot of the uh language still points to property that's zoned for single single family residential use. I think it's requires a rewrite to say like in any well this is saying no no no in those areas but I think rather than just you know striking out some lines and adding some text I think it does

require a rewrite to signify that anything that would be allowed is only in the industrial zones. Um and you know zones zones zoning is if something happens and something changes then we could always come back to it and change but I think just to signify um that only industrial zones would be permissible. I think there was another comment about the number. Um

yeah and then just a brief point of clarification. I'm a little nervous that you didn't get the last page. Um so uh it might not be as clear as some of the other areas but um and also point of clarification for the agenda. Uh these regs are also for the principal uses sections in chapter 4 uh as well as the procedural note. Um you know this this has been in the reggg changes that I've had for all of my drafts. I'm not entirely sure that it got sent through though. Yes. So that that's where the zones are addressed. Um essentially the removable principal uses and structures sections. Um you know basically removing that and then updating the indexing uh where it says update the new numbering principal uses and structure sections.

Okay. Thank you. Um terms the last the last page.

Yeah. Um I think something [clears throat] I see there's something about um in 7.16.4 no adult use no adult use cannabis retail or hybrid retail shall be located less than 500 ft from a child daycare and 1500 ft from another adult use cannabis retail or hybrid retail. Um I think it's 1500 ft is that kind of trying to reduce the the quantity that could exist within the allowed space within the industrial spaces.

Yes. And then to some extent a lot of that language is borrowed from liquor stores also to your point. So you know the same the same thought of not having liquor stores right on top of each other. It's technically the same same radius uh between potential facilities, you know, in those zones that are mentioned.

Hi, sorry. I just want to make a comment. Uh Linda Lauriano, um as you saw, I'm not sure if you I know it was a quick overview today of of the presentation, but those buffers, if the commission should feel can increase it. Yeah.

Um, again, he's just dating, you know, from that industrial zone to those residential or churches or whatever, but it could be a lot more. Um, I know West Harford in the business district, they have that it can't be within 500 ft of like like a library or or what have you, but then it states that retail from retail cannabis to another retail cannabis 5,000 [snorts] ft away. So that limits that the concentration that it could be in.

Right. Right. Thank you for that. I think that um might be an area that we could flex as a commission. Um I'm trying to imagine 1500 ft. But I don't know why this meeting just feels so long today. I can't even think. So I I will end my comments. Uh Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah. Um, Alex, are liquor stores allowed in the town center? The answer is yes. Right. Yeah. I Yes, liquor stores are allowed. Are vape shops allowed in the town center? To my knowledge, yes.

Yes. So, we have liquor stores and we have vape stores currently in the town center. And this is the state statue dealing with zoning. And this is our Bible that says that when we regulate zoning, we're supposed to group like uses that have the same characteristics and treat them the same. That was my point earlier about equitable zoning. So, it seems to me that if we're going to not allow um um cannabis dispensary retail in the town center, then we should amend our regulations to not allow liquor stores or vape shops because otherwise we have no justification because we can't say that that they have diretorious impact on our town center while we have although I the the town center plan does say we're going to tear down the liquor store in the in the in the plaza. Um, but are we going to allow another one when that one's torn down? I mean, liquor stores are regulated by the by the state in terms of how many there can be in the town. Um, but I think we'd be on very shaky ground if we allow liquor stores and vape shops in the town center and we'd say that if you want to uh buy cannabis, you must go to the industrial zone. So we got to find a place that we would be happy with all of the things that some segment of the society doesn't like that have and say that's [clears throat] where they can be. Um and uh because we can't we can't allow things that are

obnoxious to some people and not obnoxious to other people. I mean, if a lot of liquor does a lot of harm to a lot of people, um, a lot of people don't like the vape shops and they're very prominent in our town center right now. So, um, I I would think that if we're going to adopt this regulation that says we can't have them in the town center, then we should also change the regulations and take out liquor stores and vape shops. Yeah. noted.

Um, Jonathan, would you like to anything you want to add to that? I think it's a valid point. Um, it's a much more far-reing point than just dealing with the regulations specifically and something that, um, you know, we'll have to to think about. But I think that um in terms of applying the regulations consistently as required by the statutes u that's a that's a very worthy point to consider and one that has not been discussed up till now.

I know. Thank you, Commissioner Bren. Anything else? Thank you, Commissioner Peters.

Sorry for laughing. I'm I'm just thinking about what uh Commissioner James said about you're a hard act to follow. So So [laughter] um I I appreciate that part. I wasn't expecting that. Um I personally uh somewhat disagree with it because the comments being said about being um uncomfortable with cannabis stems from what people are saying is a research or knowledge of cannabis. And we have to be aware of there's a lot there's a long history of research and um knowledge that has been acred uh versus with tobacco and um alcohol versus uh cannabis because we we still have to even understand that although it's uh legal in the state federally it is illegal. So that that research has not been developed. So, I can't hold cannabis and alcohol at the same level because the amount of time that we've actually, you know, observed them in a in a legal space has is not the same. Um there's like a couple things that stood out to me and what was not very clear about what the issues are in um from those meetings and I would like to see a clear delineation from cultivation center retail and hybrid because I think that's where things got a little muddy with what we were talking about and we were just talking about before when we were approving things. I think we just said, "Hey, let's just say two two um facilities, but did that mean two cultivation centers or two cultivation centers and two uh um retail centers in the hybrid?" Like we I think we need to delineate what those things are and um I think those definitely hold different I guess restrictions or should hold different restrictions. Um I do like the fact that we're talking about um

removing it from the BCD because that's a big that's a big um one of the big claims there. Um buffers that was that was one of the biggest issues and how close these facilities would be in range of other impacting like you know um yeah or um organizations or ent entities uh particularly daycarees and educational um facilities. My concern always has been 500 feet was not a a large enough buffer and I was trying to figure it out um earlier about how big Bloomfield typically is and how how much would be I guess exacerbated is 1,500 ft appropriate or I did read when you were showing it for West Hartford. I'm not sure what section it was but it said um 5,000 square I mean 5,000 ft. Um, is that more appropriate or is that is that astronomical for the size of Bloomfield compared to West Hartford? I don't know without putting that radius there. But I think that we need to have a radius that makes sense that we could actually space these appropriately without saying like or I think what I'm saying is um I don't want to give a number. I want to give appropriate distance from each other so we're not um oversaturating the market versus saying like okay three cultivation centers and all three of those cult cultivation centers are on the same road.

That seems insane to me. Um so I think we need to um I think I'm more um in the opinion of going for a reasonable buffer to appropriately space those out. And I do think the restrictions of those buffers um need to be um differentiated between once again cultivation center, retail and hybrid because I guess what I'm hearing is hybrid is obviously a cultivation center and retail at the same time. No, that was that predominantly medical verse recreation. Oh, medical. Okay. So, yeah, exactly. So, um maybe those there may be well there that would that's a whole bar ballpark of a whole bunch of different things. We have a lot of medical facilities in in Bloomfield. So like

they're Go ahead. Okay. Um just a couple points of clarification to just further enhance what you're describing. So 5,000 5,000 ft is um a pretty approachable benchmark to in the sense that it's about a mile. So when when visualizing what's 5,000 ft, it's pretty much mile. Uh the other point [laughter] left me right when I started talking about that Um, that's too bad. It'll come up again during the next discussion. Yeah. Okay. So, I Yeah, those were the those are the biggest things that stuck out. Go ahead.

Okay. So, um, this goes beyond the scope of what I looked at, but I think there's a difference in clustering cultivation versus clustering retail. So, you know, from an engineering perspective, um, things like Bloomfield's high voltage power lines, there's there's certain geographic and utility constraints that would allow more cultivation in certain areas and, you know, those areas are predominantly already industrial. You know, just something to think about when we're discussing the buffers and the buffers of cultivation versus the buffers of retail. just thought.

Okay. Yeah, I'm glad that you um pointed that out, but I'm just going off my recollection of when we reviewed the last um cultivation center and I remember the town um the uh residents were concerned with smell. So, I'm just thinking like multiple cultiv cultivation centers in one area. You don't want to have the the um you know the people thinking like okay that's that area is smells like multiple ways to find that part of town. Exactly. And then now that has a like you know a whole um Yeah. We're not trying to create a smell overlay zone.

Exactly. Exactly. So we don't we don't want that. So once again I think appropriate buffers would be would make sense. And um [clears throat] I think that's I think that's my biggest thing is the buffers in the zones. You've already checked out the boxes about what I what I think should have have been removed. Um because we we thought we don't it was been a I think wildly accepted across the commission that we don't want these retail centers to be in the center of town. I don't think they wanted to promote that. So um I think that you know checks that box. But those are the biggest things that popped up to me while looking at this and hearing the presentation.

Just to follow up on that with respect to alcohol, I I I have personal experience in my family of people who were decimated by alcohol. So I don't think there's any question about what the alcohol does to people. Um, and so I I do think if you're going to prohibit uh it in the town center, you have to prohibit other things that have the same impact or you have no land use justification for it other than you don't like it. Can I just ask one question regarding that? Cuz

if we're if we're going to restrict alcohol, does that now affect um like um bar licenses or liquor licenses at restaurants? Would that impact that at all? No, we're talking about liquor stores, not not the sale of liquor in a restaurant. I mean, but this to the same effect if we're if um we're you're limiting liquor stores, but the the consumption of alcohol could still happen in the town center. So, would that affect it? don't we don't allow smoking of marijuana or dispensing of marijuana in a restaurant, do we?

There are actually increasing number of restaurants that are having um um THC infused food or uh beverages that are occurring. So, I'm not sure if we're even having that discussion, but that does that exists. That is um just a point of clarification. The latest public acts there is there is some mention of that when we're having a more granular discussion that should be talked about as a specific point. Um but it's it's out of scope of your conversation.

I think it's main I mean he's is valid point. So I mean do we allow that now? Well, so there's an existing moratorum and half I wouldn't say half, but some percentage of what I was doing was updating the regs to the latest public acts. Um, you know, there is there has been significant discussion of infused beverages in in the latest regulatory updates. So, have you had restaurants in Bloomfield coming in saying we want to do it?

Well, no, they they couldn't. Um, you know, the infused beverage aspect of the cannabis industry, the regulation regarding it has been tightened, you know, in the most recent public acts. And it is it it it is in the the regulations to some extent, but the old regulations, if we're going with what, and we couldn't even technically say that that's what's effective because there's a mortorium, but if you're looking at the legacy regulations, it's not addressed. and between when they were adopted and now there's been tighter restrictions on cannabis infused beverages just just as a point.

But but to respond to um Commissioner Rogers in terms of the region actually

O'Brien [laughter] Commissioner O'Brien in terms of in terms of the the state statutes regulations that govern liquor stores and that they should be treated equally already the regulations are very different. We have a we have a a liquor store in the Winonberry Mall and we have a church with a preschool across it which is within the 500 ft. So therefore, we can't just start saying uh there are different things to take into consideration and my my stance has nothing to do with my preferences, my likes is basically what the town of Bloomfield and its residents and if we're the the statutes and regulations of the state of Connecticut does not say we have to have them. It says we can. It doesn't say we have to. And so the governing regulations is not saying here you need to put in cannabis establishments and therefore the only task at hand is where do you put them? There's no such regulations. There's no such statute governing us. We don't have to. Well, I I beg to differ I beg to differ with you, Con Commissioner, on that because the state uh statutes and and and case law clearly say that you have to treat equal land use uses equally in your regulations. Um so, yes, but you're the one now creating equality. you determine that for some reason a particular substance is not desirable in your town center. You know you how are you going to differentiate that? If you want to come up with something and present to this commission that says somehow or rather cannabis is above and beyond, you know, an impact on the community in the town center, then we we could look at it. But in the opposite of that,

why state? You have to you have to treat you have to treat similar land uses similarly. You can't pick and choose. And if you pick and choose, you're going to get a discrimination lawsuit. Exactly. However, how why then do you have a 500 ft limit? There's a liquor store next to a preschool right now currently in Bloomfield in the center of town. Yeah. And it's and it's scheduled in the in the plan of the of in the town center plan that that the plan of conservation and development before us tonight says that we're going to fully endorse that plan says that that building is going to be torn down.

Be that as it may, it is there right now. Yeah. So if we're trying to I'm saying it's grandfathered. It's grandfathered and it's there. But the regulation is if you're going to eliminate a particular use

or category in it's just like cars. You can't say you can sell used cars but you can't sell new cars or you can sell new cars but not used cars. You have to treat similar uses the same. You have to be equitable. So, the fact that you don't want cannabis, somebody else doesn't want a liquor store, somebody else doesn't want a vape store, but you have to group them. And that's why the zoning was created and we group uses.

Understood. I'm just saying currently right now we're putting in a regulation with a 500 foot 500 feet buffer while we have a liquor store within less than 500 ft of a of a preschool. So if you're talking about equal I don't know I don't know what your point is. Okay one at a time. My point is your emphasis on treating all land uses equally. If we're talking about equality, then that 500 feet buffer goes out the door because we already we wouldn't be treating it equally at all just given that.

But the proposed regulation says you can't have cannabis in the town center period. There's no it isn't like you can have it in the town center 500 ft. I'll move on from another one. Yeah, I don't think you guys are disagreeing. I think he just said that it's grandfathered grandfathered in. They existed. The regulations was altered so they didn't you can't move a building that is there. I think that's I think that's what he was trying to say. Were you finished, Commissioner Peters? Commissioner Mallette. [laughter] [snorts]

Good conversation. Thank you, Alex, for your presentation. Um I I I think um my reasoning is going to line pretty similar to Commissioner Peters. Um, I I think I don't think they're going to be so similar because of the history of the laws and and the recency. I think over time we might see them more similar. Um, I think the reason why the vape shop got went in because it wasn't illegal whereas cannabis is newly legalized in the state of Connecticut to also a certain extent. Federal scheduling. Yeah.

Yeah. and federal scheduling has been changed recently as far as I understand it. Um so for Bloomfield uh the updated draft I think you listen to at least what we so going back to a little bit of the history of what happened. I think we did take our cue from the liquor um regulations to say let's mirror it and then we had but we said of course special permit right then we had a specific application come in we're like we probably should rethink that and so here we are saying okay the BCD is too small um buffering is going to be an issue that was where people were specifically uncomfortable with separation etc So removing BCD, we want to B the GWD is similar. Um commercial at the moment we don't have one. Um we well we have a commercial district on paper but not actually zoned anywhere. So um I I think I'm okay with where this is going. I I think it's important we we do determine that 1500 or is it 1500 or is it 2,000? I think you know we we can talk through that but it sounded like um you know we have the separation require requirements um and you know putting it in into the industrial um so in general I think you've kind of listened to what what we were asking for you know what came out of some of those meetings and some of the discussion from what I heard from the residents at police who came out and from other commissioners at the time was um it wasn't necessarily in opposition to having a retail store, but

we were going to be very picky. I think I even said those same words. We were going to be very picky where they did go and reserve the right through the special permit process and how we um you know put the the regulations. And one slightly uh unrelated comment, I absolutely loved the gra uh the the matrix you had in the presentation. Um I would love to see that incorporated to all of our regulations. I think that was super helpful. Um I'm a data and analytics guy with visualization. That just speaks my language. So thank you for that. Yeah, that that is a commonality in a lot of municipalities that that formatting. So, just just a thought.

Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Goff.

Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, yeah, I will I will echo echo uh Commissioner Mallet's uh comment on that. I thought that was a neat chart. Again, not necessarily maybe applicable here, but a great chart and uh trying to use visual information is uh is very good. Um, so I'm I'm I think at the same place the last couple of commissioners have been. Uh, I I want to ask well raise one point and ask one question and then I also I want to make comment on on this whole equitable treatment thing. Um, in the regulations I was extremely confused in section 716.4 with items A, B, and C and D. Because so for example, I read A and B several times and I was not clear other than one said 500 and one said 300. I was not clear what the difference between them was. Um uh or or I was not I was not clear what I shouldn't say what the difference was. A added a lot of other places other than property zone single family, but then it says 500 feet of any property zone single family. But then you go to B and it takes I think the same things and says no, it's 300 ft. So I didn't understand why what the I didn't understand why there were two conditions there. What I also didn't understand is why the child daycare center was not included in AM because it appears that you could have a child daycare center there because in D you're adding retail but A and B don't have retail.

So, you know, this is just a con reading this I was extremely confused as to which uses were which and what the differences were between them. Um, this goes back to a point I think when we first talked about this a while ago. the I think it would be nice if instead of using all of these X and Y and Z and blah blah blah, we broke it into a couple of basic categories and said retail includes this, you know, uh production includes this and could use those common terms. So, um I I don't think we need to belabor this more tonight, but I do think A, B, and D in that section need to be cleared up and made consistent and make sure that retail is included where in both set all of the all of the pieces are included in all the sets. Okay. Um the second question I have is and I'm probably missing it. I in this regulation before I think we were postulating that there would be two cultivation we that Bloomfield would allow two cultivation and one retail outlet. We currently have two cultivation outlets. We don't have a retail outlet. Where is that restriction?

So couple couple points. Um just going in order. Uh I couldn't agree more with your first point. So to to basically just explain what happened there. Um, you know, I I was essentially just playing operation with the existing regs. Um, you know, my only edits are basically the redlinined areas and I just highlighted aspects that needed to be talked about. So, in my opinion, that needed a complete rewrite. So, I'm very happy to hear that comment and I'm very happy to rewrite that entire thing. I was It was a challenge even making those edits. So, um, absolutely consideration and maybe even one of the most important aspects of the REGG updates. Uh, so definitely agree with that. Um, and I'm sorry, what if you don't mind repeating your second point? No, my my second qu my second question was uh as I recall the last version we had of this

there there was a requirement you there was a a cap the cap on the number of uh the cap on the number of cannabis related businesses we could have in town and the cap at the time was two c what I'm not sure it was written this way but I think the plan was two cultivation and one retailer Where is and I can't find it in this and I did not have time to go back and dig out the old copy.

No. Um I'll dig into the regs a little deeper and make sure that that's if that was there that that was taken out. There there is some legacy statutory policies that are no longer in effect. uh regarding just total number of overall facilities. Um I if that's something that the town is specifically looking for, you know, that's an important topic of discussion. But um in review of the latest public acts, those that type of restriction has changed. Well, no, I I don't think I don't think that's in the public acts. The No, no, it it is. without

what the the restriction no I mean I think to your thing that the public acts are what they are when these can when the state cannabis regulations were first discussed and ultimately promulgated I believe the original u the original regs were something like one retail establishment for every 25,000 people and that would allow Bloomfield one those were eventually taken out but I think there was I I think there was consensus among at least at the time and and maybe people are no longer interested in this but at the time there was consensus among the um commission members that we really wanted to cap the number of both retail and cultivation and we had already sort of you know we have two cultivation facilities uh and are approved anyway not sure if they're both operating uh but we wanted to do that so I can look back and try to find where that was. Um, but that that's my comment on that. Um, I I will make a comment on uh Commissioner O'Brien's comment about equitable treatment of like businesses and I understand the point and I I think it's a good point. Um, but I would also just in terms of your presentation, Alex, um, it appears that that is not going on in all of these other towns. uh because you know I know West Harford I know you know there are liquor stores in the center but there aren't cannabis stop shops. Um so just the point that you know while it's a good theoretical principle uh at this point it doesn't seem to be engendering a lot of u uh legal legal action to uh to equalize those things. Um uh so interesting conversation. Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely. Um and I had a point about your most recent point. I just need a second to collect it. I usually write things down. Sorry, this was kind of a long day. Um yeah, if if this is going to become an enormous discussion of case law, you know, I welcome the commissioners to kind of figure it out amongst yourselves. Um you know, my my goal is to to come up with a basically to intake a consensus and produce the rags along the lines of those that consensus. So, I'm very I'm eagerly awaiting what you guys decide in terms of where it can go and the regulations will be based on that. And potentially if you guys want to have a rigorous case law debate with each other, you can. Um, but that that's not my intention with this.

So, I have a question is how did you get this assignment as the zoning enforcement officer? Hi, sorry Linda Lauriano. Um, so Alex is part of our emerging leadership um here in the town and um he also has you know other credentials and apart from being CEO uh his description is also to assist um the land use uh uh planning staff in other projects as well. It doesn't specify which projects, but as part of al also the emerging leadership program, I thought this would be a great opportunity for him to, you know, kind of dive in. He has had some guidance. We've um actually met um you know, with leadership and with staff, um you know, to review these regulations. I gave him um some input on what the commission at the time was concerned about. Um, I remember rewriting these and uh putting just a bigger buffer um and to uh what Commissioner Goff had stated. I do recall where the commission wanted to cap the number of facilities. Um and so um you know when when it was uh given when I made the res uh the amendments for your consideration, I think that the commission then felt this is a little too strict. This is not what we want just because the buffers were and then for a while the moratorum just kind of continued. Um, you know,

well, I'm just I want to be a little over the point, but yeah, we had this whole conversation, you and I and Commissioner Jennifer McNeely, who's on here tonight. Yeah. About the fact that staff, the only enforcement officer, was overloaded. He didn't have time to respond to concerns that were given to him by this commission. And so now tonight, he's been given other other duties other than zoning enforcement. So, it's just a concern and I'll just put it on the record that items that are brought to his attention for enforcement are laying fellow.

Okay. I do want to clarify that that um I am very confident right now that our CEO has moved on those issues and complaints. Um if you'd like an update, I will definitely have him update you, but I know that he does he does not sit on any complaint. um on you know on a very regular basis and I I apologize for the point to this commission at the last meeting was that he couldn't tell us when he would get to a concern because he didn't have the time. That's

so we discuss Yep. It may have been a a poor uh choice in words, but um after confirming and speaking with um Alex um the in at the time he just didn't have the answer. Um and it just but it it he just couldn't tell you an exact date. So it was just a choice of words. Um I can Okay, we're we're going to get back to

Mr. Chairman. I answer that question. Well, I like I like to get back to where we were before and not uh get into his duties and responsibilities. Um, I'm going to make a quick comment regarding the uh cannabis zones and and and I [clears throat] and and I appreciate the conversation between Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Peters because they both brought up some good points. Going back to when we discussed it last time, I did not want to see the retail in the business center district. I was comfortable with uh having the retail in industrial and I think that's where we were kind of leaning to back then, but we never never [clears throat] actually finalized anything because we put a moratorum on it. So, I appreciate the back and forth discussions. It was very helpful. Um, and that's all I want to say on that.

Um, Mr. Chair, just one last comment from me is that I would like to see an update at our at our next week meeting, maybe next month, just to keep this ball rolling because we know we've already extended the moratorum to is it May? Um, May 1st. And I would not like to see us extend it any further. like we just got to get some stuff resolved and this has been on our plate for a long time. Okay. Thank you, John. Was there anything you wanted to say outside of job duties? Say again, Mr. Chairman.

I see. Was there anything else you wanted to say regarding a cannabis outside of his job duties or responsibilities? No, sir. Okay. If that's it for cannabis, then I would ask the secretary if she would um move on to the next item. Yes, sir. 4 DHB 802 brief summary by staff on the new act concerning housing growth.

Okay. Good evening, commissioners. I know it's been a long night. Don't want to make this very long. Uh, basically, um, as some of you may be aware that, um, the, uh, new housing bill 8002 was recently, um, it became effective January 1st of 2026. Uh, the purpose, um, I did give you a handout tonight that I did not include in the email. Um, and I know it's, uh, was given to you today, so I'll briefly just review it. Um again said bill establishes a statewide framework um and that is to increase housing supply expand affordable housing opportunities and modernize municipal zoning and planning practices. Um the major components um of that act is the municipal housing growth plan. Um uh the implementation of that uh regional housing growth plans and housing needs assessment, affordable housing goals, implementation and reporting and regulatory uh reforms on that which encourages the town uh to amend their zoning regulations uh to streamline approval processes especially the ones outlined in section 16 um which is an act concerning um I'm sorry uh the uh middle housing the transient community middle housing development and mixeduse development. Um and um the timelines I did not include on here and I wish I had wrote it down. I don't know them by heart, but I know that the municipal housing growth plan um is is to if this commission um ops well and and the thought is suggested that you know the town u would opt to have its um municipal housing growth plan uh and not the regional plan. And I know that a few years ago this commission adopted an affordable housing plan. Um and so uh

that leads me to believe that the town would like to continue to have its own housing growth plan. If

I could interject for a minute, um the the dates regarding the dates um doesn't got we have to have we have to revise and modify our zoning regulations to be in conformance with the act by the end of June of this year. And we have to have the housing we have two choices on the housing growth plan. One is to do it internally i.e. the town does its own it can and then decide how it wants to do that or [clears throat] it can buy into the regional housing growth plan. Um my preference at this point is that we we do it internally that we that we um control our own destiny. We have a affordable housing plan that sets the base for a lot of this re for the regional growth plan. um that you adopted uh less than two years ago. Uh that contains a lot of the needs and requirements. Um we have to get to specific goals. That plan is not due to the state until the end of June 2028. So in essence, we've got a little over two years to do that. I believe that we have the internal capacity within the staff over that period of time to develop a really good plan. We'll also have the ability by then to see what the regional plan is and whether or not we want to be part of that as an alternative. Uh we will have that choice. Uh but I think that we ought to move forward at this time leaving. But I think the immediate issues that we're going to have to deal with over the next four months is the uh necessary modifications primarily related to parking conversion of ind industrial and non-residential use to um to residential properties and and um and um mobile homes uh in terms of uh the zoning regulations.

Excuse me, Linda.

It's okay. Um just adding to John's comment uh the mixeduse development type that he's talking about um on any lot that is zoned for commercial or mixeduse development um that is um a plan that um has to be uh part of the uh zoning review um under section 16. Um it uh so basically um what what that section is saying that the town has to establish a summary review for those type of mixed uh housing development and the transient metal housing. Um basically it uh the summary review streamlines the approval process of such development in the commercial and mixeduse districts. um relies on the objective standards contained in the zoning regulations and that's regarding the dimensions, requirement, lot size, etc. Um the summary review also does not require a discretionary like special permit process or public hearing. Um and it requires approval if the process complies with all the standards that are will be implemented for it. Uh so it streamlines that it shifts towards more of an administrative um or you know ministerial approval uh rather than a special permit. Um development types again um I did just indicate those what you know uh transit community middle housing development uh refers to on a smaller scale multi-unit residential developments like uh duplexes, triplexes and such. Um and also uh the mixeduse development which combines both commercial and residential. Effective date as John

mentioned uh July 1st 2026 um hopefully well by July 1st of 2026 um under section 16 is is when uh these regulations um should be become effective. um according to you know let's see compliance for Bloomfield so to comply with this section this is what we'll need identify all the zoning districts classified as commercial and mixeduse determine where transit community middle housing and mixeduse residential development are currently uh permitted um you know conditions of approval or any provisions um amend our regulations um explicitly permit qualifying development types um on parcels and then establish a clear objective standard for administrative review um remove discretionary uh approval requirements for these type of developments. So that's what we'll all be uh kind of considering and looking for for compliance to that section. Um this is may require revisions to the use table, creation of new administrative site plan category um and modifying uh modifications to the parking density bulk requirements and design standards. Uh it may require that as well. um to your consider uh considerations for the con uh commission when you review this would be whether to apply uh a uniform standard across all commercial zones um or tailor it by district. That would be something that we'll explore uh during this process. Appropriate dimensional controls to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. um that will be part of the analysis um of the area and all the surrounding uses and whether additional design standards should be adopted to maintain the neighborhood

characteristics and how parking requirements should be structured especially while in transit um served areas and that could be a reduction um you know things things of that nature uh depending on on where so the next steps right now you know due to the time crunch and timeline that we have to implement that section of uh you know section 16 um for the uh summary review uh staff will continue to review uh the Bloomfield zoning regulations to identify said sections um so we've started um I know I've given um with John and I we've started to review um you know these sections um we don't have them clearly outlined but we wanted to discuss this with you first. Uh staff will coordinate with CROG. We have asked CROG for technical assistance. Uh we have that option and we're hoping that um they'll work with us on um uh that analysis and revision. Um and uh staff will then return uh to the commission with a draft compliance framework, recommended zoning text amendments, and um a proposed timeline to ensure compliance by July 1st. Um, I know we have a meeting next week. If I could I'm, you know, working on a timeline for the commission on what that's going to look like. Again, a time crunch. It may include some additional meetings um to kind of get this um you know, implemented uh perhaps workshops um things of that nature. Um it's we'll put it all the timeline together and uh propose it to the commission and see how they feel and uh see if you have additional time that you can give us to

implement this that would be something uh to look at your schedules. So um that's my quick summary of section 16 and the act. again. You have a handout that I gave you. Are there any questions? Thank you, John. Anything you want to add to that? If not, we'll just go to the commission. No, I think that that fully covers I think you get the picture. There's there's there's a bit of a lift that has to happen on that. Um that we'll have to coordinate with regular applications and completing the POC.

All right. Thank you. Uh, we'll start with Commissioner Goff. Uh, got I know. Unmute. Unmute. Yeah, [laughter] I I hit the hand up. Is it? Uh, no. I that that was a pretty thorough thing. I I guess my only my only request is that you send that electronically tomorrow uh so that we can have that. Yes. Uh but uh obviously it's something we have to do and uh we will make the time to do it. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Mlette. Uh, nothing at the S. Commissioner Peters. Uh, nothing. Um, as well, marching onward. [laughter] Commissioner O'Brien.

I'm going to wear my Mr. Rogers sweater next. I have no, Commissioner James. Um my only ask I guess at next week when we have a timeline have some of the meeting additional meeting dates I mean yeah proposed and or workshop dates. I think it's just easier to schedule it and then if we need to cancel it we cancel it. Sure. Uh Commissioner Medwinner

uh no comments on the presentation. I just want to thank you guys for such a long day. It's after 1000 p.m. I really appreciate the fact that you guys are still here putting in the long time double duting doing double duties working so many you wearing so many hats and doing everything and I just want to express um my gratitude to all of you. Um you pro practically falling asleep by myself. So I just want to express that.

Thank you. I also want to state that our CEO was pretty much all day in court on an app uh you know yes on a seasoned assist. So he he's really had taken a lot of uh I guess the beating today for meeting and being in court. So um with that being said likewise thank you all for your time and your commitment you know to this town to this commission. Really appreciate all your feedback. We really take it to heart and we're working hard. So, thank you all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything to add either. Um, so at this point, uh, there's nothing under old business.

Motion to adjurnn. Second.

Good night everyone. Blow the surface. Yeah.