Plan & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Quarterly planning meeting, Town Planning and Zoning Commission, Thursday, August 20th at 7.05 p.m. First item on the agenda is the roll call.

Commissioner Lester?

Here.

Commissioner James? Here. Commissioner Bolton? Absent. Commissioner Peters?

Here.

Commissioner Millette?

Here.

Commissioner Marshall Neely? Here. Commissioner Goff?

Here.

Commissioner O'Brien?

Here.

Commissioner Medwinter? Absent. Commissioner Cotton?

Here.

Mr. Chair, you have a quorum.

Okay, thank you. I'll now ask the secretary if she would read the first item on the whole business agenda.

Sorry. First item is the POCD review and discussion.

Right. Okay. At this time, I was informed by staff that the POCD is not ready yet for review. So we'll skip over item A and we'll go to item B.

All right. Item B is future land use map continued discussion.

Thank you. At this time, we'll hear some comments from staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a presentation to make in response to the various requests and comments made by the commission over the past couple of meetings. I would request that you allow Nick to run through his entire presentation and and then we would open up for questions, discussions, and whatnot. I think that would be the most efficient way to see if we can get to the end.

Okay, thank you. Nick, are you ready? Sure. Thank you. Just state your name and address, please.

Nicholas Kapusta, Environmental Planner for Bloomfield, Connecticut. Address is 52 Kingswood Road, West Hartford, Connecticut. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. Good to see you all again. Yes, as Director Coleman suggested up here, we presented a presentation for you all. It should take between 10 and 15 minutes, 10 if I talk fast, 15 if I go on some tangents. But as Mr. Coleman said, there'll be a little period for initial questions in the middle. And then, of course, at the end, I hope to have some really good directive feedback and discussion and all that. So looking forward to talking with you here today about the Bloomfield future land use map for the 2026 POCD updates for the August draft. All right, without further ado, please. Okay. So the first slide up here are the key takeaways from the last meeting when we discussed the future land use map. These are just some, based on the discussion itself, these are what we kind of boiled down to as the kind of primary takeaway points here. They're in no particular order. I just numbered them for the sake of clarity. I'll quickly just kind of NAME THEM OUT LOUD AND WE'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS OF EACH TAKEAWAY. NUMBER ONE IS REVISE THE LAND USE GROUPS AND DEFINITIONS. SO THAT WILL TOUCH UPON ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL GOT WHICH IS THE TABLE OF LAND USE GROUP DEFINITIONS. Number two is mapping additional conservation objectives. That will be covered on the future land use map. Questions about agricultural representation, quantifying land use groups. Those will be in the presentation itself. We have some data to show you. And number five is kind of the catch-all category. It's revising map labels, non-land use group symbology, just other things on the map that are worth talking about.

Next slide, please.

All right, so starting with number one, revising land use groups and definitions. So the table that you all should have gotten via email about a week ago contains land use category, the name for the group is just land use category, And these definitions differ from the last table you all saw about a month ago because the last table kind of restricted these definitions to equivalent zones. This goes beyond that even and just broadly describes the types of uses we imagine seeing in the future and goes into a little bit more detail using a narrative description as opposed to just kind of an A equals B sort of thing. On that note, two things that we changed from the prior list of land use groups, where we split up a couple groups. During the last discussion, folks noted that the mixed use group seemed mighty broad. So we decided to split it into, we call it at this time, just plainly mixed use one and mixed use two. We'll get into how those are different pretty soon. For now, mixed use one really kind of focuses to summarize its residential and commercial, Mixed use two is residential, commercial, and some industrial. Moving on to the next category that was split in two was open space. For a similar reason as why mixed use was split up, people thought open space was very broad. For example, a cemetery is listed as open space, and so is a wetland that's conserved for conservation purposes. I think it was merited to have some more distinctions in there. Open Space 1 covers, I would say, open space with some light development, things like utility land, cemeteries, golf courses, active recreation, recreation where you bring more than just your sneakers, for example. Open Space 2 is mostly for natural resource conservation land and passive recreation, so things like hiking, maybe some bicycling, that type of thing.

Okay, moving on, please.

Okay, the next one, kind of a segue from what I just talked about in terms of the conservation lands. So some commissioners noted that there was some land on the map that kind of makes more sense to label as conservation land for a variety of reasons, mainly those which are undeveloped lands owned by the town and or lands which have significant natural resource constraints to more traditional intense development in addition we added a layer it's a non-land use group this is just an overlay that shows existing conservation recreation easements uh the note there says up to 2021 the most recent layer we had just had he's been from 2021 we will update that if deemed needed for the final version, but just for now just giving you some clarity they're. Moving on, in any case, the these he's been symbolized lands that are not always an open space land, but are similar to open space there, there are lands within say an industrial area. residential area that contain lands that are preserved for conservation, not because of their land use group, but because of existing conservation slash recreation easements. We'll get into more of the numbers in a sec, but just as a preview, roughly 464.9 acres of the land that is labeled on the future land use map proposed for industrial residential or mixed use contains restrictions from conservation and recreation easements. So there's land that's not open space that still is kind of being managed as open space for other reasons. The next slide, please. Okay, this was a question that's come up at a few past meetings. Questions about agricultural representation based on research and advisement from Global New York, the consulting firm that the town uses and staff. Staff believe that at this time, listing a future land use group as agriculture It may have some regulatory obstacles, but I want to note on this slide as well that agricultural resources and planning are discussed on other parts of the POCD. So the POCD does include planning and intentional direction for agriculture within town. In addition, I've been tasked by my director as well as members of the CEC based on a discussion to investigate more directly into the town's existing and potential future agricultural resources. So again, although they do not have a specific call out on the proposed future land use map, planning for agriculture is in the POCD and is something that our staff is working on right now as well. Happy to talk more about that another time. Next slide, please. Okay, some numbers. What was requested at the last meeting was some hard data, which is great. What we did was we calculated the acreages and percentages for each proposed land use group. I will note that what was requested was the, THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE GROUPS FOR 2026 AND COMPARING THEM TO THE 2012 DATA. UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T RUN THAT ANALYSIS AT THIS TIME WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AVAILABLE, BUT WE CAN DO OUR BEST TO COMPARE WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST AND GIVE YOU A CLEAR PICTURE AS TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED. And then the next slide has the numbers. I won't list every single number at this moment. I'll kind of ramble and pause for about 10 seconds in case people want to look at it right now in front of them. But we can go back to these numbers during discussion period, etc., Let me go to the next slide. I can have a few comments on this one. This slide kind of combines like categories. So high density, medium density, low density residential are all in one category, open space, et cetera. So real briefly, proposed open space, approximately 36.2%. Residential proposed, 42.2%. Mixed use, 7.4%. Industrial, approximately 14.1%. These are rough estimates. And I will also include the fact that you might note that the acreage here is less than what the official acreage is of the town of Bloomfield. That's because this analysis only included lands that were not on public right of ways. So if you actually do the math, there's, I think there's like maybe like a thousand acres or so of like just roads. And those are not included in like Like if a road was next to a mixed use area, that road is not considered a future open space land because it's a town maintained right away road. Okay. And then again, I have that little asterisk there for the land, which is on conservation recreation easements within residential mixed use and industrial zones. I didn't include in the, in that calculation conservation slash recreation easements on open space. Cause again, It was kind of redundant. It's important that they're there, but just in terms of how you know how future land use will be, it's just for those bottom three categories in this number right here.

Okay, next slide, please.

Okay, this was the last part of the takeaways. This is kind of the catch-all category, as I was saying. Just some brief notes. Somebody noted that the interchange, I'm calling it the interchange for routes 189 and 187 was missing in the last draft. That was just an oversight. It is now included. The mixed use nodes, they were removed because the general consensus seemed they were kind of unnecessary, maybe a little redundant. Mixed use will be happening probably in the areas that are labeled for mixed use as the future land use group. So having a node, it just seemed it would add some confusion and questions. A similar reason was why we removed the Bloomfield Center district boundary. Again, that was just an overlay of an existing zone and is pretty fairly well captured. around there for the mixed use area in the center of town. Again, we thought it was just a little cleaner and not needed. And lastly, we labeled the Farrington River right up there. And that, I think, will bring us to my next... Oh, of course. And then here, real quick, not quick, we can come back to it, but this is just a side-by-side look of the last draft from July. which is on the right hand side, and the current draft in front of you is on the left. Full disclosure, the draft you have in front of you, the only difference between that map and the one here is that this map I included the local roads on the printout so we could see them and call them out. Putting the local roads on that smaller compressed version would take up a lot of space on the actual map, so that's why there's no local roads labeled on there just right now. It's only state roads. OK. I think the next, oh, that will quickly, sorry, Lynn. I was premature there. Yeah, I guess just some overall observations. You'll see that the mixed use nodes are no longer there. More land has been labeled for conservation, for open space land. And you'll see the open space has now been split up into two categories. Dark green is open space two, light green open space one. And for mixed use, the light pink is mixed use one and the dark pink is mixed use two. These colors can be changed. I was just kind of working with the color scheme from the draft that I first got when I started working on this project. But open to discussion, obviously. OK, I think now I'm ready for the last slide. Yeah, so I'll take a moment to pause. We can either answer any initial questions right off the bat. If they can wait, I will just quickly touch upon two specific neighborhoods in town where we might want to discuss different alternatives from what is currently on this map in front of you. And we can just go from there.

I will pause for about five seconds if anybody wants to ask a question.

At this time, do anyone have any questions for Nick? Renee online. Any questions at this time? All right. Thank you, Nick. You can continue.

Thank you, sir. I don't have much more to go, so we'll get.

Oh, that's right. I didn't see her. I'm sorry. Desiree, at this time, would you have any questions?

No.

Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. Now she's up. Okay, Nick, you can continue.

Great, thank you.

Next slide, please, Lynn.

Okay, I also preface this by saying the neighborhood names, this one is called the Granby Cottage Grove Neighborhood. These aren't official names. These are just what we call them for purposes of guiding our conversation here. So this neighborhood is in the southeastern quadrant of town, roughly at the intersection of Cottage Grove to the north and Granby Road to the west. This neighborhood's an older planned neighborhood in town. It's a little history there, I think. I was told it was planned between... World War I and World War II, so like early 1900s. That's kind of why the parcels themselves look a little strange and kind of small. So that's some context there. But additional context is that on the 2012 Future Land Use Map, our current Future Land Use Map, what is currently labeled as open space is what we currently have. This is what is proposed on the map in front of you, the map right here. that whole neighborhood more or less would be as it is here on the left-hand side, open space. An alternative, given the abutting land uses, the zones within the neighborhood, which are industrial and residential at this time, one would be to kind of make half of that neighborhood mixed use to allow for the current or to you know i guess continue the current uses of half industrial approximately and half residential approximately and then in the eastern part of the neighborhood there it'd be labeled as a open space a little more context i sent a map earlier that shows the existing resources we can pull it up if needed but to summarize the area where On the right-hand side, where the open space remains on the eastern part of the neighborhood, there's a lot of natural resource restrictions there. A lot of wetlands. There is an intermittent stream that drains directly into the Park River, which is the watershed which Bloomfield majority belongs to. So there are some conservation priorities in that area. Oops. And just considerations. And lastly, the whole neighborhood itself is fairly undeveloped. It's mostly kind of woodsy. Even on the kind of patchwork of lots that contain houses or some businesses as well. In addition, most of the lands on the eastern side there are actually owned by the town. A lot of that is town-owned undeveloped land.

We can move to the next slide.

I was gonna wait till the next, yeah, but that's okay. Okay, yep, I'll be maybe two more minutes. One if I talk quickly. Okay, the next neighborhood, I just called the Western Bloomfield neighborhood. This one is a bit less obvious, I think, at least from my perspective. So I just, the outline in red are the general areas that contain differences. The main difference is that the current proposal, the one next to me on my left-hand side here in front of you all, that area is currently a mixture of low-density residential and medium-density residential. On the right-hand side, this alternative proposal more closely aligns with what is in the existing 2012 Future Land Use Map proposal. where that whole corridor is low density residential. I guess a little more background. The area in the red is mostly either R40 or R80, which is our two least dense residential zones. The area has general rural landscapes, There are several farms, state lands as well, and utility land dotted throughout there. So it's a generally low density, low development area. The portion to the north is fairly well serviced by state road, utilities, et cetera. But the current low density is the result partially due to natural resource restrictions from slopes, wetlands, et cetera. So one alternative would allow for slightly denser lots on the northern tier of town and on Doncaster Road. And the other would be more similar to the current 2012 POCD, where it's pretty much all low density residential. I think that kind of sums it up. And I think that's the end of my presentation. And yep, that's it. Great. Thank you all for bearing with me and I'm happy to discuss.

Okay. Thank you. At this time, we'll take some questions and I believe commissioner O'Brien, you had something you wanted to ask.

Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank Nick for all his work on this. It's very helpful. And yeah, But I do want to correct the record on something he said the last meeting, which he said the land use map is informed by the zoning. It's actually the opposite. The zoning is informed by the land use map. The... Future land use map is a key component of the plan of conservation and development. Section 8-23E of the state statute requires that the commission provide a map that depicts the appropriate and desired uses of land throughout the community. And then in accordance with section 8-3A, the commission must consult this map and determining the consistency of any proposed zoning district in accordance to the map and the plan of conservation and development. And the commission would be required to state on the record how any proposed zoning district change is consistent with that plan. So the document that we'll get soon must support this map. And then this map is what the commission, when the staff hands out, The thing that says to applicants, how does your proposal comport with the plan? It would be both the document and the land use map. The other thing is that land use maps usually don't have The zoning lines or the lot lines on them, they're generalized maps. They don't usually have like little dots where you have like an individual parcel that's like 50 by 100 as a park, but you have a bunch of down there in the Park River area. So that's my opening thing. With respect to what I'm calling the Park River area, because it's not really Cottage Grove Road and Granby Street. If you talk about Cottage Grove Road and Granby Street, you got the fast food place on the right and you got the shopping center. So you're really talking about the Park River area. So my questions would be, what is your goal here? What's the goal of making that a park?

I can give some context and I can give my coworkers some chance to provide feedback as well or answers as well. I don't think there's an exact goal to make it a park per se. I think the reason why some of that land would be labeled as open space would be because It would be to acknowledge the existing natural resource constraints. I did use the word zoning in there for a second and I maybe should have taken that back. But the reality is that the current natural conditions make a lot of kind of development in that area difficult. The ones that are there, a lot of those houses are, almost a hundred years old, you know, before, before we had certain zoning regulations. So that's why they exist. That area, I think in general could use a lot, you know, a closer look. There are some parcels that are literally 0.1 acres. And most of that 0.1 acres is an intermittent stream. And sometimes, and those properties are, oops, I'm sorry, still privately owned. And I think to, to acknowledge that somebody might have that property and think, oh, I can maybe build something here, you know, I think the reality is certain parcels, certain areas are just unsuitable for any kind of industrial, residential, or mixed-use development because of the natural resource constraints. On top of that, not only are there the constraints there, but it is a pretty close drainage area to the Park River watershed area. It is a goal of the town to both the current POCD as well as the proposed POCD, try to be good stewards of the watershed and seeing how this could be a high-impact area.

All right, I think I got the gist of where you're going. Why don't we have the Park River shown?

That's a good question. Sorry, I interrupted you, maybe. But I can answer that. The Park River doesn't actually go through that neighborhood, per se. The Park River does.

The Park River on the zoning map and the Park River on other maps in the plan of conservation development currently is shown on there. And the resource map you sent out to us has the Park River on it.

I'm not sure if the Park River is actually, I want to double check.

I don't think the Park River is actually in Bloomfield. Look at the resource map you sent out to us. It shows the Park River going straight down the alternate.

Lynn, could you bring up that slide that has the zoomed in? Because I think I know what you're talking about. The Park River, I'm pretty sure, doesn't technically go through Bloomfield.

That is the north branch of the Park River.

I know, sorry, the North Branch of the Park River.

The Park River goes through West Hartford on Trout Brook, but this is the North Branch of the Park River and is shown on several maps of the town.

Yeah, you're correct. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. There is a small portion of the North Branch of the Park River that comes together.

It is, I can show on the map in a second here.

Oh, it doesn't pull up there, unfortunately. Yeah, we can do that, but that would kind of get us out of this PowerPoint.

Well, the Park River goes right down through the alternate section of the green that you have, because I looked at several maps. So what you said was that the area's not really developed, but the first proposal that you sent out Monday I looked at that. I looked up all the assessor's records. There are many, many houses. People live in them. Matter of fact, there's two houses that are owned by the Bloomfield Housing thing that exists there. So in the smaller version that you have shown, there are 57 properties. The town owns about 12 of the 57. So there's about 47 properties that you would be making a park. And so can open space be created in an industrial zone?

I'm pretty sure open space is allowed in every single zone in town.

Okay.

I can double check that, but that's my answer right now.

Can commercial or residential uses be established in a park?

not based on the proposed future land use categories here. And I will just also add.

The answer is no. I mean, yes. So, I mean, if you made it a park, nobody could, all of the houses there are non-conforming and you can't build anything there. And so, but if it was pink, with all of the land use and environmental controls that exist, it does allow somebody the opportunity to find a patch of land as many, many people did in the original section that you had. So, you know, a basic principle of planning and zoning is commission can't deprive property owners of economic value of the land without just compensation. So if you're saying that the 47 private owners in this smaller area, that is still the alternative, you're taking every economic value away from them by putting this on this map as part. So have you approached the legislative council about the availability of funds to acquire these properties?

No. Roger, we haven't, but I think one thing I'd like your response on, the property in the 2012 POCD land use map, this entire, area is open space.

Right, and the answer to that, let me answer that. Let me answer that, John.

The question is, what is the reason that we use to justify changing from the 2012?

Okay, so the reason is, is because in 2012, the land use plan was only a few years into being something other than advisory. And whoever did it in 2012 didn't realize. And so they made it PARC. And then even though it was PARC, you zoned it industrial. So right now that area is zoned industrial. The people who live there have the right right now, they could come in and apply for an industrial permit. So what you, so just because it was done in 2012, it was wrong then, it's wrong now. So I just want to go through the environmental controls that we have on that part, on that area. Actually, Mr.

Chair, Mr. Chair. No, no, no, hold on.

Let him finish. I will.

Right now, so, so, cause what you, what you said was that you were, your goal was to protect the environment. So I looked into that. We have stormwater management regulations that control the area. The inland wetland and watercourse regulations protect that area. The inland wetland and watercourse regulations contain a 100-foot upland review area around wetland soils. It then has a 200 foot upland review area around water courses, including rivers, marshes, swamps, and bogs. It has a 500 foot upland review area around potential vernal pools. Now there's no scale on any of the maps you sent out, so I couldn't scale the Park River, but if you look at the resource map and you figure out all of the bogs and swamps and marshes and the width of the river, you pretty much have control over the whole area. In addition, the FEMA flood maps control the elevations that anything in that area would be built. So FEMA flood, it takes effect. Also, the Army Corps of Engineers would have control if there was any discharge into the Park River, so you'd need a 403 permit. And the Greater Hartford Flood Control Commission, which was known as the Greater Hartford Park River Flood Control Commission, is now the Greater Hartford Flood Control Commission. also would have jurisdiction. Now you may have read in the paper where they're currently holding up a development downstream from here on Scarborough Street in Hartford. They turned it down. So there is A, B, C, D, E, F controls on that property, which if you made it pink, somebody still has the same right they would have now and anything that was reviewed. And in addition, whatever regulation that this commission would write with respect to commercial residential, We could include additional language where anything within so many feet of the river, anything that requires a special permit, we could write in there all kinds of things. And we would not run the risk of being sued by 47 homeowners that we designated their property a park.

Okay, so I'm going to let either Kevin, you can answer that, or Nick, if you chose to take a stab first, I'll let you take a stab, and then Kevin, you'll be next. Okay.

I just want to add, I guess, a few points of clarification. First is that to my previous statement about the Park River, where it flows, the Park River itself is not into the north branch of Park River. It does partially go through town. I'll point to it real fast. It's not the park. The North Branch Park doesn't go through the neighborhood in question. A drainage to it does, just for some clarity, just in terms of what's where. And I'd be, again, happy to label. right there because that should be labeled it's our major one of our major watersheds i can i'm happy to label that the additional point of clarity you want to make is we're in labeling anything here is open space that doesn't mean the town wants to make it a park that's part of why we changed the name from park slash open space to just open space because just because open space doesn't mean it'll be a park so what would you zone it then if you got if it's park what would the zone be

You couldn't put it in. There's no zone for a park or open space.

Yeah, I don't think currently we have a zone for parks in town.

That are town-owned parks. Yeah, I think we have town-owned parks. If I own a piece of property and you change the land use category to park, then what would the follow-on zoning be? Well, we're not proposing that at this time.

So I don't know.

Because that's what you, if I were to adopt this and you were going to have green on there, I'll go back to what I read before the state statute says, if we're going to put zoning on there, we must follow that map. And we don't have a zoning for park that allows any uses.

Yeah, I guess I'm kind of stuck on the word park because we're not proposing it to be zoned for park zone. You know, it would be open space, which would include a park, but wouldn't be just park. That's the point I'm kind of trying to.

But it's the same thing as Gorman and York told you with respect to agriculture.

Thank you.

With respect to agriculture. The Gorman in New York, rightfully so, said it would create regulatory problems. With respect to open space, it's the same argument.

Okay. I understand. Thank you.

Kevin is next.

Okay. I just want to address, we don't have a zoning district or anything that just explicitly say this is a park or this is a park district. But we have looked at the maps and a lot of, like the 2012 plan of conservation and development, a lot of zoning updates were not made with that plan that should have been implemented. We're talking about even commercial zones. They were zoning districts that were, you know, in the plan, in the future land use map designated as, and a zoning district was created, but it was never really fully implemented into the plan. I just want to say that with this, The intent is to preserve that area, as Nick was saying. And also, we are going to be looking at making changes to the zoning regulations to define open space and categorize it in our zoning regs. I just want to let you know that that would be part of the implementation portion of the plan of conservation and development.

No, no. Hold on. Roger. Roger. Roger. I mean, she just said it.

No, no, no. Kevin's next. Please don't talk unless you're recognized by the chair.

Thank you.

We have to.

Kevin, you're next. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So first of all, thank you for updating all this and doing everything. I do want to mention one of my comments was to label the Parker River because you have the Farmington River labeled and you could potentially do Beeman Brook and Washbrook too, the tributaries. But this conversation has become very philosophically disconcerting. I agree completely with Roger in terms of his interpretation of that the zoning is informed by the land use map. However, my understanding is that once we put a future land use map in, we don't go back and rezone the entire town. I don't think that's, that would be a taking, that would be a, oh, we decided to do this so now we're changing your zone. I think what you said, Roger was exactly correct. What the future land use map does is it says, here's our vision of the town. Here's where we see development. Here's where we see high density, low density, commercial, undeveloped land, because I do not want to call it open space.

We'll get to that eventually, but probably not in this conversation until we come back to another one.

But this idea of takings, because we label what a vision we are looking at, is just not, I don't think is accurate. It's only a taking if you do not let the person understand do what is provided under their current zoning. We, I do not think, can sit here and say, oh, we can't zone this, or we can't, no, I shouldn't say zone. We can't envision this in the future as being type S. whatever type X is, whether it's mixed-use commercial, whether it's industrial, whatever, we can't envision that because if we did and they came in for a zone change and we said we don't envision that, then we are taking, you do not take someone's right to change their zone. They have no right to change their zone. they have to be informed by what the commission, which is elected by the public to come up with a public vision of what the town should look like. So I think you're getting too technical in terms of what, Nick is looking at in that one specific area. He's just envisioning, he's saying we can envision part of it mixed use. We can envision all of it, quote, open space. We can envision part of it open space, whatever. That's our vision and that's what we should be looking at. That's what this commission is supposed to do. That's what this future land use map is supposed to do, in my opinion. And we should not be listening to someone saying, oh, well, if you put this in a land use map, you might get a legal challenge because you wouldn't let somebody change their zone. The properties are zoned as they are. I can't do anything about that. And until someone comes in for a zone change, you know, all I can do is say, here's what we have in the POCD. And what we're trying to do now is figure out what to put in the POCD in the future. I have a bunch of other comments, but I think that's what we should be focusing on. And I think that the comment that I think was made somewhere in the presentation. We'll get back to that when we look at the various density levels and the changes from 2012 to 2026 or whatever. You know, what we should be doing is looking at last time's POCD and now here's what our vision is going forward. So, you know, that's...

I think it's a much different question than what you're raising. Okay, hold it. Roger, before you go, is there anyone else who have a question so we can all take part in this conversation? Well, if you have anything to say.

Because this is just something small that came into my mind. I know we're not trying to make so many subcategories, but I believe Commissioner Goff said it. About commercial, well, you kind of said, oh, we don't have commercial. Why don't we have a commercial district? We have mixed use, we have industrial, but there's like no separation to delineate just a commercial use space. And I think that that would make sense when we're transitioning from residential to mixed use, and then boom, we're in industrial, but there's no separation. place that's commercial. Cause tobacco, in my opinion, there's a lot of other places that are popping up like that are what I would envision as commercial only. And I think we should possibly try to create that to, you know, make this look a lot more transitional in my opinion. Um, so that's one thing I was, I was thinking, um, I think, yeah, that's the biggest thing I was thinking.

Sure. That's a great question. Would it be helpful if I responded now? Sure. Okay. So I think the main idea behind that was, frankly, thinking about the most recent legislation passed by the state. You're familiar with the middle housing legislation in which it kind of creates new pathways in which commercial and residential, a new pathway for those to exist together. It kind of goes along with the state's housing goals, being that if there's a place where, say, there's, some kind of commercial business, you're selling something, et cetera, there could be a mixed use where residential could also be there. So I think it's to make sure that we're in line with the state's sort of, you know, direction in terms of broadening residential possibilities within town. I think that's one of the main reasons it's like that. But if we think that is not the best way to go, we can talk about that. But that was something that I, if anybody else in my staff here wants to talk about that, that's what I understood to be the reason.

Yeah. Yeah. I think that's one of the driving forces that we switched from commercial to the mixed use one and mixed use two because of the new legislation, which mandates that housing is permitted in quote commercial and quote industrial zones. And we wanted to reflect that. And it, you know, we basically could not have from a state statute, a pure commercial zone and that the zoning regulations would have to be modified to reflect that. And, you know, as Roger has indicated, the zoning regulations and map flow from the land use map. So we wanted to have going forward, we didn't want to create inconsistencies in that regard. But it's open, you know, if the commission feels differently, then we will respond accordingly.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else would like to question or comment? Jennifer and then Steve.

Okay, I heard what you said, John, but I still believe that just using Commissioner Peters' example with Cottage Grove Road, and my mind says Cottage Grove Road is commercial and commercial only. There's no one who's going to be living in a commercial only zone. I... I think having a mixed use, a mixed use one and two, that's fine, but I still believe that the town of Bloomfield has some areas that are just commercial. And I think about the commercial area on Blue Hills Avenue, I there's churches across the street and maybe a couple of homes that was there long before, but it's, it's actually commercial. Am I, am I wrong to say that that's commercial? And then I think about, um, Dudley town road where you have commercial on Dudley town road. Um, businesses and so forth and so on and I can't see residential homes popping up inside those commercial developments. So is there a way to incorporate on the map commercial mixed use one, mixed use two, or is that taking it too far? Is that being too technical? Roger, am I out of sync here? Because this really does seem like our town has commercial areas, strictly commercial areas.

Commissioner, I just would give an initial response. Well, interesting enough, there is a residential proposal that's percolating on Cottage Grove Road. we have a very significant residential development under construction on Blue Hills Avenue. And the town owns a fairly sizable parcel of land on Blue Hills Avenue that has been under discussion for affordable housing. So there are locations along both those avenues where residential development exist or is potentially going to be developed.

Hey, thank you. Are you finished, Commissioner Marshall?

I'm still holding on to that commercial piece of it.

Okay. Hold it before you go. Steve, and then you. Commissioner Millett.

Okay. Um, so I, I know, and I had a couple of things, but I do want to time if you want, um, we remove, remove the mixed nodes, which makes sense. Um, but one of them 305, one 87, you know, I think that if I'm looking at the map that, that leaves it completely industrial now.

Oh yeah.

Even though we do. So I don't know if there's a, That's something we would want to leave mixed use, even though we're not showing it as a node or if we're having a different vision for that specific space. My other question, going to the Duncaster or the Western neighborhood side, It looks like we're pushing the density a little bit to the west. My question on that, and as we go into some of the text and what it would take to put housing, do we have the utilities there to do it? Because I know there are certain places in Doncaster where very difficult to put septics. There may be water, but no source or no water. And I don't know if that would lend itself to pushing that. You go further north to where the new school is, makes a little more sense to me, as long as we're staying away from the Farmington River. But I know we have the buffer of the park. So that's kind of just... some of the observations I made.

Okay. Thank you. If you don't want to address that, Linda, if you'd like to say what you wanted to say now, and then Roger, you'll be next.

Mr. Chairman, can I just respond to Mr. Millett's comment on Lower Doncaster? Sure. We were quite frankly ambivalent on that. Um, we felt that, um, clearly the North end, um, the larger lots, um, um, was, um, uh, was more appropriately, um, low density. Um, we, we kept the, the area along the frontage of Doncaster that way, because there is water that exists in that, in that road. Um, but I think it's certainly, um, um, an appropriate area to have an honest discussion of whether or not the commission wants to back that down to low density.

Okay, thank you. Linda.

Thank you. I just wanted to address some of the concerns that Commissioner Marsh newly had pointed about the transitioning between commercial zones and stuff. So it's what the definition of commercial district is. In our current, we don't have the zoning map. The way that that could be addressed as more intense and kind of transitioning to, you know, within the residential zone like the boundaries um a way to and we don't have the land use map but there you have the i1 uh the i2 district and the i1 the i1 allows for like a little bit of commercial in it so the way that all the uses are written which that would be a zoning analysis after this pocd really is written is do you want to allow some commercial district within the industrial zone? And the way that the current zoning regulation allows it, it's a less intense, I-1 is more less intense industrial, more of a smaller scale industrial slash manufacturing and allows for, I guess, flexibility with retail, commercial type of businesses. The I-2 is more restrictive. You know, with like no residentials and no retail and larger warehouses.

So you'll see that more up here and then some of these down here.

but mostly the I-1, which allows for that mixture, is where you see the Douglas Street areas that are more smaller warehouse or commercial. And then transitioning over to where Gramby, Cottage Grove, Gramby, Toby area is, which is all you can see the mix of the mixture. You have fast food, you have the Capaco, you have dry cleaners, you know, so... that's where the trends, I know you're not gonna see that in the future land use map, cause it all looks like, wow, this is all heavy industrial, but where's the transition gonna happen? And so that is where, you know, more of the zoning analysis could be done and also a good look at what those individual districts allow, not trying to take, but what makes sense as far as development, we will be conducting those things after.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner O'Brien and then Commissioner Peters and then Commissioner Goff.

Yeah, I think it might be helpful if we stayed on one topic here because we were on Park River and we've sort of morphed. I'm happy to talk about the entire map, but we were on Park River.

That's okay. They can ask questions regarding this whole.

So on Park River, when you had the alternative one, and you had it broader, the topography and the landscaping and the environmental conditions are exactly the same on the wider area and the smaller area, but you decided that you could take half of it and leave it as pink but then half not think, and I'm having trouble with that because if you go out and look at it, they're the same. And so the question about we don't rezone after we do a land use plan I've been in this 50 years. Yes, we do. And this commission would have to rezone Carthage Grove Road because we've changed the land use on it. We've changed and it's become more flexible. And I think it's a smart thing to do. I've been doing mixed use zones for 50 years. I started in 1980 in Hamden where we had the railroad tracks came up Dixwell Avenue, come on out of New Haven. And that was all zoned industrial. And there were very narrow lots and there's no way that you would, that an industrial place would be located there anymore. So we created what we call controlled development on the land use map. And then we followed it up with controlled development. different zones that would go within it. And so what we're gonna have to do here is follow it up with, We'll call it design development something. And we've opened up residential opportunities along Cottage Grove Road, but it doesn't say we're not allowing commercial. Right now it's all zoned industrial, makes no sense at all. It's residential or commercial at the present time. So we would take and put new zoning regs. We would have to put new zoning regs in. Now, we could apply the existing commercial zone to certain lots right now just because it's a pink on there. And that's the beauty of having a generalized land use map. it's pink and it pink says commercial and residential. So somebody comes in, wants a residential. If we have a zoning regulation that allows residential and has certain conditions, and it also allows commercial and has certain conditions, they could entertain the residential. If they want to do commercial, we could entertain the commercial, but So my question is, we got pink and we got, so we're changing the industrial, because if you take that whole area, it was all industrial. So we got pink, then we got pink going down, and then we got the other mixed use two down in the back, which is, I forget which one's one and two, but one is pink, is commercial industrial. So the rear portion is commercial industrial. Then we left the industrial two district all the way to the east. So I'm arguing that we don't really need that green area in the middle because there are some industrial properties that come in off of of Blue Hills, they come in off of Douglas Drive, they come in off of a loop road, that name I'm not remembering, and they bought that green area. So let's just say they want to expand, okay? If it was pink, they could expand, but what zone are we gonna put on that green that would allow them to expand if they can do it properly, you know, and handle the wetlands? None, because I'm arguing that if you label that 57 properties, 47 which are privately owned, what zone do we have? And Linda says, well, we can create an open space zone. Well, what would we allow for uses in an open space zone? I don't know. Open space. So that's what I'm saying. A, it's illegal. And I'm stipulated too many, many times in Superior Court in the state of Connecticut as a zoning expert. It's illegal. You can't do that. Just as Gorman in New York said, you cannot put agriculture there. So I'm saying I'm all for the environmental protection. I have no, I'm, that's great. Let's put Park River there and look at the zoning map. Park River runs right through that green area. Look at your resource map you sent out. Park River runs right through that area. So put the Park River in there. It has all kinds of controls. And when we write the new regulations for mixed use one and mixed use two, we can even have a section in there that talks about parcels of land that have certain characteristics and whatever, and we limit it further. And we do it legally and we protected the environment, but we've left open the opportunity for a creative developer to come in and maybe build some housing there. Because in the other half, which you eliminated, there's all kinds of housing built there. Somehow rather they figure there. I live in this town in a subdivision that has over 60 acres of wetlands. And there's 60 houses there because it's 120 acres. clustered the houses and the wetlands are part of the cold open space. So just because there's wetlands doesn't mean you can't build something there.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Sure. If I can respectfully make a suggestion, obviously I'm not sure there's a consensus on, on this particular area of, and, uh, it may be appropriate, um, or someone to move a motion. Quite frankly, we need to get closure because we cannot provide you with the POCD until this map is approved, or at least consensus is reached on it, and we can provide it to Gohmann and York to incorporate in the POCD because as Roger indicated, this map is particularly essential

Okay, well, I don't want to shut down discussion exactly yet if anyone else have anything to say.

I will say one thing, I guess I am a little concerned about it. I don't want to do anything that could potentially be illegal in terms of how we approve this map. And I guess over in that area, if we do designate all of that open space and it does contain residential units, I don't want us to be in violation of anything. So that we need definite clarification on.

Understood.

Okay. So with that said, is there anyone else that would like to say anything?

I'll put myself in the queue as well after you're done.

Okay.

Commissioner Peters.

So I guess as a point for clarification, this future land use map, is it not a suggestion of what we think the town should be going? We're not rezoning. Right? We're just, we're not rezoning these areas. We're saying that based upon the growth of the town, this is where we think this is going to transition into. What's this?

There's a zoning analysis that we'll do and it has to make sense with the future land use map. So as Commissioner O'Brien stated, for instance, in areas where, you know, if you have misuses, Currently it's all I district. So yes, we, it would be appropriate. I would say that, you know, rezoning following adoption of a plan of conservation and development would be appropriate because it has to line up with the overall plan. And in addition, we're talking about also taking a look at the languages and definitions of our current regulations and making appropriate changes to implement again, this plan as you foresee the town moving forward. It's been a practice, I believe. Okay.

Okay. So I understand what you said. I understand what I just read. Thank you, Commissioner Ryan. Um, I still think it aligns with what I'm saying, and this is still a suggestion, but I would say this is what I was going to say. It would have been helpful. I love this map. There's been a lot of progress from this map to the last one. It would have been great to have them both at the same scale to see what changes kind of were made and also the 2012 one to see where we were. where we're going and if these changes are appropriate and they're not contradicting what we're saying is the suggestion for the future. So what Commissioner O'Brien is suggesting is illegal. We're not suggesting that that is illegal. We're properly suggesting what is will be. And like, it's great to have this, like, it's great to have the numbers that we kind of flashed through pretty quickly. It's great to see the new map, but it would be great. I know we have it in the PowerPoint. It would be great to have them both at the same scale to say like, okay, we developed this. This makes sense. Now we're like this. Like this, hold on, what street was that? Between Cutters Grove and Park, I forgot which street, that bisects. The last time we did that map, that was completely dark purple. Jolly Drive. Yeah, Jolly Drive. That was complete dark purple. It makes sense to see them side by side to see why now it's light purple and dark purple. In my opinion, I don't even think that, well, that darkish purple should even be there. For my opinion, based upon what I read about Mixed Use 2, Mixed Use 2 should fall closer on the outskirts that are getting closer to the dark purple industrial. So it doesn't seem, because when I read storage and packaging and mixed use, too, that are allowed in that area, I don't see that area as a place that should promote storage, packaging, and manufacturing because it's also so close to other residential units. I feel like that's leaning towards industrial, and that would seem like it would go more closely towards the north, around that big block of dark purple. I think I would see a lot of the in-between purple around there. And that's why I said it would be great to see what was before, which we have, that's on the board right now, and having this sheet at the same scale. Because it's kind of interesting or difficult sometimes to see exactly what change has been made and why. And I think that would go with Commissioner O'Brien's point of why is there this green patch where we could have just simply left it as light purple or pink or whatever that color is, and we won't be in conflict. So I think that was the biggest takeaway for me. I think I'm agreeing with most of these changes. I don't want to get too in the weeds about it about – Are we one block or parcel off? But I think there's a wiggle room for that transitional piece that I guess I'm trying to see between like mixed use one to two to commercial to so on and so forth. I think that it should be some kind of a gradient, some kind of transition. And some of these areas, it just seems like it goes... Pink to green. And those things, in my opinion, don't match up well in some areas. And sometimes I don't see it. And other places, I do. I don't see a particularly huge issue with that green area. I think just the language of it being undeveloped currently is probably what needs to be squared away. But I could be wrong. I'm probably not seeing it as serious as an issue. But I think that's just a language part versus a mapping part, if that makes sense.

Commissioner, are you comparing to the 2012 map or are you comparing to the July map that was previously? Do we have for you the comparison of this map and the...

july map yeah i'm currently comparing the the july to to now but i'm saying for for discussion in front of us i i see it's on the board it's easy to see right there but it would be great if they were the same size same like print out so we could face to face right we have put it up on the screen would you like me to print it out no no i'm just saying no no that wasn't i really can it's too late for that right well actually wait wait wait you know what you want to see a magic trick

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you had in mind but this is pretty much I know again it's not they're not right next to each other but if this is of any help yeah I tried to I'll get back on the mic I think we tried to spare you the tidal wave of papers in front of you by giving you the most recent new things, and if you wanted to bring the ones from last time, and also we had things up here, but I've worked with Lynn, and if you want, we can bring up the current POCD future land use map on the screen. It sounds like it's not exactly what you had in mind, but...

yeah so help you however i can yeah so i was using these as the most like i guess the example because these are the ones that we have but yeah it would also been great to have like 2012 to just say to see the transition i mean this is one meeting to the next but the other one is one decade to the the next so it seemed so i think it would give us perspective on okay this is what was then this is what is now and then we could have more a better idea of how we think things should be in the future so we know it's not as as um i'm gonna say concrete but yes there was a vision maybe that vision didn't align the way it did but maybe certain things did track and then now we could we could do the same thing with the future of it and so we realize it's not as stringent as what we're making it out to be in this discussion i think that's what my point is

Commissioner Goff.

Yeah, thank you for that, Commissioner Peters. I think that's a large part of the point. The point I want to make was going back to the section where you were talking about, ultimately, I want to go back to the 2012 comparison, and I also want to talk about the section of Doncaster and another section of town. But I do want to thank Commissioner O'Brien for passing this along, because it does say, I think what we're saying, that the commission provide a map that quote, depicts the appropriate and desired uses of land throughout the community. That says nothing about zoning. Then it says in accordance with this, the commission consults this map in determining the consistency of proposed zoning district changes to the plan of conservation development. I, you know, it, it's very, it's very clear. This is not as, you know, as, as commissioner Brian pointed out, this is not a zoning map. And in fact, you know, we we've talked some about cottage Grove because of, of the issue with commercial transition of commercial Copaco, which is clearly just a commercial area, but has not been ever rezoned commercial. We have all of this material, all these buildings along Cottage Grove that are in a planned office district. Well, what's that? I mean, I guess that's mixed use, but it's also an existing zone. Anyway, what I want to get to and then make a, I have a lot of other questions, but I think I will also go back to Director Coleman's sort of maybe final point about some of this. So I want to go back to the 2012. Can you show the slide where you were showing the two sections in Doncaster?

And while that's happening, I'll just say, if you would like, we could pull up the whole PDF of the whole 2012 map, if that's helpful as well.

We have that.

But yes, the slide has this too.

You had the comparison.

Just trying to make it clear what resources we have available. Right. That's great.

That's great. So can we go to what we... Yeah, so part of the reason this question came about was because I had noticed earlier when we looked at this, I think last time, that it seemed that a lot of the section down Duncaster had changed from low density to high density. In fact, the neighborhood up across from me by the Farmington River had changed. And you can see that in this section highlighted there. I think in the previous one, what you call the alternate proposal, I think it's close to what is in the 2012. I'm not sure it's exact. I think there may be one or two parcels that are not in the correct color. But the point is, if you look at those two pieces, trying to construct that, okay, what would this, evidently you could not pull the data off 2012 in terms of how much is, there was classification of rural, that's gone. You have low density, medium density, high density, you couldn't pull that off, or you couldn't, you know, just get that from the data. But, you know, clearly taking the section you have outlined in red, is a shift. I mean, you could figure out how much that is, and that is an area that has been, you know, would be reimagined by this commission as going from a low density previously to a medium density now. And so that would be one of the pieces that changed. When I was looking at this, the other thing I noticed and we haven't talked about is in the previous plan of conservation development, all of the section over basically above the old streetcar suburb down in Pershing Park, et cetera, but a lot of the area over off Wittenberry and Woodland and so forth, that has now become high density. as opposed to medium density. So actually, if you could pull up the 2012, that would be, you can see that.

Yeah. Lynn, would you mind? Thank you. It's all good. I gave you a lot of PDFs. Yeah, it's hard to... Same resolution. Yeah. But look at this. See, that's.

It should be called a future land use map, parentheses, 2012. They all kind of look the same if you squint, because they all say future land use map. It's gone from medium density.

Bingo. Yep.

And you, Commissioner Goff, you said the woodland area?

Oh, yeah, I used one on page 71 because it's better.

May I respond to that real quick or comment on the 71 page?

Yeah.

Okay, sure. Yeah, so I know the exact page you're talking about. I may have brought it up with me, actually. The residential densities plan. appears to not be to contain the same categories as the 2012 future land use plan. Before my time, I'm not sure if they had a reason for that, but I think that to your point, Commissioner Goff, in the densities plan, they have four, five? They have an additional housing category. Whereas in the 2012 Future Land Use Plan, they combine rural and low density.

So I think that might be at least an initial.

That's probably part of it. But the point is the whole section, you know, Wittenberry, Woodland, all this stuff in the new proposal is now high density as opposed to medium density.

Could you, Lynn, could you zoom in on the area of that, Commissioner?

I also... Yeah.

I guess I could just look right there.

Did you plan to... Yeah, I mean, here is... This is all moderate density.

And in your new plan... Yeah, this does say moderate density.

And in your new plan, it's all high density. So... I don't necessarily, you know, the town center's in there. Obviously, the town center, we've changed, you know, not changed, but some of our perspective on the town center has changed because we've built lots of apartments. It probably is a high-density area now. And I'm not necessarily, you know, with some of the condo complexes out on Woodlawn or other areas, maybe they should be high-density. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. What I'm concerned about is, You know, it does seem that the way this process should work is that we should be starting with the 2012 plan and then saying, what things do we want to change? What's our, you know, as Commissioner Peters said, sort of, well, maybe that was our vision, but that's not what's going on now.

Mr. Chairman.

Hold on. Let him finish. Let him finish. But, you know, how do we change that plan to the new plan? And we seem to have gotten, you know, we seem to be... but focusing on lots of nits and there are these big changes that are taking place. And, you know, frankly, the public has the right to know, I think, that, gee, I've lived here, the plan of conservation development says this is a moderate density housing area, but now the town in its zoning map is going to make it a, high density zoning area. And when the next time someone comes in and says, oh, you know, why can't I put, you know, X condos on here? Because the plan of conservation development now says it's that. The public's going to go, when did that happen? And granted, they need to be here and looking at that at the end of the day. But I also think we can truthfully say that the way this process has played out and all honesty for everybody, I know we're trying to get this done. I understand the time pressure and everything else. These kinds of changes, they're three major changes. So I do think that, I think, I don't know really exactly how to proceed. And I understand the director's point of view of, you know, we need to get this done, but I also think we need to get this done somehow with a little more why are we making these changes? What is going on here? And, you know, some of the comments have been made about commercial and the buffering and gee, the heavy industrial areas should be together. Everything else should be what makes use too, I think, because it includes industrial. I think it would behoove us to figure out how to get that done properly.

Mr. Chair, I forget where I was in line, but am I in line still to?

Well, I'm going to let Commissioner Goff go. I'm sorry. Commissioner O'Brien go first, and then you can go right after.

That was a Freudian slip, I think. So I would like to ask how this proposal on the Western thing got to us on Wednesday night at 7 o'clock. Because last week, our last planning meeting, we had a map. and we all commented on it and you handed out a thing today that said that your changes were based on comments received in our last meeting. Nobody commented about this in our last meeting. You sent a map out last week that didn't have this on it. Then you revised that and sent a second map on it and you narrowed the Park River green open space. But then all of a sudden, like last night, we get this, we're gonna make this big change on that Western part of town. This map is, I joined this commission in April, 2025. And you know, like So a year and a half later at the 24th hour, we got this, let's just change the whole Western part of Bloomfield. Why? What was your thinking that you didn't tell us about in a month ago and you didn't tell us about it last week and you didn't tell us about it Monday, but on the night before the meeting, you send it out to us. I've had no time to go out and look at that. And I'm with the director that the time is let's move this. I'm good with the map that was sent out that with the, and just get rid of that green and make it pink and let's move it forward. And as far as the public goes, this is subject to a 65 day review period by the council of governments, the legislative council, and we have to hold a public hearing. There's 65 days and this has to be published on the town website and put in the town clerk's office. So for 65 days, everybody in the town of Bloomfield can scrutinize this all they want. And then we will have a public hearing and they can all come and speak. But we have to move something forward. April of 2025, we had this you know, the map, the way it was in no meeting that I've attended since April of 2025, did anybody say let's change the Western half of the town other than what was on that map? So my question is Nick, why, why did that come out of nowhere last night? I don't, let me answer that question.

I don't think it's fair for Nick to answer that question.

Okay.

Two things. One, um, On the overall map, to sum up the conversation, I think we may have made an assumption that was incorrect, but from a staff perspective, when we took over a year ago, the responsibility to complete the POCD and the map, we inherited a map at that point. And I think we assumed, apparently incorrectly, that that map had reached that point based on comparisons with the 2012 map and the changes that the commission and the consultant and the staff at that time thought were appropriate in terms of changing from the 2012 map. So we did not go all the way back to the 2012 map until some of these conversations began because we made the assumption that that had already occurred. Secondly, in terms of the changes that... up in the Northwestern part of town, staff did those because there have been conversations as we have all the time with members of the commission. And we thought it was appropriate to provide this alternative and for the commission to discuss it. We're not recommending one or the other. We brought it as an alternative. and the commission can decide. We felt it was as appropriate to discuss this area as an alternative as the Park River area that has come under a great deal of scrutiny. And so that, I take responsibility for bringing that in as an alternative.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner James had her hand up and she hasn't spoken at all yet. Would you still like to speak?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a comment on the map and I want to say thank you to the staff because this version, wherever we land, does a good job of defining more relative terms. So there's been a lot of comments about high density, moderate density, or medium density, or whatever. But the 2012 plan doesn't actually define what medium or moderate density and high density, rural and low density, what they mean. They kind of outline them on the map, but there isn't the same level of detail that were provided for the proposed 2026 map. And I appreciate that the proposed 2026 map, well, there's the categories that say areas for high density retail areas which are comprised of and suitable for small, single family homes, multifamily dwelling units, and may include sites that are developed with cluster housing. I mean, I think for some areas that have now been, and the definition also for high density talks about these areas are typically located in proximity to major transportation corridors. So when I look at the map, I think where the shading is for high density, would align with that definition in terms of how people travel and where they travel. But then again, it doesn't preclude, it doesn't exclude like a single family homes or what actually already exists there. I think it's, making it more so that when we get applications that come forward, if a developer could envision something that has a density, we're able to say whether we think it goes into that definition or not. So I think it better outlines what we can look to in the planning of classification and development with a definition as opposed to what was before. It just had terms that weren't really defined. So that update, I think, is really good. And then I think my second comment is that I would agree with the timeline thing, like knowing that the plan of conservation and development is many years overdue, like we need to outline tonight next steps for the staff so that we can have like a timeline for when are we going to put this forward to public review? When are we going to send, I mean, I don't want to get ahead actually for the rest of the plan of conservation and development, but considering that we, we have notes, you know, I don't know if anybody's in a laughing mood, but there is a wise woman, Beyonce Knowles, who always says there's always going to be notes. So it's like we can go back and forth with staff. for as long as we can have meetings to talk about this map, but I do think we have to really push it forward and come to some sort of conclusion, realizing that it's not going to be everything and everything that everybody wants, but we're have like a living document and probably sooner than later, we'll be working on the next version of it. So those are my two comments for this evening.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Millett.

I think I'd like to comment as far as potentially having a way forward on this. After the discussion, I think for the eastern side where we had the open space it would be easier if we just did air on some mixed use it's leaves us options and that will help us move forward whether or not you know we individually call our other resources to protect it that will be helpful I'm also seeing that, yes, the densities in the residential did shift a little bit west. However, looking at it, a lot of those are just grouping our zones. We've got our 10, our 15, our 20, pretty much in general, maybe not exactly. And then you start to get into the, know further west so i i see them more grouped and i'm having you know less questions on that at this point so with that maybe one change on the open space i'd i'd be happy to you know get this out to the public

Thank you, Commissioner Millett. And I just like to agree with Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Millett also. The open space one where the residential areas are included, I think we should do something with that. i don't think we should have that as open space when it includes residential property so i think if we can just correct that um i'm comfortable with with everything you did you did a great job you guys did a good job and i'm very comfortable with that but i do want to make sure that that area is taken care of and we're not doing anything inappropriate understood um may i respond Oh yeah.

Um, yeah. Happy to adjust based on, you know, staff and commissions understanding, uh, thorough as commissioner O'Brien mentioned, there's, There are certain laws already in place to look out for those resources. And then if it's labeled a certain way in our land use map, you know, that makes the most sense as regulatory compliance. And I'm happy to make that change. The thing I will add is I think along the lines of what Commissioner James said, Commissioner Millett and others as well, I look really forward to getting tons of direction. Cause I, I am, you know, the more specific we can get on neighborhoods or what have you that some people, you know, have multiple opinions on, like the more we can kind of, you can show me things that, that might, you know, come together in a way that would be the best. So like talking about this neighborhood, talking about the one up here, you know, that's all really helpful to me. So thank you.

Yeah, that's it. Mr. Chairman, um, it would be useful for staff cause I think it was, was properly raised. If there's, um, we could have a final discussion on the, um, or at least, um, discussion for this meeting on, um, on Duncan, on the Doncaster road area, south of Adams, uh, down to, um, down to mountain Ave, uh, where, where right now we are showing it as medium density. Um, I want to make sure that, um, the commission has a comfort level with that or whether or not they want us to move the low density to the, at least to the east side of Duncaster for its entire length.

Mr. Chairman, if it's appropriate, I'll make a motion.

Are we, is everyone satisfied with our discussions and we're ready to move forward to the next step? We have a consensus on that. Okay, with that said, I will.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the map as presented without the alternate for the western side of the town. be adopted with one change, which is the green area around the Park River be made pink. And I would be perfectly comfortable with that. I feel that there's many, many positive things to this map. I think it's come a long way in the last few months. And I'd also like to remind everybody that this is not a 10-year map. In my career, we have amended land use maps three times a year when it was required. So if somewhere along, and we have the public hearing, and if people come out and we're convinced by public comment, we can make changes before we adopt it. But I'd suggest this map be finalized, be put on the internet. be filed in the town clerk's office, and it will be scheduled for public hearing at the same time as the OCD.

Okay, is there a second?

I'll second that. May I ask a clarification?

Okay, yes, because you put a lot of comments in there also. Can you just go back?

Yeah, so it's the map that we originally got. but we're not adopting the alternate that you sent out last night, and we're revising the green area to pink. So we're taking that green area, so we'll have purple, purple which is industrial, and then all the pink will go from there over to Granby Street.

But this wouldn't, this is not changing the tooth back to the low density on Doncaster.

Right. Just FYI, I circled on the map, the area, I believe that's in question as you just described it, I think pretty thoroughly, but I just put it there in case there's any confusion as to what the neighborhood is.

Right.

Okay.

Okay. Is everyone clear on the motion? If everyone's clear on the motion and the chair will entertain a second.

We had a second.

Okay, it's been seconded by Commissioner Millett. Are there any further discussions?

Yes, Mr.

Chair. Yeah, I don't think there's much more to discuss. We can put the map out because if there are enough votes to do that... I do not, you know, I cannot approve of, I understand Commissioner James' point that maybe we need more definitions. And as I made the comment, especially on the eastern side of town, making some of these higher density because they have, I think, over the last 10 years been changed to higher densities, to higher residential density. I think that's fine. I do not think we should be changing the residential density in the low density, rural density section of Bloomfield on Doncaster. So, I guess I will make a motion that we, I will make an amendment that we change that back to the 2012 map, what you've indicated, largely indicated on the graph. And then we'll see if there's a second.

Okay, before you do that, there's been a motion and there's been a second. So yours is a friendly amendment. And does he, and Roger, it's up to you whether or not you want to accept that amendment. No.

Okay, that has not been accepted. So now I make a formal amendment, not a friendly amendment.

Okay. It's rules, you can't. No, you have to vote on the motion.

Yeah, his motion is on the table. He rejected your friendly amendment, so we have to now vote on his motion. All those in favor of the motion that's on the table, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? And the chair votes aye.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, are we, and I think we can in this case, are you including the alternates in the voting? Because we did, you have a quorum. You're only missing one regular member, but everyone present has voted. I think that's probably appropriate on this map, but I think that needs to be clear in the minutes and on the record.

Okay. Duly noted. Okay. Motion carries. Okay. At this time, does staff have anything else that they would like to share?

I have a question, please.

Oh, sure, Nick.

Yeah, so the map and it's, you know, everything that was just said was carried.

So... Nick, I'm very clear on what they want.

Yes, yes. So I'm saying yes on the picture of the map. Just wanted to get some clarification. I also gave you that list of definitions. If there's any feedback or if it's, if it was implied, I wasn't clear to me that those definitions were also acceptable to the commission, just because.

Commissioner James was very receptive of descriptive definitions that you had.

Great. We will pass this along for the final press, which she was.

I think we would take no comments or positive comments as approving what you developed. Very good.

I think the descriptions are fine. I think they're good. I don't think we, I think we need to change the name, the names of both open space one and open space two and mixed use one and mixed use two. And I, you know, I think I do not like the term open space doesn't describe anything. And I think the mixed use ones are very simple because you say in the first sentence sort of what they are. So instead of calling it mixed use one, why don't you call it mixed use residential and commercial. And the second one, mixed use residential, commercial and industrial. I think you just call it those and don't put in mixed use one and mixed use two. Open space is more difficult, but I think you have some statements in the descriptions that would let you come up with a overall title that is not open space one or open space two. Those are abstractions. Okay.

Those are things that's going to have to be taken up in a later date. At this time, the motion on the floor carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank Nick again. I think he did a fantastic job. Yeah.

Thank you, Nick.

My pleasure.

Thank you. If there's nothing else, Chair, entertain a motion.

Commissioner James. Thank you. I realize that staff has their hands full with the last edits of the POCD and the land use map and lots of other work that they do in town, but there has been a lot of conversation locally and across the nation about data centers. And I'm hopeful that I'm, I'd like to request that staff, um, can do a bit of research, um, on, uh, some of the moratoriums or holds on data, data centers, or like, um, regulations around data centers and land use, and that we can potentially, uh, be able to incorporate within our zoning regulations so that, um, we are ahead of any applications, um, Right. I mean, my thought right now is to do a moratorium similar to how we did cannabis until we can have appropriate regulations that have any application that comes to us fit with what we would envision for our town as opposed to responding and being reactive to any applications.

Excellent. Commissioner James, I believe they're working on that now.

Yes, that's correct. Commissioner, we are developing and you will receive shortly text amendments to the regulations that in effect will not allow data centers as a permitted use in the town of Boone.