Plan & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Thursday, September 25th, 2025, Town Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:08 p.m. First item on the agenda is the roll call. Here,

Byron Lester here. Renee James here. Dwight Bolton senior absent. Leon Peters here. Steven Mallette here. Jennifer Marshall Neely here. Kevin Goff here. Ba Aina absent. Roger O'Brien here. Ununice Medinter here. Cororum. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of August 28th, 2025. Is there a motion? I move that we approve the minutes from August 28th, 2025.

Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and second. Any discussions, corrections? Yes, Mr. Chair. Yes. Uh just the one comment we were talking about beforehand in the section on page two uh where it talks about the sidewalk waiver. Uh it says um the sidewalk waiver Commissioner O'Brien Opine that the sidewalk waiver can be granted by staff after site plan approval. That should read by the commission after site plan approval. Yes, that is correct. Duly noted.

Any further corrections? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Abstension. Chair. Uh, Commissioner Peters abstain.

First item on the agenda is a public hearing. I'll ask the secretary to read the legal notice. Um, notice is hereby given that the town plan and zoning commission will hold a regular meeting on Thursday, September 25th, 2025 at 7 p.m. hybrid meeting in person at 800 Bloomfield Avenue, council chambers room and virtually via Zoom to consider the following proposed text amendment application to section section 5.6.f of the zoning regulations as submitted by First Baptist Church of Hartford. Thank you. Uh before we get started, I'm going to ask Linda in terms of alternates.

Um do we have a full membership tonight? Do we need No. Okay. So, we need to appoint how many alternates tonight? One. One. Um I believe uh Miss Ununice Midwinter would be the next. I believe you were absent at the last one, correct? I was. Okay. Um well the fact that she was absent and Roger sat in Oh. Um correct. I apologize. He did sit in. Um however, they are missing a full member also. Mhm. So I don't know if we want to um allow her to sit in for Dwight.

Okay. I would say um would be the call the commission if Mr. Roger O'Brien would fill the vacancy for Mr. Dwight Bolton, but she's the the party the Yeah. Okay. We're going to uh we'll we'll see you in this. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Before we start our public hearing, I just want to go over the process and how we conduct our public hearing. We'll first hear a presentation from the applicant. We'll then take questions from the audience. We'll take questions from the commission. We'll then have comments from the audience. We'll have comments from the commission. Um, and then the applicant will have one last chance to make any closing remarks before we close the public hearing. And the director will have comments after the after the presentation. Sorry. With that said, who's here for the application? State your name and address. Good evening. For the record, attorney David Marowitz. I'm a partner at Hasset and George in their Simsbury office here representing the First Baptist Church. Um, I actually represented them u when the church was first approved. I think uh chairman Lester was the only one on on the panel at that point. But I

definitely you've definitely been before me quite a bit.

Yes. Uh and it's nice to be back here. Um the staff report by the assistant director uh is very complete. I have read it and I have reviewed the uh revised report. Um in our application for the tax amendment, the only one the only substantive change was to eliminate uh the BCD zone as being uh required as as being adjacent to uh to the property. uh the uh assistant director has decided that she wanted to amend that and you'll see that at the end of her report. Uh and she's doing that because she was concerned that 21 additional large properties would be eligible for this zone. Um that is with the change that she's suggesting that is reduced to uh I believe six at this point. um which solves that that problem and I certainly have no problem with that. Uh the main change is adding the POD zone uh to the uh to the zone and um we are we do have a pod zone in the applica in the u in the property and that's one of the reasons why we requested the um the text amendment. It's the church's plan to provide you with um a master plan at your next regular meeting and also an application to change the zone to the DDZ2 zone. Uh if you decide to um to pass this this text amendment is being presented. Um, I was going to spend some time

saying how difficult it is to get a piece of property approved in this DDZ2 zone. Um, applicants really have to jump through hoops. Uh, with this change, um, there are much less properties that can be eligible for it. Uh there's only two things that can be done with uh zoning approval or zoning uh enforcement officer approval and that's open space and um the um the approval of u a public utility um substation if it's been approved by the sighting council. Virtually everything else in the DD DDZ2 zone requires a site plan approval and the site plan approval will be before a public hearing. The major items that can go into this zone require a special permit as well. Uh so you have to jump through a number of hoops. You also need to uh get master plan approval. And if the master plan is going to change, you have to go back to you to get that change approved. A text amendment, as uh the assistant director points out, uh shall be found to be in harmony with the town plan of conservation and development. Uh the assistant director has concluded that it is. Um I'd like to just add a few things to it because I think the POC uh goes further. Uh if you spend time reading the POC that's going to be enforced in 2025. I'm I'm not quite sure when it's

going to be approved. Uh it really stresses affordable housing. And when you see the master plan for this project, you will see that's exactly what my client is seeking, affordable housing. uh many years ago when the First Baptist Church was in Harford, it did an affordable housing project almost adjacent to where the church was. It wants to do that now. uh and I think that um that fact will demonstrate that this application is certainly consistent with the POCD zone the PC in the um the introduction the goals of the housing goals uh there are two two that jump right out at you. One is improving housing affordability by promoting diverse housing options. And item two is to ensure sustainable development, direct development towards areas directing development toward areas currently served by infrastructure and transit services. And this property is served by infrastructure and transit services. The second item that the director, assistant director pointed out is that the pro promote that the text amendment must promote the public health, safety and welfare. And she concludes that that in fact does happen uh with this text amendment. And third, that it be consistent with good zoning practice. Um, and she concludes that expanding the DDZ2 zone to the POD properties align with the purpose of the district and allows more flexibility in land use transitions.

Um, I really like the DDZ2 zone. I think it gives the planning and zoning commission an opportunity if it gets an application um to uh make a decision that uh will enhance the town um and be de be developed with the planning and zoning commission's direct input because of the fact that a site plan be before a special before a public hearing is required. A special permit will be required for uh most of the land use uh items that could be addressed and also the PLA master plan would have to be approved. So it gives you the opportunity uh to make a very intelligent decision for a good application and I think that's important and that's one of the reasons why I like the zone. Um it provides you a huge amount of flexibility. Um and frankly I think the zone itself ensures and promotes intelligent development. Um, you may have some questions. I'll be happy to address them. I do ask that you approve the text amendment with the change suggested by Linda Lauraniano because I think that makes sense and it makes u much less property available for this type of zone. And that's all I have until I respond to your questions. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Linda,

good evening. Linda Lauriano, assistant director of building and land use for the record. Um, so tonight we have the uh the proposal before you uh for the text amendment uh to uh allow um expand the uh DDZ2 zone um to allow PO districts to be eligible for for this district. Um, as noted in the report, I I did indicate the purpose of each district, the current um not to get into details of, you know, future plans of the first cathedral. Um but this would allow uh for just a a very limited number of parcels uh to become um eligible for the DDZ2 designation. I do believe that when looking at the goals um of the of the town and the POCD uh for uh providing for more flexibility uh and development um as well as housing needs that the proposal um would definitely um be consistent with with the findings of uh being in line with the POC. Um and also as you can see in the staff report, I I do want to make a correction. Um I emailed you all just a map um

in the revised plan. The last page outlines in the southern portion of the map southeast. Those are just the DDZ zone. It it is highlighted also in blue. Um but to the north of that and also um all the west area of of the town. Um all those parcels highlighted are all parcels in either the PO district or the R15 that are 10 acres or more. uh with the applicant's original proposal, all of those parcels would have been uh considered for um district eligibility to the DDZ with the recommended changes um that staff that I gave you in the revised report would limit all of those parcels, which is actually a little over 21. It was really hard to count at the time. Um I would say about 28. Um just limit it to six. And out of the six parcels um that would qualify for the DDZ2 designation under this proposal, um there are only two vacant parcels currently. Uh the other ones are pretty much developed. Um, and I don't see any other use that, you know, would that any property owner would want the DDC2 on. As you can see, 30 Mountain Avenue is currently a cemetery. Um, I know 1151 Blue Hills is a 40 acre, a little over 40 acres. Um, and so, uh, as you are aware, an informal presentation

was made for affordable housing on an area of that parcel. 11:33, uh, it's town of Bloomfield facility. It's pretty much developed with a solar farm and facilities of the town. Um, and 620 and 610 Cottage Grove Road are both vacant. 600 Cottage Grove Road is right across from 620 and 610 and those are your existing garden style apartments. Um so with with the recommended changes um my suggestion is if if the commission finds um this proposal to be consistent with the goals of the you know of the town and POCD um and also uh consistent with the the sound zoning practice um going through the process of his own change. I would suggest a recommendation for a suggested motion for approval has been provided for you tonight. Okay. Thank you. Um, is there anyone online? Okay, then we'll start the questions with the commission. And before we start the questions, I just want to make sure that all commissioners take into consideration that their questions be pretty direct and kind of straight to the point where there's not a lot of overlay and questions and comments. So, with that said, I'm going to start with Commissioner Mallette. Any questions? U the only question I have is

were there any additional modifications needed to the most recent um drafted update? So we had uh land adjacent to BCD uh and POD. Do do we need to update that one? Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Um there is a correction that I would like to make on my suggestion. Um sorry I what

the goal was to to keep to to limit you know not to have over 20 parcels um to qualify for the DDC2. Um but the suggestion was to the recommendation was to keep B land adjacent to BCD or POD zone not and so I do want to make that correction um to the staff's recommendation. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. This would allow those type of uses that are allowed under the DDZ2 um to more to be around areas that are closer to the business district and also to the professional office district. Therefore, not impacting um areas where the concentration of single residential uses are if that. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Peters. Uh no, I don't think I have any questions that come to mind as of right now. I I think I'll pass right now. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner O'Brien. I just wanted I just wanted to point out on the staff report, uh, page 303. It's a question. It's not a question. Okay, let's hold that to comments. We'll come back around. Commissioner James,

thank you. Um on the staff recommendation um for point E, it looks like that was an addition. Can you um just talk tell us a little bit about that?

One moment. Oh, is that is that an is that in the existing? It looks like maybe it is. That's in the existing. Okay. Yeah, it is. Okay. Okay. Great. That was my That's my one question. Sorry, my my mistake. Thank you. That's okay. Uh, Commissioner Goff, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, um, I guess I'll start off with the question, the question I was going to ask before all this was revised. Um, I would I I would like, it it appears the DDZ2 zone was created in 2019. Is that is that correct?

According to the regulation, right? Okay. And we had the DDZ one before that.

Um, so now that you've added the qualifier that it has to be well, you looked at the parcels. Um there's only one parcel in the business in the Bloomfield Center district that would qualify and that's the cemetery. So before you change before you added the land adjacent to BCD or POD zone zone um that's the only thing you changed. So what was there only one parcel of land actually eligible for this before we added the ore? I

it was okay. I I I think the the analysis that staff did as I understand it and Linda can correct me was what was being added by the changes. And so what you're looking here, I believe on page three of three, the six parcels, those are six additional parcels that would qualify with our changes tonight, not the totality of parcels that would qualify for DDZ2. That's correct.

Yeah. So there are other parcels adjacent to the BIS the BCD district that would qualify. See the the first and I I understand what you're saying. The language is wrong. Right.

And and that was the only comment I was going to make when the chair correct me correctly said I wasn't asking a question. But when you look at the top of that, it also says it would six that could qualify for the DZZ2. It's really the six that could apply for a Joan change to DDD2 because just because they meet the criteria doesn't mean they're automatically in. They still got to come before this commission and apply for a zone change.

Exactly. And I think that's the controlling mechanism that the commission can feel comfortable with because you've got the master plan. That's correct. Okay. So, so the language on that comment should read from 28 new parcels to six new parcels, right?

Not six overall, six new parcels. There are some other parcels adjacent to the be the center district zone that also would qualify. That's that's what Commissioner O'Brien is implying. Okay. Um, so the other question I guess I have to the to to the applicant. Um, from your analysis of what you ultimately want to do with the property, is that is this zone necessary? I mean, what other zones to to affordable multif family housing? Why would a DDZ2 zone be the way to go, if you will?

Because of the amount of units per acre, usable acre. It's 16 units. And without that, uh, the the project that the church wants to build, I just wouldn't fly. would it would not have enough units to justify the construction. Okay. So, I think our big other multifamily zone is the PLR, which these obviously not be luxury units per se, but the but the density the density here is too large, but it is for a PL for that for that multifamily zone, but it is not too large for the DT DD. That's correct.

Okay, good. Thank you. You're welcome. Any questions? Uh, Commissioner Marshall Neely. Thank you. I I was uh going over all of this and right now I do not have questions at this time.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Midwinter. um not to um just want to clarify um exactly the question that commissioner commissioner Goff raised I don't think I understood it cuz when the it was presented but my and when I read it it says the number of parcels my original question was to ask what would be the benefit of reducing the amount the number of um parcels from 28 to 6 but it seems that it's not being reduced. Is that correct? Is it being reduced? It says the number of parcels this would limit the number of parcels from 28 to six. So based on the the discussion with commissioner Goff, you're saying that that's not what it's saying. No, what it's saying is that under the applicant's proposal, about 28 parcels would qualify for the conversion or uh to to the DDZ2. Um with staff's recommendation, um only six parcel could qualify for

six new parcels. Yes. Okay. If if six new parcels would qualify, why would it say it would limit the number of parcels from 28 to six? That seems like a reduction. Am I

It's just I guess it's just a language on how you really see u that the intent was um to inform the commission that I guess it's the wording of it that the proposed text amendment um not would limit but the proposed oh staff's recommendation would reduce the parcels that would qualify to the DDZ2. That is a better way to to word it. Yes. New parcels again. And the benefit of that is so my question then was the benefit would be so if you would allow DDZ2 under um the applicant's proposal you'll have areas right within single family areas just you know it would kind of be scattered all all around town but then again it would be subject to the commission's approval. Um, I I guess not that I believe the town doesn't want flexibility in in development, but I think that the potential impact on infrastructure, transportation, if you allow for all those 28 parcels, I think the impact overall to the town would be substantial. Um and um it could be a negative impact in that sense.

Um so with with the suggested it would reduce the parcels that qualify while still allowing for development in areas that are um closer to the business district the be and also professional office district. Thank you. Thank you. No further.

Okay. Thank you. And at this time I don't have I don't have any questions. So we'll go to comments. Um is there anyone online? Okay. Uh we'll start with our comments and once again we'll keep that direct. We'll start with Commissioner Medwinter. Any comments? No comments at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Marshall Neely. No comments. Commissioner Goff. Um

I guess I have one comment about this and I I I I do I do appreciate the change. I think that and I one of my questions initially was going to be the first staff report. You mentioned other parcels and I was going to ask for a list and how many. Uh so you've taken care of that and I think I think that's a good um good thing. Um, the one thing that does concern me when I look at this is I I look at uh I look at the parcels that would be eligible for this and I automatically see 620 and 610 Cottage Grove Road which are the you know parcels of somewhat controversy with this commission at times. Um and you know those are both zoned I think uh professional office right now.

Correct. And they they aren't vint parcels. Um one of them is a farm parcel and one of them is a uh a farmed ice cream shop. Um, so you know, I worry about making these kinds of, you know, obviously the reason to make the change is for the the project at hand and the 1151 Blue Hills Avenue um, uh, property and ultimately maybe for the 1133 because I think there's been a lot of there's a lot of discussion about the town by the town council about uh, doing something with that that that parcel. Let's stick to this one,

right? Um, so the only thing I worry about is unintended consequences with this. Um, but I think it's I think it's a a reasonable change and uh I do appreciate the fact that it limits this to to several several parcels. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner James.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I can appreciate updates to our zoning regulations that um allow for uh more housing opportunities in town. Um, more affordable housing opportunities in town. I realized uh Commissioner Goff brought up that the other district that allows for certain density is PLR and not every project is going to fit within a PLR. So, I think this um helps expand the availability of opportunities within our town. And um thank you for bringing it to the commission. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, I would just again say that um I think this is a a win-win situation because it allows a perspective development even though we're not supposed to consider this respective development when we're looking at a text change, but it allows that to move forward and come forward. um and um also provides limited number of other opportunities. Um but regardless if you're looking at other other opportunities that are listed here, bear in mind that whatever changes those people want to make on any of those parcels, they would have to come for a zone change. So whether it's a zone change to a DDD2 or a zone change to something else, uh that would still have to come here. So all that we were doing here with respect to those other parcels is giving everybody another opportunity to develop their land. But we would still have to review it, consider its appropriateness, consider its impact on neighborhoods and and uh uh uh

infrastructure and and more than anything consider the opportunities it provides for housing for all residents of the community.

Thank you, Commissioner Peters. So, I just want to say that I do appreciate uh this amendment and I'm I very much appreciate the staff's recommendations to this amendment uh given the reduction from 28 to six that could um apply for this change. And the reason I'm actually pleased with that is because um when I think about what this amendment could have made been without the suggestions and start thinking about um urban sprawl and all these developments popping up in different locations that don't really move or drive with the rhythm of the the surrounding environment. So I think the the purpose of this amendment and the purpose of this district was to support a more dense or more urban inspired area which takes you know benefits from transit and just seeing that 28 going to six that I think that reflects that cuz just like the staff has written um there are potential impacts such as traffic infrastructure uh uh capability I mean capacity and other capabilities around that neighborhood and I don't think certain areas have have the you know infrastructure or positioning to support such things. So maintaining these on those um art arterial streets um is very important and I'm I'm glad to see that these this uh future proposal that we're not considering right now and others had the potential of uh being developed and making that light into Bloomfield and you know creating that type of environment that I think we definitely need. Um, so I'm really pleased to see that um this amendment working with um the applicant to to get to this solution. So I don't I don't have any problems with it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Mallette.

Uh yeah, no problems with the proposed text amendment. Um I do, you know, realize the DDC2 is somewhat broad but but limited. Um my my comment would be maybe we should consider having um instead of a PLR just a more um condensed or uh denser option for housing in general um that is more narrow to to just um multif family and would maybe attract more of the um affordable type units versus just market rate. That would be my suggestion. But for this general change, this is the district or zone that was available uh to this applicant. And uh my comments would be I just want to commend staff uh for working on this and making the modifications necessary for this application in addition to narrowing down what would have been or what could have been a nightmare having 28 locations that would be eligible for this type of zone change to down to six. Um so I commend you for that and uh I support the text amendment. That said, is there any closing remarks you'd like to make before we close this public?

Just that I I want to thank you all. It's nice to be before you and I do support um Linda's uh text amendment change. I think it makes sense. I know that was one of her concerns when she first reviewed it. Um so I endorse that as well. Okay. Thank you. With that said, chair entertain a motion to close this public hearing. So moved. Seconded. It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Oppose. Abstension. Chair votes I. This time the chair entertain a motion on this hearing on this application. Thank you very much.

Uh Mr. Mr. Chair, I motion to approve the text amendment application of First Baptist Church of Hartford for a modification to section 5.6.f3 of the Bloomfield zoning regulations to revise the eligibility standards for the DDZ2 district finding the proposal consistent with the plan of conservation and development. Promotes the public health, safety, and general general welfare and represents sound zoning practice. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved the or changes on or you can just

you can just include all. Yeah. um uh including my motion to approve um that the there are changes to the staff recommendation to um the the district eligibility uh point B where it says land adjacent to the BCD it should say or POD zone incorporating all of those ABCD in your in your motion. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It currently has all of those. It's just the B is. So, yeah. Okay. Is there a second on those changes? Seconded.

It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose. Abstension. Chair votes I. Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is under new business and the application that I asked the secretary if she'd read that application.

Yeah. 529 Cottage Grove Road site plan application per section 6.3. L for two proposed freestanding signs in the I1 district. Applicant Asterero Holding Company LLC owner University of Hartford. Okay. Is there anyone here for that application? Yes. Online. Okay. Good evening. Would you like to introduce yourself? State your name and address, please.

Yes. Uh, good evening. For the record, my name is Jim Cassidy, professional engineer and principal with the FMA Pearson and Cassidy. My office is located at 630 Main Street in Cromwell, Connecticut. I'm here tonight representing Astero Holding LLC um for a site plan approval um for two proposed monument signs associated with a recently approved site plan application for property at 529 Cottage Grove Road. Can I share my screen for a second? Am I okay to share my screen?

Sure. Can everybody see the screen? Yes.

Okay. Um again, u we were before you uh this past July, which what at that point we received approval for a retail development and property of 529 Cottage Grove Road. Cottage Grove Road being on the top uh with approval for a 15,539 foot building. As part of our approval, uh we are required to come back um and receive site plan approval for any proposed signage uh associated with this development. Um, so that's why we're here before you this evening. Um, we, as mentioned, we are proposing two, uh, freestanding signs under section 6.3H of your zoning regulations. Uh, if you recall on this site, we have two points of entrance. Uh, one will be off Cottage Grove Road uh, eastbound. U, uh, because Cottage Grove Road in this section is a boulevard. Um so the first sign monument sign would be to the east side of our proposed access drive which is right turn in right turnout only. Uh the sign will be set 10 ft back from the front street line and actually 21 ft um from the edge of the driveway. Uh your regulations require a minimum of 15. Um so location will meet and exceed uh the setback requirements. Uh, as you may recall, as part of the approval of this project, we do have a second point of access uh through Northwestern Drive, which is on the far leftand side of the screen. Uh, we have an easement over property at 10 Northwestern, I'm sorry, 12 Northwestern Drive, uh, to provide access to the back portion. Uh, it was what the commission's recommendation uh, that we provide some kind of indication or some kind of a directional sign, uh, so people know that this is the back entrance. Um, so what we are proposing is to use the same sign uh that we're using at the front uh at the back. So this sign would be located off the south side of our proposed access driveway. Same location where it's 10 ft off the front street line and 15 ft uh off the

edge of the pavement. Uh per your zoning regulations. Um the sign itself um at this point uh we do have a a tenant for the majority part of the building, the western part of the building. Um Sharon Williams is going to be occupying that portion of the building. Um so that's the first tenant you'll see on this sign. Um it's going to be a monument style sign. The overall height is 9 ft 6 in. Uh so under the 20 foot requirement per your regulation. Uh and also each sign panel uh will be about 4 feet 4 in wide um by about 5' 10 in high for a total sign area of 26.3 square ft um per side u which is under the 40 square ft maximum requirement um per section 6.3H2 of your uh regulations. The materials going to be constructed out of is designed to match the building. Um the bottom portion will be a split face CMU to match the same style and color of the building and the lower section of that building. The main cabinet for the sign um will be a synthetic stone material, the same material that we'll be using on the building in addition to uh the trim on the top portion, the corners on the top will be uh the same type of material, same color as the building was proposed. So we did it to complement the building and natural proposing for the overall building. You may also require remember because um as part of the approval um people that are heading westbound on Cottage Grove Road would actually have to go all the way to Northwestern Drive um before they can make a turn uh down Northwestern Drive and into the back of the site. Um so there was a recommendation that we also provide some kind of directional indicator on this sign. Um, so the sign panel you see in the middle uh would be uh the would have this bottom section that says uh turn left at light um that would only be shown if you're headed in

a westbound direction. You'll see the sign in the eastbound direction. We don't have that. Um but this is what we're proposing to use for directional uh indications so people know how to get to the actual site because they have to go past the boulevard um to get turn around and come back to the site or go down Northwestern Boulevard. Um we are proposing to use this same sign again on the back driveway. Uh its location again is going to be off to the south side of the driveway. Um so it's it's going to be a little difficult to be visible. Uh but we think this is about the best location it can go. Um but it will hopefully provide some directions to people and knowing that they can come in this back entrance also. So with that, my presentation is going to be pretty short tonight. Um, so I'm going to uh stop here and gladly take any questions that commission may have.

Thank you. Uh, Linda.

Uh, good evening, Commission. Linda Lauriano for the record. Um, the proposal before you, uh, align with the, um, standards of 6.3 of the zoning regulations, uh, which regulates freestanding sign. All signages, including freestanding sign. um you know regarding uh the height setback visibility and safety and illumination. Um again uh the proposal complies um the the only thing about the illumination is I the lumens I don't believe were indicated on the the plans. Um but as a condition of approval I believe that uh I did put that the sign shall comply with all applicable provisions of 6.3 of the zoning regulations. Uh if and when the applicant applies for a building permit which is required um pending approval um I would then ask for the lumens in compliance with the regulation. So I think that that condition of approval apply, you know, would be appropriate

and that would be okay with the applicant. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Um take some questions. We'll start at uh Commissioner Mallette. Any questions? Have no questions. Commissioner Peters, no questions. Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner James, no questions, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Goff,

I I have one very minor question. Um, this looks fine. Do you given the position of the sign on the, you know, the south side of Cottage Grove Road and the people westbound traffic being on the north side of Cottage Grove Road? Do you really think they'll be able to read the turn left at the light piece and interpret that? Well, we made it the same size as the panels for the tenants. Um, so it's about as big as we're going to be able to make it. No, no, I just I I'm just I'm just more curious. Yeah. Yeah. You you think you think they will be able to see that and interpret it? Yeah. I mean, that letter size is actually bigger than your typical street sign, so yes, hopefully um they'd be able to read it.

Okay. Thank you. No more questions. Okay. Commissioner Marshall Neely, thank you. I actually don't have any questions. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Medwinter, no questions. And I don't have any questions, so we'll go to comments. Uh, Commissioner Medwiner, any comments? No comments. Commissioner Marshall Neely, I would like to say um, thank you for coming back with with this plan and and uh, all of the work that you put into it. I appreciate this. It's very easy to understand where you're going with it, and I just simply wanted to say thank you. Hey, thank you. Uh, Commissioner Goff, uh,

no comments. Commissioner James, um, I echo Commissioner, um, Marshall Neil's comments and thank you. Looks good. Commissioner O'Brien, I'm really backwards today because I only have a question, which is when's when's the construction start date? Soon as possible. You You missed your opportunity. Uh, Commissioner Peters, I'll just say I like your material choice. Thank you, Commissioner Mallette.

Um, just maybe one particular comment if uh the sign uh with the hours of operation, I don't know if there's an opportunity to to dim that um at at closing. Um

I yeah I I'm sorry. What? Yeah, I I think I mean as far as staff um recommendation on that there there is residential in the front if the applicant when he applies for a building permit if they can make it dimable so that that way um you know if the lumens are or you know the brightness may be a nuisance to the residential property in the front. Um there is an apartment building in the front. Um and being that there are going to be wall signs um along with this freestanding sign if there's an opportunity uh to include dimmable lights, that would be um you know something that staff would be okay with recommending as well.

Okay. Yep. Thank you. Uh and at this time I don't have any comments. So with that said, um commission will um entertain a motion on this.

I got it. Uh motion to approve the application submitted by a sterile holding company LLC for the installation of two freestanding signs at 529 Cottage Grove Road and 12 Northwestern Drive as shown on plan submitted for the record titled zoning improvement location survey proposed prepared by Halisly Pearson Cassidy revised date September 4th 2025 two sheets total subject to the following conditions as noted in town plan and zoning commission staff report dated for for our meeting date September 25th, 2025 um with the conditions that they submit the lumen's report and um provide I don't know detail on uh offering a dimming solution for the for the illuminated signs.

Is there a second? Seconded moved and seconded by Mr. Peters. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Absention. Chair votes I. Thank you. Okay.

Next item on the agenda is under new business item B. I'll ask the secretary if she read that application. Informal presentation by property owner at 919 Blue Hills Avenue for possible site improvements, increase in used car for sale, and site parking layout for reconfiguration. Property owner 919 Blue Hills LLC.

Okay. Is there anyone here for that application? supposed to be but right now so therefore he asked for it to be tabled to the next meeting. I apologize that was very last minute um as we found out this afternoon. Thank you. Okay. Uh is there any discussions on tableabling it? motion to table. Um the informal well isn't informal presentation anyways.

Do we need that? It was informal presentation. If you want to know a little bit about it, I can give you a little background, but it's no. Okay. Second. Okay. There's a second on tableabling it. Any further discussion? And that's tableabling it until our October meeting. Correct. October 23rd is the next um regular meeting. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Abstension. Chair votes I. Uh next item on the agenda is also under new business. Item C. I'll ask the secretary if she'd read that application.

Threemonth extension on existing moratorum related to cannabis zoning regulations by the town plan and zoning commission. Uh, Linda.

Well, as you are aware, we uh have been uh working on multiple projects in the planning division. um and uh therefore have not um worked on uh further on providing you with um I guess what the commission wanted not was to restrict uh the amount of of business but see more of a distance requirement. Um, we're asking for a 3-month extension to allow us to rewrite the regulations to come back to the commission. And um I'm hopeful that with our new staff that will be starting on Monday um that staff will be able to dedicate the next couple of months to give you um you know a proposal um and for discussion and for your review and edits and hopefully after the 3month have a public hearing on it.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm not sure if it's necessary to go up and down on questions, so I'll just ask overall. Does any commissioners have any questions regarding extending this three additional months? January f uh I would say would it be appropriate to say December 1st or January 1st? John Coleman's here for the record.

Good evening, commissioners. Apologize. I was at a special town council special meeting where the Arbella development was a continued discussion. Um they did not take any action. It's they're going to have a special um workforce and education committee meeting on the workforce elements I believe next Tuesday. So hopefully it's moving along but uh uh they have not finalized their decision as yet. In response to this, we wanted to pro protect the community so that we didn't have a gap in the moratorum and I would I would extend it to January 1st. Um hopefully we will have the um on the next slide I'm going to talk, you know, briefly talk about it, but we'll have the POC out of the way and we can uh we can get back to um doing some these regulations, the tree regulations and and some other regulations that that require attention. Uh so I think uh in to protect the community I would um urge adoption of an extension of the three-month mortori of the moratorum until January 1st. We have not had any um direct interest or applications. Um so um there's not someone meeting on down the door at this point.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So once again, is there any questions by any of the commissioners? I I would just wonder, John, whether it would make more sense to make it February 1st since you got the holidays and everything else happening. I mean, why not make it February 1st as opposed to January 1st? Makes sense to me, Commissioner.

Yeah. Well, I mean, my question was going to be like, is that going to be enough time considering this is this is just the extension of the moratorum so that we can update the regulations. So, it sounds like you'll need a little bit more time to to rewrite it or make additions to the regulations and then we have to have our discussion. Then I'm assuming you're going to have to make edits again and then we have to have a public hearing. I'm just thinking there's a couple of times that we have to kind of go back and forth. So, three months doesn't actually seem like enough time. Agree. That's a good point. Maybe let's go to March 1st. Okay. Six months. Yeah. What? I don't know if that's six months or five months, but I would just set the date. March 1st.

Okay. 2026. March 1st. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Um, we'll take that as a motion. Is there before we go, is there any other questions by any other commissioners regarding extending the auditorium? There's no questions. Any comments regarding extending the moratorum? Uh my my my comment I guess we've extended this a couple times now. So it just kind of hopefully be the last extension. We can get something to a public hearing and okay

at this time the chair entertain a motion on extending this. I' I'd like to um move that the commission adopt the extension until the extension on the existing moratorium related to the cannabis zoning regulations by the town and zoning commission to March of 2026. March. Oh, we said March 1st of 2026. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I.

I.

Oppos. Extension. Chair votes. I next item on the agenda is under old business and uh we'll ask either Jonathan or Linda to give us an update on the PLCD. We are working on it and um I can the um the amendment to um the GMAN and York u agreement has um been um approved by just recently approved by uh by town council so that they can move forward. Linda and I are meeting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with Justin and um our intent to have it done by um uh no later than mid November. um so before the holiday season and have it back to you for your review. Uh it's going to be a fairly intense effort, but I think um we are very much committed to meeting that time schedule and the and the um the amendment actually requires that um Coleman and York's work be done by I think the 20th of November. And we're certainly going to be try and beat that schedule.

Okay. Thank you. Um so that's the last item on the agenda. I'll just ask John if there's any other updates that you might want to share with the commission. Um I don't I I assume Linda informed you that the environmental planner begins on Monday and we welcome him to the team. And secondly, I would um like to thank the commission for its indulgence in these past two meetings while I've been have not been present for most of the meeting uh because of um the work on the Arbella and to um thank and recognize uh Linda for all her great efforts and I'm sure that in many respects um she's been a um um a better presence

than me at these meetings. And um I know she's done a superb job. Thank you, John. Yes, she has. Thank you. And if if that's it, um then I'll entertain the motion. I move to close the meeting. Second. Ajourn. What are we We need to do something for another two hours.