Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

zoning board of appeals to order and I'm going to have the secretary read the call of the meeting. Before we do that, Madam Chairman, so I'm confused. So, is five a quorum or is four a quorum? Four. Four is a quorum, but you need four votes for affirmative. Okay. Yeah. All right. Five sit.

Five people sit, but you can you can conduct business with four. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, the le leg legal notice uh ran January 2nd, 2026. Uh notice is hereby given that the zoning board of appeals will hold it regular meeting virtual v uh zoom on Monday, January 5th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the following. A 919 Blue Hills Avenue applicant Dan Per Patti I believe for variance of a zoning regulation section 4.5C note one bulky one bulk requires front front yard parking space set I'm sorry parking setback and section 8.1 1 C.1 non-conforming use of land. Expand the legal pre-existing non-conforming car dealer and repair vehicles storage area, including the front yard setback and and abandon the pre-existing legal non-conforming fueling station use and associated with structure according to the plan submitted. B 10 East Wittenberry Avenue applicant owner Wittenberry Owners LLC for variance of a zone regulation section 8.1C nonconforming uses of land in section 3.3C principal uses of structures of an R15 district to expand the legal pre-exist pre-existing conform conformination

Conformity confformation multifamily use to 118 units according to the plan submitted. Applicants are available for their review in the town of Bloomfield website and land use office located in Bloomfield Avenue 800 Bloomfield, Connecticut. That's it. Thank you. So before before we get started, I have some very sad news. Um Shirley passed away

on December 13th. She was a member of our commission for quite a few years as secretary. She was also on town planning and zoning before us for quite a few years. And um I was hoping we could do a moment of silence for her.

Okay. Okay. So, for roll call, we have uh Jackie Isacson, we have Seth Pittz, we have Alan Beakovski, we have Shelby Mabin. Is that correct? Is am I missing anybody?

Oh, Pansy Archer is there. Great. Thank you. Okay, so we do have five people. All right. Um, approval of minutes. There was some errors there. I I'm not sure what they were, but I I think Shelby was at the meeting. Is that Yeah, I I know. You have Shirley Williams both as attending and as absent. She was not there, but I think Shelby was there.

Yeah, I'm going to change some things procedurally in terms of when I review and and how quickly I get back to Rebecca. I did notice that. I just I tend to review those kind of right before. So, I don't know if you guys want to proceed and just as amended with a few Yeah, I I think we could proceed as amended. That So, that was my my amend amended part. Do you have something also, Alex? No, I mean just just Shelby Maven um being present um instead of Shirley Williams being present was was my primary. Uh yeah, got it.

And Shelby was uh sitting at she was voting that night as well. Okay. So, do I have a motion to accept the minutes as amended? So move. Second. Seconded. Second. Okay. All in favor? I opposed. [clears throat] No. Okay. So, the minutes pass. Let me just make this. Okay. Okay. So, did you did you want to change anything around here, Alex, or are we going to go as planned here?

Well, um that's what's interesting. uh the headcount that I had originally had for today's meeting has changed. Uh so assuming the uh the applicant for agenda item I believe it's 4B um the 10 East Wittenberry Avenue um if they're comfortable moving forward having previously been told that there were four city members and now that there are going to be five. Um you know we'll we'll just keep the agenda as is. Uh so Mr. Barum or Attorney Barum, do you have uh any comment on this before we uh Yes. Uh c can everybody hear me? Yes.

Okay. Uh madame chair, um throughout the day, I've been in touch with Alex and Linda and um sometime in the early afternoon, it was confirmed that only four people would be in attendance based upon uh their calling and looking at emails. Um so I consulted my clients. We have uh three or four present presenters and we decided that we would uh asked that our application be tabled to your first meeting in February uh because we preferred to go forward with a full complement of um voting members. I wish I had known we were going to have five tonight because we certainly would have gone ahead, but it's virtually impossible for me to contact everybody. Um, and you know, they they did not do any preparation after I called them in the early afternoon when a decision was made uh to to ask that this application be tabled. Um,

I can take your email and put it in as an exhibit. Um, and then we also we do plan on meeting in February regardless. Um, and I'm going to discuss that later in the meeting. So, we we did send a letter in as Alex just alluded to um asking that it be tabled uh um and um again I would I would just ask that uh the commission as a courtesy allow us to uh to table until your February meeting. Okay.

All right. So, do I have a motion to table um the second application? All right. We we may need a motion to amend the agenda order um first. Or we could Why? Why? Why? We could just Or we could just do that when we get there. Okay. B. We could just start with where we were supposed to. Attorney Barhams to be here.

Yeah. Yeah. With your permission. I I came back to my office tonight because Alex thought it would be prudent for me to just make a few comments. Um but if I can be dismissed, I would appreciate it. Uh I understand your first hearing may go a while. It might. I don't know. You know what, Kaki? I I move we take the uh item B out of order and make it the first item. Okay. Do I have a second for that? Second it. Okay. All in favor? I

I All right. Do I have a motion to table the uh the 10 East Wintonberry Avenue application tiff to our February meeting? So move. Seconded. Second. Second. Okay. Is that Shelton? Somebody I heard beside besides Seth. Okay. All in favor? Okay. All right. So, you're all set. Thank you very much and have a nice meeting and I appreciate your courtesy. Good night. Good night. Good night.

Okay, so now um we have the application um for 919 Blue Hills Avenue and um was that sorry was that just the motion to take it out of order and then we need another motion? No, we did. Okay. confirm. Okay, we did both of those out. Sorry, just want to be 100% sure before we move on. Thank you. We did. Thank you. Okay, so application of 919 Blue Hills Avenue. Who is uh here speaking on that application? John Clark.

Okay. Can you give us your um address for the record so that we have that? My address is 30 Ash Ford Street, Hartford, Connecticut. Uh just to give you a little background, I was the former town architect in Windsor for eight years. I was the uh city architect in Hartford for a total of seven years, and I retired a couple years ago, but I'm still practicing [clears throat] probably more now than I ever was. But I always maintain my own practice on the outside. that I was allowed to do that. And uh I'm privileged to represent AXA Car Sales and Service uh in their application for zoning variance.

Okay. All right. So, do you want to tell us what your what is a point of order, Madam Chairman, who who's AXA? That's not the applicant. AXA is the name of the of of the business, [snorts] but the legal notice was in a different name. Don Dan

Dan Dan in some way, shape or form um I have to look at the application was at least the owner at the time of the application. I haven't checked recently. um you know and he he again haven't checked since the application came in but is or was the principal andor managing member um of AXA Auto. So essentially the owner of AXA Auto um the owner and the manager is Dan Pre Nicki. That's that's who we have here Dan. Yeah. Dan Pren Prreniki. Yeah. and

of AXA Auto being represented by um John Clark, the currently presenting architect. So, the architect. Okay. Just just familiarize me with this. So, does the um permit go in the applicant's name or does it go in a property name? Is it the property? Yeah, the variance runs with the land. Um the applicant and the owner are always always included. Um and in this case, uh Mr. Clark's an authorized agent being their architect. Well, and you have the documentation for that, right?

Yeah. I mean, it's it's it's in the variance application. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Um shall I proceed? Yes, please, please.

Okay. Uh, the property is located at 919 Blue Hills Avenue in Bloomfield. It's in the Gateway District, very beginning of the Gateway District. And u uh the owner and manager, as I said, was is Dan Nikki uh who's the owner and the manager. The property originally was zoned B2 business and uh approved for use as an automotive service station in 1962. 1965 it was then ex the use was then expanded for not only service station but car sales and service as well. uh special permit was issued in 2018 to increase the number of spaces to 18 uh and subsequently to 24. Um and uh we are seeking a variance of the zoning regulations section 4.5.C C note one which is bulk requirements for front yard parking setback and section 8.1. C.1 non-conforming uses of land to expand the legal pre-existing nonconforming car dealer and repair vehicle storage area including the front yard setback and abandon the pre-existing legal nonconforming use and structure associated with a former gas station. So essentially

um in layman's terms we want to increase the number of parking spaces from 24 which were previous previously approved to 28 and [clears throat and cough] we can I can show you the site plan. You have the original site plan. Let's see. [snorts] This is the approved site plan showing 24 spaces. Um we are not proposing to change any of the spaces in the rear which are used for parking of vehicles. newly acquired getting ready to be serviced for sale but we are changing the configuration of the front and side of the uh site. This is the original uh formally approved 24 space site plan. This is what we're proposing. We have cleaned it up. We've added four additional spaces. And what we've done and proposed to do as well is remove the canopy. And I'll show you pictures shortly. Uh same number of spacings is in the back. As I said, two uh sales spaces here or customer spaces there, but we have eliminated a drive entrance drive into the parking area. And we have a curve linear parking area that will be

lined uh for easy visibility. And also we're proposing to introduce like a 4 foot wide planting bed that will house evergreens maybe three and a half four feet high. Um so and the building has already been painted. Again we are going to remove the canopy in the rear. We're creating a snow shelf so that in the event of snowfall, snow accumulation, the snow can be pushed here and it won't be in the front. There's plenty of room for maneuvering vehicles and um that was the utmost concern, the safety of cars being maneuvered, positioned, repositioned. And I think we've [snorts] uh demonstrated that we've adhered to every safety measure that we could. Um these cars here on the east and these cars here on the north are over the existing building line. But the approved site plan that showed 24 cars previously was also over the over the u the building line. [snorts] But again, we have designed this so there's plenty of room for maneuverability. There's a dumpster here that we will simply be moved here. The dumpster truck will come and pick it up with no problem. And uh you know, we're cognizant this is in the Gateway District. We're in a neighborhood that

has a gas station, car parts, uh car wash, and we think it's appropriately located. Um is there anything else I have to add? Where where have you made the four new spots? Can you point to it on on the map? Where have we made what? The four new spots because you're going from 24 to 28. Where are the four new spots? They're out here in the front. 21. We have 21 spaces here. Previously, there were

Okay. All right. So, those are the new ones over there. Yes. Well, there was a driveway here which we eliminated. We have additional space here for parking. Okay. So, there was a driveway on Maple on was it Maplewood?

Yes. And we chose to eliminate it because on occasion cars would think they were entering a street. They would come down Maplewood and turn in to the parking area. Um, so we closed the entrance from the north side and we think it's important because people used to consider this as a road, an entrance to a road incorrectly. We're attempting to beautify the the site. We've painted the building. We're removing we're going to remove the canopy so it doesn't appear to be a gas station. Um uh and the other thing is it's the owner wanted to mention this. It's important to notify that all the cars they're selling are high-end vehicles. So it's not like there's a high volume of cars uh that are entering and exiting the uh the site. And more importantly, the the site plan was prepared in accordance with the Bloomfield planning and zoning staff and the regulations zoning regulations. Uh I also want to point out and I'll have a copy of this. This is a letter from the fire marshal uh Jim Simon who visited the site looked at the site plan and uh uh we adhereed to his request. We maintain a 20ft clearance from the building and uh we had to actually move a few spaces. So it was a compromise on our part from originally what we had intended to to house.

Can you can you guys see this? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [clears throat] Really every effort was made to make this more attractive to um to uh make it safe make it safe for for pedestrians. Um customers can park here and there's a there's going to be a colored walkway if they have to go to the sales office and so the sales office is going to be in that front in the front there.

Yes, right here. But you only have two spaces for customers. That's right. What if you have a lot more there? Where are they going to park? Well, there's u I mean this is not always going to be full. Also, there's an adjacent parking area for Dunkin Donuts and people often park there that come here. And but you but you don't own that. No, we don't. But we're negotiate negotiating a lease.

Uh in the event we don't get the lease, uh I don't think it's going to be a problem. People can still park where customer parking is designated. So all the repair vehicles are going to be in the rear. They will not nothing none of them will be in the front. Correct. Until they're ready to be sold.

Correct. They're all waiting to be serviced. They're purchased at the auction usually. They're brought here and then they're driven into the garage and brought up to speed [snorts] and then put in one of these spaces. And again, they're all high-end vehicles. Mercedes, um, uh, BMWs, Volvos, and it's so it's a limited more of a limited, uh, uh, customer customer group. Everybody can't afford a Benz.

So So how many cars you proposing in total on the site? 28 28. Okay. What was previous again, what was previously approved were 24 spaces. We're making this parking in the front that's visible from Bel's Avenue uh more efficient. I'll show you some pictures. No, I've I've seen it. I'm good. Okay. But I I was there last month before the other meeting that didn't go forward and I counted the cars and I believe there were about 40 cars there. 40 40 [clears throat] um

in the front I suspect they were uh just jockeying and moving cars around. No, they were they were jammed in there pretty good. Well, uh I think they were reorganizing if you went there today. Um you'd see the appropriate number of cars. Okay. So, I just want to be clear with you because we've had problems with other car dealers. If you go over that number, there will be heavy fines.

We fully understand that. I think uh Mr. Salamett uh took us a a a site trip today to look at the number of cars and I I have a number of comments following John's uh Okayation. I was actually there today as well. Okay.

Okay. John, go ahead. finish and and then I will let Alex speak and then if you if he has questions or he you'll be you can answer them.

Um okay. Um I think I basically have said it all. Uh clearly it's an attempt to for an existing use to be modified which in turn promotes the public safety, health, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, uh and other aspects of the general welfare of this section of Blue Hills. It's a vastly improved site. And um I hope you see it that way.

Thank you. Thank you. Um Alex, do you want to go first before I see us? Yeah, I I mean I might as well. And there I have a number of comments um based on the applicant's presentation. Uh, I guess as a as a point of clarification, you know, in it's in my staff report somewhere and I might uh you know, I'll just pull that up. So, if you don't mind, um, John, I'll I'll switch to my screen.

Who's Marcus? I believe it's a leftover AI from the the applicant that's uh requested to be tabled. Oh, okay. Want to get out of the site plan? Yeah.

Let me see. And then I actually did make I made very slight revisions to my staff report. I might as well run through that as well. Um let's see. So originally um well first of all just in terms of the overall neighborhood um assuming that everyone was able to read the the first version of it um definitely worth mentioning that in the surrounding area a large multif family development is going to be or is in the process of being constructed here. So from understanding this the surrounding neighborhood um we have essentially a cemetery um the car wash and the gas station um varying amounts of occupancy we'll call it um former automotive um Dunkin Donuts. Uh and I think that's important in terms of understanding the surrounding area and just to go in some amount of order. Uh as John mentioned, there has been some amount of historic um expansion of automotive uses in this area. When taking in this variance, um you know, one of the main points that I had I had heard the applicant discussing was basically the abandonment of a a fueling station use and traffic pattern that was creating some safety issues that they had in some ways remedied by just parking cars. in a fashion similar to their site plan. Uh it made sense to me at the time to basically try to legitimize the site plan through a variance. Um that being said, I have had a number of complaints uh from a number of people. Uh and I have been to the site as recently as today. Um for better

or for worse, uh today was the best day that I've seen it. Um, can you still see my screen? No. Are you Are you trying to share? Yeah. Trying to share. You haven't. So, I'm not sharing the picture. No. No. All right. I've seen this happen in other meetings and I know there's a there's a workaround. Um, I might just quickly copy and paste them to a Word document. But that being said, I think if I'm Are you able to see the file? We got them now. Yeah.

Yeah. Now we have pictures. Okay. So, this is current conditions, you know, bigger. Uh, well, I'll I'll click in. So, can you still see the pictures? Yeah, that's good.

That's very good. Yeah. So, at least as of today, um this is what the site looks like with 1 2 3 4 5 6 seven vehicles, which is what the previous approvals are. And I strongly recommended um to the point where the applicant just agreed before coming in, not making any changes to this area. Uh this is basically past this area, although it's the back of the building. um you know there's going to be a number of residences with eyeshed over over this area. I I just don't think it makes sense to increase over here. Um the applicant was amendable to that and submitted a site plan with no changes over there. Um you know this is similar to their traffic pattern. Uh I do think some amount of additional review following the variance would be required if the variance is granted. um just just for a more thorough review of safety um in terms of what they're proposing and how that works. But this is the amount of spaces that they're grandfathered in for that area. This is just another view. I don't necessarily know that the layout is in perfect alignment, but it is the right number of cars. And this is essentially a mockup of what they want the site to look like minus this canopy and with some amount of plantings along the frontage. Uh that being said, they they have been and they are they are ahead of themselves in terms of the the variance has not gone through and the canopy is still there. Um, so I am going to have to follow up with the applicants no matter what, regardless of whether this goes through or not as to how many vehicles they have with their current approvals. Even with the variance, it's not all the way it's not all the way done. I want at least some amount of either planning input or administrative zoning permit bare

minimum just just to work out certain details like sight lines, um, the optimal buffers, things like that. I just don't think that fits within the scope of this variance. Um the way that I interpret this variance is is it more conforming to take out um and formally on the record in a public meeting abandon um all gas station use of this property, including all associated structures um to make this basically one coherent used car lot. Where this gets interesting is whether whether or not following the site plan is is part of this. Um, you know, I I think a significant amount of follow-up would be required either way. That being said, this is um a slightly mocked up version of their old approval. And what they're looking to do is take any areas associated with the gas station and the traffic pattern that was causing some safety issues and make it basically a traffic pattern and parking orientation associated with a used car dealership with some amount of repair. That being said, uh, parking in the rightway and outdoor storage are not currently part of our existing zoning rigs in terms of what you can do. So, they would require variance to park um, basically any outdoor storage and especially any outdoor storage being parking in a in a front yard setback. So, that that's essentially why they're here. Um, you know, there there is a question and should be a discussion as to what's more

conforming. Um, you know, a slight expansion of outdoor storage with a complete removal of a fueling station use. Um, you know, I think that's essentially what we're here to to weigh out. Um but also you know what what is the history of this this property in terms of is this is this a current and I basically how how much of this is is going to end up being enforcement. Um but I'm going to reserve all of my judgment on that front in terms of what happens following today. Um, and I do plan on I think I'll follow up with the applicant at least during this week and figure out that. Um, I am very curious about this 40 count. I've actually had a written complaint submitted with somewhere in the 30s. Uh, while I haven't directly observed that, uh, current conditions are I think at least at least four above whatever they were required. is essentially the a demonstration of the site plan that they're looking for.

So the times you've been there besides today, how many cars have you found on the on that on that front property?

Yeah. So, so this is where this property is either similar to other enforcement cases or it's not. So, I had had complaints about this property in the past. Um, and I had spoken with the owners and you know, uh, basically immediately upon me talking to them, they've discussed, you know, how important it is for them to get a site plan that works for them. And, you know, to give them a lot of credit, there's been a number of revisions. Uh, you know, I would have to defer to John as to how many times that they've come back to me and that number's gone down in terms of how many spots they could possibly fit there. That being said, I'm how much that matters if they're not in compliance a week from now. Uh, I'm going to have to figure out a week from now. Um, you know, I if if approved, uh, I suggest some pretty strong conditions. uh we can discuss that as the discussion progresses. Um but I at least just wanted to show current conditions and confirm that I I do get complaints that there's too many cars there. Um, you know, that being said, when I reach out to the applicants, there is there is some amount of effort to do things the right way in the sense of getting the approvals and of, you know, clearing up the site to to a point where it looks like this. Um, you know, which is basically representative of what they're looking to do in addition to with the requirement of them making further improvements. So this is what the site looks like right now. Um you know it's it's worth mentioning uh day of the hearing there there is still several more vehicles. That being said there currently isn't 30. Also

worth mentioning I have heard pretty high numbers for the site from other complaints. Um this is just what I observed today. Al, Alex, where else were they parked besides in the front here? You you you counted 30 cars in the front? No. Um, this this is what's there today. It is not 30.

I could I could quickly count how many are there, but it's fairly close to the to the site plan they presented. So, it's somewhere between what they had approved and what they're asking for. Um, I can just visually see that there's at least one or two more cars than they were originally approved for. That being said, a a real area of concern is this back area. Um, in the past, the complaints have been about this area being completely filled, and you know, we're about to have a lot of people living there. Um, you know, your approvals are your approvals. Um, this is what they're approved for. Um, I've, you know, in terms of where that significant increase has been observed in the past, it's it's here

in in that area in the back. Yeah. As you can see, which is not they're not asking for more spaces back there.

No, I I have been working with the applicants for some time now on coming up with a site plan. um you know mostly in the form of them reducing the amount of vehicles on the site plan and this this was an area that I had significant concerns with. Uh I've spoken with representatives for AXA and they've said that they're amendable to putting up some sort of vinyl fencing and keeping it at seven. you know, it's it's not currently something that I'm um you know, writing them a cease and desist for having a couple extra vehicles, but I can't say that I strongly feel like this is has been consistently what's there. you know, I've been working with them on a site plan and and while working together, you know, there have been improvements. Is that always the case in terms of how many cars are there? Not until today. You know, this is just what it looks like. Thanks.

Um, anybody have any questions or or um Allan, do you have some questions?

Um, yeah. Um, I'm confused. Uh, [clears throat] Alex, are are you ready for us to go forward tonight or do you need some more um input from the applicant? No, I mean the way that I see this variance, it's is it more conforming to completely remove the auto mo or auto fueling station use and traffic pattern uh including the structures and including formally saying on a public record that you're abandoning the use. Uh use abandonment can get very complicated. Uh however, coming to a public meeting and a representative of the applicant owner literally stating we're here to abandon the use um is one of the most concrete ways to do it. Uh there can be a discussion as to whether that's that's more or less conforming. Um I thought it was interesting enough to take in. Um that being said, you know, I can't speculate. There may or may not end up being enforcement at this site. That's up to the the owner. You know, right now they only have a few vehicles extra, but they I have had complaints in the past of a lot more.

Well, we could void the previous permits for Well, yeah. My my thought in taking this in was that we would basically be here to formally abandon the gas station and the traffic. Not aband can't use the word abandon. void uh well legally void of previous varants. Yeah, youoidvoiding the approval for that in the form of of a them stating that they are on the record abandoning the use it. I I would prefer to use both language um just just from a pure regulatory abandonment I think they could come back and use it.

No. Well, abandonment's just difficult to prove that that's why them coming here and and stating that and in addition to stating that the previous approvals are void. I I mean I don't see how how it would hurt um I think it would be this both ways. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Okay.

Um I just have a question. Um I'm curious to know for the owners what the reason the main reason is for the excessive cars in the lots. Is it a combination of um customers or um you know them accepting cars to repair both? I don't know if I understood the question. [clears throat and cough] You said you didn't understand the question. I did not. No, I didn't.

Okay. So, the So, Alex was stating there has been complaints regarding the number of cars on the lot. I was wondering if the um owners have provided an explanation for the excessive number of cars in the lot at all. Has it been because of, you know, the number of customers coming? Because I see that only two parking spaces are allotted for customers. I'm just wondering what the reason they're stating for excessive numbers of cars on the lot. That's a good question.

Well, u I think uh at times they may exceed the number of permitted cars because they're moving cars around. They're bringing cars in, shipping cars out. So, uh but essentially they plan to fully adhere to the proposed 28 cars on the site. I can't tell you. I mean, I can I've driven by many times. I have never seen 40 cars on the site. I mean, that's [snorts] in all honesty. That's seems like an exaggeration.

Oh, I counted them one by one. Yeah, I've I've had similar complaints, you know, and and I've I've come in and and spoken to the applicants about it, you know, how amendable they are to to making a site plan and making gradual revisions, you know, can be seen now. And but, you know, I'll leave all judgment to the future, you know, to the future. Um, I thought this was a an important point was the number of customer parking spaces. Um, this is especially true for this variance and and true of any variance application. Um, you can't assume off-site parking at, in this case, the Dunkin Donuts. That's that's not part of a site plan. That's

no honest that lease is not recommended and not part of this. you would you would essentially need to come back with that site plan and Duncan would need to come with their site plan. So I need to clarify that immediately because that that's not part of this and and cannot be part of your plan. Alex, if a lease is executed, we you know provide a copy of the lease and

No, no, you you would need that first and a site plan and Duncan would need their site plan. Um it's it's not as simple as they said. It's cool. You know, we're just going to throw the cars there. You know, this this is a formal procedure and assuming that there's things you can still see my screen, right? Yeah. Anything not on this site plan is is not part of this variance period. Um that's just not how it works. Okay. and our proposed site plan parking in the front for uh sales. Uh let's see.

I mean, what what makes sense to me and is similar to your other approvals would essentially be including this as as customer parking and some amount of reduction to your your We could do that. That that's without a Yeah. Yeah. I I don't think two customer spaces is some is you know doable especially I think your intention you know on the record of using offsite parking demonstrates uh you know your agreement in this uh to some extent there's too many

these spaces could be used for customer parking or these four spaces because where where are you where are We have increased we have increased the number of parking spaces by four. Okay. This has not changed. Well, you're decreasing the amount in your table. So, there were more customer parking spaces in your original. There were seven before, wasn't that? Yeah. So, uh Oh, I can check the staff report. Um, it was at the end. Two customer, seven repair. I know. I did. I I read it in something in your report.

Yeah. So, you'd originally had seven customer spaces. So, reducing the customer spaces is an important topic of discussion if if you're increasing the outdoor storage. I don't think two is reasonable and and pretty much you've come here and told us that you don't think two is reasonable. I don't know that that's a particularly controversial opinion. Um, where do the employees park? And where do the employees park? Where do the employees park? Yeah, drive the cars for sale. They drive the the cars that they're selling.

As often as is often the case at a dealership, all the employees, so if you work there, you get to drive one of those cars home and take it home for the weekend. Some of them do do that. Yes. Are working there. Yeah. For the day. And if they're going down to the beach for the weekend, they can take the car. Well, um I know of that happening. I I can't follow that. I can't. How many are work? How many employees are working there? Yeah. Two. How many? I'm sorry. Two.

Two. Okay. Thank you. I'm I just wanted to make sure I knew that. Okay. I don't think it's unreasonable, you know, for the owners or whoever to drive the cars. I know of that happening as long as they're registered in working condition. Um I'm aware of that occurring with owners of, you know, car dealerships or um to be honest with you, yeah, they're not registered. They have dealers. Well, it it depends. Just just as a point of clarification, this is their last approved plan, right?

So they have seven for customer, uh 10 for sales, seven for repair. So I think it's in I guess to some extent, you know, it is important to note that there isn't anything in their previous approval. That being said, should there be? Um, but I think most importantly what I wanted to bring up was the seven the seven customer parking spaces. I don't know that that reduction is is justified based on a hardship. Um, I think there's six already separated spaces. Uh, looking at your existing plan, um, these four and these two are already outside of this array. Um, I don't think that that I I don't know what what is the hardship behind that change.

We simply wanted to make a safer parking area for vehicles for sale. And yeah, with with this arrangement that that does make sense um in some ways. Uh the the trick to this is is what's safer about having less customer parking spaces on site? Well, just increase the number of sales. But however, um we increase the number of spaces by four. These four spaces could be customer. I mean,

yeah, I think I would absolutely make that a stipulation. Um, somewhere in here we would we would redraw the table. I unless you can come up with a hardship as to why you're reducing the amount of customer parking um I don't think that number can change. Um I just I don't have a reason for that that's been presented. So if that number is not going to change then the number of vehicles to display has to change. Yeah. because we can't fit anything more there. Correct. Correct.

But I I definitely I I agree. I think we need more customer spots than than than they have put there and a couple of you know couple of less. It would make more sense to make these customer parking spaces as opposed to these. Which one are you pointing to on these should be customer spaces?

Sorry, I'm I'm guessing. But are these you're talking about these four separate and these two over here or um actually I mean these might be the safest in terms of um you know at least as far as the purpose of the variance. I just don't think that number can decrease just from a hardship standpoint. I I just don't there's been no compelling argument that there's a hardship [laughter] in in less less customer parking. Um, you know, we can work out on the site plan where that can go, but as far as stipulations go, I think that needs to be a stipulation that there's no reduction in customer parking. Okay.

So, that being said, you know, it it seems like that would need to come from the sales display. I don't know where how you would Well, yeah, because it would have to come from there. There aren't there are no other places on that lot to put repair. But yeah, but the repair is in the back and if somebody is if a customer is coming in to look at cars Yeah, true. they they need to they need to be able to park their car to look at another car. And since we don't have the egress on Maplewood, um,

another park at there, they're going to have to they have to park in in this lot in the front. Well, another point is that uh they take often they take um customers by appointment. Well, that that's Yes. But if I'm driving down the street and I see all these cars for sale, you're not you're not going to tell me don't come in and look at them. Yeah. It's also not a potential customer. I mean, that's what and then I have to park somewhere.

Yeah. It really boils down to the lack of hardship as well in that capacity. you know, if if you're solving some sort of problem that's caused by a gas station traffic pattern and gas station equipment, reducing the number of customer parking spaces just I don't I just haven't seen I haven't seen the hardship there. Um, you know, it basically it would be your job as the applicant to show how it's a hardship derived by the land that you only need two customer parking spaces. It might, in my opinion, it's as of right now a stretch. I just haven't heard it. Conceivably, there could be on street parking on Maplewood in this area.

Yeah. Well, that that's also completely out of scope of anything you've submitted and Okay. unknown and probably not recommended from a safety standpoint if we're being honest. You know, especially especially with not having the egress over there on maple wood. Yeah. And we have no authority to permit that. Plus, you got the trucks coming out of the gas station. Plus, you have what, 80 units of apartments behind you. You're gonna have traffic from there. Are are we reducing the traffic, you know, and kind of encouraging a safer pattern or are we just throwing cars everywhere? Um,

so just put it on your hand. So if if you if you made these four spots over on the side of the building customer parking, then you would have to decrease your display cars. Let me see what it Yeah, I think it would make more sense for these four spaces to be customer park. Well, that's that's still six, too. I mean, does it make sense to literally just make the first one, two, three, four, five all, you know, that that's up for debate. I think in terms of stipulations,

I just think no reduction of no reduction of customer parkings. I haven't seen a reason for that to be negotiated. I just don't think there's a hardship that would cause that. I mean and and even with keeping the seven by reconfiguring you still have you can add to the display. Yes. I mean that that's what I was Yeah. It has to come from How about anybody else on the commission because I can't see anybody now. Anybody else have anything? A couple questions, Jackie.

Okay, thank you. Um, can you clearly mark the cars for sale? Like put a for sale sign in the windshield? The problem we've had in the past is that uh the car dealers like to blur repairs with for sale and the numbers get switched back and forth. So, if you're going to have x number of cars for sale, they're going to have a for sale sign in the windshield. Is that agreeable? Yes, it is. Okay. The other thing is, are you willing to post a $5,000 bond that you won't go over the exceeded number?

Uh, I'd have to talk to the uh the owner, but I'm sure they would. They really want this badly. Yep.

Anybody else have questions? Good. Thank you. I just want to know I I went in there myself just to pass. I was at, you know, and I counted 39. Maybe I missed one just because I counted 39 cars and I'm like I went back home and I look and it says 24 then 28. So how did we get 39? So how are we actually going to control when when were you there pansy? Um, was it the week? Not last week, the week before and I think it was 39 cars. I

Yeah, see that that's been our problem. That really bothered me cuz they could have at least waited until we approve it before I said no. Have you almost Well, that's not how this is going to work. [laughter] I think there's going to be I think I think the days where there were cars in excess of uh 24 was on auction day when they're bringing cars in and moving cars out. So that was not a momentary thing but a short very short but we're not going to allow that. I'm sorry. The number is the number. Yes. Don't bring in extra cars if you don't have room for them.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, there there's been an ongoing discussion with the applicant as to how many can possibly fit and what's safe. And in theory, that's what this plan is. And in theory, that's what we'll have sorted out to a pretty large extent during this meeting,

following that optimal number and the steps, you know, required to get there. I mean, the only thing left is a pretty strict enforcement. um you know that that's it and in a lot of ways and literally you know that's that's my position in the town and that's my position on this site you know to some extent I think it's important to work with business owners in terms of figuring out how should you do this um but once that's figured out and if it is this site plan you know that's to say this variance even goes through you know that that's pretty much it you've been given your uh your instruction instructions in your plans. Um, and they just they're either executed or they're not. I've communicated to the applicant.

Alex, what's approved for the site now? So, that's that's the previous 24, right? 24 24 24. So, the the seven in the back, the two on the side, and basically around the fuel island and leaving these entrances open. Okay. And that was agreed two years ago. Correct. Um 2023. August 2023 is what I Yeah, that was the last administrative approval was 2023, right? That was administrative. We didn't even vote on it. I would have to go through the history. It was I don't remember voting on this on this property in a very very very long time, if any.

Yeah. Yeah. There's there's a long history of varying expansions. I I would need to go. It's just been too long. Um, my focus to be honest has been going to the site and having words uh with the owners and redrawing the plans to a lot of extents in terms of, hey, if we if we do get rid of what's being described as a safety concern, you know, people on Blue Hills Avenue not being able to turn around and flying into the site, um, you know, these kind of high entrance exits per area. um you know very commonly associated with gas stations. Is that the solution? Or you know if it's not then you know

so if we vote this down then that's the plan that they're stuck with right? Yeah. Either basically after today I'll know am I enforcing the plan that's on the screen or am I enforcing the plan that's on the screen now. Yeah. Is is there anybody here from the public? Yeah, and that's a great question, too. It's a public hearing, so uh let's stop sharing and see if anyone would like to speak. Somebody got their hand up. I'm gonna allow them to speak. Hold one moment. Yep. And just name and address for the record once you're speaking. Daniel Hodkins is Hey, how you doing? Can you hear me?

Yeah. Daniel, yes. Can you just state your name and address for the record? [clears throat] Sure. My name is Daniel Hodkins. Um, I'm with Oakill School and our address is 120 Hulcom Street, Harford, Connecticut, 06112.

Okay. So, um, yeah, I don't know. I don't have my camera on. I don't know if that's yours or not, but I had it on. Anyway, I um I just wanted to speak on their behalf. Um, I'm a school counselor at Oakill and I've been working um with u Mary and and his partner and you know they're very gracious to have some of our our students come over and and uh and work. We have we work with kids with special needs and and they find things for them to do and um you know they're very supportive of that and you know the short time I've known them it feels like they're you know they want to be invested in the community. So I just wanted to speak on their behalf. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

I think there's another There's one more. So, just same thing. Name and address for the record.

Hi, my name is Raymond Bell. I um my address is 79 Long View Drive in Windsor. And um I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the owners. Um I've lived in this area for since 1995. I grew up in Harford area. So I've seen this building um gone from one ownership to the next, one business type to the next. I've seen it where it was, you know, dilapitated and or closed. [snorts] And since these gentlemen took it over and is running used car dealership out out of here, I've noted that it's, you know, marketkedly cleaner. You know, it's it's a I heard the word aesthetics mentioned a couple of times. I've I've noted that the aesthetics um in in my humble opinion as a resident in the area that drives by here quite often um it it just looks better, looks good. Um you know uh the the and why how did I end up here? Um the owner of the business, I've known him for several years. um bought cars from him before, repaired my cars before, and very very um good professional businessman that I've worked with and and done business with. Um so I, you know, I think the town of Bloomfield, the community of Bloomfield would be well served to have a business owner like this in in the area. Um personally speaking, my I bought several cars from him. I've bought um you know I trust my my my son to go to him to get his car repaired. My wife goes to him to get his car her car repaired. So I I I I truly believe that a business that and and I've listened to the the the positions the arguments made here and I I I think this you know with all due respect this zoning board is is doing what it's what is right for the community. And I think this business, you know, as a customer and and um of

this business would be good for this area um to keep it going and and have it have our, you know, the residents in in the Bloomfield Windsor area be able to access this [snorts] car dealership, our used car dealership as well as the service station um the ser the repair services that he that he delivers to the community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is that it? as far as what's in That's all I see.

Okay. All right. All right. Um So, so Alex, we um we need to we need to vote on several things here. Well, it it is essentially the variance. I think if granted, there should be strong stipulations in the sense that there can't be reductions in customer parking. Um, you know, the the way that it was described to me is that this is a way to make the site safer, you know, basically by closing up the entrances that they don't use and that people are flying around doing U-turns. Um, you know, if that's what this is, then that's what this is. Uh, you know, the like literally printed on the variance, uh, there's going to be stipulations about removing the, um, canopy that was also non-conforming. Um,

we do have to vote on that separately, don't we? Or no? No, because that's a reduction. We're we're not we're not expanding the non-conforming. that was already part of their past expansions.

Okay. um uh the plantings, some amount of buffering um and to be honest, I think some amount of further zoning review. Um you know, the purpose of this variance is in regards to the the expansion into the areas that used to be the gas station. um and the areas that would fall into the setback and the final number that we fall into, you know, assume without any reductions in any of the other requirements. Uh that's the variance there. There's other review that I think this needs um you know, mostly with DOT uh etc. and you know the the zoning rags suggest um I don't want to overstep in terms of other commissions that but I did suggest that they go to um TPZ for some amount of comment while that comment hasn't been formally given yet um I think bare minimum some sort of further zoning approval um would be required following the variance just for those kind of green lights with with planning staff and with um I'd say equally if not well we'll just say equally as importantly um DOT checking sight lines things like that making those minor revisions that are kind of out of scope for this review

but as far as the plan where he has his spots now are is staff good with that if he's added more spots. But but are are you good with this with this plan of how he has the cars? No, I mean it would need to be stipulated that there's no there's no reduction in

corre correct, but I'm just asking if the configuration that's here, the amount of cars that's sitting there in the front, are you okay with that? Not I agree we shouldn't be changing the amount of customer spots. I just want to know if this configuration is okay.

Yeah. So so my my take on this variance um and the reason why I took it in. I'm going to just upload the or not upload. I'm going to go back to sharing the picture. you know, if it was a gas station and now they want it to just be their you little like this small used car business. Um, you know, essentially this is this is the area of the variance that they're they're looking to do. Um, you know, I'm I'm giving myself quite a bit of work in terms of enforcement moving forward. But that being said, if if this is a safer way to orient the spaces and me uh whatever amounts of um stipulations and incentives are required to to get the conditions of the variance met um you know minus this canopy and with the plantings is it is it acceptable? Um you know I I in my opinion it could be. Um, you know, that's really up to the applicants in terms of can they execute a site plan. Um, but that's going to be I I what I'm looking for in this is basically a clear direction in terms of what what I should enforce cuz if it is safer and it is only a reduction of or only an increase in force bases and they adhere to it, that would be ideal. Um, but it's, you know, it's a real question of adherence following the variance. Um, but that's that's a separate it's a separate channel entirely in the enforcement. Um,

Alex, adherence would be easier because we're going to mark the spaces.

Yeah, I I think that's a good stipulation. And in some ways, you know, working with existing businesses is is part of the the intention of the zoning rigs of the G GWD. And again, that's why I took it in. Um, that being said, is this where I I'm going to have to see, you know, no matter what, uh, there there's going to be strong enforcement moving forward. I just the complaints the complaints that I've received just just warrant it period. Um so I'm going to be following up regularly and part of that assuming this gets approved would be would be removing this and putting those plantings in. So I would need to talk to you about timelines with that. But in terms of the variance itself, you know, if [snorts] an agreed upon area for the customer spaces is found and that comes from the display parking, you know, this was a really long discussion about four additional parking spaces. And you know, with that comes a complete abandonment of a use that's not in the GWD um permissible uses. Alex, do do the people that have come that have complained to you, did they know that we that we had the public hearing?

Yeah, I I think that was um you know, the noticing of the public hearing in some way, shape, or form brought attention to the site. It's a high visibility site to begin with, right?

Um but, you know, this this has been my attempt to basically come up with a coherent plan. um you know to whatever extent I'm not a huge fan of basically enforcing something if there is a compelling reason for a change of the site plan. That being said, you know, the there have been many revisions to this site plan and I don't see there being anything more reasonable from the town's perspective in how many spots you could have. Um, I think this is this is as many as could possibly fit on this site. And

yeah, site, right? if you know if the commission even feels that the other one wasn't the most amount of spaces. Uh I mean basically in not so many words um if if the sales display parking number is reduced in a way that the customer parking is not affected. The the actual site plan itself I I think was a good enough idea to take in the variance. That being said there's further approval down the road. Uh and we'll see if further enforcement as well. Um but you know the enforcement is a separate separate channel. You know this is to iron out the actual plan. Okay. Yeah Jackie. Yeah.

You know just to be clear you know especially Alex you when you talk about enforcement we've gone down that road with other auto sales places and what are we now up to four years in court. Yeah. So that's actually And the place is still a disaster. Exactly. I mean, what are we doing here?

Um, for me, it's about coming up with a a coherent plan. Um, you know, the reason and I don't want to step out of the public hearing. You know, once this public hearing is closed, uh, I have some some discussion of the other cases primarily, you know, related to a future meeting. Um but the in some ways this is this is in line with feedback um related to those cases. But that being said, you know, it it could go either way in terms of um you know, no matter what what's better, you know, if they went from 40 cars to to 20 call 27 um and can stick to a site plan, is that is that good enough for us? you know, the that's kind of a question that I think is out of scope of this public hearing, and I really like to keep public hearings on topic. You know, I I did take this in and I took this in with the intention of coming up with something that I I at least would hope um you know allows the existing business owner to do business and in a way that allows me to do strict enforcement of the site plan that is in theory safer. All right. Is there is there any any other questions from commissioners?

I'm sorry. What did you say ask? I asked if anybody else on the commission had any questions. No questions. I have comments, but no questions. Okay. No, no questions first. Um, do other people have comments? I have comments. All right. besides you. I I was just wondering [laughter] because I'm only seeing you on this screen right now. I don't have anybody else up. All right. Why don't you go with Do you want to do your comments now or after I close the public hearing? Uh, no. Go. Let's Let's do the comments now.

Okay. Go ahead then. Um, I've never been a big fan of the uh gateway district zone, but this is a p perfect application. I think that why the um gateway zone came about. Yeah,

this is the wrong operation in this spot. I know it's been there for 30 over 30 years, but I think it's a disaster waiting to happen. Um, there is going to be a big development behind this that's going to create a lot more traffic and a lot more pressure on uh bringing in more cars and um I think that we shouldn't encourage them to expand. If you can say that. No, you can. I mean that's what that's your that's your whole reason why we're here. Yeah.

Okay. Any anybody else on the commission have any thoughts, questions, comments, anything? Yeah, I'm in in terms of it being a hightraic area. I'm in agreeance with um Allen on that. I know that road well with the Sitco gas station right there, the new car wash that's right there and the new building. Um that was um a concern that I had um um with all that traffic. What is the street? Is it what is it? Maple wood. Maplewood. Maplewood.

That street really gets backed up. Um so that that definitely is a concern for me. So I am in agreeance that that's a really hightraic area and adding the apartments there um it's going to cause more traffic. Thank you. Anybody else? John, is there anything else you want to add? Um, I don't I don't think so. I I we've uh developed the site plan in accordance with Bloomfield planning and zoning staff and uh we've tried to make the site plan as efficient and as safe as possible. I don't think this is going to cause a generation of significantly more traffic. I mean, this is this intersection at Blue Hills and Cottage Grove Road is murder, uh, to put it mildly. And uh it's uh it's a support type of service just like the the gas station and uh auto carts and car wash that uh are predominant in this area this intersection just before blue and cottage road. So I think it's a it can be a a plus and uh I know the um the owners would make every attempt to adhere to the required number of spaces. They're interested in improving the site.

They've already painted the building. They're going to take the canopy down if the variance is approved. They're going to beautify the uh the site with landscaping and um I think this will be a plus to simply add more customer parking and eliminate some of the sales parking. I I think they would easily go along with that and it it seems reasonable to me also. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay, Alex, do you have anything else or you've pretty much said everything you want to say?

Well, no. I mean, just a small point of clarification in terms of meeting with town plan and zoning staff. I mean it it is primarily just I I don't want to over represent or I don't want the applicant to over represent you know the the revisions have been primarily with with myself and just me kind of pointing at areas and saying I don't I don't necessarily think you can fit that many there. Uh that being said, the applicant has, you know, taken those areas out and there have been a number of reductions since, but you know, I I think that's just a point of clarification. I don't want to interrupt the current conversation because

Okay. You know, well, I'm gonna I'm gonna close this public hearing then since everybody has spoken and um to close the public hearing. No, never have. Um I mean I I think we I've never What? I don't know. I I I might become a stickler about that. I just want to make sure that we motion Yeah, we motioned to open it and we have second we didn't [laughter] open it. We don't have a motion to open. It's just an open open to start with. We don't make a motion to open it.

Okay. Yeah. Then I think that being said, um, yeah, if that's not part of it, let's motion to close it. Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close. All right. And the second second. All in favor? I.

Okay. All right. So, do does anybody want to have have any discussion among among commission members or do I have somebody that wants to make a motion? Um I my I'll make my comment. My comments are basically um that if you look at the plan that he's proposing as opposed to the one that's there, it it looks much more organized, much much easier for Alex to be able to go in and look at and and count spaces. So, I don't have a problem with the extra four spaces. I have a problem with the again the c reducing the customer spaces. So I I agree that the customer spaces should stay as seven and that would give that in that would give them four more displays as opposed to what they were asking for. But that that's the way I uh I look at it.

Yeah. And um I guess I did have one more comment as well. Um you know, if there was ever a site that I've had thorough discussions with and we've had a whole public hearing on, you know, it's this. And you know, this is information for the applicant and just me stating on the record. Um you know, any future zoning violations at this site are willful. Um and that's subject to uh significantly heavier fine. All right. Do I have a do I have somebody who would like to make a motion? I just have a question. Um mention

and um John would have to go back to the um owner if he's willing to put up the $5,000. Well, we could put we could put that in as a stipulation and then the owner has already agreed that they would do that. uh with the owners. We can't we can't have people we can't have John talking we at this point because we've closed the public hearing and that's him.

And also I'm not entirely sure I've never run into a variance that had a bond attached to it. I know that's extremely common in in other in other approvals, but variances are basically exceptions that run with the land. I don't know that that's feasible. I would need to consult the town attorney. Um, but that being said, if the applicant's amendable to it, um, you know, that that's something that could be worked out, I just I would need to consult the town attorney on that. Okay. Do I have do I have somebody that would like to make a motion here? Who's been jotting down all the notes that Alex has?

I'm looking for the uh agenda. For the agenda.

Well, it's the same thing I think that it says on your legal notice there. It's it's the same paragraph. Well, I'll make the agenda reading it. I'll make the motion reading it off the agenda if that's okay. Yeah, but we have to put all those stipulations in. Are you able? Did you jot those down? No, I got those down now. All right, I got it. You got it. Okay. Why Why don't we let Allan make the motion and you could second it, Seth? That would be Okay. Okay. I can also give you guys the spark notes right before No, no, we're good. Allan's got it.

All right. Um, I make a motion to approve the application for variance for 919 Blue Hills Avenue. Applicant Dan Bgali uh for variance for zoning regulations section 4.5 uh C note uh bulk requirements front yard parking setback and section 8.1 C.1 non-conforming use of land expanding the legal pre-existing non-conforming car dealer repair vehicle storage area, including the front yard setback, abandoning the pre-existing legal non-conforming fueling station use and associated structure according to this plans submitted. I would also ask that um in there all the cars that are for sale be clearly marked with for sale sign in the wingshield and that the applicant uh post uh a $5,000 bond to keep it to the number of

if if if they can if if it's you know if they can't if it's if it's legal. Okay. How about um the planting and the buffering? Um oh and pertaining to the plans that um or let me finish the other thought. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. What you're saying, Jackie, is don't put that in about the $5,000. Well, if you put it in just condition, put it in as subject to the town attorney. Don't get them involved.

I I would put in about clo about uh closing their entrance on Maplewood and Well, uh then let's let's go I'll go with the um take out that about the $5,000 bond. Okay. And um this is pursuant to plans dated. Do we have a date on the plans, Alex or John? Uh 68. No, that's not good.

What was the last update of the site plan? It appears to be Oh, wow. These dates are rough. Um 8 1520. Yeah, John, you're going to have to look at the original file. [snorts] We've got two We've got two plans here. We have the old and the new. Well, it's just the revisions are the revision board.

Same date. It's the same date, but it's revised. There's a revision date. It's so light. I can't But I mean, it's it's subject to to further revision um at today's meeting as well um with the customer parking spaces. We got we got to put the plans in there first. Yeah. So, we don't have a date for the plans. The most recurrent I have 6818 is what it says on the actual

the revision block. The font's very small. John, you had the plans the digital file pulled up. That was all kind of crazy colored. If you could just zoom in on the revision block on that because I have a black and white copy that's a scan. Um, and just the font's too small to read. Yeah, I can't read it either. I can't read it either. Um, well, you have the original though. You were you were presenting number three. What does that say? What's the date? I can't enlarge that anymore. I think 85 2025

85 8:15 2025 8:1525 yes okay revised date revision rather okay the day of the drawing is 68 2018 yeah that's what I read too so that that's the revision date Alan Division date is what? 8 15 8:1525. Yes. Okay. And also we're going to change the number of um customer parking to a maximum of seven. Is that right, Alex? Yeah. No changes to the customer. No changes to that. And so seven and that would come from the sales display.

And that would reduce the number of cars for sale. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, to be clear, there's going to be 10 cars for repairs, seven cars for repair of four spaces now with no adjustment in their uses other than basically four additional sales and and no other changes. Yeah, basically that's it. Four additional uh cars for sale. You got that, Rebecca? [laughter] Yes, I do. And you want to you want to put in the plantings and buffering that there's Well, if it's on the plans, that's where it is. Okay, you're right. Okay. Any you're good there? Yep. Okay. Do I have a second?

Second it. Thank you. All in favor? I All right. So, Seth, you're an I. Allan, no. No. Uh, Shelby. Hi, Pansy. Hi. Okay, Seth, what did you say? Yes or no? I'm sorry. Yes.

Yes. Okay. And I and I'm going to say yes. So, it does uh it does pass four four votes and one against it. So, Okay. All right. Um Okay. So, that's that. Um So, we're done with the We're done with that. Alex, did you have any You said you had some old or new business. Well, I guess it's old business really.

Um I mean, basically just that um we're going to everyone's going to need to attend the February meeting. Um so, mark that in your calendars. We've been talking for some time about an executive session. Um, you know, it is it is to some extent overdue. Uh, but that being said, just based on availabilities with uh all staff, the town attorney, etc., you know, that was just the first this upcoming February appears to be the date that we're finally able to get all the information we need. So, are we going to do that after after the public hearing on on the on Windsor crossing which we tabled? Yeah, we could we could just do an executive uh session.

Yeah. And that's going to be February 2nd. Um I believe so. Let me just look at a calendar. Yeah, this Monday February 2nd. Okay. So, it's an it's a staff update. Uh any new business? That's it. Um and nobody has any other new business. Okay. And uh Okay. So, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Do move. Second. Second. Thank you. And all in favor? I

I thank you. All right. Good night, everybody.