Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

feels to order and the secretary will read the call of the meeting.

Okay. Public hearing for 10 East Whittenberry Avenue. Applicant owner Whittenberry Owners LLC for vans of the zoning regulations section 8.1. C non-conforming use uses of land in section 3.3C. uh principal use and structures of an R15 district to expand the legal pre-existing non-conforming multif family use of 118 units according to the plan submitted. That's it.

That's it. Okay. Thank you. Um, as far as roll call, I guess we're missing Pansy and Viv Vivine. So, both alternates are sitting uh will be voting for the in this application. Um, do I have approval of the minutes? a motion to approve the minutes of um January 5th. Jackie Jackie, I have a correction. Okay.

Um I hadn't been sworn in. I'm I'm listed as absent, but I hadn't been officially sworn in um until um the 5th of January, that day. So, I could not have been held I I could not have been participating in the what was it? the December meeting. No, no, January 5th. It first said December on the minutes, but then he sent out new minutes that had that crossed out and it had January 5th written out.

Yeah, there were some revisions um you know, very minor in nature, but we can read those into the record if we're going to approve as amended. Okay. Matter of fact, I think I had spoken to you. you you had asked me um Alex if you were if I would be able to attend. Yeah, I remember confusion. I came down to introduce myself, right? Yeah. No, that was cool. You had like literally the day of it was like the most photo finish um talking getting sworn in but we on the agenda item for now. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Y motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Well, as Yeah. Well, with that with that change. Yeah. As I was talking about the new the way it was presented, the new Anybody else? Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Uh and um are there any other changes or everybody's okay with it? Okay. Um let's see. Do I have a vote for the approval of the minutes then? I I I

Okay. All right. Okay. So, uh public hearing. Um, David, I assume you are representing the client. I am. And so, if you just state your name and address for us and tell us what's going on.

Sure. Uh, for the record, I'm attorney David Barum. Um, my home address is five Warbler Circle, Bloomfield. And [clears throat] uh this evening we are here as you all know seeking a uh a variance uh for the addition of seven uh apartment units and uh a few amenities uh that are related uh to the development uh increasing the number of apartment units from 111 to 118. Uh the owner of the development is Wintonberry Crossing LLC and it is represented by David Parissier uh who is here this evening. Um the development is known as Winton Berry Crossing. Uh for some of the old-timers, you may remember it being referred to as Berry Circle, but it's the same. And it's located at 10 East Wintonberry Avenue. It's uh surrounded uh to the south by Winton East Wintonberry Avenue. Uh to the west by the Bethl amme church property uh to the north by the Raoboth Church of God property and to the east by various individual uh owners. Uh the premises consists of about 14.9 acres. Uh for the record, in addition to the application that was submitted, um we submitted a disclosure form, the certificate of mailing, the sign affidavits, uh two memos that I prepared, one uh a summary of the zoning evolution of the site, and the second one, a legal discussion of the hardship. We also have a comprehensive site plan uh by our

civil engineers that will be discussed and a building unit schematic which the architect uh will also uh discuss. Um, in preparation for tonight's meeting, we've met with staff about four times and had multiple conversations and any recommendations that staff made, we tried to include uh into this application. Um the regulations as you know that you're looking at tonight uh which are identified in your staff uh report is 9.1 zoning variance variances 8.1 C nonconforming uses 3.3C the R15 zone and we also has have as an exhibit um to my memorandum the garden apartment zone which I will refer to as the GA zone, just a little bit easier to say. Uh, which before its repeal was section 214 of our zoning regulations. Uh by way of overview, the seven additional units that we're proposing consists of two buildings, one with three units and the second with four units and an assortment of uh amenities that include things that um the tenants on site have embraced and uh look forward to. One is a uh exercise and community room. Uh a walking trail around the perimeter of the site. Um enhancement of the existing playground and swing set. A proposed grill and fire pit and a proposed dog park. Um a number of residents have dogs that they walk

throughout the community. Um finally the two u consultants that will be assisting me in the presentation are Marcus uh Patak from Godfrey Hoffman and Hajj civil engineers and Lazareth and Sergeant Architects represented by uh Sam Sergeant. And so with that, I would like to proceed with um a little discussion of this zoning uh evolution, which I think is important to the variance issue. Um it's all contained in a memo that I introduced uh for the last uh here hearing on um uh January 5th which was tabled and um I should say I don't know if your procedure requires you to remove it from the table to hear it. I'll defer to Alex um whether you need to actually remove it and raise it before you or whether the hearing notice is sufficient. Um [clears throat] but in terms of um the zoning evolution, in 1969 the town adopted the garden apartment um zoning uh regulation which permitted multi-family residential apartments and there was a maximum density of eight units per acre. um which uh based on our acreage is how we came to 118 units which was the number of units being applied for in the original application. Um then in 1970 the site that Windsor Crossing is located on uh was reszoned

from R15 to the GA zone. And then in 1972, almost two years after the regulations were um uh proposed, uh the zone was repealed and uh in 1972, Windsor Crossing um was approved as um a GA uh development. Um, attached to the memo that I gave you if you wish to peruse it are exhibits from A through E which um have the minutes uh of all these meetings, the approval, the repeal um and so forth. uh including um in exhibit D um the original proposal and a letter from the town manager at the time uh certifying the development. The garden apartment zone also when they repealed it had a what I call a grandfather provision which said that any pending applications that uh existed prior to the effective date of the repeal could be heard uh by the commission and would u you know constitute the regulations used to approve them and uh that's what happened in our case when we were approved. Uh, interestingly during the final meeting uh approving the uh site plan application for Windsor Crossing, um a member of the town staff and again some of you who um were involved at that time, Dennis Brown, who was the town planner of Bloomfield,

um had a concern about fire apparatus, namely fire trucks reaching the five units that were located in the far northwest corner of the site. And so through discussions, the applicant at the time, which was not us, it was somebody else, um agreed to reduce the 118 by five units. Uh another interesting fact is that if you deducted the five from the 118, you'd come up with 113. But actually only 111 units were ever constructed. Uh none of us were around at the time. So we don't know why. But uh that's why we have 111 units now. And we're asking for an additional seven units which would bring it up to the originally um amount asked for in in the first application for 118 which again according to the garden apartment regulations uh met the density requirements of 8 units uh per acre. Um I believe that there are three bases that uh the ZBA has to approve the variance which is a hardship variance and um one or all of them you may find uh applicable to the application and I will just enumerate them for you quickly but uh toward the end of the presentation um I will go through my legal memo and I'll go into a little bit more detail, but the first item is that um the seven units really become uh what I refer to as a lawful buildout of the original

application uh as um governed by the GA regulations at the time. Um it it it does not exceed the maximum density that was permitted. Uh secondly is the hardship issue and as I will describe in more detail in a few minutes um the repeal of regulations by a municipality um has been found uh in many cases to be a hardship and uh the reason it's a hardship is because it affects a property right and the state supreme court has interc in indicated that a um non legally non-conforming use um gives certain vested and constitutional rights to the landowner and the action of the town in repealing regulations. um is unilateral on behalf of the town, but it affects the property rights of the owner and has nothing to do with anything that the owner uh did or any conduct that they engaged in. It's solely brought about by the town. And again, courts have found that changes in regulations create hardships. And finally, um the addition of the seven units and the miscellaneous um amen uh amenities um is not an expansion of a nonconforming use. It's what the courts uh call a permitted constitutional right uh referred to as intensification. And I'll review that later with you because I want you after you hear everything else just to remember the points that I'm making. But there is a

legal difference between the expansion of a nonconforming use and the intensification of a nonconforming use. So with that uh introduction, I would like to introduce Marcus Kak who is our civil engineer to um explain the site plan, where the buildings are located, the amenities and so forth. Um so that you can get a bit better idea and visualization uh of the development. And so Marcus um I'll turn it over to you.

Yeah. Before you do before you do that, uh, Madame Chairman point of water, Attorney Barum is correct. We did table it from the last meeting. So, we have to take it off the table and I would make a motion that we remove it from the table and incorporate everything that was discussed so far this evening on this application in that um, proceeding. Okay. and second for that. Second it. Okay. Thank you, sir. [clears throat] And everybody okay with that? Yep. Yep. All right. So we don't get sued again. Yeah. [laughter]

All right. Um you can proceed, David. Thank you. Okay. Marcus, are you there? I am. Uh good evening. For the record, my name is Marcus Puock. I'm a civil engineer and land surveyor with Godfrey Hoffman Hajj. Our business address is 26 Broadway in North Haven. Um, and I'm going to share my screen so that you can see our plans here.

Screen won't share. Um this is the existing uh survey site plan of of the site. Um with uh East Wittenberry Avenue at the bottom of the page and Berry Circle coming up and around um with all of the various buildings uh and driveways located. Um the existing location of our two new buildings is essentially in the center uh court area which I will proceed to the site plan. Um so here is our site plan. We have a a new driveway that accesses the two new buildings. The buildings are um these two gray blocks um with this gray driveway included in the center. Um this this first unit off of Berry Circle has three units. The second has four. They have uh driveways and a garage each unit. Um so they each have two parking spaces associated with them. Um, we do have a few additional parking spaces being added on the opposite side of building number 12, which is uh located uh adjacent to our proposed construction. And at the end of of building 12, we are proposing um a small addition on that building for the uh the indoor recreation community space. Um the green line around the outside of the the map here or the site is our walking trail that will be uh created. This walking trail is intended to be within the woods that are there. Um so in and

around any existing trees and whatnot. Uh we there's no intent to cut down trees to create this trail. They'll go around the trees as as as they stand um and just create somewhat a somewhat natural trail, but one that is maintained and somewhat groomed and leveled a little bit. And in order to make it safe and easy to walk upon, um the existing playground um is to the east of the site um and will have some improvements to it along with um the walking trail going between it and the proposed dog park. um up near the front in a we intend to put the the outdoor fire pit and grill area um in an existing area that is uh that is lawn essentially now. So that's the site plan um that show that gives some context as to where these buildings will be located on the site. we go to uh this next page is just removes some of the other additional um information from this site shows you know sort of the traffic patterns. So we have in andout traffic, two-way traffic all the way through Barry Circle, two-way traffic through the major driveways. Um th this is the only place where we have a single exit for a number of units out onto Berry Circle. Um, but it does loop all the way around in both directions um for vehicular traffic. Our new driveway is also a a two-way in and out, but you would have to turn around here at the end um near near the the second building. So, in order to um we spoke with fire marshall and and found out what size of

a firet truck um their largest firetruck, if you will, uh in their fleet um and used uh software movement analysis in order to trace the the most difficult paths for that firet truck to navigate through to see can they make it through all of the the particular driveways. um without hitting parked cars, without hitting, you know, running over curbs, um all of those types of things. And so we do see that they can navigate through all of the existing driveways um in and out. Uh they do, as I said, in this one turnound, they would have to pull forward a little bit, back up some into the into the existing driveway, so make a small maneuver. That's not a a perfect drive straight through, but they they can make that corner without uh without hitting anything, without running over the curves, without getting stuck. Um so we reviewed this with the fire marshall. He was satisfied that there is no issue with um fire safety as far as access um into or out of the site. and and he included um our proposed our proposed building and proposed units in that uh in that note that he he felt there was no uh no real danger to to the site. Those are the the the high points for the for the civil engineering um so far that at least spatially and and where things are located um public health and safety aspects. I would turn it over to uh the architect. he can show you a little bit about the buildings and I will stop my share so he can start his. Um, and so Sam, if you want to talk about the buildings.

I'm happy to talk about the buildings. All right. Um, can everybody can everybody see a sailboat or can they see my drawing? No, I see your drawing. What? Okay. All right. Um anyway, uh thank you very much uh Marcus. Um I'm going to start my presentation by using Marcus's uh drawing and uh just to give you the orientation. This was we switched to your AutoCAD screen. This is you did. Yeah. I'm sorry. That's okay. How about now? Does this work for everybody? Yeah, there you go. There. Okay. I apologize.

Yeah. Uh I shared that screen but uh then it popped up and uh had the sharing over on another screen. All right. So this is a drawing that uh is very similar to the ones that was uh presented recently just a few minutes ago by Marcus uh and it shows the builtout components of uh the project and they are a four-unit building in this Luna location, a three-unit building in this location and a small community amenity building which is an extension of this existing building. Let me move to the next page. The 4-unit building and the three-unit building are almost identical except uh simply one unit less. But the layout is such that on the ground floor there is indoor parking garage inside parking and a den area on the first floor. And the stairs that you use to enter it bring you up to a midle between the first floor and the second floor. And on the second floor, you have, of course, kitchen, living room, dining room, and a powder room. It's fairly uh standard apartments. And on the third floor, there are two bedrooms, a bathroom for um the common use, and a secondary bathroom as an amenity within the rear uh bedroom space, the uh master suite or primary suite, if you will. The architecture of these buildings is um it is really a minor interpretation of the existing architecture. We wanted these buildings to blend into the site and you know be uh good neighbors to uh the existing buildings on the site. We used the same window types, the same

angled roofs, the same faux clear stories on these roofs. And we just added the one unusual feature, if you will, that doesn't is not present on the site, which is this raised porch area that services as the main entrance for the four units. and the materials, the colors, everything will be a match and harmonious with the existing um buildings on the site. The second one is, as I described, a three-unit version of the one I just showed you. And unless there's some questions, I will also show the you those elevations. And this is the elevation of the three-unit building. Again, the same harmonious integration into the existing aesthetic of the site using features, materials, colors so that uh it blends as calmly as possible into the existing community. The third building or the third construction that we're proposing is an addition to a uh existing building and currently there is a small addition and this is shown as being demolished here and we're expanding that to provide on the first floor an exercise room, a community room and a small leasing office. In the basement there is a service space for um staff to maintain buildings and they may have other uses in the future but it's primarily as a staff space and it's served by its own private stair with no connection to the main floor. The aesthetic of the uh existing building or the new building is as blended as possible with the existing

using doors and windows that you would find in the existing uh construction. And this is the front elevation that faces the parking lot. This is an end elevation and it this shows the leasing office in this area. The stairs to the basement occur at this area. And then this is the rear elevation which uh faces to the area where the new seven units are. At both ends there's a handicapped accessible ramp to allow everybody access direct access into the various spaces. And this is the door exterior door to the community room. But uh all I can say is that we've tried to blend this uh this new development, this new architecture into the existing as much as possible and not add any elements that will be out of place in the existing community. And if there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

We have any questions? Um if I may, Marcus, did you want to add anything before I uh continue? I I think I'm good at this time. I'm happy to answer questions or or respond to any anything that comes up as we go through the rest of the presentation. Um, but I think we've

uh the only thing I wanted to mention on um Marcus's uh site plan, there's a chart that the staff asked us to include uh comparing the uh garden apartment zone to the R15 zone. And other than the fact that the R15 is for single family residents, uh according to the chart, um all the other requirements in terms of height of buildings, setback density and the like um are met in both uh zones. And Marcus, correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I believe uh that that was what the research showed that everything else is in conformity with uh both zones.

That is correct. Um so just um yeah, it's a density is the only nonforming

just to finish up here um and then I assume the commission might have questions. Um, one of the important aspects of the amenities that um, were discussed by Marcus and Sam is that the garden apartment zone uh, put a high premium on recreational space, both passive and active. And so we wanted to continue that and uh particularly with uh seven more units uh add some things that the residents have indicated would be u uh you know very beneficial to them and so that's what what we've included. Um, I'd like to segue for a moment into the legal discussion before we conclude. Um, and try and talk to you about the variance issues. And this is part of the uh submission that I made. If you haven't read it, you you can take a look at it as well. Um in n 1991 there was a very famous case called the Zach case and it involved um these um uh transmission towers that had uh high technical uh equipment on it that transformed uh different um radio signals um across the state. And apparently those regulations were changed and the owner of the towers came into the town to add uh new equipment and additional equipment. Um and the town turned it down uh saying that because it was a nonconforming use it couldn't um be

expanded. um that was appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court in a landmark decision that every zoning lawyer uh and hopefully well zoning boards are aware of. And in that case, the court set down a couple of uh key provisions. The first was that uh when you have a lawful nonconforming use that it may be intensified and I'm going to uh emphasize that word intensified without being deemed an unlawful expansion so long as the nature and character of the use remained unchanged and that there was no substantial new impact on the surrounding neighborhood. ood. Um, it also indicated, as I alluded to before, that the nonconforming use uh vests certain constitutional rights in the landowner that can't be taken away and that the landowner doesn't lose his or her right uh to intensify the site as long as it adhere to those principles of being the same character. the same purpose and no impact to the surrounding community. And so these three factors um are what most zoning boards and zoning boards of appeal use to determine these kinds of issues. uh again that there's no change in the nature or purpose of the use that there's no change in the character of the use and that there's no impact to the surrounding community.

So if you take that into account, you might say, well, what would be an example of somebody uh proposing a use that was an expansion as opposed to an intensification? So I'm going to use something very simple. If you took a apartment development like ours and you were proposing a restaurant or retail stores or a car wash or a gas station, that would be a different use, a different purpose, not in conformity with the nature and purpose of the zone that you're talking about. This one being the original garden apartment zone. What we're doing here is we're merely adding uh 11 new apartment units um identical in purpose and in character to what we have. And we're adding some additional amenities which were part and parcel of the garden um apartment regulation zones and [clears throat] emphasized for these kinds of apartment districts while they existed which we wanted to embrace um so that there would be a benefit as well to the residents living there. So just taking a quick moment in going through our application. Um let me try and summarize what I think the Zach's case is saying and its application uh to this requested variance. Um, first when Windsor Crossing was originally approved accordance with the Bloomfield Garden apartment regulations, which was later repealed,

um, it was repealed based on town action, nothing to do with the land owner or the development. Um and so the court recognizes that that is a um a vested right of the land owner and those rights what we call run with the land. It doesn't matter who owns the land at the time. Um and it doesn't matter that the regulations have changed. What matters is that the vested right as originally zoned remains with the development. Um secondly, when we look at a hardship, again, we we look at what created the hardship and as you all know because you've been doing this a long time, um a hardship can't be self-created or self-inflicted. And so again, it's the regulations and the repeal of them that create the hardship. Uh, next is that the proposal um for any new change has to be consistent with the character of the original application. And again, as we've pointed out numerous times, we're looking at merely additional apartment units consistent with what's there, both in terms of architecture and purpose and character and amenities. Um, some of which are already there. We're just improving. and some new ones which um are uh have tenants have indicated uh they would like uh to see. We then look at um the effect of the development to the surrounding community. And interestingly in this situation

uh and coincidentally um the neighboring community is actually moving in the direction of apartment complexes. For instance, um the um first Cathedral Church um next door uh has a huge application for an apartment complex much larger than what we have. Um the Rahoboth Church of God also in a butter um is I'm not sure if they presented it yet but they are also working on a significant apartment application and diagonally across the street from us is the Marbel U development which is um I think about 10 or so duplexes very similar uh to what we currently have. So there's in my opinion no impact to the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, the surrounding neighborhood is changing even more uh to resemble Windsor Crossing. And that in my opinion is the current uh philosophy and mindset of our community to create diverse affordable housing that attracts people to your community and becomes the lifeline and the vitality for a growing community. And so from all of those points of view, I think that the addition of these units for Windsor Crossing um is not only consistent with the neighborhood, but meets the spirit of the current um philosophies embraced by by our community. Um, I also, you know, want to point out

that, um, in this proposal, we meet the density requirements of the prior garden apartment zone. And as you heard myself and Marcus indicate in the analysis with the R15 zone, uh, all the requirements of setback, density, etc. are met. The only difference is the R15 is a single family zone and the garden apartment zone are multifamily uh essentially apartments. And so I believe that when you take the vested rights and the issue of intensification that you're not expanding a non-conforming use by expansion to new properties that were not part of the original district, by expansion to new uses that were not part of the original uh approved district. um that what you have is intensification which is a permitted uh legal right. Um I would also point you to your own regulations 8.1 C which um indicates that a nonconforming use can't be expanded beyond its development which we're not. Everything that is being done here is um within the boundaries of our development and essentially hidden from the outside because it's more in the center of the of the development. And so based upon those legal issues, I hope that this commission can find that there is a hardship here. The hardship is the change of the regulations created

by the town and that the proposal is in conformity and consistent with not only the existing development but the purpose and the uh expectation of that development. and that not only is there not any harm to the neighborhood, but actually the neighborhood seems to be more reflective of our development in the creation of apartments, which um this town has embraced to create more housing diversity and affordability for people so that they can stay uh in town. With that, I would finally just like to call on David Pervisier, who is here on behalf of the owners who just wanted to say a couple of words to the commission. David, good evening. Um, thank you very much for your time this evening and and for all the work you do on the commission. Uh yeah, we very simple statement is that we've been we've been operating owning and operating Windsor crossing for uh over 20 years in Bloomfield with a so with a goal of providing highquality and affordable housing to the town residents. And in that purpose, we we think we've done very well. We've we've been a very responsible and uh and good landlord here. We believe um we've been very very fortunate to have other communities within the town of Bloomfield as well within that 20 years where we provided u additional housing and our goal here is to continue that trend to upgrade the community to add new amenities for its residents that are highly sought after to improve the

quality of their life while at the same time adding you know relatively small number of apartments to improve the the overall all supply of housing in Bloomfield and to continue the trend that David's talking about to uh to increase the housing stock and increase the the the the availability of good highquality well-managed housing in Bloomfield. So, we've really enjoyed our our um being a landlord here and being a business within the town after 20 plus years. And we hope that you will find uh our hardship to be uh a real one, which we do believe, and allow us to continue to expand Windsor Crossing slightly, and to equally importantly expand the amenity base and the housing that we provide there, which is always very positive for the residents who are your residents as well. So, thank you very much for your time this evening. Happy to answer any questions and appreciate the work you do on the commission. Thank you. Um, does anybody on the commission have questions?

I Allan first and then I think Stephanie. Yes. Thank you, Jackie. So, the way the way this was presented, it it appears that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the units you're you're proposing to add will blend in with the rest of the development. Is that what you're saying?

There'll be there'll be new structures which will build to the current standards, but they will be they are designed and as Sam uh talked about in his presentation, they've been designed as sympathetically and as close to the to the contours and the looks and the overall appearance of the existing units. But, you know, new today is new today. And these units were built, you know, 50 50 60 years ago. Um, and and in that 50 60 years, we've done substantial upgrades to make them look more modern over the past 20some years with exterior improvements and windows and and and all these things that we've done to continue to keep it as fresh as possible versus newer housing stock. So the goal here remains the same to provide, you know, highquality and aesthetically pleasing housing that's that's desirable.

Thank you. Okay, Stephanie, you had a question. Yes, I do. If we don't mind, if we can look at the site plan again because my question is referring to um the site plan. Uh who's going to bring that up for us? Marcus. Great. Thank you. Okay. So, as we know, Whittenberry Avenue is extremely busy. Matter of fact, that's a state road. Now, one of the walk paths, it's very close to that uh to Whittenberry Avenue. What type of safety precautions is there going to be allowed right there on Wittenberry Avenue where this the walk path is going to be?

Um, well, I take this question. it it it it won't be so class so close to the road that that there would be any safety issue. It it the the walking path is entirely within the property itself and not out into the state right ofway in any way. Um the the state wouldn't allow um any kind of encroachment into their rightway with a walking path. So it there will be some some measurable distance. Um and I I believe the road is 5 ft from the property line. So we'll be five plus feet away from the road. So I I wouldn't expect there to be any real um safety issues with vehicles and pedestrians.

Okay. Because if I'm not mistaken, there is no sidewalk in front of uh these units. Correct. There is uh there are some sidewalks. Yes. Oh, there are there are. Yeah. I believe there's even a bus stop uh adjacent to the property. So, there are areas for people to to congregate, but we would we would take um precautions that are that are appropriate for the for the distance from the from East Whittenberry. Um you know, we could always use painted painted crosswalks and and some and some signage to make sure people are aware. Okay. Anybody else? Any any other questions?

I I have some comments. Um yeah. Okay. I was Go ahead. Well, I is the I was going to wait until the commissioners were Well, that's what I was trying to say if there were any commission any other commission questions? No. Okay. And is there anybody in the audience at all? Any public? I don't see any comments or any hands raised. Yeah. Regarding this specific application um at this time. Okay. So, Alex, go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, to be honest, I have more comment on the discourse than I do the actual project. Um you know, in evaluating variances, we're here to evaluate the hardship. Um you know, I am going to pivot back to the project. Um, you know, I do not believe that we're here to determine the difference between intensification uh and expansion. Um, you know, this variance includes the um basically the expansion provision of our regulations. So, I I just think that's what we're here today to discuss is the hardship and the hardship only. Um, that's that's my first comment. you know, I I don't think we're here to set a precedent about every single residential development um you know, and evaluate case law. You know, I just don't think that's that's what we're here to do in terms of other kind of points of clarification. Uh there's been just a couple different numbers floating around, seven new units. Um you know, that that's just related to other discourse at other times. Um, and let me see. I'll share my screen regarding the actual project. All right. So, I submitted a staff report for the last meeting. Um, you know, no major updates. You guys were aware that it was tabled. Um, you know, in my opinion, in terms of determining this variance, you know, what we're here to talk about is hardship and the regs that are on their application. And, you know, the project itself has some interesting components. Um, the applicant was so kind as to go and pull

all the minutes and basically, you know, bring an interesting case to us. Um so there's discourse from the minutes when they repealed the GA about existing approved applications um which they attached as uh one of their exhibits another of their exhibits was the actual application. I think that's you know an interesting case to make for hardship. Um in terms of surrounding impacts, um these these are basically a centrally centrally located set of units. Um basically only surrounded by the surrounding apartments. Um you know, it's essentially over 200 f feet from any neighbor, so to speak. Um I do want to confirm that this is to continue as rentals. Um I guess that's my only question for the applicant. Um, you know, this

the answer to that is yes.

Yeah. Okay. So, just from a land use perspective, there's a single owner. You know, they're making decisions about their apartment complex. Um, you know, it's centrally located. Uh, it's it's essentially matching the surrounding apartments on that complex. Um, and yeah, I that's pretty much it regarding the project. Uh, I did have one other question on the plans themselves. I I noticed arrows on that central curb cut. Um, I just want to confirm that there's this doesn't include a plan for basically paving this.

It does not. Those were those were okay. Yeah. I mean that's it from staff unless the commission has any other any other questions for me regarding my kind of take on this application but um you know I I think the location the characteristic and you know the fact that we're here to talk about hardship not intensification versus expansion I I feel like the the basics were covered. Any questions for for the applicant or for town?

If I if I might just um add a quick comment. Um when I raise the issue of intensification, it's uh handinhand with hardship. It's not something separate, but it's a theory that the Supreme Court enunciated that shows that a nonconforming use can be you can use the word expanded, but the court used the term intensified uh because um of the rights, the vested rights in the landowner and the fact that the addition in this case of more units was consistent with the original purpose and the character of the development and it had no uh harm or impact to the outside community. So that's how the court I mean I I suppose you can take issue with the words that they used but that's how they um ruled on this case coming up with these uh principles that at least among lawyers are used but uh I'm not going to debate with Alex uh he's he's right that ultimately you have to find that there's a hardship

that's what we're here for and um for all the reasons you know that I gave I I I think it's clear that the main hardship which has been recognized in many court cases is the repeal of the regulations. All right. Anybody on the commission have any questions or comments? You want to do comments now? Sure. Go ahead.

Um I happen to agree with the applicant that the hardship is that the town changed the regulations. um and that the Supreme Court backed it up basically and and I'm going to vote in favor of this project along those lines. I don't think there's any detriment to the butters or to the area and I think it'll blend in perfectly. Anybody else on the commission have any anything they want to say? No. No. Everybody all set then? So I can I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So move. Second. Okay, that was Alan Sass. All in favor? I opposed abstensions. Okay. All right. Um somebody is there any comments? Thank you very [clears throat] much to all the members and for coming and participating on this cold winterry night. Um any discussion or does somebody want to make a motion on the application with with the hardship? Why don't you go ahead Alan? You're good at reading that stuff.

Yeah, go ahead Alan. I I know where this is going. Um, I make a motion that you'll have to help me, Jackie, but I make a motion that I find that there is a hardship for the applicant and that um their application is should be approved uh based on the plans. I have the last update is 1120223. Is that right? Yeah. And I I have a sample motion in my staff report as well. It's okay. We're

Yeah. I don't I don't like when people put words in my mouth. Yes. Okay. [laughter] I rather flub it up on myself. Right. Alan, I think you just want to mention that the hardship is the appeal of the regula of the zoning regulation. Okay. and the hard and to note that the hardship is the appeal of the regulations. Do I have a second? Second, Pansy. Thank you. Okay. And

just point of clarification, um Pansy wasn't a voting member. Um, she has attended since uh an alternate was put in her place just just for the sake of the record. Okay, cuz she came late. Yeah. So, it might be best if if someone who was basically on the agenda or put on as being Yeah, I'll second it. That was Seth. Yep. Okay. All in favor of the motion. I I I. Stephanie.

Stephanie. You're muted. Sorry. Can you hear me now? I can. Yeah. Okay. Yes. I Okay. And so the motion carries uh five to zero. No. No. Uh, okay. No opposition. No opposition. And uh, there are no abstensions. All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all very much. And thank you for what you do at the commission. Once again, appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Um, let's see. So, we don't have any old business that we're going to discuss at this time. Um, new business. Um, Alex, did you just want to mention uh that there were some workshops that that are available? Well, so Oh, yeah. Well, they're not available yet. Okay.

I I just I want there to I think we need to start having a discussion um just about some basic house cleaning. Um, you know, just in terms of making sure, you know, uh, training opportunities are taken. Um, I do think at some point in time we need to take a look at our bylaws. Um, you know, this there's just there's some upcoming house cleaning that we're going to do. That being said, um, the link that I sent is the link to check. There's nothing up at the moment, so we don't need to have like an in-depth conversation about training. I didn't see anything that we that we might send it along. Exactly.

I checked website too and I didn't see anything. So, if you should see anything, could you shoot us out a note saying, "Hey, I saw it on there today." Yep. Exactly. Yeah, that's how this will move forward. Okay. All right. Um, anything else anybody have? Is this something that's required every four years or is there any that some of us have taken it and some of us haven't?

Yeah, I mean that we'll we'll cross that bridge when we get there. I just, you know, first opportunity think that everyone should just take take the training. Um, you know, regardless of how long you've been, the town the town can and and basically will reimburse you for for doing it. Um, you know, I've only been here for a year, but I just generally think it's it's good for me to have a I can just quickly answer any questions and say I know that everybody took a training within a year. That's just how I like to run the commission. Um, and we'll we'll have some time. It looks like most of those trainings aren't until later in the year. Um, and the town the town will cover the the cost of you guys attending.

Okay. Thank Thank you for passing that along. Yeah. Um do I have a motion to adjurnn? So move. Second. Second. You got to be quick. Okay. I'm learning from the master. Rebecca [laughter] can figure out who that was.