Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are you ready? Unmute. I can.

Okay. All right. Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order this um Thursday, February 5th, 2026 meeting on the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission. Um as we have two public hearings tonight, I want to just quickly go through process for public hearings. During the public hearing, the applicant will be invited present the application explaining to the commission and others present what is being requested. The applicant or staff will share all application materials on screen as needed. Comments from town agencies will be read for each application. There will be clarifying questions from the commissioners and there will be an opportunity for clarifying questions from attendees. For Zoom attendees, please raise your hand through the Zoom platform and wait to be called on and unmuted. As this public hearing must be recorded, attendees will state their names and addresses before asking their questions. Next, those who wish to support the application may come forward and then those who oppose the application may come forward. Again, it is necessary for speakers to identify themselves each time they speak by stating their name and address. The applicant will then have an opportunity to address any questions or concerns raised by the public or the commissioners. Once the public hearing is closed, the applicant is free to leave or remain the balance of the regular meeting during which the commission will try to reach a decision on each application. Each applicant will be notified in writing as to the decision of this commission and has a right to appeal to superior court if desired. Decisions of this meeting are available the day after the meeting by calling the land use department at 2032455631 after 9:00 a.m. All actions taken tonight by the commission will be by roll call. All the commissioners and staff will identify themselves for the record before speaking. Seated this evening are members Mike Bogda uh Michelle Clark who's an alternate but so would you like to be seated?

Um, Vice Chair Don Duza, Secretary John Morgan, Bob O' Conor, Janet Peekinpaw attending via Zoom, and myself, Carol Snowden, chair. This meeting is livereamed on YouTube and will be made available on the town website for viewing. Additionally, I would like to ask that we treat each other respectfully throughout the meeting. And a reminder to please turn off your phones. The town planner will not read the legal notice. Aaron Max. Uh, Madam Chair, both hearings were opened and the um legal notice was read into the record at the first meeting. So, I'm just going to say it was not.

Okay, great. And in that case, we can go right to our first agenda item. This is a continuation of a public hearing that was open January 15, 2026. um 25-30 plus a postal site plan for 142 Boston Post Road, map 45, lot 138 still R2 owner applicant 142 Boston Post Road LLC postal site plan and site plan application to retain existing mixed use building with 1,222 office on the first floor and one-bedroom unit on the second floor. and to construct a new 4350 foot two-story building with eight residential one-bedroom units with associated site improvements including parking walkways, subsurface sewage disposal systems, storm water management system, a 10TX 14T storage shed, and a 10TX 14T covered picnic area pursuant to CGS 8-30G.

May the applicant like to come over? Yes. Uh, good evening. Ed Cassella representing uh 142 Boston Post Road LLC, which is an LLC that is owned by uh Suzanne and Justin Rice who are here this evening. Um, we're assisted in this application by Thomas Wilcox of DoubleB Design. Got it right this time. Um, who is providing the uh site plan. Uh so Aaron if you do you want to pull up the um the revised the yeah the updated site plan and walk the commission through it. I'll go through high level can drill into any details.

Can I just make a correction to what I just said? This is a continuation for January 8 actually not 50.

All right. Uh so 142 Boston Pulse Road is uh located on the west side of town, south of uh the south side of Route One uh over near Nathan's Lane and um it's bounded on the north by the Post Road, on the south by the railroad line, on the west by Land and Lumber, and on the east um by a another property I forget, 148 Boston Post Road, which appears to be a commercial property. I couldn't tell if it's mixed use. Um, it's presently improved with an existing building here, uh, that contains a learning center that is operated by the applicants and it has a 620t apartment upstairs. So, it's a mixeduse building and there's also an existing garage on the property in the rear. Uh the proposal under Connecticut General Statutes 8-30G uh is to construct an additional building in the rear of the property with uh 4500 square ft that will contain eight new um one-bedroom units. Uh since the application falls under 8-30G, uh requires an affordability component. So com including the existing 620 ft unit that's in the front building, there will be a total of nine units. Uh with nine units, they're required to um designate three of those units as affordable units. Uh and six will be uh market rate units. Uh we can talk more about the affordability component, but we'll just go through the uh the site uh general site plan and and have Tom um give you some further information about septic and storm water. Um the uh property served by uh public water subsurface sewage disposal system. Uh currently on site there are about 10 parking spaces uh and that will be

improved. the garage is going to be eliminated and there's a total of 20 uh parking spaces proposed under your regulations and the Connecticut statutes uh related to parking. Uh only 17 spaces are required. Uh but you know the applicants have uh would like to keep the 20 spaces just to make sure there's enough for uh guests and things like that because there's really no no other uh public parking in the area. Um, why don't we go to the Can you go to the elevations dated building plans? I see them there. Yes. Let's see if it'll let me switch.

Wonderful. Uh, so here's the proposed building. Um, the four units on the first floor, four units on the second floor. The four units on the first floor each have direct access. uh uh without common hallway and then the a the units on the second floor are accessed by a central stair which leads to a small hallway if you want to go down to the floor plans um which leads to a small hallway that uh serves the units. So here's the first floor. You can see the four doors going into the units. They're one-bedroom units. Uh there is a designated accessible unit that has the um uh the proper circulation um and it's at grade so it's accessible. Uh and then going up the stairs if you want to flip to the second floor uh there's a small landing which goes into unit the next four units all uh very similar size and uh onebedroom uh units. Um the build part of the building um go back to the first floor. On the first floor there are designated spaces for interior spaces for water meter, electric meters, valve room for the sprinkler. This will be sprinklered in the rear. Uh these are the HVAC uh uh systems that will be on the south side of the building. Um, we also have a uh photoometric plan. I don't it doesn't need to be shown but designating that the the lighting uh is going to be adequate to provide safety for the occupants. Uh so the parcel is adequately lit. Um

we've worked with the utility companies. There's two utilities here. Uh, Eversource provides power and Connecticut water provides water uh to the property. So, the rices have um engaged both of those, heard responses, gotten feedback and are in the back and forth about where the location of the utilities are going to be down on the um eastern eastern side of the property. Ever is going to require the installation of a new pole on the property and then uh underground from there uh to a transformer. I think you guys can talk about it the the um the updates as to the location of the transformer and then uh Connecticut Water has also uh been contacted and um have reviewed the site and you know we don't expect any problems uh from a utility perspective. Uh

I'm sorry. Do you know where the poll on the property have? That's part of the back and forth that we're still Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Okay. It's I can expand on it. Yeah. Go ahead, Tom. Um Tom's been involved in the

Good evening every from DoubleB. Uh I am a draft person and land use technician for our company. Um acting as one of the agents this evening. Um as I've been working with our professional engineer Thomas A. Smith on the project. uh he's also a licensed surveyor uh for this project in our office. Um expanding on this particular question, our back and forth with Eversource has been um the existing poll in the state right ofway is there and Eversource is um at the moment suggesting um or asking us to demonstrate a poll on the property. And what they're doing is um essentially uh instead of doing what we would prefer meaning underground uh to the property line and then a transformer um working out some of the criteria of what would be doing the underground digging in the state right of way. Uh Eversource will not do that. So, we would have to, our clients would have to uh find an improved Eversource technician that's also uh licensed and bonded with the uh state of Connecticut to do this small uh underground to the property line. Um so, at the moment, uh we are working not out, but a poll is being suggested just on the property line and that would be overhead connections. From there it would be dropping down to a transformer within the easement. Um something that we don't feel is ideal. Uh adding another uh utility pole uh is just just not something that we

would like to do. Uh it's something that we may have to do. Uh it is we're working that out. The communication back and forth with Eversource is our If Erin, if I could ask you to go to uh page three, the uh easement would come in, it would follow the property line essentially, and then would take a u right hand uh 90° turn into the utility closet. This would uh be all underground from the property line to the building. Eversource is fine with that. Even with the uh Connecticut water two service lines, one for uh potable water, one for uh fire suppression. The the building is going to be a sprinkler for fire suppression. um as easement comes over and in it is going to be shared by those two service providers. Both service providers have no problem with that. Um as long as they can get to the building, we have our separating distances. Um this map has our meets and bounds. One of the criteria that every source is going to require for land use records uh when it does go to final approvals. So these uh plans as they are they're not approved but there's no negative comments that have been re everything is u as they want in regards to showing the fire suppression and the distances of separation also with the septic we're just trying to work out some of the finer details on the infrastructure of a transformer on the ground and that secondary So if you did a transformer, you put a

pad.

Correct. That's the standard uh setup. Uh we're working with an electrical contractor engineer to do the load calculations and completion for the building. Once they have those load calcs, I'm being told Eversource will know what what that amperage is, what that load would be from the pole and then essentially down to that transformer. It would give its size there. Um once we know the size, we would if we had to move the driveway that's right here just to be adequate. We we don't want to um encumber or have any uh potential for adverse conditions while going in and out things of that nature. But yes, a transformer is is a certainty. It's just the placement they're in at the moment. But it's anticipated to be in just inside from the property line

on their property and it would be within the easement rights. Correct. Okay. Do you all have any idea when you might get from both Connecticut water and source?

The truthful answer is is no. I I can I imagine Connecticut Water might be quicker in that we haven't heard of any requirements or comments that we're not currently showing. Uh Connecticut Water asked uh for the secondary line to come uh from the street and that secondary line being the fire suppression line uh to go into the building. This um first closet is going to be the electrical meter room. The second closet is going to be the water uh regular water.

Yep. The water meter room. And the farthest closet is going to be the valve for the fire suppression. If I could trouble you, Aaron, to go to the elevations because they'll show the closets. Uh and uh the valve room is to be I believe locked and um temperature controlled and the meter room is also to be uh controlled obviously for freezing and for sealing uh the water company only to be able to get in and out. So no no no access to such land.

What happens to the existing utilities that this family already has in place? They stay the existing building stays with its own utilities. Be a new one just for that. Correct. The new building will have its own. And how do the heated uh electric heat right? Yeah.

Yep. that I can further expand on. Yep. Uh go through your site things. Uh if I may, um we have received uh comments uh dated 122925 from uh a preliminary meeting that we had. And if I'm going to go down just a touch on the bullets, the owners have confirmed uh sprinklers will be utilized. The parking for the ADA handicap uh compliance is 1 to 2% or at least one parking spot uh dependent on the number of spots. So with the 20 spots that we have, we're providing uh two handicap spots, one on either side. Um the idea being um accessible one for this uh unit because the unit number two on the ground floor, I believe that's the uh uh number of the unit is going to be uh accessible and compliant for ADA. uh this spot could assist with any activity uh in the current use of the building. Um moving from there uh in regard to the health uh concerns uh at the meeting that we did have uh at that time we did not have u sanitary approval for our plans. Since then we have obtained uh health approval. We received that on the 3 just the other day. We addressed the comments uh from the health department. It is as it is shown here. Uh that will be our primary uh leeching field. That will be our tank

and the distribution of the effluent through the sewer line into the tank and then to that underground product which is H20 rated for vehicle loading. It's going to be pavement and that's going to go into a later topic and there was notes on uh the site plan for zoning uh and development. We did revise our floor areas. Uh we did update our parking calculations and that's represented on uh the first page in our zone chart has all been updated. We have uh continued our conversations with the utility providers. Um they're both going well with no no negative comments uh received. We don't anticipate any uh negative or adverse uh timelines. Just a matter of completing that. The gravel driveway that was previously uh proposed, we have switched to buminous uh asphalt um pavement. Um and um as you come in, park on either of the parking spots here and move down into this parking lot will then lead you onto that concrete uh sidewalk. So it is a uh it's an impervious surface. We had done calculations for the entire site based on the entire site being impervious. Um and we uh designed a subsurface storm water collection using um both a catch basin and uh storm water collection for uh the roof systems.

We've also provided the existing structure with its own storm water collection to grab all the roof water um and bring that into collection to assist with any potential adverse uh conditions. Uh the way that the lot slopes, we're doing minimum uh contours. We want to leave, you know, the natural uh drainage patterns as as best that they are. uh we have excellent soils. Uh even though we're adding uh an imperous surface, the way that everything is going to be sloped and finally um paved out, we're going to be able to uh collect all the storm water. Um we're actually above uh the requirements on believe that's going to be our page five possibly six where we have our mathematics for um storm water system. on both uh the existing unit. We have calculations for the requirement and what we provide uh and we are over uh what would be the minimum the same on our storm water sizing where we would need um I believe that's 1,487 cubic feet of storage. We're at 1,893 of capability. So, we're we're meeting our mark on that.

Go ahead. Absolutely. Please do. Where do these calculations come from? And can you speak to treatment as well of the

um calculations to my knowledge are coming from uh the water quality um requirements for our current standards for storm water and uh for treatment it is subsurface uh we're collecting the suspended solids and what the suspended solids will be doing is will be retained. If you could move to the next page, please Aaron. Uh, so that's the hydrodnamic separator. Um, this this unit um is um it's going to be collecting uh runoff and separating it as it filters it out. It's on the bottom of the um the unit is is it's capable of uh basically a sump. solid particles will be able to go to the bottom. It can be vacuumed clean um for periodic maintenance, yearly maintenance, just the longevity and viability of the product and the and the property. These storm water um systems, they don't separate through um cyclonic motion. They separate through um sumps. As the uh water would come in, heavier materials would sink to the bottom and then the water would flow into the chambers and be retained to allow the uh the ground to slowly uh absorb that. We've got excellent soils where we are again, you know, for the size of the unit and the requirements of the commercial aspect of the multif family uh setup where we hit those markers were away for separating distances from the storm water. There was actually two years ago. Uh if you go to the second page, please Eric, if you go um page

number two, uh the existing building, this uh leeching field and H20 tank was installed about 2 years ago and it was a full system replacement and there was no issues. There have been no issues. everything's been, you know, going extremely well. Um, so I would say that that's a great litmus test for this site. Um, you know, the size of that, uh, system and the conditions that it's currently in. Moving to we just touch on the phototric plan. There was was the mailbox on mailbox location. If the first page pleas uh in it is going to be in if you could please slide over and it's going to be in the lower portion of keep going.

There you go. Uh this red box is essentially uh the location uh the postmaster um to the best of my knowledge is discussed with our clients that there's several opportun spots that they can um put it um proximity to the building and uh location for the post service provider to to drop off the mail. This area is going to be a no parking zone, ideal for um a postal worker to be able to, you know, drive in, park, distribute the mail in that uh pedestal, cubicle, kiosk, stuff for the eight units. And our first floor elevation is going to be uh elevation 16 uh50. That was one of the things that we were asked to uh show. So I've put a call out on the building there and also uh that particular call out it will correspond with the the building plans. We did um provide some more spot elevations um in regards to doing some topography off of the property just to show um and reiterate how the contours are already naturally moving towards this southern ad jointer. Um currently um within this area is all mixed vegetation and trees and things of that nature. any uh catchment from the this catch basin um is going to be ideal as this flow happens. Any flow that is from our property um is going to be negligible and no different than what is currently existing but the lower part of the of the grade. Correct. Are you going to do any are you planning on any regrading of

the existing property? we're going to use existing both.

Um there's going to be minor minor grading currently. There's a contour 17 that we're going to be um catching. There's also um a grade of 16 that we're going to be um looking to achieve. And again, this is uh there's this grade line here that follows around. That's 17 and we've got 16. So the the contours aren't it's it's I don't want to call it a flat lot cuz it's not level but it's an easy it's an easy sloping uh property thing. Um there's also going to be possibly arborites along this property line to act as a buffer and on this other property line that will also will retain quite a bit of moisture as as things progress down. You say possibly. Does that mean yes?

Uh yeah. Yes, we are pro proposing it. I just don't know if it's an arborite if it's a I don't I don't know the Latin terms of maybe a a like product or arborite. Good. But yeah, how much of a a buffer exists between the lot and the train tracks? Like a a distance from let's say the the closest train track to the property line. I do not know that answer off the top of my head. I could obtain that. Let me show you that. Okay. Do you want to do aerial? Yeah, let's take a look at the area and see if what kind of vegetation exists in a

road that they use for maintenance tracks. Yeah. They quite often. Yeah. And then there's trees, mature trees. But good to have some planting along that. I would agree. Yeah, absolutely. Is, you know, softens it up. There's a fence that's going to stay. I think I saw a fence somewhere.

Uh there is a burnt fence on the uh western property line separating landed lumber and our subject property. It's been um over the years uh let's say moved a little um with a with a lift or lumber here and there. Um so it will have to be reestablished. All right. So that'll be part of the plan. Yes. Uh correct. Yeah. Yes. This is the parcel here, right? Yeah. But not much vegetation. Mhm. Okay.

No, it looks like generally speak it [clears throat] looks like a road. It is an access road. And details on the floor metrics will be will be available when I I can share this. No. The only downfall of switching to online permitting, everything's individual and it's not as easy to pull it up as it used to be when we just uploaded them into a folder.

Janet, are you able to see and follow along with us? Okay, great. I know the major concern that the um uh individuals who produce the photoometric plan was like trespass in uh making all attempts to be as conservative um and respectful of neighbors um given um the the plan. I am not an electrical engineer. Um nor have I stayed at a Holiday in um in long time. Um so I I could not adequately decipher this um to to the best of my edification knowledge. um these are the light transmitt um diagrams of and it's it's catching the parking lot not exceeding the property line. Uh I believe that it is a low value because I'm going to associate it to zero. Yeah, meaning uh 0.1.

Um we've got u minimal lighting. It is LED. it is um uh dark skies andor downward facing. So the idea again was to be uh adequate for for safety but also to be as respectful on especially to the eastern uh neighbor. Um, yeah, you can see here the slight that's basically the only spot right there where it goes over and it's 01 which is is not is not a mill. Let's see what's in the uh schedule over here.

Here we go. all the information. Um 3861 3661. That's a a 12T pole. Uh I tried to grab um just at least a depiction for the commission. You guys have to pass this around. That would be the version of that LED fixture. Okay. The way that illuminates all of them. downward. Yeah. Yeah. And to my knowledge, it's going to be the same fixture just rearrange the hole onto the wall.

Didn't work guards. Moving on. honest everyone's okay with with that renovations. We did add an eighth sheet uh for uh erosion and sediment control. Um if uh Aaron could when you can go to the uh eighth and final sheet of our site plan. Uh as uh as construction begins and is underway, we have two uh locations for possible uh stockpiling in the event that the site contractor or contractors need to stockpile earth or anything else that they're uh generating. In regards to those two temporary locations, they would move and be set up um as they needed to be. Since I've drafted that, um I have had conversations with our client and uh the site contractor Archie Bailey who has already worked on the property and installed the existing septic system um in the front of the existing building. He plans on uh doing the same process that he did in that as he generates uh materials, he wants to remove them off the site. The site's very tight. if he does have a stockpile, it's going to add for uh another uh another hurdle, something to try to get around or through or something that is just going to be a potential adverseity for him. So his goal is to again as they are grading, as they're doing whatever they're doing, to take any materials and bring them off site to an um a place where they can store it in a in a better fashion, more efficient for not only his workers um but for any adverse

conditions that may happen. Um in regard to uh limiting uh potentials for adverseity, uh we're promoting um a temporary sediment barrier around the existing catch basin. The existing catch basin is essentially a drywall. As uh water moves into it, it collects, it rises, and the ground absorbs it. We're going to try to utilize that for as long as we can and put in our U separator at a time where it's going to be best for the the site uh in the most efficient manner. That way um we're collecting sediments and retaining storm water as we go and not um putting any inefficiencies on the construction end of things. That way by the time This is all wrapped up. Everything will be all functioning and um ready to hand over to Octopus.

Go ahead. Are you proposing um silt fencing or filter?

Correct. Uh I apologize if I uh Yes. So um essentially I I have put silt fence around essentially the perimeter. Um not knowing exactly what stage certain things would be done at. uh as a preventative measure uh we've applied uh silfest uh that's um the the best practice in my opinion to potentially curtail any erosion and or sediment buildup. It's the It's one of the least effective and excuse me, least expensive and most effective ways of doing it. As uh conditions occur, storm events, regular maintenance um will occur. The project can't start based on our sequences until it's been permitted by a review of the silt fence. Meaning until these erosion control measures are in, no construction uh will be allowed to to commence. I omitted anything at I think that's fairly comprehensive. Um I I haven't talked much about the affordability plan, so I can just review that briefly. Now uh as I said in the beginning um under E30G requires 30% of units to be affordable and deed restricted for a period of um 40 years. Uh these will be rental units. Uh so they're being proposed to be rental. So the owners will continue to own the building and rent to um tenants. Uh right now using 2025 numbers, two of the units will be affordable for individuals making 60% of the median income and that

uh rent is approximately $930 and uh one of the units will be uh rented to individuals making 80% of the median income and that's just $1,180 calculated. The numbers change every year. They change um as the um the median income of the area and the state uh fluctuate. Uh but those give you an example and we provided the methodology in the um in the affordability plan uh for the for that. I don't know if there's any questions uh on anything but that's our presentation. I do have a a quick question or comment about your um state short statement of use about

um I think there's typos or something missing because you say that one of the three units will be affordable to individuals and families making 60%. It's not It doesn't doesn't seem to jive with your loan. Yeah. Two two two two two 60% units and one um 80% unit. Three affordable units. Two of which will be 60 at 60% and one at 80%. And that's how the affordability plan reads I believe. Yes, it is. Yes. The longer plan goes into goes into it. That's one that gets filed on the land. Good. I just wanted to make sure that this wouldn't be a problem at any point. Yes, it's it's discrepancy and it sounds good. Thank you.

I also wanted to add that there's a bus stop right in front of the house too. So I noticed that that this you know I think it's a good location. Could you uh could you review the parking calculation?

Sure. Um parking calculation is based upon the mixeduse nature of the site. So um the commercial use is based upon square footage. So that uh I believe is eight parking spaces and um and then the residential units there's a state statute which basically says uh for one for every onebedroom unit the town can only require one parking space. So because there's nine units, that's 9 + 8 is 17. It's a little light, you know, they would like a few visitor spaces. So that's why

excuse Yeah, that's why they elected for the um uh to to construct 20 above and beyond the the minimum acquired. Thank you. Any other questions? Bennett, do you have any questions? You're muted, Janet. No questions. Thank you. [clears throat] And and two things that um I would ask that you could address. One, you have a um traffic letter from SLR. Yes. And the second would be the coastal site plan application.

Okay. Um um in regards to uh the traffic from SLR, there was no um impact um negatively going to affect uh the practiced function. Yes,

I think the CAM is pretty simple as well. Um, you know, this is in the CAM zone, but it's located immediately north of the railroad track. So, there really aren't any sensitive coastal resources nearby, tidal, wetlands, Long Island Sound, those kind of things. It's not in a flood zone, which is a positive from a CAM perspective. And you know, Tom described how um the storm water is capturing uh not only the pavement but also the new building and even the existing building which kind of goes above and beyond what we need to do all exceeding the u what's required under the statute. So I think from a camp perspective it's pretty straightforward. If I missed anything you can fill it.

Any chance it'll help the flooding under the train track and I think everyone's water is essentially contributing to that of all like that. unfortunately. Um, but yes, I think Ed touched on all those things. [snorts] Would you like me to skip to the summary page? Uh, that would be probably Yes. Uh, that would um be fantastic.

Oh, of course I hit the appendix. I'm sorry. That's quite a right. I went too far. more counts. Um, I'm going probably page four. I blew it. Here we go. There it is, bud. Got you.

Yeah. In regards to the summary in conclusion, uh, as it states, the study was conducted to assess the traffic aspects of the proposed 8-unit multif family residential development be located at 142 Boston Post Road in Madison, Connecticut. Uh, a study of traffic conditions was undertaken through a detailed field reconnaissance and data assembly effort. Traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated based on review of industry standard data. Future road traffic volumes were estimated with and without the development in place and the capacity analysis of the future conditions were performed. It was found that no impacts to traffic loss levels of service excellent are expected to be caused by the proposed development. And that was again uh provided by a third party uh engineering uh firm.

Thank you. Well, thank you. And there is we did receive uh it was not a mandatory referral to TNT although uh staff did send that up since it seems to be the practice of the commission and so that checklist was returned um from deepest as well. Um again indicating no adverse impact to the coastal springs. So on file. Thanks. Any other questions or comments from the public? Yeah. Your name and address here. Sure. Or where you are. As long as we can hear you.

Whichever you prefer. My name is Michael Main. I live at 64 Mill Beach Road West. Tonight's presentation that looks like it's very well thought out designed. I have questions and I haven't looked close up plans so they could be there. You mentioned the heat. You guys asked what the heat was. You said electricity. Is that like a high efficiency heat pump or is it regular? A heat pump. Great. Dumpster location. You going to use a dumpster location? Again, I couldn't see it. Yeah, it's kind of in between the two buildings.

Got it. Good. Excellent question. Um, because it's an apartment building, it's just a crazy question. Would they do a community internet like a Wi-Fi or something for everybody? Is that something? Just an idea. Yeah. Yeah. Consider it. Mailboxes. My daughter lives in Colorado and they have these mailboxes that are really cool. They have Everybody's got a little mailbox and they have a series of larger boxes for parcels with keys on them. So if you get, you know, a box, you just put it in in the bigger box and put it in it. Might be an idea that helps out. Thank you. Sidewalks. Are you a do any sidewalks east or west?

There is a sidewalk in front of the property now and the internal sidewalks will be connecting to it. And you really can't go east. Figured this, but hopefully we hear that that might be changing with the DOT project. Got it. Last question. You said 980 was the two units, the rent? Yes. P possible. Yes. And the one unit was 1180. Yes. What's the market rate units? Take a wild guess. I I I can't commit to that. So I can't. That was it. I think it looks great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Any hands raised online? No hands raised online. Um I did when you had mentioned um I don't know sidewalks perhaps you have um a couple of amenities proposed on the site there is still a a pavilion for common area for residents and um a storage shed proposed. Um the storage shed is just for general site maintenance, correct? And materials. Um and then that common pavilion area is for residents of the units.

Thank you. The other thing I wanted to um as Tom Wilcox had mentioned um we had a preliminary meeting of relevant staff health department uh land use uh fire marshall as well and at the time the original submission did not have sprinkler building plans um so these plans um did come in and it was the suggestion of the fire marshall I think um and I I don't know specific specifically you designed to the code he had noted in the plan review. Um but since the plans came in yesterday, he has not had an opportunity to review them. So I don't have comments from Marshall. Um so that this is um since this is a site plan application and even though we held the commission held a public hearing, it is a 65day approval process. that 65day expiration from the date of receipt is um February 7th. So this is the meeting where um either the commission closes the public hearing um and makes a decision or um if you are looking for additional information would need to request an extension from the applicant. This is a little bit different because it is um an application under the housing appeals where the burden is on the commission to find um you know health safety uh reason why the application could not be approved. Um why that could not be you know concerns could not be satisfied through a um a condition or some type of modification. So that is an option for the commission if you wanted to move forward. It depends really on your comfort level. Um

there could be opportunity for language to uh require verification of compliance with uh fire code, building code um prior to any issuance of a preliminary certificate of zoning compliance. um as well as uh you know any other relevant um condition that you so there's there's the fire marshall and then also the utilities the source transformer.

Yeah. Yeah. So there are a few things that are outstanding. Typically applications we do not have final reviews from utility companies before the commissions take action. Um and and there have been times where um it just having a a conversation with the utility companies I think is a a great start, but generally they're looking for land use approvals um before they do their final reviews. DOT is often the same way as well. If there is a risk that if they require an easement to be located somewhere else or a utility to run somewhere else where it affects perhaps the location of the septic system or storm water and then that would result in some type of modification to the plan then the commission can hold that right to you know require any revisions to come back for any review um if necessary and we usually have that language in our

I think it's resolutions So fire marshall's decision is more important than especially with health and safety and and there was a change in design I think too where there was an exterior staircase that was removed because they're putting on sprinklers. So you know I think we want to make sure that that's all going to work and will be approved. So I I kind of am leaning to ask if we could maybe have an extension to make sure everything is all set. Go just um put in boarding condition. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, you're good. Yeah, we can't get a building permit without the fire marshall signing off. Anyway, what does everyone else say? We should the fire marshall lost, right?

Yeah. So, we can go ahead and close the public hearing, move to deliberations, which we're already kind of having, you know, structure and approval. Um, you can't receive new information, right? Right. After a public hearing is closed. So, if you were going to close the public hearing, you would Yes, you can. Well, you still would need an extension to make your decision because this is your meeting. I I can provide you with some draft language if you're interested in looking at that

at tonight's meeting. Otherwise, if you're looking for time to structure a more time to structure a resolution or to hear directly from the fire marshall, then that would require a request for an extension. An extension, which is where I'm kind of leaning, it's really your comfort level. I want to see that transform issue nailed down what is actually going to be. But would we would we say no to this project because of a a telephone pole or underground? Maybe not. That's what the fire marshall and the sprinkler system is important for health and safety.

Well, you and the fire on the fire suppression, but I unless I misunderstood. We can put wording in the in the approval that says it has to meet the requirements of the fire. Yes. The transformer location you may not have ironed out for some time. Right. Right. Um so that and that really is at the mercy of Eversource suspicion is that we really don't want more information on fire suppression. What we really want is the okay or disapproval from fire marshall. Am I right on that? That's that's why

so that's why I would urge us to approve this contingent on the fire marsh. I guess I'm thinking worst case scenario that he doesn't approve it and then you have to go back to the drawing board with it and come back with a new design so could happen with the transform that that could happen. So we can get new information and new designs presented if necessary. I don't it's

it feels foggy to me. So it it is often that you would have like an engineer um design and in conversations that you know roughly a pole would go here or a transformer um you know in in that front property line. I don't know that the applicant will be able to within even your statutory clock be able to give you a final okay from ever source as to the exact location of the transformer. Yeah, the data is and that really we don't regulate transformers. They really are.

Yeah, we won't provide my concern is not that the transform per se is that if they require that you put it some place that causes everything else to have to change then that would require

I think we're we're very confident that it's going to be hugging that eastern property line that has already basically been reviewed by Eversource and that's that's it. That's where it's going to be. Whether we can get it underground to a transformer deeper in sight or it has to go to the pole to a transformer right on the road is the only question. So that's that's the um but you know we're not we're not going to have answer before this um before the commission approves everything in my experience. Was a transformer a fire uh marshall issue? No, no, no, no,

no. Sprinklers and stuff. Yeah. The the fire marshall issues are sprinklers. It Well, it's it's sprinklers and eress, you know, those those are going to be the fire issues. And we during the plan review meeting, we we reviewed those issues with him. Correct. Um and hence the redesign of the plan was actually in direct result of that of his comment of we were allowed to remove that secondary means of egress as compliance. the internal egress was compliant so long as fire suppression was provided. Yeah, sprinklers were provided and we we met those with these plans. So I think you just got that that proposal yesterday.

Correct. Don, what are your thoughts about an extension asking for extension versus condition? Well, I think we should do a conditional approval from the fire marshall end because so we're limited to health and safety issues. The health issues we've checked off. The safety issue is fire marshall ultimately saying that it meets his standards or sense.

So that's that's where we should go in order to move this along. In addition also there's something additional about the transformer that did not focus another alternative some other aspect of that we hadn't considered that it has to be understood that it's the same further to the design proposed would be necessarily impacted the other question I had about the transformer is how are you going to limit access to it is there going to be a fence around it or a cage around the transformer Walmart.

Uh it's um there's no provision uh that we're per proposing. Um if we took a walk around town, we could walk up to pretty much anyone's transformer. If we go to the subdivision, uh standard subdivisions uh are routinely uh just off curb on a concrete pedestal and you can literally touch the transformer. Are you doing boxes? I'm thinking of the Bradley. It is, if I may be so, you know, frank and say it is an unfortunate eye store.

They um they don't any source, they don't promote or advertise or want, let's say, plantings, uh ballards. I would suggest at a minimum uh uh closest to our driveway in the event that any traffic maneuvering or pulling out uh adds an extra layer of safety potential, especially in the cold weather, get some snow embankment, someone's backing up, you know, there's a there's a baller there to protect that transformer. That's that's what I would uh suggest. starting the design

uh currently no because I would be essentially I I wouldn't know where throw the dart um at the moment. I've got a good idea of where that dart's going to land uh but I don't know the size of the transformer given the load calculations but we do have at least information. Thank you. Actually, I keep thinking about the power line solution option and whatnot and I just is there a plan in place or there are concerns or questions? I I don't know what to ask. All I all I can think about is

in the event of a storm. I mean, we live on the shoreline, trees go down all the time. Is there a concern about that? Correct. I liked hearing about the preference was for all of the underground and if there was like then you've got

but a part of block with no power down on the line. I politely pressed uh Eversource in that regard and I got a very polite comment uh email back um because at first they said that uh DOT doesn't want ever sort of doing underground um to which I called DOT and I spoke to DOT and they they welcome all plans and applications. DOT does not mind so long as it doesn't uh encroach on some of the the things that they already have in place. um as long as there is a licensed uh liable party that is able to do the underground work and DOT sees the plans and the application. We can drive down we can drive down the streets and we can see these already it you are allowed to dig. Ever source does not want to dig from their pole that they already own and have rights to across the earth to the property line. And that basically was the response that our clients can hire their own Eversource approved contractor. So that contractor can then pull a permit with Department of Transportation to dig a line. That way, every source could then run power down from their pole through that pipe to their transformer. It's an unfortunate series of events that we're trying uh our best to uh to get to get around in in an appropriate professional manner. Um so, we don't have to do a poll. I know that our clients are trying to find uh a resource who is licensed in the state of Connecticut. uh has the appropriate bonding not only for

the Department of Transportation but also is on the list for Eversource. Um and it it it's an added um layer of time and expense that that we that's our conversation that is things are in motion the best that we can. Uh it's just something that we don't have any an approval for yet. A minimum transformer is going to be um a definite because of the power capability of that pole. The energy will come down that pole either to another pole or specifically to a transformer. That transformer will regulate that power supply, turn it up so it can get uh to the eight units adequately if that is uh sufficient.

All right. So, we need to decide if we're going to close the public hearing and deliberate an approval with conditions. That's what I'm for. That's what I'm for, Carol. I have building consensus for that. I scratched out two conditions. One is there's always legal documents that need to be um approved. So, the affordability plan and other legal documents be reviewed and approved by legal counsel. And then you know the the development meets all building and fire codes as verified by the fire marshall in the building. So you know I would like to add the the idea of the ballers.

Okay. Um one ballard adjacent to the um two at minimum in my opinion. Yes two angle of approach. Yes. And in separation distance in that even a compact vehicle if if you if you I'm going to use pointer. This is the transformer that you know one one baller is nice but you can hit on either side. If if a bo baller is stationed here approximately here then even a compact car

can't by angle of approach uh hit. Yes. Someone unfortunately could jump the curb and do do things of adverse, but they could also hit the poll that is in in the right away too as well. Yeah, let's make the Yeah, let's do it. Sounds good. So, um I have to close the public hearing forations. Sorry that you're with us. Yes, that was Bob Oconor. Yes. Yeah. And second, we've got lots of seconds. We got a third. [laughter]

And I think we we're all in agreement that we approve the project of work. I mean, yeah, really thorough. I can pull up a draft. Okay, Erin, if you the two, you could maybe edit the get us to dice. Ed's wording. Well, there's no more public or applicant participation. So, this is us. No, we got the wording. Yeah, we got the So, I Yes, that was during the the public comment. Yes. Um, so I I began um some bones here for the commission. And I can that's fine.

Zoom in here for you um if you can't read this. Um the beginning is your standard language of approval. It's referencing the application um description as well as the revised dates of the plans. I have noted here the civil plans um designed uh revised to February um 3rd sheets C1 through C8. Also the um design drawings uh for the building uh that are from spin drift design that you reviewed today and looked at those are dated to one uh 2026. I'm also referencing the phototric plan that was pulled up um and then listing the following conditions. Um

one is fine. Speaking to the um language, can you number one was um because the applicant is proposing a sprinkler multif family building uh therefore shall provide evidence of compliance with the Connecticut building and fire codes prior to the issuance of a preliminary certificate of zoning compliance. Um the second was actually a note um that I had I saw in the um traffic uh was to maintain sight lines uh from the driveway u maintenance of those sight lines and um in doing so if there were any requirements uh for encroachment permits with DOT that the applicant be responsible for those.

Um some of these are standard language for site plan approvals. uh CEO notification at least 48 hours prior to commencement of uh any regulated work. Uh number four, the ENS controls. Um this also assists in um the uh coastal site plan uh approval. And um the second or the fifth, excuse me, the subsurface uh storm water system shall be designed in accordance with the current Connecticut storm water manual which the applicant has confirmed during the hearing. and um also inspected by the design engineer during construction to verify uh consistency with the approved plans. That again is another one of your standard uh conditions. Um and then often the um asbuilt um survey um actually I would recommend changing this that a final you know an asbuilt survey including the storm water system components um shall be uh provided um uh to the commission with um typically that goes to the zoning enforcement officer prior to the issuance of a final zoning compliance. Um, also includes a written verification from the licensed engineer that the system uh was constructed in accordance with the approved design uh plans. Uh I did note that the lighting shall uh be dark sky friendly full cutoff um which it is proposed and lighting temperature shall uh should not exceed uh 3,000.

I didn't see your drawings. It said 30,000 that um the lumens were in there. There are details. Um this is typically a a a recommendation that comes from AKA when you receive site plans and typically is included in all of your um approvals. Yes, you you have used this um and it is pretty standard. Most all of these LEDs now have a range of three settings, 3,000 to 4,000 for the lighting, and they're all adjustable. So, they just set them to that darker

um or that more yellow color. Exactly. Um and then this was the note that the applicant had uh made, attorney Cassella, that the affordability plan be reviewed by town council prior to filing on the land records. That is standard. Um it if even if it's not um we tend to have have that final review. Um this language in the event that changes to the approved plans are required as a result of other agency permitting to support the proposed activity uh you receive the right reserve the right to review the changes um and may require modification to the approval. So that speaks to um you know some of these outside agencies like Connecticut Water or um Eversource if they you know throw a wrench in in the proposal and say that something has to now go on the opposite side. Um and then this language um with these above referenced conditions the proposal is consistent with applicable goals and policies in the coastal act um and no anticipated impacts are expected. And then lastly um is to include an effective date which would fall after the um uh notice of action in the newspaper.

Does any number eight need to say review and approved by town council or just reviewed? Um ultimately the attorneys would provide any recommendations for uh commenting. Um, and yeah. Um, how would you like to approve? Approved. Okay. [laughter]

I did read through the affordability plan and it's pretty boilerplate. Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Um, at least all the numbers and and the calculations and everything are correct. um as far as so um I don't have a printed copy but you're welcome to motion and yeah could we have a motion to approve as per the draft to approve second second uh any further discussion made it all in favor Janet too so much second

thank you Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda, we have um the continuation of the public hearing which was open our last meeting January 15, 2026. Uh this is number 25-28 wishing map 27 lot 87-3 zone R2 applicant Linda resubdivision application for legalized division of property from 1957. Um I think it's the same attorney. Yes, it is. Does anybody need a bandages? Uh, do you need water?

Yeah, I just I drank what I had. Um, all right. Good evening again, Ed Cassella representing uh this application for subdivision. We spent a lot of time last month, I guess it was at this point, uh, reviewing this. Um Aaron and others did some digging and found a few things. So I just I have a few additional opinions I would like to provide um earning this application together a little better. Thank you. Uh kind of outlines a couple of interesting things today. Dated today. I can give some context I guess for Carol. Um yeah, if you'd like to give Oh, it's quiet.

Sorry. Can you can you guys go over that for me or synopsize? We'll go through it. Thank you. You know, we kept the public hearing open because I felt that we had a lot of information coming to us about a relatively complicated and historic division of a lot.

Um, and so I wanted a chance to go back to our current regulations. I also took the opportunity to go back to the 1950s and 1960s regulations to see what was in fact a decline at the division. So I think I you know we haven't had our own council weigh in on this but I think it's worth pursuing further what you know what was what were the regulations at the time of the decision. So, so yes. So, so Carol, the email that Carol had sent to me was um uh a request to to review the historic regulations which um were um small little paper booklets. However, um I I have been able to scan them and um can pull them up for uh the meeting. I I did I was able to scan those today.

Oh, great. Um, I had a chance to look at one that stated April 10th, 1953. I have. Yes. And then a second one that was 1953 subdivision regulations updated May 17th, 1962. Yes. Those

So those that was exactly what you wrote in your email to me asking um for me to look at the definition of a subdivision as uh at the time of the filing of map 980, 908, not 980. and um and then the uh regulation at the time of 1962 because there was a span of maps filed uh from 53ish to uh 66

and um so I did um I I did read your email. I pulled the regulations out. Um, I did have a conversation with our town council, Carrie Olsen, yesterday on that um with your question and um and and then forwarded your um questions about the regulations. Um gave them to attorney Cassella to um be prepared to discuss and um have uh you know some some response uh to that for this evening's meeting. Um we have no I have no um legal opinions. No, the commission has not asked for any opinions from council or anything like that at this point. Um and again this this letter from attorney Cassella came in um this evening as you know his his um review of those definitions. Um but there is a there are differences between the um

uh two versions the two uh definitions. Um and it the uh I think the 66 definition is uh similar to our current um subdivision. The question was raised um does does the language of uh provisions for street or streets affect um this division? Yes. Whether or not there was an assumption that a subdivision was required, right? um as you read under our current stat and I think our current regulations something that I wondered at our last meeting was you have this parcel that was divided into

four five lots really and four three of those have houses on them already and um and did soon after the maps and the deeds were filed I believe the houses were built without having to go before planning and zoning at the time as far as we know. Um, so they got building permits. So, how is it that that could have happened, but it's still being called by some people illegal subdivision? Um, and this I think helped me understand it a little bit better to go back to those 1950s and 1960s regulations. So, maybe you'd like to speak to that too. Sure. Yeah. Thank you.

Stay seated if that's okay. Um, yeah, it's it I think there's I made two conclusions or two points in this letter that I can review. I know Janet doesn't have a copy of it. So, um, just to bring you back some of the facts because dates have been tossed around. Um the the operative date in division that we're talking about occurred in 1957 where the large piece to the south was divided from this parcel the 1acre piece that's kind of on the corner of um what used to be known as Hamilton is now known as Bushnull. And um the first point is you know based upon the regulations that were in effect in 1957 which is the 1953 version uh the definition of subdivision I don't know if you want to pull it up there um basically said subdivision is defined as a tractor or parcel of land a division subdivision is defined as the division of a tract or parcel of land into three or or more lots in such manner as to require the provision of street of a street or streets whether immediate or in the future for the purpose of sale or building development and shall include resubdion um and etc. So that it's an interesting definition because it it seems to say subdivision has to not only include the division of land into three or more lots, but there also must be the providing of a street or streets. And in 1957, when you look at map 908, um Hamilton Drive was already there. It was already in effect. was frankly in

effect during the original period. So when this division took place there was no provision there was no providing of a street or streets that was already in existence. So even though this was the third law it's the subdivision regulations seem to say it's not a subdivision it's just approved under zoning. Um and and the language becomes a little clearer when you look at the 19 61 version of the rags which is if you put through I I put these in here. Um and this is kind of the the the definition of subdivision that's very similar. I didn't compare it exactly but looks pretty similar to what we have now which just says means the division of a tractor or parcel of land into three or more parts for the purpose whether immediate or future of sale or building development. and it doesn't say three or more lots with the providing of uh street or streets. So we're in the 1957 when this original division took place um under the old definition of subdivision which I think can be argued doesn't apply. So this division as long as it met zoning at that point in time um is a legal division of land. So that's that's the first point. The second point is um and I I I misspoke last meeting so I wanted to clarify it. There actually is a um a statute that does validate is the operative term um illegal divisions of land when buildings and structures are built on them. So 30 and 32 Bushnell Lane which are immediately south the old homestead and then the

second parcel those were divided in 1966. So interestingly enough they were divided after the definition changed. So they don't get the benefit of the argument that I'm making about the streets

about the streets. But there's a uh general statute section 8-26H which um you know basically says that no use or occupancy or presence of a building or structure erected on a lot shown on a filed or recorded map or plan of subdivision. So, it could be just a general map like we have here or a plan of subdivision um shall be deemed illegal or invalid u because the lots um were not shown on a sub plan approved by the subdivision. Excuse me, sorry, butchered that sentence badly. um shall be deemed illegal or invalid because the lot or lots on which any building or structure is located are not shown on an approved plan of subdivision. So, if you did a division back in the day, and this this was a statutory change after a court had determined that um a building that was on a parcel that was illegally quote unquote divided um was an illegal subdivision. So, the the legislature took it among themselves to say, "No, no, no, no, no. If if you got a piece of land and then you built a house on it, they the town can't come back and say that's or neighbors can't come back and say that's an illegal subdivision. It's [snorts] deemed to be validated. So by being in place by because there's a structure, right? So that helps the other two doesn't help me doesn't help the lot that we're trying to create, but it helps the other two. But it makes an interesting point which is, you know, one one of the things we argued here when we were trying to get this lot approved was, you know, this is the lot we want you to approve. And if those

lots are already legal under the statute, it's that's what you're doing, right? You're you're basically just saying this lot is an approved building lot and you have the authority under 826, which is kind of your primary uh authority uh to approve plans even if they've already been made, even if the map's already been filed, even if it's already been done. The statutory language is in there um to to for this commission to be able to uh to be able to do that. So, couple of different angles. Um, you know, my preference would be to have the commission approve it so there's less ambiguity regarding the definition of um subdivision. And I believe you have the authority to do that.

Ed, can I just ask a question? I'm sorry because I'm kind of, you know, out of this, but it sounds like 30 and 32 are legal according to this. Yeah, that's my conclusion. Um, you know, they've been validated is the is the term. So, they're not to be deemed illegal, right? Because the statute, you know, says, hey, look, there's a house there, so you're you're okay. Yep. Okay. And that's only because there was a building permit, correct? Approved to make this by the tunnel to make Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah. Yep. So, um that you know is is good in my opinion. Um the other point we spent a lot of time talking about uh last meeting was open space. Um so back to 1953 if we want to take a look at those regulations. Um there is a provision for open space. It's not nearly. Well, by the way, the 27 pages include zoning and salvation, right? If we could only if we could only have that now, I wouldn't have a job. Probably we're starting a rewrite. Maybe that get it down.

53 also had summer colony district still. That's right. It's an historic document. What you mean? So the only mention of open space is um uh on page 23. Provisions for open spaces for use as parks or playgrounds should be considered by the subdivider and may be required by the commission. So it's similar, you know, it's it's actually less than what you have now because um in this case there's no room for a park or playground. There wasn't in 1953. There isn't now. Um and that's why we're asking for the for the waiver. And there's no evidence of the commission asking. Correct.

That's not That's not true. I mean, there's open spot now instead of building lot, right? There's only half an acre. So, that's true. That's There is a buffer between the Hamilton Street property and the other properties in that small unbuildable lot. Yeah. And and the other thing I have to offer um if the commission doesn't grant a waiver and requires open space, the property owner is willing to um give a conservation easement over the half acre so that there is no ambiguity in the future that it can be. Oh, they own that halfacre. Correct. That small lot 872, right? The one to the south.

It's so pull up the map again just so I can kind of frame reference for the Yep. Absolutely. Conversation. Um, yes. Just bear with me one second. It's in your title history. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. So, the the subject properties here and these are 30 and 32. Uh, and this is the property 87-2 which is uh6 acre um that doesn't meet today's zoning regulations. Doesn't get the benefit of um any of the grandfathering or validating. Uh so is not is not a legal building lot although it's been taxed as one. Um and then there's the another piece which is down on the south which was the first piece that went out. So,

but you're proposing to make that 872 subject to non-development conservation easement easement. Yeah. So, then the town doesn't get tax revenue from that lot anymore. Was that true? Probably wouldn't anyway as of as of uh the appeal date of February 20th. But, okay.

It was it was me. Um, one thing I wanted to note for the commission as well. So, I had looked um trying to look for some history of when these um permits were pulled to see if there were zoning compliance, things like that. Any any variances on land. Some back in the 50s um certificates of variance weren't uh required to be filed on the land record. So, I um did take some time to look through the minute books for ZBA and PNZ to see if this has come up before or during that time. Um and I looked under all of the property names that were referenced in these maps, you know, that were provided both by um some of the abutters as well as um attorney Cassella. I I did not find anything. Um there were some things from Arthur Williams. Um but apparently he owned the Dolly Madison as well um back then which I didn't know. Um so there there were some things in but but nothing um regarding this parcel. I did then look through um our historic land use department records commission approvals um applications to either ZBA or planning and zoning commission. I did find one um that was made for this subject parcel 87-3 in 2018. Um it was an application made to the zoning board of appeals which was withdrawn but it was to um permit this building lot without the required frontage. And um the application materials included a reference to another property

on Bushnull Lane that had sought and obtained a variance to permit a building lot without required frontage. And um this this subject application in 2018 was uh withdrawn and the note in the file said that the applicant um was uh going to have a a a different attorney reapply. Um, as you I think you've read I think from um the burnbumps and Jessica Latell's history there was correspondence from an attorney in 2018 and that's um and then the subsequent planning and zoning commission discussions and then there was the modification to the the regulations about frontage. So that application never came back to ZBA.

Okay. But um I did that was confusing as well and although they was it was called Hamilton Drive in one document or in the discussion I think. Yes. So I still called him and I thought you know why are they worrying about the southern part when in fact Bushnell name was Hamilton Drive. It did actually 30 Bushnull historically has um land use records and microfich as 836B um Boston Post Road I believe. So some of these actually had Boston Post road addresses because of the because of that driveway that private road that drive up. Absolutely.

So the the basis I I did go back and pull the the other variance application for Bushnull. Um and it was for this lot here, this um number seven Bushnull Lane. And it was an application from the Burnbombs uh uh Gerald Burnbomb and uh Jessica Latell as co-rustees of um a trust. And the application was to ZBA. It was in May of 2004 and it was to legalize this lot as a building lot. And um the application materials um the hardship that was referenced for that application noted that the lot was created in the early 1980s. Um and uh speaks to a history of uh the town acting in accordance with an opinion from its council at the time routinely approved serial lot divisions which resulted in the creation of three or more lots out of a single parcel in apparent conflict with 8-25 which are the sub the subdivision statutes. um the applicants or their predecessors in title justifiably relied on the then current practice in town and divided the property as part of an overall estate planning process. It would be singularly unfair for the town to now reverse its earlier position to the possible detriment of the applicants. And um looking at the minutes from that meeting, um there were um neighbors uh attending uh residents of of Bushnol Lane um in including the the property owner Arthur Williams here. um and all in support of

legalizing that um open parcel as a building lot. um that they all um you know um it's a long driveway servicing you know uh 12 acres of land roughly and the commission ultimately or the board excuse me this was ZVA uh they did ultimately approve this lot um as a building lot um without frontage. It never went through a subdivision process. Um but um I believe that was the legal argument that um Miss Dyer was looking to make prior to the um zoning regulations being amended regarding the frontage. So there I I think there the more we look into some of the historic records in this area, you can you can see that there were um divisions made in this neighborhood and um that may not have had uh subdivision approval. Some of them were legalized by the zoning board of appeals. Um, you know, Attorney Cassella is now looking at um the the planning statutes to to legalize this law as it existed on those maps. Um, but it it's it's a very interesting unusual history in this area.

So, what year was that that you're referring to? 2004. It was 20 years ago. All right. So, so question. So, 2019, you're a your client, right? It needs to go through planning and zoning commission to change the regulations in order for it to be possibly a building law. Correct. At that point, she received notice that she needed to get subdivision approval, too. Correct. That's my understanding. Yeah. And it didn't. So, the question is why? Why? Why is it coming up now? Well, because it's for sale. Well, for sale for sale before it came to us. So, that's why this is kind of

Yeah. I don't know. But it it I think the answer the answer to that question is um that when the regulations changed and again I don't know what happened co delay I don't I don't I wasn't involved in she had hired the second 2018 was ZBA she hired the second lawyer in 2019 um Burch Moses the former council came out with their opinion that said that that was kind of the first time from what I can tell there was was an opinion that said there was an illegal subdivision. So before that, the ZBA application was only because it didn't have frontage on a public road.

That was the known issue. And again, I'm reviewing records, so I I I don't really know what's in these folks heads, but that was the known issue. And then the the the predecessor or the I think it was the current owner's mother made the argument that um it should it should be a legal law because it's been grandfathered in etc. and this was the practice um and the town council said no and that was in 2019. The commission then amended the rags to um allow so that this now complies with zoning and here we are. I I I don't know what's happened over the last 5 years.

Well, yeah. So, as you say, who knows what they're thinking. I mean, the appearance though is that there was this tradition going back and they said, "Hey, this might be the new rule, but we don't have to we don't have to comply with that new rule." That's the appearance. Just so we listen to all the testimony. Yeah. Yeah. And here we are now only because they listed it for sale, neighbors found out about it, raised raised the issue, got a lawyer, right? So now this whole 576 is almost irrelevant. Well, not completely. Yeah. I mean, the appearance here is that they're trying to scrum script the rules. the lender when

when they when they listed the property for sale or going through the process of getting subject to and going through with the fe issue, right? I mean, the way they're coming at it is kind of hard about the taxes and fem gives the appearance that that's a real sticking point for them. Yeah. Well, two things. Um it was it was listed for sale and as part of the process there was discussions with zoning and that's what led us to this point. Okay. Yeah. I mean the actual listing says subject to approvals. Which an ordinary person would say well there's septic there's other things some division. I wouldn't even think of that but

but then then you go to the town you say what permits do I need and they tell you. So um and and well it sounds like too from some of the correspondence right yesterday's letter is that there was some I don't know misunderstanding miscommunication between town developer property owner but still go back to 2019 the land owner had the sophistication to go through a process to change the regulations and then and then pay property taxes out as a lot but decided for whatever reason no we're not going to we're not going to ask for subdivision approval. Yeah, we don't know what

I I can clarify that it was the planning and zoning commission who ma initiated the amendment. It was not the the property owner as an applicant or the commission. There was an initial discussion and then months later there was the planning was an issue was because this landowner wanted it to be an issue. It just didn't come out of the blue. I I I wasn't there. I I can't calculate on on the conversations with um Well, this land was there, right? It directly affects this property. It affects other properties. We we have approved other subdivisions on private roads since then. Um

amendments though. Well, I think they were present at least during the discussion. I don't know at the public at the act There was a a a meeting to discuss the property that predated the amendment. I think the attorney was there about the I don't I don't have the minutes um from that meeting at the top right now. I I mean we can get them of who was who was at that text amendment public hearing or who spoke. um to me the history of the owner, how we got to the owner of property today so I can trace that in my head.

Yeah, sure. My understanding is Arthur Williams's uh wife was Carolyn Dyer who was the owner um back during a 2018 and 2019 time period. And um now it's in her trust and her daughter Linda Fast is the trustee. So, she inherited the property. Yeah, she's the trustee. And she correct. And she's the applicant. She's the That's correct.

I don't know that. Yeah, that's She's the She She's the trustee who holds the propert I only know her. They all They're all owned by their own. Um, I mean it's it's I think this is helpful because it to me it was after the last meeting it was a total conundrum. I couldn't figure out what was what was legal, what was illegal, what was a subdivision, what

another thing I came across is references to reubdivisions can be changes in maps of approved or reported maps I think as well. So going back to the fact that this in the 50s and 60s was a division of property that was reported in the town records and building permits were issued. Um and then so I think in my head anyway I could kind of think well okay why why are we calling it a reubdivision? I mean, I'd rather it would just be called a redivision or something, but there was I think there is legal language that makes sense to be more.

Yeah. And I just want to address the um I didn't talk about the taxes uh after after you made the comment. I that was the part of the request for the waiver is they have been paying taxes on this as a building lot. It it hasn't been a building lot. um whether or not another building permit could have slipped through and gotten a house built on it. You know, then if it was 15 years before, that probably would have happened. Well, the Hamilton Street property, right, the original house was torn down and in 2020 another house was built. Didn't seem to be an issue. I mean for other reasons why how it was the first cut

and so nobody

the purpose on his taxes was to to to make a statement that they've been paying taxes not only on this piece 873 but on 872 which is not a building lot for many many years $50,000 over the past 5 years whatever the letter says. Um, so could that be a basis for the commission waving opening space? This is in your discretion. They've also offered conservation easement over the other piece. So, we're putting those things on the table for your consideration if you decide to approve this. And I think it makes sense to come back to what the request is is basically to say this 1 acre piece of land that has frontage on a private street can be used as a building fund. that that's that's what we're asking the commission to do through this through the process and it's a convoluted process and it's a very convoluted history and it's it's it's is it's murky at best but coming here today we're hoping the commission and you know even to some extent the neighbors look at the big picture and say okay you have an acre that meets the regulations the building's going to meet the setbacks everything's going to be compliant and all they want to do is put a house on the property So that's that's that's what we're here for.

Thank you. Any any other questions or comments from the commissioners? Janet, you okay with us? Yeah, I'm I'm here. It's still the public hearing is still open, so we can still entertain comments.

Is open. Yes, you can entertain comments on new information. you can seek an opinion or you know some some legal opinion on attorney Cassella's letter from your council. Um in to do so you would need to request uh an extension from attorney Cassella. You could read this and and not require a you know not ask for a legal opinion and and make a decision amongst yourselves. um might not need your choice. It opened on the 15th and the next meeting the night.

Oh, it's only been two. It's only been two weeks. I thought it was a month. That was 142. I don't know extension. Thank you. You're right. It's 35 days. In that case, I think since we just got this tonight, it would be great to have a chance to read through it. digest it. And obviously as well, don't forget about them. And will this this will be filed? This is uploaded into the attorney Cassell uploaded this this evening directly as the applicant onto the website. Good timing. As we So who who want to provide us with legal counsel to read this as as council members? Like I'm not a lawyer. So

no, you you have a l you have an attorney. Okay. Town has counsel. Uh it's uh Harris Beach Colina. Um and Carrie Olsen is is your attorney. Um you can refer the letter to her and ask for some comments. You could see if she could attend the next meeting. Um you can ask all of the above. Yes. Um you can also at at this point because the hearing is open, you can ask for comments from the public regarding this if anybody wants to. um raise any other questions that could be addressed during the you know for the continuation to the next meeting. By keeping it open, it also gives everyone else a chance to read this point.

Yeah. Yeah. And and come back to the next meeting. I think we should definitely involve Carrie. Yeah, I agree. A motion. Do we need a motion? We would need a motion to continue the hearing. until February 19th. Do you want to see if anybody from Boston wants this group tonight while they're here? I haven't seen any hands raised, but does anybody else want to say anything? Sure. Go ahead.

I'm Keith Ainsworth. I represent the 30 Bush Mill Lane owners. Um first I'm seeing of of this is this uh is tonight so I don't have the benefit of having the chance to really examine it but I will say um the validation statute ADA 26H talks about use and occupancy or the presence of a building or structure um erected on um it doesn't validate the subdivision itself. It it's a validation of a of a structure which is consistent with there's a statute that was passed some years ago that said if you've got a structure that violates setbacks and it's been there for 3 years you can't enforce against that person um because you know the town was snoozing on its rights. Um similarly this law does the same thing which says you've got a house the town can't um blindside you and declare your house that you built that exists illegally. Um, I would take issue with the characterization that it validates the subdivision of a lot they're selling regardless of um I'll stop there on that particular place. Um and while the commission does have um authority to approve the subdivision business as including subdivisions or resubisions made in violation violation of the section. Um it doesn't mean that you have to um and obviously uh it's my client's position and some of the neighbors position that um it shouldn't be exercised. As I said in the last meeting, it's an additional house, takes up open space, a

little more crowding in the neighborhood. Um, and from their perspective, the the actions that were taken in the past were not legally um they're coming here now to say we'd like it at the at the very last minute. Oh, and then one point about the taxes. I just don't think that the payment of taxes is a valid reason to do anything. Um it's you you come and take a tax appeal, you change that. Um the payment of taxes we all as a matter of course for whatever the value of our property is. Um but it doesn't justify a change any kind of zoning. Second.

Thank you. Anyone else? There's no one online. Madam Chair, I was just going to say one thing just

could you identify yourself and to John's point there has been what seems like a very manipulative and deceptive um perspective from this seller. They were offered money when the Keers were purchasing this property 10 years ago and what turned out they offered quite a bit of money. I think that they've been waiting for their payday. I think when they figured out that they weren't necessarily they didn't have the right property or they didn't the right rules, they went in and started campaign and in which they could start paying taxes 5 years ago after they had trouble and I think they started mapping out this process. They did put it on the market well over a year ago. We saw it at that point and wrote in and that was the first time that the neighbors noticed that they were trying to sell the property. So this isn't something that just like kind of happened. This has been a process with them. They've been sort of plotting and planning on how to do it. And and I do agree. We we wrote to Aaron about a year and a half ago when we first saw it. Had we not written this whole process, I don't think would be taking place. I think that they would just build it. They came to us over a year ago with their blasting team shooting photos of our homes interior and exterior to make sure that they could you know protect you know anything they decided to bless. So they had all this intent of doing this work and only because we came here you know and lawyers came here with their neighbors did something actually come to fruition. Thanks.

I'll just add one more thing, Christina Cameron, 46 Hamilton Drive. Um, it came up that there was an initial application for this property in 2019 and I just want to add that the property was also listed in 2019. Um, and there was a sale transaction that took place and that application occurred after the property did not sell without a subdivision. Now, as to why they were bid and didn't proceed, they were always planning to sell it. it was the same seller at the same time. Um, but to Lisa's point, this has been a really long process where they've been trying to skirt legal use of that property.

Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to know I will up since I scanned the regulation the historic regulations today, I will upload those in the application documents so that they're um available for everybody to see those. So I'll do that first thing in the morning if you're looking for them. Thank you all. I'm late. Thanks for your motion. I don't know how you find it. I think we need a motion. Make a motion. Do we need

a motion to keep um the public hearing open for 2528 Bush? No lane. That's right. Sorry. I wanted to get the question before we made the motion. Does the motion need to include we want discuss it. It's okay. Oh, okay. Did we want does the motion need to include we want council to look at this? And then I had a question around just because I I'm curious and I want to understand because we keep talking about it. What's the tax differential that talking about? I mean, is it $1,000 or is it a million dollars

between a parcel like not a building lot? They've been there's been talk of they've been paying taxes as if it was a building lot and then what's the difference if it wasn't a building lot. Is it material or not? I don't know. Can ask the applicant to pull that information. [laughter] Thank you. [snorts] Okay. So, we haven't we haven't gotten a second yet. Second and we can have further discussion or we vote. Anybody further discussion? um getting the lawyer involved. Do we need to be being ask you're on the record? I I can I can reach out.

Reach out to her motion for that is just a please reach out. Yes. And and is there any I mean you can direct me clearly what you're looking for? Um you'd like her to review attorney to this yes letter as it re you know she she is familiar with the the two different definitions. I I you know briefly spoke to her on that. I did not get a legal opinion from her ahead of this meeting. Um other than our conversation to you know share this information and and

pitch it to the response. Did we want to note for the I because I wrote down what I was question I was questioning is I'd like her opinion on the statute 8 does 26H and what impact does that have on the current 30 and 32 the two houses lots and the subdivision qualification does it nullify the legalization of some of those issues are not yes right there's a lot of language in here that I would like to take a look on Tanglewood. Yeah. And then the regulations of the statute. I agree. Okay. So, she made the mo Janet made the motion. Do we have a second? Second.

Yeah. All in favor. All right. So, to be continued. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Okay. We have pending applications listed on the agenda. was actually one 25-26 196 Bum Road. Again, this is Temple Beth Sika and um did we already table it, Erin, to the February?

No, we tabled it from our last meeting and um I'm sorry, we tabled it at the last meeting, I believe, till today. I have been able to um meet with a representative from the temple to kind of go over my staff comments that I had provided and um so they're working on uh some responses and and potential um modifications to our next to the plan. Yes. Um so we can table I'll circle back with them. I think that is our last meeting without I think we're into extensions now after I think we're I think we're 9 days into your 65day extension.

Okay. Yes. I I did calculate that Mike. Um so do I need a motion to Yes, we should table it for two weeks. Can I have a motion? So move. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? All in favor? 19 it is. Then we are in receipt of 26-2. This is um Town of Madison Campus Drive. Again, Erin, is this is this something that's really just a notification sort of administrative or is this

It's you the commission is acting administratively. It's a site plan modification. It's here on town campus across the way the police department um in their fenced in parking area. They're looking to um build a detached storage building and um going too far now. This not a coastal site plan. It doesn't need inland wetlands. Although there are wetlands, they're outside of the 100 foot. We're tableabling that um to allow them an opportunity to go to AKA. Okay, great. Because it's required from your regs, but it's not visible at all.

Any discussion? All in favor? Yeah, it's on for the 19th. And then 98 Middle Beach Road, that's 26-1. Um, a coastal site plan application to replace porch footings, framing, and decking within 25 ft of a critical coastal resource. And they've requested, oh, because of it's a 35day referral period, which bumps them. Um, and we have new deadlines on our applications for that 35 days. Um, if you wanted to be conservative, I mean, you could you could table it to your next meeting to see if we hear back from deep with the checklist by then. Um, if we wanted to be optimistic.

Yeah. Yeah. And then and then you could always continue it to the fifth from that meeting if you'd like. It's up to you. Table it to the fifth. That's fine. Motion. Motion. Second. All in favor? Any discussion? Okay. So, um, moving on to approval of minutes. Secretary Van Morgan.

Approval of minutes. Uh, meeting held January 15, 2026. Members present Mike Dodda, Vice Chair John Duza, Secretary John Morgan, Bob McDonald, Janet Pekot, Andy Rubin, Chair Carol Snow, and alter Michelle Clark. Sitting for Max Ku. Uh, motion to approve the minutes. I'll motion. Second. I'll second it. Uh, I have a couple of corrections. Um, if anyone else has any I found it hard to read through the description of the applicant's presentation. [laughter] I got my head spinning again just reading the minutes. Yes.

But anyway, I think they're okay. But yeah, members present. Jeffrey DS was not present. I think he was listed as being present.

Um, and there's just some minor wording change. uh fixes I think um on page three uh there's this sentence that reads um please also noted that one of the requirements for giving a waiver is a waiver could have an impact on impact have could have any kind of impact on the neighbors. It should read uh waiver should not have any kind of impact to the neighbors. Um uh on page five again uh first full paragraph, Commissioner Okconor said Commissioner Okconor that it could also be argued that building uh it's just missing word there. I should say Commissioner Okconor noted that it could.

Yeah. What page was that? With page five, right? should say with great eloquence. And then on page five, um there's just a couple of a a missing end and a uh just a deletion. Uh bring back Commissioner Commissioner Snow noted that you reviewed the minutes of the May 16th, 2019 commission meeting. There needs to be an and inserted there and saw that the vote to change Uh this tod do is in there that should be struck so that the vote to change the text amendment. So okay minor stuff.

Good catches. That's it. Anyone else? No. Yeah. Vote to approve. Thank you. Motion back. Uh I made a motion. I seconded it. Sorry. Sorry. I should have moved. I'm sorry. Where is down clerk? Are you taking the notes? Oh boy. I had in there. You better be fine next month when you're reviewing my minutes. [laughter]

Just any I have no comments beyond thank you for participating tonight and um appreciate everybody's input. Erin, any other com? My only comment is I sent those who need continuing it. I'm sure some of you are just fresh starting a new term. So, you've got some time. Um, some are getting close to everybody or just only the people who need I got one and I have like I got one. You started over in January. It's each term. Oh, so this is new for Hanes later. So now you have four years to complete them again.

Okay. So I consent. You don't have four years, Bob O' Conor. You have until the 27th. You bought them last two months ago, remember? No, but you have to report them to us. Oh, and I haven't so that we can track them. Oh, so I should bring whatever records. Yeah. Email them to you or bring them in. Yes, we will we will update that. Yes, that's the only way we know. So because term expired, it's per term. for yours. Yes, I have four years. Um, the the town uh website where our names are listed be updated. These will be updated with I think our term dates.

I bet that's correct. Probably across the board since all of the January new appointments. Yeah. Got it. Yeah, that that's a coordination. I'll note that because I was going to push back and send you all my classes that I've done. Oh, you want the picture? You sure? Oh, yeah. Thank you. Nice. I did not hear a motion to injure. Oh, okay. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All in favor? Thank you.