Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

know when you're ready. Erin, I'm ready. I'm just making sure we don't have another She doesn't question.

Okay, we're recording from under.

Okay, great. I think we'll get started. is second last I already lo on the wall. Um welcome. I would like to call to order uh this February 19th 2026 meeting of the Madison planning and zoning commission. Um because we have one I'll hear from just one more of our members. Um because we do have continuation of a public hearing and we have these via Zoom. um that I just couldn't read through the process public hearings once again. Um during the public hearing, the applicant will be invited to present the application explaining the commission and others presented. Uh the applicant her staff will show the photos on the screen as needed. Comments of town agencies will be read for each application if there are any. There will be clarifying questions from the commissioners. Then 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 commissioners once the public hearing is closed. The applicant is free to leave or remain for 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 203245631 after 9:00 a.m. All actions taken tonight by the commission will be by roll call. All commissioners and staff will identify themselves for the record

of speaking. And uh this being hybrid, we have some attendees via Zoom and some close in person. So seated this evening are members Mike Bugda, uh, Max Karun, Vice Chair John Duza, Secretary John Morgan, Bob O' Conor, Janet Peekinpa by way of Zoom, Andy Rubin, and myself, Carol Snow, chair, staff. Present this evening is Aaron Manx, town planner. Uh, the 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. Thank you. And this being a continuation of the public hearing from our February 5th meeting, we'll dive right in, I think. And I see we have two attorneys attending on Zoom.

Good evening. Uh for the record, Carrie Olsen representing uh the planning and zoning commission of Madison. Hi, good evening. uh Ed Cassella uh representing the applicant. So, uh Attorney Cassella, would you like to begin?

Yeah, I can. Sure. And I I don't I think I've I've said a lot during this um the last few hearings, so I don't I don't have much new ground to tread. I just wanted to make a few points. Um, we did submit a correspondence today that kind of reiterated what the request was, which is the division that occurred in in 1957. I'm seeing my letter says 1987, but map 908 was recorded in in 1957. And and that that's what essentially created parcel B, the 1acre piece of land that we're looking for um approval from the planning commission uh to confirm that it's a lot. So, that's that's what we're looking for the commission to approve is that map which created parcel B. And um as I've stated before, and we put it on the record and provided a draft conservation easement, uh the owner is willing to uh dedicate as open space via conservation easement the parcel to the south um which is another lot on Bushnell Lane without a number. Map 27, lot 87-2, 0.59 acre piece. If the commission determines that open space is required, uh she's willing to put a conservation easement over that parcel uh to restrict it uh in perpetuity as open space. So, we've provided a draft conservation easement to that effect. So, if you have questions, I'm happy to answer, but um you know, we'll leave it at that for now.

Okay. Thank you. Um and at our last meeting, we also uh requested advice from our attorney, Carrie Olsen. So, Carrie, do you want to go ahead and share your thoughts with us?

Sure. Good evening. I've run through all the maps, excuse me, and all the submissions. Um, and I have to say, um, you know, the history of this, um, is complicated. Um, clearly of this overarching initial parcel, all of the property has been developed with the exception of these two lots, the one that attorney Cassella uh, is talking about, as well as the one that is being proposed potentially for conservation. And so we painstakingly went through the maps, the histories. We also looked at the historic regulations. And there was a very good question raised at the last meeting. I wasn't at that meeting, but it was a very good question about whether the original um lot um divisions beyond the first um split really required subdivision approval at the time. Principally because of the language contained in the subdivision regulations at that time that had this uh sort of aberrant sentence in it that said, you know, the division of lots um requiring basically the provision of a public road. And obviously at the time that these lots were divided, there was the private road already existing. And and again, that didn't necessarily answer the question because your subdivision regulations even at that time incorporated your zoning regulations at that time. So Aaron track down the historic zoning regulations which basically required that lots

uh either front on or have exclusive access to a public road. And so it's my belief that when the subdivision regulations were drafted back then, what they really had in mind was the notion that because lots have to be on a public road, then a subdivision necessarily requires the provision of access to a public road, but and I'm going to say I wasn't even alive back then. I I don't know what the statute said, but I can tell you that that sentence, that aberant sentence has never been in any version of of the state statutes that I have seen. And so, and you should also know that that was removed. Help me out, Erin. What year did we say that it got modified and

62?

Okay, so in 1962, that sentence got taken out. So my point is is that back then, you know, I can't be a mind readader, but back then I think there was a reason for that sentence, but I also think that it was ambiguous enough that it could have been interpreted at that time as not necessarily requiring subdivision approval. Now, we could get into the weeds on that as to whether this this private road leading to a public road satisfied the regulations at the time, but we can't recreate history. We don't we don't know. But we what we do know is that these maps were filed that the majority of the lots have now been developed in the interim and that we have um this parcel B remaining that was split off from parcel A. And ironically parcel After splitting off parcel B was split again to A1 and A2. And then you have this smaller parcel, halfacre parcel that sits between what was the Montgomery, No, that was the Montgomery parcel, I'm sorry, the Montgomery parcel, which sits between the lowest lot um on the on the the um tax map and is only about.5 acres. So, it does not meet current zoning. However, with the passage of time, the lot that attorney Cassella is trying to receive approval for does now meet your zoning regulations. There's no longer a requirement for exclusive access to a public road. It's only access to a public road. And all of these parcels, because they abut this private road, have rights of way over

that. and we've looked at the deeds have rights of way over that private road to get to a public road. So, and the lot by lot size also meets the regulations. The the other lot which is uh is it 872? I'm sorry I don't have all these. Give me one second. Yeah, that's correct.

That one does not meet the regulations. Okay. So, fast forward, you're now being asked to approve the map that divided parcels A and B, which is map 908, and that's from 1957. You're not being asked to approve any of the other lots that were split off or subdivided or resubdivided. But in addition to that, um the owner of that the small lot 872 is willing to put a conservation restriction on it so it would not be built. So, attorney Cassella comes to you today to ask you to approve map 908 pursuant to 8- um 26D and A. And um which basically says, you know, even if it was never properly approved way back when, it's within your discretion to approve it now as long as it meets your zoning regulations. And so one of my major concerns was if we approve this whole um division, you would effectively be approving that.5 acre lot, which is not consistent with your zoning regulations. And the solution to that is the conservation or open space um uh easement over that property. So it'll never be built. You're not approving it as a building lot. Um, and so again, it is ultimately your discretion. It's ultimately your discretion. Um, but I think there is justification given the history here, given the fact that every

other lot that was divided off has been allowed to develop. Uh, and I think um the zoning board of appeals even granted a variance of the lot across the road on Burnham Road um because that had not been approved originally way back when. And so um I think there is justification for it especially because we don't know for a fact uh how all these divisions were made without without a proper approved subdivision map. But you have the authority to approve the subdivision before you tonight, which is the map 908. You have that authority. It meets the zoning regulations and it would at least legalize the last developable lot um in this area with protections to prevent any kind of development on the lot that does not no longer I think at the time it did. Erin and I researched that at the time it did, but it does not any longer meet your zoning regulations. So again, it's it's your discretion. It's what you choose. Um and if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

I do have a question. Um Attorney Olsson, thank you for that for reviewing all this history. um your distinction that it says public road, it doesn't really the the uh 1957 regulations don't say public road. They just talk about uh I'm pretty sure it does, doesn't it, Erin? No. Well, it's a street. It define it. It Oh, street. Yes. But then if you look at the definition of street

that's a definition avenues boulevards roads lanes alleys and other ways I don't I mean the word public is not in there I just wondered if that matters. So generally speaking the definition of street refers to public rights of way not private rights of way. So, um, again, that was again my assumption based on the regulations as they were drafted back then and also because when they were amended, it it definitely said that it needs to get to a public um, yeah,

okay, thanks. That's helpful. I'd have to I'd have to pull them back up again to quote it. I'm sorry that I don't I'd have to pull it up to quote to actually quote, but the intention from my understanding, especially after they were amended, was that there be access to a public road, but they got rid of exclusive access. Yeah, that was I think you're referring to the 2019 text amendment or text change. the sorry just when we think we understand it because it's Marvin's constant again we're trying to reinvent history here without anybody who was involved

uh being a part of the conversation so we're being forced to make some some assumptions here that maybe in the long run are not all that relevant to what's before you tonight but the other other thing that complicates it is that the maps use Hamilton Drive or show Hamilton Drive going pretty much from the Boston Post Road down south connecting with what is now Hamilton Drive. So at some point it it switched from being Hamilton Drive to Bushnell. Mhm. I don't know. Do we know a date for that Eron? I think we tried to figure it out. It doesn't actually. But now it doesn't actually physically connect. Oh, you can't really

It doesn't Houston accents. Oh, man. Anyway, so my my understanding from my conversations with Aaron is the section that's considered Bushnell is not a public road. That's correct. Now it's not. That's right. Correct. Okay. But but the butters and we looked at the deeds they took subject to the rights of access over that. Yeah. So they do have rights of access to use that to get to, you know, post road. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions?

Question. So So thank you for clarifying the 1957 rule. Maybe attorney Cassell can answer this. Was there also a division in the 1960s? I wrote in my notes 1966 and that was the split of parcel A. Correct. Was divided into 30 and 32 Bushnell. Okay. Does that matter for us tonight? And they both they've both been improved since then. They both have houses. Okay. But does are we being asked to approve that division? And if

No, no, we're not being you're not being asked to do that. the the the um there was a um concern that the neighbors at this point because they are protected. I think attorney Cassella brought this up that under um 8-26H they don't have a heck of a lot to worry about because they have existing structures and under 8-268 even though you don't have proper subdivision approval you can't deny somebody uh you know rights of occupancy or the validity of the structures on their property. And so to the extent that um that you know down the road they have an issue, well that's going to be up to them to fix it. The only part of this that is being asked to be approved is the split between A and B and um to validate B as a um building lot um under current zoning because it meets it and and Aaron and I have confirmed that.

Okay. So, following up on that question though, you were concerned about the that.59 acre lot being wrapped into this approval. So, why aren't you I I guess I don't understand why you're not concerned about um the uh 80 was it 87 A and B being wrapped in? Because they have structures on them. The.5 acre lot does not. So it's not it's not protected. So if the 0.5 acre lot had somebody built a house on that, that'd be a different

that would they would be protected under this statute. So our our point was we don't want anybody to think that you know by validating parcel B today that there's even a assumption that that validates any other one of the parcels in the subdivision and the fear was that somebody might come along and say hey you know um we've got this.5 acres you approved the map for this you approved the map for that and I didn't want you all to be back here again in however many years uh facing the same question with respect to that lot. And so I it was brought to my attention that the owner was willing to restrict it. And to me that's because now every every parcel will be developed. It you'll be done and you won't have to fight with anybody in the future over an undeveloped lot in this subdivision. So the only the only thing under develop will be the 0.59 acre that'll be set aside for conservation. And is that

is that below the current threshold for conservation size from the last meeting or does it need it? It actually needs it. It needs it. Okay. And who's the other question was about who is going to maintain that conservation land? Um all the other ones around town part of the land conservation trust or something else. So in this in this one. Okay. Well, it's what we just got today. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

We get these two can speak to that. It's not it's not a transfer to the town of Madison. The town is not accepting the property. Uh the uh property owner is placing conservation restriction over the land that is uh essentially under your authority as part of this approval. So um that that agreement has terms in that how the property can be used, maintenance, if there are any uh clearing violations or things like that, structures built. Uh there's an enforcement mechanism built into that restrictive use.

And the owner of the property now is going to maintain ownership, but could potentially transfer it to a land trust if they want it. Um, but then they would be the stewards of it and they would be the ones, you know. No, cuz it's contiguous to anything. Yeah, just by itself. Bunch of trees. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear if that was a question or we're not sure the land trust would accept that.

Oh. Oh, yeah. I I don't know. I don't know. I'm just saying as of right now what is contemplated is the current owner retains ownership and and I hope I was responsive to the the last question. I mean it may be belts and suspenders but I always have to try to think ahead as to the implications of decisions that are made by the boards and commissions that I represent. And to me it just seemed we can clean this up and this will be the end of it for you all. you won't have to keep working through this this issue with this particular subdivision. So, I thought it was um a a pretty good idea to to accept the conservation easement if you accept the map. Now, again, it's your discretion. You don't have to accept the map. That's there's nothing that compels you. But if you do accept the map, I would strongly recommend that you also accept the conservation restrictions.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions from commissioners? If not, I think we can open it up to other attendees. I don't see any hands raised. We have we have no one in person except for the name.

All right. Um, so it's my turn. Um, as I mentioned before at the previous meetings, I represent the immediate neighbor at 30 lane. Um, which would be parcel A1, I think. Um, one of the lots that's not being asked. So, I'll start on that point. I thought there was a curious comment by attorney Olsson where she said, um, if something comes up in the future with regard, because you're not being asked to approve that split, the A1 A2 split. um if something comes up in the future um it's up to them to fix that using the statute. Now that's a problem that only was created by the fact that the subdivision approval didn't come in for all of the lofts being split off that there's still an illegal sub there's still a a split that happened that needed approval and doesn't happen. And so the people who created the problem or say the family because it's now gone down the probate but the family that created the problem is now getting to cash out self leave and being done with it leaving that problem behind that they creating. So it's now while it's not I I'm not going to claim that this is disastrous doesn't make my client's house unoccupiable as Olson proed out. You can't say um you know you can't occupy the house anymore because the structure is occupied already. But to the extent that there's any question about there's a cloud on the title, they have to clear that and that's something that they're leaving behind. Um number two, you're being asked to approve a map from 1957 that is no longer accurate. Um if you look at that map, it shows three lots and there's actually more than that from that map. So that map is no longer an accurate depiction of what's on the

ground. Um that seems to be a little inongruous for approvals of maps. One usually approves a map that on its face depicts what's actually there, not what was there. Um, so I mean this is what I'm getting at is this is all a fiction that that what is happening here is an after the fact attempt to put something right that was wrong. And I get that there's a provision that says hey look if there was a dealision you have the discretion to kind of make it right if it all works out. Well it all it only works out for the person who's doing this. Um for the neighbors they get left with what they get left with. Um, with regard to the open space, um, I'll say for us that's a fallback. I mean, if you do approve it, we would say that you not grant them the waiver of the open space requirement since they have the capacity to provide some open space, which should have been provided had there had this entire subdivision of five lots been done correctly. Um I don't know that the 0.59 acres meets the numbers that you know square footage but let's just go with that. Um as far as the Madison Land Conservation Trust accepting it I I happen to represent them. I know that this would not meet their requirements for open space. They have one they look for contiguous properties. They look for properties that are likely to be threatened. Two that have some eological significance etc that have public access. Um so this wouldn't have public access according to C. So it while I can't say that the board has said this um in my own knowledge that it doesn't meet their requirement. Um so the town will own the CE the the conservation ement which means the town is responsible for occasionally looking at it making sure that it complies and if there's

something wrong enforcing it. I won't suggest that that's a major burden but it's a it's something the town will be adopting. Um it's not like this is not Um, so that's yet a a small favor that the town would be doing for the applicant. Um, again, so they can cash out. They and remember the applicant over the years has cash out. They sold my client their lot. They've sold other lots. They have benefited from the subdivision. Um, why they should get the last one if they walk out the door and leave the mess um based on this. So I'll leave it with

if I may, Madam Chair. Yes, please.

Okay. So, so number one, I I was a proponent of attempting to, you know, have you legalize an entire map that would take care of this whole situation. And and I'll give attorney Cassella a minute to rebut later, but um it was my understanding that the clients that um are are rep the neighbors that are objecting refused absolutely refused to cooperate. So I think it's unfair to suggest that they're leaving something on the table for you. they have no obligation to seek approval of other people's lots. If his clients want their lots legalized, they should be making application or they should have joined with the applicant here. Um, so I think I think that's that's really unfair. And again, whether the land trust adopts it or not, it doesn't matter. The point is with the conservation restrictions, nothing will be built on it. And and that was my only concern was a suggestion that being the last lot after all the rest have been approved, somebody would walk in two, three, four, five, 10 years from now and say, "I want to build on it." And say, "Back when it was split off, it met the the regulations." And you'd be back in this battle again. And so with the conservation restriction, you won't have to deal with that going forward. And now I'm gonna have attorney Cassella um respond.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I I think um that the neighbors have been clear from the beginning that they just don't want a house here, so they're willing to do whatever it takes to not have that happen. Um including consenting to any applications or asking that their properties be included in this subdivision. So what for that reason that's all why we're seeking just approval of the original subdivision of map 908 and to be frank we're providing them with a service because once that map is approved then they can go and get their second map approved and now the commission has all has all the information has a full background and it'll probably be fairly sum, you know, a summary application. So, you know, that's that's I think that's our perspective on on that is we're trying to keep this as simple as possible because obviously there's a lot of opposition to having this a house built on this piece of property. It's a 1acre piece of property. So other than the fact that there's rocks and that there there will pro be some blasting which the blasting company has already reached out to folks to try to make sure that there's not going to be an issue if and when that happens. So you know it my the property owners have been painted in a a light as though they've been acting in very bad faith. And I think that when you start when we start peeling everything away, including the history of how things were handled in some of the ambiguities in the subdivision regulations, hopefully the commission sees that that that wasn't really the case and the the objecting folks are the ones who are benefiting from it and and they're

continuing to benefit even from this application because if this application gets approved, then their map can get approved. Their map can't get approved until ours is approved if you think about it. So again, we've spent a lot of time on this application. So if you have any specific questions for me, I'd be happy to answer. But thank you for the uh thank you for the opportunity.

Uh Madame Chair, if I may through you, um there was a a suggestion that map 908 is not valid. Um, I I have to be honest. I have not seen uh an updated map that suggests that 908 is not not valid. Um, I I'm going to defer to attorney Cassella to address that, but again, this was filed on the land records. The statutes allow you to approve it. And so, I'm unclear as to what's invalid about it. And maybe attorney Cassella could speak to that. Yeah, I I think I think the point that he was making and we can let him speak for himself um is 908 doesn't show the current condition because parcel A was later developed into parcel A and A1. So again, my point is the planning commission has the approved planning and zoning commission in this instance has the appro ability to approve the map that was previously filed which created parcel B. Period. End of story. And that's what we're asking for.

And I think the commission is, you know, understands that when it comes to subdivisions, you're wearing your planning hat. You're not wearing your your zoning hat. And so you're approving lots. you're approving building lots and making sure they comply with your subdivision regulations. So whether houses got built after the fact does not have any bearing on whether the lots um are valid as they as they sit. So um okay,

thank you. I'll just say I'm my think it's unfair to say that um that somehow we're to blame for not participating in the application. Um my clients are put in the position where they either have to consent or not and they've chosen not to because it's their prerogative not to not because that's some sort of blamew worthy activity. Um, had this been done correctly in the beginning, all of the lots would have been planned according to subdivision rigs, um, and this procedure would not have been necessary. My clients wouldn't have to be here. They won't have to be here in the future doing some other application. Um, and uh, then I'll make one other comment about the the reason for that language that says the provision of roads or streets. Um, the way I understand zoning is that the subdivisions is that having been a first and a public works director, um, was that the towns were really concerned about having to take over roads that were substandard. And so at the time they were saying, if you're going to create a subdivision, you've got to come in for approval because we want to see what kind of road you're building, what kind of road you're providing. Um, and the reason why they took it out is because the new subdivision rags in 1960s included subbase with snow shelves, drainage, and all the things that made a road a subdivision road that was able to be um adopted by the town as a town road and met town road standards. Um, so that's why that language was there and then was taken out because it was taken into another version of Wix. Um, I think that's more of a an aside because I don't think that really affects what we're doing here. Um, but that clarifies it.

Thank you. I just I also just want to add that the the parcels that we're considering tonight, the the main 1acre building lot and then the approximately half acre reservation land. Yes. Were both uh filed as on the records on the town records in 1957. So, I mean that's part of the complicated history. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? I don't

Yeah, I guess I'm looking at map 908. It's got a town clerk stamp on it. What this map from was accepted by the town in 1957. It I guess I what what standing did that does that have? So, so the the clerks don't determine property rights, whether something's valid or not. Um, you know, maps get filed all the time without, you know, you get people file survey maps that aren't stamped by the planning and zoning commission, whatever. Um, the clerks just stamp them received. They don't they don't they don't examine them for validity or legal effect. So, it's not at all surprising to me. I mean, we see this all the time, and I'm sure Aaron can can confirm that. Uh, we do see this uh a lot. Um, it's certainly gotten better since now, you know, most planning and zoning regulations and subdivision regulations require that it be approved by the chair of the commission before it gets filed, the myar before it gets filed. But

even if they were to file a MYAR without that, the clerk's not going to know anything different. It would just be a mistake. It would be an error and that would have to be corrected down the road. But the clerk doesn't know whether it's a valid map or not. But then this parcel was put onto the tax rules and has been taxed as as a building lot, I think. Is that right, Aaron? as a lot. I don't know.

Yes, it is currently taxed as a building lot. I I have not done the research as to whether or not it has been taxed since the 1950s as a building lot. That would take some research. I I did not while you're here. So, question for attorney. So is it fair to say that your client's interest is you would like to see approval of the entire subdivision so that the legal cloud is gone but they don't want to see that because they object to the house being built on this lot that the applicant was asking for approval. I think the first part we we say is no big question. Um, we we oppose additional houses being built on this because right now they don't have the right to it and we're asserting the right to not have that extra house. Um, that's one of the um consequences of not having had it approved entirely. If it had been done before every anybody any of these lots were sold, no owner, no current owner would have had a say. It would have been the developer and the town would have come together and said this is appropriate and then it would have been sold out. Now that we have a stake in it, we're an owner of the subdivision. Um, and it's our right to say we would prefer not to have additional prow. Um, and these folks who are cashing out don't have a right to do so. Had they wanted to do so, they could have approached the neighbors and struck a deal with them. They could have before they sold the locks cleaned it up. There were other things they could have done to avoided the objection. Um it it's obviously my client's interest to, you know, not have uh crowding in their neighborhood. You know, it's a very tight area.

How did the neighbors have a legal shake? Um well, one worm and butter. So we are now going to have a septic system that's as close to our boundary. We're going to have blasting done. Um so as a as statutory of others under the 8-3 statutes, we have a statuto right of appeal from any P&Z decision. Right to appeal. Um and so obviously we're here to make the pitch before we have to to avoid it. We have a hand. I was just going to tell you, Madam Chair, um Christina Camdella,

if you could identify yourself for the record.

Sure. Yes. Um Christina Camdella, 46 Hamilton Drive. I just I I want to echo that um as one of the uh adjacent neighbors that um attorney Ainsworth is uh correct in the way he's positioning this. Um to to subject to to suggest that um the neighbors are not cooperating is really terribly unfair. um to be sold your house with a shadow hanging over it and then be told that you need to agree to the person who sold it to you to develop a piece of property that you understood could not be developed in order to make your house legal is insane and um that's what's happened here. I also just want to echo that um if the commission does accept the conservation easement um and it's not going to be accepted by the land trust, it does not have a required maintenance in it and it has not been maintained and the commission if they are going to accept the the the conservation trust should require regular maintenance on that property of dead trees. You can go see it right now. It is not maintained. Um, and the last thing I'll add is that the open space requirement when the original subdivision, if it had been done correctly, would have been much more significant than the half an acre right now that's being proposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No one else has their hand raised, Madam Chair. Okay, there are none then. Um, I have a motion to close the public hearing and move to deliberations. I'll provide that. Second discussion in favor hearing closed. Any further thoughts, comments? This is a complicated application and we hope we never see anything like

I'll just start off just taking our time. We got a lot digging in should make a good discussion tonight because especially report we do have a pretty good record. We have to do our best to uh get it right. Uh there's a lot of moving pieces here. I think that um legal opinion that attorney Olsson provided was very helpful. I mean this whole idea of giving approval potentially having a 0.59 acre lot be an actual lot in the future would have been a big surprise. Uh and we really got two questions in front of us right one is home whether to approve the new building lot which does meet all the requirements. Second question is whether to accept this easement or to wave fee wave a fee. Right. Yeah,

I think the obviously proving the log is the tough regard that one seems a lot easier. Easement the easement isn't open to the public. So even if they have been in the 1950s, I mean there's a mention in the regulations about park or playground. So it wouldn't even met the met the standards back then. I mean, it's equivalent of me saying I won't develop my backyard, right? It's not not really doesn't meet the spirit of of the open space fee or set aside regulation, but it is necessary.

My thought is that it is preserving a small chunk of land in this cluster of houses. Yeah. A little bit of green space. No, it's not going to be a playground or a park, but it's also not ever going to get older in order I hope. Well, so it sort of protects it that way. Aan provides a buffer for the um Hamilton Drive 46 Hamilton Drive property. Um well, it is a requirement for us to approve the subdivision, right? So, we have to accept that they can wave the open space requirement.

Well, we could, but what's the justification for that? I mean, you know, expensive talk about that. It's fairness. I think the fairness issue is like to all the other property owners who did pay for subdivision in new of we've had several farmers that we've approved and there there was others during the pandemic before for before our time. So, it's customary. Um I guess the other thought is is what I mean the argument that the property taxes that paid on this lot which are approximately $50,000 since they got approval potential approval back in 2019 is roughly equal to the fee in lie of and therefore they should pay the fee which doesn't really make any sense.

Yeah. Okay. So, uh my thought is we need to accept easement if we're going to provide approval. We should apply the fee in L of to this property just as we have in the past others and we should wrestle with whether or not we want to improve the building lot.

Hey, um I just want to be just be clear on something that attorney Olsson said. We cuz I know in the past there's been things we've looked at where we didn't really have the right mentioned this to Aaron last time. We didn't really have the right to say no um because it met all the requirements. Um but what I'm hearing I'm not hearing that now. I'm hearing even though it's a the building lot as proposed meets the requirements um it's still within our discretion to approve all this and I just want to make sure that that is the case. Okay, then that's and we're wearing our planning through this.

I don't distinguish that. And I don't mean to be led, but you don't need to lead the witness on that. So, um, so John, are you suggesting we suggest an actual fee in L instead of the conservation easement? uh yeah or in addition to

well there's the question of in addition to thinking so first of all there's a fee in the related to this particular law which is I think approximately $45 to $50,000 right so there's that that's the first and I don't know whether we can say well look we're going to go back to 19 1950s improve the subdivision can we imply some type of fee in of the states for that Sean I I just want to clarify that the open space set aside it's it can be served through a a dedication of open space or a fee in lie. Okay.

And and when this initially came in this application did not have a set aside. So the question at that point would be are you looking for a fee was were you looking for a fee in L or um a waiver of that and that's where that uh request from the applicant came in for the waiver and then as the hearing progressed that's when the applicant had offered that deed restriction over that parcel as to satis ify that open space. Well, well, does that

clarify that a little bit? Okay. Well, I mean, that's a clever move by an applicant because it's not a building lot anyway. It's pretty much And if it gets out of the $45,000 fee, so that's a bad thing. Well, it's a bad thing from the perspective of all these other property owners who paid the fee property owners. No, no, no. I'm talking about other come before us in the past recent other other property owners

who have come before us in the past few years who have subdivided land and we've applied the fee in Luff and they've paid it and we've also had conservation space set aside. Okay, it goes both ways, right? And it's a case by case, right? But reason we charge the fees, right? Usually because well, always because the land that would have been set aside wouldn't have met the standards that the of space.

Yeah. I just I I have trouble dealing with the notion of uh neighbors said they understood that that castle could not uh be built upon. Uh we had a um a palent in our time who was upset about the new the new school that when he bought his property, he didn't think there'd be a school there and he objected to the buses and additional transportation. And uh I think our response was, you know, well, just kind of like with sidewalks now, you may not have you you bought your property without a sidewalk there,

but times change and you get you may not like the responsibilities on it. You have to keep snow off it. So I I'm just I don't know how much credence to give the uh notion of that uh you know why did they understand that you know the things couldn't be built there doesn't seem they have a document they documented nothing so I seems to expectation

no win some lose some and we're not talking about putting a uh uh a sales building for marijuana on this property. Anyway, that too. Well, that's I realized it would do better if it's by the high school actually play a whole other issue go into at this time.

Janet, uh do you have any comments or question or thoughts to share? Um, I I just want to say that I think that um, you know, what Carrie explained to us was very helpful to me. Um, I am I mean I know we're are are we getting ready to vote or should we talk about how our how we feel about this? I mean, I'm for approving the parcel um to be built on.

Thank you, Max. Thoughts? Uh, no. I think um what Carrie said makes it more of a pretty not pretty clearcut but like clearer cut legal issues and I think it seems like more of a do you follow the legality the by the book or is it more of taking into account what the neighbors want and I think uh to your point down there it's times change. I think a lot of people who might have bought their house in town at some point like we've done special exceptions, right? Like uh look at Barberry Farm. People across the street weren't expecting there to be eight houses across the street from them, but times change and you have to adapt. And I think, you know, again, we're not talking about a McDonald's here, talking about one more house. And I think it's a good compromise with the um conservative uh conservation. And I think uh it was Christina's point about needing to be maintained. I don't necessarily agree with that because it's not maintained right now. So it' be basically the neighbors wanting an additional luxury, which is kind of a stipulation there I don't necessarily agree with. Um so I think it's in my opinion I'd be inclined to more follow the the legal basis here as opposed to the emotional basis.

Thanks John. Aaron, if we we we're approving map 908, which is just parcel A and parcel B. Is that my is that my understanding? Is that understanding correct?

The request from the applicant. You're correct. The and the letter speaks to that today that we have a copy of there from Attorney Cassell is uh seeking that the commission approve that law or that math number 9008 validating that as a building block. Okay. So, taking the 3 plus acre parcel, well, almost 4 acre parcel and splitting into a one 1.2 and a 2.6 something like Yeah. Um, this one I I've been struggling with this one for a while. Um, Max, I like I like your your thoughts about the legality. Um, I I do I don't see how we cannot approve it. I mean, this is this map's been on file. They've been paying taxes on it. Um, but I do feel I don't feel like the easement is is the right remedy here. I mean, it the lot can't be built on. Um it would have to be maintained as um per the town regulations as a as a someone's lot. They was going to have to maintain it. Um I would I would really like to see a an actual fee in move be paid.

Well, I would tend to agree with that. Right. So I mean then there's the question of what is the foo for this whole thing and I'm not sure we can even answer that. But the conservation easement as nice as it is and as necessary as it is doesn't come close to satisfying the open space requirement. I mean even if we went back in time I mean it says right here page 22 open spaces and natural features provisions for open spaces for use as parks or playgrounds should be considered by the subdivider may be required by the commission. And then we've got the letter from Boner. It says it should be considered. Yeah, it should be considered. Why? Consider it may be required. That's right. And then says here letter today. I'm think public access. Basically, it's not there's no public access is the point, right? So, what the applicant is saying is, well, I got this land. I can't build on it. I'm gonna put an e on it and let it grow. And that is nice, but it doesn't satisfy that doesn't come close to satisfying building space requirements even by the standards of way back in the days. So if we're going to go down the route of approving it and leaving it up to the neighbors to take it up superior court and maybe that's the way we're going. It seems to me that in ter in order to be fair and to fairly apply the open space of the regulations, we ought to take the easement because that's necessary for the people of that of the old subdivision but also also charge the fee in the l of open space for the new lot that they want.

Oh well no there is a statement on page five the grantor of agreed it should be agreed but not agree to pay any real estate tax or other assessments levied by competent authorities on consideration reason and I I think by you can tell by my question for we're not I'm not favor in any shape or form of approving a model. Okay. Okay.

I am and um I actually did do the math in terms of the size of this one parcel that proving or what and how much how much land it is conservation set aside and that and it does meet that requirement. Um it doesn't meet what you're describing, John, of the uses of it

as intended, but it's I'm not sure that is actually a requirement. It's a a may versus a shall. Um so I'm okay with the proposed the proposal to allow allow it to be a building one and accept the conservation easement on that small parcel which I think actually benefits the whole neighborhood um by preserving that chunk of green space. I agree to add some money. I do not buy that there's a property value risk but that's the case here. Um is there a provisioning that the owners of going to propose to approve any that property in life to accept it? What is our obligation and for that's what I'm concerned that's just going to sit there and continue to grow we need to do something

add a condition yeah the land trust isn't going to take it they can so apply and if they decide not to then the owners on them or whoever the future owners are maintaining some degree uh Yeah, because it's a private road. Sounds like Sounds like the neighbors. The neighborhood's going to definitely the neighbors have no standing to do anything other than complaint. Well, they you if you let when it goes into the trust or if it goes to the town agrees to maintain it, then there's an obligation. Someone from the town would come look

just like a zoning enforcement official will look and see if someone's breaking the zoning. In this case, no one even knows what this is and everything. that no one's going to have access to. I think it's it's a it's a throw in my opinion just to you know to try to make it to sweeten the body. That's it. It doesn't conform.

Madam Chair, if I may, I haven't had a chance to look at what attorney Cassella proposed, but I've drafted a number of conservation eents and I think we're there might be some confusion here. It's like apples and oranges. Um it's not being proposed to be dedicated to the town for open space. There's no correct me if I'm wrong, Aaron. There's no intent here to transfer the property in the town, but rather to put a deed restriction on it, acknowledging it that it can never be improved. So, it'll it'll sit there as a halfacre of woods is what it'll sit it what in its natural state is what I'm understanding. That's so I just wanted to make sure we're all aware the difference. You know, when you look at your open space rags and they talk about parks and this and that, that's not is what what is being proposed here. What's being proposed here is it sits in its natural state and is can never be built upon.

Am I right, Erin? Yes. There there is a section in that document that says exceptions where the grantee may seek approval uh acting through the P&Z. Um permit the removal of dead trees, dead brush from the premises and also um permitting the maintenance conserv you know maintenance of the conservation easement area including but not limited to pruning and thinning of live trees and brush on said premises. So there's it's an option, not a not a not mandatory. Okay. Is that that's what's being proposed, right, Aaron? Yes.

Optional, not mandatory. Okay. So, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. So, if you want to put some obligations in there, then I just wanted to make sure we're both on the same page or we're all on the same page that this is not an open space dedication. and stick with and therefore there would not be public access. I didn't think it was to begin. Okay. Okay. I was just hearing a lot of open space talk and parks and stuff. It's a comparison that it wasn't. Sorry, I'll be quiet.

It's not ready to preserve the farm. I mean, it's nothing like that. It's not going to be used like that. Sure. Um I just personally think it's a throw in. I think in this case, again, personal opinion, personal belief, but if they have the discretion, I I'm going to go with the side of the neighbors in this room. I think that they they bought under one premise. Whether that was right or wrong, the town's basically screwed this thing up for 70 years. Um, and why should they be stuck at the burden? I wouldn't be happy if it was in. So, so you're arguing for the illegal subdivision and not enough reason now to legalize it. Yeah. You want to enforce them do it just so one person can sell some rock.

Okay. Um, I think we've heard from everyone and um I would actually I don't know Erin if we have any drafts to refer to but I propose that we may have a motion to approve it and accept the conservation easement proposal and maybe I don't know how I don't know how to read it like some excuse we few variables there. One is to approve it or not and the second issue is is the open space requirement. What you're saying is easement satisfies it for the whole thing. The de restriction restriction.

Yes, that's I mean that's that seems to me like the most simple way to make a motion and we can vote in favor or against that. But I'd be open to hear from other people.

Any any member can make a motion. Um if and and if that's seconded, then that will open up discussion um amongst the commission for any recommended. Is there a possibility of amending your motion to add a uh fee and loomer taxes on this fee and do well? Yeah, I was trying to keep it simple, but we have we have as as said first of all approve whether the lot can become okay

to build then we can wave any conservation requirements we can have a fee in L we can have this proposed lot accepted as a conservation well for some of us the vote on what to do with the lot and whether there's an additional will uh should come first because whether we vote to improve the subdivision depends on what happens with that. I may not be alone or alone. I'm not certain. I would agree with that. So, so we should maybe have we got few few

Yeah, it's complicated options permutations. Yeah. So, well, one what I suggest for approval Yeah. includes acceptance of the ease. It also includes the original TU of open space for this new building line. I agree. I agree with you. You're saying the lot and then made sort of all of the above, right? Au and accept the e. That's one way to go. I I think one of my questions is whether or not a fee loo was in the zoning or the subdivision regulations at the time.

Uh it didn't sound like it by the open space set aside that is in your current subdivision regulations. Yeah. Um so I'm not sure which set of regulations you're referring to. So I was just referring to the original proposal. We started this meeting, right, which was a fee in lie of space for approval of this new building model. So that was up that was on the table. That was on the table at our first meeting, I think, at the first presentation, but that was before we went back and looked at the 1957, which is when it was divided.

The fund was not legal back in 19. It wouldn't have been legal in 19 Am I Am I wrong here? My understanding is that in 1957 it was legal. It was the year before. It was it was originally it didn't have the right right aways. It didn't there was no access to a public brick. It took away the stream only only with respect to the subdivision regulations zoning regulations didn't require

the the zoning regulations in 1957. These lots met the regulations then the low the lot 87-2 does not meet your current regulations. The regulation 2.4 4 as is shown in the 57 regulations did not require an exclusive right of way. the regulations subsequently changed which was why this when this was discussed to you as attorney Cassell or discussed by the commission and and in those records from 2018 that regulation required an exclusive right of way to a public road. This subject lot would not have complied with the zoning regulations until after that modification of the regs took place in 2019. So now 87-3 meets your current zoning regulations

and the 87-2 still does not because of the size of lot area. Correct. So when the lot was split in 57, it was a legal buildable lot with with respect to size it was legal. Yes. The fact that there are houses built on the other ones done on either side of that implies to me that they were legal at that time.

Well, we spent a long time on that, right? So, the house sells, but the subdivision was two new houses, right? stole her club. Why don't property but but wait but but regarding this this lot that we're being asked to approve. So first of all start off we're not being asked to group one lot with a fu of yes okay so then change to we're being asked to group the whole thing the fe of is disappearing I I don't recall the applicant ever proposing a fee in lie no open space set aside no they proposed a waiver of the fee in l

a waiver of the open space requirement which could be satisfied in your definition in your regulations by either a dedication of open space or a fee in L. Okay. So they never suggested they say they requested a waiver of the requirement altogether which the regulations allow but requires a 3/4 vote of the commission to grant that waiver of that section of the open space regulation. That was my understanding. That's why I I use the words throw in but that's this.59 acres is is involved.

Well, but but the regulation is very clear that it's at discretion of the commission the applicant figure out whether there should waver or fee above or open space. That's correct.

Or both. Okay. But so but but that's my recollection is correct. That's the progression here, right? We were asked to consider a waiver over the for this one lot. And if applicants said no, we prefer a waiver. We said they want a waiver and they deserve a waiver because they've been paying property taxes since 2019 since the tax change. And now we're arguing for the waiver of the fee in lif. Right. Okay. And then it changed especially today. Now we're being asked to approve 1957 subdivision. All of a sudden the fee in lie of is disappearing with this new lot and instead the applicant say well which.59 acres that we're going to put on and that's going to satisfy the open space requirement. Correct. So my point is it doesn't satisfy the spirit of the open space in subdivision regulations at all. In fact said it's a toss in right. So, they've gone from potentially paying $50,000 to the open space fund for their lot that they want to not paying $50,000 and getting the lot that they want.

Well, they were requesting a waiver, right? Yeah. Either way, either way, they're starting to pay. But were we going to grant the waiver? We didn't get that far. We didn't get that far. So, is our our our decision can be just to reject the waiver, right? But do we get to decide if there is a fee and if so what that is or it just Okay. So it's it's already been determined. So it would just be either approve the waiver or don't approve the waiver and make you make the fee make or pay the fee or approve the parcel or both.

I see this as kind of two separate not two separate things but I kind of I think John what you're getting as two separate issues, right? It's two different things about the retirement date. I mean, if if the answer here is going to be we're going to approve all as it is, let them toss in the 0.59 acres, which isn't a lot to satisfy the open space, then that just seems kind of irresponsible. I mean, I would go along with saying no to send that to the superior court. They can argue there otherwise their legal subdivision is legal. I'm confused about one thing. Doesn't does or does not the 0.5 million acre satisfy the open space requirement. Does it satisfy?

I don't think so. No area. It does. It's an open space. It doesn't. It's an ease. It's not an open space technically as John was just saying it doesn't. It can't be a playground or a park. It's not public. Okay. It's It is. It's just like here here's some extra land that we can't do anything with. You know, we'll throw it in just to prove the other stuff. Prove the prove the building lot. But is it requirement that it be useful for a playground or is it just be is it the requirement just to have a certain amount of acres? What is it required? I think it was requirements on acreage and then the other was a consideration to have back in the days. Yeah, it's a consideration.

It's a mayor shout. Yes. Okay. So, all right. So, it is a thing of can be used. I agree with the point there, but there's no requirement that it meet that uh not the way I've read it. But I think John's point I tend to agree is that it doesn't spirit of what was written. Okay. Really, you know, so the intent is what you're arguing. Yeah. I don't think there's any black letter law specifically. All right. I just want to make sure that it does meet the open space requirement. That's it. But it doesn't. But I can argue that. Yeah, I can't. It's okay.

Well, I can also believe that and vote against it. That's true.

The the regulation itself is section 3.11 of your subdivision regulations. Not less than 10% of the total area of the subdivision shall be provided and reserved as open space for recreation or conservation purposes as defined in the statute 7-131. The land reserve shall be of such size, location, shape, topography and general character as to be useful to satisfy the above purposes. uh there are limitations on wetlands. It said open space shall be left in its natural state unless approved by the commission for park, playground or similar recreational uses. Uh talks about no clearing, grading use as repository for stumps, brush, other types of earth and debris. Minor grading or clearing of trails could be permitted by the CEO. Um, it says that subdivision shall make provisions subject to the approval for the permanent maintenance of such open space either by conveyance to the town by the establishment of a duly organized improvement association or neighborhood association or by other means acceptable to the commission. Uh recognizing that dedication of open space may not be desirable or appropriate in all situations, the commission may instead accept a fee or any combination of land and fee provided that the fee does not exceed 10% of the fair market value of the land prior to subdivision.

Um you The subdivider shall indicate in the application whether land a fee and loo there or thereof a combination is being proposed. You can accept or alter the approval or the proposal. There is also the provision further in the regulation that allows for a request of a waiver of this section. There are a few sections that are able to be waved.

So, when we're looking at the size of this subdivision, are we looking at the full um three three and a quarter acres or are we only looking at the 1.02? We're just looking at this one parcel just well the map 908 is parcel A and parcel B. parson B for this application. So, aren't we wouldn't this be the approval of splitting a parcel this whole parcel into A and B? No. No, it's already been done.

Typically, an open space is a 10% of the mother lot as the census when it's a legal subdivision. this I mean part I think John I don't know if this is going to help but part of my way of thinking is that this was a division of 4.3 acres in the 1950s and 1960s we now have these separate lots this is the last lot that hasn't been built on that can be built on the others have that our regulations allowed to be built on have been built on that helps explain this application and put exactly where

if we are this according to attorney Olsen we are essentially or I'm sorry attorney Gassella we are essentially providing a path for the elders to become more legal

and we're validating this lot not the 4.3 acres not the 3 acres not parcel B not parcel A in A1, not 46 Hamilton. It's complicated. So, I guess that's why I was trying to establish a way to keep it as simple as possible.

You make sense? and have a motion to approve the validation of this lot and accept the proposed conservation easement that we just received today. Well, I think maybe one confusion here or or not confusion but difficulty is that I think that I'm I'm hearing three three options. One is just say no period. The other is uh accepted as as put forward by attorney Gella. And the third option is accepted but uh with the easement and fee in Luke.

I think that's right. Those are those are the three that are certainly maybe. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. This table. Okay. So um straw poll of accepting that as proposes of today that's one two three one two three so is that option one two or three option two charts well option one would be to turn the whole thing down all right so option one str who's who's against regarding conditions or easements Just turning it down flat out. That was me. That's okay. Nice one. Okay.

Okay. Make it easy for everyone. Okay. And John, you're you're leaning toward both and exactly. How many people would go for that? Four or more ch and I don't know about you. I'm for approving the lot, which I think we should do first one way or the other. Yeah, that's I mean that's another way to approach it is to have a motion to approve or not approve and that that's what I think we should do first and then the low or whatever we do.

Oh, that's a bad preference of those of us who favor it with one condition and you know are going to be we're going to vote no even though we want this to go forward. I think that's where and so don't that's not a that's so I don't you know I don't agree with the fianl as well as the easement but I would vote against it. You would or you would not

I think that's on the same vote. I think uh I think we should approve it. But if we wanted to add a condition, that's the right word be then I I'm for that as well. Janet. Yes. I'm I'm for approving. I mean I think our task is to approve or deny map 27 lot 873 zone R2. And I am I'll make a motion to approve that lot or not. I don't know how to say it, right? Yeah. How about this? I think

I mean I think they're two separate things. That's that's how I see it. And I know you don't see it like that. It's not how we're either way. Your vote is to approve it. Okay. One way you're going to approve it. No, I'm not. If it's if it doesn't have the fee with it, I I I vote no. Oh, I see. I don't know how others will vote, of course. Well, sounds like we have George. May I suggest that somebody make a motion um that maybe amends Janet's motion to add

um as the conditions the um um conservation u deed restriction and a fee in loo but I I do want to caution I do not think at this juncture you can legally require them to pay an open space fee for the entire subdivision. I think I think many of you realize that, but I was hearing some other and I I just wanted to make sure I I do not think you can legally do that. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, do you want to make a motion?

And I think I think Aaron has a draft motion. So, it would just be a matter of adding the fee and Lou and maybe maybe that would be helpful. I don't know. That's very helpful. Okay. And I think you each have a copy, so I'm not sure who's Yeah. Sorry. I don't I don't have a copy of that. It's It's behind the applicants. Yeah. The last one. You're right, Janet. You don't. I apologize because you're No, no, don't don't apologize. I was supposed to be there in person, so don't apologize. It's my fault.

What we need to do is a motion to amend Janet's motion and a second. Then you have discussion. So moved. Okay. The amendment is a Eron. Can you share the draft motion of the screen?

Yes. Let me pull. While she's doing that, has anybody calculated what your fee in L would be for this one one lot? Yeah. The number three is

Yeah, it was discussed in the first meeting, I believe. $46,690 for I'm sorry, how much? $36,690 for for one lot from the fair market. This is from attorney Cassella's request for waiver. Currently, the fair market value imposed by the town assessor is 4,00 $466,900. 10% of that amount is $46,600.

I live in the wrong town. Why don't we Why don't we put that in the motion? Yes. And action. Yeah. What was the value?

46,690. Uh the 10% that's the 10% 46

is prior to the transfer correct Carrie. Yes. I'm sorry. Question for Carrie. No, no, I agree. I'm sorry. I just turned the body off because I was drinking my water. I

I suppose if they decide they'd rather dedicate 10% of the lot, but they could come back to you for a modification if that's the case. So, I had a a motion from Bob O' Conor to amend that. Yep. And there was a second. I don't know who it was. Refresh just for a minute. Taking who seconded that? I don't think anyone did. I don't think so. John second. Thank you. And any further discussion so we all understand truly what we're voting on

at this point. No, what you have to do first is vote on whether to amend. I know it's a pain. You vote on whether to amend. So you vote on whether to amend and then once the amendment is accepted then you have discussion and then you vote on the ultimate motion. Okay. So we have a motion. Could I have a motion to amend? The motion to amend is to add a requirement for fee and new and a second for that motion. Second,

John. Any further discussion? All in favor of that amendment. And now a motion to accept the draft is written now. And now it might it's up to you, but it might be worthwhile to read it. I don't know. It's up to you to have somebody read it as it's been amended with errands. I think we should read it. John, see it? Uh, motion to motion a little bit, Eron. Maybe I'm trying. I can't see it. Not very good without a mouse.

Thank you, John. Motion to approve pursuant to Connecticut's general statutes 8-26D as a valid subdivision map number 9008 filed on the Madison land records on November 13th, 1957. This decision is based on the historic information provided in application 25-28 Bushnell Lane, map 27, lot 87-3, zone R-2. Owner applicant Linda H. fast reubdivision application to legalize division of property from 1957 and upon the finding that the parcel meets current zoning regulations. The commission acknowledges and accepts the applicant's offer to place a conservation restriction over the parcel known as map 27 lot 872 which is also owned by Carolyn Dwire trustee and partially shown on map number 908. This parse will remain undeveloped in perpetuity. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall file an affid affidavit on the Madison land records noting the commission's validation of math 908 as well as the conservation restriction on parcel 27-87-2. Prior to filing on the land records, the town attorney shall review and shall review said affidavit language a fee in lie of open space in the amount of $46,690 be paid to the town of Madison prior to the transfer of the parcel. Effective date of this approval shall be March 5th, 2026 and upon filing of the affidavit and conservation restriction on the Madison land records.

Thank you. Could I have a second? I think there's supposed to be a shall after the 46690.

Shall you're Thank you. No problem. No problem. It's okay. You don't have to reread the whole thing. I just wanted to make sure that what was written was we would like you at each of our meetings. Okay. Yes, definitely. Thank you. Okay. Could I have a second? Sorry. John Da, any further discussion? All in favor as written. How many? Janet is in favor. So there are there eight of us here tonight. So that's seven opposed. Anyone abstaining? No. So one is any thank you everybody. That was a really hard one.

Yes. And I really appreciate all the discussion and thoughts and input from this. and especially uh attorney Olsson, thank you so much for You're welcome. I'm gonna tell you, it was a hard one for me, and I' I've been doing this a long time and uh it was it was a tough one. And thanks to Aaron, though. I mean, she did the lion share of the the research. So, uh it was a tough one. Thank you, Carrie. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is a pending application for 25-26 196 Durham Road 58 lot 14 zone RU2 owner applicant temple benefit site plan modification application to change original site lighting landscaping and parking driveway area material. Would you like anybody to join remotely? Originally approved by the way was approved. Tom Stevens is okay. Should we? Oh, sorry. I'm sorry to keep you waiting. I have to uh I have to excuse myself. No, no. I have a conflict. I'll promote them just in

case or whatever. Thank you for your patience. I got to see town politics. Yeah. The hardest ones we've ever

congratulations Am I good? Am I on? You're good. So, my name is Ben Muskin. Been a Madison resident for about 31 years. Been a Temple member for the same amount of time. I'm currently the chair of facilities, which I have been for the last year and a half at Temple DBT. I've been chair of security uh and safety for the past two and a half years. So, um, we're asking for a modification to a site plan that was approved originally 2019. Going to give a little bit of history, uh, just for context. Um, and we basically raised our building in the fall of 2019. Not the whole building, but this the sanctuary, social hall. Um, and then something happened in 2020 called a pandemic. and um a series of unfortunate events caused the project to go way over budget and hey way too long. Um so we were fortunate to get approval from the fire marshall and the building inspector to occupy the building. Um but um we did not have the opportunity to finish all the site work. Um we are now um prepared to finish um not we're now prepared to finish a modified site plan. Um we did Are you going to pull up the uh We did finish the landscaping that fronts Durham Road. Um we did all the lighting the the um the um uh driveway parking is in. Some of it is going to be requiring modification. I thought

this is seat one. This is the one that that I want to talk to. Okay,

this is the one I'm looking for approval on. Um, so we do we do have we did scrape together a budget to do some of the work that uh we think we hope the modified work will will be sufficient to grant us a co. Um, there were three categories. There was lighting, there's some uh curving, and then there's some horiculture. The lighting, I think, is pretty straightforward. There's a light here and here that we're looking to wave requirements on. Um, we have lights around the perimeter and there's a it's not shown here, but on the side of the building here, there's two giant flood lights. The place is really well lit. Um, so that's basically the lighting we're looking to um we're looking to um get waved that those two additional ones. Um the what we're pl what we're prepared to do this spring is put in uh I got a nice education from Aaron about two weeks ago. Uh put in curbing here, here, here to define that parking space. Um pink.

The pink. Thank you. Um, we're also going to put this landing island at the bottom of there's stairs that go down to the parking. Put the landing island in. Um, makes a lot of sense. Um, we're going to put this island in to help define this parking. And we're going to put this island in to define this parking. We're looking to wave this island in the middle. it would just confuse things um a lot. Um we have a south entrance and a north entrance and people usually um come in one out the other and if we have people going in circles and coming in one out the other. Um it's a little it can be a little confusing. We have a preschool down here that uses this slot and part of this slot. So we're looking to get a waiver on that island. Um we are um looking the the the two major modifications I I have the lights and that island, but the two major modifications we're looking for is not to pave this gray area. This this white area was never intended to be paved. This lot was never intended to be paved, but this was ideally we will get to that paving um when we had the resources to do it. Um the pro the the surface is in pretty good shape. Of course, we won't be able to line areas with permanent lining, but by putting in this horseshoe island and this, we think we're defining that parking space pretty well. Um the the other thing I'll add is whenever we have I think we put yeah you'll see the

numbers here Aaron that are the number of parking spots. So it does equal 140 spots. Whenever we have an event that has more than 100 people 100 90 100 cars we always have parking attendants wearing the yellow vest with the lights um to make sure that parking um is is well organized and well managed. So that uh paving that gray area, not that because that was never intended, is the is a major modification. The other major modification is sort of in two parts. The original plan had some plantings here and plantings right in front of the building. My security advisor says don't put plants in front of a building. Um, and of course security is is uh been heightened and expensive since uh October 7th. Um, so we're looking to get modific and and there was going to be some plantings there, but that's that's hopefully will be there. All the plantings that are here, if you drive by, you'll you'll know that they're in. The other uh major modification is our landscape architect went went I think overboard and put a whole bunch of uh plantings here. That's important because we have a neighbor back here. Oh, the other thing I'm sorry, back to the pink. There's a a telephone pole right there. And right now our neighbors have legal right away and they drive between the fence, this fence property and the telephone pole. They go back and forth here. Um that I with this new traffic pattern for us that was that was an accident waiting to happen. So, we're going to curb around the telephone pole so that and

this is this is wide enough for two-way traffic so they can get back easily and we can come in and go out easily. So, that's going to go in. Um, okay. So, the other this go away. It's just going to be contained by a curb. It's going to be there's going to be and we're probably going to put at least grass, maybe a plant in there.

The plants. Um, so we have neighbors back here. um when we did the construction, this part of the lot, this last row um was um that was added. That was There used to be a burm here and it's this is all wooded. Um, and we we flatten the burm and um, but it's it's there's a lot of ledge in there and it's going to be really uh, I've had a couple I've had a landscape guy and a members of who's a horiculturalist um, um, looked at that and it's going to be challenging to put all that all that uh, uh, the plantings in that the that were in the original plan. So the idea is to put as many these large arborvite like clusters of three fencing uh probably one or two panels one or two panels and interspersed with clusters of arborite. Um importantly um I do have uh buyin from or acceptance from my neighbors and we I have a sign that which I give to Aaron

that is in the file. So, they're they're comfortable with that. Uh, which is great. Um, this was this wasn't in the original, but the dumpsters used to be down here before the before the uh the renovation. We now have a generator there and and no space for it. So, the dumpsters have been up and will continue to be up here. and we're going to fence that in with the same fencing three sides so they won't be able to see it. Um, so the horiculture modification, none here, none here, and re a redesign here with their that they've approved the paving modification. Again, ultimately we do want to pave it, but we just don't have the funds right now. And um I think that's pretty much it.

Ben, is it that a butter that has the right of way and the driveway going I'm sorry. Say again. Is it that a butter behind the landscaping that has the driveway and the right of way to get in and out that way? So that and they're okay also with going around that light pole and or that they they actually appreciate that. They actually appreciate that. So I have a question about that. Yeah.

Have to worry about emergency vehicles getting around that. No, that was their concern, too. We We walked it just the other day, and this is I believe it's 24 ft, but it's big. It's a two-way traffic. And this makes it look a little a little um acute, but there's plenty of space. I mean, they fire marshall walk it. Did the fire marshall? No. I'll tell you, there's more space here than there was going between. I want to hear what the fire the fire marshall says it's good that's good

that can be a that can be added also if the commission wanted to take action this evening you could add a condition that requires uh the temple to uh review the plan with uh yeah the whole plan make sure

fire access the I can say so Ben and I have worked um since their initial submission. Um the initial submission for modification to the commission basically eliminated um several of these islands and landscape features that helped delineate the parking area. And you'll um you'll see my staff comments um from early January uh raising some of those safety concerns just for u maneuvering vehicular maneuvering around the lot. there wasn't anything that essentially protected the parking spaces from the drive aisle or defined those drive aisles.

And so after um meeting a couple times and working with um the engineering uh firm, this this plan really does um essentially keep all of those features in from the original approval. So, this layout um this parking lot layout is the same layout that was approved with the exception of this landscaped circular bit um in the middle of that was kind of a drop off area and the fire lane. Um and uh that is the applicant. You can see on this there is a note that uh adequate signage will be added here. There are ballards um

yeah the collards in place in there. Um but just some general signage indicating this is not for parking here. This is the fire lane. Um but that access to the um I think it's the eastern parcel. Um that can easily be

Well, can I just can I just say that this bit here was in the original 2019 approved plan. So this is this is going back to the original. I had wanted to get rid of it and just keep them doing that because but what we have here is was originally approved in 2019. So what I'm going to look at because of all the changes in the parking definition where the island is is that birectional traffic or you direction this island?

Yeah. Is the traffic around it birection? So, our policy is if you're going to come to the upper lot, you come up the north driveway. If you're going to go to the lower lot, you come in the south. Is there signage for that? There is not signage for that. I I people actually there was a main entrance. North is main entrance. It is. This is the main entrance. It is the main entrance. And you can go into this lot. But if you're going to come up here, you got to We're It's an education process, but we're still trying to get people to come up here because we want to keep cars to a minimum at the preschool area.

I did hear my question answered. Is the by the island, is the traffic birectional or unidirectional? It is birectional.

Thanks. The um other question that staff had and the the part of the purpose um of having these landscape islands um and these kind of delineations here the the ADA spaces are all paved um and have been paved um for quite some time both in this upper lot and the lower lot and those are striped and labeled. the um having a a gravel parking lot without any of these islands. It was um very challenging for us to determine whether the parking lot was built to compliance with the original approval number of parking spaces. And so this revised plan does provide the um uh dimensions of uh the space to confirm that it does match the previous the original approval. So um the thought is that even though um the the uh process stone is not striped as spaces because most of their larger events are um uh attended uh with parking attendance and kind of you know it gives some flexibility for compact parking versus not. Um, I would say that if the lot does get paved, they should then stripe the parking spaces. Um, but seeing these islands now and the dimensions and once they're installed, that can ensure that we have those um, uh, 9 by eight space rectangles to

right to to meet that 140 spaces. The only other piece I think, Ben, that did we did not in uh talk about in this modification is there are two storage trailers here um on the property and um they look like a temporary trailer uh but the the temple would like to retain those um in the corner uh for storage uh maintenance equipment and things like that for the property. Power too. What's that? Electrical power too. Right. There's no power. They're literally trailers. Yeah. No, no power. Just

the construction trailers were over here. They were up in the back, right?

There questions. Are there neighbors near the uh the storage containers? No, this is wetlands. Okay. And and we'll make sure that we have plantings here that block from them. This wetland system is wooded. Um, and the nearest neighbors would be down off of uh this street that comes back. Hunter Street. Is that Hunt? I can't I think the nearest neighbors are off uh Durham Road down here or back here?

No, that's Hunter's Trail. it backs onto it and yes, but there are Yeah, there are the rear lots. Um, as we said, Kenneth uh Ken and Eileen are the two neighbors who uh signed that landscaping. Um because Yes. Yeah, that it does it provides some buffer to vehicular lights on that level. Um because I had taken some photos in staff comments during during the summer months there's enough under brush that you're not seeing a whole lot but in the winter it does add an extra

No, you said you're going to put folage in place of the island. Um no, there are this line this that comes to a point right here. Um that's all paved. It sort of mimics the overhang of the roof. So there are ballards uh that follow that line to a point and then there's a stone wall with an opening stone wall rocks. All right. So there's nothing in place of the island. It's just going to be it's just going to be open. Just rattle.

The other thing sign of the times is um for any big event or whenever school's in session, we have an armed guard at this on post here and they're they know their post orders say this is fire lane. Nobody parks there. You have a guard when the school is in operation. Is that like Monday through Friday? No. Well, no. Um, Hebrew school. So, afternoon and Sunday, right? Yeah. When you said preschool, I didn't know what that was. Um, preschool, they have very bizarre rules about guards. So, um, no, we don't have it. But,

there's no guard during thatation. Okay. But during Hebrew school, if there's an event for preschool, we have it. Okay. Yeah. Security is tough, for sure. Any other questions, comments?

That case, you have anything else you'd like to add or um Thank you, Erin. Thank you. I did not know what I did not know. In that case, could we have a motion? We have a draft resolution. I've included a draft. Yeah, I did. the last page of page I don't know information what's there still yeah we I think we still have a probation for the fire market of the area as a condition as a condition yeah sure I mean how much difference differences and the original I mean is this it's like which

the yeah the parking lot itself is not really the the largest ch I guess would be just the elimination of that center but your your concern like was to make sure that there was adequate access to neighbors for emergencies, right? But I I guess I heard I heard that that was in the original plan. That was in the original plan. That same traffic say but they've added um redefinitions of some of the parking areas to redefine it better. I want to make sure that he's good with everything. And the and the electric pole. And the electric pole. I want to make sure it's good. I mean, it was approved once before.

That's Yeah. Yeah. That's what I was trying to That's where I was confused. If it's already approved, then I don't see any reason to put any ideas. What? Why? It's been approved. The fire marshall's already approved it. redefine some of the parking areas with some changes and everything. I want to make sure all of the terms are able to still be made carefully. This is the original back in 2019. Yeah. And that was there. That was there. That island's there. I'm there. That's there. And that's it. That's island is there too. And now they got I think it's a proven

but it's a waste of time. It's a waste of the fire department's time. It's a waste of the temple's time. Well, that's my opinion. Vote on modifications. Yeah, I guess section car taught us that we can have a motion to amend. We have a motion to approve. I I would like motion to approve as is. I second. Okay. Guys, don't make me vote against approving. It's do what your conscience tells you. It doesn't matter. Do what you No, I think I agree with you.

I just think it's prudent. That's all. It's prudent. Did you say, you know, I I can tell you that the process of going through the final inspection for the temple for the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and the final certificate of zoning compliance will include the zoning enforcement officer, the fire marshal. You're going to do that before you do the final so he doesn't find a problem later.

There there really I I can say that there really isn't um a delay in the process for the temple to add language that says the applicant shall confirm uh you know adequate uh emergency access um from the fire marshal that is you know that's a matter of sharing the the map with the fire marsh that's I'll accept that it is it it is ultimately up to the commission but It's not a whole other process step which they have to you're saying they have to do anyway to

it's a given finess inspections. Yes. Once all of these improvements are completed then then all of the required parties will do their final inspections in order to um issue the Yes. But my my concern is and maybe I'm just being dumb here. If they find a problem, then then it's more of a problem than if he sees it up front to review it prior to installation. I understand what you mean. I honor earlier this week we they'll be happy to come back. I guess they have to

they have to amended provision that the barber shall take a look. Something that you'd go into anyway. I I don't I don't think it's necessary. It's not necessary. If he if he finds a problem, he just asked out to the CEO, then what happen? Well, what if Aaron finds a problem? Then then it won't go through. That's an inspection. I I think to have a fire marshal look at a plan prior to installation is different than having them come out and it's not going to require a site visit to do that. I'm fine with that. Um, it it would require just simply sharing these plans that came in today.

That's it. That's all I'm asking. Okay, I'm okay with that. But I don't think anything needs to be amended. Okay. Right. Well, we wanted to I think you wanted to add it to the or are you okay just discussing it? As long as we have some I have some assurance that he's going to do that, that's fine. We can do this as an amendment or we can do it as some if he give us his word he's going to do it. We'll be okay. We all work together. I I have no problem sharing the plans with the fire. Absolutely. Okay. So, John Morgan, would you like to read the I would love to read the motion.

Motion voted that application 20- 25-26 196 Durham Road, Map 58, lot 14, zone RU2. Owner applicant temple Beth Tikba site plan modification application to change site lighting landscaping and parking driveway area material from originally approved plan be approved as shown on revised plans entitled site plan modification showing properties of Temple Beth Tikba assessor's map 58 lots 12 and 14 20 and 196 Durham Road 79 Madison Connecticut sheets C1 and C2 prepared by DoubleB Design LLC dated 102325 revised to 21926 the effective date of this approval shall be March 5th 2026

thanks John Conor further discussion in favor favor unanimous one abstension thank you again thank you father Ben. Okay. Um, we have no way. Yeah, I know. Good to meet you.

26-198 Middle Beach Road. And this table to our March 5th, 2026 meeting pending deep referral. Uh, we also have 26-2 6 to9 campus drive. This is the town of Madison site plan occupation for construction of a detached storage building for the police department. I need a motion to table that to our March 19th meeting. So, it gives some time for lack of review. Yes. Unfortunately, AA was cancelled last month. Oh, that's right. Because the store No, they didn't have a quorum. Oh, okay. Sure. and then second for that discussion.

Okay. So that's table to the March 19th meeting. Um we're in receipt of 26-3 plus a coastal site plan for Cottage Road map 30 lot 35 owner uh commerce center Madison LLC applicant Dig and Company LLC and this is for a new building 876 foot mixeduse commercial and residential building. I'm not going to read the whole thing. We want to schedule a public hearing for that for the March 19th meeting. That's John Morgan. A second.

The show in favor. Okay, great. And next, approval of minutes. Secretary John Morgan. I know John say your name is is not Den. Oh, I didn't even notice that. my school. Sounds cool.

Yeah. So, we're uh want to approve the minutes from the uh planning and zoning commission meeting held February 5th, 2026. Members present, Carol Snow, chair, John Dylan, not Dylan, Dooza, vice chair. John Morgan, secretary. Mike Bunga, Bob O'Connor, Janet Peeka, Byan Zoom, Michelle Clark, alternate seated with Max Groom. Commissioner's absence were absent were Jeff DS, Andy Rubin, and Max Groom. Uh motion to review and approve the minutes. So moved. Uh second.

Second. Uh, so any corrections besides correcting John's name to John Duza from Dylan Dooa on the members present? You trying to test me right? I just needed to mess with you a little bit, John.

Interesting. I actually read one small item is page five. Decades should be years. I think they're arguing years of property taxes, not decades. I have one minor u suggested corruption. Also on page four uh there's a line that reads attorney Cassella was present on behalf of the applicant. He provided a letter to the commission that evening as a result of questions raised by the chair. I would suggest a correction to be he provided a letter to the commission in response to questions previously raised by the chair.

Nice. That's good. Anything else? Vote to approve. Janet. Yes, we already have Mike. We already have motions. We had the motions. We had a motion. It was Carol and and Mike. Oh, so we don't have them all in. We had we discussed and we just We don't have to approve the changes. Approve. John, you made all approved. There was a everybody. Okay. Max.

All right. I have no remarks. Oh boy. Further except to say again, thanks for tonight. I do have a question. Uh Aaron, you gave uh out this nice list of everyone's name, address, email maybe couple of years ago. Would you like an updated? We could use an update. This one's kind of out of date, but they're not bad. I do have an updated one. Perfect. I think I meant to send it too. Thanks for the reminder. I want to send that out to you. Absolutely. Do you have anything else to add? No. That case. Did we have a motion to adjurnn? Sure. Second, everybody. Great. All in favor? All in favor? Good night, everybody. Let's be gambling.