Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, okay. We're recording. You unmute. I unmuted. Thank you.

All right. Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order this Thursday, May 7th, 2026 meeting of the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission. Um, first item not on the agenda. Let's make an announcement that we've received Andy Rubin's um retired retirement request this morning. So, he's retired and planning his own. And I just want to publicly say how much we appreciated his participation, what a great contributor he was and how much we'll miss him and thank him for his service to the town and so on and so forth. So, we are of an empty seat in this honor tonight.

True. Um, and so for attendance we have uh John Morgan, Mike Bugghda, myself, Carol Snow, chair, John Duza, vice chair, Scaru, Jeff DS, and Michelle Clark. And we'd like to see you then to fill that vacancy. That's okay. Yes. Um, and with that said, we have um our first item on the agenda is a public hearing hearing. And oh, sorry, Bob Connor. I was looking right at you, too. You're muted by many, but can you hear us? Okay. Yes, I can hear you clearly. And and hand movements and and body language works too.

Thanks. Um, first item is a public hearing, but we don't applicants. So, I think I'm going to skip the process for public hearings since you've memorized it by now. I'm sure. And, um, I didn't see that we have any attendees via Zoom. So, there are two. Oh, we have we have two as well. Um should I go ahead and read read the process then? Sure. Okay. Quick summary.

Here we go. Um we have one public hearing scheduled for this evening. I want to take a few minutes to review the process for public hearings in the current hybrid format of our meeting since we have no public attendees here. We do have attendees. During the public hearing, the applicant will be invited to present the application explaining to the commission and others what is being requested. the applicant or staff will share all application materials 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 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 in the balance of the written meeting during which the commission will try to reach a decision on each application. Each applicant that will be will be notified in writings as to the decision of this commission and has a right to appeal to superior court if desired. Decisions of this meeting are available the day after the meeting by calling the land use department at 2032455631 after 9:00 a.m. All actions taken tonight by the commission will be by roll call. All commissioners and staff will identify themselves for the record before speaking. And I've already said who seated tonight. Um so staff present this evening is Aaron Manx film planner sitting in a different location. Um this meeting is actually we had trouble. We're not live streaming, I think, right now. Is that right, Karen?

Will be available.

Yes, I'll post it in the on the town website for viewing. Um, additionally, I would like to ask that we treat each other respectfully throughout the meeting and a reminder to please turn off your phones. Um, and the town planner will now read the legal notice. Aaron, over to you, Sure. Notice hereby given that the planning and zoning commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 7th, 2026, beginning at 700 p.m. in meeting room A, the James Madison room, town campus, 8 Campus Drive, Madison, Connecticut 06443. This is a hybrid meeting and attendees may also join via Zoom webinar through either the webinar link or call in information uh listed below. The webinar ID is 9158196 6735. Password is 452138. Callin number is 16465588656. The following application will be heard number 26-9 text amendment. The applicant is plan at Madison Planning and Zoning Commission application for text amendment to reorganize existing zoning regulations. This application includes no substantive changes to the existing text, only reorganization so the town can migrate the document into an online searchable hyperlink database and accurately track future amendments. Copies of this application are available for inspection in the land use office. Further details on how to participate in the webinar are posted on the town of Madison website, www.mmisonct.org. All written correspondence can be submitted to the land use department via email at landusemadisonct.org. Dial 2032455631 for assistance. Dated in Madison, Connecticut this 13th day of April, 2026. Carol Snow, chair. This was

published in the source once on April 23rd and once on April 30th. Thank you. Could I have a motion then to open the public hearing 26-9 text amendment? A motion. Second. J down. Second. Um I just want to say that we were um presented with all of this information at our April 7th meeting. And so this has been the public hearing. Further discussion. Um, welcome Mike again from Tiki who gave us the really good explanation on April 7th of what was involved with this amendment change. So Mike, did you want to say anything else?

I think that's probably the most thorough legal notice I've ever heard in my life. I mean, we have gone through this a number of times and and and staff always talk like how do we how do we get this into a legal notice and I don't think I have ever heard a legal notice that that is as comprehensive as that. Um, no, I'm serious. It has literally has everything in it. I It's was I'm thinking I took seed.

What more could I add beyond what was in the legal notice? But um no to to your point, we did have a substantial discussion about this at the last meeting. Um and the purpose of this is to create the foundation for the amendments going forward. We are not making any substantive edits other than changing where things exist and what their numbers or references are. There are changes that we have u made related to giving references to places where they deemed exist previously. So there is more content here than you might be used to seeing, but it's only because there was a lot of stuff sort of blowing algeman without a reference and uh we can't track it or cite it if it isn't um if he's not tagged or or somehow referred to. Um so I I you know don't have anything specific beyond what we went through last time and I'm happy to go through it all again. Um but the document has been organized in its entirety based upon the recommended structure provided by the town's codifier. Um so that you don't end up in a situation where you have sort of confusing numbering as you reference specific lines. Um, and as you can see, as if you go through the document itself, you will notice that we've carried the old heading references, the former numbers, so that it's all there and everybody can kind of see where things were. Um, we I guess the maybe the biggest change in the feel is that we've eliminated this reference to multiple appendices and they have all been incorporated into one single document. Um but we have not made any any content any content changes from

it will just it'll be most confusing for us referencing old section numbers and so for for a while we'll be um yeah during this transit

referring to yeah the the index or relying heavily on a on a PDF searchable PDF to to find our text. Um, but just as Mike had said, we we cross reference the former section number and there aren't any substantive changes. So, we look forward to having this um as a baseline now moving forward um to begin some of our substantive changes. Any questions or comments? Commissioners, I think we were pretty satisfied in that April meeting. That was great. A lot of questions were and a lot of questions were answered.

We have three public just checking in case anybody you wanted to open it up for public. Um we could open it up to the public then if there are any questions or the attendees on Zoom to raise their hand. I'm not seeing any hands raised. Well, we have a quick carry. Um, we have a motion to close the public hearing and move to deliberations. Second, John Morgan. Uh, all in favor and um I'm not sure we have much else to say. Thank you. Can I add one thing?

Yes. And I didn't go over this move to deliberations. It's okay to still have. Do I qualify as being included as staff or the applicant? Yes,

it's more of a recommendation and you don't even have to respond. Um, so if anybody's feeling particularly uncomfortable, not that I think you should be about New York or or or what's there, I think one of the things that uh we just talked about in another uh town was including in the commission's discussion um an acknowledgement in as formal a way as you might want that if a conflict does come up that and someone comes in and says, "Well, this or that, you know, was talking with Aaron and there is an issue with a reference or there's something that's confusing." until such time as we get through the rest of the revision, staff sort of has the authority to go to the current version of the rags to make a determination on what it should say. So if if something does come up or we're in the process and we're working on an interpretation that we can just go right back to the old rags, we can look at that section, determine what that language is, and then we won't end up with some unintended consequence. I'm very confident there isn't one, but if you want to have that parachute, um I think it's perfectly reasonable to sort of state that as your intent.

So that could be a condition then to condition finding consensus. I just um like I said, we didn't change anything but it came up in another place and it just gives you that security blanket if you feel like you need it. Any thoughts for sure? I know that we need it. At this point, there's no change. Feel like we need it. I mean, and if if there's a real question, it could be when we do the regulation change, we can fix. Yeah, correct. Yeah. Yeah. Future amendments. And I think we're

No, I think they are. And yeah, this isn't any real revision. It's just restructuring and Okay. Okay. In that case, um, we have a draft approval. So, can I have a motion? Motion to approve. And do you want to read it?

Sure. Following draft resolution is offered. The Madison planning zoning commission approve application number 26-9 initiated by the commission protection management to reorganize the existing zoning regulations. This application includes no substantive changes to existing text only reorganization so the town can migrate a document into an online searchable hyperlink database and accurately track amendments. Disapproval is made based upon the understanding that this reorganization is the initial step in a largely comprehensive review and updated regulations which board align with state law and that town's recently adopted plan of conservation development notice of this approval will publish on May 21st 2026.

Thank you. Second the one item the draft approval says the notice of the approval will publish on May 21st. So if the commission wanted to add an effective date of June 1st then that would be um appropriate effective off. Yeah. So then you have a date added effective June 1st 26. Sure. All in favor? John, are you

Yeah, you're good. That's good. Okay. Great. Unanimous passes. So onward to the next stage of revisions sighting. which is a good is a good segue to our next uh agenda item which is a regulation update on middle housing proposed definition in section five um which again is being we're being called assisted formed by um my motto of tit so over you

I yes thank you so I had hoped that I could come here and lead off by saying the pressure is off. We got an extension. We had been hearing pretty confidently and consistently that that they were working on some amendments in a bill that was going to push this out to June of 2027. Wow.

Well, last night that died. um which is actually pretty surprising to to to a number of people because um I'm there's going to be sort of a planners uh event at the end of May and I'm speaking on summary review and I I reached out to a bunch of cogs and said can you send me all the drafts that have been referred to you I want to do a bit of an analysis to see statewide and then I can report on it and I think of the four COGS that I've reached out to in total I have been provided maybe 10 drafts So, you know, they represent about 90 towns and

so yeah, there there are I think probably 10% of the towns in the state that that have referred. So, so most communities either don't have regs or won't make the July one deadline, which is interesting. So, congratulations already. I know. So, this far work for that upper 10%. Yeah. So, um, unfortunately, you were waiting to hear if the state legislature were gonna the deadline. I doubt it. I think that there are plenty of towns that don't even fully understand what the implications are and sort of are taking this like, well, what do we we need to do anything with this? Do we have to? Yeah.

Yeah. Um, I I think that's a big piece of it. And uh yeah, I I know that there's some places that are still trying to have the conversations about what does this mean and what we have to do. Yeah. Um you know, I guess they'll find out July 1. Um but yeah, we're sort of in a position now where we found out today that that bill didn't pass, but you're not really in a position where you can make July 1 if you haven't started. So,

I don't know. We'll see. Um but so anyways, now that we don't get that break, um the draft that is in front of you is a conversion of the template that I presented to you at the last meeting. Um, and it and it sort of weaves in the structure that we talked about and has been refined through working with Aaron um to incorporate this existing standards that you might have and then pulling out things that um are not necessary and go to a level of detail or or is it just not going to make any sense for for what you're likely to see. Um, so I can go through the the sections again if you want and and talk about sort of each of them. I can um hit on things that you would like me to focus on, answer questions. What do you think is your preference?

Uh, I think that Yeah, it would be great if we could go through this again. Sure. Okay. Yep. Highlight what it is. what middle housing is, what middle housing, how it's defined and then even um you know some of the definitions and bulk standards and what you know what supersedes what when it comes to this versus over you know with commercial properties and parking or village standards things like that and downtown village district standards versus commercial standards versus new standard

I think let's just set it off also that Um, as Mike alluded to, we have a deadline and so our timing of reviewing this, right, the our goal coming into this is to schedule a public hearing if the commission is comfortable for your second meeting in June. June and that would allow enough time for us to um make the regional planning commission referral and um get our ducks in order. This document can be edited. Um but overall today you would like to gain consensus from the commission that you're comfortable moving forward and you know if there are some standards that you'd like to adjust those can occur um during public hearing process

right they probably should occur during a public

well once we post a document for that we can we can edit and discuss them yes at public hearing um And then the other piece is you'll notice this is a little bit different that everything there are standards design standards built into this um which is unlike most of our existing text and so um you may wish to refer this for comments for the public hearing to aka your design subcommittee who helps provide some. So, um, that's something if you're looking to do that, I I can have them add that to their agenda this month and get some fees. So, they'll have will they have time to do this

ahead of June? Absolutely. You they'll have two meetings technically before your public and and they'll mostly be looking at the the building materials, landscaping, some of those types of things. you know, they've got style landscape designers on the committee who may say 3-in caliber tree versus substitute and who knows, but at least you I think it's appropriate to give them the to give you some feedback if they had you expand on the the adding of this seems like we're adding very prescribed design is is why because why Why

do you want me to take that or do you want to take that?

I I won't stand in front of the microphone if you prefer to, but I'm happy to explain. Just a general housing and the summary review process. You don't have discretion and you cannot hold public hearings on these. You're limited in the scope of how you can review these types of developments. So building in standards that you would like that are consistent with the surrounding commercial area gives um you as the commission some protection. Um that that whatever a developer would be coming in with a mixed use or or um a straight two to nine units would be falling under these designs. So you know the quality of the work that is going to be built. What what's the Sorry, I might have missed the last meeting. Um what's the state's goal? What are they trying to accomplish by this 25? Yeah, I think they well, who knows what they're going to um we talked about how poorly written the bill is to begin with at our last meeting. And so there I think the thought is if we can increase housing quantity, we will decrease demand and that will have an effect on cost. um because they still seem to believe that statewide sewing regulations are the barrier. And so they adopted this standard which says that towns have to allow um 2 to9 unit residential or mixed use developments by summary review on any lot zone for commercial or mixed use. So you uh cannot mandate that it be mixed use but it but you have to allow it if they choose to and you can't mandate density. So they can choose to build two three four five. So you can't say the density

of 5,000 square feet an acre or something like that. You've got to give them the road map to getting up to two or as many as nine but but not less than two. Um, and this applies to every every town in Connecticut. And unlike the provisions of uh BA2129 for like BDUs, there is no opt out. Um, so come July 1st, someone that comes into to the town hall has to be given the the the ability to go through the summary review process for a housing development regardless of what standards your regs have. So to um to your point your name from here John um the

glare the the summary review process is not defined in the statute very well other than it has to be essentially a non-discretionary review that doesn't include public hearing special permit special exception or variance. So we are trying to create a very formulaic process where we say exactly what you need to do. Um so that we know what we're going to get. Um because the only way you know a lot of regulations say landscaping needs to be adequate adequate screening shall be provided sign shall be appropriate with the you know characteristics of the neighborhood or you know traditional what does that mean? Um so we have to eliminate that. Um so we're taking as prescribed of an approach as possible. Um, so just to run through the sections at a very high level. If you have questions, throw something or or ask. Um, but starting with applicability, we are listing your commercial or mixed juice zones. Um, this does not apply to residential zones. You can choose to apply to residential zones, but it but it doesn't. Um, so we're stating that applicability. And then we are defining um in section two there um what comes right out of the act. So transit community middle housing development is one of the terms prescribed in the bill which is and this is exactly what comes out of there and then mixeduse development um is also um prescribed right from the bill is ter housing

the term middle housing has been around for quite a while but it's been used with more prevalence as of We are taking the approach of folding these terms under middle housing because it is really confusing the way they did it because they call it transit community middle and there are parts of the bill that deal with transit. This does not. And so it's very weird to say a transit community middle housing development is anything between 2 to nine units. it has it can be in the most rural community

miles away from any type of bus line or rail line. So, we're folding those terms under the middle housing umbrella to make it easier to understand what it is. Um, and sort of the other confusing thing is that mixeduse development says nothing about 2 to 9 in the bill. Everything that we have read, everything that everybody that we've talked to from this through legal review believed that their intent was the two to nine units. But that is not what the bill says. It could not possibly mean that if it's a mixeduse development, you have to allow it by summary review. That they could have 150 unit development as long as there's a mixeduse component in summary review. So we are further defining it again to clarify our intent is to treat developments of 2 to9 units by summary review. But if we just go with the statutory language in the bill doesn't make that clear and so again it wasn't thought out. They wrote it at god knows what time at night and and we wanted to make this clear to developers but also residents that we're not just allowing all mis mixed use developments by summer interview without hearings and whatever else

is is the instrument is um the affordable housing provisions going to apply to these the appeals act like 10% at least for so Um there someone puts a nine unit housing for some of it to be on the no. No. So you can't mandate and it's not required. It's just to deal with housing. Um so they could certainly choose to but this does not require the apartment. So marked you're not no

I mean presumably it'll be more affordable housing but it's not deed restricted. Yeah. till we get to the last stage of right alternate.

And it's my guess is you're probably not going to see it because a 9-unit development is not going to have such a massive, you know, amount of funding behind it. that you know someone building nine units. You know, generally speaking, you see the affordable component when that's what someone does and they they sort of that's their model or there's enough of the project that they can go through the administration to develop the affordability plan and monitor the the annual income verifications. Doing that on a 9-unit development is the same amount of work, but you're only going to get it out of probably like three units or something. So, I don't know that you're going to you're going to see it as much, but that but who knows. Uh, so, uh, section C gets into the procedure which talks about again what we're going to be requesting the applicant go through. So, we're we're again pointing to any existing leverage that you have now related to site plans, erosion and sedimentation control, um storm water management, your site, you know, the things that need to be in a site plan. So, we're asking for all of these forms prescriptively, but we're not reinventing a wheel where we don't have to. Um but you don't have the ability to say you know determine that additional information which it can decide during the public hearing what it that it might be you know to be provided by the applicant. We we don't have that because the hearing is not happening. Um so this list can certainly be added to think things are missing but but we're we're articulating exactly what that is. Um and so we would not we would not be able to uh refer these to a

so right now our regulations require site plan applications special permit or special exception applications to go. Um I think this would be its own

right because AKA is going to give you input during a hearing and there wouldn't be a hearing. So you I don't know that you could consider outside testimony and their guidance really, you know, when when you boil down what summary review is, if they if you were to even take something from them, it you know, it would be a a twoline memo. The first line says complies with the zoning regulations. The second line would say does not comply. And they they could check a box essentially. They couldn't give you input on this should be this or this should be that because the regulations have to prescribe that. This is why I think it's good to have this go by them and have them in if they want to make it more specific or want more restrictive or whatever.

Right. Yeah. I really appreciate your summary definition here. Yeah. On the first page. So, um there any other terms that you think need to be defined? Let's let's think of keep that in mind too.

Yes. Um so the two and three essentially come out of the statute clarifying that your right as a commission to deny an application is only if you feel that there is a substantial adverse impact on public health or safety um that you can't mitigate through some modification to an application. So site plans can't be conditioned. Many towns condition site points. Fine. If the applicant doesn't appeal it, the condition stands here. You can't condition them. But you can modify. So if they submit an application and their light poles are 35 ft and you're like, well, our standard as in the reg says it needs to be 15. You could modify it so that this site might be amended to show up. That's very simple because again formula non-discretionary um so the tricky part is the statute or the bill will will be statute says you can deny if you if you find there will be a substantial adverse impact on public health and safety. I'm not quite sure how you come to that determination.

How do they define that? And then what's is there an appeals process and how do we get ourselves out of the real loop of

yeah doesn't say it it it doesn't even give a window into what they think that might mean. Um so you know that is something that's yet to be defined. Um and without the hearing you can't really take outside testimony. So again I'm not I'm not quite sure we can talk about you know, you are allowed to to um get like reviews from staff. And so maybe though I think you have the legal ability to do so, we could try to codify something in there that talks about a town engineer review, a fire marshal review, I guess. But right

well it's and also I mean what trumps what you know in terms of what exists in our commercial reg you know our regulations for commercial zones like what about getting fire marshal getting even getting septic and things like that um so are we I guess what I'm asking is aren't we already covered by existing it would still be in place Um, I think that if the comments that come from any technical person employed by the town are code related, then it's very simple.

Yeah. If you get a comment from an engineer that says they should provide additional site or the fire marshall says, you know, they should consider adding an additional means of egress. That's trickier because those aren't definitive. He's not citing the section of the code. That's not commonly done anyway.

Yeah. Well, so in a multif family though, if it was designed without sprinklers, for example, and now is out of the residential code and has gotten into the commercial fire code, we don't have I mean, that's based off of another if the drawings ch I mean, we often times put language in our approval letter should any modifications to this plan be required due to other agencies permitting process, we reserve the right to review. So you can can you include language like that that they would have to come back if they say the building you know the architectural they don't meet code.

Yeah. Um I mean that becomes a light that potentially is a life safety.

Yeah. that the um the issue is it sort of becomes like almost like a conditioning one approval on the approval of another agency and like a circling the drain. If you say yes this works they go to fire who says no this doesn't work amend. So then they amend. Now they come back to you and you say, "Well, I don't like the way you amended it." Denied. Then you know it becomes a who's right, who's wrong. And you know that's a little bit of a dramatic example because there's always a way to make both work. It's just a matter of whether the developer wants to commit the money related to doing all of the things, right?

These standards, you know, I didn't just cook up, you know, late at night. They're pulled from things that that I know work and from form-based requirements that have already gone through substantial sort of use in an application. Betty, right? So, you know, the 80% standard on the facade, the operable windows, those are not just things I thought would be good. So, you know, I know that you can use these materials applied in this manner in a way that can comply. You know, I've had developers say, "Oh, we can't use this type of, you know, we need to use this type of material, otherwise we won't meet the energy code." And that's, you know, just not true, right? They want to use that, but cheaper, but

right, it might be cheaper. It might be that it's what the it's the building they already build, but um yeah, it's it's not I don't think this is going to create a situation where someone will not be able to meet a defined code. Okay. Could we go back to also um what supersedes what and I'm thinking because like our our two main commercial areas are both on route one east end of town west end of town and we've had department of transportation issues and sighteline you know when you mentioned sighteline that just like rang a little bell for me that you know who who says what's safe yep

who gets to decide at what level sort of bureaucratic level well the state would for road opening. I think some of most of our commercial property and the other thing I think we need to keep in mind is the scale of this development as a compared to some of those larger ones where we had over you know over 25 units that was an OA generator requirement as part of that. This is you know I think one DOT doesn't look at drawings until they have a local approval. Yeah, for the most part. And so if an applicant gets to do DOT and they say can't you're gonna have to move this here, then they may have to come back and amend a plan with you. Okay.

Um yeah, the state's a little challenging as far as road openings, but um but the other ones to your point, if you have nine units and let's say each of them is a,000 square feet, you're under 10,000 foot building. if it was not, you know, so you're not talking a big building. Certainly nothing host. But to your question, all of that still applies. Yeah.

Sighteline engineering principles related to storm water, ENS, driveway, stopping distance, all of those things are still in place. and those any any other agency except for the nonjurisdictional or non-decision-making bodies like a design review or open sp you know whatever everybody else still gets that same body of the apple at that same point um having written way more of these than I ever wanted to in my life I can say that there's some things that we would have talked about and would want to include and refine that I will have for you at the next at the hearing itself. One of them is um a clarification on for any project which cont which is mixed use um specifying clearly that the standards which govern the commercial use would still apply. We know that's the case, but I think making it clear,

if you have a summary review application for a mixeduse building and you decide that you want to put in I don't know what's like the craziest special permit use that people wouldn't want to see here. I don't know. Pick something. The fact that Chick-fil-A gets used a lot. Okay. So, if you wanted to put a Chick-fil-A in nine units above, you don't get to come in under summary review and just stick the Chick-fil-A on the ground floor and say, "Okay, I'm here for my permit." the special permit for that use still applies and you could still go through that process. Um they don't get to just do whatever use they want and and and use would be

it would be tricky and you'd have to really be religious about how you go through and review that application because you're reviewing it for the use. Yeah. And any of that public hearing discussion would have to be pertaining to the use and the operation. Yeah. So that's a little bit tricky but but you could do it and that still would apply. So that would be one thing that we we would want to add

clarify. The other thing that um we we have added in a couple of places is language that talks about conflicts and if there is a conflict or a lack of clarity, the more prescriptive and stringent standard shall apply because there's no way to know how this is all going to fit together until we start to see how somebody reviews it. Yeah.

And what they what they sort of see. Um there's another cog and and uh a movement in that really came out really strongly against a bill that was proposed and I I don't know that passed related to this and they were reading the standard to say that towns could had to allow residential or mixed use literally or and they thought that meant you can mandate mixed use and so they came out really heavy against an amendment which turned the or to and to clarify the original intent. the reviews that we've gone through uh was that they were saying towns you have to allow someone to build either of the two, right?

Um but they interpret it to mean you could choose. And so some towns have said, "Okay, we're going to mandate ground floor mixed use, no residential on the ground, you know." Um so until we start seeing how other people do it, how it hits the ground and where people disagree, that conflict gives us the ability to take the more stringent. So those are things that I would recommend we add during that none of this would be retroactive to anything in process today. Right. Right. Right. Any no they they would not be it would not be applicable to anything that is pending prior to the effective date or already. So or but so and the effective date being July 1st.

Yeah. Whatever the effective date is that you said. Yep. Uh so this can be multiple buildings though. Yes. So, you could theoretically put a fast food restaurant and three other units on this piece of property and it would be compliant if you met the standards. Yeah. But a very nice looking the restaurant use is a special exception use. So they would have to apply for a special exception for the the use as it's permitted in the commercial zone, whichever zone, but the residential piece would be the summary. So there really is no no net benefit to them.

All right, that makes sense. Yeah, they they they would split. So it's it's not one two to nine unit building per plot of land. Hey, they if they bought a plot that they could put four 90 unit buildings on, no deal. It's per it's per purpose of just one. Period. Yes. Okay. Total density is none. Okay. Whether it's in one building or multiple. Yep. Cuz one of the things you have to allow,

you know, town houses, duplexes, triplexes, perfect sixes, and cottage clusters. So someone could build a cottage cluster development, you know, nine, you know, little mini houses, tiny houses or whatever. So the max density is nine. It's like what they did off a poster that that's a a cottage, right? That that could be something that was let's say that style. We actually used in some of the table here for the standards. We use some of those standards that the commission had already set for um that cluster housing regulation. Which one are you referring to?

Were you on design? Yeah. So getting so looking at building I just on number four um it says any property located within the downtown village district shall provide design elements system with section 4. Am I missing it in the package or am I just misreading things? That's one the existing regulations. So in the the newly adopted regulations that the reorganized version the downtown village district is section 8.4 and it prescribes within the district there are sub areas and there are design standards for each of those. So that would um over override um these standard

and that includes the the historical aspects the historic district. This would not um no implications there because this is mixed use zoning. Do we have any commercial zones that are in our historic district? I don't not we don't have existing not in a commercially in a commercial zone. Um but if a property a commercial property were located within a local historic district, they would still be subject to the review process for the certificates. Does that need to be in here? Um, I think that because it's doesn't affect anything.

It's out it's it's outside of the zoning rags, but in short, all historic district standards and process and village district standards and process still apply. So, the one caveat to all of this is if they're in the village district, you still can do that referral and they still go there because that is under a separate separate authority in the statutes and this is not a skip all. Um, so we're we're trying to make sure that again people understand that they're going to have to still go through that process. They just don't go through it, you know, something separate here. So, you know, how that will work out remains to be seen. The vast majority of towns don't have village districts under 8-2J. So, you know, every town that I know of that has one is treating it exactly the same way. Um, but I think under historic I don't Yeah, I don't think we would need to. I don't

it's a separate entity separate statute all together still. Yeah. So it still apply I don't think we need to add it but you know you feel strongly about it. I don't think it makes something invalid reference to look for your guidance. I just want I just want

Yeah. No, I think I think we're we're definitely good there. Um so building materials pretty straightforward. We're trying to avoid, you know, metal buildings or ephus and things that are not generally, you know, there's two types of regulations. There are the types you have now, which are more uklidian based, which is you can do these things in these areas. And um this is, you know, sort of where it can be on the lot or whatever. It's that's traditional zoning. And then there's there's form-based zoning regulations. And forbased zoning essentially is we don't care about what you're doing in the building, but we care a lot about how it works. That's essentially what the legislature did with the bill. So that's why we're taking this approach. So we're getting into all those things as far as the materials, type of roof material, building elements, um again referencing existing section. Um and then including some uh graphics to show how those can be applied. Um, the overall purpose of the graphics throughout the regulation is to help communicate the text and convert it into how it could be applied. We're not asking people to pick from this lineup and stamp this out and build it, but we want to show them examples of buildings that have been constructed in Connecticut that incorporate these standards so that we can say, "Yes, it's possible, and here's how that might look." Um, you know, some members of the public may be concerned that this is a lot very quickly and there's no way to know if a 9-unit development is being proposed in their neighborhood. And so the graphics help show the context of what we expect. Again, just to try to educate, but they're not, this is not intended to be a menu when they're going to pick one off the shelf and you're going to say, "Okay, build it." Um, so, um, the roof type standard you should find familiar. They come right at

that comes right out of your current regs. Um, uh, unit configuration, again, all of the, uh, things that you'd expect. And then we're again talking about operable windows. Uh something that I think is important for residential but not limiting it based on a building or fire code. Um referencing uh utilities and other furnances being screened. Uh and then we get into the site layout. Again being very prescriptive. So you'll notice the first one parking spaces should be provided at a ratio of one space. putting that in there because other parts of the bill say that you can't require minimum parking and you can't deny if you don't think there's enough. Um so you know they're getting very prescriptive because they I think anticipated that towns would say oh there's not enough parking that's public health and safety deny. So they explicitly said it's under nine or you know you can't deny and you can't actually in your summary review can't say you need three spaces per unit. Um, so we're saying they should be because it's important, I think, to set the expectation of what you think they'll need. So we want to have a standard in there. Um, but changing it from shell to should. Um, and then limiting curb cut access and where parking should be located. Um, we talked last time about what the contextual standard is and having them do to the extent possible a matching of where the building the new building is placed in accordance with the other building. So you're creating a consistent street line. Um, and so that is um what we're um asking them to do there and sort of representing what that is in that graphic. Um and then if there are multiple buildings want those taller buildings to be behind to create more of a graduated effect which is pretty

typical um for larger developments. So we're applying that same standard. Um, I'm not going to go through the landscape design and each of the the sort of qualities in there, but again, trying to be very prescriptive and what should be and where and it certainly is a lot, but again, until we see how this is going to get converted, we're trying to be very articulate that very clearly and then um including a graphic to show visually, you know, if I'm someone on the other side of that new development, what the expectation is and what we expect those buffers to look like when they are planted and and established. Um, and and all of these numbers between now and then, and I'm sure as we're new to backup, they'll they may have guidance and that's fine. Plug and play, no problem.

Um, yeah. Can we can we lean on Taco or like like some something put in here that's like defined design standards of Madison they would have to follow this we could reject that cuz like I mean the concern is like for me like someone comes in put something up that like see like it's safe right like something that doesn't fit the aesthetic whatsoever town. Yeah. Does it we have the ability to like reject a proposal based on that or no? They just kind of have to follow kind of broader guidelines.

Well, the hope is that this standard is not is is as granular as possible. So, so I would say if there's a project that you can point to that you think isn't appropriate, we can talk about it, send it to her, I can look at it, whatever, and we can look at that project if and then compare what that is. So, we're um we are not allowing flat roofs, we're not allowing, like I said, ephus. Um we're requiring um primary facade materials that are natural, durable, stone, etc. um you know trying to move away from buildings that have a lot more glass or local maybe more that modern sort of urbanized type of of we're not allowing in there. Yeah, we're not allowing like the primary uh to be metal. So like we're trying to eliminate that. But if you have something in your mind you think would not be appropriate, send it or whatever and we'll look at it. Um but we need to define exactly what those are here. You wouldn't be able to look at it and say this is not appropriate for Madison,

right? Like yeah you like yeah you look like the materials it's like can't not but like brick you can do a lot of ugly stuff, right? So you'd have to Yeah. we'd have to understand what that is and and and put it in on and so you we can be as prescriptive as we need to be. So just think about what that looks like for you and and try to get there as close as possible. Um so we can limit you know length of wall height um you know some of that massing we have in here you know modulation of facade how close the buildings are

building separation number of windows yep we have transparency requirements y have like a length of the building that's correct or something like that right we're requiring the the 20% transparency um to get to to get to a you know having some of those uh windows and other architectural elements. So, yeah, if you're driving around, you you see something that's relatively recent and you don't think it's appropriate, just bring it and we'll I haven't seen energy efficiency address yet.

Um, so energy efficiency is a tricky one. There was some language proposed a couple of years ago that would allow towns to adopt zoning regulations that would sort of demand uh energy at or beyond what is in like the building code and it it didn't didn't go anywhere. So depending on what you're thinking about when you try to incorporate it but um that would not all code now included in code anyways for energy efficiency. you know, something like that. I think

that doesn't give me a lot of heartburn. So, like saying, you know, all buildings need to be lead certified and have solar panels and solar car ports. That's a little bit more. Double glazed windows. I I think that that probably is is something that could be done and I would imagine most applications will be today. 2x6 construction that's probably a little bit above and beyond because they're going to say that's prescribed by the building codeation. That's building. Well,

yeah. If it's if there's a specific standard in the building code or the energy code, I I I would not want to just we're bleeding into something that could create a conflict particularly for an existing building. They're going to say I'm going to spend 100 grand to replace all the windows because the So, um, yeah, I'm going have to think about that. And there's there's nothing in this statute that would preclude us from putting this this much prescription into this.

Um, the statute says, I mean, I can read you the line. Um if you want to it's we sort of basically since November you know we've been agonizing in sort of the planning world as weird as it sounds to say out loud that there is one what this means and and the best way to apply it

and and leaning on you know legal professionals to um to interpret what this might mean and how it would be interpreted on a legal challenge. Um, so they talk about summary review says summary review means able to be approved in accordance with the terms term of a zoning regulation or regulations including but not limited to requirements concerning setbacks, lot size, building frontage applicable to a pro proposed development. That's it. That's it.

Right. And we don't we don't have this in our normal regulations. We're not right. We don't have any of this. Is that wouldn't that open us up to a some sort of a lawsuit?

So the the reason why you know we don't believe or nobody in the in the planning community or or or statewide believes so is because this is not about this is not an 8-30g where they come in and they say your regulations don't matter. you don't have 10% housing, so we can do what we want. So, this is not meant to to sort of go well above and beyond. It's meant to create a path for a developer to know exactly what he needs to do, he or she needs to do to get two to nine units in medicine. So, we're providing that path. It may be very prescriptive and it may be very articulate and it may may have a high bar, but we're giving them that path,

but we're we're removing some of the barriers. Yes. something. Yes. You know, sometimes with development, you know, the biggest thing for them is risk. How long will it take me to get an approval? I'm going to have to hire an attorney. It's going to cost me 150 grand to do that. And so, even a higher standard that they know they'll be in and out in in a month um may have value to them in in other ways. Um, so I think statewide, nobody thinks this is going to unlock this, you know, we're not removing this big dam and all of a sudden housing is just going to I don't think this is going to hit the ground the way that they think. But um, but it is enable I'm sure.

That's the idea. But I mean, we don't even have that much commercial zoning, right? Yes. Regulation, streamline regulation. Yes. Yeah. Um, so yeah, I just don't I think that in places that have a lot of commercial zones or or building commercially zoned parcels and in places that have really strong markets in particular where both of those come together. Yeah. I think like a Stanford or Bridgeport. Yeah. Although, you know, Bridgeport

probably doesn't have, you know, issues with it. maybe getting closer to the New York border where they have a more urbanized area but have a really strong market and are really wound up about housing. This is where this is going to be probably most painful to them those towns because of Right. Exactly. Exactly. even orange maybe because they've got these buildings and now these underutilized commercial buildings overnight become eligible for nine residential units without Frank what they're doing across from higher number units. Yeah. But it it is sort of these that's kind of Yeah. these strip mall areas that are you're losing right

uh commercial tenants and things like that and and you don't have them here but you know as you get into you know more urbanized or closer to Hartford or you know places that are more traditional sort of spraw box retail plazas with season parking and stuff. it becomes very easy to say we're just going to drop a residential building in a sea of parking that isn't used anymore like Westbrook the outlet yeah I mean yeah I mean they could they could put that there's no reason why they couldn't say yeah we're going to take this piece of parking we're going to put nine units there if they have multiple parcels

yes much much larger but um so I think it's places like that where you have to think about that. I I just don't think you're going to have like what about the one in Branford that was the old theater they converted over to what 200 some odd units. I know I know it's it's a lot of units.

Yeah, it's not any I mean with sewers you also have to think a lot of our commercial zones, you know, our east end we have nice sand and gravel. The west end um our commercial zones has a little more challenges. um salt, you know, fil salt marsh, we have filled wetlands in some areas. It's very limiting as far as what types of redevelopment can occur. Um so you might see an opportunity in the rural shopping district or some of the transitional zones. There may be some spot areas that could accommodate um some, you know, multiple events, maybe not even none. It's really going to determine your soils are going to determine what

Yes. Okay. Do we have a minimum lot size? That's still the the underlying commercial zone. Yeah, minimum lot sizes standards are there. So, this wouldn't be if somebody were looking to subdivide or create a new lot, they would still have to meet the minimum standards of the zone.

Okay. Yeah. It's not you can't tell someone our minimum lot size is is one acre and you have threequarters of an acre in an existing commercial zone. So you know oh well you can't do it because it's on any lot but you can prescribe that so that yeah they can't just start doing all kinds of crazy subdivisions and drawing lines everywhere to get nine here and nine here and nine here. Um, so what what what stops somebody from doing that? Because the subdivision rags would still drive their ability to split. Um, and they haven't taken that away from me yet. Um, but you know, well, sanding setback setbacks setbacks fall into that as well. Yeah.

So, if you have an it's just like in any of your residential zones as well. If you have an undersized lot, you still have standard setbacks for that zone. You're just dealing with a small force and that's the key constraint. Yeah. Yeah.

Um moving on to lighting pretty straightforward, you know, full cut off fixtures. We're we're including a specific angle and a graphic again to represent no trespass full cut off and not the traditional I don't know what the current regular number currently say now. They just don't, you know, require the 90 90° which is what most have. But, you know, we want the angle of that light to actually look down. Even at 90°, if you're approaching that light, you're still seeing it. And so, trying to get go a little bit further. Talking again about um decorative lighting and um bolds mounted 15 ft. So, we're trying to keep that residential context. Um we then get into open space. We're asking

what about color capture? Um, you can we can prescribe that if you Yeah, we we could certainly put that in there. That's a good idea. We have another quite often as recommendation. I don't know that it's actually in the regulations. um but you have to we have sure it's it's all that's the standard that aka recommends 300 Kelvin

that's a good suggestion

okay so open space and amenities. So I have a category because you know other things just other stuff that you might decide but um 500 ft of green space shelter provided on the lot for each unit. Um such shall include outdoor seating shaded. So again this is a place where people are going to live. We'd like for them to have they every building won't have direct access from to the outside from a unit. Might not have a balcony or a patio or a porch,

right? So, we're asking for that that number can go up or down. Um, and it does the intent here is to leave it flexible in that it could be that each unit has a little area behind that is private, a patio space, let's say, or it could be that there's sort of a a common place, you know, yard in the back or something that is is larger for everybody to use that might have a different, you know, places or things for people to access. So, we're not prescribing it specifically because the type of building, particularly if it's existing, will limit that, but we're we're asking for that space. Um, is 500 a standard you're seeing in other or is that?

Let's see. I've had towns that are much more urbanized say we want a thousand and towns that are much more rural say we only want 250. So, it's kind of been all over the place. Nine units, you know, you're talking 4,500 square feet of Yeah. So, that's the max. Yeah, I 500 square feet to me. I think it's it's down the middle, you know, if you think there's buildings that are lots that are likely to go this see how quick they are and grow the number. Yeah,

I don't know what the average lot size is that they might come to that. Um and then you know screening the location for uh refues. Um the next section and Michael is there anyway we can add anything about sidewalk. Um so not offsite.

Yeah the offsite part is a no. Um, if if you wanted them to install sidewalks on their front on the property, I think that could be a sidewalk on the sidewalk on Well, they would be installed, but you can require it as a sight improvement. I think they'll certainly especially because our commercial sightings are on busy roads mostly. Yeah. So that's along the frontage. Yay.

Um um that would be one that ends up any frontage. Well, this I mean most of these commercial are with state roads. Um and some of the especially on the east end there's very limited um on the south side where the state right of way actually brushes into some of the parking lots. So, um I think as we move to that um alternative section that may have to be the piece that um is an option for somebody to apply for a special permit to not include that in the case of a limited topography or right of way. um just if they can't physical fit.

Yeah. It's also I mean some of it's already underway agenda. Yeah. But it's a good I mean now that you have a bikewalk master plan in town. I mean it is especially in the areas where it's highlighted as it's not I mean

we would look to that even in our our other updates to the regulations. Yeah. Okay. So does that does that mean that the site plan depicting property lines existing composed structures park land utilities applicable setbacks does that need to be legally the little sidewalk bikewalk thing in there? I think what we would probably do is under site layout and design shift uh probably I'd probably retitle one kind of move it around so that it incorporates you know some non-discretionary way of referencing sidewalks and then we might think about if there's a way to include a provision that people can we can't make you put sidewalks in a place the DOT says they can't go. So, I think we probably want to add it there. Um, I think under uh I utilize Yeah, we're referencing your current standard in 17 which then has a the sort of more comprehensive list. So, I don't think we do a huge effort in your procedure just in the the design

and just Sorry, cuz you referenced the master town plan. Does anything in this conflict with what that says or is there anything in that that we could specify in this to make sure that that's not superseded by this? Um, that's just a guidance. Okay.

Yeah. So, I think what you probably just I don't haven't read it, but it might just be easier to say you got to put in a sidewalk. You want sidewalks. If DOT says you can't do it or there's not enough room between your building now, fine. But if they're putting it in just in a commercial zone, you're going to have residences, put it in the sidewalk. And you know, we could look to see what the the master plan shows or how we might reference it, but if it's making recommendations and is written as a guidance document, it doesn't state where they need to be.

I mean, there there are plans for certain areas. So if it's clear that in the C zone it the intent is to extend the sidewalks then we can make sure that at least in the C zone that's a priority. Um you know I mean rural shopping district is a little smaller u but very well may be useful to have a cycle along the front um so we can we can cross this. Yeah, we'll figure out the best ways to get it in there and I got a good is um back to the number five open space and resident amenities.

So my question is like how would that work in practice because I'm looking through this think through the act right? It seems like basically gives a residential developer the upper hand you know their path to turning commercial or mixed use building a lot to to nine units of housing. So even if you look at the pictures in right building commercial familiar that town and they don't have 44,500 ft of open space green space for nine units parking it's that big.

Well and that was the notes of little one has parking in front of which we say they can't do. Well so but my point is yeah this is a good idea. That sounds good, but I don't see how we could enforce that. So part of what that's getting to So why is it including as a retrofit?

Yeah. So part of that is is going to be a little bit on frankly the town's approach and this the the standard that you want to take but I think also kind of how it gets rolled out because as you know something that's lawfully existing and pre-existing nonconformity is permitted to to remain but you know in certain circumstances you're not telling them that they can't do anything with their property right they're sort of actively choosing to create a convert version and go to some other type of use. And I do think there is some room for the commission to take a stand and and establish those expectations about what you would expect to be retrofitted and what you would allow to remain, which is what the last section is getting.

That's what I was just going to say. clients. It may not be prudent for someone to pick up their whole parking lot and put it behind the building, but it may be fairly easy for them to dig up some big and create some space,

particularly when your commercial zoning may have said that a 5,000 foot building needs 25 parking spaces, but now it's five units and they only need five. So, the answer is no one has an exact answer to your question. It is a good question and it's going to be exercised differently in many different places. you have the right to regulate something that's non-conforming, just not the right to require that it sort of go across the board and be extinguished. Um, so there's there's going to be some give and take there. Um, and myself, I I've sort of wrestled with how to lay all of these rags out because there's going to be a lot of buildings that don't comply, but they're showing up and saying they want to go and make use of this. The standard is what the standard is. Um, they could always just keep using it as a commercial building, for example. Um, it's uh, yeah, I I did not give you a good answer, but I don't think that there is one short of sort of lowering the bar across the board and then allowing to remain. I think we're trying to set the standard high and get it as close to that as we can. And then you'll have get a feel for where the commission wants to draw that line with some of those methods. Uh does anybody have any questions or want me to go through the building design examples that are in here? Um

I have a what if question. Well, based on the way this is written, if if someone wanted to build like on in Brford in exit 55, they've got the apartments with the parking under. Are we saying that with with this with our with our regulations here that that would not be allowed?

I don't think there's anything that would prevent parking from being within a building. you know, still regulated the maximum building height. So if they fell within height requirements, they could very well drive under town to make it look like something like that, right? Well, they the one in Brford does have Oh, yeah. They sort of open air. You can see it. That's like a park deck. It's a white one. No, it's not elevated. No, it's it's in a commercial. Well, it's it's a much larger development. Um, but yeah, they're all designed with drive under story.

Um, all right. Just making a moment. So, you can try to come back. Okay. Yeah. I don't know why that skip the page one doesn't. Um so for this yeah moving on to the to the table um

for I think most of this we're pulling the existing standard from your current bulk and area requirements for the applicable zone. um with the exception of like the front build to zone which we talked about with the the established setback um and then requiring specific yard um and then again some standard the standard a standard which you may decide you don't care about uh is the minimum maximum building widths which is in line six. Um, so I'm trying to show you what this could look like and and like I said, we can chip away at it. Um, so that is very prescriptive saying it's got to be 30 ft, can't be more than 50. Um,

but but again, you know, if you don't have big lots, this is probably not that big of a deal. You probably don't need it. if you think you have some weird or large lots and you don't want just one big long building, but again at nine units, you know, so likely you're going to have a huge building there. One of the zones, it's either the RS or the transition does have the maximum I I think that's where the 60 is coming from. I think it's the RS zone has a maximum width of the building. there because that's is that to be from the arms. Yes. Um

a quick question here. The was it the cottages is this the cottages flowing this table also? We had these as three separate tables. Yes. Initially the duplex triplex and then the multis. Um we had a separate table for commercial conversions and then one for the college clusters. Most of the standards were the same. So, we're thinking we should just consolidate into one people, right?

It's a little bit trippy again like cottage huster developments are not common here. And so, how that would be applied, it's essentially, you know, up to nine tiny houses on a singular lot arranged around the common open space areas. And how that would work very much depends on the ultimate configuration of the lot and whether you have something sort of they're all kind of staggered and something runs down the middle or if you have something that's kind of in a U shape or what it's going to be very different how to imagine that try to come up with a separate set of standards to have a whole separate table felt like much and when you're thinking about the types of developments that might be a little bit more concerning a little pocket neighborhood to me is leaning away from things that you might be worried about particularly in a commercial zone, right? These are not going to be abuing residential properties most of the time. So, we thought let's just go a little bit simpler. Um, but so these standards would apply. We will update the the heading.

Okay. Thank you. Um, the going to make it one table.

We So, we had three. What you now have is just the two. The reason why ran with the second one which is the residential conversion commercial residential conversions is because as you start thinking about a lot what we talked about the non-conformities you know um certain things I think we'll ultimately want to pull out something else that comes up during discussions at public hearing and we can always but we don't want to be there and say geez I wish we had a way to regulate this differently so we're sort of running with the whole picture and we can if we decide that it's not necessary and and we don't come up with anything more substantial then we can just eliminate that second table and just go with one. Yes.

And it's probably maybe 75 25 of the ones that I've done where you know majority of towns ultimately land on we don't feel like this is as concerning. Let's just do one table. Some towns uh are are sticking with multiple. Um I just we'll flush it out. Yeah. Um so something else that I I want to uh point out is if you look at the last line in the table is 15 maximum bedroom count unit size. So again numbers can be adjusted but we can always set the ceiling. We can't set the the foundation right. We can't tell them how big it has to be but we can cap. And so we're really trying to get to unit size to affect cost but also to

oh yeah

force people to think more thoughtfully about how to use them inside of an existing building. We don't want a retail plaza to just you know six shops now becomes six apartments. We'd rather figure out how to use that space in a better way. Uh so by sort of capping that I think we're going to creation of you know four bedrooms or something really crazy where it's just kind of a hodgepodge of of a clearly commercial building that now just people live in. So that's the intent behind it again feels like it's and is the max bedroom count we talked so that I don't know if that was something you had in mind or or something you pulled. I pulled it from your cottage clusters and I think another is it our PDD is a maximum of two bedroom units. Um we talk about should we open it up to three and a bigger family.

It's interesting. I was in a meeting today with a a developer and it was a 300 something unit building and they had five three-bedroom units and someone asked why are you only doing five and they said for us doesn't really work. the rents are high and when people get to a place of three bedrooms, they generally just opt to rent a house if they can or buy a house because the market for what it is demanding in a different part of the state.

Interesting. Nobody's wanting to rent a three-bedroom. It's too much. Um, and maybe that's different than an existing building. I don't think there's any harm. No, but I think sometimes I think to the quality of the design of the unit where we've had um we've had uh housing appeal applications where they meet the minimum health code for a bedroom, but they're they're like clo like they're not usable, but it was to be able to increase the sales. I got you aren't really bedrooms, but or they're calling it just like a work space or something. no closet.

Well, you always see that with the cased openings, the health, that's their way of getting their study, you know, as far as not closing them off, and this wouldn't eliminate that. Um, but I just think of those, you know, some of these examples we've seen where it's just cramming in to call it this many bedrooms.

I get it. Well, I guess if I mean I guess if that's really the need of three bedroom suites, we could I just I thought kind of a bad example and then what we've already had in the the regulations um we are missing a lot of that diversity of these smaller units in town um for that flexibility. So, but it's just my suggestion. So, yeah. And I don't know about the market with Yeah. Just leave it to the market. Yeah. Sure.

So, you just want to eliminate I I don't think it's again small these are small developments and let's say you get one or two and you think, "Oh, we don't like that. Okay, we'll add it back in." Like, you know, I don't we're not I don't think this is still fairly low risk. So, if you don't see a burning need to include it, I'd say air on the side of of keeping it easier. Um the other place, you know, we've written some regs in places that deal a lot with student rentals because we are colleges. Yeah. And so if they can call it a bedroom and fit a bed in it, then they then that increases the rent and they can, you know, get a,000 bucks a person or 2,000 bucks. So I say call it um Okay.

I was just going to say I kind of like having the standard there to say like to your point if if they're going to do this, you want it to be usable, livable, comfortable space for people to live in. And I do think about there's a lot of three-bedroom houses in town to your point just going back to like when I was decided to to buy a house was being we wanted a bigger bigger place and the cost to buy the house was comparable to staying in an apartment and I wanted my own space. So I don't know I was fine with two bedrooms thinking that three they would be wanting more space a yard. I mean, especially in in a town like Madison where we've got so many outdoor amenities and we have the residential areas and the communities and the neighborhoods. I don't know.

I think Max re does like it open it opens it up to all families trying to cram in and stuff to get in the school system like there are going to live to New York for 10 years. My first apartment was onebedroom convertible for um so like a lot of people will be craving and I think like want to hold that yeah 2200 foot twobedroom was a good

Yeah I I think we're imposing a standard on on people maybe it's not reasonable I mean I think the market the market's going to if there's three tiny bedrooms no one's going to rent them Yes, that's a good point. But the question I would ask is how many actual cases of that occurring? Well, we're going to see. We don't know. Well, I think it's going to be a lot.

So, something that I just we could do is I don't know what the language will look like, but I think we could do it. Um, we could tie the bedroom counts to the building type because one of the things the rig has to allow is town houses. I think it's reasonable for a townhouse to have three bedrooms. But if you're converting the second or third floor of a commercial building to apartments, I think I think I'd probably rather see three apartments at two bedrooms than, you know, two apartments at three, right? there, you know, there's there's probably a way to make it fit so that a more traditional townhouse or or whatever, like attached townhouse.

Yeah. Right. Cuz the the the bill says town houses are included in this. So somebody could build, you know, nine townhouse units attached attached or whatever. And I think it would be fine for those to be a three. Um, so we could look at limiting some of this so that those more traditional apartments maybe are limited to smaller and then something on the larger side. Um, that maybe is a middle ground. All right.

Um, you could certainly think on it. We could that is something that we could definitely amend we could definitely make before returns to the hearing. Thank you for that. Can you also um I was just pondering the max the minimum overall height and the maximum overall height. Can you help me with that? Like from a townhouse standpoint, two and a half stories. Um duplex, triplex, forlex, multiplex. Just trying to envision what some of these buildings could look like. And we have height requirements and restrictions. So with the two and a half stories be on top of a commercial space the building itself

totalite. Yep. Okay. We're trying to prevent some like a one story want like massive brick blocks of Yeah. Yeah. So I have visions of driving for those in New York. As far as this change, height requirements are what is stated here for maximum um in the underlying zone. In your commercial zones, many of them allow an increased height of sometimes 5 ft by special. Um that's not I mean that's

you're giving Yeah, this is additional flexibility. So that could stay if you really choose it. But do you leave that in the the commercial the underlying commercial zone or do we add that in the alternative section? Um but a part of me wants to avoid having to go back and forth to standard here

certainly carry it over. Um, or in what circumstance would you not give someone the extra 5 ft? Cuz if you can't think of one, then I think we should just add 5T to the max overall height and skip having to add another line. I don't know. Some of it was the guesses the massing of the building. What's around it too? So it's not sticking up like a sorted that would be an aesthetics issue.

Um so I mean if you if you're unsure or you think there's not a good consistency then we we could clarify it in the last section. Yeah. Or you just leave it as I think and so 30 feet is is typically to the midpoint. It doesn't that's not defined here overall height. So we have some trouble in some of our existing sections of 30 to mid average, you know, 35 total. I mean, we still take building height as it's defined in our definitions. So I guess that would

yeah we could clarify how it's written there if you think there's a better way to the term trying to you know I mean 35 ft isn't that high no if you want to add a 35 ft if somebody's trying to apply through they're not going to know to look at there's sometimes exceptions we want to avoid that yeah yeah I I you know this again this is not in a desk 3G situation where they're going to come in and say, "Well, your regs actually say this." So, they can do this. Yeah.

If you say this is the standard, this is how it goes. They could submit a text amendment. They could they could, you know, try to get an approval and but you know, this is not we're we're not in the rains. So, you know, part of this is going to be your interpretation and your application of the way that it's written and, you know, so we can include that special permit in in there. If you leave it as is and someone says, you know, can I afford myself the right to this special permit, you can just tell them yes. It's up to you how much you want to highlight it or you can just change the height. 95 have to another

don't have to come to that answer right now. You can think about it. I assume we could we could workshot that on the fly. While we're being super granular here, can I can I just go back to the building width? Sure. I guess because I was thinking I lived in for a while and I lived in a teeny tiny house. They're like they're called shotguns. Yeah. A lot. And it was great. But so when we say building width, we mean, you know, the whole building width, right? That you could still squeeze how many units. I mean, they'd have to still mean building code and all of those things. Yeah. Yeah. So, how they So, we're not limiting unit anyways.

No, it's the building. Yeah. looking at if if someone wanted to take like the what the next strip mall and make that into residential units we wouldn't that would not be allowed into I didn't hear the last residential units the that that is a commercial C zone so that could potentially yes but it's more than just the existing with if it's an existing non-conforming conversion if it doesn't if it already exceeds the maximum building width.

But that one also has parking in the front yard. It has that pretty much districts has parking in the front yard. So um so yeah. So is this a is this a realistic requirement? Well, I guess the way that I would Well, start with that one. Any of them? Oh, all of them. one one access drive rear yard rear yard parking

I think for the purpose I mean when you write a zoning regulation you think about right you think blue sky what do we want and if we don't draw that line there you sort of have a situation where you're not going to ever chip away at what that goal is so yes there substantial non-conformities that might exist in any number of these categories but if we don't put it in there then if you get someone that's constructing this do you know I'm you know I'm looking at the the second the second table the conversions the conversion that's that's where you would have

so so what I will say is I will have a I will have a more articulate answer for you on on how exactly you can approach these existing building conversions and that will either make you feel really good about the second table or ultimately land us in deleting the second table. Okay. It's Yeah, we're um I'm with you on that today. If we could what I'm trying to keep asking is like if we have one of those um a conversion effort with a current

strip mall that exceeds these widths, but it says permitted total units not to exceed nine. So, they can only divide it by nine. Correct. Nine is the maximum number of residential. So they couldn't do like little ones, right? So the nine would not. So the only issue that they would run into is I guess if you had like a 30,000 foot building, they would run into a situation where even if they did nine units at the maximum unit size, they'd have building left over. So at that point, they'd have to do mixed use, right? That I don't know how many buildings you have that are 30,000 square feet or more. That's like

Yeah. I don't know. Dollar General or those are like 10. I'm trying to think of some other stuff. How big is Yeah, that's what I was thinking. That' be a nice little space. Big windows. Glass. Glass. Yeah. So, so they would have exposure. They would have to do a commercial commitment. Um, but generally speaking,

if you have an existing a lawfully established pre-existing nonconformity, you have a right to maintain it unless you're doing something that expands upon that nonconformity. So, what we're sort of wrestling with is is there a way to sort of treat these as an expansion or or or an unlawful intensification of use. essentially you are willfully putting yourself in a position to have to bring this into compliance with certain standards and the town is going to establish what those are. And so maybe what we can do at this point is go to the last page which is where we try to get to this.

So we know from uh you know Monroe versus McKenzie that we can't issue waiverss. You can't just issue arbitrary waiverss to zoning regulations. Um but you can um find ways to achieve compliance in an alternate fashion provided you articulate what that looks like and how they get there. So this is meant to provide additional pathway to that. So we're establishing the summary review process and then we're basically saying we're going to try to give you some additional flexibility and you don't have to get a variance. you can come to P&Z. So, we're not we're not um arbitrarily telling you that these things don't apply and we're not creating a situation where we're going to force you to come to us for special permit. We're giving you the path, but we're we're saying if you want a little bit more flexibility, now we're going to give you this option. So, the reason why you've written it this way and feel that it is appropriate is because they still have all the rights that the summary review requires. Um, but in situations where someone is saying, "Listen, I would have to demo this building and rebuild it to be able to meet all these standards, and this is not going to work, you can issue a special permit to get them out of some of those requirements." Um, and I think we want to refine this perhaps a little bit based upon kind of where we go with some of the other language and maybe what during the public hearing, but um, the idea puts in those situations um, when it's under those specific circumstances as outlined, you could give them that special permit. Um, which would not be for the nine units or the seven units. It would be for the specific component of what they're requesting. So this doesn't make the whole project now um summary review or or sorry special permit. Um and so one of the things that I've added that we've toggled on and off

depending on the conversation is the last one which is seven. Um you can choose to give them relief on some of those standards because as a tradeoff they're going to perhaps lose some profitability by de-restricting you. And so the idea here is it could feed many thousands of dollars to make some of these conversions and maybe you decide you're willing to forgo some of those physical improvements because they're going to feed restricted unit. And I think it's worth being able to have that conversation. Sure. Whether or not it'll come to fruition, I have no idea. But um that's our call.

It's your call. And if I'm a building owner and it's going to cost me $100,000 or more to do some improvements, but I can keep the building as is by deed restricting the unit and we'll lose a percentage of that. Why wouldn't you know what to me that seems more viable. Yeah. So I want to be able to create that conversation. That's why we're that would be our our call, right?

Yes. But it seems like you get to a point where you don't meet the requirements to go through this a speedier process public hearings and all that that would you go back to the normal process if the situation became that complicated. A developer may choose to yes they may say you know I don't even want to go through this process. I'll just stick to whatever is in the regulations. That that may be that may be possible. Um but you know the the the benefit to this is let's say they say I don't want to do this you know I want to just you know go for my special permit because I don't want to make this change to this building. I don't want to I don't want to put in green space. I want to leave this you know backyard parking lot or whatever. I want to leave my 40 parking spaces for my six units. Um and they get denied. Well they still have all the rights that they had before. They they've just moved the standard. So again, we're not taking anything away from them. We're just giving them more options.

Yeah. Have you had towns want to spe um specify which areas are deep that you can deviate from like more prescription to Yeah. You know, whether it's specifically parking or recreation area or something like that. Yeah. just opening up every like we've had we are in have some folks that are having those conversations and just haven't quite gotten there yet. But yeah, it's just trying to be prescriptive in when and how they would get to that that compliance. Um and I sometimes say eh just don't don't need it. Remove it in its entirety.

The special permit option. Yeah, I think that it's I don't know. In my mind, I like it because we just don't know what this is going to look like, but um if it feels overly complicated, but and now the town that that said to eliminate it has a little bit more of a wide open rag overall. They don't care about roof types. They're not as worried about, you know, some of these other things about minimum size and they're not, you know, they've got, you know, good access to water and sewer. So like some of the concerns and stuff was maybe not there. This is not meant to be prohibited. It's really meant to make things work.

Yeah. One thing that catches my eye section is got terms like infeasible and unreasonable burden which are very subjective. I think that way to tighten that define them. We can tr Yeah, we can try to tighten it up a little bit. It thinks you have some flexibility because it's a special can't say special permit here. It's exception. It's exception. Um but

right um it's so you have that flexibility because they're going in that route and it may be hard to articulate exactly because something that may work in one building may not work in another. Yeah. But let we can Yeah. No marketability. Okay. I mean I think we have we have mentioned a couple times market driven consequences being market.

So this also just occurred to me could be stupid. Um in your flood zone rs you you call something a substantial improvement. you tie it to value and when they get to that point they have to comply. There's some to that where we would look at okay your building is worth $500,000 and all of these improvements would cost $450. Like maybe we could look at a ratio is a huge building that requires you know 100 grand worth of improvements may be reasonable but somebody who's got a little shop just wants to put a couple of units above that might not be that's certainly very objective. Um, so maybe we can play around with something

or just something similar like when we are evaluating whether or not your request is reasonable. We're going to look at the types of improvements you'd need to do to fully comply and how that correlates to the building that you have because that is subjective and would apply evenly to a small existing building or a huge. So you just take their the developer's word for what the cost of these improvements would be. I think they could tell you what it is. They have to sell the building in the building department for the same thing under the flood regs. I think you to the building, not site. We wouldn't require them to provide written estimates.

No, I think you could. I think they could they could come in and say, "Here's a here's here's a here's an estimate for all this work from an architect and from a site person, and it's going to cost me a million bucks. My my building isn't worth that much." And you could say, okay, yeah, it would seem unreasonable for us to make you put more than the building, but I feel like I don't know. But flood, don't they know it based on something? Yeah. They represent here's the cost of the work. And then we say, okay, over the course of x number of years, what have the improvements been, and what's the value of the structure? And if you get to that percentage, one five one year times five. the star.

I don't know. I don't live near the star. This is that's a whole I usually I have PTSD from having gone through that when I was talking and flood ribs and you know cam and see ballot and all that. Um but I don't know maybe let's explore that a little bit and see if there's a way to tighten it up. That'd be great. Yeah. See that problems? Yes, we will have somebody comes to you with 15 way 15 exceptions that they're looking for to make this work. There's Yeah, it's

Yeah, but you know the I but the idea is that people sus out someone that just doesn't want to do something. I want to just turn this into as many apartments as I can because it's I've had this dumpy building forever and I just want to make some money. And well, you already state that it can't be for financial the request to applicate demonstrate significant compliance above and beyond the the reasons. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're trying to just avoid those those, you know, really sort of bad actors because that's not going to lead to like equitable creation of housing that people want to live in.

Well, we also I mean, don't we still want to maintain the commercial aspect of those commercial districts because we still want some of that in theory? Yeah. Yeah. You do want to have Well, that's where your rigs used to I mean, well, your existing, you know, in your downtown, your first floor is the commercial and the walkability. Um, and this eliminates some of that. Yeah, you're right. And and I I will say that there are a couple of places that are that are leading with um for mixed use, you know, or for certain areas, you've got to have a component of of ground floor uh commercial percentage or something.

They're just Yeah, they're they're talking about residential units located on the ground floor of mixuse building, you know, shall be on the rear or not exceed a certain percentage or whatever. And bad idea. they're sort of just saying this is what we're going to do and we'll take the risk. Um, so again, you know, it's it's it's your regulation. You have to weigh what's the likelihood that someone's going to fight us on this and is it really important that we maintain that ground floor commercial component and start pushing things out. There's pluses and minuses to that. If you don't have a productive building, mandating ground floor commercial is going to mean that it's vacant. Um, and prevent Yeah. It's, you know, going to prevent ADA accessible units because everybody's going to have to go upstairs for

elevator elevators. Um, right now, you know, for bigger buildings and nine units, you're probably not going to see ground floor. A lot of times people want resident amenities, places to store a bike. We're seeing stuff like that. We're seeing a lot with these smaller multi- family style. They're designing them more to be town halls. So they fall under the residential building code and then they have a fire separation. So you may get four units in two town houses. Um y and that's how they're able to get better density. Um right

and and make it more economical to build that. We saw that in well not in our most recent 830G but um that's essentially the style of uh the PDT development just across the street on New Road. Those those are smaller four bed uh you know four or six bedroomedroom four bedroom they have sort of

no they're working and building permits are are coming very soon. Okay. Different topic. Good. So, um I have a handful of notes and revisions and things that we will we will refine, but I think what we'll do is we'll some a separate document some of those amendments and what it looks like so you can consider you know these alternatives um and we'll hold down a little bit more information um as this kind of goes forward. But I I think the plan would be to defer this so that we can still meet the deadlines and then we'll have something to consider at that next meeting. Um and certainly if anybody has questions, comments, concerns, if you see a project, whatever, you know, throw them at us between now and then so that we can have all this stuff ready to go. Um, and then we'll just we can just workshop anything additional during the hearing and it's as close as we need to u for July 1.

Okay. Great. How does everyone feel about a motion to schedule the public hearing in 2018? Max is a motion second discussion. All in favor public hearing June 18th. Great. Mike, thanks you. Thank you so much for all of this. No worries. And it's interesting how we go from general to specific. Real quick back again. You up for the whole process. That's what it takes. Exactly.

All right. Um we have let's see we have a a series of applications to schedule then. So next is the pending application 26-10 397 Baron Road motion to schedule public hearing that application for May 21st. May 26 like second. Second Rob discussion in favor.

Moving right along. Um we've received five more applications. 26-1261 Middle Beach Road West. Um I have a motion to table it to May 21st. Motion. Thank you. Second favor. That's done. Uh 26-1322 Flower Avenue. Coastal site plan review. Could we table this to May 21st as well?

Next. One favor. Great. Uh 26 F-15 is Scarnic Park Road postal site plan. Um table that to the June 8th, 202. I'll make the motion, but this is June 4th. Oh, I have fourth darn. That might typo be my type. Yeah, it's June 4th.

Okay, nice. Thank you. Second Mike 26-16 Fishing Plane and seven Sax Road April to May 21st. Thanks Mike. Any discussion? All in favor? And then 26-17 for Long View Terrace. Uh this would also be tabled to May 21st. Thank you. Second. Um okay. A couple of administrative approvals. 26-826 meeting. Council, do you want to talk about please?

They're just real quick. they're um fall under your regulations for a minor site plan modification. Um one is that uh the first congregational church for a greenhouse in the rear of the property and um the second is conversion of a deck to a three season room uh over on Apple Way off of Lover's Lane. Yes. 26-1. That's just the the reporting requirements uh that Maria has to let you know when she takes action. No action. No action. It's already been done administratively by the CEO being informed.

All right. Um then we have 824 referrals Scotland Avenue roadway improvements project. This we do vote on. Um we want to present anything. So, these are these are municipal improvements. Um, there have been public uh information sessions on both of these. Uh, Scotland Avenue is a roadway reconstruction. It's going to include um new storm water drainage um sort of a road diet narrowing the road to uh contra a little bit and it includes the installation of sidewalks. Um and these are state funded projects. Um and our town engineer um apologizes for not being able to attend this evening. Um but because they are uh improvements in the sidewalk installation, typical maintenance is not required to be referred to the commission uh for finding consistency with the POCD. Um however, projects that do include uh new crosswalks or sidewalks, things like that um are required. on. And so I have two separate draft resolutions for you. Um but I can briefly give you um the other sidewalk project. Boston Post Road, there's two areas of crosswalks. Um you probably have seen the rapid flashing EANS. Uh one is over on the east end at Dudley over by Donna Hughes and um that project is to kind of replace those beacons and improve the the crosswalk. uh across Boston Post Road and extends sidewalk to the uh Greenway Trail parking lot. And uh down on the west end of town, uh the uh town is moving forward with a sidewalk connection from the um uh the

green uh along Britain Lane down the post road, a crosswalk um over the post road um at Lantern Hill and Westworf, and then a sidewalk connection along uh the golf course uh down Westf uh that will connect to uh Surf clothing and um that particular project um we will see for village district improvements um and uh we will also see um that one I'm sorry went through the historic district initially as well um using some different material some favors to be um assisted with um really the design of the sidewalks and crossings uh in in downtown. Um so it looks to be a really nice project. uh also uh received some state funding for them. Um both of them are consistent with the goals of um the bikewalk master plan as well as uh obviously a I believe

uh from VOCC improving uh accessibility, but they're building a sidewalk on the golf course side. Yes, the website. Yes. Nice. Yeah, that's huge. It's long overdue. Yeah, it's going to be really nice. There trees along there, Eron, but they figured out I think they will not be inact.

You get to read them. Yeah, go for it. I'll do one if you want. pretty much explain what are my goods. I also have been on the historic really happy

and granite curving. Yeah. Yeah. As soon as she started to say it, I was like, "Wait a minute. What's it going to look like?" Cuz it's just You want it to be an extension of and not look like it was just It'll look like Well, those those sidewalks will look like the downtown sidewalks. So I think you'll be sort of aware that you're still in that area. Yeah. And then when you get to the west for intersection, I think that's just concrete concrete down west.

Um and Zark's parts of the path actually come up um and follow the topography to eliminate um tree removal and and to minimize visual impact of the sidewalk. Um but again that's part of the state permitting with the um crosswalks um that are going to be installed there as well. So that's a real nice connection to your which you married

my Scotland Avenue following draft resolution is offered voted that the Madison planning zoning commission approved in accordance with Connecticut general statutes 8-24 the proposed road drainage appro this project is consistent with the plan of conservation policy A create an accessible community that fosters squeezing connections among residents for gathering shopping recation dining. Additionally, the proposal is consist.

Thank you. Second chess I'm uh well this one is the golf the the west side the next

I don't see thanks Anyway, so all in favor Scotland Avenue Scotland Avenue. Okay, great.

And for sorry, John 824, the following draft is offered board that the plan Madison planning and zoning commission approved and general statutes 8-24 the proposed pedestrian improvements on Boston Post Road, Britain Lane and West Warf Road. The pro this project is consistent with plan conservation and development policy a create an accessible community that fosters easy connections among residents through gathering, shopping, recreation, dining and relax. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with the town's fight.

Great second. So is that any discussion? All in favor?

Okay. Next. Approval of minutes. Secretary John Morgan minutes of the April second meeting.

April. Yeah. So, I'm right. April. It was April 2nd. Yes, you're right. 16th. Yeah, you cancel the 16th. Sorry, guys. I can't hear anything with this fan. So, commissioners present were

Carol Snow, John Dooa, John Morgan, Mike Bugda, Malcol, Bob O' Conor, and Janet Beck via Zoom. Commissioners absent or Max Garun, Jeff DS, and Andy Ruben and motion to review and approve my minutes. So moved. Uh I only had one change on page two, Aaron. Uh we have Mike Michael Damato as the principal, not the principal. That's all right. That's an auto direct. I'm sure it was.

Yeah, you're okay. Listen, we got it. Madison, elementary education system largely. There you go. Any other any other uh changes? To approve the second. Oh, you motioned. I I moved it. Who? Thank you, John. Thank you, John.

Um, remarks. I did want to say that I want to thank Aaron for submitting a state historic preservation grant application on time. Yeah.

I forgot already that a year ago. Um, we've applied for actually when I say we, it's it's a people and organizations go through the town for a historic resources inventory grant to inventory all historic properties that have not been um between actually they're saying we're kind of saying on either side of 1826 Daniel but basically in the late 1600s if there are some up until the 1930s um just to have a record of all the reserve property so that we can reference it in the future have maps and get it organized. So this is like through planning and zoning if I mean as part of the plan of conservation and development district historical society and any entities region people I would say um yes so we hope to hear uh in early June uh for the grant I don't believe it's highly competitive so I'm hopeful never is it's for $20,000 to hire a consultant to do the work but it was there's a standard form documentation. Yeah, good step towards our uh our items in the BC and then the idea is to next step might be to create a preservation

right whatever happened with that expansion of the same boat on the west it was approved it's yeah it's a done deal yeah yeah so it goes it was 15 years in the making so a big success that it it was it was finally adopted in November. And in fact, we were waiting for that to do this hriic. It goes it goes past what? Up to the neck river or past? Um, really? Yeah. Um, there are a couple. No, it's not. I don't believe it's past. Yeah, I think it's up to the neck, but the Frederick Lee House didn't want to be part of it. Yeah, we um

the state house. The state house didn't want to be part of it either. Is there further debt? It's it's easier. Yeah, it's mapped on our GIS system. Now, we've um distinguished between the three uh local historic districts. So, if you just toggle on the old district that another outcome of this hri would be to recommend other possible historic districts. Wow. Buffalo Bay. That's all I have to say. Earl, did you have any remarks?

I don't have a motion to motion to adjurnn. Second favor three according to that. Thank you everybody. Thank you Bob. Good night. Thank you. Great work, guys.