Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll get started.

Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order this Thursday, July 9th. 6th meeting of the management and zoning commission. We have 3 public hearing schedules for this evening, so I want to take a few minutes to review the process for public hearings, average format of meetings. During the public hearing, the applicant will be invited to present the application explaining to the commission and others presence what is being requested. The applicant or staff will share all application materials on the screen as needed and it looks like we just have this screen working tonight. Comments of town agencies will be read for each application if there are any, and 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 question. Next, those who wish to support the application may come forward, and then those who oppose the application may come forward. We often combine those two. sake of time. Again, if it is necessary for speakers to identify themselves each time they speak by stating their name and address. The applicant will then have an opportunity to address any questions or concerns raised by the public or commissioners. Once the public hearing is closed, the applicant is free to leave or remain for the balance of the meeting during which the commission will try to reach a decision on each application. Each applicant will be notified in writing as to the decision of this commission and has a right to appeal to superior court if desired. Decisions of this meeting are available the day after the meeting by calling the land use department at 203-245-5631 after 9 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. Seated this evening are members in alphabetical order, Mike Bogda, Jeff Downs, Vice Chair John Duzza, Secretary John Morgan, Bob O'Connor, Janet Peckinpah, and myself, Carol Snow, chair. Staff present this evening is Erin Mannix, town planner. The meeting is live streamed on YouTube and will be made available on the town website for viewing. Additionally, I would like to ask that we treat each other respectfully throughout the meeting and a reminder to please turn off your phones. The town planner will now read the legal notice.

Notices hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, July 9th, 2026, beginning at 7 p.m. in Meeting Room A, Town Campus, A Campus Drive, Madison, Connecticut. This is a hybrid meeting, and attendees may also join via Zoom webinar through the webinar link or call in information below. Webinar ID is 915-8196-6735. The password is 452138. The following applications will be heard. 26-18, text amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is a text amendment to Article 6, Definitions and Proposed Section 9.5, Middle Housing, to address legislative changes pursuant to Special Session Public Act 25-1, House Bill 8002. Application 26-20, text amendment, applicant is David S. Klein, petition for regulation, text amendment, section 4.1.35, to allow domestic pet-related services, including training, grooming, daycare, exercise, and pet socialization meetups. Application 26-24, 391 Durham Road, map 72, lot 27, zone RU1, owner-applicant client properties, LLC, special exception application pursuant to section 4.1.35 to allow domestic pet-related services, including training, grooming, daycare, exercise, and pet socialization meetups. Copies of these applications 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. While written correspondence can be submitted to the Land Use Department via email, Planned use at madisonct.org, dial 203-245-5631 for assistance. The Madison Medicaid is 15th of June, Farrow-Snowchip.

Thank you, Erin. Okay, so can I have a motion to open public hearing 26-18, text amendment?

I'll go with it.

Thank you. Second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor? All in favor. I'd like to invite Mike D'Amato from Tyke Ecosystems to present for us.

Thank you. Okay, so the commission has a copy of the most reminiscent version of the amendments, but I will say So as the commission knows, in November, there was legislation passed which requires all towns in Connecticut to treat certain types of housing developments by what they call summary review, which means that we have to allow these by right on any lot zoned for commercial or mixed use. um the requirements that those types of developments be allowed in those areas and in that manner um became effective on july 1st so um we the the situation uh across all towns in connecticut is that as of july 1 this law comes into effect regardless of whether you have regulations on books or not So the regulation, just to clarify some additional points, would just want to make clear, does not apply to residential zones. It does not supersede any other outside jurisdiction or requirements. So this does not supersede. The design review process, coastal site plan review, building code, all of those things, health code for well and septic. The only piece to this is that it says that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to treat them as a by-right use, cannot hold a public hearing, and can only enact standards which are essentially non-discretionary. So we can't use language that says things should be appropriate. it, we have to explicitly state what, where, how many, color, type, et cetera, because the public hearing process, which normally allows you to go through and really evaluate and determine if modifications are needed to an application to address some unique qualities of the project that's in front of you, is not on the data of this. So the regulation that has been drafted attempts to define the process without kind of going through more traditionally and trying to amend the entire body of the regulations to create specific standards in every sort of additional section that you might have for parking and for design and for lighting and for landscaping and for coverage and creating a situation where we may have to relax a standard for all the other uses of these zones because we have to treat these specific uses in a certain way. The only thing I don't think I mentioned is that this only applies to two to nine units. So single family homes, obviously they're not on the table and Anything above nine units, nothing changes. It is not nine units per building. It's nine units total. So whether they have it in a single building or whether they build multiple buildings, duplexes, et cetera, they can only have none on that piece of property. And your subdivision regulations would still however they want it and get nine minutes on some sort of back property or something like that. So the style of the regulation that we have drafted is more form-based than what your regulations have now in that it has the traditional components as far as procedure review and what we need to include in your application. elements because we have to be prescriptive. So we talk about the types of materials you have to use. We talk about the elements of the architecture. We include language about roof type and specifics on site layout, building orientation. Again, trying to be very prescriptive so that no matter who reads the regulation, we will all, in theory, agree on what it says and what that requirement is. This is still a traditional regulation amendment. This is not like 8-30G, where someone comes in and says, well, I'm doing middle housing, and so therefore, because of this, that, or some other standard or state law, you just have to approve, or I don't like something in your regulation, or I don't agree with some of this language, and therefore, I want my permit as a right. If there's a problem with this regulation or a developer that wishes to do middle housing, doesn't like a specific standard. They don't have some fast-track process that's available to them. It would be just like any other regulation, freedom of appeal or denial, and they would be free to submit a text amendment to you to modify. So there is no fast-track that happens once this becomes effective. So just going through their sort We have requirements for open space and residential amenities and for how refuge areas are being designed and screened. We then provide building renderings and building examples. These have been pulled from buildings across Connecticut and also reflect the building types that the Act says we have to allow. So, for example, we have to allow for perfect six. So we are using building examples that reflect the types of structures that the Act says we have to allow people to construct. And then at the bottom, we have some example before and after commercial conversions, because this could just as easily be someone converting an existing building as it might be the construction of a new building. We then get into the dimensional requirements, which have largely been adhered to the standards that are currently in place today. So we're not allowing for any greater intensity of development than the zone currently would allow a restaurant or hair salon or whatever office to develop on. And then we have some language in there that we've added, which I can get into if nobody has any questions. I'm just sort of that piece as a starting point. So far? Okay. So to get into why it's changed. So the amendment in front of you, you'll see, particularly as you get further down, the reg has some language that was highlighted in yellow. So those are... reflective of two things. Largely your comments at the last meeting, right? There were comments that we arrived at as far as how we wanted to address certain things and clarify some language. And also, there's a couple of things that I think I tweaked because every town in Connecticut in theory is doing this, and after going through this more times than I Care to think about, um, we've, we've sort of honed in on some stuff and clarity. This rag, you know, I've referred to some multiple councils of government and got feedback. So. Trying to clarify, um, so you want me to go through each of the yellow pieces and touch up. I read them. Um, so the 1st 1. Yep, which Aaron has on the screen is we talked about and kind of. wrestled with, do we limit unit size? Do we not limit unit size? Do we limit bedrooms? Do we not limit bedrooms? And there are pros and cons to that point of discussion. And I think one of the things that, the way we left it at the meeting, going back to what I know, was that we're going to just sort of be left to have the market dictate, particularly because if it's an existing building, limiting a specific size would be a challenge if the footprint is already there. But that does create a little bit of a gap, at least in my mind, particularly with cottage clusters, because those are effectively single family homes, right? They're small, but they are one unit in a detached freestanding building. And I thought, well, we don't want a cottage cluster to be 2,500 square foot homes. So The, the, the act doesn't have any guidance or or tell you how that is just as we have to allow what they are. So, I, I added this language to clarify. That there would be a 1600 square foot cap on the cottage cluster.

You can stop but why don't we want 2500 square foot guys.

I don't know if that meets the spirit of what a cottage cluster unit is, because they would still have to be on a single lot, and your average lot size, that would be, I think, a challenge. But the intent for them to be single-story and arranged around common green space becomes a challenge if you have a footprint of something of that size. maybe you don't, maybe that doesn't bother you, but that means that your sort of traditional process of having residential development, you know, three or four bedroom homes on residential lots that have front yard, backyards, driveways, et cetera, Well, now you're going to have 9 houses of any size on a single parcel. And that, to me, starts to conflict with the spirit of your subdivision regulations. I don't know if you have conservation subdivisions or clusters. So, to me, that would be a conflict with a cluster or conservation subdivision, right? And we want to think more about not undoing the intent of those regulations by allowing someone to come in and basically build a cottage cluster development with a 3,000 square foot house.

Mike, do you want to just take a second to define middle housing for everybody?

Yeah, so middle housing is defined in the act sort of in a little bit of a peculiar way because they're born from a bunch of other places. But it's sort of two parts. Again, keeping within the two to nine units. So the first piece is a development which is defined as transit community middle housing. And that's the first definition that's not there. A residential building containing not less than two dwelling units, but not more than nine such units, including not limited to townhouses, duplexes, triflexes, perfect sixes, or cottage clusters. So transit community middle housing is a term already codified in statute. So the legislature got a little lazy and they pointed to that. Transit community middle housing Does that be on transit? Does it have to incorporate transit? It is a completely useless term for the purposes of this. The second piece is mixed-use developments. And that isn't explicitly The development containing two or more residential units and one or more commercial, public, institutional, retail, office, or industrial uses as defined, and it gives the statutory reference, which also already existed. Mixed use can be, and this is written in such a way to be consistent with the fact that it needs to be allowed as mixed uses in a single building or mixed uses in separate buildings on the same property. So this clarifies that. Are we okay with the first yellow? The commission is free to strike. Sorry, did I interrupt?

Any interruption?

Yeah, I guess I still don't see, I don't see the inherent logic in limiting it to 2,500 or 1,600. 1,600. 1,600. Okay, we're limited to, okay, we're limited to 1,600 square feet. Right. So, why 1,600?

So, in my mind, when you look at the average footprint of a house that is contained on a single level, because cottage... Units, typically when you see them, they are on a single level, but they don't have to be. When you're trying to get an entirety in a single box, they tend to be somewhere in that area. But also, you can make changes which are more restrictive. So I started at the high point because you would certainly come down from there. But, or strike it entirely. But I thought it would be better to sort of start at 1600 and maybe you settle somewhere below that versus saying, well, geez, we advertised it at 12, but we prefer it be 16.

So you put a stake in the ground to establish some reference point to add specificity.

Right. That's your intention. Right. And the commission during this public hearing can certainly adjust or strike that language. You don't have to limit it. Oh, okay. But I don't know the content of your conservation or... What is it?

Conservation or... We have... Well, we have cluster housing thing we have, which allows for large-scale flammation. And then we have flammation. So...

eliminate the cap on those units entirely, I would want to make sure that we all understand that there isn't going to be a conflict, because if somebody wants to do a conservation-style subdivision based on your current subdivision regulations, and for one reason or another it's not possible, there's nothing that would stop them from just putting nine single-family homes on a commercial lot at no cost. No, the only thing that would hunt them in would be the setbacks of the property. And so. Would that be a bad thing? I'm not sure that that 9, 3000 square foot single family homes in the middle of a commercial zone is consistent with. The whole intent of subdivision regulations and we want the market to determine that. market will determine whether it's viable yes but sort of the use of land and the separation of uses is you know something this commission decides and you can decide whatever you think is appropriate but okay um the the examples you're showing for the cottage units are all two stores yes okay you keep saying well one story because to me that would reflect the largest footprint that would give them less coverage and obviously the hype that would allow for it. But To me, the single story create that sort of more bulk or more mass on a piece of property, right? If I'm going to put 1,500 square feet times nine buildings on one property, it's going to feel a lot tighter if they're all on a single level. So that's why I sort of backed into the number, assuming a single level, but if they were to go off them.

Okay, we've spent a lot of time on this. We can move ahead.

The next piece is some clarification on the process. So 4 talks about codifying the review process that the town goes through when an application comes in. Because again, we won't have public hearings and items entered into the record. So this references that you as the commission will rely on information from various town officials in making your determination. That is part of your normal process, but isn't really written anywhere. Number five talks about conflicts. If there's a conflicting standard that is adopted elsewhere in the regulations now or even in the future, the standard which is the most objective, because, again, this is summary review, but also the most stringent is what will apply. So we don't have to worry about some language elsewhere that unwinds something that's in here and having an applicant come in and say, well, this line says this. one instead of this um uh six clarifies that within the downtown village district you still have to go through all the separate standards that pertain to that process and that you're not absolved of that um and seven clarifies that if you have a commercial use you don't get to just IN YOUR MIDDLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND SKIP THE SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE. SO THOSE WERE THINGS THAT CAME ON AT THE LAST MEETING. IN D, WE ADJUSTED THE SIGN MATERIAL PERCENTAGE DOWN FROM WHERE IT WAS AT 80 TO 60. in uh five under unit configuration we added language to clarify that the units should have an area for the storage of personal items so those are within the million rather than like common area as you as you can sometimes see uh we removed uh parking from being allowed side yard um that was a recommendation okay the rest of these work yeah so we uh made some Removed a couple of references to evergreen trees and specific height language again at recommendation. And then the final landscape buffer standard, continuous double row of shrubs, et cetera, based on that feedback. Moving to the next piece under lighting, we added the reference to the temperature not to exceed 3,000 feet. That was a comment from this commission. We then added language in five pertaining to sidewalks, unless they are sidewalks in accordance with the master plan that the town adopted and made them end, unless otherwise prohibited by DOT for state roads. So obviously that would fall to them.

Do we need to say something about connecting to existing sidewalks if present? So if they're, so,

This will require that they put them on their property. You can't require offsite improvements, so they wouldn't be able to go beyond the property line. But they would, so you'd have to just build those connections as they went. Okay.

We're assuming that they would connect, if there's a sidewalk, they're going to connect to the sidewalk ending at the property.

Right, so they would, yes, they would connect to the property line. Sidewalk terminates at the- Do we need to say that specifically?

I don't- I thought it said along the frontage.

Yeah. So it says sidewalks along parcel frontage shall be provided. So to me, I think that covers it because parcel frontage would be along the street. So we're not talking about a specific building or anything. We're talking about just the property. So I think that is sufficient. Okay. Getting into the table 9, we agreed that we didn't need to set separate standards for separate building maximum sizes and building separation because that would largely be driven by building fire codes. And then we've got the, we removed, as discussed, the prior language, which has the maximum unit size of 2,250. We're running with the three-bedroom, maximum three-bedroom. Good so far? Yeah. Okay. Because, so when we started this, we weren't sure if there was going to be would need to be different standards for residential and commercial conversions, units versus a triplex or whatever. Where we landed is that we would have consistency across the zones with commercial developments, which means we don't need all these tables. So all this yellow is just saying we're striking these tables and there will be a single table for the dimensional requirements based upon the commercial zone they're in. Yeah, and we reflected, we updated the heading to just be standards for middle housing because it's not going to be for a specific building type. H is new. That's one that sort of landed on through conversations with a couple of different communities. So one of the things that's a little bit awkward when you think about this is those commercial compliant existing buildings? And how does that work? And where do we draw that line? And so we have number two there, which was existing before, which is the alternative compliance. But ahead of that, some language that we included in other regs and I put here for the commission to consider is sort of an explicit statement of where the commission does draw that line. So this basic exist for commercial buildings that already have been constructed. However, the things on this list, the following items, we're not going to wreck and so those items are currently lighting the open space of residential amenities the buffering and operable windows um so you know we can adjust that list you can decide it's not needed and strike it but i thought it helps clarify how the approach would be on a commercial existing commercial building so i thought it was worth including um And then the last item that's here for two, which is largely existing from the last time you saw this, except we added on to two and to three in the just the order to make the first items one, two, three, and four required. Rather than having sort of a mix of items on this list, and it could be this, could be one, or it could be all of them, basically are now saying you have to meet items one through four to make it more specific, set the bar a little bit higher and not have it just be that someone comes in and says, well, let's say complies with the POCP or, you know, some sort of more fluffy request to communicate. So I think this is in keeping with some of the comments that may have been received about trying to, again, dial this up a little bit. So this will set that bar higher. And I think as we discussed, This law became effective eight, nine days ago. It's effective now. So I think we're really in a position where we need to get something out of the books. And we can always adjust. You can always adjust after a development comes through and you decide you don't like it and you wish you'd have done it differently. What's probably better is to set the bar a little bit higher and have someone come before you and say, this isn't reasonable, and we adjust this down and have you say, yeah, that makes sense, and find that standard to be lower, which is kind of the approach we've taken with some of these things. And so with that, I will answer any questions, or we can go over anything else. Maybe still the question.

Yeah. and it's trying to build an atmosphere. If that order passed, would that have any impact on it? Is it matched or is it mutually exclusive or what are they?

I don't know what legislation you're referring to to know what it says or how it would impact here federally. But, I mean, it's complicated because a lot of people think that in Connecticut we have home rule. We don't really have home rule. What we have is a rule where the state said, yeah, we're going to let the towns take care of it. And they drew a box and they said, you can choose what you want to do within this box. There are towns in Connecticut that have said, we don't need that sort of box. We're going to just not. So it is challenging because our authority is through the state. So I don't know how federal legislation would pass through, and I'm not aware of it. So I don't have a good answer for you on that.

You should probably look at it at some point. They're trying to do things with making the regulations a little looser about cluster health. You know, you can put them in things of that nature, or for the housing bill. And it's been helpful for various reasons.

Yeah, and there were a lot of different pieces of legislation introduced at the state level during the last session that didn't pass that were a little bit, you know, more out of the box, shall we say, with certain components of housing to try and encourage it to sort of statewide. There's been a consistent sort of drum beat related to just overall housing shortage. And so I think as I've explained before, a lot of people think the housing shortage is largely because of zoning regulations. I think that they place unfair blame on zoning regulations across Connecticut. There's a lot of towns that have stuff that could be improved, but we staff dozens of towns across Connecticut, many of which already have these regulations on the books. I don't know of one town that has had a middle housing development. No one's clamoring to get in on this. Right. But we do know that they fully intend to reintroduce versions of that legislation at the next session. So, you know, they want to continue to, I think, use the summary review process and what has to be allowed where as a vehicle. So we may be doing this again in a handful of months because... requiring us to allow this in industrial zones which failed um but they stated explicitly willing to reintroduce that um so we may be seeing it for now uh you know we're living on this this version of the crazy world and we'll deal with that next um and yeah i think i've got theory so um

So I think what you're trying to do there is say, look, we're going to require these four standards, even if the existing structure, commercial, doesn't count. Correct. Correct. Which makes sense. But I guess my concern is that it's a little bit unclear. You say no non-conforming characteristics shall be interpreted or applied in a manner that will eliminate the appropriation of environmental housing standards. Well, a commercial building doesn't necessarily have the same standards for apartments that it conforms to, right? I mean, imagine a commercial building that's surrounded by a big parking lot. there's no open space or green space. And what you're trying to say, which makes sense, is that if that's going to be residential, it ought to be as much as 4,500 square feet of green space. Right. So I just think I need to be a little more clear because somebody could say, look, I'm converting a commercial building to a residential building. The commercial building performed everything it needed to. Right. And in terms of this law, right, a significant chunk of green space.

Yeah, so I mean, I'm happy to adjust the language to something that you think is more clear. I think in my mind, because they would be, you know, they have a conforming commercial building and then they make application under this section, the standards and table that apply. So they would be coming to you saying, we have this pre-existing non-conforming condition. And traditionally, a pre-existing non-conforming that has finished out it or whatever and so you know what we don't want them to do for these specific core items is say well i already have you know floodlights all over the building i'd really prefer those stay um so yeah i mean there's there's different language or i'm happy to to brainstorm how we can modify that language to make it more explicit i think it's unclear um yes i think we're on the same page just to do this a little bit of purpose

Commercial conforming is different than it's new.

So you're talking about the heading.

Why? Talk about the sentence, no non-conforming characteristic. not determined to apply the demand that would eliminate the appropriation requirement of housing with all the standards. It's the non-conforming characters. I mean, a commercial piece of property doesn't have to conform to the same requirements as this little housing units. I mean, I can think of lots of properties, but properties in town are commercial buildings. They don't necessarily have green space.

Well, that would then require them to eliminate some of that. Right. parking area to create space. Does that? Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

Maybe just a simple, simple sentence that says, middle housing vault standards must include standards relating to these four things.

Yeah.

That would be clearer. Sorry, I was trying to work in the use of something like existing characteristics. So I'm listening to what you were suggesting.

Well, we're both doing it on the fly.

Yeah. What was the recommendation?

Just to simplify that, these are non-HMO. These must apply.

Exactly. It's sort of changing a bit.

The standards related to these four items multiply. Because it'll say, it'll have. Okay, so. Okay. So it's negative. Yeah. So what if.

That would.

Eliminate compliance with.

So what if it said, however, no non-conforming characteristic shall be interpreted or applied in a manner that would eliminate compliance with the following development standards?

That's confusing. They don't like the word must, right?

Yeah, I just don't know how to get there from the nonconformity, because we're starting off by saying this thing which doesn't lie.

Can we make it a separate sentence? Standards must include something like that.

Yeah, I think so. I think you want to keep the first sentence. Yeah. Get rid of the second sentence. The commission recognizes that certain buildings, blah, blah, blah. Well, okay. We don't need to even say that. The following middle house open space, resonant amenities, landscape buffering, and operable windows must be included in the conversion.

And that's what we're trying to say.

Right. The reason why it has the additional language in there is because with a nonconformity, they're coming in with some existing condition. And if the building was built 100 years ago, we don't necessarily know what that specific standard is. And so they would be coming in under normal circumstances, making the case that whatever exists is is pre-existing in compliance we don't necessarily know what it is so i included shall not be interpreted or applied because we don't necessarily know what those applications are going to look like and they will be different each time um the regulations are prescriptive in and of themselves The standards always apply. So we're trying to capture what the ultimate request is going to look like when it comes from the applicant.

No nonconforming characters shall allow incorporation of required middle housing non-settings. Don't conform with or near requirements relating to lighting, open space, landscape, and operable windows.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

the corporation middle housing development standards that don't meet the rules related to lighting, space, landscape buffering, and openable windows.

But it makes sense to say no non-conforming characteristics shall be interpreted or applied in a manner that would override the incorporation of requirements.

In a manner that would prevent? Yeah, prevent. There you go. Yeah. um because you're not getting you got yeah the way it says eliminate going in a manner that would prevent there you go preventive yeah preventive incorporation of the following standards yes yeah let me type in before we all forget it Okay, so the sentence would read, however, no non-conforming characteristics shall be interpreted or applied in the manner that would prevent incorporation of the following standards.

Sure. Does middle housing development belong as part of that bill or not?

I took it out because we have it in the first sentence just to make it a little bit less wordy, but we can add it back in.

If it's still implied in that sentence, I'm fine with it being out.

Yeah, I mean, I think because it's that specific. Okay. Just to make it a little bit less of a mouthful.

Thanks, John.

Any other questions or comments? and then others from their practitioners we can open it up to the public if you want the audience attendance have any questions or comments yeah you can go right up to the podium and identify yourself

i'm laura downs i live at 54 quarry ledge um i just had a question about the zones that are included um and that that chart that shows and then it refers to the map as well and i think um sir you mentioned um the downtown village district as opposed to those um which is not mentioned in that chart so i just wanted to clarify so Good question.

The downtown district is the commercial district. The downtown village district is an overlay of additional standards that are still applicable within the downtown district. So the commercial zones that are included in this amendment are the C commercial zone, the T transition, downtown districts, which are the... downtown district, the downtown water restriction, and the downtown commercial shopping center, the stop and shop area, and then also the rural shopping district, which is

Okay, it's just when you look at that map, the downtown village district, the cross patches that go over there. There's. A piece of that that is on our property that.

Shouldn't so the village district. Does expand beyond. The downtown district, so the village district is is a floating district that is larger than that and they, and does include residential. But that is not a zone districts. That middle housing applies to. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions?

And I don't see any hands up here.

Anyone online could raise their hands. I don't see anyone. I don't see anybody. I'm sure.

I just have one question. On page 10 on the bottom, number 5, there's a statement. Each unit shall contain the intended living facilities, including provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation, and storage of personal items, a.k.a. closets. Okay, what are provisions for living? I think that, you know...

I don't know what that means. The idea is that it should have all of the things that you need to reasonably live as a single person or as a family. So when you look at a floor plan, rather than just having something where it's in a single space, or you can look at maybe the sizing, trying to make it clear that these are going to be homes. They should have enough space for people to have all the things that they would expect to have in a development review. So that is sort of an overly inclusive term.

So include something beyond sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation, and storage of personal items.

Yeah, I mean, to me, that would be more, there's typically more space. You don't walk through your kitchen to your bathroom and to your bedroom, right? There's usually some additional space somewhere. So we're trying to create as livable of a unit as we can.

It doesn't prevent a studio.

No.

And I'm also thinking that if you're converting a commercial space to living space, It's important to say this.

And in places that have different housing markets, maybe they're close by to a college, don't really have a lot of common space in that is used for living everybody has like their own little piece which is maybe a bedroom a bathroom or something and there's common areas so we want to or again traditional dwelling unit that has you know a place where you can sit down and watch madison planning and zoning meetings live screen it's important use what was the actual idea about restorative personal items it wasn't closets right it was well that was a recommendation from the commission at one of our earlier

when we first went through this draft of being able to have some interior storage. I don't think it's just closets.

It's things like light storage.

Yeah, that's right.

places with developments that are conversions and things where they don't provide space for storage and outside areas become the place where people store bikes and Christmas ornaments, whatever. And then, yes, you have like a second floor unit with a deck or a paddy, whatever, and they're stored there. That becomes a fire marshal concern. So there should be some space in the unit for secure storage. For each unit? Each unit, right.

It seems a little too restrictive. So we're not saying to a studio with a bike room.

It could be within the building.

A common bike room.

A designated storage space.

It says each unit shall contain. Shall contain space for storage, not bike storage. So you could have any sort of storage. Yeah. I do not personally think it's unreasonable to expect that there store something. It could be a closet. It could be storage in a kitchen area. It could be an area in a basement that's locked.

But I guess this doesn't seem to really say anything. You can storage personal items. I want to keep my toaster in a cabinet.

Does that meet this requirement? Well, if storage in a kitchen cabinet met the criteria. Again, what we're trying to do is to, you know, the majority of people that are going to read this convey what we're trying to, what the expectation is without being so prescriptive that we say everybody has to have at least 150 square feet of storage because then those studio type units, that becomes very prohibitive. But having a coat closet by the front door you know, checks the box, but still provides a place for some of that stuff to go.

Yeah. I mean, I think it becomes too strict. I would say living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation is, that's what you would expect in a living space. A studio apartment. Sure. Yeah.

I mean, you could certainly strike it. It's,

included yeah that would be actually considered but i don't know i don't remember who suggested it i don't remember who suggested it i don't think it's wrong but i don't mind it i don't think it's wrong saw this all right fine we'll leave it thanks um i want to add that we did also receive some additional comments from uh

outside from the Conservation Commission. I have them at 6.06 tonight. So they'll be on file. And they actually overlap a bit with what ACCA recommends. So I think that the fact that you've incorporated ACCA's comments is good.

You tried to look at them very quickly and there are there are several points in there that I think we do get in the revised version. I think maybe not explicitly or exactly, but. Particularly the alternative compliance, I think we had.

Yeah, they're the light shielding of light recommending that lighting be shielded and no more than 26. hundred k as opposed to three thousand which the commission that typically has been your standard number at this point um landscape comments uh were again recommending uh recommending uh that all uh noting that buffer plantings uh require native species but that the regulation doesn't specify foundation and street trees to be native non-invasives. And so that was their recommendation.

Aaron, did I read the ACCA recommendations incorrectly? Didn't they also think we should eliminate the Section F, the building design samples? They did. And I know we kind of talked about that.

We're not thrilled with all of them either.

I was not thrilled, I think, with some of the samples. And in conversations and discussions with them about the examples, they may not want to see that particular style cottage unit or those little pointy eyebrows over the windows of the commercial conversion to residential. It's not particularly, you know, what they're looking for. And, you know, we had talked about, you know, Mike emphasized that these are actual projects. These are actual examples of things that have been permitted with it. So they're all, you know, buildable, viable in Connecticut structures. We could swap out photos of existing developments. We don't have perfect sixes in town to use a local example of. We probably have a cottage photo that we could swap out, those types of things. We don't have a whole lot of or any... Full commercial to residential conversion examples from. Madison, so we were, we're a little limited and pulling some local examples versus some others that exist statewide. And it's really. It's not to say this is specifically what we want, but this is just for that style of building. It's not restrictive in any way. It's just. That's correct. And they struggled with that a little bit because they didn't care for them necessarily.

I can't account for Chase. So two points I would make are, one, one of the things we experienced on sort of the opposite side of the end of that was that to people that are just hearing about this, a member of the public or a layperson that hasn't been following along with everything that goes on, in land use and legislation. The idea that middle housing is something being as of right, et cetera, can feel a little bit concerning. So by having examples to show that these are not large six-story, 60-unit, and just to give examples of the context of the building, a picture is worth a thousand words. So some of this so that they don't use their imagination, not try to follow 15 pages of jargon. But I, you know, personally, I don't think that there is a concern with you guys including an acknowledgement that that you know i can work with aaron post adoption to to swap out with local examples right we can these are not uh regulatory right so so she gives me a half a dozen examples we can work to start to see if we can swap those out and it's not part of the text so i think you could include that in a decision if you want yeah that sounds sounds good i like that yeah and i think i will probably

But we choose the right ones. I knew what we wanted to get rid of. The eyebrows. The eyebrows.

If a developer comes to us and has that little commercial building and they just want to leave it exactly as it is, what's our recourse?

So a couple of things. We do have the standards, the bay window options, and that's what that bottom and the roof line options. So the flats are discouraged. And so these were at some interest in the building style of facade that kind of brings out more of a residential look for those units. Um, it may not be any of these examples. Um, it may be a different roof line altogether. It may be 1 of the items that. A developer would want to come and say it's cost prohibitive to add a peak roof. On this particular building, however, I can buy with 1 through 4 of the alternative. Uh, compliance and seeking a special exception to eliminate that.

So we have anyway, so there's, there is flux.

Thank you the other questions or comments. Good, I have a motion then that we sort of stop.

Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. I think that's been late. And I might be completely all faces, but what commercial property at 397 Durham are we talking about? We're not there yet.

We're not there yet. We're still on a text amendment that's part of middle housing. So we're on the first agenda item. Okay. All right. All right. Would I have a motion to close public hearing and move to deliberations?

So moved.

Second. Anity for the discussion of the plan. All in favor? We've deliberated quite a bit and have a lot of goodness to it, I think. We're feeling comfortable to approve?

I am. Thanks. I mean, I'd love to see the unit size a little bit bigger, but everyone else thinks it's 700 square feet is reasonable. I will defer.

Okay. Thanks. Jeff?

Okay.

I'll do so you're happy with your text.

Well, sounds good to me.

Anything else? In that case, could I have a motion? We have staff draft to read, motion to approve, and we have a draft resolution.

The following draft resolution is offered. Voted that the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission approve application NUMBER 26-18, TEXT AMENDMENT, APPLICANT, MADISON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE C DEFINITIONS AND SUPPOSED SECTION 9.5, MIDDLE HOUSING, TO ADDRESS LEGISLATIVE CHANGES PURSUANT TO SPECIAL SECTION PUBLIC ACT 25-1, HB 8002, AS AMENDED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. THIS APPROVAL IS MADE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THIS AMENDMENT ALIGNS LOCAL REGULATIONS WITH STATE LAW AND THE TOWN'S PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY POLICY G, DIVERSIFY MADISON'S HOUSING SUPPLY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH A RANGE OF INCOMES, FAMILY SIZE AND AGES. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL IS JULY 13, 2026. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, JEN.

SECOND. NEW SPEAKER SOFT. NEW SPEAKER FURTHER DISCUSSION? NEW SPEAKER ALL IN FAVOR? Well, if they're going to just add that language about just swapping photos. Oh, do we need to add that?

You can add that to your resolution.

OK, so we'd like to vote. Yes, we just did. Oh, you did. OK. I thought you said it was something we could just do.

Yes.

As part of the graphic. Yeah, I mean, that's fine. It's not part of the story. It's not part of the text.

Yeah. That's fine.

Thank you. Yeah. So you're going to authorize Aaron and I to work to make revisions to the building illustrations, which are reflected local examples when possible.

And ask for administrative.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think it, well, she hasn't. Well, yeah.

Does that work? I mean, we can vote again if we need to, but I think that's what we've got. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mike.

Thank you.

And everything you've done. Let's get through that process. I think we're ahead of the curve as far as the state goes, even though it was the July 1st deadline.

I think probably is the one model more familiar that they have of the communities or so. And I think July 1st, they had 15,000. I think less than 50 statewide have done is my guess. I think everybody is way behind. Yeah.

All right. Moving on. For our next agenda item, 26-20, text amendment, applicant David S. Fine, condition for regulation, text amendment, section 4.1.35, to allow domestic pet-related services, including training, grooming, daycare, exercise, and pet socialization meetups. We have a motion that was in public hearing. Should be 6-20, or is it? I think it's open. We have a motion that's in public hearing. She was second. I'm working session on paper. Yeah, it is invited to come forward.

Okay, when it finds the 91 Durham Road Madison. So yeah, Ralph Riello aimed to be having some activities, walking pets on my property at 391 road. guys for amendment to get permission for that. So that's why we're here. So just to be clear about what we're not asking for, so that we're very clear, we're not looking for overnight warding of animals. We're not looking for doing any kind of veterinary services. We're not looking to buy or sell animals or board animals long term. All activities will be supervised activities. There won't be any open runs where animals will be let out. structured activity with, you know, supervising staff. So the text amendment, you know, first stage to kind of just get the regulation change in order to allow this group of activities on the property. And put up the site plan. And you can start this.

It was the first item in the list.

I can continue with some other points that I made my letter to the commission is, you know, everything would be licensed according to the regulations of the state of Connecticut. books there. So any, you know, trainers, groomers, daycare providers would have to get, you know, licensed, professional licensing through the state of Connecticut, licensing for their whatever kind of facilities, installations they may have, according to those regulations. Any fit out at the time, fit out would have to be, you know, according to those regulations. department which i've put in there so you know just to be clear that you know to the extent that this is regulated you know we're aware of that and we're you know i'm fully prepared to make sure that everybody on my property complies with those regulations at all times and also that all animals on the property are lice Let's see. So this is a site, recent site plan that was created for the solar farm. So this here is the solar farm and the property, this perimeter fence goes around it. And so You know, as far as outdoor areas, I'm just looking for some areas here on the south. This is the south side of the property. Route 79 is over here. So we'd have a couple little pens here or some dog activities. And Ralph will describe the activities later to see the person who's going to be conducting that. And then I've got a couple larger areas over here. A couple of concerns were kind of separation from the neighbors. There happens to be quite a lot of distance between the neighbors here. The closest neighbors for these three properties must be 100, 150 yards away. There's quite a bit of woods all around my property. uh the only property that might be somewhat affected directly is there's a new house on the corner here that isn't occupied it's been under construction across very very slowly being built so there is a fence uh shielding a good portion of their property from the edge of the street or the setback on the street along here, but it's about eight feet high total. So that gives them quite a bit of a buffer. And the only thing they might see is a little bit coming in through here, through the woods, but it is wooded. You know, most of these outdoor activities too will happen know during the spring summer fall months when there is foliage on the trees so we have quite a bit of separation but when there's foliage on the trees it's even harder you know to see what's going on to observe it and there's also a buffer of dense pine white pines these are all white pines at the west side of the property how close are the sections you're calling three and four how close related to the property line um Yeah, this one actually is going to be pretty far. It'll have to be pretty far from the property line because there's like a swale there. Yeah, it's probably a good 40 to 50 feet from the property line there, maybe more. And this one might come a bit closer. That's probably, you know, more like 20. Yeah, I could pull it in a little bit.

It would be nice to know the actual GMP.

Yeah, well, like I said, there's quite a bit of buffer between the neighbors there.

And what kind of fencing would you provide?

Ralph can speak to that. Ralph, did you want to talk about that a little bit?

Sure. We're looking at welded wire fencing, red top, which is... Equine and farm horse rated. We are also working with a fence company contractor to put in black chin. Five feet.

So no sound barriers.

No sound barriers. No, but... There aren't any noise issues. We don't have groups of dogs. It's not a daycare or a kennel where there's dogs barking. This is like a gym membership for dogs. Dogs come in one at a time.

The Texas one calls for daycare and training, exercise room and social exercise.

Yeah, well, that would be subject to sort of a fit out for daycare and and I haven't designated anywhere here in Suswena, would be used, what the actual fit-out spaces would be, what the requirements might be, and that would be up to them as the tenant to provide their design for the fit-out, come to the health department, get approvals for it, meet state regulations, of course, which do have some provisions for decibel levels or sound barriers within buildings or perhaps designating new areas outdoors that would have separation for that. But I don't anticipate know having large areas that for that kind of thing this is more for ralph's activities she'll describe later um you know for the you know most looming occurs indoors that's not an outdoor i remember that for sure building on the property. So it could happen within that building. But I also have approval to add space to the property sometime if I wanted to. And I have about 10,000 square feet or something.

I think it's about 4,800 square feet.

So, you know, we could find another spot for that. You know, maybe probably not along the road then, maybe either in the existing building or somewhere at the back somewhere in this area. So those are all things that will be addressed at that time. And then we come back for another, you know, set of approvals from yourselves, you know, in order to address those issues at the time when we actually get, you know, if a tenant ever comes along who's interested in doing that kind of thing. I do have, in my special exception, there is approval for a swimming pool, and Matt's been there for 35 years, but we haven't done a swimming pool. I don't anticipate doing one, but you never know. So if that happens, though, we have to come back.

So you've come before us about the solar department. Pardon? You've come before us about the solar department. And we have a pending application about a four-unit multifamily, which is not shown on here.

Right. That is up here. This is a – let's see here. I think this is the property line. So that's up here. That's in this area up here. So that's a separately deeded parcel.

And there's also a shed barn structure.

Yeah, that's back here.

That's not shown.

Yeah, somehow this tricked him to grab it. I mean, this is one end of it right there. And then the rest of it extends this way.

And I have to ask, you're not thinking of letting dogs run in and among the silver?

No, absolutely not. So that's, fencing is important.

It's about a five acre parcel, isn't it?

Oh, the solar panels themselves take over just over eight acres.

Eight acres, yeah.

And that'll be all fetched off. It is. Well, the DAW, any activities that we have, outdoor activities, will be fully supervised. And these fences, you know, we'll be very careful to be sure that there is a fence available. They're fully fenced, they're gated, but there's, you know, no way for me, hopefully, the animal to escape. You know, I mean, so if it does, whatever, but I don't, I personally don't have any access to that. So if there's a locked gate, then they can get rid of them by at least the money.

That's owned by Evershaw, right?

No, it's not owned by Evershaw. It's sold by a third party, and the energy is sold back to Evershaw, essentially.

Any more questions?

Well, it says up to 30 dogs. And then it says one parking space per customer. Is there enough parking for all for that activity?

Well, yeah, there's really, I guess, about 38 to 40 spaces, you know, if I maximize my parking lot. But, I mean, it's not going to be, in my opinion, any worse than when I had the golf rink. know, during the summertime. And now the old T line from the golf range runs kind of diagonally across here. And so actually now I even have more space because there's a driveway And, like, I can move, you know, I don't anticipate having a lot of customers parking back there, but certainly employees of, you know, Amato's employees, myself, Ralph's, and his employees, you know, park behind the building and, you know, relieve some of the pressure down in front, in front, busy their jobs. And I don't want to anticipate, when I say 30 dogs, I mean, that would be a fairly rare kind of thing. I mean, Ralph thinks that maybe sometimes we might have some kinds of events with multiple animals there. But that's not going to be an everyday thing. That might happen once a month, once every several months.

So this pet socialization meetup is just not going to happen every day.

I mean, I know what that means in other places. And all 30 dogs could be going on a run together. Bark.

Can I speak about the business stuff? Because he's the landowner. I own the business. For some reason, nobody has bothered to ask me. Everything has been directed to David.

I understand he owns the property.

You find yourself as being the business owner until just now.

My name is not listed in a lot of the paperwork because nobody ever bothered to talk to me about this. I was just told from the landowner to stop what you're doing. The town said you can't do this. I read the text exception. I got to admit that I'm very confused because when I read the text exception, it says a retail service occupation. I have an office. I have a little garage. And outside in the grass, dogs run around in a circle in a fenced area. And that's what we do. We do it on site at the First Congregational Church every Friday across from the Madison Farmer's Market. Last year, we were at Clark Field in Old Saybrook every Sunday, last Sunday of every month. We've submitted multiple letters from businesses that we've worked with about our professionalism, cleanliness, Lack of noise, lack of issues. So, like I said, I see us as a retail service occupation. People come, they pay, their dogs run around, and they leave.

Before we go further, I think, Aaron, it would be helpful if you could pull up the text amendment that we're considering right now. And there's another agenda item, which is a special exception if we approve this text amendment. So, you know, I don't think we're here to argue about what was written 35 years ago and whether your interpretation is correct or ours. We're now being asked to judge or to decide on an application for this text amendment, which obviously affects you and impacts you. But it's Mr. Client.

Rob, we got like a two step process here. So we have to take care of the text event, which is kind of my business. Okay. And then when we're the next process is sort of like getting approval for your specific activities. And then, you know, I think you can speak better than I can to what your specific activities describe them. So I'd like, you know, that's two we're a little itchy. Thank you for the clarification. Thanks.

And so I can screen share the proposed text language, David, that you provided in the application. Additionally, in the application, there is information. David, you provided this red line of the existing site-specific zoning regulations and your proposed additional sections related to the pet services. You provided a letter dated April 27th to the commission about what specifically you're seeking and how that's translated into regulation. And in that was information from Alpha Dog Events, a letter dated 4-22, which was from Ralph And so that provides some information as to the uses on the property as well. And then lastly, you provided the site plan, which we just showed. So I just. Because this is a little bit unusual and as, as David said, this. We have 2 applications running concurrently before the commission and that was done in the applicant's interest of saving some time with legal notices and what. But the special exception application is contingent on how the the mission handles the text amendment. For example, if the text amendment is not, the public hearing is not closed this evening, it would be necessary to open and continue the special exception public hearing so the commission can handle this matter first. There is no zoning mechanism currently in the regulations to allow for the pet services by special exception. So you're unable to act on that application unless you have an amendment. Yes.

So that's, it's a little unusual.

Not unusual. It just doesn't happen very often. It does happen. Okay. So did you just want to walk through and I can scroll up for you?

Yeah, sure. So you just added.

What's that? Zoom? I can see how to do. This language is in my staff report. Also, yeah, we can meet in close to the paper. But is that better? Yep.

Yeah, so whatever is in Blackbeard's existing language, it's already included.

You don't think it's okay. Uh, see, first parts of it in 1993, then it was updated a few times subsequently. There were some additions. Go all the way down. Okay, so here we go. Just thanks. So these are the things I'm looking for. So again, there's no kenneling, no overnight stays, no veterinary, no animal sales, which I've put on the ballot. So here we go. Prior appointment, no more than 30 dogs on premises, no animal remaining in the facility outside of Operation Illuminate. Hours of operation, 7 to 8. Waste collection would be, you know, we've all seen those little poop collection stations that they have in parks and things of that sort, the bags and a little receptacle to put it all in, and those would be collected on a regular basis, you know, or staff would be required to pick those things up right away anyway. You know, then noise, you know, we'll do our best to limit noise. If we find that there are animals that are excessively noisy, we'll just ask them not to come again. And see that as, you know, a direct, effective way of handling it. You know, again, I said there's plenty of buffer from the neighbors, so if you do get an occasional bark or two, That's just the way it is. As I mentioned in my letter, there are many places that are not supervised where people take their animals and they make noise. There are people who leave their animals out in their yards and they bark all day and they go away for work. You know, unless you see some kind of abuse of the animal, you can call any welfare officer or something that's rare or a tricky kind of thing to negotiate.

So, you know, people... It's hard, though, to understand what you're saying. Or, I guess... Pardon? It's hard to process having 30 dogs on premises and having one or two boxes. That's what I'm hearing you say.

Mm-hmm.

And noisy animals will be asked to leave. And that's enforced by you? That's enforced by the business owner? Well, the business owner would be responsible for that. That's the enforcement mechanism. The business owner will remove the dogs. Right. If a neighbor calls and says it's too noisy, will they remove all 30 dogs?

Well, I'll go talk to the neighbor. You know, I believe in neighbor to neighbor conversation and discuss it and try and, you know, see what the particular issue is that they have. And I've had issues with neighbors before I go and discuss it and say, what can we do? How can we resolve this, you know, between ourselves? And that's the way Ideally, haters should conduct business with each other, I think. And I think that's a better way to do it than to call a third party to try and act as your voice. The first thing is to go yourself and talk to someone. Well, I have.

And all of them. you, not to a general business that would be conducting such a thing. And I see a number of issues, but it's just, it's specific to you, not to other people that might conduct a similar business.

Okay, could you give me an example of something in particular that you feel You know, it's very specific to me in general, just so I kind of get a better idea.

30 cats or dogs.

Yeah.

That's your specific need. It's not a general one. Yeah. The whole thing is replete with being designed around you.

Well, Ralph, maybe you could speak to that. When you do activities and fairs, you know, how many, there may be that many animals and more.

The way our business operates is dogs run one at a time with their supervised human beings. They go into the fenced area, the dog does their exercise run, which lasts anywhere from 30 seconds to

how you conduct it, not for a general solution for other businesses that might do something similar, but not specifically the way you do. That's my point.

Very well. We have no reason to have 30 dogs on site at this point. But in the future, if a dog daycare business, I mean, I don't do dog daycare, so I can't speak to

I think it needs to be constructed in a way that it will apply to other general businesses that are similar to yours, not specific to yours.

Yeah, well, I've got that number, like in order to, for a doggy daycare to be profitable, it would have to have about 30 as a minimum, you know, somewhere in that number of animals in order to, you know, if it's a commercial operation, There are certain economies of scale where in order to make a business viable, you've got to have a certain number of animals or it's just not going to work.

Would those dogs all be inside?

Yes. Dog daycare is an indoor business. All 30 would be inside. Currently, there is no indoor space to have a doggy daycare business. Everything we do is outdoors.

That's not specified in this.

No, it's not.

I just want to remind you guys that we're going to ask questions 1st, and then we'll open it up to the public because I can see there are a couple of hands ready to go. I want to speak a little bit more broadly and please correct me about this, but to me that. This whole section is one of many that were done in the 90s, and they were actually kind of spot zoning. And this is like spot zoning the spot zone. And I'm having trouble with getting over that because we try not to do that. And maybe I'm using the term spot zoning too loosely, but it's such a site-specific. I mean, you're looking for a way to fill in the spaces that the solar farm and the other structures that are there. don't occupy. And we're trying to think of, you know, how does, how is that, is that a land use that we want to allow for this site in particular? But, you know, so maybe thinking beyond this site, you know, will it open it up to others?

Is this set of precedents for, this would set a precedent for other similar businesses, correct, Erin? Is that correct?

That's what we're doing first, right? That's why we're doing the text amendment first. Approve this kind of business in this setting. And then he happens to be the person who

Maybe if we make this area, you know, and I think that's what's bothering people is we're saying, what if you're only there for a year and then you decide you don't want to do it anymore.

Then you open it up to somebody else who has a different kind of job here or.

Well, they would have to come before you for their own special exception. I mean, unless it's in a commercial, unless it's in a commercial industrial area. And I think that I don't know if it would, you know, you'd have to look at the site specific characteristics, I think, wouldn't you, for anybody else trying to do this. So we have to make amendments for them as well. Wouldn't you?

So, this type of use does not exist. Right. Right.

Currently allows.

This is not a use that is allowed, which is why David is trying to define the use. Right in the beginning section of of your proposed regulation. What is a pet service establishment? in his definition here, pet-related activities, training, exercising, grooming, daycare, dogs and cats only, and sales of pet-related merchandise. That is what is the pet-related activities that he's seeking to be allowed On this property. On this property at 391 and at 397. Those are the physical boundaries of this zone. The underlying zone here, aside from these special exception uses, this is a rural residential zone. And the surrounding neighbors are rural residential. And currently in your regulations, and I have submitted staff comments for the commission, provided them today. I'm not going to read through all of that, but we have some similar regulations existing. Our light industrial zone, we do not have a full industrial zone in Madison. The light industrial zone does allow for It allows for indoor veterinary hospitals, for indoor boarding kennels for dogs and cats and similar animals. And it requires, it has specific criteria listed. And the second location in your regulations that deal with dogs and any outdoor animals, animal runs or activity areas is another site-specific special exception zone just north on 79 on Durham Road currently and has been occupied by Madison Veterinary Hospital I think since the adoption of this regulation. And that specifically, the text prohibits any outdoor runs for animals. So there aren't any regulations or standards within your existing regulations to look for, to mirror here on this property for any kinds of nuisance impacts for outdoor animal runs. so because of that i looked to state guidance state licensing requirements uh for training grooming kennels of that nature um and provided that information to the commission i also looked to neighboring shoreline communities similar in characteristics uh to madison looked at branford gilford clinton and old saybrook and provided you with similar animal use and kennel regulations so that you see what some of those standards have been used in the area. You'll find a lot of similarities between those various among those. Quite often there are requirements Or separating distances from these activities to residential or Jason property lines, some of which are 100 feet. Others are 200 feet in some towns and their average size a lot. uh typically a minimum lot area of five acres um for those larger um activities um in addition to i'm sorry i'm sorry so there's one in killing work that's like that we're just saying this it's larger it's like that wiggle is now called wiggles okay it's running the durham killing board okay it's on 71. yeah okay um so as the other um not just separating distances from property lines for the activities but um some of the efforts to address noise concerns um the sounds of dogs barking um They're requiring solid or six-foot walls for berms, landscape, things that would actually deflect some of that noise from traveling. Again, David touched on some of these for interior and noting the state's regulations, ventilation, adequate ventilation, grooming, and some daycare is inside. There is an outside component, clearly, with dog daycare or socialization. that is the commission's discretion if you're considering grooming as a potential use on this property to ask the questions of where this could potentially be feasible on the property. Number of dogs, again, how that coincides with parking. That's another, I think, John, you may have brought that up. animal waste stations. Most of these communities have required or do require as the standards, these special exception standards that need to be met of waste management program or plan. And so that there is opportunity for a little more. David didn't describe as far as those specific stations and staffing To empty those regularly and dispose of them in the trash. But some of my concerns are not just the location of the outdoor pens. Some of this is some of leasing areas to other tenants and that is included in. The letter from. alpha dog stating not just the lore-based supervised one-on-one or two smaller dogs like the videos that are uploaded into your attachment documents and those are the examples that we have seen at some of the festivals and markets, but inviting trainers to come and work at the property, these third party meetup groups and events. And these training sessions of 12 animals, if you have a little different outdoor runs, could you potentially have trainers of 12 animals at each site in each run? And what are private events? What does that look like? How is that regulated within these special exceptions parameters? What are the specific standards that when someone is applying for these uses, what they should be needed? That's where this regulation should be detailed that the Uh, applicant knows what. They need to meet for criteria and then the condition can weigh. Um, these standards based off of the proposed.

Use the last second, just to interrupt for a 2nd, you know, when it comes to. You know, initially. With Ralph's activity, all they'll be inviting in are trainers. So the trainers will be governed by state statutes. You know, everything is there in state statutes. So they'll be licensed out of the state. They'll have to follow, you know, whatever the standards.

Referring to a trainer as a tenant is a misnomer. A trainer would come in and rent the corral the same way that an individual does, where they bring their dog, the dog runs, and they leave. The trainer comes and works in our fenced-in corral. They're not paying me monthly. They're only paying for that hour.

That's separate from the amendments that we're looking at.

It's included in the language, Mike, in the letter from Alpha Dog about – inviting trainers to come and work at the property with the maximum do you want to pull that off i mean that the letter is not the text i never asked maximum it's not the text language but it is supporting documentation of the intention that's the language exactly that would go in the zoning regulations is the proposed red one that's what we're talking um the last um question i had was um your lighting um language which is uh section 11.7 of that i can pull it back up for you um david the outdoor there's no site lighting proposed on your plan and your hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. And it's not indicated that it is seasonal. And in the winter hours, the winter season, you know, gets dark by 4.30.

So we wouldn't be able to do anything after 4.30, you know, winter and winter. hours would get extended as the days get longer, and then they get shorter as, you know, the days get shorter, because there is no lighting.

When did you specify, you know, sunrise, sunset, or something?

Yeah, that's a positive.

So then, you know, an hour?

7 a.m. or sunset. If that works better. Yeah.

So the struggle here is the text amendment as written would allow three dogs to be in any one of these pens between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. The way the text amendment is written, it has nothing to do with any business that you're proposing. Right. So that's the rough. All right.

So it seems like there are many issues here. So how about we just get rid of some of these things? Let's just let me go back here. I remember there was your ship training exercise.

Well, I think there's all that. How about we just get rid of like Well, I think there's one big issue here that we need to address, and this is how close these pens are to the property.

Yeah.

And as Aaron stated, or as Aaron's research has shown, is anywhere from 150 to 200 feet

Yeah, those properties might be much closer to, you know, adjoining. It's not to the things I, there's plenty of buffer there around the property. There's a lot of woods between me and all the neighbors.

So. It's, uh, yeah, it's, it's free. I mean, if it's like, you're about 20 feet. From the property.

But, yeah, for one of those pens, yeah, it's about 20 feet.

You know, I could see if you're having one dog in that pen and doing the running around thing. That may be fine. But the way the text amendment is written, you could have 30 dogs running around at any time until 7 a.m. That's the concern.

This needs to be more generalized in some way. Perhaps someone has expertise in this to help you write this in a manner that wouldn't be so specific. On 111.7, you say all outdoor activities are to be supervised and restricted to the areas marked in ink on a site plan of 10.8.24. That is specific to you.

No one else. Well, because I'm asking for something that's specific to the conditions of this particular property. I feel like if somebody else wanted to do it, then you probably should review it.

Another amendment for them. No.

Well, I think maybe yes or no, because the town doesn't regulate these activities. So I'm not sure. We do regulate it, don't we?

I think the question, and I may not be hearing you right, Mike, is that The location of the pens, because they're hand-drawn on a site plan, they're not to scale on the site plan, but they're not... There's no language in the text of the regulation that states they shall be a certain distance from the property lines or something, and then when an applicant comes in, has... comes in with a site development plan for that proposed use that shows how they're complying with that regulation. Okay. That's a little more general versus... That's more general.

How do you know that somebody else wouldn't want lighting in a fence that clear? How do you know? Somebody else might want that.

Well, this is the asphalt drive. Wait.

Listen to me. This is the asphalt drive on the east side of the property. That's specific to you. These people, all the people that would want to do something similar, don't live on your property.

Okay, well, you know, I guess I'm sort of understanding the purpose of, you know, the text manually in the special exception a little differently than you are, I suppose. I don't. I'm not sure I see it as a general generally applicable thing i'm seeing it more as something tailored to the conditions of a specific location and that because it's a special exception and special exceptions are are formulated that way that they're you know, done site by site in that way. You know, sure, I know it's spot zoning. It's technically illegal, but the towns do have done it and doing it. So, I mean, unless you, I mean, I understand if you just said, okay, we're not doing it anymore. You've got what you've got. It's illegal. You know, maybe that's what you should be telling me. You can't have this flexibility built into your approach in order to allow uses outside of already established zones for them. adopted for specific as always.

I think what we're saying is the way this text is made, it opens up many concerns about how the property is used. It has nothing to do with the current business you're trying to bring in. This is, as I said, The way this is written, you could have 30 dogs in 10-4 all day.

Close to the property line.

Yeah, and we don't exactly know how close that is to the property line. And as you said, there's no provision for sound barrier. What I was looking at is 30 dogs.

total on the property, not each 10.

So I don't know. But that's the, that's the rub.

Right.

There's nothing in this amendment that protects the neighbors from that situation. And this is a rural residential district. It's not, you're not in an industrial district. You're not in a, you know, farming district.

Okay. So Let's say we were to come back and tailor it specifically for whatever it is Ralph is trying to do. I could get rid of grooming. I can get rid of daycare. It is important for him to have training, right, Ralph? You want to do the training and the exercise? No, actually, it's not important for me to do training. He's not a trainer. I thought it was important for you to be able to invite these trainers.

Trainers out there need places to bring dogs to train. Yes. There's a need out there. They also need places to store their equipment.

Right.

Because Madison doesn't allow dog trainers to work out of their homes. It's disallowed. So trainers are always looking for space. I've had multiple trainers call. When can we rent a pen from you? I'm responding to the market. But just to be clear, you guys are talking about regulations for existing businesses. We are new. We are a new business in the dog services industry. We didn't exist before the pandemic. The pandemic created an explosion of dog ownership. And that explosion of dog ownership, I've been living here since 2018. I go to Hammonasset. I remember six years ago, you can go to Hammonasset and walk around and it was pretty clean and not anymore because people just do what they want to do in public places. I'm trying to create a place where responsible pet owners can go with their pets to exercise their pets for people that live in apartments, condos that don't have You know, the access to these type of places. What David is doing as a landlord is he's maximizing what he can do. If I decide to leave, he wants to be able to rent to a doggy daycare. As soon as I talk to him about dog, what I was doing, I'm sure the wheels are turning. Oh, I can do this. That's not what I'm doing. So.

I'd like to get back to the text.

I get what's going on.

Are there any other questions or comments from commissioners? Because I would like to hear from the people who came out tonight to maybe speak in favor or against this text event. Not the business.

You want to do the room first, Madam Chair? Does anybody in the room want to come forward and say anything?

Hey, I'm Donna Riello, 819 Durham Road.

I just wanted to clarify, wait for you, you talked about fencing. The entire solar farm has fencing. You got this.

Right, you got this. So what, don't want to talk about the business, additional fencing would be put in if it wasn't. Okay, thanks. And I think we have a hand up. But your parents are already the clarity. Yes.

Erin, if you could unmute and identify yourself for the record, please. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can, thanks.

OK, well, I'm in a butter on Frank's Way. And there is a farm on Green Hill Road with several animals that are already there. I think they have a donkey, a goat, a mini horse. And they've been there for 10, 12 years. And actually, I think that may be an abutter to Klein's property as well. And I'm just trying to figure out, everyone's worried about the animals in the neighborhood, and there's plenty of animals that are barking all the time in the neighborhood. That's why people have dogs. Responsible dog owners bring their dogs in. I'm just trying to figure out why there's a problem with having a business that's going to be training dogs in a responsible manner. I mean, up on Durham road, there's a run with, it used to be, I think it's called Wiggles now. They have a run now for dogs. The dogs go out there. I mean, it's not like you're going to have dogs in a pack running through that. It just, I'm trying to figure out what the issue was with the dogs inside of a fenced in area that are being supervised by a business owner.

Thank you. Thank you. Hey, McIntyre, 57 Pet Road. I'd just like to... I'm sorry, could you repeat your name again? Sure. Renee McIntyre. Thank you. 57 Pet Road. I would just like to say that I've had very active dogs. I met Ralph through He Let the Dogs Out, because I have three dogs now, down to two. But the gift that Ralph has brought dog owners... I never knew what luring was when he explains what this is. And it's just an open space that has beds around it and dogs follow along. And I've had dogs with incredible prey drives. I keep them on a leash because that's what you do. And it's an opportunity if you have very active dogs, give them a chance to act like feral animals. They want to, but they might happen to be adorable themselves. the RCM, I don't want to speak about it, but Ralph has provided a service for those of us that have had the opportunity to either at the farm market or behind the, is it BFW or whatever, to have safe space where our dogs can run. And that's really why we're here to support the concept of responsible pet owners that don't necessarily have pets. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Crystal Pelletier, 14 053 Lane in Brantford. Ralph and I work together and I think maybe we're a little bit off track because we're supposed to be talking about the text. And I think really the point that we're trying, like I hear what everyone's saying that I know that everyone supports Ralph. We are Ralph's, some of Ralph's biggest fans. And I don't really hear from the committee. I don't hear anyone saying that they don't, that they're not, interested in what Ralph is bringing to the to the table here, right? Like, I'm actually hearing, I think the opposite, like, there's some questions about it. But I think that people seem a little bit intrigued with what Ralph is doing. But instead, it's about figuring out how we can best figure out the text for this so that we can hopefully move forward. So I think really, we need to maybe end tonight with figuring out the language that works best. with Mr. Klein and then moving to the next part with working with Ralph. Am I understanding that correctly? Okay. Thank you. That was more of a clarification for myself.

Thanks. Yes. I just want to shed a little awareness on something that is concerning to me. I actually thought Klein's was still a golf course, a driving range, so I'm behind both equal on that. So I obviously there's a fence there. I'm assuming there's probably a bigger fence. I lived in Weston a long time ago when there were no fences and there were bucks and deer and coyotes. They were running everywhere. They have a roof, they have a path, they have water sources, they have food sources. And with more fencing and burns and walls and more trees and arborvitaes and blocking everything, I fear the worst of what we're doing to the wildlife in this town. I also fear they don't necessarily get the voice they need. And I know it doesn't mean that I've been here and active in this. I apologize for that, but I'm also aware of what is going on here. You know, I actually thought that Salt Meadow Dog Park was where dogs should go and play. And so I have no idea about this business and I'm not trying to put the business down, but there is options. I had a dog myself and, you know, went to other areas and dog parks and the trails and so on. So, you know, I'm just, as I say, I'm just trying to shed some light on the fact that what we're doing to habitat and whether it's buildings, whether it's fences, is really having an impact on the wildlife. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Karen Siclari has her hand raised again.

Karen, do you want to add to what you said? Yeah, you know what? The other thing I wanted to mention was someone mentioned the lighting. The golf driving range had lighting for years. And as a property owner, the lights in the beginning, and then he turned, you're never going to have as many lights as the golf driving range. So I don't know why you're concerned about lights now.

We're a different commission.

Well, if someone had done their research or David Klein should have said that there were lights with the golf driving range, which just closed. So there were always plenty of lights. Okay, thank you.

Yes, you can.

Phil Chamberlain, 362 Durham Road, and out in welfare house business. My daughter had a farm down in Virginia, and she housed up to 50 dogs a day. And they were individually run, and they were run as groups, and it was very well organized. To me, something like that can be wonderful if it has a space around it that separates it from the moving public. And what concerns me is that David's got a restaurant up there, and he's got an open retail store that adults and children are coming and going. And then he'll have dogs, which have to get out of the car. They have to get to the area that Ralph's going to be monitoring. So I've never seen a time when I ever went to my daughter's farm where a dog didn't get break free or something at one time or another. And so that would concern me about public safety. And I know enough about Dave's property just to suggest to Dave, maybe on the north side of his property, he's got all kinds where you've got the space to the next-door neighbor, you've got the space to the west, and you've got all the solar panels on the south that might make a great area for that. It could be totally self-contained as one spot wouldn't be divided into three or four spots on the property.

Yeah, that's a little more difficult. There actually isn't that much space there. And there's also the...

so it's just a thought because I think it's a great idea and I think maybe it was tweaking and different space and room for safety apart from the bowling because they're all in a department at the same parking lot yeah so thanks thank you another couple online okay great go ahead oh

Excuse me.

My name is Teresa Riello. I live at 819 Norfolk in Madison. I would compare this business, if you want to call it that. Actually, it's a love of animals. It's what it really is. Because you're giving to them exercise, which makes a tired dog is a good dog. They exercise and spoken to and everything, and the dogs enjoy it. And the humans enjoy it also. I would compare this to a nursery or a daycare for children, young children. That had to start someplace, and it probably started the same way. People say, oh, 10 kids in the room is too many or whatever. That's putting the cart before the horse. You don't know what it is. The dogs are not 30. You can't put 30 in a kennel. The dogs are brought in. They're with their owner. And they go in the fenced-in area to run. And they're with their owner. There's not another dog with them. That's all of the businesses that are doing it. The kennel that you said is up there now. That's Wiggles now, or Waggles. The dogs have to have some place to go. Because there's just all the properties are being filled. There's no place to run. And people today treat their dogs like children. And they love their dogs. They make them part of the family. What happens is you can't really walk your dog otherwise. You let him run the property. On Durham Road, if you have a dog, you can't walk it on Durham Road. So you take it and you exercise it for an hour. That's how we found out about it. And the dogs were there and enjoyed it and everything like that. And our dogs just went again and again and again. And you can run the dog for two minutes, three minutes, five minutes, six minutes. You can run the dog for the amount of time that you want, and then you put the dog back on the leash and take him out of there. That's it. You have to do your research on that to know what's going on. It's a brand new business. Businesses have to start from someplace. Somebody has to have an idea.

Otherwise, we would never have moved in this world.

But what I hear is dirty dogs in a pen. That's a fallacy.

That's the way the text amendment is written. That's the problem. I don't think anybody on the commission has any concerns with Ralph's business. It sounds like a wonderful business. It's a great idea. I wish I thought of it. The way the text amendment is written would allow a much different business than what Ralph is running. That's the problem. And that's what we're trying to work with. That's what we're trying to work with.

I think we'll follow up again. Yes.

We'll have an opportunity. We have a couple of comments here. We have folks online who haven't had an opportunity to speak yet as well. And just as a reminder, the public hearing is to allow for public comment. It's not a give and take, a back and forth between the commission and the public.

Thanks. So maybe we could go to the two people who are.

Sure. The first, I think that's Terry. Terry, is that you? Yes, hello.

That's me. So, Terry Vandenolder on Bartlett Drive. I just wanted to make a comment with regards to the individual called in asking question about the concern for lighting. Why are we concerned now versus when Klein had The practice golf course there, and it's because regulations have changed and awareness has changed because lighting does affect negatively all wildlife and it does affect negatively affect humans as well. So, as you can already see in the proposed wording for middle housing, the new laws. are proposing limiting the color intensity to 3,000, and the Conservation Commission is recommending 2,600. But regardless, the point is we now live in a different world than we did when Klein's had the golf practice range there. And things have changed, and it's due to science and knowledge and data, and that's the whole point. So that's all I had to say. Thank you. Oh, sorry, one more thing. If you want to, you can find all kinds of information on darkskies.org. Thank you.

Thank you.

Doris Roboto.

Doris, if you could unmute and identify yourself for the record, please. We can't hear you.

Looks like she's unmuted.

Yeah, it doesn't appear that your microphone is working.

Should we take another question?

Yeah, we can give you a minute to try to adjust your microphone settings, your audio, and then we'll... Hear from some folks here and just re, raise your hand if we've got that.

I just wanted to know what the next steps were. So what, how do we proceed from here to know that too? Yeah.

Um, I think we, if, if who was it Doris robotic who wanted to Doris thing. Um, oh, I'll watch. Okay. Again. So. I hope we've made it clear that we love dogs. But we're just very uncomfortable with the text as it's written. So I don't know if... you'd like to come, you know, try to revise it in a different way, get some legal counsel to help you if possible. I think you've heard, you've gotten a lot of feedback as well about what we're concerned about and what you actually might need to put in the text amendment request. And, you know, I think that there's a lot here that we can't approve. And so it needs to be refined, I think. So we could have a motion to continue the public hearing.

One question just to get a sense of if you are going to keep the hearing open. The commission has 35 days as of right to keep the hearing open, but you meet before that. It might be worth hearing from you, David, as far as how much time you'd like in between to kind of finesse some language. Uh, well, actually, we're meeting next week because of the July 4th holiday. So the 16th is just a week away. And then our.

I know apartments for that. I don't know if that's too. Otherwise, you would be looking at the August 6th meeting.

To continue to the August.

You can do that as a right.

Well, what was it, Eric? August 6th would be the first meeting in August. Otherwise, our next meeting is next week.

And you'd prefer August 6th?

I think so, yeah.

So, could I have a motion that we continue the public hearing?

Can we get a little bit more feedback to David, or?

Well, I just want to create a brief discussion and commission, because I guess my question is, if the applicant came back and had something very narrowly tailored, Ralph's business, which is the dog, which is within 30, 40 feet of the property, would we be okay with that? Or is that problematic?

think if it's clearly defined as you know as you've indicated one dog at a time as opposed to 30 dogs and cats as a possibility i keep saying cats because cats are in there but well that's what i thought if i modify it and say okay any pen would have one dog at a time but we could have all a certain amount on the property at one time so you're not gonna you know you're gonna have other people there with their animals waiting to participate You don't, you know, you can't, you know, send them away and wait for somebody else necessarily. And then sometimes there is, you know, Ralph and I would discuss that, you know, but he's got this idea of these, you know, socializing dogs having together at times. Well, I think... And the setbacks, yeah, I mean, to... just, you know, take away all those areas. Yeah. So if I could, you know, if you could do it like,

But I think we'd like to see the actual measurement laid out.

We'll talk to Ralph about getting a surveyor survey and mark it on a plan.

I would start also with the 4.1.35.1.11.1. I mean, it's just a general description, which you've included. You know, maybe you've tried to keep it broad so that you can have other options if this business doesn't work out or whatever. But, you know, you're talking about training and daycare and grooming. And, you know, that complicates it so much more. You know, if you're talking about hands where dogs can exercise one or two at a time. Right. The trainers could come. Or trainers come even, I guess. Yeah. I mean, just define it better so that we know exactly.

Can I throw out an idea of some of the language? When I was reading the language, we were talking about the area marked in red on the map. If you left that out and just talk about areas that are fenced in for off-leash animals, you know, so just make it specific to what made the area marked in red on your map special for off-leash work kind of thing. So just, you know, take some of the very specific language out and make it more general. So if you look at 11, you know, 1.11.10, all outdoor activities, How do we supervise restricted the areas marked in red? And then you go on to say all such areas are going to be fenced such that off-leash animals cannot exit them. So just talk specific about the requirements of the area versus what's marked in red.

or general public safety that you would like that specificity. That was my assumption. That's why I did that one.

Yeah, but it makes it specific to that particular plan by saying the area marked in red on your plan.

Oh, okay. Okay. So don't say area marked in red. Just say the area for off-lane handling. Okay.

But I think we still want to know where the areas marked in that are going to be. Well, that would be the plan.

Yeah.

Okay. Right. Right. That would be the plan. Right. And the plan.

I mean, even an updated site plan would be great.

Right. Yeah.

Without your.

Yeah, I know. But that's a few grand there. Yeah.

The other comments there, John, did you have any other things you wanted to say about pets and language?

I'll just try to get a sense of what I think you use in terms of, yeah, right? Because it comes back and says, look, I've got this very narrowly tailored to a model, well, it's business to operate, but it's going to be 30 or 40 feet from the property lines. Are we okay with that?

I think it becomes a different business than what Guilford has done. And I think that's what you're trying to convey is that it's this kind of unique business, but that's not what's portrayed in the language here.

Right, because a light chair opens the door for like a bunch of full-service stores.

Right, and we don't want to do that.

Right.

It doesn't make sense here.

I don't know. So, I've been unable to derive any revenue for three months while I've been waiting for this. So, obviously, what David's asking for is a cross-purpose to what I'm looking for. I'm against David. He's the landowner. I can ask for what he needs, but... I'm paying rent. I took on additional insurance and additional expense to do this with the expectation that it wasn't a big issue based on the special exception and the retail service occupation. But is there any reason why I can't run dogs in a circle in a fenced-in area while everybody's trying to figure out the rest of this? Because I am being financially ruined the last three months. I work across the street at Madison Flower and Garden Center part-time. I'm 64 years old. I walk dogs part-time to try to make ends meet. This business has been going on for three years. And the town of Madison shut my business down. And, you know, I'm sorry, I have to say this, but the first meeting I had with the town, the first words that came out of Aaron Maddox's mouth were, in my opinion, you don't belong here. That wasn't a good way to start the relationship. To be honest with you, I feel like I've been treated like crap by the town this whole time. I've been patient. I'm trying to go through the process, but it's been nothing but adversarial. Nobody ever called me and said, hey, Ralph, what you're doing doesn't really fit. Can we talk about this? Because I checked the state. There are no regulations for my business with the state. The Ag Department, because that's who oversees dog businesses. We are so new that we're not regulated. Instead of saying, hey, why don't you work with us and we can maybe come up with some regulations that apply to this new business, nobody ever wanted to talk to me while I was still trying to do this. Yeah, but we're three months down the road, and I'm being put out of business.

Did you notice this? Yes. There have been multiple conversations between the property owner and the tenant dating back to complaints at the applicant's residence and other locations in town. The zoning enforcement officer has had repeated... I'm going to want to speak to that.

This is not relevant to the... You just wrote up a false complaint. Somebody made a complaint, said that I was running dogs in my backyard, and I called the town and I asked them...

We're sorry for any problems you've had, and we understand that it's a frustrating, long process, but we're doing the best we can. This is the first we're hearing about it, the first time we've read the text amendment. We're trying to help out to see how we can make this work. John, I appreciate you saying, yeah, well, if we ask you to come back, are we going to be able to approve it? Absolutely.

I think that's a good question because we don't want you to go through any more hoops that are pointless.

And we're trying to get to yes, all of us. I'm sorry that it's been a tough experience.

Yeah, I mean, our initial thing is that my special exception, you know, text there, language says retail service occupation. So I kind of hung my hat on that and thought, okay, it's a retail service occupation. And thought, you know, so you can do whatever you want to say that you're taking public in. Providing the service and for a fee or whatever it is, and that's it. So. Aaron and Maria kind of. Decided.

maybe you have a different opinion and that's you know i think that well we're just seeing that side so this is the first just so we're just getting involved i i have no issue with you guys my issues with the with the with the office and with the kind of treatment that that office inflicts upon a resident. I'm a resident and a student.

We've heard your point of view.

It would be worse if you had legal action.

It's no longer an excellent difficulty with instructing.

So we've agreed that we'll extend the public hearing to August 2nd, 2020. So could I have a motion for now?

Second?

Second. Thank you, Jeff. Any further discussion? We'll continue on the 6th. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Okay, so as we're extending the

Thank you. Thank you.

So all I can say, you know, she's able to carry 26-24. She'll have done also, obviously. Yeah.

Yes, that would be fine. And then you give. See how it goes. Yeah, you can always adjust that accordingly, but that would be the earliest.

Make a bone.

Okay. All in favor. Okay, so. Ending applications, we have 26 dash 2528 on the lane. That 13 models on names, whom zone are 5 owner, applicant, Gregory and Renee Ellis. Coastal site plan application for the installation of a hot tub within 25 feet of a coastal critical.

Regimentalist, the property owner is here attending online. Okay, great. Greg, can you hear us?

I can hear you. How are you?

Can you hear me? I can pull up your site plan for you if that's helpful to kind of walk the commission through.

Yeah, so it's Coastal Site Plan. I live at 28 Toffee Lane. The Coastal Site Plan is for the placement of a hot tub that is adjacent on a grassy area adjacent to an existing deck. The placement is about 25 feet off the Long Island Sound and the edge of a seawall that the former owner completed in 2022. And the placement is within 25 feet of an adjacent beach that is next to the property on the south side, facing the south side. I saw the note for to mitigate flotation or displacement. So we're proposing installing two footings to anchor the hot tub. Those footings would connect to a leaderboard and the existing deck and joists. So basically a corral. And those plans have been submitted to the building department for application. And then the only other thing is the electric, if we're moving forward, if we can move forward, the electrical permit will be filed under separate. Application.

Okay. Okay. Um, the mission actually reviewed this property a few years ago, um, fencing and an unpermitted shed, which was. She needs to be removed as a condition of approval and as a previous property owner. Yeah. Um. And so, yes, this triggers a coastal site plan, because the proximity to the beach and the seawalls within 25 feet and his mandatory referral to deep. As well, in which we did receive some comments today from our analyst, Jason. No adverse impacts to coastal resources are anticipated and as Greg mentioned, we did have feedback from the building official, the floodplain administrator noting that because it's in the flood zone, it does need to be and because of that wave action. does need to be um anchored adequately um but very minimal site disturbance um almost to the point that it's more disturbance to create it to install sedimentation erosion controls uh such as silt fencing yeah um and and that's why i kind of noted in a draft resolution um that any disturbed areas uh just be uh immediately you know restabilized with long um after installation and if there is any excavation associated with those holdings that be moved to the upland area.

How far above the level grade?

The hot tub? Greg, maybe you can answer that as far as the height of the hot tub.

Oh, great.

Oh, yeah. Great. Great.

It's it's on graded ground and the hot tub is 7 by 7 and 30, 36 inches high. Okay, it's got fancy.

No, visiting correct.

It's the cover the whole entire property is fenced in.

Okay. Yeah, that's right. That was the last application.

I should have mentioned that the, yeah, the last owner fenced in the entire property.

I have a quick question. Does it have its own plumbing system?

It does. Yeah, it's self-contained.

You're bringing plumbing from the house to the house?

No, no. Freestanding and There's no point from the house to the house. No, no, it's a self contained freestanding unit.

Thank you. We have a question. You're right. It's just installation is a disturbance.

Really? Yes, pretty minor. You've got a salt water.

I see a lot of it. All right. Can I put a dog park?

No. In that case, could I have a motion to ask for a round? Back to that resolution.

Voted at the Madison Planning Zoning Commission with application number 26, 20, 25, 28, Matthew Lenny, Mack, 13, Lott, 17, Selma, R5, one applicant, Gregory, and Renee Mellon. Both the site grant application for the installation of a hot tub with 20 feet of a critical cultural resource with the following condition. One, any disturbed areas in the yard shall be stabilized and restored immediately following installation of the hot tub. This approval is made based upon the finding that the proposal is consistent with the policy and the goals of the Coastal Area Management Act of the State of Connecticut, effective date is July 1, 3, 2026.

Do you mind?

Second.

Second. Do you have any further discussion? Any favor?

All in favor.

Approved. Thank you. All right, minutes. Thank you, Greg. Thanks, everybody.

Have a good night. I was going to skip that. Okay, we're skipping.

No, but the only one that you need to take action on is the garden park. Oh, yeah. The challenging request based on some deep. Comments that they're working on for revisions to. Table the postal site plan to the August 20th.

So, could I quickly get a motion to table. 26-15 Garnet Park Road, August 20th, 2026. Okay, so that's 20. Thank you. I did have it highlighted. So minutes. There we go. Okay, so we've got review and approval of the June 18th, 2026 minutes. A motion to review and approve the minutes.

2nd, I have a comment. I do too.

Okay.

So. I think on the sound you Avenue. Approval we still have the 2 foot wide. Yeah, the thickness of yeah, we, we, we scratch that right? The 2. Plan to construct a 2.0 inch wide by 80. We just decided to.

We need to scratch that, right?

Delete that. 26-10 for 397 Durham. It was tabled to July 16th.

That was 397?

Yeah.

Not 14.

It might have been said 14 person and corrected to the 16th. So that was what happened.

Anything else? Vote to approve? I was saying all right.

Same reason.

Thank you, John. All right. Remarks? Nothing from the lead? Motion to adjourn? I think we should. There is an exact and they're. Not sure that.