Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

that and then I repeat that probably take two.

Welcome and I'd like to call to order the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting of Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 7:02. Uh we have one public hearing scheduled for this evening. So I want to take a few minutes first to review the process for public hearings in the current hybrid format of our meetings. During the public hearing, the applicant will be invited to present the application explaining to the commission and others present what is being requested. The applicant or staff will share all application materials on the screens as needed. Comments of town agencies will be read for each application if there are any. There will be clarifying questions from the commissioners. Then there will be an opportunity for clarifying questions from attendees. For Zoom attendees, please raise your hand through the Zoom platform and wait to be called on and unmuted. As this public hearing must be recorded, attendees will state their names and addresses before asking their questions. Next, those who wish to support the application may come forward and then those who oppose the application may come forward. Again, it is necessary for speakers to identify themselves each time they speak by stating their name and address. The applicant will then have an opportunity to address any questions or concerns raised by the public or commissioners. Once the public hearing is closed, the applicant is free to leave or remain for the balance of the regular meeting during which the commission will try to reach a decision on each application. Each applicant will be notified in writing as to the decision of this commission and has a right to appeal to superior court if desired. Decisions of this meeting are available the next day um by calling the land use department at 203245-55631 after 9:00 a.m. All actions taken tonight by the commission will be by roll call. All committers and staff will identify themselves for the record before speaking. And seated this evening are members Mike Bugghda, Michelle Clark via Zoom, who's an alternate,

um, Vice Chair John Dooza, Secretary John Morgan, Bob Janet Peckingpaw, Andy Rubin, and myself, Carol Snow, chair. Because we're missing a commissioner, we could seat Michelle Clark this evening. So Michelle, would you like to be seated this evening in place of Maxwell Karun? Yes. Thank you. Thanks.

Okay, great. Uh, staff present this evening is Aaron Manx, town planner. This meeting is livereamed on YouTube and will be made available on the town website for viewing. Additionally, I would like to ask that we treat each other respectfully throughout the meeting and reminder to please turn off your phones. Uh, the town planner will now read the legal notice for the application. Erin,

thank you, Madam Chair. Notice is hereby given that the planning and zoning commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, January 15, 2026, beginning at 700 p.m. in meeting room A, the James Madison room, Town Campus, 8 Campus Drive, Madison, Connecticut 06443. This is a hybrid meeting and attendees may also join via Zoom webinar through either the webinar link or call in information below. The webinar ID is 91581966735. The password is 4552138. Dial in number 6465588656. The following application will be heard. 25-28 Bushnull Lane map 27 lot 87-3 zone R2 owner applicant Linda H. Fast re-ubdivision application to legalize division of property from 1957. Copy of this application is available for inspection in the land use office. Further details on how to participate in the webinar are posted on the town of Madison website www.mmadisonct.org. All written correspondence can be submitted to the land use department via email land@madisonct.org. Dial 203245-55631 for assistance. Dated at Madison, Connecticut this 22nd day of December, 2025. Carol Snow, chair. This was published once in the New Haven Register on January 1st, 2026 and once in the source on January 8th, 2026.

Thank you, Aaron. Could I have a motion then to open 25-28 Bushnell Lane application? Second honor made discussion as favoring is open and I'd like to invite the applicant to the presentation.

Um good evening. I'm attorney Ed Castella at 29 Elm Street, Old Sabbrook, Connecticut. Um representing the applicant on this application, uh which is a bit of a unique application, but I know this parcel these parcels have some history uh with this commission. Maybe not you folks, but prior commissions. Um Erin, if you could bring up the dome subdivision map and then my letter as well. We'll use those for the presentation. Sure.

Michelle, can you hear everything? Okay, great. So the map um that was provided to the commission is what is shown as the end result here that we're seeking for approval for. Uh this is a piece of land that has been in existence as a parcel since 1957 and we are seeking confirmation from the planning and zoning commission uh that this is a building lot by virtue of a subdivision or in this instance a reubdivision. Um, so we have a plan completed by Bob Don that includes a zoning data table. It shows a uh house, septic system, driveway, well, everything that you would need to develop a piece of property. Uh it's a 44,000 square foot lot uh where 40,000 square ft required has a minimum dimension of a square 120 by 120 and as adequate room to um have all the components of a lot that are needed. Okay. So that's that's the end result that we're trying to get to. But in order to get there, we have to review the history. So if you could pull up my letter, we can go through that. Uh and there is a um you know fairly fairly clear history here as to what's happened. Um why it happened we don't know but uh we know how we we know from a tunnel perspective how we got here. So, this piece of land is on the south side of uh Bushnell Lane as it comes around and was supposed to join up to Hamilton Drive um in previous iterations. So, if you can go down, I want to look at the maps. And this is this is the area that is the

subject of um a number of divisions that were done in the 1950s after uh your subdivision regulations came into effect. And it impacts not only this property, but other properties uh that are owned um and that have houses built on it. So, this is taken from the assessor map. So, this is the way the assessor views all the divisions of land, which is entirely consistent with what we're asking you to ultimately approve. So, the top piece um subject parcel 2787-3 is the lot that we're seeking approval for from a subdivision perspective. And then, uh there are two houses below uh 30 and 32 Bushnull, which have been improved with houses. Uh then there's another piece map 27872 which is a parcel that is not approved as a building lot and that is substandard because that's only a sixth of an acre. 6th of an acre is less than 40,000 square ft. Um and then on the far south is 46 Hamilton Drive. So that's the baseline. So if you can flip to the next map. So in um 1950, this is the piece of property that was owned by Clinton These and conveyed to Arthur Williams. And if you remember the configuration up top is where our um piece is and then it goes all the way down below to Hamilton Drive. And here as I was discussing was a proposal for Hamilton Drive to connect all the way uh to the south. So next one in this is this is off but the first cut was the southernmost piece. So in 1950 something I have the date here somewhere 19 um 54

there was a first cut of land that became known as this is the parcel that's now 46 Hamilton Drive. So that was done a map was recorded. No subdivision was required because that was the first cut. So that one's gone and outside the picture. So what was left over was um yeah and try to orient it all the way around there. What was left over were keep going up a little bit. Yeah. three or what was left over was a little bit more than what's shown on this map. Okay. And Williams, Arthur Williams, who owned the property, next conveyed without subdivision approval, this southern piece here, the David C. Montgomery piece that was immediately north of Hamilton Drive. um he conveyed that in 1954 leaving him with these two pieces of land. Again, this was done without subdivision. So then in 1957, he takes his house lot, parcel A, and divides off parcel B. So, our lot that we're seeking approval for was first established without subdivision approval in 1957 when parcel A and arguably the Montgomery piece were divided so that parcel B became its own its own parcel. The Montgomery piece came back to Williams in 1959. Okay. So that after the 57 split it ca

it came back um to Williams. So this this piece ultimately was owned by Williams until he passed away in 1986. Um next so then parcel B is already created. Parcel A gets split into two lots without subdivision approval. So now we have the free split done. That's gone. And so we're left with the the Montgomery the southern Montgomery piece, our piece, parcel B, and then two more pieces without any subdivision approval. The original homestead, you can see, was on um parcel A1, which I believe is 30 Bushnull. And then a new house was constructed on um parcel A2. Uh so those parcels have been in existence and occupied as houses since that time. Um and that leads us frankly to where we are now. Uh we are seeking approval for parcel B as it existed in 1957, as it still exists today, and as it complies with the zoning regulations. didn't always comply with the zoning regulations. Um, five, six years ago, the old regulations didn't uh um didn't allow new lots to be built on private streets, but the regulations were amended to allow it. So, 5 six years ago, it wasn't permittable, but today it is. So, if you go back to the 1957 map, map uh 908 that what? No, up

the other way. This one. Sorry.

This one. Yeah. This is basically what we're asking the the commission to do because this was the first the the next cut, which is create parcel B from the original homestead, which was parcel A. That's that's the subdivision at its core. And again, our position is parcel B today, you're approving this today. We understand, but it meets the regulations today. I'm not going back and arguing in 1957 the regulations only required 26,000 ft and it no, it meets everything today. So that's that's how you have the ability to do that. Um, two other points. Number one, your subdivision regulations require open space. Um, we're requesting a wave. I and I I have a written waiver um for waiver of open space provision which is section 3.11. Uh section 14 of your subdivision regulation allows for waiver of certain sections. Section 3.11 is one of them. So, under your regulations, it requires that open space be provided no less than 10% of of the lot. Um, but waiverss are available if there's conditions affecting the parcel that don't generally affect other parcels um in the area. So, you know, in support of this, you know, what we're basically saying is there's no good room for open space on this. There's no passive recreation available. Um 10% is 4,300 ft of everything in this parcel. Uh that's that's a very small amount. Um the parcel A which was the larger parcel was divided

illegally still is illegal both parcels without any the benefit of any open spaces and those have houses on them. They in my opinion they shouldn't be subject to open space requirement during this application. And you know one of the big factors here when you look at this from a fairness perspective parcel B the subject lot has been paying taxes as though it's building lot at least for the past 5 years which I what I can see online. Um so right now it's assessed fair market value at $466,000. So, it's a $7,000 tax bill. So, if you were considering, well, maybe a fee and Lou, they've been paying taxes. They've been paying taxes 7,6800 7,300 this year, you know, going back years. So, you know, all those considerations are why we believe a waiver of the open space for this parcel, which has existed in the same configuration since 1957, um, is something that the commission could approve. And so we're asking for a waiver of uh of the open space based upon that. Um so that's that's essentially the background in the presentation for why we're asking for parcel B simply to be approved a um a building lot. Right now it's a parcel to have it be approved as a building lot. Um so I appreciate your attention.

Thank you. I thought you said this was clear. it is to me. Erin, I was wondering if you could pull up the site plan and show us the um zoning regulations that are met for everyone to see. In the meantime, does anyone have any last questions from this presentation so far?

Well, regarding the 2019 change, who requested that? Um I believe it was a the owner of the parcel. Yeah, because I think they went in they went in and tried to argue um they hired an attorney at that point in time pre this was pre-COVID and they tried to argue um like a grandfathering almost I forget specifically um and that was the commission said no so they had to come in and and update the race

that was in 2018 or 2017 2018 for the actual amendment it was I believe in commission initiated with the director of the previous town planner and discussion and then I believe there was there was a public hearing about it in the minutes of the public hearing it that I don't believe there was a private applicant okay yeah that public hearing was May 16th 2019 here yes

Carol I do have a question, John Morgan. What why don't we have to look at this whole whole lots parcel A plus B plus B um the other two lots that were never subdivided. Shouldn't shouldn't that all be in the subdivision request? Um, it could be, but if at a the A to A1 came after us, so we wouldn't be asking for that. If these folks wanted to ask for their houses to be legalized, that would be a, in my opinion, a separate application. The most you could ask for is to look at A to B, the big picture.

Why is that? Because that that was the division done in 1957. that was done first historically. Historically correct. We're basically asking for ratification of something that was done in 1957

and we don't have their consent for this. They would have to join in as my understand based upon the letters that are submitted in the file. And are you calling this a subdivision or a resub? I I think it's it's technically

we went back and forth on this. Um the when the Montgomery piece went out, that was the first piece and because this went out after I think the conservative approach is to call it a resubdivision and asked for a public hearing. I could argue because it came back in was merged, maybe not. But during discussions with Aaron and Carrie Olsen, he took the position it was a because it was after that division. It was a resell division.

There's there's four there's four properties, four parts. Three of them are have homes on them and are paying full property taxes and one B what you're looking for is just paying taxes on the land itself. But all four are not legal or B is A is legal. No, the the only one that's legal is Hamilton Drive, the one on the far south. Okay. Yes. That that bots Hamilton.

The the parcel immediately to the north of that um which is owned uh by the same people who own S cuz those in their family. That's not a legal lot. Then A and A1 were never approved as divided lots. There was no subdivision approval for them. So of the of the three houses, one is legal free split. Two are not. Of the two vacant parcels, one is eligible. Our pre property is eligible because it meets zoning. The other property is not without variances or something change.

Square footage. It doesn't have the square footage. But those people whether those people again they're paying taxes they have been for a long time with those property it's just not necessarily their fault that these were never deemed as okay correct make sure obviously it didn't come up when they purchased the property and all that stuff. So clearly things were missed over the years especially when uh the two properties the two houses to the south were um sold or conveyed. The division though was recorded through probate with deeds as I understand it and you I think you you shared or we've seen on file the history of those different Yep. These are all separate parcels of land on the land records.

And it's my understanding that that's how the town determines the lots and whether they're buildable or not and then how they tax or how I mean this parcel that is the subject of tonight's application has been paying property taxes as a buildable lot. Is that right? That's right. Even though there was no zoning involved. even though there was no um subdivision subdivision approved, right? Although it meets almost all of the it all of them. Yeah, that's what that's what I wanted to see. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want me to zoom in on the chart larger for you? Yeah.

In case. So, so what what are we actually re-ubdividing? It's not that big. B partial B partial B that's what I'm asking for but when was it sub it wasn't so how could we approve a re it was divided in 1957 but never approved but never approved so whether it's subdivision redivision somewhat semantics but it is a bit yeah

and same with I I actually looked up our definitions of parcel a lot to see if there was any clarity but they're also things of they reference back and forth to each other, but I because I thought, well, oh, you know, we've got a parcel here, but it's not a lot. But it is actually a lot. They've been paying taxes on it. It's just a lot. Correct. No one's getting away with it. Just and the 2019 text amendment change makes this completely done. And that was a restriction pre undoing a previous restriction about frontage on private roads. So it further remains so.

Yeah. I mean it predates us but it's important it if an applicant came in 2018 seeking approval the regulations at that time when for those two years that there were discussions the law did not meet the zoning regulations. Um, so an application for a subdivision at that point would in order to approve the division of parcels creating building lots, those lots need to meet the current zoning regulations at the time of application,

right? for in 1957 it's it's clear based upon the the map that when A with the house on it was divided so that the top half B became it its own separate parcel they both complied right so again I can't speak to the A to A1 division that took place

nine years later in 1966 but clearly when A and B were separated those uh those both complied I guess my my only concern is really around the waiver here is that if based on the definition of the subject I mean if if you take the whole parcel and say okay if we're starting from the beginning what do you want what's the do we have the total square footage of the total parcel of all of those other lot whatever it is it's going to be a lot more than ambian It's going to be a lot more than just B, right?

Yeah. A and B together. I do have that math. I didn't calculate it, but see it would be C. Yeah. We can't do that.

Yeah. The subdivision regulations um have a you have a waiver section in which is unlike a zoning regulation granting waivers which is the role of the zoning board of appeals. Uh in the subdivision regulations the commission can grant waivers of specific sections as they're listed. So there's like four or five sections. The open space section is one of the areas in which the commission can grant a waiver. Um the waiver requires a three4er vote of your membership. That that is so 3/4 of nine members. So you would have to in order to grant a waiver you would need to have an affirmative seven votes from the commission to do that. Yeah.

Um, did you guys still being live? Well, but as Ed was saying, they've been paying taxes all this time, so they've also they've also been illegal. Right. Right. it. But what she was talking about the fee and loaf. Yeah, we do fe and lo. Yeah,

the total acreage of um a after the free split because that's that should be gone is like 143,800 of of B A a1 A2 and um the Montgomery piece for lack of a better term. So that's 143,000 square ft. But none of the properties have any kind of conservation ease now because they were never really subdivided. No open space or no open space was proposed or required for any of them. They weren't done. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the that's the way it is. That's the history

regardless of just just trying to clarify on the waiver. I understand 4,400 square f feet is not a lot of space and you have really nothing to do there. But what if you were to comply with that? What's the downside to the property? I mean, if it's just tucked in a corner somewhere, um, you know, cuz otherwise, you know, we're talking about precedent. That's that's a thing. So that's part of where my question goes to. So I mean is there would that hamper the development of the property significantly such that you couldn't meet the requirement or it just it wouldn't be accessible but you know the definition you know as I look at it it's more of you know it's supposed to be for you know benefit conservation purposes what I care if you no one's going to go back there no one's certainly going to use it as a ball field but if it just you just have to corten off an area so to speak not physically port it off but just mark it off why not do that it can just be untouched almost look at those wetlands type of building or whatever.

Yeah. It certainly wouldn't be a parcel that you separate out and give to the town of the land trust, right? So, the only question would be if if you wanted to do a conservation. Yeah. So, if I'm doing the math right, that would if we take out the 4,434 you under 40. It puts you under 40,000. Yeah. Yeah. Right. and just spiritual. I guess typically in an open space set aside, it's based on the total area Yeah. of of the mother lot, not in the individual proposed lot, right?

So, so now you're talking, you know, 14,000,

right? So, we're in and and I can say as far as a dedicated open space um where there are parcels often times um applicants would look to donate property to the land trust or to the town and I think both parties have gotten a little more particular um because we're realizing of orphaned pieces of open space throughout town that are maintenance challenge and so really open space land dedication is more appropriate where it's contiguous to other open space or you know for conservation matters if you're along the Hamonic River or things like that where you're getting these connections um we've seen that a lot um oftent times the recommendation would be the fee and loo um the commission has the discretion of course to uh review a court in section 311 all of the options um I think one is even a dedication of a of a different parcel um but um the the the waiver section is the other option. Um so we've we have as a commission you have seen subdivisions that have um have accepted land you know land trust has entered into agreements with them um and and sometimes even the town. Um, in this case, I'm I mean, yes, aside from calling off an area that would diminish that particular lot size, it doesn't tend to satisfy the the actual 10% of the lot. Um I I also just wanted to highlight so in that section 14 of the subdivision regulations that's your general uh provisions and that's like I said the three/arters vote of all members that's

regular members not including uh the alternates uh waving the provisions of certain sections um and there are two um provisions really that to take into consideration one in the opinion of the commission conditions exist uh which affect the subject land and are not generally applicable to other land in the area and or two conditions exist where the strict application of the subdivision regulations is either unnecessary or undesirable due to conditions which affect the subject land and are generally uh not applicable to other land in the area. Um, no waiver shall be granted that would have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property or public health and safety. Um, and the commission shall state upon its record the reasons uh for which a waiver is granted in such instance. Um, I'm not sure that many of you have had an experience uh with a waiver and I didn't write that in my staff report. So, I just wanted to at least read it to you tonight so you're familiar. there questions.

Thank you. If not, then um I'd like to open it up to the public questions and statements and be sure to state your name and address the record.

Good evening. My name is Keith Bane Madison excuse me resident but I'm also an attorney in New Haven. I represent the adjacent owners one of the owners of one of these lots in this um non subdivision uh subdivision. Um and I'd like to give you a different perspective on some of these issues. Um, first I want to start out by the with the with the prospect that they're not entitled to what they're asking. This is absolutely not something that you would be depriving them of a property right that they have a right to. They are asking for a subdivision or a resubdivision of an illegal subdivision that never should have happened. Um, and they're asking for a waiver of the regulations because they can't meet the regulations because they did an illegal something. Anyways, there are consequences to the illegality that occurred so many years. Um, and there's a number of points here. Um, you've all been talking about, well, they've been paying taxes on a lot since about 2018. However, they didn't pay taxes on an subdivision for 560 years, um, 55 years, um, because it was never registered as a subdivision. So, they got away with cutting lots off without having to pay the price that would have come from creating building. So, they got away with not paying taxes that they should have paid for. uh don't feel bad for them for having paid taxes. Whatever taxes they paid were lower than what they should have paid. Number two, when they sold the lots that they sold that were illegal, they made a profit on those. So, no one should feel bad about that either.

Number three, they sold lots that left other people with um impacts, other people who now have illegally subdivided. Um in addition, not only are they asking for a waiver, but they came in and they asked in 2019 for a text change and let us not engage in this fiction that somehow it was the commission that did this. The commission only did it because the private land owner asked for it and then the commission initiated the application. It wasn't a private application technically, but it was in but it was instigated by the owner. So, let's let's just not pretend the fiction is a fiction or the truth. Um number number three um this open space requirement is 10% of the subdivision not of the law. So if we're going to legalize this next lot and give this thing to them of value because they can't sell it as a part of a subdivision as a subdivision lot unless they get this approval. But they're only asking for 10% of that lot because they can't ask for the 10% of everybody else's lot because they didn't give that up and they're putting you in the position of saying give us a waiver because we're really kind of stuck here. Well, wait a had they done this legally, they would have to have given you 10% of the total area of all of the lots of all five lots. In fact, we're talking about five lots, not four. The fifth one is, let's say, uh, that one that's not buildable. Should have been part of the subdivision, should have been open space. Who knows, they may come back and try to get you to make that a halfacre lot somehow, maybe go to ZBA and try to get that approved. Um, so we may not be

done yet, but this was done illegally. In addition, the gentleman who did it at the time was a judge, was a lawyer. I assume he knew better. Maybe he didn't, but certainly was not an unnowledgeable farmer who just kind of stumbled into this. Um, so is there also one of your requirements for giving this waiver is that it not have any kind of an impact on the neighbors? Well, if you're putting another house here, you're crowding this area. The other people who bought here bought understanding that this lot was not buildable because it was an over lot. Now they're asking you to make it legal. Well, now there's going to be a house here that nobody would have expected when they bought those other lots. So the the illegal subdivision didn't come without impact. Um it certainly benefited the person who got the illegal subdivision. Um and now they're going to try to get the last lot out of it, but the town didn't get all the taxes it should. The neighbors didn't get a subdivision that met the rankings that was properly laid out. And in fact, you still don't even have a map of the entire subdivision laid out under your regulations with an A2 survey with the boundaries, the meets and bounds, all the setbacks, all of the things that you require in subdivision. They're coming back to you with one lot that meets that. That's this one, the one they're asking for. And that one has all the lines. But notice they didn't show you the rest of the subdivision. Plus, they're calling it a reub. A resubdivision of what? I don't think you can legally call it a reubdivision because it's not a subdivision of a subdivision. It's an when we say it's an illegal subdivision, it's not a subdivision at all. It's a bunch of lots that have been cut illegally. So to call this a reubdivision is in legal. If you do that, you are

actually in violation of your own rights. is actually a subdivision and they should be coming to you with a full subdivision and asking for it all of you and they in order to do that they would need the permission of the neighbors my clients included they wouldn't get that therefore they wouldn't be able to do that therefore they wouldn't be able to get this law the only way they can succeed tonight is by entertaining the fiction that this is a resubdivision so this is it's messy. It's one of those things that we would all like to be able to gloss over because you say, "Look, somebody made a mistake a long time ago. I don't know if it was a mistake or but and we'd like to clean that up, but it has an impact. Um, somebody got away with something. I assume they did it on purpose. They were making a lot of cuts. They were giving away to their family and they're selling them. Um, and unfortunately now you have people who occupy those lots and you're going to add another house to their neighborhood and you're going to say, "Well, you're all stuck with this sort of illegality mess." Um, and we want to give you a waiver um of the open space subdivision rents. um waiverss are given where let's say everything else makes sense and the open space part of it doesn't. I don't know what would have made sense if you had come through and and shown all of the lots. Um whether you could have cut off a piece and said, "Hey, here's a little chunk of open space that might have been then is a little mini park in that neighborhood. I mean, this is a tightlyknit area that's very heavily developed. Maybe there could be a nice little lot that someone could use as a little walking open space. Maybe they kick up all around. I don't. Um, but certainly they're not even they're not even offering the 44 hours.

They want you to say, "No, you don't have to do that." So that's just a different perspective. Um, and just because this was a division recorded in probate, yes, that means they're loss. that means they're laws. It doesn't mean this is a subdivision. It doesn't mean it should be done um and it doesn't mean it's uh without impact. Even if they did have this as a whole subdivision and they were going to offer some piece of land, I know I'm I represent the land trust locally. I know they wouldn't take this kind of piece and I don't think the town would want this either um for the same very reason that it's too small. it doesn't it's not contiguous to other open space and it would be a um a maintenance nightmare because it's surrounded by people who might encroach and then you'd have all this enforcement that you don't want. So you've got a lot of things here that don't recommend doing this and there's no good reason to do it unless you want to do these people a favor. Um, and frankly the neighbors are opposed um because it adds just one more house that they didn't expect and it devalues their property and they paid for what they paid for at the time based on the fact that this thing shouldn't have been built. Um, frankly, everybody would have to go back to ZBA and try to get variances to make the properties legal. um you know there's a lot of other really expensive headaches that might still exist even if you do this tonight. So we ask you to just say no and let them have all of the benefits of what they got over the years. Um and they live with the with the negative consequences they created just like everybody else has to.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jessica Lout. I live at 9 Bushnell Lake and um as Mr. Ainssworth had said that they're asking for a re-ubdivision where was living there I never even it's not even a subdivision. So again, how can it be a um a resubdivision? The property has already been divided to excess. And if the I feel I'm being a little selfish, if this this type of subdivision is approved after the fact, um will it set a precedent for other residents in the area to do the same? Oops. Um, I I I have some I have many many many concerns with that and I I have a concern with the uh payment of property on on the parcel um payment of taxes. I did not look this up, but I would guesstimate that they they did pay taxes on that parcel once the main house was sold and they were holding on to that last parcel. They that's probably when the property taxes for that parcel started. I don't know that for sure, but I'm just it is unaware of when it started either.

Hi. Oh, he's up. I'm um I'm Lisa Bridge. We live at 64 by Excuse me. Just our microphone is over here on the on top of the TV. So, if you could stand up and annunciate so that uh folks attending remotely can nobody wants to be here. Um

Lisa Rich, 64 Quarry Ledge. Um we're probably the new beach town. These guys have lived here like 100 years, so they know everything about this property. They were best friends with the judge. They watched them divide the five into five illegal pieces. Um, this is a family property. Only one got sold. It got sold to the Keelers who would have been here tonight, but they couldn't make it. Um they bought the property and later found out after having uh done some research when they had a problem with their um their what their title search that uh they had bought a property that had been part of a five portion illegally portioned out property. um done for all different various reasons, but definitely well known that they had done it and knew that it had occurred, which is why they came back in 2018 and wanted to start being able to sell it. The killers tried to buy this property from them when they found out that their property was illegal in order to combine them and try to make it a legal subdivision with both properties and were turned down multiple times and then eventually gave up trying to purchase it. uh when they ultimately moved um they sold the property they thought everything was fine that they would be the properties would remain unbuildable. city. I think their stepmother uh still lives on one of the properties, one of the unbuildable right up against our property and I when I say about 12 ft. The other impacted for us is that they want to build right up the I don't know if you can see in one of your drawings I'll show you where our cottage is

that's been on the property since 1907 which is long before these people subdivided or even had their property. Our property butts up unfortunately about six feet off the property line because it was here long before anybody else's. If you go back to the original

pull up a map of that, you'll see our cottage. The whole property of course is built on quarrying ledge. There's reason for the name. Um it is they came and took photos about a year ago asking uh what kind of damage they were worried about doing. So they took photos of all our houses without an explanation and our cottages um in order to protect I guess in case they did damage during like blasting that would be required in order to build this house. I don't know if you guys have been down Bush Valley. I had never been there 20 years on Lynen Lane when we moved here. Jerry had to show me even where the house was. It's a very tiny enclave off of East Warf and it butts up against the six houses that are in Bushnell, the tiniest of property, the tiniest private lane. So when they say, "I want to build a property." They're not building it for themselves. They're building this property to sell it. They're developing it and then they're going to dump it on the five people or six people that live in this area, make their money, and get out. Even though they were offered several hundred,000 to just find the land to tie it back together. They don't have an interest in living there. If you told me that they wanted to buy it and be my neighbors, I could maybe even get behind that. But that's not it's developing just like the ledges were. There's no interest in retaining any kind of decency to the areas that were built. Maybe I'm a little bit biased because I live in a house built in 1907 and I like the idea of some tradition and I I'm a modernist in nature, but and if it made sense, but just putting another house on the property just to sell it, make money, and get out, that seems like a different story, especially because what they're asking for is to take five illegal parcels and they're not lots. They're considered parcels, right? My husband's a license. explain

things about it's a parcel. It's not a lot. And my guess is they started paying the taxes fully when they realized that they wanted to develop it and sell it so that they would garner people's sympathies of hey I've been paying these taxes on it because then that way you'd be like but they didn't pay taxes on it. But the reality is they weren't before not before they wanted to develop and map 908 maps. I'm not as smart as some of the people here, but what I have done is watched how they have manipulated impact our particular house as much cuz we're up the house on the hill, the farmer's house.

But I can see how it would impact everyone, including our cottage. It would they're like 20 yards from these guys' houses. And Jason and Tracy, who I just met, they're like on top of it. They share a driveway and they would box Cindy Williams, the uh original owner's daughter-in-law. They in the illegal one, she'd be sandwiched in like this. It's a tiny reason why you don't want to pull up the map. No, I I I'm Are you looking for map 908 or the So we can see or the the tax map. The impact of

his map the Bob. Okay. Well, that I I had But the reality is if you Google Earth, yeah, the assessor might I think the assessor map you're looking to see where this language where this property is and other properties that are being raised here tonight. That would be great. Okay. But the reality is this was five illegal subcuts manipulated to try to get their best bang for the money. The mother-in-law still lives there. I know Cindy, she'd be here, but she's in her 80s and doesn't walk well and it's night. She doesn't drive. She doesn't want this to happen. But she's lucky, as she says, still be living in the house until she's only been willed till she

The dilemma in this is that they're trying to build upon something that should never been built upon because they illegally cut five pieces. Okay, I think we got my gist. No, what I was going to say is if you can see where the kind of weird circle looks. I don't want to There was another drawing that showed cottage on there and it will show our Well, our cottage is right actually here. Yeah, I think pointed it out. Right here. That's But that's part of your You have a home also on There's a home right here. Live in the cottage.

Well, but it's a you know, it's a Yeah, it's right here on top of the property. And where will you show where they want to build their house? Cuz I think that was got messed missed in this. There was a part where he shows where he's going to build the house. Right there. Right to the left. So this application though is not for the house itself and and the building. It's for the subdivision. It's the subdivision and allow a future if they Exactly. But if you showed where he wanted to build, you want to see the impact on it map on the double map. or whatever is

cuz you asked what the impact was on the neighbors. It's a tiny tiny block. So, his proposed house is here. I'm not sure why they would call it a shed, but literally up on our land. I don't even know what the uh linear feet are between the homes, but it's pretty substant. I mean our what's our we have a small stone wall there. It's literally on top of it. So it does impact it. And we've bought a property thinking this was an illegal lot and shouldn't be built upon. There's only one pro uh one property, one house, the killers and Jason and Tracy's. That one house is the only one that legally is now divided where people live in ANA and can be sold.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Hi, Christina here. Um 46 Hamilton Drive. So we are the property that was the initial property that was subdivided. Um so we talked a lot about taxes and I just want to add some thoughts to that process which is um I do understand that the petitioner has paid taxes and this property is available lot from 2017 but I don't believe that should justify um a bypassing our zoning regulations just like any other property owner in this town. They had the opportunity to grieve those taxes as a non-buildable lot and they did not take advantage of that opportunity. Um, in addition, we received no notice of this. Um, I learned about the public hearing by walking the path through Bushnell Lane and seeing the sign. Um, last week I noticed the sign had been removed, which I find deeply troubling. Our zoning regulations require it to be posted until this evening for this public hearing. Um, it leads me to believe that the points about this being a manipulative process or there's there's merit to that. I would like to know why that sign was removed and why they're not required to be in compliance of public notice. And finally, the point about it building to requesting an open space requirement. This property was listed on the MLS before this proceeding. So, this property was listed with buildable plans and square footage that was suggested. The only reason that this is before this committee is because your neighbor issued it. They were planning to continue with the illegal subdivision. So I take issue with all those things and I hope the commissioner will will hear them.

It was listed over a year ago. Yeah, it was listed. I called. Oh, you said you like I don't think this is a buildable lot. They're like uh uh the rendering was nice. Yeah, it was like 3200 ft. Okay, thanks. Any other questions or comments? Uh, there's one online. If you could please unmute and identify yourself for the record.

Hi, Jason and Carolyn Camasar. We're the owners of 30 Bush. Now, did you hear us? Yes. Yes. Oh, okay. Um, uh, when we bought the 30 Bushnell in June of 2024, uh, we were also under the, we also knew that these were all illegal lots. Uh, so we knew that that lot was illegal.

We knew that that was an illegal lot here. um when we purchased in 2024 and uh I didn't quite catch her name, but the woman from 46 Hamilton who just spoke uh uh the property has been listed for I think I believe you can check the MLS, but it's been listed for well over a year. Uh so what does that say? that they've uh uh listed a lot on uh for sale, but they um isn't even they can't sell it unless it's approved. Um so I think that gives you an idea of what's going on.

Thank you. Okay. So, if I could Hi, my name's Eric Ra 64 Corey Lech. And I also want to state that um when we saw that listing come online, all of us neighbors got together and and talk about it and we went with fire owners before Jason and Tracy owned the house and we um did a review of their title search and it showed all the illegality that occurred involving uh of the property. We brought these issues to zoning and we were rebuffed over and over and over again. So until we consulted with legal counsel, it was the only way we actually had any access to this experience of being with you here in zoning. And I want to say that that it's it's troubling to me that as um as citizens of this town who who not only love the town but who pay our taxes and vote and care deeply about what happens here that that the planning of the town would seem to think that we were lesser because we didn't want to develop something than then if we basically they were on the wrong side of things as citizens and that we needed that he lawyered up in order to have access to this forum to discuss our concerns about the property. So, I want to make sure that that's well understood in this as well and that um this was not an easy road for us to be here. We actually had to overcome quite a bit of of challenges to make this happen

to be invited to be to be invited to this. Yes. So, we've seen your letters requesting public hearing. We appreciate that. But that that recent letter for the public hearing is a really recent thing. I don't I don't know if you've seen all of the other letters that came prior to this that went to zoning that when we were told no there's no there there's nothing to do it's buildable forget it and we said oh no no no contra you know we don't believe that so that's all I want to say thank you what did you talk to consulting

um we sent letters to uh planner we sent letters and we spoke with um bench so sorry I had a It's written down some of it. I don't have it with me. Yes, it was. Hold on. So, we were told there's no there there that we don't have any anything that So, if there are no further questions, I'd like to have an applicant respond to issues that have been raised.

Uh, thank you. Um, I I was hired in May of 2025 by a a purchaser and that's primarily who I'm representing in this and um I didn't get the answer that it wasn't buildable. I got the answer you have to do all this work and and end up here. So that's why we're here. So this it it it took a long time to frankly figure out the title that's complex to figure out the procedural history of what's happened and then to do all the work the Bob Don work necessary to even open the door. So I I I first contacted Aaron this summer and we talked about this and she said there's a lot of problems that need to be resolved. Here's all the stuff. So, I'm I'm not sure where what what other people were hearing, but that's the answer I got. And that's what led us to this application. And we made the application with, you know, with the town because this needed a solution. If it could have been purchased, if I could have told the the my the person who wants to build their house here, no, you can do this. We would have done that and we would have closed and and been done by Bob Dylan finished his plans. But we had to go, we knew this whole process in the summer. We knew this whole process was was needed. I can't tell you what happened before May of 2025 with the listing, but they put it out there and it was always subject to getting approval to build a house. And this is one of the steps that's uh part of that. Um it this this fifth lot is the the Hamilton and that is this is only four lots. This is max four lots. I just wanted to make that point cuz the fifth lot was a free split. When you do a free split, no subdivision rags required, no open space or anything like that. Um,

yes, you know, I think what we're asking you to look at is does this make sense? It is a 1 acre piece of property in a 1acre zone that a house is able to meet all the setbacks. The proposed house shown on the plan, which again from your perspective is concept only is 33 feet off the property line and it meets the 30 foot setback. So that that complies and shouldn't be a reason not to approve the lot. When you look at the lots in the area and you ask the question as to whether this building a single family house on this one lot will be too crowded on Bushnull Lane which is the only connection there's no connection vehicular connection from Hamilton Drive um you have a 97 acre a 6.85 acre a 6.10 10 acre. On the other side, I I I think it's Cory ledge or something. 1.7 acre and a 4 acre. Those are the size of the parcels that surround this little cluster. And in the little cluster, you have a 1 acre our property. Cindy Williams is.98 acres. Um attorney Aworth's clients 1.7 acres. this if if we were talking about down here in Hamilton Drive where all these properties are, which is probably a different zone, but that I could maybe see a little bit of crowding, but this isn't a situation where there's crowding. Um, and it it all it is is it's always been woods and we want to keep it woods. That's that's what they're asking for. And the property owner saying, "Okay, no, I'm I've taken all these steps. I'm willing to do all this work, pay taxes, again is secondary, but it's it's still a factor. And we're asking for permission to make

this a building lot. That's that's that's why we're here. That's why we're here today. Um I don't know about the sign being removed. I That's We didn't remove the sign. We installed the sign. Um I think it was on the day before Christmas or something. It was it was bad timing that that when that sign was required to be installed, but it got done. Um then I saw the sign today. I think I saw the sign today. So tonight on this meeting, it's not may have been flattened down. Yeah, maybe. But it does there's very specific requirements about the signage and it's currently not meeting that.

I checked tonight on my way to this meeting. And the only the only thing I'm going to say about open space is um you know if if we're asking for a waiver of open space because we think it makes sense, right? Because this is a a a 1acre piece that was divided in 1957. Um if we can't have the ability to include any property on A and A1 because we don't own those and they won't consent to it as they said. So you know these are unique circumstances to this situation just based upon the title history alone. So it qualifies if and if if if I were on the commission, I'd say, okay, when A and A1 come to subdivide, we shouldn't require open space from them either. Like this is all this is all in the past and all you're doing is just approving it and allowing it to go forward. So uh you know, that's my perspective on open space. If the commission wants to engage in more of a dialogue with that, I'd certainly listen, talk to my clients. Um, but we're hoping that that the waiver will be granted. So, thank you.

You like to ask the followup question? I'm sorry. I just, as I understand now, this is a attorney that's here on behalf of purchaser. Is there anyone here on behalf of the owner of the property? Yeah, she's consented to the application. So, we're I'm working for her. Any other questions from

Yes. Uh, Attorney Angorth, I I'm not an economist. Uh, you mentioned that uh that it's that the value of the property, the folks in the vicinity would be devalued if this if there were to be a house built on this property. Is there any evidence for that? that when the houses are built, it reduces the value. I imagine we're not talking about a McDonald's there. Sure. Um, it's not from the use, it's actually from the removal of the non-use. There's an open lot next to you. Your house is worth more than if it's a lot for the house next door. That's just common sense. I mean, I would if I knew there was an open lot next to me that couldn't be built on, I would pay more for that lot than the house down the street that has house in neighbor. In fact, I have that in my neighborhood. My house sits on a lot that looks across the street with an open lot that was cut off at a time when it the zoning would have allowed it to be built at whenever it was. So, now it's not billable. And um I now have a lot that I look at that's full of trees. In fact, it's more valuable to me than looking at somebody else's house.

But that that's the gist. I can make an argument that building a $2 million house on a legal lot would drive up the value of the other homes around there if and when they decided to sell um and not have to go through those process. Ask the attorney, the applicant to

an evaluation question. Yeah. I I don't think there's any evidence that putting a a house on a 1acre piece of land in a 1acre zone is going to devalue property surrounding. I don't disagree that when you have a house next to property that's clearly conservation area, right? I think I think that is something that could uh you know benefit a property, but that's not what we have here. Can I just make a counter point to that? So, the undeveloped piece of land on the other side of that property, are we not allowed to have follow-up remarks? The undeveloped land on the other side of that property was part of our appraisal as our mortgage approval process. And that land was determined by the town as undevelopable, which did actually impact our appraisal positively. So to the point about whether or not having an open lot next to you impacts the value of your property, it certainly does in our case which is on the other side of this exact property.

I think that we'll just let that go then. U we've heard different positions about whether the property value will go up or down result of this project. Any other questions you're interested? the commission has the opportunity to either close the public hearing tonight or hold the public hearing open if you're looking for additional information from the applicant or um staff or what whatever information you're looking for regarding um that that's a decision you should make.

Yeah, I think that um it's not a clear application. I wish it were and because of that I would appreciate time to you review it and think about it. I'm back on the 5th anyway. So and so I'd like to propose that we continue the the public hearing that we not close it tonight. We keep it open.

Oh me too. Do you have any specific questions or requests for the applic if if you have it or if you just want free contact that too but if if somebody wants has a question or wants to ask for something now's the time

um before we move on I would like to add add one comment I did go to the minutes of the May 16th 2019 meeting um and saw that the vote to change to do the text amendment to allow this to be a buildable property basically was a unanimous vote and um the minutes didn't show any opposition at that time and it was a public hearing. Nobody nobody nobody knew that that meeting had happened. Um, but for we weren't actually living in I'm just stating what I saw when I when I was doing my homework for today's meeting.

We weren't given notice. If we had known that the meeting was occurring, we certainly would have been present. And as being living there for 40 some odd years, we didn't receive any notice of that. So we might go back and look at the records a little bit more about that. Madam Chair, for a text amendment that applies to the general standards of the zoning regulations, there is no individual notification of property owners. It's not an application specific to a particular property. So the notification process is legal notice,

right? Erosion of regulations is something that should be really considered here as well. This this it's a it's a slippery slope. It seems that there have been a many years long attempts to identify as those people who are they've been working. Yeah. Could you identify? Eric Rich 64 ledge and and this is kind of you know coming up with the first rung on the ladder to get the next and the next and next and working their way towards having this seem like it's just such an obvious choice to make paying your taxes all of a sudden. I think I'd like to close.

Yeah. a lot of words from the public right now to say that we'd like to continue it. We'd like to think about it a little bit. Um, this isn't a unique situation. Um, and how we interpret what we've learned tonight, I think, needs a little time. Well, I would be interested to go back look a little more closely minutes at those meetings. But do you want more input next time around or you just want more time for us to look at the official record, think about it, and then come back and deliberate? It's a good question. How does everyone feel? I mean, I feel like I just need to absorb and go back and look and even go back and review all our regulations.

Yeah. I don't know if versus hearing more because then you put a burden on everybody to pay more legal fees, right, the lawyers to right speak more. I don't think I I need to hear more from them, but right thinking about it. Okay, that's I have some procedural questions in our part. Okay. So, could I have a motion that we continue the public hearing to is it February 5th? Our next meeting is February 5th. February 5th. Any further discussion? Well, I guess no question. Our continuation will just be our discussion. Yeah.

What we're saying is the public portion is is concluded. I mean the public input. I think you're saying two different things. I think John I'd like to keep it open so that if we do have questions we can ask them going before we move right to deliberations. That's what I was saying. But do you want to hear the presentations to make sure the lawyers will go back and prepare to come back with another round? Is that what you want? Um I can't say right. Okay. So we had a chance to go. Yeah. We'll keep it open. Um all in favor to keep the carry open.

Terry, did you get the motions to continue? Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Oh, did we get did we get a second? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you everyone. Thank you. B.

Okay. Right. So, next on the agenda, um, we have listed 25-30 site plan for 142 Boston Post Road. And this is our public hearing that we have already continued to um pending application. I'm going to close the door for you just so it's a little quieter. Yep.

Next we have 25-26 196 Durham Road, map 58, lot 14, zone R2. This is owner applicant template picked site plan modification application to change site lighting landscaping and parking driveway area material from originally approved plan and they've made a request that we table this through the February 9th yes meeting. Yes, the temple has requested uh some additional timing. So, I have a motion for that second further discussion. One favor. All right. Thank you, I was test. Oh, thanks. Okay.

So, we've had a child February 19th. just want to abstain from that vote or I should I'm a member of something. Do you feel that that would impede? No, it's just okay. So next we have

pending application of 25-27 875 Boston Post Road map 39 lot 18 units one and two zone D that's downtown village district owners applicants Janet Peekaw Alexander Gerson and Alan Ni um this is for a major alteration request for installation of a privacy gate fence landscaping approved and fence replacement Janet I am not accusing myself 875 Boston road of the applicants you

I'm Patrick Gable 67 West Main Street in Clinton I'm here representing the condo owners at 875 Boston Post Road as their architectural designer um so basically um the The lot itself had a an existing picket fence on it. Um, and the current one of the current condo owners lived in a new fence um that wasn't properly permitted and um got caught in the act. Um and um we're here to um show you guys a new design um which co coheres with the downtown district um as well as cohering with architecture of the site and um fences that are currently on the site.

Yeah. Question pre previous fence was not peritted either. Yes. So the previous existing fence was also not permitted um at the time the previous renovation. So, two two um previous nonprofits.

Correct. Um and Patrick, I just wanted to add also it shared with um Janet. Hopefully, she uh had sent that over to um the rest of the owners staff report. Um that does include a photo of the um original fence uh for the building that was installed roughly 2019. The original approvals from the commission to convert the building to three units was in 2015. Um, and according to the developer, um, we installed the fence uh, I I believe roughly in the summer of 2019 without uh, village district approvals and nothing um, ever came of that. Um, and I think everybody kind of got used to the picket fence in front of the house. Yeah, there was a fence on the original.

No, the original approval did not include a fence. Um I'm happy to bring up that rendering if it's helpful of the um the existing. Um but basically in the downtown village district, fencing and uh landscaping are considered major alterations. Um so you have two types of permit reviews in the village district. you have minor modifications and major alterations and those are um listed specifically um in in section 30 believe it is the downtown village district and uh so the applicants did uh submit an application and uh visit with AKA twice and met with staff trying to um make sure that they are um you know proposing um elements that are consistent with the design standards. Um the guidelines uh discourage chain link fencing, stockade fencing, uh things of that nature. Um this particular fence was proposed um horizontally uh as opposed to vertical pickets that were existing before. um in conversation with AKA, I believe they initially wanted um the applicant to go back to vertical uh recommend vertical panels uh you know pickets instead um and then the applicant came back um with a um a design uh from Patrick here. I can screen share that and then um Patrick you want to highlight those comments that sort of

evolved into this latest revision. Yes. So, the current fence that is uh on this on site that wasn't permitted um is a horizontal fence and it seems to not have any vertical um elements, meaning that the boards are in front of the the the columns the books.

Exactly. So this um this modification um puts posts um covers on the current posts. It sets the horizontal members midway through each post. Um we've also added details of a railing a rail as well as um a rail below that's about 4 in off the ground. um as well as some bicting members on each um panel of fence. Um and we did this because on the property there's fencing that continues around the whole property. It is um high fencing but it has horizont horizontality to it. So we wanted it to cohhere with with the site um as well as being you know having a traditional aesthetic um maybe an updated traditional aesthetic um so that it also aderes to so this does not exist today

correct and you are going to tear down the what's there now and reuse what you can so it was recommended to us um basically to keep the posts as they are. And what they're going to do is remove the horizontal members. I see. And it was recommended to us to replace. Right now they're um pressuret treated and it was recommended to use red cedar or white cedar um to replace it. So Aka recommended it. Yes. Exactly. All right. So you'll keep the polish in the post caps that are there now. And the post will be clad also with the name.

I'm sorry. Pete Montbach uh 875 Boston Post Road and I am not listed on the application, but I'm one of the three condo owners in that building. Okay. So, basically the post will get sleeves um cuz right now they're 4x4 posts 6x6, right? Um with caps and the whole fence is going to be painted to match the exterior of the home. Okay. as the previous illegal one was correct. Yes. And Patrick, can you speak to the um gate?

Yes. So, currently there is also a gate erected um that's about 5t tall um that's inset behind this fence. Um and you can see that in the site plan um that's also in this application. Maybe we scroll down to the site plan so we can see it. Oh. or up. Sorry.

Right. So, um right here there's a a current gate. It's about 5 ft tall. Uh we were recommended to cut that down to 3 ft tall. Um and that's for privacy for this existing patio and one of the condo owners. Um because it is on a main road. Um we also are asking for um the approval of some vegetation which currently are arborites to create some um privacy. Does it require to be lowered from 5T to 3 ft? The the recommendation um in the design standards is is um 36 in.

Right. So, AKA based on those guidelines requested that or recommended that that um gate as installed be lower uh reduced in height. The the other thing I want to just break you want to ask the design question first. Yeah. You said the the abraetes um will be replaced. You didn't say that but I guess I read the arrives will be replaced. So the arbor varieties are currently there. Right. Right. And it will be um the goal is to make it more dense basically with arborites. Um but they're currently living so I think it's just adding I'm sorry

there. So, we also originally asked um that there would be a a fence that continued from here to here um for more privacy with the arborite in front of it. But we are recommended to take that off of the plan which we have which you have

and allow for just the vegetation screen. Um, one aspect that I I did not mention um when I was talking about the major alterations, major alterations in the DVD require a public hearing, but it the commission does have discretion um in determining um whether or not that public hearing is necessary. Um, and so I did include that in your uh staff report that the public hearing can be waved upon a finding that the proposed alteration will have minimal impact on the public view or in the case if the property is located in the historic district and they're going through the public hearing process already for a certificate of appropriateness. That's not the case here. This property is only located in the village district. It's a historic property, but it's in the

correct. It's not in the historic district. Um, so the commission district, so the commission is required to hold a public hearing on this or make a finding that based on the proposal it is minimal impact. Okay, thank you for that presentation. Um, I think that that's you proposing looks great. Yeah. Any other thoughts? But it's arborites or arborite shrubs. So arborites trees um which will be capped at a certain height so that it it just I think we said five feet around five or six

five or six feet capped so that they only grow to that that height and they grow horizontally out. Do you have any other recommendations for different types of there was a recommendation that's up to um and and there was also carrying

I so there was a also John Cunningham suggested that there were two other types of that um basically this is Alan Key It's his that's his patio area and that he might want to use instead of or in addition to the arborite. So we have a flowering tree there that we'd like to preserve if possible. Right. Um and I think he was going to get together with Allan to show him his ideas. He did the original plantings on that property. John Honey did. Yeah.

So he's very familiar with what's there. Any other questions, comments? Do we have to decide on whether this to go to public hearing? Yes. Yeah. So, you you have options. Yes, you can decide on the public hearing today. You could decide um if you choose to wave the public hearing. Um I have I have provided uh draft resolutions for you as well um for consideration. You know, I think if we had a a huge public outcry about this, we might consider a public hearing so everybody could be heard, but looks like we don't have that. That was staff's outcry when we drove by and saw what's installed now.

Perfectly understandable. There was no sound of what? How did that get there? Well, the neighbors are intimidated clearly uh you by what's going on there and your reputation. So this just so you know there there was no public notifi there's no notification of a butters because this is not a public hearing right um so this that's no I understand

you know that could be why you don't hear from anyone um I think we've received in the office over the last month and a half since this was installed um one comment on that um I know three members of my staff drove by and noticed uh which is why we reached reached out to the property owner. Um, I honestly assumed that the fencing was part the original fencing was part of the approval and happened to be in a meeting uh with Bill Plunkett on another property and asked him when I had gone back in Google Earth looking at street views um and you know after noticing that the fence was not on um the approved set of plans and he said uh yeah someone suggested it and I used some scrap wood um and and which which is why he said it likely rotted by now from 2019 and needed to be replaced. Um, but it was an idea that he had liked and I think everybody

must have liked it at the time or didn't really pay too much attention. It just never really um it was never brought up as an enforcement issue. It was never brought up as a as a request for application even though we call it a major alteration at yes at that time. And so at this point um we did feel it was appropriate to come back especially since it was a change and now kind of formalize that approval process property owners legalize it.

I think that I mean they they're part of the public and I think they there was definitely public input there. So I I would be fine. Yeah. Having a public hearing and we can go ahead and vote on it. Yeah, this this you don't want people there. And you okay with that? Sounds good. Okay, great. Um and Michelle, yes. Okay, good. See me looking at the camera. Um in that case, could I have a motion? Two motions.

I can I can pull up the paper if it's easier to read. Um there are two motions in the draft resolution. Well, two findings. um the first paragraph and the second paragraph. The first is regarding the um public hearing and the second is regarding the specific application. I'll make a motion on the public hearing. No second. I'll make the motion for the second. Do you want to

um voted that the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission wave the public hearing for application 25-27 875 Boston Road map 39 lot 18 units 1 and 2 zone D owner applicants Janet Pekawa and Alexander Gerson and Alan Knee Key downtown village district major alteration to request installation of privacy gate fence landscaping and fence replacement as a revised plans entitled 875 Boston Post Road. Sheets A101 and A200 prepared by Gable Design Studio dated 11426 demonstrate landscaping and fence replacement that will have minimum minimal impact on the public.

Okay. Be it further voted that application 25-27 875 Boston post road map 39 lot 18 units 1 and 2 zone D owners applicants Janet Pekba and Alexander Gersonen and Alan Nin key downtown village district major alteration to request installation of privacy gate fence landscaping and fence replacement be approved as shown on revised plans entitled 875 Austin Post Road sheets A 101 and A200 prepared by Gable Design Studios dated 11426 based on the following findings. The fencing and landscaping are designed in harmony with the downtown village district guidelines and noted characteristics of the SE subsection Post Road East. The fence is residential in character and the screening shrubs are appropriate to provide some privacy for unit 2's outdoor patio space. The applicant shall install the proposed improvements in accordance with the revised plan submitted by Data Design Studios. The effective date of this approval shall be January 29th, 2026.

Thank you, John. Do I have a second? Conor, any further discussion? All in favor? Janet. Okay, we're all set. some questions. Do we need to, if I'm understanding correctly, you're approving this or will in the very near future. Uh, do we need to circle back with you at any time after completion of the construction to verify that we've conformed with your with plans that we

Sure. The effective date is pushed out two weeks because that is when the legal notice will run. There is a 15-day appeal period from that public notice. It's for agrieved, you know, potential agrieved parties to take um appeal with superior court. Uh or of course the applicant if you were going to take appeal um with superior court. Um after that, you know, work during that period is at your own risk. Um, and then after that, uh, when the work is completed, I I would recommend, uh, coordinating with our zoning enforcement officer, Maria Pollah, for a final compliance inspection just to be able to note in the file that was

it was installed according to the approved plans. It's legal, or she'll find you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda, we have the approval of minutes for January 8th, 206. Secretary, special approval of minutes.

We are looking to approve the minutes of the planning and zoning commission meeting held January 8th, 2026. Uh members present, Carol Snow, chair, John Dooa, Andy Rubin, Mike Bokea, Max Pun, Bob Okconor, Janet Peckinpaw, and John Morgan. Uh, can I have a uh a motion to approve the minutes? Second. Um, is there any discussion? I do. I do have a slight revision I'd like to suggest.

Um, I'd like to revise the line that states John Morgan nominates self as secretary. [Laughter] to John Morgan volunteered to fill the secretary paint resulting from the current secretary moving to vice chair. That's totally fine with me. I think that's exactly it kind of it kind of caught my eye as well. Vote to approve. All right. Unanimous with that change. My pleasure. Thank you.

Great. Okay. Um, remarks. I have nothing really further to add to tonight's meeting. Um, I feel like we're getting really unusual applications that are challenging in the least because there's like nothing to kind of hang our hats on so far. Yeah. Welcome to the new year. Yeah. So, happy new year. I have a question about I do have a question though. Um, is it about a specific application? Yeah. then it should occur during discussion of the application.

Yeah. Um what about followup for applications that of followup that we have been asking for from a from a previous application? So can I ask a question on that of the status of like updates project projects I'd like it's not a pending application I no it was approved. Okay. Uh what application but it seems to have stalled the uh amass acid uh for the medical center thing at the end of 450. No, not that one. The uh the one at the in the uh Cohen's parking lot medicine. Yes.

My understanding is that the applicants are still uh going through approvals with the uh state traffic authority. Oh, so I mean they supposed to have cleaned up because they took everything down on them. There have been cleaning the pipes removed. The pipe was removed. The silk fence is still the silk fence needs to stay. The silk fence will stay up.

Yes, silk fence because there was a clearing will stay as erosion controls. Um the uh uh portable uh toilets construction trailer and the materials have been removed from the site um until they uh go forward with building permits. Building permits cannot um should be issued until after state traffic. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Erin, what happened to the the lot that was across from the generals? It was the the cafe that was there. Elizabeth, the property is for sale. Yeah, still it's still for sale. Oh, still for sale.

Place some, right? But the last approval for the commission had a couple of approvals. The the current approval was for um physical, it was an office for physical therapy, physical therapy or something. So, if somebody were looking to purchase that property or come back and and change the use, that would have to come back before you, right? And but Scotland didn't. So the $2.5 million house on Scotland that's in front of the ball field, the 8, it was an 830G. It was an 830G and now it's a $2.5 million house single family home. That white that white gate that was built

the the 830G application that was an appeal was withdrawn and cuz we property owner sold the the property. But did they have to sell propert? No. So they didn't have to return no single family houses in the lab. Multiple houses there. There were correct multi family. Correct. Wow.

I'm I'm I'm gonna I'm blown away at that house. It's beautiful. and he does he's a fabulous builder and I'll tell you he's every house he's built in Essex he's gotten his prices for it takes a long time to sell but $2 and half million dollars on Scotland get a nice view of the leg of the field of the field and the railroad tracks are the ones behind the wall no further Scotland oh further down so east becomes and then becomes Scotland okay by the JC field. It's almost right on the corner. Scott County is real. Yeah, you can see it from any other

interesting questions. We approve these things and then they just become something along those same lines. So she was saying the the medical buildings just like I was interested and said he represented the buyer on this property cuz I thought all right I think I question I'm I'm sure just more of a procedural thing and the that property at the end of um at horse 450 the medical building that was approved a new road on new road. A new road on the south side. Um

I don't know. I mean they they clearcut a while ago put up a bunch of you know fencing and now it's just sitting there. My understanding is they can't find a tenant.

That's a rumor. So but what happens in the my question is what happens to something like that where they went in they got approved they can't find they may not who knows if they ever build anything but they cleared all the trees. They I mean it's it's kind of so if they end up not building something then someone's stuck with that maybe that's not what they wanted to do. I don't know if there's any way to change that such that unless you know did they have to get further down the road I'm guess we have to see that they have someone under contract before they could go I know I don't know probably have control over that but but now it looks it looks shitty frankly um and it's just sitting there um there there are valid permits for the property um with the owners that have it now. Yeah,

it's the same property, but if they sold it, it will change. Says a medical building's going up there. Yeah, that's what that's what the commission approved. This was a PDD, you know, a floating zone with a master plan. That master plan approval still exists, right, on that property and that is the approved use. It's my understanding that's still the intention of the property owner to develop. I think I I do think that the original tenant had had fallen through, but I don't know specifics of any negotiation. It's more of now.

Yeah. And it's more of a thing. I understand that, but it's almost like is there a way to prevent that because it's like you don't want to you don't want to see I personally, I mean, maybe it's just me, I don't want to see them cut all that land, all the trees, all that stuff. Clear it. Clear it if you know something's not maybe further down the pike, for lack of a better term. And I know they're going to say it's out of our control. someone signed and now they backed out or did they ever? You you just don't know and I just don't know if we can exert that much control. Your current regulations do not regulate that. Yeah,

that's something that if the commission wanted to look at options to explore that um and and timing of clearing versus construction, um we should look at that as part of our That's where that's where I'm headed. zoning regulation update of what options exist or the regulations to prevent that from happening. I'm not against it. I was just that's how we should. I just think the possibility of getting duped, you know, on that note, could I have a motion to second? All in favor?