Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and gentlemen, and welcome to the January 26 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the municipality of Westport. My name is Paul Leibowitz. I'm the chair of the planning and zoning. And some of you may know that pursuant to state law, there's no physical location for this meeting because this meeting is being held electronically and livestreamed at westportct.gov. The meeting will also be shown on, Westport's optimum government access channel 79, which is subject to availability, and the public may, of course, attend and offer testimony during the meeting by using the meeting link published on the agenda prior to the meeting.

All meeting agendas are available at westportct.gov on the meeting list and calendar web page. Your written comments are always welcomed and should be received by us prior to the public meeting. They need to be sent to pnz@westportct.gov by 12PM on the day of the meeting. That would be today. If intended for distribute distribution for consideration by members of the planning and zoning commission.

Written comments received after the 12PM cutoff on the day of the meeting will be entered into the record, but not distributed until the next business day. And all meeting materials, of course, are available at westportct.gov on the planning and zoning department web page under p and z, pending applications, and recent approvals. So tonight, we are expecting commissioners Lebowitz, that's me, commissioners Kemmire, Kalise, Bolton, Ingeski, and Chivoni. We were anticipating miss Laskin. She had a last minute change, and so mister Vellante should be joining us by approximately 06:30.

In the meantime, of course, we have Michelle Pirelli who's always on time, our planning and zoning director. First item up for, I don't see Brie, so I think I'll just read it right in. Hang on.

Yeah. She she's just coming in now.

Alright. Well, I won't make her, I won't make her jump in like that. So So first things first. We have a pre application, which, is for item number one, which is 1460 Post Road East application PZ2600013. And this has been submitted by Christina Gordon of FWH Architects to discuss the proposed site improvements and renovation of the existing commercial building time allotted is twenty minutes.

Do we have I see Christina is there. Hello.

Good evening.

Are you gonna need to screen share?

Eventually, yes. I also have a co presenter, David Gagnon, who should be on as well. I will do a brief introduction and then turn it over to him, at which point he'll turn it back to me, to speak, architecture.

The floor is yours. Thank you.

All right.

So again, Christina Gordon, representing Fredrick Frederick William Hogue Architect. We are collaborating with Langen Engineering on this project to perform proposed site improvements to the existing commercial building and site located at 1460 Post Road East. It is owned by Erdstadt Biddle Properties Inc, per per legality or tax card, but it is, managed by Regency Centers. Regency Centers, as I'm sure the commission knows, owns several vibrant shopping centers throughout Westport, to include Westport Row, Campo Center, Campo Acres. This property is a recent, addition to their portfolio, and they're very excited to reinvigorate this property similarly as they've done on some of the others.

This property exists split zone, residing in both GBD and Res A. Existing nonconformities, which we'll elaborate further on in our presentation. The building is approximately 40,668 square feet, two stories, commercial, with a mixed, user group of retail restaurant and medical offices, and currently it's demised in nine tenant areas. Several of them currently exist vacant. These vacancies, present an opportunity for, much overdue building and site improvements to occur.

The revitalization, excuse me, of the property would would facilitate a vibrant and fully occupied building, which we're proposing to be reconfigured to accommodate a total of three tenants. One of which is a new anchor tenant, a specialty grocer, Sprouts Farmers Market, which offers fresh, natural, locally sourced organic foods, which is poised to serve as the plaza's new anchor tenant and will occupy the majority of the 1st Floor. Sprouts, as a background, currently operates, approximately 460 stores nationwide and is expanding into the Northeastern market. Its first store is slated to open in New York, on Long Island, and they're eager for the opportunity to expand their brand and bring their operation to Westport at a prominent post road fronting location such as what 1460 Post Road East offers. In addition, to bringing Sprouts to Westport, our proposed renovation would also retain and relocate two existing long standing tenants of the Plaza, the restaurants were Julian's Pizza and the retailer BevMax.

Our pre application before you seeks commission advisory on our proposed site and building improvements, as well as to request a parking by other standard of one to 500 for proposed back of house storage and utility areas, which, again, our team will subsequently discuss further in detail. I'm happy now to turn the presentation over to David Gagnon of Langen Engineering to brief the Commission on the site's existing conditions, site related nonconformities and proposed site improvements. After which, I'll take the presentation back and go through the details regarding the proposed building improvements, our proposed parking standards, and just our general anticipated zoning approach.

Thank you, Christina. Michelle, can you enable screen sharing on my part?

I'm sorry. Mister chair, I cannot, I think I'm I gave you host. I can't do it for some reason. Can you

Hang on one second. Let me see if I can get this. Co host?

Yeah. Well, while you're at it, if you wanna make me co host.

Thank you.

Alright, David. You should be able to go.

Alright. I got it. Thank you very much for setting that up. Let's give it a moment here. Can everyone see my screen?

Yes. Okay.

Alright. Great. I'm just going to maybe hide my video to help with the, the bandwidth here. Thank you. Alright. Good evening. Thank you for having me. For the record, my name is David Gagnon. I'm a professional civil engineer with Langen Engineering here representing the applicant Regency Centers. First, I wanted to bring you through the existing conditions of the site, and then get into our proposed improvements.

As mentioned, the site is located on 1460 Post Road East. It's a mixed use commercial development on a three acre lot. The lot is actually split zoned. The top two thirds of the lot is in the GBD, the general Business District, and the bottom one third of the lot is in the residence a district. The zone line you could see here, this thick yellow line is coincidental with the the the backside of the building.

The property is bound by Post Road East to the North, apartments, 1480 Post Apartments to the East, also in the GBD zone, the Regent Park Condominiums to the South and the West, and this property is located in the planned residential district. Access to the site is through either, the west here, which is, a two way access point or to the east, which is a one way out. We'll be maintaining this vehicular condition. As far as parking goes, there are currently 229 parking spaces on-site. We calculate there's an existing parking demand of 240, giving giving us an existing deficit of 11 spaces.

As you could probably see, a number of the parking spaces are dimensionally noncompliant, and the drive aisles are also dimensionally noncompliant. In particular, you can see this drive aisle just west of the building is, very narrow. So we plan on improving this, bringing all the parking and drive aisles to zoning compliance. Some existing features on the site. The site is almost entirely impervious.

It's almost 87% impervious. As you could see, there's very little landscape buffer around the site. This leads to a number of existing nonconformities we plan to improve. In particular, if you look on the north side of the site, there is essentially zero feet to the property line, so no landscape buffer here. We propose to improve that.

Moving to the west side of the site, a very limited landscape buffer. There's only three feet. Again, existing nonconformity will be improving. The rear of the site against the the residential district is actually another zero foot landscape buffer parking right against the property line. We are proposing, as you'll see, a 10 foot buffer in the rear, and it's a similar situation on the east side of the property.

Loading for the property is generally, in the rear or on the east side of the site. The rear, I will note is in the residential a district. One other thing to point out is the location of the dumpsters. Difficult to see in this photo, but the dumpsters are located within the residential setback in the residential district. So there are some dumpsters right against the property line, which is another nonconforming, condition we plan on, improving.

And one other thing to note is there is a significant grade change, throughout the site. So from the top of the site, on the post road to the bottom of the site, there's roughly a 14 foot grade change. And if you look at the front of the building from the post road, it really reads as a single story building, and the back of the building almost reads as a two story building. So with that, I'll get into our proposed improvements. This is our conceptual site plan here.

The focus of this application is really to revitalize the building in the site. Another goal of this project is to reduce or eliminate site improvement scope. We plan on completely repaving the parking lot, provide dimensionally compliant parking and drive aisles. Previously, there was a lot of one way circulation on-site, which I think led to some confusion, as you're driving through the parking lot. And we also propose to provide, a zoning compliant parking count.

We are reducing the overall parking on-site, but we're also reducing the parking load, which we'll get into later on. We are improving pedestrian connectivity by providing sidewalks on the south side of the building, the west side of the building, and the north side of the building. There is an existing sidewalk along the post road, which we will maintain ADA upgrades throughout the site. You see ADA kind of scattered throughout the different retailers, four up on the front and two on the west side of the building, new ADA curb ramps and a ramp up into the building. As far as landscaping, you can see there's, a lot more green on the site now, so we're, improving the overall impervious condition.

As far as landscape buffers, I mentioned before, a number of existing nonconformities which will be improving. A landscape strip before over here was zero, now we're providing six feet. On the west side, there was three feet. Now we're providing six feet, enabling some plantings to go in. And I think most significantly, on the southern property bound against this residential district, there was a zero foot landscape buffer.

We're increasing that to 10, which we feel is significant. Loading for the site, we are placing on the east side of the site, kind of tucked away. This was intentional. The loading will be entirely within the GBD zone and out of the residential zone. We also feel it'll provide a screening from the building and opportunity, from screening on these side of the site through some landscaping.

And one other thing I want to touch on is dumpsters. As I mentioned previously, they were in the residential a district within the buffer, within the setback, so that was existing nonconformed condition. We will be pulling those out. So there are a couple dumpsters. It'll be screened in an enclosure on the southeast corner of the building and a few more dumpsters north of the loading dock kinda tucked away over here. So that concludes, our proposed site improvements from a site perspective. And with that, I'll give it back to Christina to go through some more, architectural and, you know, parking related items. So, Christina, it's all yours.

Thank you, Dave. Okay. So I will now up. I need screen sharing. Try again.

Michelle, you got that?

I think I have permission. Thank you. Alrighty. Okay. So what we're looking at here just to put pictorial to some of my verbiage earlier, Our existing building was essentially, 1st Floor here comprised of, nine tenants in total.

The majority, six of the nine, resided on the 1st Floor, And you had three tenants occupying the lower Level, one of which was, actually the Blue Point dispensary, which I believe is later on tonight's agenda, in that they are seeking a new location. So some existing photographs of the building here. We do have some areas that are in disrepair. And obviously, this proposal aims to beautify the site, and also just to make it more sort of pedestrian friendly, in getting us into our our new lovely anchor store. One of the images here depicts, sort of a a stared entry plaza to what is currently BevMax or the current anchor store of the of the plaza.

And

notably, there are several risers to get pedestrian level up to finished floor. Dave mentioned earlier that the site actually has a grade change of approximately 14 feet. On this entrance corner, we are looking at a grade differential between finished floor and and sidewalk level that's holistically controlled by by elevations at post road that is in excess of four and a half feet. So I will discuss this sort of later, but this presents somewhat of a unique challenge in where the defined average grade is and I e, our our building height allowances fall. Again, based on zoning record, the nine tenants currently on-site or previously on-site generated a parking demand of approximately 240 spaces where 229 were were found on-site.

So inherently, an 11 space deficit exists on the property. Our proposed configuration, 1st Floor being shown here, is predominantly occupied by Sprouts as the anchor tenant with the retainage of the restaurateur on the northeastern corner. In doing so, we are proposing a reconfiguration of the entrance to allow for a more generous entrance plaza off of the it's less of an accessible ramp and more of a low sloped pedestrian plaza, that gets shoppers up to the entry level, again, to mitigate that sort of four foot plus grade differential we have at the corner. Part of the Sprouts program requires a loading dock, as Dave mentioned. So we are proposing to reallocate, nonconforming floor area, but also removing nonconforming floor area, essentially resulting in a reduction of approximately 294 square feet.

But we we and I'll touch on this a little further, are going to be seeking variances for modifications to the building respective of these existing nonconformities. The oops. Sorry. The proposed lower level is to allow for the retention of the retailer, BevMax, who will occupy the space currently occupied by BluePoint Wellness, the dispensary. And the remainder of the lower level will in fact be converted from retail use to storage and utility space to support the balance of the building.

So holistically, the intensity of the site is being dramatically reduced in the conversion of the lower level. But also, one of our predominant asks, that we are putting before the commission tonight is this notion of parking by other standard for the $105,100 for back of house. The Sprouts retailer as a grocer per prototype actually has a tremendous amount of its floor area dedicated to back of house, Approximately 23%, in fact, of their floor area will be dedicated to support spaces which are not patron facing nor represent the same intensity of use and parking demand that a patron fronting retail area demands or or produces. And we believe, you know, loading this space and the lower level utility area and storage area at a one to one eighty, traditional rate would in fact generate sort of a phantom or inflated demand. And inversely, the precedent for such back of house uses being granted a reduced parking load, stands and is memorialized in a in a memo from the zoning director dated 05/1525, in which this is a is an approved standard, granted by the commission for similar properties.

And similar loads also exist under, not that this is a qualifying location, but unified shopping centers, have a have a reduced load for storage in lower level areas, such as this. So if we are granted such reduced parking load, it renders the site's impervious area reduced, presenting additional landscaping opportunities and would result in a parking neutral site. Our demand would be reduced from two twenty nine spaces to 182, which 182 compliant dimensional zoning spaces would be provided. So architecturally, the design, while still sort of at its conceptual phase, is meant to really boast this new anchor tenant and apply their branding aesthetic. We have a existing condition, with average grade, as mentioned, that is this datum line here that is effectively four foot eight or so below the finished floor elevation of the the building.

So it it inherently renders our height pretty restrictive, when you measure it from actual pedestrian access or the occupiable space from the 1st Floor. The archetype for the tenant is this double gable, entrance feature to really celebrate entry, announce entry. And proportionally, it needs to be higher than its adjacent building parapets or roof lines. And you'll see that our existing facade, our existing building is effectively already at maximum height. So one of the variances that we will be pursuing with the ZBA is a relief from our sort of restricted average grade, datum measuring point.

You can see, you know, if we measure from average grade, our proposed midpoint of roof is in fact 32 foot five, so two foot five over allowable. But when you measure from finished floor, we are well within regulation at twenty seven seven. So so that is, in essence, one of the building specific variances that we will be seeking in addition to the relocation of FAR, which I met, mentioned earlier. Otherwise, all of the variances and sort of our laundry list, that we will require prior to returning to the Planning and Zoning Commission are related to existing nonconformities, which we will all be working towards reducing and improving, landscaping, setbacks, building floor area, etcetera, that have been touched upon during, Dave's presentation. Let's see.

So lastly, it is worth, mentioning that we submitted our materials, to present to the board in early January. And since then, we have continued our collaborative efforts with the Sprouts team, to further develop the architectural entrance feature. And with their feedback, we've actually modified our architectural elevation slightly to give them more presence on the corner. And from a zoning perspective, the same considerations that I just discussed in terms of, you know, average grade and measuring to the midpoint of roof prevail. However, this design actually reduces the instances in that there's not two gables that are nonconforming, but rather just the one, that we would be pursuing.

You know, we fully expect that this design, because it's still at its, you know, infancy, will continue to be refined, and we'll continue to work with the, the tenant on all of the architectural details in preparation to appear before the ARB. But we we don't see that the design would evolve past, you know, past the zoning approach that we're presenting here. In sort of summation, you know, our proposed project, we believe, will result in a greater zoning conformance with comprehensive improvements, not just to directly accommodate the new grocer and the retention of existing tenants, but also be beneficial for, you know, Westport and the property's patrons and all prospective future tenants. We do thank you for allowing us to present and appreciate your collaborative feedback. So I will stop sharing and open it to the commission.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Christina and David. Appreciate your presentation. Michelle, would you like to give us any, words of advice and, a reminder of what for those who may not a reminder of what we are doing.

Sure. Thank you so much. Michelle Preley, Planning and Zoning Director. Just wanted to remind you that a pre application meeting is a nonbinding forum allowing an applicant to obtain feedback on a proposal from members of the Planning and Zoning Commission without expending resources associated with filing a formal application. The Connecticut General Statutes enable this non binding exchange of ideas.

There was really a very thorough overview, but I will just briefly restate that the property is 2.96 acres located in the general business district. About 1.86 acres are in the general business district. 1.1 acre is in the residence a district. There's an existing two story building there, as you know. Again, portions of the commercial building and the parking area are within the residential zone boundary line setback, and there is parking in the dumpster area within the residential zone, so it's great to hear about the improvements in those elements.

Again, there is also a zoning history of different instances where you have an approved and other parking standard. Most recently, the one to 500 square foot storage standard was approved, for the indoor golf recreational facility and restaurant at 1620 Post Road East. So there definitely has been, instances where this has approved, and I know that's something they wanna receive feedback from you on. And that's all I really have. Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle. Very comprehensive. Alright. So commissioners, this is our turn to give this applicant feedback for a new business who wants to come. Anybody wanna put their hand up? Anybody have any specific questions they need to ask, related first to their, what they're looking to do here? Ready to go.

Sure. I'll I'll chime in quickly. How what's the timeline look like for doing all this?

I can answer. So the optimistic opening is, '27. So we have some time.

And you have tenants that are in there now that you said are gonna be relocating? Then, obviously, there's there's something later tonight that we're talking about.

Correct.

Is it just a matter when those leases expire and then doing all the renovations?

That's the idea.

So I I I can't speak to the actual termination dates of the leases. I do think that we have, representatives from Regency present that may be able to, but but the intention is that the leases are retained for the two standing tenants, BevMax being one, Julian's Pizza being the other, and that it would be phased construction. We would have to relocate them before we can sort of acquiesce their current, square footage and and to start our renovation specific to Sprouts. So that would really be the initial phases is the work required to to, fit up the spaces for relocation.

Right. Being that

free up, I think that oh, go ahead, Gary. I was just gonna say being that free up, it's our job to just, you know, give a general ask some questions, give general feedback. I think it's a welcoming establishment to Westport. So I'd love to see it, you know, the application coming to it. I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions at that point, but for now, it's fine.

Thank you, Michael. Appreciate it. Craig, did you wanna go?

I agree with Michael. It it's a great concept. It looks beautiful. I have a couple questions. The first one is is there additional elevation over the on the on the two parapets or or diagonals of the question of the current building?

I apologize. Can you can you repeat your question?

I'm not

sure I understand.

Have you have you added additional height?

Yes. So so our proposal, which which would require a variance applies the prototypical gable parapet, which as an archetype wants to be higher than the existing or not existing, in our case it is existing, but adjacent roof lines. And due to the height of the existing roof and roofline, this more emphasized entry architectural feature does fall if measured from average grade to midpoint of the slope of the gable higher than thirty thirty feet, which is which is the maximum allowed for pitched roofs. So we we do fall into variance territory. Otherwise, it it's a single instance that's being proposed in which we're elevating the the height of the building from where it exists today.

So my concern or what I was getting at is is it going to, be within context of the abutting residential buildings? Are we going to have a monolith in the middle of it that's not contextual?

I I don't believe so. Again, our level of nonconformance is is two and a half feet. So I think, inarguably, the the separation between buildings with with tree lines and and and such, it it will be imperceivable even if it it exists at

all. Okay. And and down the road, it would be nice to get a rendering just of that street scape with your building in the middle of the second question I have is, sound mitigation for loading and trash removal because you're sitting within two residential complexes. And how do you intend to manage that?

So I think I think the immediate proposal is currently landscape and and screening that, you know, the property line. I know there are certain instances where such timelines are also controlled, you know, or restricted, think is a better word. So these these are the sort of, you know, refined refined details with feedback from tonight's commission that will certainly make it to the to the consideration board. Don't want to necessarily, you know, commit to, sound barriers or or such, but it's it's it's always an option to mitigate such concerns.

Yep.

Just as, one last piece of it. You know, I think it's a town ordinance that, you can't start any business that in involves sound prior to 08:00 in the morning. Considering your next two residential, projects, If it were me, I don't wanna hear the dumpster going at eight o' at 07:00 in the morning nor 04:00 in the morning. And I know how loading goes with supermarkets or any kind of market. It's generally very early in the morning, which the way sound travels, I think we need to be confident that, you know, it will not disturb, you know, a quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the neighbors.

And I think that, to me, that is everything looks beautiful. But to me, that is a real sticking issue point.

Duly noted.

Anything else, miss Shivani?

That's it.

Alright. Anybody else? Mr. Kalis, Ms. Zincheski, or Mr. Bolton?

Yeah. I just had one or two quick questions. And to the presenters, Christina and company, my camera was awful because I'm just still with the flu. I didn't think anybody want to see me sneezing and coughing all night.

So but I I

was Thank you. Thank you.

For the presentation. K? You noted that, like, we there was precedent set at the what's the clubhouse now with regarding other parking. And I was wondering if you could elaborate, you know, on on why that was said and where is it similar or where it's not similar to what was done down the street. Do do you

know what I'm referencing?

Can you hear me okay? Okay.

Yep. Apologies. So I think it was Michelle that actually brought up Clubhouse sixteen twenty Post Road as reference. Our our own research was more so based on a broader context. There is a memo that we had used that references sort of the history of similar approvals.

Steinway piano is one that comes to mind, various furniture showrooms, users that have a predominant sort of rated, you know, towards back of house areas in which the commission has, you know, granted reduced loads for those sort of support spaces, as opposed to a blanket one to 180. I think a similar use, while not completely parallel to what we're discussing today, Clubhouse, which is what Michelle brought up. Similar loads are also deployed for the unified shopping center standards, which don't comply with. You know, we don't we don't meet that definition. But but that exists, for those those classifications as well, unified shopping centers.

Okay. And then the second issue was already addressed by my colleague, mister Shavoni. She you know, I just wanna underscore. She's a 100% right about the whole issue of deliveries and dumpster and whatnot. And this reminded me of a pre op we had two weeks ago and with a similar not not on all fours, but a similar situation.

And I could tell you that's gonna be a paramount issue. Everything that, commissioner Chavoni just set forth for you, take it really seriously because it's gonna come up. I it's guaranteed. You just go you know, when I don't know when that decrees entered that we looked at two weeks ago, but it was, I think, in the late nineteen nineties. It was like a settlement, and it was for a similar situated type, you know, where there's a residential by commercial. So especially a packaged store. Right? Gets a little bit rowdy. But, take that seriously because I think that's gonna be something you really need to address right out of the gate. She's right about that. And that's all. But thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Alright. I will, I've got, of course, my list. So you talked about, getting a variance for the building height. Now what I'll say here is, the the design renderings you've shown us are are certainly terrific looking.

I wouldn't wanna see it go much higher. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing it go a little lower. And but other than that, I apps I like the on the corner portion as opposed to, front or side. So I think that looks terrific. As far as your, back of house, I don't have an issue with that.

I can absolutely understand how you'd ask for and receive relief that way. And if that helps bring in new tenant, I don't have an issue there. The the the trash is is better situated now. You mentioned, you know, the when they would pick up and deliver as well as the trash. Obviously, you're gonna do that early in the morning, so robust screening is definitely going to be part of it.

The ADA entry, I wasn't clear on, the ramp system, but I assume by the time you come back to us, you'll have that figured out. I didn't see any EV, plugs. If you're planning on doing it, wonderful. Maybe indicate where they would go. And I would say the same for cart collection. If you're going to integrate them within the parking lot, I wouldn't mind knowing where those are. I I think I see them on your plan. If that's what that is, great. That's terrific. And then I wanna be sure that the delivery zone lighting does not interfere with the two neighbors near them.

Those areas tend to have, rather robust lighting meant for the ability for trucks to back in.

And so just

be just be aware that that has to be addressed. I'm a little worried about BevMax's signage. You know, one of the things about your current tenant is they don't wanna attract attention, but I imagine the opposite would be true for BevMax. And so, you know, the the where they are down the strip and lower makes for, a very difficult signage. So I wanna see what you're gonna do there.

Obviously, you can put them out on the the master sign out in front, but I'm interested to see how you solve there on the building signage. I assume none of the signs are lit. If so, let me know. If they are, let us know, etcetera. And that's really it. Other than that, I'll I I like the direction you're going. I'm thrilled that you have a tenant who wants to come, and I look forward to helping you try to achieve this change. Thank you. Right.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Seeing none, Michelle, do you have anything to add that we may have missed?

No. I don't think so. Thank you.

Alright. Well, then, you guys have any last thoughts for us before we say goodbye?

I would just like to say thank you. I mean, it's been very valuable feedback, and I I appreciate your time. So, I took detailed notes here, and we'll be hopefully back in front of you soon enough.

Alright. Thank you so much, and please do come back. I

echo the sentiment. Thank you very much.

Alright. Brie, you wanna take us into our second preapp?

I would love to. The second preapplication is number two for 3 George Street. Application number PZ2600027 submitted by Richard Redness, FAICP for the potential text change to expand the applicability of special needs housing to help meet the growing need. Time allocated for pre application is twenty minutes.

Thank you very much. And we have Rick Redness himself. Here we go.

Yes. Thank you. If I could share my screen.

I sent it over. Think Okay.

Thank you. We started this process about eighteen months ago after the very successful 136 Riverside Avenue Ableist special needs housing that we did together with the PZC on town owned land. And we have a waiting list and we have, right now four, I believe, Staples graduates living there with a staff person at 136 and the need is tremendous. So we started looking eighteen months ago, filed applications, got started looking at town owned land. And we looked at a couple of examples, with Barron's and Crescent and we had a model from Darien and we filed the text.

We started that, but as things went on, the Barron's text that you were working on kinda got bogged down. The Crescent Street kinda got bogged down with potential wetlands. So we ended up withdrawing that part of of the text change and then subsequently had a hearing and withdrew the entire application. And we will be coming back to you after this pre op with a full application regarding trying to make this happen. But this pre app is independent.

3 George Street is a property. So you see here is off of George Street. It's a I'm understanding to be a private street. It's in a half acre zone. Many of the houses and lots are less than half an acre. It's a great location for special needs. It abuts the post road. There are four bus stops, which is critical because special needs individuals, none of them drive at 01:36. It's extremely rare to have a special needs driver. The property is here.

Again, this building historically had commercial uses, had, an apartment over the garage and residential in the front. These are the buildings on the post road. This is an old survey when it used to be in the business district which no longer is. So just to be clear about our pre op, there are two ways that special needs housing can go to George Street. One is if this is donated as part of the next application.

So if they they could get this property, via the '7 85 approval, in which case they would wanna know about, special needs housing versus a group home. And then if it if you don't like this as an off-site related to seven eighty five, ableist may purchase the property in which case they could have a group home with up to eight special needs individuals and staff. There are no points involved with that or again the question before you is, would you want to encourage them to expand special needs housing which is a special permit use and up to only eight only six apartments and generates a minimum of nine points. So that is our question that ableist would like to understand here. And just so people understand I've I'm just not not everybody understands special needs housing.

Westport has two definitions that affect property in single family zones. One is that any single family house can be used for up to five individuals. That's as of right in your regulations. The other is by the Connecticut general statutes that any single family residence can house eight or fewer persons with intellectual disability and necessary staff. So those two uses are are allowed right now on that property.

No text changes needed. Now I wanna just show you Darien because Darien is where the concept originated that we imported and used at 136 Riverside. And this is how Darien works. They allow special needs housing in all of their single family zones. So virtually all over town as long as you meet the size and yard and everything else requirements.

So I just wanted to show you this is not an unusual situation or what we're asking. And where we started this, this is the prototype that was developed for Darien and built in Darien and is used successfully in Darien. And one of the ideas that we had was to take this prototype and land it on town on land and that led to that other application that we had. Now, so so what's an issue here is do does Westport want to take advantage of what we created at one thirty six by having the many apartments. So if you have a group home and you have a bedroom, that's one living arrangement.

If you have special needs housing, each bedroom has its kitchenette and private bath. So it's a private living situation which has a lot of different benefits. And Michelle, if you could allow Amy Montemoro to speak. She is the president and CEO of Ableis. She's in the field thirty six years, thirty of which with Ableis and, can speak to the differences, and importance of special needs housing versus just a group home.

And of course, my dogs are starting to bark, so I apologize in advance. But good evening, everyone. Thank you. Ableis is celebrating seventy five years of service. We're not new, in the field, and the organization has been operating group homes for seventy one of those years.

Darien's, the start of these apartments and providing independent living to people with disabilities has been just tremendous. We have individuals now that are in Westport that are accessing the community, living an independent life, and having the ability to have staff there when they need if they need any supports. So it's it's really been, you know, what we know, it's best practice. Individuals have, you know, privacy, personal space, more independence. They take pride in decorating their their own apartments, more control, more dignity.

The outcomes have been incredible. All the individuals that are living in apartments are working or volunteering in the community. And we're we're just we we couldn't be happier. And, obviously, there's a huge need for housing for people, and we're just, you know, thrilled when any developer is looking for organizations to partner with to provide this amazing opportunity.

Thank you, Remy. So that really concludes our presentation. We're looking for the feedback on the difference and spreading that use out elsewhere in a controlled way. I'm certainly not asking you to do what Darien has done, but in a very controlled limited way. We did submit a sample text which I can go through and how we can limit applicability if that's what you want.

But we're looking for feedback. We know that there's been a petition and there's opposition, and I'm sure we'll hear more about that in the next application. But, there's no one at one thirty six of the special needs individuals that drive, So the concerns about traffic, there are no buses that go there. So those all those concerns that were expressed, we understand those concerns, but they don't apply to special needs housing. That's that's what we're looking for feedback on.

Thank you very much. Do appreciate it. Michelle, again, I give you a chance to just give us your initial feedback, please.

Thank you. I already went through what a pre app is. Of course, it's nonbinding. So in terms of the history, the lot at 3 George Street is nonconforming, has point four acres located in a residence a district where a half acre is required. The property abuts the general business district adjacent to Post Road East.

As described, the history of the site has been a commercial use. The nonconformities that exist I have to look a little bit deeper into the nonconformities and where they stand on the site, but it really, in terms of whether this site is appropriate for special needs housing is what's on the table. Briefly, to mention, the text that is proposed by Mr. Redness is to allow social needs housing

100

on this lot, whereas at this point, section 3,027

only permits social needs housing on existing buildings in the residence a district, on town owned property or in the DDD Number 4 north of the Merritt Parkway. So the proposal is to modify the section to allow it on this site. Yes, there have been posted to the website letters from the public, including a petition. That information has been on the website for a few days now. Actually, at least since early this morning. I'm sorry about that. And I'm here for questions. Of course. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Michelle. I do appreciate it. Commissioners, who wants to dive in? Who's got questions? Mister Kalis, anything you wanna ask, mister Redness?

Not at the moment.

Miss Zincheski or miss Shivani, anybody have questions for the

Yeah. I did have a question. And I I just wanted to clarify. Are you looking to expand this to all of the IHZ as well as the residents a nonconforming lots?

No. We have not asked for that. It's something that if you'd like to see that, we'd be happy to add it to the IHC as an allowable use. But we're we're not seeking to do that. This this pre op is independent. This property is is not zoned IHZ. We're not looking to zone it IHZ. It stays it stays in the same zone that it's in and could be a group home or it could be special needs.

Okay. I just asked because on the the draft of the potential text change, it has IHZ zoned properties in there. I but I didn't see that necessarily come through in the narrative. So I just wanted to clarify exactly what properties this would be extended to.

I I I have to get a text in front of me. I don't have it right now, but yeah. No. This this has nothing to do directly with IHC. Indirectly, yes. Directly, no.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. That is that's my only question. I guess depending on where this goes, that would just be something to take a look at to make sure that that's clear.

Thank you, Ms. Zincheski. Appreciate it, Ms. Shivani.

The current house there, are you proposing to tear it down and have new construction?

No. Would be So

you're gonna renovate Yes. Rehabilitate it?

Yes.

And how many units are there currently?

Well, there's a, apartment over the garage, the three car garage, and there is a single family house in the front.

Okay. And you'll be renovating it to how many units?

So

Assuming assuming you are not doing a group.

Right. Yeah. We we we looked at it, and we think it will accommodate very nicely four bedrooms or four mini apartments and the one over the garage. So it would be it would be five for special needs, one staff, just like 136 Riverside.

Okay. I've I've looked and walked the property. It's a large property, and plenty of room for parking, but very poor landscaping. I assume that or I am going to assume that you have a landscaping plan in place will have will have a landscaping.

No question. The way this works in in the two parallel tracks is if it comes as a special permit and special needs housing, it comes before your commission and all that becomes part of, the application and your review and approval of it with all those details. If it goes straight to, a group home that they purchase and it's independent of anything else, they are not required to do that. They they normally would do that because that's how they treat their properties, but there would be no oversight or requirement for it. But if it goes special needs, it absolutely will have it and absolutely will be under your purview.

So the former as a group home, is not eligible for points towards a moratorium?

Correct. A group home is not because you must amalgamate all the incomes. And we we crossed that bridge again. It was led by Darienne, and then we done it at January. And in the file from Michael Santoro, if we have the independent apartments with their separate leases, they all qualify. So they it's a lot more points than a group home or or or an individual home that was affordable.

So how many points right now with the

it'd be a minimum of, nine, I believe. So it would be if they were all at 80 percent, which would be the highest SMI, there would be five of them. So that would be actually seven and a half. Each one is worth one and a half. What we did at $1.36, we have some at 60%, at at $1.36 and and and even I think, might have one at at 40%. So each each is individual, but it would be a minimum of seven and a half.

Now this does tie to your other proposal. What would have been the points of doing it on-site, having affordable housing on-site?

Well, I I think I'd I'd rather if we can hold that discussion for the other application. Okay. Because this is kind of independent. Yes. It's codependent in some ways, but we'll talk about that more fully in the next one if that's okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hold on, Craig? Craig, anything else? No? Okay. Very good. Mister Kanmire or mister Vellante or mister Bolton?

I'm I can go.

Please do.

First, let me just say that, I'm really grateful to have a list. They're a real asset to our community, and it's heartening to have, I think what I heard was their involvement. So this is my question. Is there a partnership agreement that's included between the applicant, the project, and Avalos?

Is there a what?

Partnership agreement.

We have nothing in writing. It's the same way we did January. We we're dealing right now with the concepts. We don't even know which direction this will go in. And if it turns out that you don't, associate it with off-site and they turn out to buy it on their own, there is no partnership agreement. So there's no need to put the cart before the horse in that way.

Okay. Because what I heard excuse me. What I heard was somebody who really loved the idea, thought it was a great concept, but I didn't hear them say they're gonna be the one to implement it. And I think if that's a possibility that it's not gonna go in that direction, then what are the other third party vendors that you spoken to or who are willing to sign on with you if you go in a different direction? If you even go or somewhere a vendor is even needed. Right? So I'm just curious because I think that's important.

Well

It's a centerpiece of your application.

Well, first of all, this is a pre op. So I And

then in general. In general.

In in general, if I I think Amy can easily say if you approve this and they get this property via virtual donation that they that they are very happy to commit to doing it. Similarly, if if we do go forward and you do decide to do this, it would be part of the approval process linked to the next application and it would list them just like we did at January. So we do the same thing we did there and we would button this up so that you know exactly what you're getting, there. It it's same situation.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. Mister Vellante, would you, take a swipe at this? Mister Kalis, you're next.

Yeah. I don't know that I have any additional questions, about this.

Okay. That's fine.

I guess the only question I might add is what could be done by Ableist with this property without a text change?

So they could, excellent question. They could, make it up to eight special needs individuals plus staff, and that's by right. There's no p z c oversight. There's no approval process to it. It's the right to do that by state statute. But they they would they wouldn't do that. That isn't their intention. If they have to purchase the property, they might do an additional unit to help cover the costs in acquisition. So it it might be more. It might be six.

But it it's not their intention to use the full eight plus staff.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Thanks for the question, mister Kemmire.

Everybody's asked the questions that I have. K. I appreciate you coming to us in the the pre op format. I think this could work out. Right? It's good, you know, use in the space, and it's needed in the town.

Thank you. Alright.

Any other commissioners before I dive in here? Seeing none, I'm gonna ask you. Rick, the spot itself, obviously, you you know, I I I know you've read the concerns of the neighbors, etcetera. And I'm trying to figure out which one of the notions that you brought to us is the better of the two. Five if as by right or eight or fewer.

You know? Because you have this other application, I know you asked miss Shivani to, wait on that, but it is kind of important that which one would be better. And so I don't wanna I guess we'll just have to come back to that. Yeah.

I I think that's probably a better way because also that gives the neighbors an opportunity to weigh in and give you their opinions, which as a pre op, they can't. So I think it would be a better conversation if they can participate and articulate their concerns.

Alright. Alright. As far as special needs, inhabitants are concerned, Amy, if you don't mind, I'd like to adjust this to you. Is this an ideal spot in terms of, where it is, how it functions, etcetera? Does this work for what your program looks for as optimal?

It we I I drove to the property. I walked the property. I went inside to see what renovations would be needed. Our board chair did as well. We we love the location. It's really beautiful. Easy access to walk, public transportation. We thought it would be great.

Alright.

And and really, obviously, preferred to to have small, efficiency units for people to have the independence.

Yeah. That seems to work the best, each one with an individual kitchenette, etcetera.

Yeah. Yeah.

And is this a situation where you would have a spot for the staff or no?

I think we were talking about possibly having the the apartment in the upstairs over the garage into an apartment for the staff and have individuals into newly renovated space.

Alright. Very good.

And just to add just a little bit to that, Paul. The bus line is really critical because the tenants at 136 have worked at the Westport Police Department, the bookstore, Sweet Pea Bakery, Marshalls in Norwalk, and Wolfgang in Fairfield is a skilled training place that they can go to, and it's all pretty accessible via the bus line.

Yeah. What do we have a bus shelter on that section of post road? Just checking.

Yes. It it if you walk out, George, go up Maple right at the gas station that's at the corner, there's a bus stop there and there's one across the street. And then you can walk, towards the east and, over towards the, Westport Inn. And, there's bus stops on both sides of the post road there too. There's four walkable bus stations. Right. Bus stops.

Alright. So, as a pre app, I'll give you my, I'm very interested in pursuing this with you guys. Definitely wanna find a way to make something like this happen. Need to, activate the, or, I should say, ameliorate the concerns of the neighbors. Definitely wanna address anything there, But I would love to see this project move forward, whichever version we end up with.

Thank you very much.

Alright. Any bet any other any other just have one last swipe before we let Rick and Amy go? Mike, I see a thumb up.

Yeah. Actually, you're talking about bus stops, Paul, but what about crosswalks?

If I can share again, I can show you

Or lights. Right? I mean, it's it's closer over talking about a crosswalk without lights.

Well, we'll

get to we'll get to that.

No. There's there's lights. No. This is I think this is definitely

As long you say it's there, I mean, it's a pre op. I don't it's a fine. You know?

Yeah. It's a pre op.

Well, just just so you can see, there's

crosswalks here

for this both bus shelter. There is not here. So I I don't know which buses go to which stops, etcetera. And, obviously, if you're on this side, you can walk down to the crosswalk to get across. So but definitely, we have right here two bus stops with crossings at a light.

K? Great. That okay.

Alright.

Thank you.

Alright. Well, thank you to both of you for bringing this forward, and we'll be talking to you soon, I think.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Alright. Brie, we're back to you for, to take us into public hearing and go to our items there. Do you mind?

Alright. Let's do it. We are going into public hearing then with item number three for text amendment number eight six four, which is p z dash 260024 submitted by Richard Redness to modify section five, definition of special needs individuals to reference US code 42 USC section fifteen zero zero two in order to serve a wider range of individuals and to modify section 39 a inclusionary housing overlay district to permit off-site affordable housing at the discretion of the planning and zoning. Copy of the text amendment is available online at www.westportct.gov on the planning and zoning, office webpage under p and z pending applications and recent approvals. A copy may also be viewed at town Hall at 110 Rural Avenue in the town clerk's office and planning and zoning office.

Applicants presentation time is twenty minutes.

Thank you, Bree. Appreciate that. Who do we have? Oh, Rick.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Can we open them together? I think it would make sense to discuss it if you agree, as one, or with one testimony.

Alright.

Bree, if you don't mind, would you read item four?

Sure. Item number four is 785 Post Road East, which is special permits like a site plan approval number PZ2600023 submitted by, Richard Redness, FAICP on behalf of seven eighty five Post Road East LLC, property owner for modification of special permit site plan number 16036 to allow the conversion of the 2nd And 3rd Floor of the approved commercial building to house two residential units, minor vertical expansion of the 3rd Floor, and potential on off-site affordable housing solution for property located in the general business district, residence a, inclusionary housing overlay district. A PID number E09191000. Applicant's presentation time is twenty minutes.

Thank you for double duty on that. So who do we have from the oh, it's Rick. Yes. Ready?

Yes. Yes. Thank you. And thank you for opening, both of them. I think also it would be helpful if we incorporate the pre app that we just did so that the conversation can be as wide ranging as the commission wants it to be.

So that could be part of the record. If I could share my screen, I will, hold on. There we go. So we're talking about 785 Post Road East and IHZ that was approved. It's now ten years ago that this was approved.

We were before you with some modifications so I believe you know, your new members may not know, but this has been a long time coming. It had a lot of challenges with rock and, COVID and construction. There were, you know, there were just a host of things that have delayed this for ten years. The Toyota dealership, as you can see, is to the West. Splash car wash is to the East.

And it abuts another IHZ which was 793PostRoad that you approved. And what you see are the 13 units in the back. It was approved as 14, but two were combined. And what we're here for is a special permit to allow two units over the commercial. So ten years ago when this started, that was going to be a commercial building, with offices on the 2nd And 3rd Floors.

And, I think everyone can agree, we we have a a glut of office space now with what's happened with COVID and working from home as I have done for five years. So we're asking first and foremost for two units over the commercial, and I will take you through those. And perhaps it's easiest to just organize our our presentation. So we're here to modify the approval to get the two apartments over the store. There would be then 15 total.

We have a text change that has two parts to it. We want to expand the definition of special needs individual, and then we're asking for that on-site, off-site opportunity to be not just the AF cell facilities, not just the, senior residences that already have the off-site capability, we're asking for it to be also in regular IHC in this controlled instance. And should you decide which independently you want to expand the special needs individual definition, which I will go into a little bit, but Amy is on, as well as others on that can speak to that. So that's why you see two a has two pieces and if you don't like the on-site off-site, that's fine. We can go to change the special needs definition and you could have three townhouses on-site.

So this is this is, you know, trying to show you what your options are to do here. If you do like the special needs definition and the opportunity for on-site off-site as was presented as part of the pre app to get special needs housing there, The best way to do that would be then to approve the one townhouse on-site which we're hoping would be Homes With Hope and the group home at 3 George Street and a subset of that group home would be ableist with our support, would come in with an application. So I I put a question mark on pre app because I wasn't sure what your reaction was. It seemed to be favorable. So we would have to do a text change and, so seven eighty five is, willing to sponsor that text change and is willing to do the renovation at cost.

So that could be a kind of turnkey situation like we did at one thirty six. But alternatively, if you don't wanna go that way, three townhouses on-site and we don't need a text change for that. So next, I'd to just take you through the differences in the building to get the two units. The 2nd Floor plan is, shown on the lower level and the, which was just, you know, an open plan for offices. And above it, you see the two units, the 2nd Floor of the two units.

Unit A is a three bedroom. So you have bedroom one, bedroom two, and then you go upstairs for Bedroom 3. And Unit B has Bedroom 1 on this floor and you go upstairs for Bedroom 2. So that's the change there. It's hardly noticeable change.

This is the 3rd Floor that was approved and this is what we'd like to do. And there's very slight differences and I'll show you them, but these are just two bedrooms each with its own bath up on the 2nd Floor of the apartment, 3rd Floor of the building. And from an elevation standpoint, the low, this is what you approved. It had a basement. We've removed the basement, and this is the change.

It's very difficult to see the differences because they're very minor to the windows, operable windows, etcetera. So it's it's just very slight changes. Similarly, on the north and south elevations, slightly changed. But if you look here in the South, you can see what we've done. This is what was approved with the basement, and you can see here's the angle of the roof.

What we did was we raised this about two and a half feet here to make this more usable, occupiable space and, and took out the basement. And similarly here on the north elevation, you can see that it's it's just that that two and a half feet higher. So, again, hardly noticeable. This side, the windows change because it's now residential between what was approved, and now there's more windows. And this is an easy way to look at it.

So the left hand side approved, that's the car wash side, and we've added windows that, to that side so they get the morning sun. And then this is the approved, view looking north and west sides, And then south west sides, this is the street view if you were driving east. So hardly noticeable, but again, if you look in this little corner here, goes up that two and a half feet. That's the only difference between what was approved. So these are the townhouses in the back.

And so that but that that's our first task is is complete now, the two units over the store, so to speak. These are the townhouses. There's eight of them, and there will either be one townhouse that will be de restricted affordable or three depending upon which way you decide. And so the townhouses are are very nice, brand new, high finishes, and on the market at just under 1,000,004. Just so you have all the data.

So what we have in Westport is six zones that allow off-site opportunities, fee in lieu, off-site, things that have been created over the years. And 2007 is when the first one was done with residency. So and since that time, which is 18 going on nineteen years, there's been three approvals that have happened. In six zones, eighteen years, three approvals. So this is not a, frequently used or requested situation.

And it was done successfully with Wilton Road, GBDS, and Saugatuck, but that never got implemented that second phase. The Hamlet, you recently denied. And then Richmondville is where we got one thirty six special needs. And then in the IHZ at the residence, the senior living, we created that and instead of two three apartments on-site, we got two single family homes and the board determined that those were superior. So, you know, this is this off-site and fee and lose opportunities is not unique to Westport.

Durian has it. New Canaan has it. Wilton. The Stanford, of course, has been the leader doing this. I've been doing that in Stanford for decades.

Westport, which has one of the higher affordability requirements, has in the regs and it's three thirty five. I happen to be working with New Canaan, and in going through that, they decided that the 225% of the AMI family of four, which is footnote number four there, they decided it was too low, and they opted for 300% of the SMI of the family of four. And then, I I didn't work on Darien's, but looks like, you know, they came up with the same conclusion that New Canaan came up with. So this is not a unique idea. This one of the things that we always look at, we look at your town plan and that's in there and we look at your affordable housing plan.

This was your plan of action that was established 2022 and it's running through 2027. So in the bold, this is kind of a little report card on action items, just to give you a sense of of how much time effort, you know, it takes to accomplish, affordable housing. So deed restrict existing town owned rental properties. You were able to do that with project return, which interesting, you know, it did require a text change and it was to the special needs individuals definition that we created, and you added to it a risk of of homelessness, to that definition so that Project Return could have, again, little apartments and and be as more successful and and a better living environment for the, six women that that live there to have their own privacy and rooms and everything. So hats off to you for doing that.

You did finally do the Barron's text after we withdrew the portion. And and Barron's of course is is very tricky to to do anything with. So, but you did do the text. So again, hats off on that one. Again, allocation of real property fund, nothing has happened on that.

Buying down market rate units. Now nothing has happened on that, but it came very close because one, 22 Wilton Road, which was the Richard Friedman affordability eight thirty g that you denied and they won in court and he built and then he sold it to Homes With Hope at a, you know, a fraction of the cost of its real value so it could be, you know, more affordable. And that's again, hats off to you for getting that done. But the buy down never happened. But we were talking to Richard Friedman during that time period, and we developed a formula where he had 19 units, only six of which were going to be affordable required with the eight thirty g.

And so we created a formula. The numbers aren't important, but, you know, you put down x hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit and you could write down a market rate unit to be 80% or 60% or 40% depending upon how much you write it down by. So it's it's a great tool to have, but it hasn't been done yet. The next is pair the trust fund with fee and lieu. Obviously, we haven't done that yet.

Trust fund is is new and and still learning. The next one is town owned land partnering with nonprofits. We tried that, but it you know, and you did it with project return and the barons text. Barons still has yet to be done. The elimination of zoning barriers in the IHC and why so many proposed mixed income projects seek text changes instead of working within the IHC regulations and any proposed text amendments to revise the IHC based on results of this review.

So we've been kind of helping you do that. We did it with 1620. We added the general development plan, which is a great tool. We have this pending application with July and we just filed April, which was subject to a pre app on the old, Humane Society property for all residential and not having to have a commercial use at all there. So so we're we're working on that one.

The trust fund, just wanted to put that out there that one of the things that they talk about is is trying to receive funds including inclusionary zoning fees, which, is not highlighted, it shows right here. So your trust fund actually shows that, you know, it'd be good to have that tool used so it could be amalgamated with what that produces. This is the actual text change that we have. Number one was in our original eighteen months ago application. So this is the person's developmental according to the federal statutes instead of just the state.

I'll give you the short story, and we have Amy on and we have Bob Maslin who is an attorney in Darien and an expert, in this field. So the short story is in Connecticut, special needs individuals have a must be an IQ of 70 or less. And there's a lot of special needs, autistic, etcetera, that are not being met with that definition. So we'd like to broaden that definition. That request is, as I showed you in the flowchart, independent of the off-site housing.

So it's a all filed together, but you can approve one without two. Obviously, we hope you approve both. Number two is the exact same text that we had, which was eight fifty five that we withdrew because you wanted to see this with a package, but it's the same words. The only thing that's happened since then is you had a concern that, or certain members had a concern about discretion. And do you have the discretion or is someone gonna say, oh, you meet the regulations, you have to do it.

And I understand that concern. I know it was a mantra at the Hamlet. And so we never want to have that. Okay? It it's at your sole discretion. I think maybe we added those words. I can't remember now. But at your sole discretion and the, law department backs that up. You do have discretion. Obviously, you're you're using the discretion judiciously.

The other thing that comes up is text changes and why do you need text changes. So I wanted to show you the importance of text changes in Westport, Connecticut. This is your first moratorium, and you had 10 projects. Eight of them had text changes. I happen to do seven of them.

Two were eight thirty g's and one Bedford Square was the only one that didn't require text change and wasn't an eight thirty g. So it's a very, very important process to have text changes. Now, this is the projection based on Michelle's information of your next moratorium. And so here you have 14 potential projects wrapping up, different stages that could get you the 211 points. This all adds up to 263, so you don't necessarily need all of these.

But what this shows is 10 out of the 14 text changes. And obviously, I'm on five of those 10. And and there's a reason for that because twenty five years ago, I was asked to come to town and help with affordable housing. And that's what I've been trying to do for the last quarter century. So and and some have off-site as part of them as you can see on the list.

Three and four are off-site. Eight and nine are off-site. So that's that's what you have. And and, of course, the eight thirty g's that you lost and had to settle. So I think it's important to to understand that in the context.

So what we're asking for is one townhouse on-site and then 3 George Street, and this is where it kinda opens up and reaches back to the pre op. I have all the material for the pre op so we can use it all, but I just wanted to say that this is where we would like to locate the special needs housing with Ableist, donate to them as a group home and then if you think what you have encouraged them, they would proceed to make it special needs housing. This is what the property looks like, and and the post road etcetera that we talked about. So I don't wanna go through any more of that. One of the things that we've also talked about is back, in 2018 staff and I did work with them on this, to create what is the criteria.

What are the different ways to, you know, make that decision? What's superior? So we came up with 16 points. Some of them are are not applicable, so I left them off. But but basically, it's how do you evaluate on-site versus off-site or in our case, on-site as approved versus a combination of on and off.

And so I just quickly take you through this. You approved, 3,200 square feet of floor area and with the plan that we're asking you to approve now, it would be close to 6,000. It's almost double, and that excludes, basements and and garages. So it's a pretty significant amount of floor area more. In terms of people served, works off of bedrooms.

Excuse me. So three units either way, it's, you approve five bedrooms. So five bedrooms could be up to 10 people if if you have the right combination of people in each bedroom. The option that we're looking at is would be seven bedrooms. The fee in lieu, one of the things that we did at $1.36 is you you take the calculation of the $335,000 per unit times the number of units that you have to have to do.

And you you have to sort of that's a benchmark. And so for for what we did at one thirty six was it was over $2,000,000 because there was seven units. And what we did over there was we paid the town, prepaid a forty nine year lease for half $1,000,000, and then put money aside for long term maintenance because it's a forty nine year lease with Ableis. And then put in, you know, a million and a half. I can't remember the exact numbers, but but spent the the over $2,000,000 and accounted for it in that category.

In this case, it's significantly more because we have the acquisition of 3 George Street at about a million and a quarter. We that does not include the value of the on-site townhouse. And we are talking to our nonprofits, Homes and Hope and Ableist, about the potential for owning the townhouse because it's very tricky to do rental with home ownership. So we're we're we're trying to make that work but we're not asking for that or telling you we're definitely gonna do that. The moratoria points.

So this gets to the question, commissioner Schvone asked. So I apologize for not answering it initially, but here's the answer. So it's 4.5 for the three units. That's three at 80, one and a half points each. If you accept the off-site, with a group home, it would be three, points.

K? One and a half for the unit over the garage and one and a half for the townhouse Got it. Minimum. The potential is for nine to 12 depending upon what we are able to do and how many units and whether they they have to acquire the property. Well, that's no.

In this instance, they wouldn't be acquiring it. But if you had five units, the five units are seven and a half point minimums. Okay? One and a half points each, seven and a half points plus the one and a half on-site is nine. So the minimum would be double what what you approved ten years ago.

The affordability's level would be 80% and depending upon how this the details and how it could work out going forward with tax change on 3 George Street, it it you know, we could hit 60% on some. So and each one of these yes for superior TBD, I'm you know, you guys get to make that decision. The location again on-site between Toyota and a car wash and multifamily with single family in the back up the hill or one of the townhouses and obviously 3 George Deed is a residential neighborhood, a budding commercial but it is as you'll hear from the neighbors a a single family nice neighborhood. Amenities, yes, the townhouse has a garage. The two flats that were approved do not have garages in the back as approved.

So the difference here, and not that we need the garages because we really just need it for staff. We have four car garage on on 3 George Street, so we could, depending on circumstances, we don't need the three car garage. We might use that as as a group gathering space for large motor skills, for meetings, and they could use the other single garage if they needed a garage for the staff. But it has it as as was pointed out, it's a larger site, could have a garden and nice landscaping, etcetera. Finishes, new construction.

Obviously, the townhouse is new construction in the back and it would be renovated, so that's renovated construction and the exact details to be determined. Affordability plan, again, working with our nonprofits is superior to doing it just with the private sector running their own show. Town, interest or right of first refusal. This was something that was discussed years ago so that, you know, the forty year terms and I think when we started, it was a thirty year term those years ago. It's been up by the state.

The need is never gonna go away. So termination is not good. We we prefer and a lot of the zoning I've written over the years is is it's all for the life of the project. No termination. So that's superior.

In this case, at least one would be without termination and possibly two. Preferences again, nonprofit, miscellaneous, we got the supervision of the nonprofit, which is far superior and nonprofit involvement of which is there. So that is, the evaluation. And just to come full circle, so we're here to modify the approval from 2016. Please allow the two apartments over the store.

Please allow the text change. Part one, special needs. Part two tool in the toolbox should be there. And then if you and you can approve the tool in the toolbox and you still don't like 3 George Street. But we think you should approve this.

It goes to your, plans and and your affordability plan and etcetera. And we're hoping that you'll go for the full package, and at which point then we've been encouraged to come back to make it true special needs housing. And I think, well, let me just do this and then I'll turn it back over to to Amy in terms of the the definition part that I think, might be good to get a little more information. So these are things that tools in a toolbox and this tool can do. It can have lowering.

It doesn't necessarily must happen, but these are the highlights. It can be lower income, can be no termination, better oversight, protect the existing housing stock. Now and I have the slide to show you that and and I get all the notices. It's it's pretty much more than a house a week gets demolished in Westport. And so since the IHZ started, there's been over a thousand houses demolished in Westport, and it's unfortunate we didn't have a demolition fee.

You know, $10,000, you'd have 10,000,000. You can perhaps get more homes in this case, perhaps if we get special needs, they can be larger as we're doing, better living environment. Enhanced moratorium benefits and then two other benefits that don't accrue on this particular ask is town owned land and buildings. It's in the text, but it's not in our application of, for three George. But it but it is in the text and we think you should approve it.

And then contributing to the affordable housing trust fund. Once that trust fund gets going and if you were to have a a fee for demolition, you could amalgamate, you know, a lot of money and then you would be able to, be kind of nimble in the marketplace when things come up. And I think I will stop there and stop sharing and turn it over to Amy much more and you see Bob Maslin is on. And the two of them, I think, can explain the importance of that definition change that we seek.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but I think attorney Maslin worked so hard on changing the definition for when we were in Darien to make sure we were more inclusive of our community. Does he have the ability to chime in here?

Yeah. Michelle, can can attorney Maslin speak? How do I know what I'm in?

Oh, there

you hear you. We can

hear you. Thank you, Bob.

Good evening, everyone. I'm attorney Robert Maslin. Unlike Amy, I've been at this zoning, work for thirty four years instead of thirty six. My practice is mostly in Darien, Norwalk, and, I've been in New Canaan and Stanford in the past, even Greenwich. I am responsible for getting the 26 East Lane project approved in Darien, and that included text amendments, the creation of an overlay zone or floating zone depending on how you use the term.

And it wasn't just changing a definition. There was a whole planning process to it, and we ended up with minimum lot area required for the additional density that is a 175% of the basic minimum lot size for the zone. The importance of the change in the definition of person with special needs is this. The Connecticut statute and specifically one dash one g, defines intellectual disability, and that different that definition flows through the zoning regs, specifically eight dash three e, and it also flows through the some of the state department of developmental services definitions and their funding programs. Unfortunately, that's a limited definition.

It's limited by age and by IQ. And it has to be for somebody to qualify for these benefits. A person has to have an IQ of less than 70 that originated prior to age 18. And what that caused in Darien was the state has percentage limitations on the number of people receiving DDS benefits who can live within so many feet of each other. So in order to to broaden the definition, we applied for and received a text amendment that changed the definition to the federal definition, and that's the 42 USC section fifteen zero zero two subsection eight.

And I'll give you some of the considerations. A mental or physical impairment or combination of impairments likely to continue indefinitely, you'll see this is a very functional definition. Results in substantial limitations in three or more of the following areas of activity, self care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self direction, capacity for independent living, economic self sufficiently sufficiency, and there are a few other things. One, factor is in here, that is also part of the text amendment is, whatever the condition is that creates or, causes the deaf developmental disability has to occur prior to age 22. This would leave out people who have traumatic brain injuries from accidents, who have impaired mental function, but the accident happened after they were 22.

People who had minor strokes and would qualify, but for the age 22 requirement. And that's why, we obtained in Dairy Inn the definition under this federal statute regardless of age, so age doesn't apply. If I can, I could I'd like to comment on a couple of other, issues that Ableis has encountered along the way, particularly in Westport? In in the Riverside Avenue project, we we ran into a money problem. The reason was there are two aspects to affordable housing.

One is an income limit of the tenants, but the other, which is particularly harsh on ableist, was the rent limit. So if you have a 60% or a 40% affordable housing limit, you're reducing the amount of rent that ableist can collect from its its people, its residents, which creates a financial crunch for ableist. And, mister chairman, I recognize you from a meeting we had to address this a couple of years ago, and, I I think you might remember you shaking your head. You might remember, that conversation. So it's important if able is is going to get involved running or managing one of these residential settings that the limit be 80.

You still get credit for affordable housing. You don't get as many points, but importantly, Ableis is able then to collect rent based on the 80% SMI rather than some lower percentage. Someone asked about contracts before. Typically, there's no ongoing contract between Ableis and, for example, in, Darien, the the developer who built the project and eventually turned title over. Ableis is running that on its own.

I know there's a a relationship ongoing with the town on Riverside, but the developer in that case is completely out of it. So what happens is, whereas on one hand, the affordable housing statute and the requirements are based on a concept of a developer absorbing the loss on the affordable units. Once you separate them, the developer's no longer absorbing any losses, able as is. So that's it's important that the 80% affordable is the limit that we would hope you would put on these if you're able to grant these text amendments. And then the other final point is there was some discussion about group home versus individual apartments.

Group homes are funded completely differently. It's one dwelling unit, and from my conversation and information we received from Mike Santoro up at the state, that would be considered one affordable unit. When we put the six individual apartments with kitchens or kitchenettes in each of two buildings on East Lane and Dairy Inn, the developer got credit for 12 affordable units because they're each stand alone dwelling units unlike a a group home. I wanted to mention that to just clarify for you because I I know it's easy if you're not involved in this all the time to get confused. What's a group home?

What are individual apartments, etcetera? And then the other final thought is when you have multiple apartments, you wind up with some receiving DDS money, others not receiving DDS money. It changes the financial picture significantly from a basic group home. And in order for Ableist to dive into one of these, there's gotta be a pretty significant amount of effort in calculating basically a spreadsheet going forward for forty years. Right?

And that's that's where we are. So those are my thoughts. I hope you're you're able to do this for Ableis and for the people that Ableis serves. And I'll I'll just finish up by saying my son has been in an Ableis residence for how long, Amy? Five, six years now. Thriving very well. He's it's located in Stanford, And I can tell you firsthand, it's a very good organization, and the residences are very well run. Thank you very much for your attention and consideration of this.

Thank thank you, Bob. Thank you. And I may have learned something right there, lots of things, but one thing in particular, if Mike Santoro said that a group home can qualify for points, that would be wonderful. That my understanding was that if you have a group home with, say, four people in it, that you have to take all the salaries and add them up. And if they qualify for under 80% SMI, then they would get a point.

But if they were over, they wouldn't. But if if there's some other interpretation out there, I I just want to say that our minimum of three might actually be the same as as 4.5. So I I that that I don't know what's that

story there. Well, just remember that in these affordable units, the maximum income is based on the household size. So if you have more people than them, that number goes up. And at the same time, when Ableus arranges funding for a group home, it's based on essentially fair fair market rent and utilities and the other cost. And it's a complicated thing.

Right. Still get credit for one one unit that way. If Okay. The parameters and you have an affordability plan and it's all, you know, compliant with the state requirements and, obviously, the zoning requirements.

Yeah. Thank you, Bob. Thank you very much. And so that, Paul, I think that would conclude our presentation.

Thank you, Rick. I do appreciate it, and I appreciate Amy and Bob, both of you chiming in. I'm sure there'll be lots of questions if you don't mind sticking around. Michelle.

Thank you. Michelle Crowley, planning and zoning director. Just wanted to go over the two applications. The first one, Text Amendment eight sixty four, is a modification to the definition of special needs individuals as discussed thoroughly by the applicant in order to serve a wider range of individuals. Then, 39A, again, same language that we have been discussing in previous applications with the allowance to permit off-site affordable housing at the discretion of the commission.

That's the text amendment. My staff report did go through other sections of the regulation that permit off-site affordable housing. Additionally, I just did want to mention that we have conducted an analysis of the number of properties that we feel at this, in their current configuration would be eligible for rezoning to IHC just so that we have a number of potential properties that would be considered for regulation would be there's 48 lots from our analysis. This does not consider lots that could merge and become eligible at a later date. There are currently five properties that have been developed and or approved under the IHC regulations.

Just to give you some context, and I can go into those if you want me to later. The sex amendment, again, a lot of information has been discussed about that, but of course, I'm here for questions. Then, going through the modification for 785 Post Road East, The request would be to add the additional two residential units to the commercial building. This would increase the number of units to 15 with three units required to be affordable. The two units are proposed to be in the commercial building are to be a two bedroom unit and a one bedroom unit.

Again I

I think I heard three, and wasn't there a three on top?

Two and three. Two and three.

Two and three.

Yeah. Two

and two.

Two and three.

Yeah. Two. Yeah. One and two on that one floor and then the two above.

Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. I just wanted to also briefly go through, some comments from other town departments. The conservation department issued comments dated September 19 based on, the text.

They indicated that they supported the proposal to increase affordable housing units and discussed encouraging low impact development, such as pervious driveways and walkways and things like that, which I'm sorry. And then also December 16, there's comments from Attorney Pete Gilderman where he discusses the question we had about whether it would be appropriate for the commission to grant these approvals on a case by case basis and have it be at their discretion. He did feel that it was appropriate and that the commission would need to state the reasons why an off-site location is either appropriate or not and the reasons, and he felt that the text amendment was adequate. I think that summarized that there was a lot of information by the applicant, and I don't want to take much longer. So I'm here for questions.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much, Michelle. I do appreciate the comprehensive staff report too. It's very helpful. So once again, and gentlemen, we are here to try and arm wrestle some affordable housing here in in Westport.

Rick, I I I must congratulate you. You took a very difficult a very difficult topic with a very difficult answer and made it even more difficult. So, the the adding in the new, George Street certainly puts a a twist in the existing, 785 conversation. Adding two units in the two res units, above commercial certainly adds another twist to it. So we're I feel like we're playing twister here.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna jump in and try and get some definitions. One of the things that, attorney Maslan said was that the combination of the lower AMIs is not preferable. And I actually had been under the, illusion that going down to sixty and forty was beneficial to, the town. Can can you straighten me out on that, either one of you?

Oh, well, I I think I can. The it's very difficult to manage and and do affordable housing, period. Full stop. What when when we did one thirty six, we learned a lot and we tried to build in even a fund, quarter of million dollar fund. But I at the time, I did it.

I certainly didn't understand the complications of all this financing And and there's a piece of financing that, I think Amy or Bob can talk about which which limits the amount of people that receive funding in one place. And that was a factor that we did not plug into our model. We we were looking at it as what is the income of the people being served and they were at the lower income levels. But it was in combination and then I will, you know, yield to Bob and Amy, but it was in the combination of the funding sources available for long term sustainability and it just jeopardized the the the the model. So, yes, Westport would have gotten more points if they were lower, but we're generating more points because we're generating more units.

So that's the focus. We're not going to be generating more points because of the lower income, because it's just not as sustainable due to financing constraints. That's the limit of my knowledge.

Alright. Fair enough. That's fine. Can I Yes, please?

The simple answer to this is you can almost assume that people who qualify to live in the residences that are special needs residents would qualify as low income residents, even down to 40%. The problem is when you're restricted to 40%, you end up with ableist stuck with a 40% rent limit, which is significantly less than the 80% rent limit, and that's where the rub is.

Interesting. If you have an 80% if you have an 80% limit, but somebody who comes in under the disabilities special needs and they and they actually are at 60 or 40, do we receive more points for them?

No. The points work off of the deed restriction. And so we we don't wanna constrain the long term viability. That's why.

Okay? That's fine. Next, please explain to me the difference between a forty year and a and a non termination. I'd like to know how what it looks like from the the affordability people who are going to adjudicate it and from the developer's point of view.

So as Amy said, Ableis has been around doing this over seventy years. So what happens, the the eight thirty g points requirement it started at twenty or twenty five years, went to thirty, and then went to forty. And so now to get points, it's forty years. But forty years goes by pretty quickly.

Like that?

Yeah. You heard Amy's thirty six, Bob's thirty four. I'm going on fifty years, of doing this. So, it goes by really quickly and then and then it's it's it's to the market. They're not protected, and that's a problem. So I've tried where I can in multiple towns to make it forever or for the length of the, you know, length of the dwelling.

Well, why would we not do it?

Why would you not do it what? Forever?

Yes.

Well, yeah, I think there you know, again, we have shifted the public sector, the government's role in providing affordable housing, you know, as the federal government and to a certain extent the state government got out of the housing business. I don't know. Maybe it started heavily with Reaganomics. I can't remember. But, you know, the funding dwindled to a fraction of what it used to be.

And so in order to cope with the problem, back in the seventies, the mid seventies when actually I got involved, there were the most famous was the Mount Laurel decision in New Jersey, and it said that communities needed to provide its fair share of reasonably priced housing. At that point, it wasn't deed restricted. It was just multifamily because it was too much segregation of of all these single family houses and and you couldn't have multifamily. And that's what it was about, providing housing a fair share. But over the years, it it's evolved into this eight thirty g type situation that started to have more specificity in terms of income levels because it didn't start with with, 30% affordable.

I think it started at 20, went to 25, and then went to 30. So it's an evolution of of this. So it it's it's got a long history of how this has evolved.

Let me try it a different way. Which one's preferable to the town?

Preferable to the town is to have a right of first refusal so it never gets to the regular market or to have it affordable for the life of the building. Okay. That's preferable to Alright. So an expiration.

Alright. So that was the AMI question and the term question. Those were the first two that I had. Let's switch now to the, $7.85. So $7.85, you've added a twist to this. You now are looking at two res units over commercial. Correct?

Correct.

And you're looking at one on-site or what you're calling the the fourteenth unit. What did you what did you mean by or fifteenth unit? Sorry. And what did you mean by two were combined? Did you have somebody buy two and punch the wall out?

I was essentially, yes. Alright. That's the

short story. And how does the town count that?

Well, the but the this you mean in terms of the number of units?

Well, yeah. If we're gonna if we're gonna say x x number has to be affordable, what is it? 13 or 14?

There's 13. 13 in the back that are already constructed. The two in the front is 15, makes it 15. You approved 14. So we're just trying to show from when it was approved ten years ago to what we're asking for now. But but, actually, there are 13, and we're adding two. K?

So so we were always you're you're always on the hook for three units. Correct?

Correct.

Alright.

That doesn't change.

Right. That's

that's really where I was going with that. I wanna make sure.

Correct. So

do you even need off-site a change for seven eighty five if you're gonna put the two units above commercial.

Yes. Because the two units above the commercial are not going to be affordable. We're going to designate a townhouse in the back to be affordable.

Okay. My bad. I I was I was under the impression that you were trying to develop affordable units above commercial.

No. No. No. We're not. Those are those are market rate units above the store. The townhouse in the back would would be affordable.

And what did you mean by the ownership? Have you figured out a way of doing ownership? Because I I, for life, they can't figure it out.

So this this has been a challenge because we have so many unknowns with where this is going in terms of on-site, off-site, how many, etcetera. But one of the things that mixing homeownership and, for sale housing and affordability and rentals is very complicated.

I get that. That's why I asked.

Right. And so having affordable homeownership is very challenging because you're always capped by the increase in, the AMI, the the SMI. So if you have an affordable unit and you need to, you know, put a new roof on or put a new kitchen in or doing anything there, you can't recoup that. You can only recoup what's allowed under your percentage AMI.

So, Rick, you've you've you've not figured that out in other words.

So well, hold let me let me just say a few more words and then the the it what we think is the better model and we have not arrived at a final number is for is to sell the one unit to a to Ableiser Homes With Hope and we start with Homes With Hope and see if we can work that out so it would be a sold unit and then they would deed it would be deed restricted and they would rent it so you'd still get the points. If it was a unit that was sold directly to an 80% eligible buyer, it only gets one point.

So do you have examples of where Ableus has purchased and, rented out and and it's it's cons and it's and that works?

Yeah. And we we've done that in Darien. Okay. We purchased

it.

So there is a template there?

Yes.

Alright. Good. Let's go now to the, to the verbiage in the text amendment that says superior. Explain to me what you're thinking there and how that works for us in the town.

So, and I could put the list back up again, but maybe just referencing it will be a a recollection. So back in 2018, we work with staff and created those 16 points.

Right. I remember.

And

and so we went over those. So, for example, when we looked at Rivers the Richmondville 41 Richmondville, and we had those units. We evaluated the situation at one thirty six, and it was the combination of all those factors that the commission felt that that was a better mousetrap.

Alright. Hold that there. So so you've said two very important things, and this is where I wanna explore with you. The commission felt.

Yes.

So so are you saying that going forward, the commission would be in charge of you you'd have to come to the commission. Absolutely. And and you'd have to prove let's say, you'd have to present your 16 items.

Correct. Any any any use of this we we've done it with our application. It's we've had we put them in there. Yeah. But any, you know, future applicant and we can discuss, if you wanna limit the applicability here. We'll get to that in a second. But anyone that comes before, it is your sole discretion to decide on balance and not just the 16 issues. You could decide that, you know, the colors are important. I mean, you could you you are gonna be the, you know, the decision maker that says this is we like this better. This is better for Westport because of x y z.

You decide.

Okay. So if we were to change a text to allow IHZ to have off-site, we would then control a 100% the quality and style, size, all of those 16 items of each individual proposal, and there would be no template that a developer would come to us and say, well, you approve this over here, so I'm I'm I'm insisting you approve it over there.

Correct. And and that's where the letter from the town attorney is is in there. Yes. This is your discretion. And and, you discretion always, you know, needs to be reasonable. But, yes, this is your discretion to do this.

On each and every presentation?

Each and every each and every application rises and falls, and and can be negotiated. You know?

You you And can

be negotiated. They can ask for x and you can say, well, you know, we want x and we also want, you know, a reef you know, a sub zero. I don't know. I mean, you know, I it's hard to think of what it what it could be, but, you know, you can, you can chime in.

Okay. So, the the fear of unintended consequences has to be lessened by the idea that the control is fully within our grasp. It is ours. Correct. And maintain that throughout the balance of the, of of throughout time. As long as that as long as August is on the books, we're in charge of, of what gets approved.

Correct.

Okay. What about the notion that, I mean, you mentioned, 1,250,000.00 for George. What about the notion that this somehow is letting off a developer and they're skating by, seeking huge profits on a market rate while, you know, not having to put up some skin for the affordable units. How how do you, how do you defend that?

So I I I

The short version.

Yeah. Well, I've been defending that for for decades and there's there's two ways to defend it. Well, there's more than two ways, but let's just talk about two of them. One of them is the litmus test is what does the town get? If the town gets more points, more units, you know, better yard.

If the town looks at it and says, hey, you know, and many times, you know, you you you guys live in buildings. You you put yourself in it. Where would I rather live? You you know, this is many times subjective. And if if you feel that the off-site is superior, it's irrelevant whether the developer is losing money or gaining money.

It's irrelevant that Ryan has carried this property for ten years, you know, only recently getting a penny back on that. So not all developers and all developments make money and that's not your concern.

Not in the town.

X or y. Your concern is what is being developed in your town. So so there's that's one way of looking at it. Okay? Which is the what's the town getting? Is it superior? The rest doesn't matter. The other is balancing. Wait a second. Not so fast.

You're gonna get $3,000,000 for this unit, and you're giving us, you know, a doghouse somewhere else. So that that that equation needs to be balanced. And we put in a formula which is the 225% of area median income, not state. Other communities up got anti. In this instance, what we're looking at and again, we have different things at play, the on-site and and the off-site and the ownership, etcetera.

So it it it can get complicated, but we we have easily, you know, double what the formula is in town. And the other thing that people look at and they say, wow, a unit selling for a million 4 so and that we heard it last time when we heard it, they should get a million dollars, not 335,000. They should get a million. But that's not looking at what the profit is. The the profit is not a million dollars.

You had to buy it, you had to carry it, you had hard cost, you had soft cost. You know, the profit in many cases could be less than $300,000.

Yeah. I get that.

So so that's so you can look at all that, you know, but the bottom line is what would the town rather have? A person in some instances, what what I what we've seen is, in other communities is you can have one unit on-site, you know, in a $2,000,000 building or you can have two or three units off-site. And so, yes, it'd be great. One person could live in a $2,000,000, you know, beautiful house or you could serve three families. And almost every time, the municipality has chosen the three families because there's a need beyond the one lottery winner.

And so serving more people usually takes precedent in most communities, in most instances.

Okay. So those were my four points. The AMI, the term, the difference between ownership, and then last but not least, the cost, the cost differential. I'm gonna turn it over to the some of the other commissioners who has questions for this applicant.

I have some questions.

Thank you.

So thank you, Rick, for going through that. It was, your presentation is much more more clear. I have a lot fewer questions than I did going into this. One thing I just wanted to confirm, and Paul touched on this, is, like, the total number of units. So it was originally approved for 14, but only four only 13 have been built. Is that correct? Correct. And you want to build two additional at market units in the commercial space. Correct? Correct. And adding that so that brings the total you have one more unit than was approved. What is the benefit to the town of allowing this additional two units?

Well, the a couple of things. Number one, it's really not a question of a benefit to the town. This is an applicant's request. This is not like an affordability benefit to the town. This is an applicant is allowed to do this.

It's allowed by the regulations. I can't understand how or why you could deny that. However, I'm still gonna answer your question because I think it's a worthwhile question. And when we did this ten years ago and there was more of a market for commercial space and office space and things, you know, that's not true anymore. You know, retail has been decimated by Amazon at all and and we've had office devastated by COVID and other technology.

Thank God we're all, you know, sitting at home hopefully and and we're not at town hall driving home exhausted. This Zoom and everything I know certainly I I don't know if I'd still be working if I had to go out all these nights I do. So I think it's very different. We don't need the office space anymore. We need the housing.

We need the housing. Westport needs numbers of units, not just affordable, all types of housing. Luxury housing, moderate housing, all types of housing. It's in every one of your plans you've ever done. Why would we not want to have two more units of housing and less traffic and less office space?

Okay. So I'm just like a preemptive adaptive reuse. So we're not even gonna bother going Exactly. Yes. Straight to that. Okay. So then another question that I think others have this question is, why not use those two units to do the same thing that you are proposing to do at 3 George? Why? You're gonna have five you're gonna have five bedrooms in those two units. Why not why not keep it all on-site?

So another great question, and it's a question that we look long and hard at. So there's a you you know, there's the if if we're thinking about the needs of special needs people, the location over at 3 George Street is a much better location than, you know, above the store here. We did look at it. We drafted text to allow it. We thought maybe that, you know, could happen here.

But, ultimately, we think it's better where there is a big yard and all the other things. The other piece of this, the practical piece is when we were before you last time, we we were looking at a a two family house in Saugatuck. And Ryan had a contract to purchase and it had a a lifespan. And we we walked away from that. Homes with Hope loved it.

That was gonna be a joint purchase. And if we could have done it then, we would have been done. But we didn't wanna take the risk that it couldn't happen. In order to eliminate the unknowns because we wanted to make this decoupled and as simple as possible, Brian went out and bought 3 George Street so that there is no time gone to our head contract, etcetera. So he said and we talked to Ableist and we said, this is a great opportunity.

Let's give it a shot. So he risked doing that. And, you know, if it turns out that you don't like it, you know, hopefully, Abelis will buy it anyway. But if they don't, you know, then he can sell it or whatever. But so those are sort of the reasons.

Got it. So what are the amenities at 785 Post Road?

Are there public spaces? I I don't think there are. I I don't think there are any shared spaces or pool or anything. I think they're just, you know, the units with their own garages and their own patios. Okay.

And that is that is all that I have for now. I think you, you covered the other things you and you and Paul did. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Brie. Craig, I know you have questions.

Hold on. Sorry. Okay. Brie got to the beginning of it. Rick, thank you for for for further confusing me. But Sorry. It's a lot, and I'm a newbie. But I'm gonna ask you to just simply go through this one more time. So the different options is you would build a townhouse, another townhouse. You're not no. Tell me your No.

We're not gonna build another townhouse. We're going to take a townhouse that is already built

Okay.

And then lease it or sell it to a nonprofit.

Okay. And and in that in that townhouse is gonna be broken down into three units?

No. The townhouse is one unit.

Is one unit?

One unit. That's just the way just the way it is. All eight all the same. One unit Okay. Two bedrooms, garage, all the same.

And that would be affordable?

And one of them would be affordable. Yes.

Okay. So one unit would be affordable here. On-site? On-site. And points

ascribed point. One and a half points.

Points. And you would agree to do that in conjunction with developing the George Street property. It's not an either or. You you would do both.

Yes. Yes. The the re the primary request is both. Yes.

Okay.

3 George and one on. That is our primary request.

Okay. Your that's your primary request. What was your backup request?

Three townhouses on-site.

Three townhouses on-site. And so that would be three points.

That would be four and a half points.

Four and a half points. And so you would have one and a half points, and then the George Street would be how many points?

Well, again, I learned something new. It's either one and a half or three, but could be as many as nine. You since you all seem to encourage true special needs, it could be nine.

Okay. Great. Thank you for clarifying that for me. You know, spent a lot of time considering off-site. And I think all of us come from I I don't know if I can speak for the whole commission, but I know I can speak for many people in town and and government and nongovernmental people.

The ideal is on-site. But it looks like that horse is out the barn in this town. And so I kind of feel like we have to focus here on what's in the best interest of the town, and its and its constituents. So, I am I am really leaning towards this option that you have described. I have another problem, though, is the way this text amendment is written, and it's the law of unintensive unintended consequences, it says that it's falls back always to p and z's discretion.

But having put this in place, are we going to get a barrage of developers coming in and saying either hooking up with Ableist and Homes With Hope and saying, you know, you've set the precedent, and how could you deny it here? Or any other permutation of why we wanna go off-site. I don't I'm concerned that PNC is not ready for that. Although I still support this project, but I think we need some time overall, to start focusing and not and be in a more proactive position. And maybe with your help as, as a town rather than in a reactive situation each time a new developer comes in with a proposal like this.

So so all excellent, excellent points. And and I I I apologize for confusing you. If if you knew how long it took us to put together those flow charts, you'd begin to understand. I appreciate, you know, how easily you can be confused with this. Yeah. But let me let me say this, and and it's it's funny because Paul many times talks about one offs. You know? Patrizia is not here. She many times talks about if it's a good idea, it should be universal. And those are the yin and yang of what do we do with zoning.

And in West Port, we we've always pretty much gone to the walk before you run situation. Mhmm. So let's not open the barn doors too wide. Let's limit it. Mhmm. So we can limit the applicability of this. So it could be limited to IHZs that are approved. Now and then there's two of them. Sixteen twenty, which was approved and not built. And there's there would be a good reason maybe that off-site could work there that I can talk to you about, and this one.

So if you're worried about the next guy in and the unintended consequences, you could stop that.

Well, and I that's that's interesting to consider, and I I would wanna hear from the other commissioners their take on that. And maybe maybe they can weigh in before I make but I will make one last point. I did go spend some time in at the George Street site, and I also have seen the petition. I feel that number one, the proposal you have is for the greater good of the community, working with Ableis and Homes With Hope. Number two, I I have to respectfully disagree with some of the neighbors.

I think you you would do from seeing your drawings improve that proper property significantly. If it were landscaped appropriately, you're you're landing bad idea. That's to the greater good on all on all fronts, and the population that we'd be serving is not a threat to the community. So you would be seeing an improved piece of property. And, you know, okay.

I can say that subjectively. I don't believe it's a threat to the community, and I believe the location is suitable. So I would I would be in support of this. But I I would like to hear from the other commissioners about further narrowing, the text of the text in the amendment.

Thank you, Craig. Do appreciate it. Mister Kalis, you've had your hand up. It's your turn.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions for miss mister Redness. The property on Millstream, my first reaction to it, I'm like many of us in Westport, I've been aware of it for years, and it's nonconformities. When I first saw your proposal, my my first reaction was that that it wouldn't work, that

the

house itself is not big enough. The parcel is too small. But I see what you're trying to accomplish here, and it kind of brought light to other ideas in my mind. One of the things that was you know, I'm it through following your presentation through in the in the discussion that emanated from that. One of the things that was a sort of a a surprise to me was a comment that the the person who lived in the complex, so to speak, and was the overseer would live over the garage.

And my first reaction to that was, well, how is that gonna work? I mean, this is someone who's supposed to be in the midst of these individuals who need assistance or don't need assistance depending on other outside factors. Then I got to thinking about it, and I thought, well, you know what? You're you're taking someone in to manage the complex. Obviously, they have skills.

Obviously, they have, all the abilities that are requisite to provide help in emergency. And I I was recalled of a couple of situations that I've been aware of over the years where family members were actually living off-site in market rate rentals with periodic visits by by relatives. And I just kinda led to this question in my mind. If in fact we developed this property and the company that ran it had a manager who was living outside of the building but on the same property. Is it within their purview of their their capacity or within within the context of this idea to, let's say, take build, let's say, two or three units on top of your commercial space at 785 and incorporate that into the the assisted living complex.

We all know that people live with various various challenges, And, certainly, there are are some that are less challenged than others. And it would seem to me that it's just not sort of where you draw a line, either you qualify or if you don't. It would seem to me that there might be room for halfway houses for people who are, let's say, more skilled than others. What would be wrong with or is it possible for the units over the over the commercial space if you could get two or three in there. You said two.

Given the amount of square footage, you could probably get three. What would the possibility be of that making that part of the the the project on Mill Street or any project, you know, pick take a pick and have an off-site, so to speak, manager who visits periodically and is a contact person, it kind of expands the whole idea. And I honestly don't know if it works within the context of having this type of housing available. But I certainly know that there are probably many individuals out of there out there who could do very well in a sit situation as you're envisioning in terms of the new new construction on top of the commercial space.

So so it it's an interesting point, and and it was raised a a little earlier about using the space above the store for the special needs housing. You are creating, you know, a possibility. Say you do three units there and and you supervise them off-site. Staff wouldn't be present. You could have three units there.

It it makes the circulation a little tricky to get to that, bedrooms upstairs, but we looked at it. We we actually played with the model and saw what could we do if we did that. And in the end, felt that 3 George Street, you know, with the yard, would be a superior living environment and potentially getting more people served and more points. So those kind of, you know, were superior to trying to make it work on-site. The other thing is about supervision.

If the staff person were to be over the garage, the garage is attached to the house, it's not a separate building. Know, and Amy can speak to this more. You're building a family even though these are individual apartments, you're still building a family. You're creating something where people are living together, and there would be common, you know, for them as well as their private spaces and depending upon the abilities, etcetera, there's flexibility because ableist would manage it. If there was a particular and I'm making this up, Amy could maybe jump in but if there was a particular population that was, sort of lower on the skill set that needed more supervision, know, maybe the staff person does live in the main house and someone who is independent, with special needs would live over the garage and then it could change over time.

So we're not locking ourselves in, We're a a model that we know works at one thirty six, we know works elsewhere and would have flexibility to adjust. So I hope those two things help answer your question.

Anything further, Michael, to ask the applicant?

Okay. I guess, you know, one one thing further in terms of the environment, in terms of special needs people, and in terms of think about some of the concerns that the neighbors have over there about their street and being worried about traffic on their street. Now think about three special needs people living above the store with 14 condominiums and all the commercial users driving right by them with no place to go out and play or, you know, have a garden, etcetera. So now you're putting those people at much more risk than they would be at 3 George Street where there, you know, nobody else is driving by them. They're on their own lot.

So I can think of a lot of reasons why, you know, it's superior. So, you know, it's always nice if it's simple and and right now and and to commissioner Schiavone's issue about being concerned about a barrage of applications coming, a, we can look back and see in in nineteen years, we've had three, but doesn't mean that there couldn't be. So we still have to be protective. But I can tell you that it it's evolved in communities. So I've been writing this in Stanford for decades and what's happened there is it is now up to the developer.

The developer makes the decision, not the town, whether it's on-site or off-site. And the last four applications that, were three applications that we've done Downtown Stamford, they've all been on-site even though the developer could go off-site. So, you know, this I don't think there's gonna be a barrage. We can work together to limit the applicability, and I don't think having them on-site between a car wash, a car dealership, and traffic going past them, is it any way better for the town or for the people living there than 3 George Street?

Alright. Mister Cleese, redress. Additional questions?

I'm I'm I'm good. I'm good for now.

Alright. Very good. Other commissioners, mister Vellante?

Yeah. I I I don't know that I have a lot of questions. Rick's done lots of talking, and there's a lot to process. I'm not sure I'm not sure hearing more, is gonna inform me anymore. But I I guess I I do still struggle with this idea that the Planning and Zoning Commission will have the sole discretion of what happens in the future.

Because when I when I read what attorney Gelderman said, he said that it's it it it's not an unlimited sole discretion or standards, and that we we we do need to be cautious about that. And I frankly don't agree that we're gonna somehow find a way to, wall off future applicants from wanting to cite an approval such as this for their purpose. They're gonna be free to cite whatever they wanna cite, and we're gonna get drawn into it whether or not we we think we've walled it off or not. So I I just have real concerns around opening the barn door, I think, was was referenced as the point. So I I guess I do worry about that.

And then the point I've been struggling with is this idea of need versus demand. And that the applicant is stating that but you have this need because everybody wants this demand, and I just I guess I don't equate need with demand. There there may be demand for a lot of things, but that doesn't, to me, equate. That means we need that. So I I have to process the difference of what those two are.

While I certainly support the goals of Ableist and what they're trying to do, and I'd like to find ways to help them expand the services within the community, I do get tripped up on. All we have to do is change this text amendment, change this text amendment, and then move this piece over here, and then somehow it works. I think, and I think it was Craig's point about unintended consequences, I think those are real. Rick, I'm not really asking for a response.

No, well I think it's important to respond.

I appreciate that, but if I could finish.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were done.

So I'll bring it back to Paul. So I just think, and I'm really speaking to the commissioners here, I think these are the things that we have to kinda process here. And I I don't mean it to be a debate in that regard, and that's why I cut Rick off. Was to say that I do think that we have to think about, to Craig's point, what is good for the town. What is also good for the residents who have seemed to be unanimous in their concern on George Street, and what what that really means to them and what barn door does open. And I think I'll leave it there.

So and I apologize. I didn't mean to cut you off. But I I think it is important to do this because I think it's important that each application and each time we we learn something together. And so you're if you look at your moratoria points and you look at the number the 24 projects that are looking to get, you know, the first and the second 175% of them had text changes. I think it's important that you realize that that's what happens.

So it's that that's that's the nature of land use. It's a dynamic process and we have to keep adapting to take advantage. We're we're not in a cornfield starting over. We we have, you know, communities. We have streets and all these things need to be balanced.

So right now, if you look at what's being produced, if you look at your eight thirty g's that you and you have a bunch and you're producing a lot of units and those are typical affordable units. They're not serving special needs people. So you know, it's need, demand. What we've learned in in having one thirty six and having the waiting list and being fortunate to have four graduates of Staples. It was pretty remarkable when I learned that that are here.

So it was an unmet need and you're producing dozens of units and dozens of units of affordable housing hundreds of units and dozens of units of affordable, but you're not producing the special needs. So I I guess, you know, sorting through need, demand, you know, it's it's what does the town wanna do? You know, we have very limited resources and we're trying to meet a variety of needs and you're not gonna meet them all. So how do you just balance it and you evaluate that when an opportunity presents itself to you? And in terms of walling off, you absolutely can wall off.

And and if, you know and I'm not suggesting that you do. I I'm I'm suggesting that if you wanted to and you wanted to say, let's see how it works or we're worried about future, but we like this one, then then, you know, I I I I'd say that, we could limit it to existing IHZs. This is done all the time. So you can have off-site if you are an approved IHZ at the time of the adoption of regulation. It's done all the time.

Which is how many, Rick?

Which is would be two on two, which would be this side, 785 and +1 620.

Thank you.

K? And I can I can talk to

No? No.

20 if you need me to. No. No. No. No.

Just wanted to put a

thing is

Just wanted to put a number on that.

Okay. The the second thing is the sole discretion. So when you ask for something that is outside of the norm, you know, you don't it's not the same rights as building a single family house and going in and say, I'm gonna build this house. It's gonna be an ugly box painted purple, but it meets your regulations. You can't stop me.

That's that's, you know, where there's you you can't control those things. But when you have an application that's a special permit and it has criteria in it and someone makes an application, if it is superior, if it creates more units, if it's, you know, and and you all with all the votes to it, then you can defend that decision. If someone comes in with a terrible approval, you can deny it. The hamlet was just denied. Okay?