Plan & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the May 19th, 2026 meeting of the Orange Town Planning and Zoning Commission. I am Commissioner Ozzie Parenti, and with us this evening, Tom Tarenti, Paul Kaplan, Attorney Jeremy Gustafson, Recording Secretary Jenny Bowser, Kevin Cornell, Jamie Boyer, Owen Weaver, Town Council, All right, very good. First thing I want to do this evening, if I can, I want to reorder the agenda. I want to move old business to the end. So that would be item number four. What would that be?

Number two is old business. All right. That would go to the end. That would go to number five. Okay.

Or, yeah. Yeah. It'll go in sequence.

It'll be at the end.

Right. It'll be at the end. All right, so first item on our agenda is the minutes from the last meeting. Has everyone gotten a chance? Do we need a motion to reorder it? Oh, yeah.

Yes. So moved.

All right. We have a motion to reorder the agenda. It's been seconded.

By who? By whom?

Did you second it?

I made the motion, so I thought I wouldn't second it, but I'll second it if you have to. Let's start over again. Okay. I move that we move the agenda item that is currently number two to the end.

All right. Very good. Do we have a second? Second. All right. It's been seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Then first item then on our agenda, unaffected by the change in sequence, is a review of the minutes from the May 5th, 2026 meeting. Has everyone had a chance to review those?

Jenny, first page, third to last paragraph. Okay. Just put an I after my name.

Have I done that before? Oh, my goodness. Okay, I got it. Thank you.

Yep.

Anyone else? I have no revisions to make. It's unbelievable. Make note of that.

Actually, the last paragraph on page three, that didn't read correctly to me. I'm not sure what we want to change it to.

I can tell you. I think it should say, are you talking about the Chairman Parente? Yeah. Unconfident testimony application. That was not pending before the commission. That's all. Okay. That would be my suggestion. Yeah, that's the way it seems.

Yeah, take out after due process. Yeah. All right. Can you repeat that?

Sure.

So Chairman Parente stated that he was uncomfortable taking testimony on an application that was not pending before the commission. Take out everything else. Okay.

Okay. Anything else? No. A motion to approve the minutes?

So moved. Second.

We have a motion to approve the minutes for the... As amended. As amended for the May 5th, 2026 meeting. It's been seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Then next item on our agenda is new business. And under new business, I think we're all aware that there was an activity going on at the... UNH property, Derby Milford Road, and with us this evening is Attorney Joe Williams, who represents UNH and is here to explain what they contemplate doing with that property going forward.

Would you like me to call you?

Yeah, if you could, please.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commission members. Attorney Joe Williams with Shipman and Goodwin. Our office is at 265 Church Street in New Haven. It was 13 years ago that Lou Anino from University of New Haven over there and I were in this room with you asking you for a special permit for the University of New Haven to bring its graduate business school campus to the property at 584 Derby Milford Road. You granted that permit in May 2013. UNH brought its business school in. and then over a decade later decided to move the business school back onto its main campus in West Haven and to sell the property. Aspire Living and Learning is a wonderful nonprofit organization that has decided to purchase the property. John Sullivan here will tell you a little bit more about it in a moment, and I'll introduce him. They want to use the property essentially as is. interior renovations to the building for which they'll get a building permit. They don't plan to change the site to do any site work or make any changes to the exterior of the building that would require site plan approval. As you'll hear, they plan to continue the educational use of the property that this commission allowed under the May 2013 special permit. But even though we won't need to make application to this commission given that they intend to continue the educational use and to not change The property, we wanted to first just to build relationships here in town for Aspire to help introduce their use to you, introduce Aspire to you, and to avoid any surprises. So we wanted to give you an update and just fill you in a little bit more about Aspire and what they do and what they plan to do on the property so that everybody was aware. And like I said, so they could be introduced to town officials on it.

Captain, first name.

Joe Williams. It's only 19 years ago.

Yeah, 13.

We were both here, right? 13, yeah, I believe you were.

The contract is a done deal at this point, non-contingent, or has it still got some contingencies in it?

Well, I don't want to quote exact provisions of the contract, but it's still being worked out.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Yep. And so with me is John Sullivan, the Director of Facilities for Aspire, who wants to tell you a little bit more about them and what they want to do on this property. Got you on.

Good evening, my name is John Sullivan. I'm the Director of Facilities and Real Estate for Aspire Living and Learning. Aspire Living and Learning is a private nonprofit human services and behavioral health and educational organization with a growing multi-state footprint. For more than 40 years, Aspire has evolved alongside the people it supports, delivering person-centered services and treatment that empower neurodiverse children and adults to build independence, pursue their goals, and live meaningful lives in the communities Aspire serves adults and children in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maryland. Aspire Living and Learning plans to purchase the University of New Haven's Orange Campus as its new flagship Connecticut private special education school, along as our home base for adult service administrative offices and ancillary day program. Aspire Academy is a recognized and approved private special education school in Connecticut with locations in Stanford, Trumbull, and Naughton. We provide specialized educational services for students in kindergarten through 12th grade who have a range of disabilities, including autism, emotional disabilities, ADHD, and intellectual disabilities. Our school accepts referrals from Connecticut school districts, as well as from parents and guardians, ensuring that each student receives tailored support they need for success. For many students, their time at All Academy is temporary but transformative experience. where they gain academic, social, and behavioral skills necessary to thrive in a public school classroom. For others, the All Academy serves as a long-term foundation, helping them build essential vocational and life skills needed to transition into adulthood and achieve their full potential. In addition to our core educational program, we offer specialized transitional services for young adults ages 18 through 22 designed to help them transition from school life to adult life. Our focus is on career development, employment preparation, and community involvement, empowering young adults to confidently navigate the next steps towards independent living and successful careers. Our intended primary hours of business on site will be 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. We anticipate starting with around 90 supported individuals and 100 staff on site. Students are transported to and from school utilizing standard minivans with drop-offs around 7.30 a.m. and pickups around 2.30 p.m. Supported individuals in our day program are also transported by standard minivans and sedans. We believe the Orange Campus gives us the unique opportunity to bring valuable resources to the surrounding communities and bridge the gap in services between children and adults in Connecticut. We thank you for your time today and look forward to building a relationship with and being a part of the Orange community.

So that's our update. Mr. Chairman, any questions for me or John?

I heard adults, but you meant it looks like K to 12.

The school is K through 12. We also do have a small adult day program, which takes anybody 22 forward. It's still vocational skills, building basic life skills, meal demonstrations, basic ADA, ADLs. as well as social skills and community involvement.

No residential component for living?

We do offer that service. Our adult administrative offices support those services, but there's no living arrangements on site now.

And so you expect that the traffic will be mostly in the form of mini buses in and out during the time period?

Correct. There's traditionally the largest vehicle we see is like a four transit van, but most of them are standard minivans and sedans. Okay. Plus the employees' cars and so forth. Correct.

Okay.

Joe, I got a question for you. Sure. It does seem like obviously they're very similar uses. And I don't see that as problematic. But the... I looked at what the permitted uses as of... Permitted uses as of right, which this use is not one. And then special uses is where we got UNH in, under professional schools. Right. So would we need to... amend the regulations, because, I mean, it's a different... Professional schools is a defined term in the regs. An accredited school that awards advanced academic degrees, i.e., master's degrees, MBA, PhD, with a general requirement that students must have earned a previous undergraduate degree. So, obviously, that doesn't really carry the day. but I could envision the possibility of an amendment to the regulations that would accomplish what you're trying to do.

Well, you could do that, Mr. Chairman. I would also, let me point out one unique aspect from this situation, which is Aspire, as John explained, is dedicated to and intends to make use of the property to educate and to train students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. So if I needed to make an application or a formal submission to the Commission, I would likely be asking you for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which zoning commissions can do and are obligated to do if it's a reasonable accommodation. So I would submit to you the Commission can. I'd understand it's discretionary, but you can interpret this use as coming within the the existing special permit for educational use based on me asking you to, you know, incorporate a reasonable accommodation standard in that interpretation.

Yeah, okay. I mean, I'm not trying to decide it now. I'm just, you know, in the spirit of there being no surprise, I noticed that, and it's probably an issue that we'll have to overcome in some way.

Yeah, I mean, we've done enough of the legwork on it to know what exactly the resolution would be, but... Well, and that's what Aspire is trying to find out in the context of the transaction is whether it has to file any applications for permits or if it needs to seek amendments or, you know, a revision to the text. Our hope was by giving you this update that we would have an informal consensus of the commission that they can just pull building permits as being zoning compliant within that educational use under the existing special permit, but we need the feedback, you know? So if you tell me, no, that's not going to work, We don't want Aspire to find that out later in the trying to get a building permit. They're told, no, now you have to come back in and go to the commission. So we would rather, no, but I'm giving you my pitch that it can be a reasonable accommodation.

I mean, my first look at it was just a couple of days ago.

Is the special permit for a professional that mentions the word professional?

It doesn't. I have a copy right here. It actually says, it just says, to convert the former Hubble Inc. headquarters into a graduate school campus.

So it's really talking about school use. Yeah, I don't... There's no question it's a school use. You know... Right.

It just doesn't... It's not exactly on point because it says the word graduate.

Right. And if everybody was of a mind that this is an acceptable... you know, an advantageous use of the property. Right. I think we could handle a, you know, an amendment to the regulations that, you know, made that clear.

Well, right now we have both the regulation and the special permit seem to be, following the theme of postgraduate education, okay? But it is an educational purpose. Right. So we could do a simple text change pretty quickly to just make it for educational permits and as a special use.

I don't know why.

Why they originally tailored it?

Yeah, why we said professional schools to begin with.

Ask the two guys who are here.

He asked for it. I didn't ask for the regulation letter. Just for the permit. Do you blame it on Joe?

Yeah, obviously.

That's a good idea. Thank you. All right, fine. No, but I mean, I'm just saying it seems simple enough to me. I don't know how much more assurance we could give you at this point. I mean, you've got...

the same traffic, and it's going to be less than a business park. You've got... I'm sure it's going to be less traffic. Yeah, right. And then you've got, you know, they're both 501Cs, so there's...

There's really no difference. There's no difference there.

I guess I'll have to change the sign. Have to change the sign.

Yeah.

So between... Thinking of some language that just encompasses a broader definition of educational use. It's not like we would have to have them, would we then have to have them apply under the revised regulation? Or just continue it because now it's enveloped in the regulation. Enveloped in it, yeah. Isn't that a special, it's not as a right.

No, it's a special permit application.

Would they have to apply again, you're saying?

Yeah, I mean, if you amend it, and then if it's a special permit, you'd have to submit something, I think. I mean, also part of the problem is you don't have a CEO at the moment. So to process it is a question.

What's your time frame? Don't we have one in June?

We have a relatively short time frame for due diligence, 60 days upon signing.

It may have to be extended. I don't know. If we amend the special permit, they have to apply under it. Is there any other way out of that box?

How are we amending the special permit?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If they have a special permit and their theorem is that they're continuing the use, okay, and we're just cleaning up some language, why would they... that it falls under, why wouldn't it? Procedurally, do we have a right to do that?

I don't know. It doesn't seem like it from my friend over here.

We've got to get rid of these attorneys.

I hear you.

Nobody else here.

I would like as clean of a record as possible here to make sure there's no questions going forward. If the commission's opinion is that it doesn't fall squarely under the the RAG or the special permit, then either a text amendment or, as counsel points out, a request for a reasonable accommodation might be in order. But you'd have to, for lack of a better phrase, you'd have to rule on that reasonable accommodation, right? I don't want something just assumed by all the parties. That's not fair to the contract purchaser or UNH or this board. So some sort of mechanism, I think, would be appropriate.

Some kind of application.

Yeah. But I'm open to Council's suggestions, and I'm happy to talk to you, Council, after, you know.

I appreciate that. Well, I mean, I hope we've made it clear we're trying to do this in as collaborative and relationship-building a way. One way to skin the cat is, you know, a buyer could file an application for a building permit along with a written request for a reasonable accommodation with regard to, interpretation of the use being permitted under the former special permit and it would be for the, probably the new zoning enforcement officer to rule on. I did hear in the wind that somebody may be coming on board in the next couple of weeks. Um, so hopefully that's the case. So you, that's one way this could be done, I think, and not, not have to go through an amendment to the regulation because then obviously, obviously you need to, publish notice, hold a public hearing on the regulation. Right. I mean, obviously, a tax amendment would be longer. Yeah.

It's, you know, the usual thing. I mean, is it fair to say that we're in favor or, you know, favorable to the...

I think he hears the demeanor of what we have here. It's just a question of the mechanism to get there. Yeah.

I mean, I don't think that's all that complicated either.

That mechanism doesn't bother me. Okay.

All right.

So it would be the special accommodation would come into play. Reasonable. Reasonable accommodation. If the applicant filed a building permit, That's one way our certificate of zoning compliance.

Why don't we let them talk and we can have a formulated plan in two weeks at the next hearing? Is that fit?

If you need me to come back for it, sure.

Or else I can discuss it with Attorney Weaver and maybe we'll work it out. Let me talk to counsel in the coming days and we can figure out the best path forward.

And the special permit is transferable

Yeah, it runs with the land.

But the transfer is subject to any conditions that were in the special permit, correct?

Right. I mean, I have not had the opportunity to review it.

I haven't seen the special permit, so I don't...

It was mostly stuff having to do with UNH getting ready for their use. But if there are ongoing conditions, then yes, they stay as part of the permit.

Right.

Yeah, I mean, the first item, it was approved subject to the conditions that, one, as per the traffic study and traffic commission review, designated trees on Derby Milford Road must be removed and or cut back to improve sight line visibility. I presume that was done, but in the future that would have to continue. Prior to commencement of work, two MILR copies of the site plan must be submitted to the Orange zoning department. Also, two copies of the approved project must be submitted on computer desk, etc. We have no problem with that. And a site completion bond must be submitted to the town of Orange.

Right. That was all for the site work that UNH would have had to do to get a building permit, which they did.

Right.

That's probably been released.

So that's it. Those are the conditions. Yeah. So there's, you know, the special permit's in place. It's transferable. It's not subject to any conditions that would. So, I mean, I think the answer to the question is it can be done without, or it seems like it can be done without any.

We'll figure it out.

Without any permit or approval from zoning. Possibly, yes. All right. So you'll be in touch. Yes. And work out a plan. And when we get a new zoning enforcement officer, hopefully within the next week or two, we'll have this on the top of his pile.

I have a lot of stuff to give him or her.

Right.

All right. But we'll make sure.

We can be very persistent.

Does that do it?

Yes, thank you.

All right. Good. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Nice to see you. Thanks all. Thank you, John. Very good. All right, next item is report the zoning enforcement officer, that's not going to happen tonight. Next item after that would be old business. The first item, we'll come back to that later, the zoning regulations, The modifications that Owen drafted to the existing regulations in order to comply with the state law, the new state law. So we need to spend a little time on that later. Actually, let's take that in order. We'll take that now. Is that something that's going to take a while? I don't think it will.

So I made the one typo correction that Tom pointed out. I didn't circulate a revised draft. My recollection was all that remained. For some more discussion was the Traffic Mitigation District and whether you wanted to do that. You may recall that I added that to... I made that a new section, 383-180... And that amendment was in two parts. One, authorizing this board to create a conservation and traffic mitigation district. And then two, I provided language creating two districts, one to the north and one to the south of the Boston Post Road, just for example purposes. If this commission is inclined to do such a district, On the Boston Post Road, you could actually do it as one district because those commercial properties are roughly 4% of the total land area in town. The law allows you to do two such districts, provided that they are not each more than 4% of the total land area in town, but they can be contiguous. So in theory, you could have a continuous stretch of 8% of the town's total land area. So- You could have one on the Boston Post Road, and you could pick one someplace else if you were so inclined. But that's the only thing I recall that there was potentially more discussion on.

And the efficacy of executing that gives us what? The ability to require some parking in these middle housing applications?

Right, so the way the law works currently, it's more than 16 units. You can require minimum parking, which is the lesser of one unit per studios and two units for anything greater than a studio. Or the parking needs assessment that has to be paid for by the developer. Under 16 units, you can't exercise that option unless you have one of these traffic districts in place. So without a traffic district, if you have a development that's less than 16 units, they don't have to have an off street parking requirement.

So adopting this provision, as you've written it, gives the commission some greater discretion.

yes so so for instance the other changes you're required to allow transit middle housing and mixed use developments on a lot that's owned commercial transit middle housing is two to nine units if you did the boston post road is commercial if you did not adopt a traffic district If someone came in and said, I want to put transit middle housing, I wanted the Boston Post Road parcels, they would not be, that's nine units max without an off-street parking requirement. Unless you have the district. I got a lot of blank faces.

Sorry.

I think we had discussed this. Right. This brings it home. It seems like this is a thing we have to do to give us some discretion.

Yeah, it's discretionary. It is subject to OPM approval. Once you adopt a reg, you have to send it up and see if they approve it or come back with suggested edits. But I'm not aware of a town attempting that yet, so I'm not sure how OPM is receiving these things.

So is that the significant upshot of adopting subsection B here?

Yeah. Subsection A is authorizing this commission to do such a district, and B is... I would change B. I would make it one district. I did two, showing how we could do two districts on the Boston Post route.

Okay. Okay.

So obviously we're kind of still in a workshop. We haven't published notice of adopting the regs. That would be the next step. You'd have a notice, public hearing on it. Right.

Well, it seems to me we're close enough to having proposed amendments that can be sent out.

Yep. From my perspective, I just need to be told, do you want the... Do you want B? Do you want a district? If so, do you just want one on the Boston Post Road? Or do we want to have a discussion about, say, run it up Orange Center? Though I have not done the math as to how many parcels. I mean, you're talking residential, which are not, at the moment, subject to the transit middle housing and mixed-use changes to the law. So I would probably... advise you guys to reserve on utilizing your other 4%. But at the moment, I think it's pretty safe to say you can cover the Boston Post Road with one district.

Kevin, was there something else you were worried about? I know you wanted to...

He's got a lot of worries. No, I mean, the rest of the changes are not discretionary. They're in compliance with the... you know, the fiats of our state government. But, and, yeah, I mean, you know, we've always required some level of parking, so we might as well have that, the discretion. But, yeah, I just don't see a development that's going to survive not providing parking.

Right. Right.

But there's no downside to having the tool. But it's not like you can ask for two cars per apartment. And no one's going to build them or rent them if they don't have at least one spot. But better to have a tool than not. Better to have it and not use it.

Right. So are we comfortable then, you know, With that change, we can send this out.

Right. With one district, not two.

Yeah, one district.

Okay.

Do we need to vote on this to send it to public hearing?

No, I don't.

Okay.

We can just, Jenny and I can do that. Put it on the agenda and get the notice out. Right. And there's nothing else you really needed our input on? No. No, unless we've found any more typos, which I'm apt to do. I think we're all set to go.

You're laboring my typo a bit.

Trust me. They're all over my documents.

Any other questions or issues for Owen on that? No. Okay. All right. Good, all right, so the next item under old business is executive session pursuant to general statutes 1-268. This is regarding party matter and what I had promised previously. Is that we would seek advice of council and as to the respective rights of the town and the residents of that street with respect to the development that's going on there. Advice from our council, I think we should do it in executive session. And I think we need a vote, a motion and a vote to do that.

Move to executive session in connection with the party manner, 143 party manner situation. All right, do we have a second?

Second. All right, motion's been made that we go into executive session. It's been seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Yeah, we're ready to get going again. We need a motion to come out of the executive session. So moved. Second. It's been seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Let me just note for the record that we invited counsel to be present, obviously, in executive session with us. And... We took no action, voted on no matters in executive session. So we're prepared at this point to, I guess, I'm going to have Owen Weaver, our town council, explain what our position is.

Right, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to this commission's request, I investigated the town's handling of the application for a certificate of zoning compliance for the property that's located at 143 Party Manor Road. For this investigation, I reviewed the application that I just referenced that was submitted to the town and other town files. I spoke with several town officials. I communicated with the Connecticut Department of Public Health. And I examined the interplay between town zoning regulations and state and federal law. More specifically, General Statute Section 8-3E and the Fair Housing Act. So the application in general sought to operate a residential care home and to construct in addition to the existing home on the property. As early as October 2023, the town's then zoning enforcement officer was made aware of the intention to have 10 unrelated occupants with memory care issues at the property. the CEO at that time saw and received prior town council advice. First, I examined the application with respect to the town's zoning regulations, the properties located in the residential district of the town, permitted uses in that district everyone on this commission knows, includes a single detached dwelling for one family and not more than one such dwelling per lot. That's 383-26A of the zoning regulations. The term family under our zoning regulations means, quote, a person or a group of related persons. plus guests and domestic servants thereof, or a group of not more than six persons who need not be so related, who are living as a single housekeeping unit maintaining a common household, end quote. That's 383-14B of the regulations. Now, the intended use of the property for 10 non-related residents does not on its face comply with the zoning regs that I just read. 10 is more than six. That doesn't end the inquiry, and that didn't end the inquiry for the zoning officer when he processed the application. He had to examine the application under state law, and in particular, General Statute Section 8-3E, subsection A. That subsection provides, in pertinent part, that, quote, no zoning regulation shall treat the following in a manner different than any single-family residence. It then lists out multiple categories of types of properties or uses of property the pertinent one here being number three any community residence that houses eight or fewer persons receiving mental health or addiction services and necessary staff persons paid for or provided by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and that has been issued a license by the Department of Public Health and under the provisions of section 19A-491 if a license is so required. It goes on, close quote. So the intended use of the property for 10 nonrelated occupants may or may not comply with General Statute 8-3E subsection A because it's unclear to me in reviewing the application whether mental health and addiction services and necessary staff persons paid for or provided by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services is being provided or not provided at the property. If said services are being provided, then the property would be legally used under state law for eight unrelated residents. That doesn't end the inquiry though. Federal law comes into play, specifically the Fair Housing Act. That generally prohibits municipalities from implementing or enforcing regulations that effectively deny housing or make housing unavailable to disabled persons. A municipality violates the FHA if it imposes restrictions on group homes that are not imposed on families or other groups of unrelated individuals. if it imposes restrictions on group homes because of an alleged public safety concern that are based on stereotypes about the residents, enforce otherwise neutral laws differently because the residents protected characteristics, or refuse to provide reasonable accommodations to zoning policies when such accommodations may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the housing. With respect to the latter, a municipality must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled persons by waiving certain regulatory requirements if the accommodation has been requested and is reasonable and necessary to afford disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. An accommodation can be denied if there is no relationship between the requested accommodation and the disability of the residents, or if it would impose an undue financial hardship and administrative burden on the local government, or if it would fundamentally alter the local government zoning scheme. There is no hard, fast rule on how a reasonable accommodation can come to the town. A town can't impose a certain procedural requirement for requesting one. It can be very informal, but if the town catches wind, so to speak, that one is being requested, it has to process that. So based on what was known at the time, it's my opinion that it was reasonable for the then CEO to assume that there was an intention to have 10 unrelated occupants at the property and to foresee the need to provide an accommodation from the town's zoning regulations to allow 10 unrelated occupants at the property in order to comply with the FHA. This is because the requested accommodation allowing 10 disabled individuals to use and enjoy the property directly relates to their disability under Under our zoning regs six unrelated disabled occupants could use the property The request was either for two more if the statue applies or four more if the state statute doesn't apply it directly relates to The two or four individuals disability and whether or not they could use or enjoy the property Granting this accommodation does not appear to present any undue financial or administrative burden on the local government, nor does the accommodation fundamentally alter our local zoning scheme. Consequently, it doesn't appear to be any grounds to deny the accommodation that does not discriminate against a disability. So based on the foregoing it appears that the town's prior CEO properly processed the application I understand that there is an application pending before the state for the license to operate a residential group home at the property and That license will be needed for such a home to in fact operate at the property it is it's illegal for an operator without a license to operate a residential group home without the license. So that is the results of my investigation, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Owen. That's very helpful. I think we're all of a mind that we can rely on Owen's advice and adopt his his view, his viewpoint of the matter as our position, right? I mean, I think we're satisfied as to that. And, you know, I'm not sure there's much more we have to say as a commission about the subject. So I know, yeah.

Can I ask a question?

Yeah. You can come to the... podium and comment.

I know the drill. Karen Sim, 153. So the original application that was made for the residents back in December 2nd, 2024 was under Peak View Associates LLC. That company did not exist at the time that they applied. So wouldn't that, in its sense, nullify their application because they falsely represented themselves on the application?

I'm not... I'm just putting... Yeah, I'm not sure what the legal effect of that is, and Attorney Weaver is not... not here to mediate, you know, the matter. I mean, you may disagree with what he had to say. You may find that to be impactful on the position I know you're interested in taking. We're not going to have a trial here.

No, I understand. Maybe just for a clarifying point in a future meeting, then, if it was... The owner was listed as Richard Anderson, evergreen house doing business as peak view partners on December 2nd, 2024. They didn't own the property, nor were they an LLC at the time. It was still under ownership of Salvina, Montana's estate and the property. Liam deed did not transfer until the 13th of December. asking if that has any impact to the legitimacy of their application.

Right. So my response at this time would be I investigated the ownership. I'm aware of when it transferred. It's transferred since then to a different entity, and I don't think it impacts my analysis.

Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who wants to comment? Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Dr. Lawrence Messina, Surrey Drive. I have a couple of concerns with the building itself. I'm not against what is going in. I think it's commendable to have a treatment center for patients. But they've been pumping water out of that building for over a month and a half. I probably figured there's gotta be hundreds of thousands of gallons that have been pumped out of the basement. I had asked the town sanitarian to investigate and he went there yesterday. And of course, just before that he got there, the pipe from the basement to the drainage out on the street was removed. But what he found was an opening in the floor and probably about 10 feet of water in the basement itself. And the reason why that opening is there is because they're putting an elevator system in the building. So to get the hydraulics in there, they had to dig below the flooring of the basement, and that's when they breached the water table. I understand that there was probably a spring in that area back before buildings were put in. So my concern is a health concern for the patients. When you have a lot of moisture, you can have black mold growing in certain sections of the home. Before they put the elevator system in there, they're gonna have to re-engineer the situation at hand so that water doesn't continue to leak into that building. And I was just wondering what schemes you have to at least investigate and make sure that this is done properly and that the water leakage is not swept under the rug, more or less. Right.

Yeah, so that's not really the purview of this board, but I will comment. I spoke to the town sanitarian today. He confirmed that he went out Monday, that he spoke with the general contractor. So he's fully aware of the issue. It's my understanding, though don't quote me, that they will be coming in with revised plans for the elevator shaft.

Okay.

They will be. as I understand it, raising the bed height. You are correct. They dug pretty deep. I understand 14 feet down, and they hit groundwater. So the sanitarian is aware of it. He's on top of it, and we anticipate revised plans coming in.

Another concern that I have is living on Surrey Drive, we have well water. So right now we're okay, but who knows if this leaking continues, whether it's going to affect the quality of water for all of us that live on Surrey Drive that's on the well water system. And I want to be put on record as... If in the future we have any issues with the well water, I want this company ever agreeing to be responsible for any possibility of future contamination of our wells. Hopefully that will never happen.

Hopefully not. The sanitarian also told me that that was an issue, Ray, so he's aware of it and monitoring.

All right. Thank you very much for your time. You're welcome.

Anyone else?

Greg Sim, 153 Party Manor Road. This building seems to be given a lot more latitude than anybody else in the town of Orange. They've been pumping for over a month, to Dr. Messina's point, hundreds of thousands of gallons of water out of that facility. It's against town, state, and federal law to pump water off of a building site. They're pumping it into Racebrook, which leads into the Wapawag River, which leads into Long Island Sound. A corporation doing that is subject to federal fines of $44,000 a day. So I don't know why this particular project is getting so much leeway from this town and all of its boards. And I'd love for somebody to explain that to me. Because even our state representative said this is not a federal housing project. It does not qualify under FHA in the state's opinion.

I have not seen this. I don't know what state rep you're referring to, nor have I seen anything.

Well, the state representative that represents the town of Orange.

There's several state representatives.

Mary Wielander.

I stand by what I advised the commission with respect to the FHA.

Okay, and with their, so this is the zoning board, right? Yes. So with respect to violating town regulations in terms of water pumping, why is that?

This property is not in the inland wetlands, so the regulation that was cited. They've reached inland wetlands. The property is not delineated as an inland wetland, sir. So that regulation does not apply.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. All right. I think we'll leave it there. I mean, I'm not sure that there's much else we can do. All right. So that concludes our agenda for this evening. Move to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Very good. Thank you.