Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the May 18 planning and zoning meeting. Pursuant to the state law, there will be no physical location for this meeting. This meeting will be held electronically and livestreamed on westporttp.gov. This meeting will also be shown on Westport's Optimum Government Access Channel 79, subject to availability.

The public may attend and offer testimony during the meeting by using the meeting link published on the agenda prior to the meeting. The meeting agenda is available at westportct.gov on the meeting list and calendar webpage. Written comments may also be received prior to the public meeting and should be sent to pandzwestportct dot gov by 12PM on the day of the meeting if intended to be distributed for consideration by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Written comments received after 12PM on the day of the meeting will be entered into the record but will not be distributed until the next business day. Meeting materials submitted are available at westporttt.gov on the Planning and Zoning Department webpage under PMZ pending applications and recent approvals.

So tonight we have, Brian Jeske, Craig Chivon, Patrice Zuccaro, and Michael Kalise. And, of course, my name is Michael Kamlair. I am the, chair of meeting tonight, and Brie Anjeski is our secretary. And we have Michelle Pirelli, who heads our department. So that being said, Brie, I will let you take it out.

Alright. Item number one on the agenda is a pre application discussion of proposed text amendment to section 11 dash two four eight a and section 11 dash two four four, application p z two six zero zero two two three submitted by Ralph Skarkas, which seeks to allow accessory dwelling units be attached to garages without the garage portion of the structure included in the maximum ADU building area and additional height for garages to accommodate car lifts. Time, time allotted for the pre application is twenty minutes.

Hi there. Ralph Schark is here. I will follow you guys' direction or guidance if you'd like me to say anything or if I, hang tight for discussion. This is my first one, so apologies.

Good. So let's since the pre application, I think all you just need to do is talk to us about what you're looking to do.

Sure. In short, we think that there's some development opportunity that some of these changes would afford not only owners within the town of Westport, but also the town itself. But while encouraging develop development, also keep it where it's not overdoing it. For example, one of the items proposed was to allow for currently allowed and complying structures that could be built today to be attached or to share a common wall. For example, you can build a pool house, you can build a garage, but you cannot attach them.

Or if you build a small ADU and attach it to a garage, the square footage of the overall building is counted as the ADU as opposed to just the separate governance of each of the separate allowed structures today to remain and being separate. I've we feel, that considering these, not only makes it more attractive for folks to put development on their property, whether it be ADUs, whatever. It'll benefit the town in a number of ways, one of which is by reducing the amount of impervious structure, reducing the amount of trees you maybe have to cut down, etcetera, reduces cost for owners. I I also have our architect the that we are working with Daniel Connell on the line if anybody has any technical, questions. In short or just personally, we don't see how there's any downside to allowing structures that can already be built today to be attached to one another.

And I think that's really the short sound bite version of what one of the the asks here is for consideration. The other would be to adjust the maximum height allowance of a detached garage to allow for lifts, which are more commonplace today than they were when the the rules were originally written. And increasing that height threshold allows room for folks to put an ADU dwelling space above that garage, where maybe you might have an owner who says, I'd love to build an ADU, but I have a detached garage. Or my priority is a garage, and I don't wanna have three or maybe even four separate structures on my property if, let's say, I also want a pool house. So that also ties back to the allowing them, allowing these allowable separate structures to share a wall.

We just feel there's a lot of opportunity in all that, and I'll pause there for a minute. Anybody has any questions?

You have a question. Commissioners? Who wants to go first?

I I have a question. This might be more for Michelle. Are there currently limits on the size of a detached garage?

No. Detached garages can be any that there's no limit to the square footage of the for the building area provided you have enough coverage. So it's the only accessory structure that does not have a limit in this size.

Okay. But as yeah. As we know, ADUs have a limit, so pool houses would also have a limit on their side.

Yeah. Everything is 300 square feet Except for aside except for ADUs Okay. Which can be larger.

And then as far as garages go, the height limit on a detached garage is

One story, 16 feet to the midpoint.

Then for other structures like pool house, I know, like, I know I'm more familiar with the ADU height limit. Yep.

The pool every structure is one story. Every deep every accessory structure is one story, 16 feet in height, except for the ADUs.

And I assume there's no restriction on, like, the number of, I guess, garages that people can have? You can have an attached garage and a detached

garage Yes.

As long as you can

As long as you have the the adequate coverage. Yes. That's right. And comply with all the other step you know, setbacks and things like that. Yes. That's right. There's no limit to the number of detached structures you can have.

K. Do we know how other towns in the area handle ADUs? Do they allow them to be attached to garages?

I do not know. I do not know. Could certainly do that research, but I'm not aware.

Okay. I just wonder if you knew off

the top of your head now. Yeah. No.

Okay. Yeah. Those are the only questions that I had right now.

And, Bree, your example real quick as a as an illustration. It's like maybe I could again, assuming I have the the amount of allowable coverage where I'm under the threshold, I could build an 8,000 square foot garage. Not that I would do that. But if I build a 3,000 or 2,000 square foot garage and attach a 500 square foot ADU, that becomes over the limit. So

Yeah. I mean, I the the part that I guess I'm sort of struggling with on this one is ADUs generally do not have garages unless they fit above the garage. Is that right, Michelle?

Yes. That's right. We changed, the regulation recently to, state that you can put an ADU above a detached garage as long as you comply with the building in the area requirement of 850 square feet. Yes. So you can put it above, but but when you we've always been conservative about looking at garages because they could be any size and not allowing, like, a shed to be attached, or we've always been conservative in terms of making sure that it was only for the storage of of vehicles just because there is no size maximum threshold.

So so we we wanted to clarify that when we recently modified the ADU regulation to indicate that it was from us, you know, that it was authorized to do that.

Yeah. I just To me, it just seems like this is something that would be certain properties, it's not gonna matter. And in certain areas, neighbors are gonna have a problem with what essentially looks like a second house on the property. And so that's my hesitation, and that's that that's my concern with this with this post amendment is that it's probably that it doesn't seem to be, like, a one size fits all thing, and it would need to be, I guess, nuanced to Yeah.

And I think Sorry. Just to add on to that, I think, you know, the idea, of course, from previous commissions was that, you know, accessory structures do remain accessory and and smaller, you know, much smaller than the single family houses.

Yeah. Okay.

Great. Great.

Alright. Thank you. I'll let other commissioners ask their questions.

Mike, Patricia Craig?

Is there a specific proposal that this text amendment is attached to?

I think I can address that, Dan Conlon, for the record. So so we've been playing around with some ideas on this property for quite some time, and and we brought into, to zoning staff a proposal that that was very much like this because I frankly couldn't find any language that prohibited it, that you could attach these two things together. So so basically, idea is that we would like the ADU function and the garage function to butt one another, and that that creates a great deal of design flexibility. So, you know, what what a garage means to one person is a little different than another. So if you have a collector car kind of a garage, a little living space attached to that is something that that people want and see value to.

And as a ADU in in our particular and I apologize for not having drawings here. But in our particular thought about this project, we're trying to combine three functions in a single building. We're trying to combine a detached garage for the owner who is a hobbyist and and he would like to store a couple extra cars. We have the ADU function which will create a bonafide dwelling unit for whatever purpose that might serve now or in the future. And thirdly, it becomes the pool house also.

So the sort of living space of the ADU doubles as the pool house. The, and then the, you know, Ground Floor could connect to the garage so you could be in this one space, enjoy what's going on in the garage with the cars, service the pool, take an amount of development that's otherwise permitted and concentrate it a little bit. So that was the genesis of the whole idea.

It it sounds like an interesting proposal. It's hard to conceptualize, especially, with with, the heights that you are looking for in the garage. My understanding, though, and I thought it was kind of a a, requirement of the ADU, which we have, addressed before and with some discomfort, is that it is detached from the dwelling unit. And I don't know if that would include the garage, but we've come up with some, applications where one or two inches was left between. And I know that that the, commission had some issues with that.

And, Michelle, maybe I don't know if I'm misstating enough, but maybe you could give a little clarification on that.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I'm sorry. I

was Well, just just my understanding is ADUs needed to be separate from the main structure. Whether I I don't know where the garage fits into that and that, you know, we have had issues with ADUs coming in where they have two inch separation, and and we have not been comfortable with that or or have outsized, the primary dwelling unit or threatening to upsize the prime primary dwelling unit. And I think I was just coming on to the commission when when one of these was, being, considered, and maybe Brie or Michael have something has something to say about it that could clarify it in my mind.

So, yes, we did recently change the regulations to, require a 10 foot separating distance between an ADU and the principal dwelling. So that recently was done because we did have kind of this interpretation of the regs that there was no specific minimum separation. So it could be two inches, which felt very, you know, obviously not very separate from the single family dwelling. And in terms of but I just want to go back quickly to the ADU above the garage. Think, mean, it still has to comply, has to fit within the parameters of the, regulations for an ADU.

So I think that's what makes it a little bit different. The size of the building really can't it still has to fit within that envelope of the building. Whereas in this case, when it's adding onto the footprint, even though they're both compliant, it's just making, like, the massing of that one building larger. I think that makes it a little bit different. I don't know if that answers your question, but we have had many iterations of changes to the ADU regulations because we've had some unintended consequences of having them not really look accessory or feel accessory to the single family dwelling.

So that's kind of a little bit of history. I don't know if

If it helps, I

can ask

you a question just in terms of the the regulations. In in terms of a freestanding garage, which is one story 16 feet, no area limit on it other than the coverage on the lot Mhmm. Can I put a bathroom in that garage? Can I put anything other than a car?

No, it's only for the storage of vehicles.

Okay. Okay.

So this

proposal that Mr. Sharcus has come up with is simply just taking one side of each building and joining them together, and it gives the opportunity for multi use for that particular thing. And the commission could leave the garage regulation unchanged. It can only be one story 16 feet. They could leave the ADU regulation unchanged with the exception that you could attach the ADU to the garage.

That's that's one way to look at this, which would have the effect of saying, hey. Look. We can't have a massive two and a half story structure of unlimited area. This would sort of take those two pieces and kind of keep them where they are, but just allow them to be adjoined.

And for clarification purposes, what we had in mind was the ADU would not be attached to the primary structure and neither would the detached garage. They would be separate over there in a in a different part of of the property. And that's also thinking as I've been on a number of these meetings and, just in general, just watching and listening. And, I've perceived, just concerns about, the importance of development, but not overdoing it or things like we have, new construction in town, maybe have, like, one acre of woods that now comes becomes one acre of lawn. Right?

So we also felt that if these are already allowed, is there any harm if they're attached to each other? Like, if all rules still are in place and remain the same and now we don't need a a walkway in between, we don't need the impervious things, materials in between. If the town is looking to encourage the idea of this development opportunity, there's also a cost savings separate from those materials. The adjacent walls, even if the buildings were separated by 10 feet, they'll have to be fire constructed, and that adds cost. Cost is a deterrent.

I don't know. We're we're really genuinely trying to trying to think about, like, what could the downside be? And, I don't know. Personally, I think it's a it's an upside that you don't have to have three or four structures on your property. Like, let's say you want a detached garage and a shed and a pool house, you know, now it could look like you you're developing a mini compound, with all these separate structures.

Theresa, Mike? Theresa, maybe you go first.

Sure. You know, I'm a little actually confused about this application because I am not really clear what you guys are trying to do. So I think you're trying to do two things, which is either an either or. Right? It's either attach an ADU to another building, specifically a garage. And then the other question here is the height of the garage.

I I think that's correct. There there there are two different proposals there, and and the and the commission could, you know, consider, one or the other. So in the scenario where we don't change the garage height regulation and we just allow the ADU to be the height that an ADU is allowed to be and governed by all the rules of that, we're just going to join the two buildings together. Okay? So there would be no change in the allowable height of the

Let's talk about that for a second. Why do you want to do that?

Well, quite simply, this ADU can have three purposes. Okay? It can be the pool house because it's going to be part of a pool development. It can be an ADU. So it's an extra dwelling unit. Over time, there may be somebody living there. The owners want to be there a long time. This may be a caretaker, what have you. But all the reasons that you would want to have an ADU, they like to have an ADU. And thirdly, by attaching it to the garage.

And in this case, full disclosure, the owner likes cars and he'd like to be able to go out and have his cars in the garage and walk through a door and use a bathroom or walk through a door and have a space with maybe a window that you could see the cars. It's that simple. So we're trying to combine

the Yeah. No. I I I get that. I guess why wouldn't you just go to the ZBA and build yourself a garage and then ask to put a bathroom in there?

I I I think that would be dead on arrival.

So you think a text amendment that's gonna impact the entire town is a better idea?

I I I think it's a reasonable proposal.

I think

it's a reasonable proposal for for taking the two functions and allowing them to be joined. That's that essentially, that's the crux of it.

Is there a room on this property to have it detached by compete?

Sure. There is.

Sure there is.

But and again, another reason why you wouldn't go to ZBA, but but would you rather have eight buildings on the property or two?

I think we would, honestly. I'd rather, have a text amendment to put a bathroom in a garage. That's I would I would prefer that because I think that, it makes sense if there's no square footage limitations except for virtue of coverage and someone needs to use the bathroom, and I'm talking about just a toilet and a sink, not a shower, to me, it makes more sense to have facilities in a in a gar in a garage that somebody might be spending time in there personally.

Yeah. Fair enough.

Okay. So that's that's that. And then the height of the garage, are you looking to increase the height of the garage? Like, you know what you wanna increase it from 16 feet to something else?

Well, if you if you put an ADU on top of a garage, you're allowed to have a two story building with with a greater height of 26 feet with some very specific rules about how you measure that. So that already exists. So if you wanted to put an ADU, essentially an apartment over a garage, that's allowed by the regulations right now, just limited by the maximum building area of the ADU and and the garage. So it's as I recall, is it 850 square feet, Michelle, that that's the

maximum So building

you can have an 850 square foot ADU on top of an 850 square foot garage. That's allowed by the regs right now.

So so are you

I think what I think what Ralph was getting at was if you let that be a little taller, he could have vehicle lifts in the garage bays and put an apartment on top because currently, the 26 foot reg wouldn't allow that. There wouldn't be physically enough room to do that. And so Yeah. Okay. So that's that's a that's a that's a separate proposal, really. There's sort of two different ideas.

The proposal is so the proposal is only increase the height of the garage only if you have an ADU on top.

Right. Correct.

You're not looking to increase the garage just generally?

No. No. It it to to allow the ADU to go on top. That's right. Because, you know, I've built freestanding garages in Westport, large structures with the with the 16 foot rule, and I've gotten lifts in there. So it can be done. You just can't put anything on top of them.

So you can put the lifts in there at 16 feet?

Right. Right. The the the advantage yes. You can. Because we need about 12 feet, we can make it work.

We we have made it work in the past on, on projects in in Westport and elsewhere. The the, you know, upside of the other proposal is that if you put the ADU on top of the garage, you do have a more massive structure for sure, but you have a little bit less footprint. Right, if the ADU is not to the side of the garage, there's less building footprint. That was the thought there. But really what we wanted to do, which we seemed like it was a reasonable proposal, was to take this this ADU and and make it, you know, a basically, three purpose structure without making it any bigger.

It got to be our pool house. It got to be our ADU, and it got to serve the garage. All of the above.

And what height do you wanna make it with all of the above?

Ralph, did you have a number for that? I I see, all we could do all of above without changing any of the heights. We could, you know, we could allow a a Yeah.

I know. On the side. I understand.

Yeah.

But if you if you put it on the top, which is allowed, what's the height that you need?

I think we need another three feet. We need another three feet to allow the clearance.

So it would go

from 26 to 29 feet?

Yeah.

That that would be a practical number just from my Okay. Point of view of discussion. Okay.

Thanks. Mike Lewis, thoughts or comments on this one?

The only concern I have is the height implications. I mean, essentially, we're staying within coverage. It's just the height height exposure that was concerned me. So

my turn. Now I'm a little confused just to clarify. Garage can be 16 feet, and the ADU can be 26 feet. Is that accurate, Michelle? Showing your head. Yes. Okay. And we wanna

Yes. Yes. But we measure them differently. 16 feet to the midpoint and 26 feet to the peak for the ADU.

But the ADU can only be one story, or can it be two stories?

The ADU has no no no stories requirement.

Whatever they can fit inside of that, they can fit inside of that. Correct?

Yes.

Alright. So I guess just having the conversation, forgetting about the topic for a second. I don't think the intention was to have a small mini house on the property where you have an EVU and a garage. I also don't have a problem taking the garage, making the garage a little bit taller to put the lifts in there even though you probably don't need you can probably get away with 16 feet. You know, I know people who have 14 feet and they have an SUV and a sports car on top of each other. Even if you wanted two Suburbans on top of each other, maybe you need 20.

I don't

know how many feet you would need for that, but and I'm also, like, generally speaking, you know, if you wanna have a nice garage with some nice cars in it and then have a place to hang out like a man cave, that sounds cool. Right? I get it. But it's not and I'm okay. Also, Patrizia is talking about, well, why don't we just allow for a simple bathroom in a garage?

That makes sense to me as well. When you start mashing everything together, it's starting to sound like you have your house on one side of the property and you have your front house on the other side of the property. And is that the intention of the regs and the rules? And is that just or should that just be a one off for the property? I mean, technically, that is a variance, but I get it. That might be dead on arrival because where's your hardship? Well, I can't have four part. You know, it's like, I get it. Right? So it's a tough place from a P and Z point of view that we're sitting at, I think, at least for me, because I wanna say, yeah, this makes sense.

First off, it definitely makes sense to have this the the garage be a little bit bigger. So if you wanted a text in it to do that, I also think we could put a bathroom in a garage because there's plenty of people that are hanging out in the garage these days, that, you know, might wanna have a fridge in the garage, be hanging out, have a TV in the garage, and that's sort of their man cave. And they're checking, you know, on their nice cars. They're in there kinda like collectors. I mean, essentially, what did Autostrade do? Right? I mean, that it's do they have a bigger version of that? And why can't you do that in your own house? I don't see a problem with that. I just don't love the concept of like, hey, an a an ADU was meant for a purpose.

And now we're skirting that, and we're trying to extend the regs to fit something that it's not meant for. A shed meant for a purpose. Now all of sudden you put the shed on one side of it and you put the garage in there and you put a hangout space in there. It's sort of like a maintenance shed. I don't know if it's too soon for that, but it's just like you're mashing everything together. And I I don't know if the regs were designed for that. That seems more of a one off thing and like a cool barn on a property. Right? Michelle, how would somebody achieve that right now within their eggs? Because there are people that have barns on their property that are garages.

I know didn't we approve, a garage office and gym on North Ave or something like that some at some point recently?

Yeah. Those are that was pre that was a preexisting structure. It was an old barn. So we have an ADU regulations where by special permit, you can permit a larger, accessory structure if it's preexisting. So you can convert a barn into an ADU if and it could be larger, but you have to already have that building. It's like a preexisting building.

So then the bigger discussion so at one point in time, the PNZ or pre PNZ, like, accessory structures were allowed on property. As long as you were within your coverage limits, you could do whatever you wanna do. Is that the idea?

Yeah. I mean, I think barns barns were allowed up to a certain size, and I yeah. I don't I don't have the specifics of when.

So get this so barns were

left still are if you keep livestock in them. You still are

Yeah.

That's But so, like, the barn was meant if you're I'm just taking a guess. Whether it's livestock or the barn for your horses and buggy because you needed more stuff. I mean, how is it any different than a car these days? I'm just saying, like, I think it's a bigger conversation as a PNZ that we should say is, okay. Can someone have an accessory structure that they wanna just have a cool garage on property? Because that's what this is. If you wanted a pool house, yeah, maybe you could do an by I mean, again, the pool house is skirting the the topic by calling it an Like, why can't people just have a pool house on their property? Right? So I think it's a bigger discussion to say, I want a shed. I want a pool house.

I want a garage that has a gym in it or, you know, a cool hangout space on the in the second Story of it. It's we're trying to, like, almost fit something in the regs that's not the regs aren't designed for it. We maybe should just design something new if that's the direction we wanna go in. And then at that point, we would want ZBA input. But for this, I guess I understand what you're saying because we're caught in a tough spot because ZBA might say, where's your hardship? And you have none. And we're saying the regs aren't meant for this, we need a text amendment. But I think it's a bigger discussion than just, yeah, we need a text amendment. Bring something.

So so I have I have one thought. I do a fair amount of work in the town of Greenwich, and they have accessory structure regulations whereby if you exceed a certain threshold of square footage, that it's a special permit application. And so it's actually a special permit that's heard by the ZBA. And it's not a variance. It's a review to determine if the accessory structure remains in, I'm gonna use the word subservient, but that's not the right word in the regs.

It really

means secondary to the principal dwelling. That's another possible path if this is something the commission would prefer to do. We were just trying to just do something really simple and allow two, permitted, buildings to be attached to one another. And I can understand why there might be some pushback and stuff, but in your regs right now, I can have a 1,700 square foot ADU on a house on a lot where the principal dwelling is 1,200 square feet.

Yeah. That's kinda kinda You know? Awkward. Right?

Yeah.

As we're talking here, part of me says that this should go into subcommittee, and we should figure this out. I don't wanna, you know, hold anything up, but I think he I have to think we have to and commissioners chime in here, but we have to think about things on a call it town basis, town wide basis. We can't think about one the one offs. And if this is a good idea, maybe we should consider how to implement this good idea in the right way and not just saying, yeah. Sure.

You know, bring a bring a text note that, you know, the garage can share the wall with the EDU, and you have your pool house and your garage with the door in between them. You know, we just changed the rules to say the EDU has to be 10 feet away because it was designed to be a separate structure. And someone skirted the rules and put one inch away. And, you know, that that got around your coverage limits. Right, Michelle? That was

Yeah. There was an exemption of 350 square foot exemption for lots under an acre and a half. Right.

And since we've gotten rid of that, but we're learning, obviously, restarting. But, I mean, is this something that you guys come to subcommittee with a text amendment and we talk it through? Is it something that you just come to the full commission with a text amendment and we talk it through? I don't know the right path here.

My con Yeah.

Craig.

Can I just ask one question? It it sounds like we're we're really not talking about an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit. It's I mean, you can mold it. You can really mold it into that, but what we're really talking about is an accessory unit on the property. And and correct me if I'm wrong, mister applicant, But, I mean, if we have to if we have to squeeze it in as an ADU and make it look like, you know, there's a full, you know, living unit there, we can.

But I I think this drills down to just accessory units on the property, which then I would agree with you, we'd go to subcommittee on. But and then and then ADUs don't have garages.

Yeah. Yeah. So I think, thank you. Thank you, Craig. I think you're you're you're picking up what we're putting down. And same thing with with Michael, I think, and some of that dialogue he's had before. Like, yeah, some people kinda, hanging out with the cars just like some guys, like, doing that type of stuff. Right? Like, really? Like, we would like a a detached garage on the property.

We would like a pool house with a mini kitchen in it and a bathroom because let's you just want to make something to eat outside, you know? And it would be better, I think, more just appealing and design potential if I could have those things attached. I'd then would like I think a lot of people would also prefer that to having these multiple already allowed structures on the property. Like, I can't just build off these things separate right now, and so can anybody else as long as you're not over your coverage. I don't know. That's just that's just the plain version of the story, I guess.

But you're not asking you're not envisioning the dwelling unit that the ADU you're you're you're envisioning an accessory unit, not a dwelling unit.

Well, I I don't think that's completely true.

Right.

It's certainly it's certainly a multipurpose structure that that it could be an ADU, and and we've talked about, you know, Ralph plans on being here a long time and if they ever need a caretaker or whatever to live there. But I got to believe the majority of the ADUs that I've seen are just pretty fancy pool houses. And the whole intent of the regulation was to try to create affordable housing. I don't know how successful that's been, quite honestly. But in in this case, we're, we're just proposing to take two allowable, functions and put them together in a way that, in our case, we believe would lower the amount of development on the property.

That was the goal. And if we're not getting there in a way that makes sense from a regulator's point of view, maybe there's some other way to look at it. But I understand that the concern would be mass, right, that you don't want to have big massive structures on property, secondary structures. I get it. Exactly how to do that, in our case it would be you take the ADUs, apply rules and apply that to the ADU and you take the garage rules and apply it to the garage and let them butt.

But maybe there's a happy medium where you say the footprint of the ADU has to be reduced in that case. So you can't have a 1,700 foot ADU with an unlimited garage. I can see how there would be traps from the town's point of view that, as Michelle said, unintended consequences of the of a regulation change.

Yeah. So I think one of I I totally understand what you're saying and how it works for your property. I I I get that. It's the the problem is it's not this is not the venue. Well, no. It is the venue. It's just not the right I don't think it's the right forum. Patricia?

Thanks, Michael. Yeah. I agree with you. I think we should be talking about this in subcommittee because there's tons of implications here, and how we wanna move forward. I mean, there was, you know, just a loan to the ADUs section. Section. We had changes to it just recently. So we have to reconsider all the things that we just discussed then, and then how does this apply? It's not a and then it's not a bad idea. It's just I don't I don't really understand.

I understand. I'm sorry.

Yeah. I don't know how you draft language that would allow, you know, people to hang out in this garage.

I think we need to bring it to subcommittee.

Yeah. You have the amenities of an ADU, but it's not an ADU, really. Right? So not

I think it's a great idea. Don't get me wrong. I don't wanna block this. I don't wanna say no. I think it's a concept that needs to be developed. Yeah. And you gotta get it right because there are tons of unintended consequences that we need to think through just like when ADUs came, we didn't see certain things.

Yeah.

Michael Wait. Yeah. Go ahead, Mike.

Michael?

Go ahead.

I think one of the risks we follow here is that the D chat structure, so called, could actually become larger than the residents. And that's something that we need to be aware of and think through. Well, I think I mean, everybody here has made some very good points. And I think, as you suggested, the this the review of this belongs in the regulation subcommittee to to lay out all the possible or potential prod kinds of projects that could be developed and how it would impact on the neighborhood. Don't forget, we got neighbors around around, and they're gonna be impacted by whatever goes on on this property.

I don't I don't know which property we're speaking of, but it definitely is something that needs to be studied and not acted upon at any time.

Michelle, what are your thoughts on that?

I'm sorry. Michelle, I just wanted to say, also what we can do in subcommittee is, you know, do research, look at how other towns, you know, deal with this specific, situation. Like Mr. Conlon said, look at Grinch, look at different towns and see, you know, what what might make sense for us. So just wanted to put that out there.

I I like the idea. Great.

Yeah. I I I'm not opposed to this. I think we just need to make sure that we get it right and that we're not just and that we're thinking a little bit more holistically about all the structures that people might want to combine, and definitely just to get, ZBA's input on this. I think I remember them saying something about an issue of people wanting to build pool houses, but they end up building ADUs because they wanna put in a full bath, and it's like a whole a whole thing. So I think this is probably a topic that would be good for subcommittee just so that we get it right and that it can kind of I think there's a benefit also in have in having the text amendments come from PNC. We write them. So that would be that would be my favorite approach here.

I'm just hey, Michelle. On pre ops, Do we have the public outside of the people bringing this? Do they want to speak?

No. Not no. Only they they can generally write in letters, ahead of time, but we don't allow public comment.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So where we are with the pre op? Because I think we've spent some good time here.

Let's let's go around the room and give some opinion. I think that my opinion would be that and I and I I think that this should go to subcommittee to flush out the idea a little bit more. And if, you know, you guys would be open to coming to a subcommittee meeting and talking us through. I think that's the best forum. I don't think the best forum is just in a pre op. Well, first off, the pre op was a good forum to say, hey. This is what I'd like to do. But I think the subcommittee is okay. Now how can we get it done in a way that works for the town? Right?

Because that's our job as task to work for the town. It's not just for your property. And, again, going back, I get it. The ZBA would shoot it down in two seconds because you don't have a hardship. So when these types of things come up, we need to address them. Michelle, would that be regulation revision?

Yes. I believe so.

Can we somehow add this to the list of

Yes.

For Paul?

Absolutely. We have a list, then I will add it for discussion. And I will And

when we have that, when it goes on to the that subcommittee meeting, can you make sure that mister Shortcas and Conlin are both, you know, alerted to the meeting of when it is so they can join the meeting? Hopefully, you guys can join the meeting and, you know, give input so we can get through it and figure it out.

Would love to.

Certainly. And and, you know, we appreciate your time and your consideration and completely understand, you know, your responsibility to the community when you're considering this sort of stuff. So, you know, we'd like to see it be a solid regulation. We think it makes sense for us. And we think that it can be, something that can make sense for other people as well properly implemented. So appreciate your time on this. Sure.

Okay. Thank you very much for bringing it. Alright. Next on the agenda.

Alright. Next item on the agenda, thank you, is item number two, and we're going into public hearing now for text amendment number 868, application number PZ2600266 submitted by Richard Remnas to modify section 39 a, inclusionary housing overlay district to provide standards for development of at least 70% residential use in the nonresidential district provided at least one underground parking space per unit is proposed in total coverages reduced to 65% in section 32 dash eight excavation and filling of land to provide design flexibility, clarifies exemption activities, monetize septic related fill, like relations, and approval of a minor grading by administrative zoning permit instead of Planning and Zoning Commission approvals. A copy of the text amendment is online at West Port, ct.gov on the planning and zoning office webpage under PNC pending applications and recent approvals. A copy may also be viewed at Town Hall, 110 Myrtle Avenue in the town clerk's office, and planning and zoning office. Applicants presentation time is twenty minutes.

Michelle, should we also open three and four? And if so, do I need to read the whole thing, or do I just

I think so. Okay. Yeah. I was gonna I was gonna interrupt you, but you're on a flow. You didn't have to do the whole thing, but because we opened it last time. Okay. But, yes, can you I think we should open if everybody's amenable to it, the site plan special permit and the map amendment, please. But you just have to say.

Yep. Okay. Alright. So item number three is 455 Poster East, special permit site plan application number PZ2600265. And item number four is 455 Post Road East, map amendment number 869, application PZ2600267.

Mister Redness? No.

Thank you. I could share my screen.

For you, bro, Rick, just one thing. I think that because it's a lot of information, and I know that, obviously, you know it cold. But in the last iteration, I think a bunch of us got a little confused. So just go slow so we can, you know, go through it and really understand the presentation and whatnot.

Sure. I will do a recap, and we have our team available for any questions that come up. So if I could start to share.

Yep. I sent it over. Did you get it?

Let me try. Yes. Okay. Can you see my screen? Yes. You can. Okay. So the property in question is the Humane Society property. It is in two zones, GBD and Res A. The GBD zone runs through the site at a little different angle.

We abut GBD on this side. We abut Rez A, but it obviously is not single family half acre. It's Whitney Glen. So it's a special permit multi family use. And then we have a small section, sue gas who lives on Henhawk Lane where we actually do about single family residential.

Where we left off, I I will go through the two issues that were left trying to respond to questions was one was the building size and the other was the parking. So relative to building size, we have introduced language in the text that came both from the ARB and from discussions with staff and our team in terms of how do you prevent any, misuse of the regulation and so that it works in context. This is an application that we got unanimous support from ARB, from the board of selectmen, from the RTM in terms of some of the off-site improvements that we're talking about. But I'll I'll take you through those and we can go into more detail in whatever you want. Relative to building size, we're talking about size within a context.

Remember this zone was written, sixteen years ago. It's been modified several times as was anticipated when it was first adopted. That it hadn't been fully modeled and it was fully expected that it would need modifications over time. And some of those modifications were mentioned sixteen years ago and some of them have already been implemented. But in terms of the context of size, we have our building, we have we're next to a almost 50,000 square foot building.

We have office buildings across the street in 30 plus thousand and even larger if you count the amount of structure that's above grade. We have buildings, Whitney Glen right next door. Buildings are 25,000 square feet and so the 10,000 square foot limit is is really not necessary here, in terms of accommodating all the different things that we're trying to accommodate with less coverage with underground parking, etcetera. So that's one thing to understand the context of of the height. Another one in the context of the height is in size is here is, 212 feet long roughly building next door to us, and here's that building superimposed on top of our building.

Ours is just a little bit larger. So certainly within the context of where we are, the size of the building is appropriate. The ARB felt it was appropriate. And the other thing in terms of size is we happen to be working on a single family home in a, Reset District and this is the outline of it and this is what's allowed. So in the in the same size lot, we could have a 17,000 square foot bulk building that's allowed in the Reset.

So a 10,000 square foot limit on buildings we feel, is is not a regulation that, should be applied along this stretch of the post road. In terms of visually, this is what it would look like driving up. So it we feel that it it fits in architecturally with everything that's in this corridor. Obviously, lot bigger buildings are visually around us. So again, to the size of the building.

The next issue was the parking. So we parked it at what is allowed in the regulations and what the other IHZ's that were proposed and built and function had, but there was a concern that it wouldn't be enough. So we have increased the 52 parking spaces to make it 61 parking spaces, and we've tried to do it in a way that also preserves the landscaping and the feel that we were trying to accomplish here. It has a 22 foot wide drive aisle as opposed to the 25 foot that is normal. We feel that that's totally unnecessary to have that much pavement in terms of just allowing of the few cars that are using it to circulate.

This is that same plan blown up with the landscaping plan and this is the landscaping plan that reflects our neighborhood agreement with Whitney Glen in terms of planting on the Whitney Glen side and working with them to clear out dead material, etcetera. And I'll talk about that and remind you about that in a second. So what we've done is we've just created two parking spaces with plantings in between to sort of soften the look, you know, as you come up and, experience being in in the complex. So we did address the issue. We're way above what's required.

We're way above what the state requirements, are going to be on July 1, but we're happy to accommodate that. This is the 66 option and and this is, would be, we wouldn't have the breakup that we have and this has the 25 feet. We just feel it's a lot of extra asphalt, less open space, and is unnecessary. We produced it because we were asked to produce options, so we we produced options. We are formally requesting that you adopt this option, the 61 unit plan, not the 66, but if that became your choice, they would obviously have to do it.

There's been a little bit of comment on traffic, not a lot, but just to remind you that we have existing parking and traffic using the ITE numbers that would be 13 trips in the AM, 17 in the PM and then the all day to a 115. The as of right retail that's allowed in the GBD that we have almost 12,000 would obviously generate significantly more, multiple times more than this without any zone change, text change, etcetera. And what's proposed here, is is obviously with our 30 units with the AM PM and all day is significantly less. And then to give context, this is the AM peak is 2,000 cars versus 20,000 all day and East Main Street, the hundreds of units parking traffic in the AM and PM peak with 2,000 cars a day on East Main Street. So just to put those numbers in perspective.

One of the most important things that we spent a lot of time with with starting right from day one working with Whitney Glen is that this is a senior complex with a lot of walkers that sort of take their life in their hands and dash across here because this is the shopping center and people go there sometimes multiple times a day. And it's a senior population and they're very uncomfortable with where what it is now. And in order to address that, we have worked with the engineering department, DPW, and the r t I mean, the board of selectmen and the RTM to get the green light to be able to implement flashing rapid flashing lights, crosswalk, sidewalks, so people have a much safer with signage warning people that, you know, this crossing is coming. So we've that we've incorporated that and and obviously happy to accept that as a condition of approval. And with our neighbors in Whitney Glen, not to go into a whole lot of detail, but this has been pretty extensive communications and agreements in terms of construction, insurance, boundary verification, blasting.

I put a lot of that detail in here because that was a big issue. Pest control and construction different from, once it's opened and just all kinds of details with lighting, stonewall, crosswalk, snow removal, etcetera. So we have that agreement with them. And next, we we have the text amendment that is necessary to accomplish these goals and we've included in the gray, even further limiting language should the commission feel it's necessary. So what the first thing we ask for is that you not you do not need to have 30%, non residential.

That was set up, know, again 2010, with a different set of circumstances in town and it doesn't always, warrant inclusion at a at this location in particular. And, there were some, at least one commissioner who said, that they liked the mixed use part of it, and so they didn't want to open the door for everybody not to have to do it. So we we added a clause here that says when you're within 50 feet of our shopping center. So if you are concerned, I I I don't think it's necessary. I don't think you need more strip commercial in all locations along the post road.

But, if you think you might want more of it, we limited the applicability here. The density is the same density. It's just blended density throughout the entire site. We're not looking for any more than is already allowed, but splitting it up artificially on each zone does not make good design sense. We discussed the encroachment of patios and play areas when you are adjacent to non residential zone property.

I mean, what are we protecting with a patio or a play area? Again, one commissioner said, do you really need that? Is that important? And the answer is no. It's it's just a a little bit slightly better use for for the residents, but it is not something that is necessary.

But having, you know, a larger buffer against non residential is I don't think necessary either. But again, we leave that to you. The three stories 35 feet throughout the site. Right now, we're we're allowed three stories in the front GBD, 35 feet. In the rear, we're allowed two and a half 35 feet.

You have a pending text change that is eliminating stories and just going with height. We are consistent with that totally. But again, if there's a concern and you're doing it anyway but if there's a concern that it could get too high and bulky, we put a provision in that you could add where the third story doesn't exceed 50% of the story below. So it's not just a big three story box. So we're happy to accommodate that.

The building coverage, your question was raised because we are increasing the building coverage overall not in the residential zone but in the I mean not in the commercial zone but in the residential zone. And so we introduced a quid pro quo for that where yes, you would get, a little increase in the residential zone and it's, 2,900 square feet but you would agree to limit your total coverage to 55%. So that's a 10%, reduction or more than double. It's over 7,000 square feet. So we feel that's a a good trade off for good design.

Again, e is is a kind of a repeat where the 30% residential floor area doesn't apply when you're close to a shopping center. The section f, we we've remembered done that two different ways. We have it simply on the page before you and that is it doesn't apply where you're incorporating public sidewalks and underground parking and so that's the simple version and the last line that you see, number three, to amend it where we would add a reference to that section so that anyone going to 328 and looking for what they are allowed to do can refer to all the sections that you have already allowed exemptions from thirty two eight. So this is the simple version. The more complicated version is the one that we'll do right after this.

Mister Ginter can take you through that one because mister Gill is not here tonight. That is the one that the engineering department wants, the more universal application. And we're fine. This is our second time trying to do it the way engineering wanted it. The last one we were asked to withdraw from p z c couple of years ago.

So we're happy to accommodate the engineering department's desires and we've done that. But what's before you is all that we need to make this development work. And so that is what f is all about. It can be omitted if you do the next page of changes. And then the maximum building size, again, we put in, language that we talked about last time in conjunction with input from the architectural review board determines that the increase in size is proportional to the lot size, shape, location, orientation, adjacency to other residential properties and serves to encourage the efficient use of underground parking.

So you give bonuses for underground parking and one of them would be to allow a building to sit on top of it, more efficiently. What we've added in gray is where not more than 10% of the lot perimeter is adjacent to single family used property. What I showed you, in the orientation, we only have 8% that is actually abutting single family use property. Everything else is multifamily or commercial. So again, if you want to you know, add more bells and whistles, bells and suspenders to controlling that maximum building size, this is more language that would allow you to do that so no one could abuse it in the future.

The drive aisles may not be less than 22 feet in width. Again, we feel 25 feet is is, you know, when maybe you have a large parking lot, with a lot of circulation or retail, but this is a residential development and we don't need the extra asphalt. We did, say that you could have a general development plan because we feel that's a good tool. In this case, we had the time and put in the effort to have a fully developed plan. We do not need that in this case, but we feel it's a good tool for the IHZ.

And you know, you've you've been looking at the IHZ and wondering why is it always being changed and one of the reasons is is because how it was originally written and, that's why it needs changes. We feel adding a GDP to it will encourage more use of the IHZ. Now I I can, it it I don't know. And and Michael, when when you said go slowly because it can get confusing, Adding all this technicality and what the engineering department wants can add to that confusion. So if you want, I can have mister Ginter take you through it or we can rest on what mister Gill testified last time.

I I leave that to you to let me know which way you'd like to go.

No. It's okay. Mister Ginsert can slowly go through that stuff.

Okay. Let's see. Let's promote mister Ginter and try to think of how we wanna share this. Let me just stop sharing for a second. Well, maybe what how about if I finish and then we can let him go back to this? How's that?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. So he'll go back to that regulation. These are all the sections that you already allow exemption from 32, relief from thirty two eight. So these have been used for the Volvo dealership for November for Hiawatha, 950 Post Road, Roger Septic, and the 1141, the Inclusionary Housing District where we put the senior residents. So this is where we've done it before, but again, would rather do it.

And then as a summary of of why we think this is a great application is from day one working with our neighbors and working out an agreement. It's it's, a lot of issues. Actually, I think, four pages, nine issues includes all landscaping. We have the new crosswalk, sidewalk, improved pedestrian safety, less traffic than the as of right that's allowed already in GBD. The improved water quality and quantity, I went through those numbers before significantly improving on both.

We think the tools for IHZ will encourage its use, which is a concern that's been expressed by PZC in the past. We don't need the commercial. The blended standards and reduced coverage are all moving in the right direction of good design. The $32.08 is from the town engineer. Six on-site affordable units for nine, moratoria points points, unanimous, ARB, board of selectmen and RTM, we got applause at the end.

And the location and design is for the growing demographic of of people that want elevator, accessible units. And then the parking is now significantly above what's allowed, above previous IHCs, and above the new state law. And I think with that, I can go back to and either share my screen or mister Ginter can use his screen. But why don't I stop sharing and let him make that decision? And then, Dave, did you want me to share, or did you wanna share?

It it doesn't matter, Rick. Whichever you would rather do is fine.

Why don't you grab it then so you can move it around, and I don't have to be Vanna Vanna White here.

You got it. Alright. Good evening. Dave Ginter from, Redness and Mead. I have been working with staff engineering and planning and zoning staff obviously for a couple of years now regarding the modifications to 32.8 that the engineering department discussed at our last hearing with you.

So what what is proposed to change here? There's obviously a lot of blue changes to 3,281 which is the activities that require an excavation and fill permit. The way that the text was written initially or is currently written requires all activities to seek a special permit approval except for however many exemptions we have here oops sorry A through I these were all exemptions that did not require a site plan special permit review As Mr. Gill indicated previously there's a lot of applications that come both in front of him as well as you the Commission and with the changes that are proposed here to eliminate the requirement that everything has to come for a site plan special permit and now can handle a lot of these items that were originally exempt now is seeking a zoning permit only it keeps these applications out of your purview, but still within the purview of the town obviously a zoning permit needs to be filed for and received, where P and Z and engineering staff will still be able to give it the same review and scrutiny that it would without having to come in front of you to seek those similar approvals.

As part of that again to minimize workload for everyone A couple of the strikeouts that we added to this had to do with the the setbacks if you will to some of those structures. Like in in a for an example, there was what I always refer to as the bubble. Any activity outside of a 25 foot setback or the bubble from a new building, a new addition from the garage etc. Anything outside of that bubble was required to come in front of you for approval with the engineering department input it was decided to strike that or proposed to strike that to have any of those activities even outside a 25 foot bubble be reviewed at a zoning permit level as opposed to coming to the commission. Same thing for letter B where there was a five foot offset or bubble for drainage systems eliminate that because the drainage systems can get larger than and have more grading required than just a five foot offset.

So again the engineering department thought that it would be good to strike some of these things to simplify these applications coming to you. Where the application does not meet the rest of the standards still would either require a variance or the ability to come in front of you for a special permit application. So this doesn't really change anything the rest of the standards still apply the 20% slopes no grading within five feet maximum cut and fill etc. Those all still apply none of that changes as part of this text it just flips how the verbiage is that everything now needs a zoning permit as opposed to being exempt from a site plan special permit here. For the applications, where you know in the case of say 455 Post Road East, we are in front of you anyway for a site plan special permit application, the consideration was was being made to allow increased standards, that would otherwise be you know the as of right, if you will, and these standards here as as were explained I believe, last time by Mr.

Gill, these numbers were you know for lack of a better word made up because he doesn't really know how the previous or the current standards were created, but thinking about additional standards is what we put in here higher more flexibility is what I'll say. So the standards here that we have at thirty two eight point one point two allows an excavation or a fill up to 20 feet instead of the 10 feet Obviously with coming in front of you for a site plan special permit. The maximum allowable total excavation and fill is the same calculation that is written elsewhere in the REG, but instead of a 10 foot maximum cut or fill, it's based off of a 20 foot, maximum cut or fill. And then we are allowed up to 40% slopes within 25 feet of any lot line and not to exceed 50% slopes over the remainder of the property instead of the standard 20%. So it's all increased standards.

Go ahead, Michael. You wanna say something?

Can you just on that topic right there. Yep. That's the scary topic to me. Can you review that? Because Certainly. We're saying it cannot exceed 40% within 25 feet. It shall exceed 50% over the remainder of the property. Right? Can you just talk about grading I I guess the scary part is and first off, when the town is recommending this, I think as commissioners, we need to understand who's recommending this, that it's the the town of Ted Gil. So can you just talk about that for a second, and explain in what that looks like?

If you can, I don't if you can? But

Yeah. I I can attempt to. Which part of it? All three of them or the the the slope, the 40% slope piece of it?

The slope situation.

Sure. So right now, you are allowed, as of right, to have slopes, man made slopes, on a property that, are up to 20% or one vertical foot for every five horizontal feet you go. Okay?

Okay. That's helpful. Okay.

So what we are saying is, where you have a special permit application in front of the commission, you know, with with your extra oversight with the oversight of the Pillions E staff and the engineering department among others, we're asking that the, allow maximum allowable slope be increased to 40% within 25 feet of the property line. So you're doubling the steepness of the allowable slope. Doesn't necessarily mean that anything would change, you know, from an impact to neighbors. So that's two feet per five feet? That would be two feet per five feet. Yes.

And that's and that's within 20 okay. So that's within 25 feet of the lot line. You can do that.

Yep.

And then we're saying and then shall not exceed 50% over the range of property. Explain that part.

So that would be you know? So once you get inboard of a 25 foot offset or, from the property line, you can have a up to 50% maximum created slope, which would be two and a half on, in five feet, two and a half vertical.

So this is so And what's the existing row?

20%, one in one in five. One vertical for five horizontal.

Through through 20 through 25 feet?

No. The 20% applies over the entirety of the property currently.

Okay. So the existing is you can go one foot for five feet over the entire property. Correct. And now we're saying that if you come in 25

feet? Within the first 25 feet of your property boundary, you can go two and five, two vertical for five horizontal, and then over the rest of your property, can go two and a half vertical every five horizontal.

Okay. And let's talk about that. Why is that a good thing for the neighbors with drainage and runoff?

It wouldn't be in, with the drainage and Go with the

ahead sorry.

So there's going to be a report that gets prepared with all of this to prove out that if you are going to have slopes of that caliber that you are not adversely affecting any neighbors and really where the drainage piece of that comes into play is if you are filling, right. If you're going to be adding fill you could be pushing water towards a neighboring property line and the engineering department as part of this in letter D here is requiring very specific reports to be prepared a cut and fill analysis with drainage basin maps to prove that you are pushing water, to any of your neighbors or off-site properties and that the drainage patterns remain the same. In a cut scenario, it doesn't matter what the slope is you have because in a cut scenario, you're still going to be able to accept the same water from off-site that's running onto your property. So there would be no difference there in a cut scenario.

I'm sorry to interrupt. It's Patricia Zuccaro for the record. But what what language in here is is ensuring that we have protections in place that that the town can review to make sure that if there is changes to draining, we can reject?

Yeah. So letter d here. So we have to submit an excavation and fill report, which we prepared by a professional engineer, and shall include a narrative explaining the excavation and fill, including the quantity, of the, of the earthwork, the maximum cut and fill heist, so it's clear to everybody what's going on, the maximum proposed Yeah.

But this doesn't allow us to deny. This just allows you to prepare a report. I'm saying what in here specifically says, we don't have to approve it because we think this is gonna cause drainage problems.

Well, it's a special permit request, so I don't know that we need to have specific language to say that you have to, you know, deny or allow it. Right? It's a special special permit request. So that's your purview to accept or deny the the If excavation that

you meet if you meet the code, we have less discretion to deny it. Right?

So if if that's an an issue, again, you know, this is a a lot of this and maybe we can have Dave take us through for $4.55. A lot of this is beyond $4.55. K? This is generic, you know, working with the engineering department. But if your concern is that you are able to deny something, We could add language, but it obviously has to be language that is based on, you know Reasonableness. I mean, it's and engineering standards. Yeah.

Correct. Yeah. But I I want the engineering department to be able to say this doesn't meet our code. Right? I want them to be able to say that, yes, in this in this scenario where you're not gonna cause any adverse impact to the neighbors, you can have four whatever you said, whatever it was. Right? The the steeper slope. You can have the steeper slope. But if it's going to if they if the engineering department feels that it is gonna impact the neighbors, then they have the ability to say no.

Right. Well, that's I

I think letter e allows letter e allows no objection. You know, you have to have no objection from the town engineer to this before you would obviously wanna approve it. And, Michelle, correct me if I'm wrong since I don't think I've been part of an applicant special permit application regarding excavation and fill in Westport yet but I believe if Ted Gil or anybody at the engineering department when a special permit comes in under the current regulations if they have an issue with it they will not provide you with positive endorsement or positive comments, and either the plan has to be amended, until it receives dissatisfaction or you as the commission can deny because you know the engineering department's not satisfied. I don't think that any of the language we've added here changes that procedure.

Right. But to Patrizia's point, we added this you know something at the end of e that said objection from the town engineer shall because, you know, the PZC may deny. I mean, I think that's what you're looking for. Right, Patricia? You you wanna be able to deny. Yes. And so that would be the opposite of or not the opposite, but the result of an objection from the town engineer.

Right. Exactly. If it if it doesn't we if he feels that it's gonna be adverse to the neighbors, I I wanna be able to him to say no.

Right. Any any adverse impact on neighbors shall be cause for denial.

Sounds good.

Rick, I have a question. Well, that's good. When this so so we're looking to go from one feet to potentially two doubling, two to feet, and then then two and a half inside, which I'm less concerned about once you get into the interior of the property. Do we have and and I maybe I should know this. Maybe I shouldn't know this.

Let's say the grading works and let's say the plan works, but if the dirt isn't the right dirt, the water is gonna run right off. Right? If, like, clay is used by accident, like, if it's just not the right setup. Do we have, as a town, any any regulations there that say, like, on the actual you know, I get it from a structural point of view, this might work, but if the wrong soil is used, you're gonna crush a neighbor. And I'm I that's why I get concerned.

And I'm only getting concerned because I've seen it firsthand from a variety of people when, oh, yeah, the town approved this. But then why is the water running? Why is this? Why is that? Well, maybe it wasn't done incorrectly, but maybe the wrong like, no topsoil was used because they just took the, for lack of better words, the crappy dirt from the ground. You know? I don't is there any regulations in there to make sure that it acts as designed, if that's the right way to say it?

You don't have that currently, and, no, that's not part of the the current proposal.

Right.

Well, this and I guess what we're learning by going through this exercise is why we did not propose it this way.

Right.

And this is why the PZC last time asked us to withdraw. And last time we did it, we didn't even have an application as I recall. We did it because we promised the commission that we would try because engineering wanted to. And we're right back. It's been seven years we've been working on this and if you're not comfortable making these holistic changes, we recommend you do it as we proposed, as I explained, like we've done a half a dozen times before.

You make it specific to this zone and it gets all reviewed and you don't have to deal with all of these what ifs, what ifs, what ifs. You know, we don't want our application that we've been working on for a long time with neighbors, you know, to essentially get hijacked by trying to solve this problem that is a complex problem. And I understand that it was raised, you know, it came about because someone abused the regulation that was allowed at the time and put a ton of fill right next to a neighbor and then p z c rushed and put in a regulation that makes no sense because it may prevent things within five feet, but I've been before you with z b well, we had to go to z b a when we did Geiger's. We had to go to z b a in order to put in sidewalks, in order to put in landscaping to screen us from what was Kowalski. So we've been at this for years and years.

All we're trying to do is have good site planning, good design with good review by the town. We are not trying to redo this whole regulation. We did it as an accommodation for engineering. If you wanna do it, If you don't, believe me, we have no issue of keeping it simple the way we originally did it.

Can I just ask a question about that? I I feel like the proposed amendment that you have, if we're just doing the IHC amendment, is too simple. It just exempts any property that has a sidewalk or underground parking from all of the excavation and fill regulations. I feel like we don't really have a middle ground here. It's either a total exemption from all the rules if you have a sidewalk or this other proposal that I think is just it seems overly complicated, and we don't understand, like, the the why of a lot of it.

Right. Well, if if you look at the last line on the page in front of you now, those are all the sections where we did virtually the same thing because all of those are site plan special permit type uses. So they all get a full review. So you don't need these regulations from thirty two eight which was an overreaction to something going wrong. So it's not a matter of a middle ground.

It's a matter of, you know, an over regulation of an issue. We didn't even talk about ZBA and all the, you know, times that people have to go to ZBA to allow landscaping within five feet of their property. That wasn't the intent of the regulation to require somebody to put plant trees as a buffer. So it the regulation is ill conceived and does need to be worked on, but trying to correct all of the issues on something that was done wrong in the first place is a is a bigger lift. So it it I don't think it's a matter of middle ground.

We haven't had any issue, with it. If you, Dave, maybe you could use by way of example so they understand how it applies to April. Maybe you could just talk about what are the aspects, you know, in order to make the fire marshal happy, the cut and fill that you need. You know, we're not talking about adding a lot of fill or creating any adverse impacts anywhere with what would be allowed under the regulation that we put in. An engineering department has issued positive comments about this plan, believe. Correct, Dave?

Yeah. They've issued positive comments about the plan, not necessarily about the simplified text.

No. I'm not talking about the text. I'm talking about the implementation of grading on this site.

Yep, nope we've got positive endorsement from them on that.

And the fire marshal too.

Correct, so the couple of things that are necessary here as Rick said you know grading within five feet of a property line for where we are required by planning and zoning to put in sidewalk along your frontage of your property. In this scenario we have a steeply sloping property as you all know and we have a sidewalk that does start to encroach within our property here to create the sidewalk that meets ADA requirements for cross slopes and pedestrian ramps and things like that it goes into obviously grading within five feet of our property line which is technically not allowed under the current regulation so would require a variance and then because of the steep slopes that we have out there currently slopes that exceed 20% we would have to either add retaining walls or grade down at slopes that are steeper than 20% to catch up to those grades at the edge of that sidewalk, the interior edge of that sidewalk, again triggering a need for a variance to put in a required sidewalk along the frontage of the property. That's you know one example that either the clear modification of our simplified text or the overall text that Ted has recommended you know that would eliminate the need for variances or things for sidewalks, public sidewalks to be be any put in.

As it relates to as we continue into the property here, we are cutting significantly obviously on this property as everybody knows it is steeply sloping and in order to get the garage the underground garage in at this location here to allow fire marshal access into this property where his vehicles will not, bottom out as they, come in off of the post road and and try to climb into the site and to meet both DOT, and the rest of the town, regulations in '34 for, maximum slopes as you come into a property. We were required to regrade, the entirety of this area here to bring that down, has boosted our overall excavation and fill coverage numbers. So we are allowed if we combine these two numbers here, you're allowed 3,500 plus or minus cubic yards of cut and fill under the current regulations. And what we are proposing with the plan that's in front of you is nearly 5,800 cubic yards. Again, most of that is because of the steeply sloping property and trying to achieve the underground parking meet the rest of your regulations as well as appease the fire marshal for getting their vehicles in.

There is little fill that is proposed on this property we are cutting in the entirety of this parking lot to make this parking lot meet the slopes of the regulations. We are putting retaining walls, cut retaining walls along the property five feet off the property which are allowed. Any fill walls that we have on the West Side here to hold up these patios they are purposely shortened to meet your regulations because right now you can't have a wall Let me try to figure out to explain this. If you're gonna put a wall, on your property and have fill behind it, you can't fill by more than a 20% slope the distance from the property line. Let me phrase it another way.

You're putting a wall five feet off your property line, you can't fill it by more than one foot because that would equate to a 20% slope, that one vertical for five horizontal feet. If you come off and wanna put a retaining wall, a fill retaining wall, 10 feet off your property line, it can't be more than two feet tall. Okay? So fill walls, you know, this fill wall we put in here purposely, so it meets the requirements.

David, sorry to interrupt you. This is Patricia Zakoff with the rep again. But why is that bad what you just said?

It's not necessarily bad. It just, you know, doesn't necessarily work with all development. And if you have, if you need more fill for whatever reason if you're putting in driveways that are you know into a property that is going downhill instead of uphill into a property and you need some retaining walls around it to to catch up to grade, those walls might exceed what your current regulations are. The changes that Ted has proposed, again that larger text we were talking about, would allow some flexibility when the application is in front of you for a special permit review without having to go to to the ZBA for those.

Okay. Yeah. I guess that makes sense. We want definitely flexibility.

So what's the alternative? Just to meet their eggs and build it smaller?

Given given the well, you have if we have to meet the regulation to put a sidewalk in the front property line, we have to go get variances Okay. To put in a sidewalk.

Right. So this corner, you really don't have a choice. Right? It's either exempt it, get a variance, what like, you have to meet the regulation because for safety and for fire or whatever, you have to just do it. Correct. But the back corner

the the back the back corner oops. Sorry. None of the grading that we're doing anywhere else in the back one of the property or all this currently meets the regulations it's it's really coming into the site for fire department and for the through the parking lot here for fire department access this is what is triggering the overall excavation and fill because of the sleep steeply sloping site that we have. That's what's triggering the the total excavation and fill.

I feel like we should either exempt it or you guys go get a variance. Way you're protected from other other areas of town. Right? For the this site, it's it seems like it's fine, but who knows for others?

Well, is there a reason you're not getting a variance? Like, I I agree with, like, what Michael and Teresa are getting at. Like, it just seems like this is such a specific Because site with its issues that it seems like it's more appropriate for a a variant than to change the rules for multiple lots.

This is, as you can see, we've done this many times before. It's you shouldn't your regulations trying to encourage and in your plans and in your affordability plans and everything, you ask yourself, why why don't people use the IHZ more? Why do they ask for changes? And I wrote a six page letter when this was written and was told by the commission and asked by the commission, well, should we deny this or should we approve it and then let people come in and make changes that they need? And of course, I said approve it so at least people know they have a good starting point.

We did get a variance when we did Geiger's, but you should not have to get variances when you have full site plan review. You should not have conflicting regulations that require you to go to get a variance and then go to PZC and get it approval. You shouldn't have that double jeopardy. The the regulation in itself is flawed, and that's why commissions have six times before approved the simple version. And so to sit here and to say, you know, to this applicant, no.

Start all over. Be you're gonna be denied because you don't meet this regulation and you should get a variance first when in fact that isn't the way it should be done it's just not good planning. It's not good zoning.

Rick, we can exempt it, and then you don't have to get a variance. Right?

You yes. If you can approve our simplified text, correct, and then you don't need to get a variance. You don't need to do the complicated way that we've now spent a lot of time trying to help the town do. That's we're we're not we're happy. Don't go complicated.

We we exempt it. It works for this property, and then the next time around, unfortunately, mister developer number two has to deal with this yet again. And we get to say, well, let's just exempt it, or do we wanna go and do this what we just talked about?

You can't you can't exempt it without changing the text. You you don't have exemption powers unless you enable yourself to have them and that's what our regulation gives you. Our simple regulation gives you that power that you can exempt it in this case. And to Patrizia's point, you can put in whatever language you want to not allow someone to come along after us and use that as a precedent or to abuse it. That's easily done. So But

great. Just just one thing. Again, Patricia Zuccaro for the record. Just one thing. It it's a little unfair to say that you shouldn't be allowed to both come in front of this board and then go get variances. Right? Because you have to have some standards, and then that standard is a is a blanket standard. Right? And then people come in with individual fact patterns or individual property uniqueness. And as a result, they either are going to take the the planning, right, the planning approach.

They're gonna go to P and Z or they're gonna go to the ZBA. And we wouldn't be able to when we create rules, we wouldn't be able to understand whether each property in this town is gonna pick one path or the other, or there might be some properties in town that need to get both. I mean, an ideal world, right, it would to your point, I would love we would love to do that, but it's but it's I don't think it's possible. Right? So, I mean

Well, I mean, yes and no. You know, you again, we work in multiple towns. This regulation of no grading within five feet of your property, this is the only town I know of that has that absolute verbatim, can't do it, where even if it's helping. You talk about drainage, it could be a circumstance where you want a grade within five feet because you wanna help a drainage situation. Now you have to go get a variance to do that, or you have to get a variance like we had to for Geiger's to plant trees to screen an industrial use in a residential zone.

Point is is that if you don't have rules, right, there you're always gonna have somebody who's gonna have an issue if you have rules is what the point is. And so I get what you're saying. Let's try to make it the best that we can. But what I'm saying is is that if you have rules, someone's always gonna be aggrieved.

Right. But if if the purpose of the rule was to prevent problems and you have other rules that prevent the problems, you don't need double jeopardy. Right. You don't need two reviews, two different boards, two different standards. What's your hardship? Right. You know, you go to ZBA, you're supposed to have a hardship.

Right.

Somebody could say, and you need four votes. Okay. You you need a super majority. Somebody could not like the landscaping plan. So they say, you know, they don't like it. I mean, there's just so many reasons, good planning reasons not to have this. That's why it's been changed so many times. So, I mean, you know, I wish Ted could be here because and we wanted him here because trying to do that lift for them is is very difficult.

Whereas I would say, Michael, I would say this is definitely something that we do in my vote is that this is definitely something that we should do in subcommittee. And then I would be interested in understanding specifically what this applicant needs in order to move forward. And then, as it relates to this rating issue, which is very, very important to the town because of the water issues that we have, I think it should be, like, the top priority in our next subcommittee meeting because it's it is like probably one of the most important things that we deal with.

Yeah. I would agree with that. I think if you look at our design and we can take it through it again, we are improving water quality and quantity and, you know, bringing no extra water onto anyone. We it's a it's a unique situation with this site. And we're adding the sidewalks for pedestrian safety. I mean, you to have to go to ZBA for those things is bad planning, bad zoning.

For mister Redness, the the need to go to you before the CBA or to want to create a text amendment change, change of existing zoning, arises out of the applicant wanting to wanting to create a development, which is beyond the scope of what the existing regulations allow. So if someone looks at a site, they decide that they wanna achieve a certain level of development. And if they need to scale it back because the level of development that they want to pursue doesn't fit within our existing regulations, then the only option they have is to go to the ZBA if they can contrive a a hardship or to, come forward with a text amendment change such as you're doing. This all arises out of applicants wanting to intensify development beyond the scope of what's currently allowed under our relations. So in a sense, as far as I'm concerned, it all falls on the shoulders of the applicant.

And it's nowhere is it the planning and zoning commission or the zoning board of appeals responsibility or to to have to adhere to what an applicant wants to change to suit their needs. And after all, this is true for every application I see. If somebody wanted to do something there's there's always a solution within the realm of our existing regulations. But the idea that you can step out of that realm and force changes is is is really on the shoulders of the applicant and not on the shoulders of the boards or commissions.

Well, that I I believe is patently false. I think theoretically you can make those statements but when you have a sloping site like this, if we were to build four units there, if you were to build what's allowed in the GBD zone there without any change of anything, in order to satisfy the fire marshal, the state putting in the sidewalks, you would need changes to the regulations or variances. You're you you have an affordability plan where you ask yourself why why isn't the IHC used more? Why are IHZ applications, always containing text changes? It's because when they were conceived, they weren't properly written for all circumstances.

They weren't modeled and some of these things were brought out a decade and a half ago. So it's not a matter of a developer wanting more, it's a matter of implementing the intent of your regulations and your town plan And and if your regulations prevent you from doing that, then they need to be changed and that's that's in your regulations in several different places that that you need to be able to modify your regulations so that you can accommodate these things. Why have an IHZ? Why create inclusionary housing trying to incorporate on-site in this case, inclusionary affordable units, etcetera and all the goals you have to prevent eight thirty g's, this is what you need to do. And and, you know, it's it's it's going in the wrong direction if you think that this type of an application, which is moderate density to your regulations but needs some little text tweaks in order to make it fit here is something that you want to discourage.

I think that's a big mistake on the part of planning and zoning in Westport to discourage this type of an application

It's already

neighborhood support. So

You're

hiding you're hiding behind this act that the regulations require maximum and average of 1,250 square feet, and that's not the case with your application. Your units are larger than that.

No. I know.

You're you're Michael, where is where is the 1,250 square feet fitting? How is that applicable to Because this

your application is asking for more.

Than 1,250 square feet per unit?

I'm sorry?

I I I I don't understand your point.

My point is that there are many things that you are looking for in this application that are not necessarily a requirement of developing this site.

They're requiring I where is 1,250 square feet relevant to this discussion?

Because your application asked for units that are larger than 1,250 square feet.

The I I don't believe the 1,250 square feet is still in the regulation.

Yes. It is. And it's on an average unless I'm unless I'm wrong.

And you're Michelle maybe Michelle can can can answer that.

Yes. Michelle Polley, planning and zoning director. I believe we took it out as part of the text amendment for 1620 Post Road East. We, changed made some more flexibility in the regulation. So we didn't take it out of 3,212, but we did take it out of 39 a IHC to allow allow more flexibility. I don't remember the text amendment number, but I can find it.

Alright. Well, pause for a second on this. We're talking about one specific issue, right, with this exemption or no variance in the excavation and fill, and it's obviously a little sensitive. I don't see an issue in this application. So whatever we need to do to exempt it for this application only, I think we're willing to talk about doing that.

Unfortunately, fortunate, unfortunate. Right? Like, it'd be nice to be able to put something in place for the town. It'd be nice to be able to incentivize development where, let's face it, we just said it. They could've just gotten eight thirty g and then although they think they have to maybe comply with some safety things, but we lost on that battle with regards to the the new one that's going up right now. Right? Like, we said, it doesn't comply with fire safety, and the state said too bad. So we're talking about a corner here. Like, we shouldn't waste too much time right now. Like, we wasted too in my mind, we wasted too much time talking about a corner here.

If we see that it doesn't apply that it we're not comfortable making a blanket change for the rest of the town on IHC, so, okay, we're not. And are we supposed to incentivize development A little bit here and there where we're trying to you know, look. The land is not the most ideal piece of land, and you're trying to make something happen with it. Right? So you need us to work with you to make a change in a corner that abuts the post road in East Main Street. Like, I don't see that as a big deal. Let's make whatever we need to do to exempt that piece, sure. We don't need to get into a whole debate on everything else just yet and litigate everything yet. But let's can we how do we make that happen if that's the direction we wanna go in?

Well, let's sure. Let's go back to maybe I'll share and go back to simpler text and we and let's make sure that we I went too far. So we we have the language here. The limitations shall not apply. K?

And that we said needs to be strengthened, with some of the language that was referred to in terms of the engineering department's, endorsement, so to speak, of that. So we would take the and, I can't move it quickly enough. But if we take the language that we had You ZoomInOne. Right? What's that?

You zoom in one.

Sure. If we take let me try to do this. Either that, I can ask somebody else to do it. It's faster. Okay.

Perfect. Good. Thank you.

So if we if we look at this language let me go back one. If we look at this language, sanitation erosion plan, if we take this language with a no objection, etcetera, and incorporate that into our simplified version, I think you'd cover both bases. And you could add a a sentence here and in terms of any, you know, objection from the town engineer may be cause for denial if you wanna give yourself that piece too. But I would say and maybe mister Ginter can can take it a a step further, but that would be a way that we could, I'm sorry. Hold on.

Nope. I gotta gotta let I gotta let mister Ginter do that if he if he need to. So we could take our simplified text where we exempt it, add in the language would have the specificity that people were comfortable with and put those two together and I believe that that would cover both bases.

So

I I would look at at at Brie who is a lawyer and David or Patrizia in terms of their feeling about adding those two together, but I think that would cover it for this zone, this application. When you have underground parking and you're accommodating sidewalks, it's pretty limiting.

Michelle? I'm okay with the exemptions for the sidewalks, which I think David made clear. We need those exemptions to make the sidewalks fit and for the underground parking. I think my bigger problem is just this categorical exemption from all the excavation and fill requirements for the entire site, that it's not limited to these specific things that you've identified, which to me is fine too. That sidewalk one seems like a no brainer. Those are almost always gonna be within five feet of the property lines. But and just to say that there's no excavation and fill requirements for these lots, that's that's where you're kind of, like, losing me. It just seems it seems too broad.

Sure. No. I understand it. So Dave, brought us through the calculation. So, Dave, maybe if we can identify the specific limitations, we could simplify this.

So that if the cut and fill like you show showed on your chart was whatever, you know, 500 cubic yards and we're 4,000 cubic yards, you could put in a standard not to exceed x cubic yards. So we need to think about what can we tailor to the regulation that gets disapproved without a blanket going over everything that someone else, could misuse? You're muted, Dave, if you're talking.

Oh, you're asking me a specific question. Sorry. Yeah.

I'm I'm trying to meet, what I agree with with Brie that we wanna put the absolute minimal exemption language in this text that we need.

Yeah. So so the sidewalk piece of it makes sense, and then I believe the other piece of this that we need is the cut and fill volume total. And if, you know, we need it to be, you know, call it 5,900 cubic yards because that's just 36 cubic yards over what we are currently proposing at this time, but that's also based off of our original site plan that was filed, not the modified one to account for the additional parking. I don't know exactly if we want to put a number on it. Don't know if our

I don't know. I don't know that it needs to be a number. There's there's the formula that creates the limitation. If you just tampered with that formula that would allow enough cut and fill and again, I don't think people have an issue with what we're doing and the cut and fill is all in the middle of the site. So I think if you could tinker with the calculation so that it could get whatever, 7,000 square feet, it it that that isn't the problem. It's just limiting it so that we can cover what's needed here. So maybe you can think about that, and and then we can bring that back up.

Yeah. I think if we use the language that we had in in the Ted Gil version where it was Dave Pinto, can I share my screen?

So

here is the calculation as it's currently written in section 32,821 which is your lot area times 50% of the allowable building coverage times 10 feet divided by 27 to convert you from cubic feet to cubic yards. If we simply take this 10 foot number and make it 20 foot that will cover us. So the math is still the same it's just swapping out that 10 for a 20 foot foot, factor, if you will.

And it needs to be 20? It couldn't be 15?

I'm not gonna be able to commit to that on this, call this evening, Rick, because, again, we don't have cut and fill numbers associated with the updated landscaping plan that shows the 61 on-site parking spaces. So I don't wanna commit to a number and then find out, you know, like, a zoning permit time that we shot ourselves in the foot and and, are short.

K. I guess the other way to do it, and again, you can tell I'm not a lawyer because I'm asking questions I don't know the answer to. The other way we could do it is just put a number on it and say not to exceed 7,500 cubic yards. I mean, the p g c is adopted very specific regulations for Roger Septic, for lots of other things. So if that's the only thing hanging us up here, that would be another way to do it.

Provided the total cut and fill does not exceed 7,500 cubic yards. Correct? So Yep. There's a way, Michael, Brie, that that that could do it.

Alright. Let's move on to the next topic or linear.

Okay. Which is?

What do you have next on presentation? Where are you in your presentation?

We're we're done. We're done. Okay. I mean, we have we have the architecture. We've showed that before. If you want, the architects can take you through it.

Oh, so okay. So we've debated and litigated the corner of the piece of property. Sorry. I'm watching. Commissioners, let's talk about the project in general now. Alright. Mike Mike, well, actually, do have a question. So we're talking about the steep slope. We're talk where it's not that you know, we're talking about the sloping up. Then you've got and this is just to put frame of reference on wherever the land sits when you start developing, how high from there is it it going up? Three stories?

It we're cutting into the hill. We can put up a cross section. Let's see. I think I have a cross section I can put up.

Where I'm going with this, I don't know if you can help, is just trying to get an understanding of the topography of the site because I know it's up high. We've talked about it before, but the topography of the site and then how that compares to the, adjacent properties.

Right. So that's probably best through through a cross section. And let me see if I can blow this up a little bit. Well, actually, let me leave it this way for now because you get to see it all. And this gives you an idea of why the cut and fill numbers need relief in order to get the underground parking, which is something that you desire and bonus, here is the dotted line along here of the existing grade, and then here's the post road.

And you can see why a sidewalk won't work here and why we need to cut this back and then landscape it and landscape it, create a driveway that is, acceptable for cars and emergency vehicles, etcetera. And then you're cutting all of this down. So your stories above, which look in this two and a half stories above the existing grade is shown there.

So you're two and a half stories above the red line because that's the ground line?

Correct.

And how tall is that? What's the final story?

Let's see. Me zoom in here and move this over. And this is 32 feet from this average grade. Thirty two, thirty three feet to the midpoint of this roof where the lofts are.

So Okay. And and It's

it's less than allowed. Less than what's allowed.

Okay. No. That's fine. And then In terms of the Since it's to the midpoint, what's the peak? From the from the midpoint to the peak, how many feet is that? Do think?

I I would guess Colin is on. I would guess that's somewhere between five and eight feet. Hard for me to tell. K. But you also asked about our neighbors.

Yes. This this is what I wanna look at, this picture right Right.

And so they they were excavated out to build, Whitney Glen. And then so this is, again, someone in their second story looking up. This is existing canopy. This is the property line. These are the the plants in this particular location on on the applicant side.

We have other examples where we have plantings on the Whitney Glen side. This is the, Sue Goss who who is Henn Hawk Lane, and this is again, we show so that it's we're a 143 feet away, and then this is the second story line of fly and and that's why the trees specified in this area are, 10 to 12 feet high while the trees that are specked, the evergreens that are specked, along Whitney Glen are eight to 10 because we we have the topography that is actually providing a big buffer. Let me see what else I have for cross sections. That may be the only cross section that I have. This this is the one that is the where the where we're closest.

This is the townhouses, which are the closest to the condos and that's where we're proposing landscaping on both sides and where we have the topography up above. So we have the landscaping here and and then the existing trees and the cleanup and everything that was part of our neighborhood agreement. So I hope that gives you an idea of of how it works around the topography.

Yes. Thank you for sharing. Commissioners, anyone else have questions? You want speak?

It's a lot to take in.

Thank you. Well okay. So their application is you know, we're we're sitting here with questions. Do we what next steps here then? If nobody has questions and you wanna take it in, then maybe the move here is to just take a pause and think about it. First off, we can take a break. But do we want to keep this open? Yeah. Patricia?

I'm sorry. Just is there a convenient way and I don't know if if maybe I missed it in the staff report, but is there a convenient way to understand just a simple list of what it is this applicant is asking as it relates to the application? Right? Like, we've heard I know it's parking. It sounds like height is with is is compliant. There's not a height issue here. There's certainly a map change.

Michelle Pearley, Planning and Zoning Director. Well, I tried to go through on page 11, where we have all the regulations. There's a chart with all the regulations, and then highlighting what's permitted in the IHC and then what's needed, what what text changes are being requested and needed. And so it's it's a couple pages long. I don't know if that

which are Is Okay. This is

clear enough, but it tells you that they're asking for this text change, and this is what the is permitted if you didn't have this exchange and then what's permitted and then what's proposed. So, yeah. So did you want something more than that?

Or I

think. Okay. Yeah. This is probably good. And then the only question I have for you, Rick, is why do you keep coming in here asking us to chain do text amendments of the same zoning district that you've already you've already drafted, like, 10 times. Well,

because when it was first drafted in 2010, again, I wrote that six page letter, and I put in things like you should have blended density. I mean, the land is the land. The fact that you put a zone line through here that you have to keep those units in that area and units and that isn't good design. It isn't good planning. And so in you know, I haven't gone in and redone the whole application, but we go in and we change the parts that don't make sense as we learn and as we need.

It's really make more sense to have different overlay districts instead of keep changing one overlay district?

No. It'd be it no. You're when you create it, and I say you, PZC Yeah. Priors created the regulation, you didn't map it in terms of, you know, here's where we want it. Here's where we don't. It was created as a floating zone, and you didn't, create scenarios. You didn't look at different sites to say, does this work? Does that work?

I know. That's why I'm saying instead of doing an overlay that's floating, maybe an overlay tied to to specific zoning districts or specific areas of town makes more sense because then it's more of a a, like, a consistent planning effort. Like, this is what we want this area to look like, so this overlay district is only going to be applicable to this.

You you would need, you know, a very expensive consultant to go through your entire town to satisfy you with 10 different regulation changes that you would need to adapt to each circumstance. You have a tool and as long as the tool is flexible and controllable, you're better off tinkering with the tool you have than trying to create a new zone every time you need it. You know, you don't you don't need to have a Roger Septic every time, you know, you have a site. This shouldn't be the Humane Society zone. You know? You shouldn't No.

No. No. Clearly. But I'm saying that if if the zone works for you here, then there's other properties in town that the zone works for. And and therefore, if it's good for you, it's good for somebody else. And we should find out what it is that we want and apply it to everybody instead of instead of signaling out properties and only people who have the means to come in front of us to change the text can do it.

Well, but this is an opportunity if you I mean, we have a beautiful Beinfield building that everybody has reacted very positively to, and we if you want to achieve that, we're doing it in a generic way. We're saying you don't need to have 30%, commercial. I don't yeah. I don't think you need the proximity. Excuse me.

I don't think you need the proximity to a shopping center. You know, we we had a member of the commission said, hey. Mixed use is good. And, you know, there's a philosophy of that, but it's all contextual. Do you really need to add a a mixed use little something next to a 50,000 square foot shopping center because mixed people wanna have a place to go for something?

So, you know, if you create your regs flexible where you say you don't need to have that, you're what you need in Westport is more housing in order to have more inclusionary housing, in order to meet all the different needs of your community, especially what I'm seeing is is move down, you know, is is people that wanna be out of their big houses, but they wanna stay in Westport. They're older. They're snowbirds. There there's a lot of need in town that you can meet and your regulations should be flexible to do that. Requiring 30% to be commercial is just you know, that to me is a generic change that is appropriate.

And if you're concerned that somebody, know, that there is some circumstance out there where you wanted to have the commercial, you know, what type of commercial is it going to be? Certainly, has taken a huge hit. You know, you can't walk around town without seeing empty stores or changing stores pretty frequently. So, know, zoning needs to be flexible with control in order to continue to meet the needs of the community. So that's what we think this regulation does. I don't think we're proposing anything that wouldn't be beneficial for somebody else.

Mister Redness Mhmm. What you've you've just you've just brought forward is your personal opinion. I mean, do you have any facts to back you up on that? What percentage of our tax seven a should be commercial in order to keep our mill rate at a reasonable level? You know, there's more to to zoning than just what you're doing with the prop property. There is the implications or or the effect of what you do with property on the rest of the community.

Right.

And it may and may well be that with all of the residential construction that's currently taking place, that we're moving toward a lower percentage of commercial tax base, which ultimately is going to cause a a greater rise in our mill rate and increase everybody's taxes. There's a lot more to it than Well, let's just Okay.

Let's let's stay with that thought. What's happening to commercial property in well, Westport is so unique. It's probably not as

I don't think Westport's a good example right now.

But right now, you have major office complexes that will no longer want to be there and that will seek to be residential, seek to be other uses. So to think that you can without, you know, you said what facts do I have to back it up? What facts do you have to back it up that this 30% is going to be a benefit? I think it's it could be a detriment. I'm not an expert in that, but when you have stores closing, when you have office buildings going vacant selling for pennies on the dollar or getting demolished or proposed to be demolished.

I mean, to sit and think that we need this IHZ floating zone to get inclusionary housing to protect your tax base, I'd like to see you what proof you have that that has any validity in today's world.

So, again, mister Ridley, that's your opinion. You know, if you look at

the Just look around and what are the facts that support what I'm saying you

sign and making it to this decision. But our vacancy rate is not terrible in Westport. It's better than average. And with all of the news new residences that are coming in, commercial is gonna be as as much of a need as residential living spaces are. I mean, you you just can't sort of wave your arms and say, oh, look.

I saw a few signs, and so therefore, we have too much commercial. It it's you need to talk to the tax assessor and see what percentage of our of our green list is commercial and how supportive it is of our mill rate. I mean, you only have to go to some of our surrounding towns such as Weston or Easton and see what the impact is of a low level of commercial development. I mean, Westport's in a unique position. We've got some pretty heavy hitters in terms of taxpayers, and our commercial base is incredibly important.

It adds to the cost of running the community without creating the need for recreation or or students at the school system. So it's something to be respected. It's not something to be chopped up and thrown away without taking a clear look at it. And I know you're not an economist. I'm not an economist.

And there's a lot we both could learn if we looked into it. But I do know that Westport has a fairly decent balance, but that that the balance is changing. And that's of serious concern to me.

Excuse me.

Some of those statements that you Hold on.

Craig, wait one second. I'm on fear. Mike, finish up. Are you good, Mike? Craig, before you speak up, Michelle, had your hand. Michelle, you wanted to

Yes, thank you. Michelle Pearle, Planning and Zoning Director. I just wanted to respond to Commissioner Zuccaro's comment regarding more of a broad review of, you know, where we want housing. And I think as part of our required housing growth plan that we're going to have to be working on in the next couple of years, that's exactly what we're going to be looking at. Actually, where do we want to see growth and how do we want to see it happen more specifically and looking at just existing conditions. So we're going to be kind of going through that process in the next couple of years because of the housing growth plan requirement by the state. So that's all I wanted to say.

Okay. And and no. Let's just leave it there for now. Craig, do you wanna say or say something?

I just wanted to back into where I think that the discussion between, Commissioner Khaleesi and, Mr. Redness started is on the commercial component in planning for these in the IHZ zone. Commercial component's always been important on ground floor, especially because that's what keeps your streets vibrant and people coming to town. If we had a wall of residential up and down Route 1, this community would be dead and perceived as dead. It's just one of the foundations of urban planning, smart urban planning.

This particular site you're talking about does not one way or another lend itself to that. And this is, I think we all agree, a good use in expanding in the IHC zone into the into the commercial district, with the difference in elevation. It it it makes no sense. But sorry. I couldn't let that one go. At any rate, I wanted what I really wanted to ask is, Michael, where do we go from here?

I have one more question, but I think what we have to talk about next steps. Right? It's not just we Yeah. Continue this. It's we can continue it because we need to think about this. We need to read the material a little bit more. And when we come back, we should be prepared to, you know, either ask questions or make a or close and make a decision. Right? So are there any takeover so before I get to my first question for Rick is, Rick, what happened what would this site look like if you had to stick to the 10,000 square foot, limit?

Well, I guess there there is kind of two answers to that. One is they'd have to break up the building in a way that would completely change the design, the economies of design, the efficiency of design. We have, flats, elevators, you know, you're gonna add tremendous amount of cost and lack of practicality in terms of design. So it would be significantly different. And I'm I don't think it serves a a purpose at this location to do that.

I think the 10,000 square feet when you can have a 17,000 square foot house, I I just think it's totally arbitrary and it's not appropriate for this location. What could they do? They could do one of two things. They could say, okay, we'll chop it up and do that, or they could say, you know, we're gonna come in with a completely different application and

Right. I get it. Take a hard road. Okay. Fair enough. And given the times that we're living in right now, I understand why they would do that. I get it. You know, like, 93 Post Road East. Right? They had to stick to it, and they made it work, and it's not so bad. If they didn't stick to it, it just would have been a much bigger building on that site. This site is smaller I'm assuming, right, than that site? Well, you Is that why this works better for this site?

There's there's a a host of reasons in the the the this in in terms of the orientation. If you look at Geiger's, k, same developer. We stuck with the building size. We did the underground parking. If you if you go and you drive down the street, unless you are directly opposite the building, it looks like one building.

If you're directly opposite, you see the brakes in between the building. But if you're not, if you're at any angle or driving by, know, it it looks like one building. So, you know, that that's that's what the design does. So it's is it a bigger building? Yes. It's a bigger building. Our Whitney Glen Whitney Glen isn't 10,000 square feet. Is that a problem? Know, Whitney Glen, you've got a building that's 25,000 square feet. So we have a 47,000 square foot building next to us, but this should be limited to 10,000. Why?

Well, I don't wanna set precedent. Right? Maybe this shouldn't be. Maybe it's okay.

If you look

at precedent to this IHZ that, sure. Go ahead. Now because we did it here, we can go whatever you want in any other location. Yep. Let's But I wanna but I like the dialogue because the alternative is not what we're looking for.

Right. But let's look at the text that we put in and the language that we put in. Am I still sharing or no?

No. Oh,

sorry. So I'd have to share. And we would have to go to the text. So let me go back up because we worked on this very carefully with

Wait. Plus for one second, Rick. Of the commissioners that are here when Rick referred to Geiger's. I don't know if everybody understands that. We're getting to a point where when you say Roger Septic, when you say Geiger's, when you say these things, some people don't know those reference points.

Okay. I I can bring up a picture of Geiger's to show you. So here here's what we say about building size in order to prevent the, precedent being abused. So we said, it shall not apply the 10,000. We're not more than 10% of the lot perimeter is adjacent to single family zone used property.

Where the planning and zoning commission in conjunction with input from the ARB determines that the increase in size is proportional to the lot size, shape, location, orientation, adjacency to other residential properties, and serves to encourage the efficient use of underground parking. So

somebody else Yeah.

Yeah. So somebody else need would need to come in and meet all those standards. K? Keep in mind, you're doing this at the same time that you have a zone change application. K?

So you're coming in with a zone change and a special permit and if they come in with something that, you know, the ARB or their context or it's perpendicular to the road, it's parallel to the road and it would look like a monolithic building that you wouldn't want to have. But here, we have a building that it's perpendicular to the road. So so whether we broke up that building, let me let me just share again. Hold on. Share.

So if we sorry. I'm I'm not as swift on these things. They are going too far.

Okay.

And let me go up. One more. Okay. Sorry. This is the one I wanted.

It's actually can even go further. So if we took this building and we saw cut it and created 10,000 square foot buildings, it would look the exact same basically as you drove by. You would have to come over into the parking lot to see through those openings in terms of breaking up this building.

Right. Thanks, Ray. You're right. I I think that and for this site, it makes sense.

Right. And so

yeah. So that's what she's doing.

Can I ask a question? Rick, why do you need where not more than 10% of the lot perimeter is adjacent to the single family used property?

We again, we don't need that. What what the reason we put that in, and I apologize for having to keep coming back.

No. It's okay. Basically, that's the way to really, really, really restrict us to only this lot and nowhere else.

Yeah. But you you have the the the language afterwards is discretionary, if I'm if I understand it correctly. So all it's gonna do is create another applicant to come in here and wanna change the text because they're not gonna meet that. And so it would save us the hassle in the future of having another text amendment when this without that there, you have we have sufficient discrepancy to say, we don't like it.

Or maybe

we bulk it up to say something so that we it makes it even more clear that we have the discretion. And this way, in the future, we don't have to worry about another change to this particular

Yeah. That that's fine with us.

You know?

We we we put in the gray because people were concerned about precedent. So we put in these different gray bands. We're not proposing those because we want or need them. We were proposing them for the commissioners that, you know, wanna limit applicability. I agree with

say if if that's if that's what we wanna do it to, then I would use it more generically. Like, you know, has a lot perimeter adjacent to a single family. And this way, you you you you could make the argument that, oh, the reason why we allowed it in this particular parcel was because of the the the fact that it was adjacent to a a residential use. Right.

Yeah. Now just again, the words were chosen specifically, and I first did this in 1981 because you don't wanna write a regulation that says residential zone when in fact, it you know, you think it's a res a and it's a single family and that warrants certain protection. Yeah. But where it's res a and it's multifamily, it it's a different set of circumstances. So you don't wanna

you know? They still would

give us the it would still give us the flexibility. Right? Like, it doesn't really it doesn't really matter, I think. I think I'd have to think about it a little bit more, but I don't think it really matters.

Okay. So segueing perfectly timing, while you're thinking about that a little more Yeah. Why don't we continue the rest of this to six one so we can continue on with the night?

Yes. I just have one other question for Rick. So I think last hearing, Rick, you said that you couldn't get a screenshot coming from, like, I don't know if that I guess it's north going south. Right? So, like, terrain, the fire department, you couldn't get the height like, you did, like, a a photo simulation, right, from the bottom of the seat the hill going upward. But were you you said, I think on that call, you said you weren't able to get it in the other direction. Is that true, or did I misunderstand you?

Well, why don't we just start over and say what's the view that you would like to see? Because I don't remember what I said. What what's the view you'd like to see?

I would like to understand, Since this is elevated, I really would like to understand what this height is going to look like as it's compared to its neighbors. And I think the building across the street, if it's still Bank of America and that other white building right there, they both have high they both are of high elevation and high have high health height. So I'd like to see I'd like to understand how this building is going to compare to those kind of surrounding buildings. Is it going to stick out significantly, or is it gonna blend and say, okay. It kind of it messes with this this, area.

Okay. So what you're let me just pick a view here. So we have this view. You wanna look at it going the other way?

Correct.

Okay. That's fine. We we will prepare that for you.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Rick. Okay. So that being said, I think that we're at a point in time in the evening where we should continue this till six one, which is our next meeting. Yes?

If there's anyone in the public, we certainly would like to hear from them now and not wait.

I think we can do that.

Thanks. I think

we can do that. Yes. Thanks, Rick. Public, is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on this topic? We need some hands. Janine Scotti. Yes.

Here we go. I lived at Winnie Glen for two and a half years, and, and I'm really glad they're addressing some of the that this project and they're having a good relationship with them, and they're addressing some of these, crosswalk issues, down on on what's the one way street called again? East Main. And so I hope that, the town and maybe I don't know how PNC influences the public works, and I know we have all our sidewalk walk projects. But, you know, they're really even though they're gonna make this crosswalk, the sidewalk's going all the way out to combo into Whitney Street.

They really we really need to improve that because this was a project in town that was approved for 62 and older many, many decades ago. And there's this aging population there that does, like you said, such a perfect place to live. I mean, that Campo Shopping Center has every single thing you could need. So it's such a great resource, but I really I I'm a part of that book club over there. There a lot of my friends are there, my new friends from when I live there, and I really have a vested interest in them staying well. So, if the town could do more even for sidewalks that, get out to the main roads and connect with other sidewalks in the neighborhood, it would be great.

Alright. Thank you. Anyone else from the public who'd like to speak? Alright. So, commissioners, can we get a motion to continue to six one, Rick? Does that work for you to continue to six one?

Oh, I'll be there on six one.

Thank you, sir. Commissioners?

Motion to continue.

I'll second that motion. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Thank you. Mike Mike you're good with continuing?

Yes. I'm okay. Great.

Alright. So the time Do

we have to wait. Just, do we need to do that for all three of them?

Yes. That's a good question.

Yeah. Okay.

So make them that was so that motion was for pay

amendment eight six eight. The first one

With text amendment eight six eight. Yes. And then I'll make a motion to continue at 04:55 post release.

I will second that.

All in favor? Raise

your hands. Aye.

Patrice has her hand up. We'll let their peer reflect that. And Mike, please?

Yes.

Good. Thank you.

And then

So one more.

Make a motion to continue item number four, which is the map amendment for April post release. So I'll make that motion to continue that.

And I will second that.

All in favor?

Aye.

Patricia's got her hand up for the record? Mike, You good with continuation?

I'm sure. I didn't get the question. I wasn't paying attention.

Okay. Good with the continuation? Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Now we're good with all three continuations. Thanks, Rick. Thank you. And now we are being that it's 08:49PM.

We are gonna take a break till 9PM. And at 9PM, we will pick up with item number six of the evening, 9PM. Thank you all. Great.

Yes.

Yes. Read in, the next one.

To read, the next two? Should I read them both then? Yep. Yep.

Yep. Yep.

Alright. Item number five is, miss municipal improvement at, 7 70 North Avenue, Application P Z 2600277. And item number six is 70 North Avenue special permit site plan application number PZ2600275.

Thanks. So tonight, we're really just gonna focus on more public, comment on these, and then they will be continued to six one. I do wanna say that Nicole Askin is now with us for these applications. Hi, Nicole. And I just wanted to I had one question that from last week, talked about a different application, and it's not on the record for this application.

So is Carmen or Eric with us right now?

Carmen's here.

I'm here. Oh, great. Can I ask you just a couple of quick questions to clarify something? Sure. Thanks. So from what we understood in the shoulder season in the fall, there were when one team is on Wakeman, another team has to travel across town to go to use, PJ Romano. Is that that that can you talk about that?

Yeah. So, for example, take soccer. If the boys were in, a playoff game and the girls needed to prepare, they'd have to come over to, PJ Romano and use the field or vice versa,

just to be

able to get it in Okay.

So they traveled across town, and they, basically figured out on their own how to get there?

Correct.

Right?

My understanding is, my understanding is that the, either parent parental drop off, kids carpooling, It was been, it was a little bit of a struggle, again, trying to make sure things are accommodating, not to get them trying to get them there where they're not gonna interfere with, exiting of Saugatuck Elementary School because it it goes even later than dismisses later than high school.

Okay. That makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. No. It totally makes sense. I just wanted to get that on the record for this application as well because it's a very important topic for both fields. And we didn't come out we we didn't talk about it for 70 North. We only talked about it for that that field. So just to clarify this, so the the kids basically are getting in cars wherever they are with between parents or carpooling with those who drive, the upperclassmen, and they have to go across town to go to the other field for practice Correct.

When one other team is using it for a game, and then we run out of space and other fields or daylight as well. Okay. Thank you for helping us put that on the record. Public comments. Or before you go to public comment, Michelle, is there anything that you wanna add to this?

Thank you. I'm Michelle Prelley, planning and zoning director. No. I just wanted to put on the record that I'm working on putting together a field trip to Wakeman Field for next week, and I'm just trying to organize schedules, but that is, coming to fruition soon. I'll put a public notice out when we're when it's set.

Great. Thank you. And, Michelle, what about, a meeting?

Few minutes. There has yeah. With neighbors?

Yes.

Oh, no. We haven't made any progress on that as far as I know. Maybe Carmen

Yeah.

Could you raise your hand?

Yeah. Michael, I spoke with Eric today. We're going to, meet tomorrow and try to coordinate, some times. I've been out of the office for a few days.