Plan & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the September 2nd, 2025 meeting of the Orangetown Plan and Zoning Commission. I am Commissioner Azie Parenti, and with us this evening, we have uh Town Council uh Owen Weaver, Tom Taranti, Paul Kaplan, Jenny Bowser, recording secretary, Kevin Cornell, Jenny Magcguire, object emerging zoning administrator.

Okay. Uh we have a a request to to change the uh order of a few a couple items on our agenda. Uh we'd like to take item number five first. Uh and then the uh remainder of the agenda in the same order if that's all right with uh everybody. Um is somebody prepared to make a motion to that effect? So moved. We have a a motion. Somebody prepared to second it. Second. Okay. It's been seconded. All those in favor? I

I Okay, then. Uh, first item on the agenda is an 8-24 referral municipal improvement requested by the Town of Orange Water Pollution Control Authority, WPCA, to establish public sewers on Carlson Road and Bullhill Lane. Uh, who's here to Yeah, I'm here to present and the chairman for the WPCA, Bob Singler, is here. Bob, you want to invite Bob up to the table? Sure. Bob, you want to come up to the empty seat? Bob Britain, the town engineer, apologizes he had a conflict tonight, otherwise he would have been here. So, um,

do you want to just introduce yourself for the Bob Segler, chairman of the WPCA in Orange. Okay. How do you spell your last name? S I G L E R. Thank you. A little more fancy than your meetings with the microphone. we we kind of fly under the radar,

right? So, this is a general statute 824 referral to this commission. And generally speaking, an 8.24 municipal improvement of referral uh is required when the legislative body or any other agency of the town wishes to take certain action relative to land. And one of those actions is locating or extending public utilities and terminals for water, sewage, light, power, transit, and other utility services. So, uh, in this case, the WPCA is contemplating extending the sewer line onto Carlson and Bullhill Lane. Currently, there is a private sewer that services about eight properties. There's um, in the packet that you got, there's some maps showing where the private sewer is. That sewer line was built, Bob, correct me if I'm wrong, in the 1950s before the town um, before the town built its public sewer. Um, and over the years t title has transferred to the properties and just for whatever reason it has not been properly maintained. Over the last two or three months, the town has had to come in and make emergency repairs. Uh, and at this point the WPCA is um seriously contemplating extending the sewer line to include or to take over that space. So they would be building a brand new sewer line. So before they can do that, this board would have to um make a referral to the WPCA, whether it be a positive referral, meaning you find it in conformity with the W uh W, excuse me, the POC. Thank you. Um or you could reject it and then then they go to the legislative body and they can uh overturn you, so to speak, by a majority vote. Uh so it's not this board's role in the process is not to determine if it's wise to extend the sewer, just whether or not it conforms with the POC. So I know you guys have been drafting a

new one and that's almost complete. U Bob in his Bob Britain in his memo uh pointed out where he thought it was this proposed sewer line was consistent with the currently, you know, existing 2015 POC. Uh and it continues with the with the draft. there's already public sewer in that defined area. So, if you if you look at um it's it's not attached to Bob's memo. It's I asked Jack to include copies of the 2015 and the and the current um draft. If you look at the maps where it's showing the service the sewer service area, excuse me. This is the portion near West Haven. Um, and it's in the top right corner of that uh atypical shape. There's already there's already public sewer um in the area. And and as Bob pointed out, it's he thinks it's consistent with the uh he thinks expanding the the public sewer in this space to include these two roads or the extension into these roads um is consistent with the current POCD and the proposed PC. So Bob, I don't know if you have anything to add on that, but

well, the town has been on an emergency basis paying for repairs that have already occurred, failures that have occurred in that sections of of sewer line on Carlson Road. There's a section that we've approved repair work where the two lines, Carlson Road and uh Bhill Lane, come together. Uh, so there's about 180,000 we've spent, the town has spent so far repairing this basically obsolete line for the benefit of the the people eight. That's correct. They use it. There was a letter sent out to these property owners uh putting on notice that we be making these repairs and that we intend to charge them.

Oh, good. That's what I was Next question. Uh, for this specifically the emergency repairs, right? But as we're talking about here, the idea long-term is to replace the sewer line on Carlson and Bullhill and that would be on the D the town would do it and then charge back over a period of time. Yeah, it' be a special assessment. So, so what by what right do does a town proceed? So, assuming this board private? Oh, but so we it's in the in the rightway so the town can go in and replace the the pipes. I I mean I guess I could make an eminent domain argument, but um but nobody's going to oppose obviously.

No, I mean they're not paying sewer use charge. No, they are paying a sewer use charge with an agreement with West Haven that is administered by the town of Orange. Okay. Um but they have not paid an assessment on the pipe. So, you know, when when you bring hypothetically when you bring in a new sewer section, the town any town can impose a special assessment, right? That never happened for these individuals because the pipe predates the public sewer. So, um when the town goes in and presumably builds a new section to the public sewer, we will the WPCA will implement that special assessment procedure to recoup costs for what has already incurred and what will be incurred for the the building of the pipe.

Okay. So that makes sense. All right. Any other questions? So you're you're taking care of the uh the emergency because of a public health factor. That's correct. Okay. Uh because no one's coming to our house to fix Yeah. fix our sewer. Right. All right. But there's every reason to believe that that that is a recoverable cost. Yes.

Okay. And the uh it because it's running in a public right of way and that's the only sections you're planning on replacing. uh you're seeing that work also as being reimburseable to the town over time as a special assessment. Yes. And payment because this isn't a small project that that type of asbestous pipe is got to be removed as a hazardous material. Correct.

So and and the sewer line itself is going to run 100 200 bucks a foot. By the time it all smoke clears, it's a it's a costly project. Yes. Yeah. So, it's so it's over a million bucks to run this. That's the anticipation yet. We don't have all the quotes in yet, but Right. All right. But it we're not taking over this public responsibility and paying for it. We have a mechanism for the town to get paid back. Correct. Yes. Okay. All right. Is that does that mechanism include interest as well? I don't know off the top of my head. I'll have to

presumably the town is going to be taking money out of its general account which is in a bank someplace I would imagine to pay the contractors to do this right. I mean a WPCA has its own account. So yes, but whatever account being taken out. Well, I would I would like you to consider that it should be an interestbearing load that they pay back so to speak, right? I I'll look I don't know that off the top of my head. I'll look into that. So, okay. But the individual eight properties will be responsible for their own laterals to the main. So, Amazon's going to run until they hit Carlson Road. Uh, stop.

Sorry. So, Amazon's going to run until they hit Carlson Road. Stop what used to be stop and shop. What is it now? shop right is going to have to run over to Carlson Road and then there looks like some stuff across the street or Yeah, I think like Urban Air might be one of the other properties, but Kohl's. Yeah. All right. We're we're not uh volunteering to do that. Do they have the obligation to tie in? They've already tied in. Um, so they don't have to replace their what their laterals. I don't

if their l if those buildings were built the type of pipe that's collapsing went out of use in the late60s early 60s. So while this might not be currently you use HP PDE or something. Yeah, it's a plastic. Yeah, the you know these may be you know don't know the condition of the laterals that again it's their that but it's their problem. Right. Right. Yeah. This proposal is not to fix their laterals if there is an issue. So that's correct. This is just the main line. Okay. Okay. So yeah and just public health we get paid back. All right. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. All right. There a couple of things that you included in the package uh Jack that relate to uh you know the project's conformity with our plan of conservation of development. What was uh page one? It was on page 124 I think of the uh I think that's referred to in

Bob's in Bob's memo. That's the the existing plan of conservation and development. And in there uh in there it says um manage one of the one of the uh one of the requirements uh is to manage sewage treatment and uh under that um it says you know number one the the strategy is to continue the use of septic systems in most areas of Orange. two, provide sewer avoidance, quote unquote, in most areas of Orange, and three, which is applicable, uh maintain sewage capacity at the West Haven treatment facility to help accommodate land uses in the economic area and promote new development patterns where desired. That's so that seems quite on on point to me. Um and then I and then in our uh you know pending uh plan of conservation development I think that's where this comes from Jack.

Yes. Uh under 8.4 manage sewage treatment and public water safety uh water supply. Uh 8.4.1 says maintain the you know one of the goals is to maintain the capacity of Orange's public water and sewer systems. And under 8.4.3 4.3 uh evaluate necessary infrastructure upgrades and cost estimates for incorporating additional properties into existing intermunicipal sewer agreements. Am I am reading from the correct the draft? Okay. I think those were the the high points of of what yes

what was you know what was uh pointed out in the in uh Bob Britain's uh memo to us. So I don't know uh project seems makes sense to me. Uh and I think all we're doing under 8-24 is giving it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. We obviously have no responsibility for any uh any approval or whatever, but all we need is a vote. That's correct. Yep.

A vote to uh and I presume it'll be a favor a favorable vote uh for the project. So, somebody prepared to make a motion on that. I I'll move that we uh make a motion to approve the uh project uh proposed by um uh Robert Britain as as put forth by uh Owen um within the parameters that we discussed meaning getting paid back and um over a period of time and fixing the emergency stuff but not taking care of the or not being responsible for the lateral um uh connections. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We have a motion uh to approve uh for a favorable referral. We have a second.

Can I ask a question on that? Is that part of what we're supposed to be doing or just seeing if it conforms? Are we worried about the cost or are we just wondering if it conforms with what currently is in our plan? My understand my understanding is that it's the latter you know that it you know that strategically it it conforms with our plan of conservation and development as to whether it's a good idea or how it ranks in long as he's here on we gave our two cents. Yeah. You know how it ranks with other municipal projects you know where they get the money for it. I mean it's all

right. Yeah. No, I mean technically the cost is not really within this board's jurisdiction. I I appreciate the comments and I will take those back to the WPCA, but you're voting strictly on whether you believe the referral is uh conforms with the PC or if it doesn't. So, yeah. I guess I should amend my motion to say it conforms with the PC. Referral. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, again, do we have a second? A second. Okay. It's been seconded. All those in favor? I I Okay. Thank you. All right. You're good to go, Bob. Go. Thanks, Bob.

All right. Next item on our agenda is a review of the minutes from the August 19, 2025 meeting. Jenny, I had just one typo. Okay. Under old business. It says there was no new business. [Laughter] Okay. So, I think that I think with that correction, I'm comfortable with the million. Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody else have anything on that? No.

I put that in there to see if everybody make sure everybody read it. Yes. No. Everybody's good. Okay. So, a motion to approve the minutes. So, moved as amended. A second. Second. It's been seconded. All those in favor? I I Okay. Thank you. All right, next item then would be uh old business. And this is really why we have uh Owen here with us tonight. He's going to give us an overview of a couple of statutes.

Right. I invited my partner Barbara Shelonburgg to to assist with this one. So, if it's all right, Mr. Chair, invite Barbara out. Of course, it is. Yeah. I just happened to um give a land use seminar recently, so I was a little bit more up to date on this. You should have told us we could have come and met our met some of the training requirements. It was up It was up in Westbrook, but we'd be happy to do that for Orange as well. Certainly. Absolutely. We've done it in the past.

Um so I I don't know how familiar everybody is with this bill. This was a very comprehensive and controversial housing bill and I'm happy to go over, you know, the major points that dealt with land use. Now, of course, as you're aware, the governor ultimately vetoed this bill, but it's definitely coming back in some modified form. Actually, at the end of this month, there's going to be a special legislative session. So, I think a lot of what I'm going to point out is key land use features are still going to be there. Um, you know, obviously we don't know exactly what modifications there will be. So um zoning regulations have to allow the as of right development of middle housing on any commercially zone lot with very few exceptions related to health and safety. And uh middle housing constitutes a residential building with two to nine dwelling units and that would include but not be limited to duplexes, triplexes, town homes. Uh zoning commissions must establish what's called a priority housing development zone, which includes not less than 10% of the total developable land within a municipality. And that zone would need to permit as of right multifamily housing. So at a minimum it would have to allow four units per acre for single family detached housing, six units per acre for duplexes or town houses and 10 units per acre for multifamily housing. U municipalities are also required to develop what's called a priority affordable housing plan that sets forth

their plans for creating affordable housing, including how zoning regulations will be amended to accommodate suggested housing allocations. For example, the bill mandated that municipalities plan for and accommodate 25% of their affordable housing allocation through changes to their zoning. So, that's significant. And again, this kind of thing is across the board

uh for every municipality in in Connecticut. Um municipalities that have regulations allowing for transit oriented development will have priority for state infrastructure grants. I know that's something that right Orange did in the past. I remember you know being being invol right being involved with that.

Um this is this this is really sticking in in a lot of people's craw for for good reason. If a municipality loses an affordable housing appeal in court and there's a determination that the municipality acted in bad faith, the municipality has to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees without any reciprocal

um law that would, you know, require the the plaintiff to have to pay pay fees if the plaintiff acted in bad faith. Um, zoning regulations cannot enforce minimum off- streetet parking standards for housing developments of 1 to 24 units and commissions cannot reject an application solely on the basis that such development fails to conform with any requirement for off- streetet parking. Now, we've heard through the grapevine that there's likely going to be a modification on these parking requirements, but again, we're not sure exactly what that's going to be.

The first part of that paragraph,

the zoning uh commissions cannot res reject an application, quote, solely on the basis that such development fails to conform with any requirement for off- streetet parking end quote. Yeah, pretty restrictive. Um, so at the time that uh Governor Lamont ultimately vetoed the bill, the Senate Democrats were negotiating with him because they were very much in favor of this. And as a matter of fact, they even wanted to bolster uh the bill with um certain additional requirements like a provision that would increase state reimbursement rates for school construction projects in municipalities that have at least the 10% affordable housing minimum. Um and it was when they were negotiating that the government ultimately decided to veto. Now, CCM, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, was very involved in this as, as you can imagine, and they urged a veto. They wrote a letter to the governor. Um, and basically what they said is that the bill includes the implementation of the fair share housing model and broadstate zoning mandates that significantly erode local control and impose unrealistic one-sizefits-all requirements on towns and cities across Connecticut. And then they listed a whole bunch of provisions that they had objection to. So I would expect that CCM will remain involved as we see a you know modifications coming from the legislature um because I know everybody's interested you know what what can you do um so I think you can certainly through CCM make

your opinions known obviously you can make your opinion opinions known to state representatives um but there's nothing we can do to our regulations we can't amend our regulations in any way to avoid I don't think so. I no I don't I don't think there's any opt out provision like you're thinking about the previous leg legislation that had certain optouts adu opt outs parking opt outs I don't think this legislation includes anything like I have one question on this was there any language in the proposed bill that addressed towns like orange with the 830g moratorum for the next three years

I don't think so I don't think so No, I don't think there was any exceptions made. So would we still be more or less safe from an 830G application even if something That's a good question. I Yeah, I don't not necessarily. No, but they're not coming in under 830G. These are going to be as of right written into your zoning regulation.

How about the effect of of the um of septic? I mean, we don't have any sewers. Well, that's I was going to ask that question under item two where you know you have to allow certain Yeah. Now are are these going to be subject to health you know legitimate health and safety concerns about sanitary sewer disposal? I mean we don't have sewers. Right. So right there's some exceptions for that but it's limited. That's why CCM, you know, one of the main reasons they strongly urged a veto because this is a one-sizefits-all

kind of bill that doesn't take into consideration how, you know, small towns differ from large cities, etc. Yeah. Um, so yeah, it's it's very problematic.

But with respect to our regulations, okay, I mean, whatever is going to happen at the state level is going to happen. Okay. But I think that we can look at our existing regulations. For example, she, you know, Barbara mentioned that uh that in every commercial district on a lot, you have to allow this middle housing of between two and nine units. All right? So between two and nine units is very profitable on lots that would be like a half acre. Okay. I mean the magic number in development is 20 units an acre, you know, that people want to try and achieve. Uh our current commercial regulations allow small lots or I would consider them small lots. It's what in the C1?

Yeah. I think it's 20,000. Okay. So, I I'll confirm right now. Yeah. Less than half an acre. So, so let's let's let's let's use that number and while Jack confirms. So, in my mind, uh if I wanted to abuse the town and I had a 10acre commercial lot, I'd subdivide it into halfacre lots, put nine units on. All of a sudden we got 180 units, 25,000 square feet a lot

basic. So a little less. So, um, one thing we could do that is consistent is we could consider and it wouldn't affect anyone in the town and it would give us more of a handle on what's coming into our town would be to revise the minimum lot size to something where that two to nine units that we're forced to allow is no longer profitable. you know, make it an acre, make it two acres or whatever. Do we have that do we have that kind of latitude though? Why not? We we can create our our minimum lot size

the bill doesn't supersede I think it might how yeah I you know what it's per law again this is I I I really think you have to wait and and see ultimately what is going to be the final legislation and and work with that. You know we just don't know right now exactly what's going to be in what's going to be out. Yeah. Or how it might be modified. So Kevin, you're trying to address the hypothetical of somebody's got a 5 acre lot and it is a don't let them subdivide it into half acres, make them subdivide it into an acre,

an acre or two acres, whatever. I mean, you pick a number where now all of a sudden it's not attractive to take commercial land, which is a net positive economic gain for the town. Yeah. to residential which is if anything flat you know uh but you know you're definitely it's it you know because obviously since we qualify for the 10% uh moratorum we're not afraid of housing per se or people per se

we just want it to be thoughtful and done at a scale where the essential character of orange isn't changed I sorry, just one person's opinion. No, you know, we'll see if we have the flexibility to do that. I I don't know. I don't know if that's going to be possible. Well, it maybe you're suggesting do it now. I'm suggesting why not? What's the what what is the downside? The There is no legislation that we're in violation of the the the legislation that was written contemplates on a commercial lot. Mhm. We're empowered to change or modify our regulations to, you know,

there's no current pending leg uh application that would affect. No. And the people who have lots smaller than whatever we choose are existing non-conforming and can do whatever the heck they want. Would it affect would it affect their ability to refinance or do any um you know why? I mean, the people exist in that characteristic all over the town. And maybe it'd be a good idea for Jack to do a study as to the sizes of the lots in the commercial zone to see how many might be affected. Yeah. I mean, I mean, there's all sorts of small I think Yeah. They're going to range from

Well, all right. So, a study that identifies all above an acre or two, whatever, you know. Yeah. not pick, you know, every commercial lot that's above an acre, acre and a half, whatever the board feels,

you know, and again, this is I I this is just anticipatory uh in trying to retain a level of control. It's, you know, personally, if you know there was some more affordable housing on the post road, that's probably a good place for it. But I'd like it to be, you know, thoughtful and not just an as of right uh, you know, you know, jamming a something down our throats. But with the understanding that

the downside would be if the legislation um bigfoots it, you know, so to speak, and and doesn't allow for the local control. Well, if they don't if they instead of calling it a lot, they say allows nine units per half acre. You know that it's that's what it's going to say. And you know, you didn't you know, you didn't gain some control you hope to, but you're in no different position than you're

were going to be if you did nothing. it it you know it it's just do you you know you know it's just a question of do you do you wait to get punched in the face or do you hold there's a chance there's a chance that putting up our our hands would would protect us why not do it you just want to have a say you know I mean how many lots you think it would affect Jack Most of our commercial lots are I would say over an acre certainly not all of them you know I'm looking at a lot right now that's.7 acres ers, right? And our current have 25,000 square feet. So,

right. You know, but again, just just an opinion. Sorry. All right. No, no, that's that's okay. I I get it. You know, this is again, I think the biggest problem with this bill, why it's so controversial because it rests so much local control

and it's a one-sizefits-all which doesn't take into consideration how different municipalities have very different issues and concerns. Um, again, that's why CCM is in the forefront with it. Um, on the other hand, there's certainly a lot of pressure on the governor to, you know, sign something. So, I I do think we can expect some legislation probably that's going to come out of the special session at the end of the month that likely he will he will sign off on.

Do we have uh copies of the bill? We I Yeah, I sent them around when this was being discussed, but I could definitely get hard copies for everybody at the next meeting. And I mean, tomorrow I'll I'll resend it out. What 5001 or 53? House Bill 502. There's a lot of other things in there, too, you know, that are not directly related to land use. There's provisions dealing with the homeless. There's CHRO can enforce zoning like you can bring a zoning uh enforcement action into the CHRO.

There's fair orange is slightly below but there was a fair rank commission requirement for municipalities 15,000 or more. So, you know, if we had too many more people, we'll have to deal with that. There's there's a lot, right? the fair actually the Fair Rent Commission legislation came out a couple of years ago for larger municipalities um like Greenwich for example had to uh had to form a fair rent commission. So yeah, now they're they're lowering they're lowering the number. So yeah, it's it's a very comprehensive bill. It covers a lot of areas. All right. I really just went over the major. Yeah,

I can I can recirculate that. Yeah. I mean, we all should take a look at it again uh with Kevin's suggestion in mind. We have commercial lots and maybe you can give it some Sure. some further thought, Owen. We have commercial lots from 10 acres to less than half an acre. And there's a lot of lot of varying parcels on on the post road. It's not very uniform. And what what kind of size are you talking about doing as a minimum? I mean, I was thinking of just starting the discussion, but if it stayed in its current format and and you were the max you were subject to was nine, right? It could be an acre because

that would do the trick. Well, you know, it's like it's not that attractive though. It's not as attractive financially. Not financially. Yeah. you know, and and if it does happen, it actually can exist with a reasonable amount of what will become illegal parking on it. You know, illegally asked for parking, right? because you know those nine units are going to generate uh 18 spaces and 18 spaces are gonna

take up about 5,000 square ft of floor plan. So, you know, you can wind up with just like, you know, on a small lot, a little thin strip of grain, asphalt, and a housing, right? And just like chunk chunk chunk chunk chunk and and I don't want to live in barracks, right? Uh but, you know, uh something thoughtful like Smith Farms, I think, is a tremendous benefit to the town. The Smith you know, you drive by the Smith bar, it disappears. Yeah. It's affordable. It's very nice, right? You know,

I you know, but uh I think the uh possibility for, you know, people putting in I I think the possibility of greed creating bad projects exists. Well, I don't think we have much downside by by doing it. At least none that I've heard so far. Oh, you know, but that that is just one aspect. I mean, the Well, one that we have control over that we may have control. Yeah. All right. Well, like I said, I think we should give that some further thought and uh

you know, considered an amendment to the regulations that, you know, like Kevin said, if there's no you pointed out, there's no downside to it, then, you know, maybe it's something that it is, it is only one part of the bill, but it's, you know, one thing we may be able to that may affect us directly. I mean there were b there was a bunch of stuff that Barbara said that I don't I I just don't doesn't compute with me which is septic issues and how many that the intensity is off the charts relative to what you know we have to offer because we don't have any any uh sewers

right I mean the uh yeah a couple of these like the as of right development of middle housing does have some exception related to health and safety concerns so that yeah but on But on the post road that doesn't exist. There's a Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. It's it's when you reach out into the residential districts with the must have this, must have that. You know, four units on an acre is, you know, that's that's a lot to ask a septic system to do. That's a lot of ground coverage.

Well, but what's I mean, where this is all heading just from an engineering standpoint is what hap is happening on Long Island. where now individual buildings have to have their own uh uh sewer sewer control, you know, nitrification plant, right? And so, you know, you know, basically they're putting on-site sewage treatment plants for a warehouse some designed with some people and sufficing water and Connecticut

last time I looked into it didn't allow uh privately run sanitary systems. There's there's nothing we need to worry about in the residential, but they will if they don't get what they need. I mean, this is all directed toward commercially zoned. No, no. I mean, you've got to establish that priority housing development zone, the middle housing,

right, which includes, right, the middle housing is commercial, but the priority housing development zone has to include not less than 10% of the total developable land within a municipality. So, it it would exclude things like wetlands, you know, places that you can't develop. But anywhere you could develop, it has to be at least um we have an idea 10% our land is developed now excluding no no no it you're going to take I'm sure that's going to take into account residential and you're going to take out the inland wetlands steep slopes

you're going to and you're going to come up with xund acres that this is going to have to apply to and I don't think the area that we current out currently outline in our POC where we're more willing to accept applications s, you know, with with this sort of development, just off the top of my head, I I don't think that would be enough to get us to that 10%, right? We're pretty much south of the post road is right now where we identify that possibility and not industrial zoned property. It specifically addressed industrial zones. No,

just the middle housing on the commercial. Yeah. The 830G used to address Right. exempt non-industrial indust might might want to be a bedroom for New York City that other parts may want to go to work and and you know have those people. The reason you're seeing this is because 830G hasn't worked right. it hasn't achieved its its goals and that's why well we did we did

overall statewide it hasn't it hasn't been particularly successful it's been you know kind of a boon for developers but otherwise not not achieving the affordable housing that was saw all right anything else Barbara That's what I That's what I'm here for today. Great. Thanks for all the good news. Sorry. Maybe next time I'll bring a little I'll ask Owen to you know for next time. Give give me a better assignment. That was No, that that was very very helpful. Very helpful. Thank you. Good to see everyone. Thank you.

Thank you, Barbara. All right. So, what's Yeah, let's uh keep that in in top of our minds. So, did she not Barbara just went out, but what's what's sort of the time frame on this? I mean, that that it's my understanding it'll be called soon. Yeah. At the end of the month. Um I'm not sure how long it'll be, but um yeah, I would anticipate something in in October or maybe early November. Okay. All right.

I would I would suspect before the election. Yeah, one one last uh just question on uh in on old business because it has to do with the PCD. While I was looking at the draft, I just there's some language that I don't know why it's in there and I don't you know and

something page uh page eight of the draft on the under sewage treatment. The last sentence says uh if there is continued interest in incorporating additional properties into the existing inter municipal sewer agreements further are we considering adding any additional land? Where did the language come from? I'm not considering any additional land. Where where where are you? Page eight last sentence. Uh, sorry. The this was in the P OCD infrastructure chapter 8. Yeah, that we handed out for the uh municipal improvement.

Yeah, it was attached to Bob's uh memo. No, no. Uh, no. This was the uh second kind of packet that you got with it. It may be in that. I thought he take a look through here. I have a plan of conservation development, but I think he Do you have a I think he included that page eight seven. Where is it? Yeah. You know, I had I had asked Jack to include the relevant 2015 provision and then part not the current one. No, one one is from 2015 and the other one had the the page that you are looking at is is the the new proposed one. Okay. So you are correct. All right. So my question to us since this is our document is this something we asked for?

What what what paragraph you looking at? Last sentence. Final paragraph last sentence. If there is continued interest in incorporating additional properties into the existing intermunicipal sewer agreements, further in investigation is needed to address the cost of feasibility. Uh what's happening? Well, I if you look at if you look at uh it was also in the packet. Let me see. Give me a second to find it, Kevin.

No problem, sir. In our in our packets, there was a um it's page 124 of the existing plan of conservation and development. You see what I'm talking about? I'm sorry. No.

All right. Page page 124 in the in the in the margin under sewage sewage disposal. Yeah. It talks about, it says, "To address sewage disposal needs, town of Orange entered into an agreement with the city of West Haven in 1985, whereby the town can send up to a million gallons per day of sewage waste to the West Haven treatment facility for treatment and discharge." Then in the next paragraph, it points out that we're only using about 350,000, right,

of that capacity. So I guess it the suggestion is that you know to the extent it's feasible that it makes sense we should utilize that available or can utilize that available capacity.

Yeah. But that that I that's not what our the PC says. The PC says add additional properties. Thi this 2015 defines an area around the post road and industrial districts that are both currently sewered and to be sewed. I don't perceive on adding any you I don't want somebody looking at this language saying you know oh well let's let's run a lateral up to Judy's golf course you know north of the post road

that's an additional property. Do you mean outside of the um possible future sewer service area which is the blue section in in the bottom? If you look at the 2015 map of the sewer service area, correct? The blue, right? Yeah. I don't that I I don't I don't think anything north of that commercial zone in the post road that we have any intents of you know running a sewer up there. Do we? I mean it's our the 2025 is our document.

Do we have any interest in doing that? I I don't know, but it says if there if there is continued interest in incorporating additional properties into existing intermunicipal sewer agreements, further investigation is needed to assess the cost of feasibility. I mean, I I don't I don't see that as binding us to anything if and I don't see it as being useful for anything because we're not planning on doing it. So, why have it in? Well, that was getting at that we have more capacity in our intermission. Yeah. Why didn't we ask for a million agree to a million gallons max?

Because the the uses over time can change on the post road and something that was a warehouse can become a restaurant and go from 300 gallons a day to 13,000 gallons a day. So that was that was futurep proofing the existing the existing. But that's what number three did here, right? It looks like that's the old one, right? It looks like they just rewarded it more vague. Well, I think that's what they're trying to achieve there is what they three says currently. But I think you're right. It opens a door I that isn't contemplated yet.

Again, I look at these things of what's our plan? Our plan is what we have works. We like to have a commercial zone surrounding 91 95 and Route One that south end of town. I don't want to entertain going into this, you know, quoteunquote sewer avoidance area or bringing up as a topic to be then, you know, uh, have a smart guy like, you know, Owen on the other side saying, "Well, this is consistent with your 2025 POC." What were you thinking?

Right. I you know just again just personally I you know if it doesn't serve our purpose it's a it's it's irrata it's it's language that can't doesn't exist for our benefit unless there's a a taste in the town that I haven't heard in any of the POC for running sewer which means highdensity housing up into you know the bulk of orange But so I you know I would well the way it's worded is it certainly opens the door for that even though it's very it is I I mean there's no way to say it. It's it's very vague. Yeah.

But there's no I don't see the point if you take it out. What does it what does it hurt if you if you yank it, you know? Yeah. It goes from vague to non-existent. It again it's a suggestion. It's a document that's a draft. But yeah, we should discuss those things and then because this is going to I wonder why they not be a draft short. I don't think we did directed this at all. Right. This was this was generated from No, I think they just used you know input from the town and language that was in our last PC and right

ended here. I I think I think it's what they propo you know what we propose now what's in our draft now is probably it's consistent with what was what's in the existing well as Jay said I think they they messed around with the language a little bit and and that's what they should do because they're counting on us to actually read the language and let them know if we've got a problem well all right that's fine I mean I I we could take that up when we uh next hearing yeah that's That's a great point to make. And if okay, if the board has over the next two weeks says, you know what, I think it just makes more sense to get rid of it. That's that's what we're there in two weeks to do.

I mean, you you're you're I guess then you'd be unhappy with the the language that's in the existing plan of conservation and development. Well, the the existing one just, you know, if I'm reading it says number one, I agree with continue the use of septic systems in most of the areas of our So, do you agree with number two? And number two, Mhm.

I agree with. And then three just says maintain your agreements to take care of your industrial stuff. I mean, you know, your industrial and commercial properties. I don't see anything wrong there. I mean, personally, I would not have been in favor of Fieldstone Village, but some people like it, you know. Yeah. Well, all right. We we could bring this up at our at our meeting on the planet conservation. I don't I don't see much difference between that, you know, what we had in the It's certainly vague enough where it doesn't Yeah. It doesn't tie us to anything,

right? I mean, I don't see it. All right. Uh, what else? Who did new business? We're We're under anything else under old old business. Thank Okay. Now, how about under new business? Okay, Jack, you have a report for us then?

Sure. Short and sweet tonight. The result of the appeal uh was a denial of the appeal. Uh this is for uh the Airbnb issue that we spoke about at our last meeting. Uh to deny the appeal and uphold the notice that I was issued with modifications. Um so that was issued um and compliance was required immediately with that modified letter. Who who did the appeal go to? The board of the zoning board of appeals. Correct. And when they upheld your cease and desist, what were the modifications that they uh they included language that all commercial activity should stop on the property. That that was it. Which and I think immediately

immediately there was some question about whether it should be for we should give them 10 days to it wasn't changed really that enough to where they felt more time was. Yeah. Would would have you know made any improvement there. Um so that was the result of the appeal. Um has the appeal has has there been an appeal beyond? We have not heard as of how many how many days did it have 30 or something? 15 15 from the publication of the uh public hearing which ends when 12th or the 13th I think somewhere around there.

That's that's an appeal to to the courts. Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir. Um, then the last thing I have is, uh, just two weeks from now, we will have our POC public hearing. It has been noticed. Um, I do not know how much interest from the public will have, but this will pretty much be our last process to offer any amendments uh that that we may have. Like Kevin pointed out tonight, um, it doesn't have to be closed on the 16th. We we could continue that if we you know are getting enough input where we think we need a little more time but we are closing out this process. So how does the public know or if they were not

it's been noticed for quite some time now. Um we've been talking about it for over two months. Um I also there should be aformational sheet in here. This is what we will be handing out at the uh the PCB meeting. So, if anybody's interested um you know or hasn't been involved in the process at all, they can come here, learn, you know, what we're talking about and and give any input they have. We should include Jay's name on that. Oh, on on Oh, okay. Uh that get rid of Judy. No, I don't get rid of Judy.

She add Judy who? What? Um for the benefit of the four people in the audience, could you uh just reiterate the different mechanisms we've tried to reach out to the public in terms of these are the different avenues that people can get information from. You know, because every once in a while I hear someone say, "Oh, I don't know." I was like, "I didn't know about that."

Yeah. Sure. So we started this process over a year ago um in 2024. We have had meet uh regularly scheduled meetings here where we have discussed this. We have had uh two public workshops in the uh community center where that was the main uh avenue for people to show up, give their input, you know, offer any suggestions that they have for this new document that may be different from the old. We also did uh the survey um if people remember where we had a survey. I think we got two a little over 220 responses. That survey was open for several months to members of the public. It was in the community center. It was in the library. It was here in town hall. Uh members of the public were encouraged. Um

is it on their website at all? It is on It is on the website. Thank you. Um it's also posted online for anybody to have access to there. Um both of these public workshops were publicly noticed as if they were public hearings. So that followed the same noticing process. Uh you know next week or two weeks from now public hearing will follow. Um just out of curiosity I know this is live streamed. Does it also go on to like it does. You can watch these meetings at any time on on YouTube. Okay. So and they're replayed on the meetings on the PC. Absolutely. Yeah. These these public uh public workshops should be available online on the OGAT uh YouTube channel.

So if anybody you know was unable to attend those they could watch them and then come here and and bring any input that they have. Um we have a complete draft. We have a complete proposed plan of conservation development that has been referred to SCROG and our board of selectman. Okay. That was my next question. Does the will the board of selectmen respond or Yeah. trying to remember if they took it up at the last meeting like feel like they do but think back but yeah they'll they'll vote on it. I believe vote on it. Well they and they could possibly have some changes to suggest in it.

Yes. There was some there was some public commentary about it. Excuse me. At the last board meeting I apologize. It escapes me now. What was said? I think it was general positive positive confidence about the facts. All right. But I mean obviously there's still opportunity to make some changes to it. Sure. And that was a 65day review period for the board of selectmen and for SCR which we are beyond now. Okay. All right. That's on uh September 16th. September 16th. Okay. here. 7 o'clock orange town hall.

All right. Does anybody have anything else for Jack? We all set? Move to adjourn. Yeah. Our agenda is complete. Yes. Move to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn. Wasn't a question. Do we have a second? Second. It's been seconded. All those in favor? I I Okay. Thank you. Almost like a real meeting. Yeah. Thank you everybody.