Plan & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Bloomfield Town Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting Thursday, March 26, 2026 at 7:03 p.m. First item on the agenda is a call to order.

Byron Lester here. Renee James absent. Dwight Bolton here. Leon Peters absent. Steven Mlette here. Jennifer Marshall Neely here. Kevin Goff here. Roger O'Brien here. Ununice Medinter absent. You have a quorum.

Okay. Um and then we'll have Roger sitting for Renee. Is an alternate. Okay. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the February 19th, 2026 minutes. Is there a motion to approve? So moved, Mr. Chairman. Is there a second? Mr. Chairman, these are the minutes that I would ask at the table. Is is there a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion?

I Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that these these minutes be um tabled um because they are the official record that goes into the the uh plan of conservation and development and I think the plan of conservation development discussion is not adequately reflected in these minutes and I for one and other commissioners may want to supplement um the remarks that are reflected in the minutes. So, I would ask the commission's indulgence that we postpone them um and not adopt them tonight. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to table the minutes from the February 19th, 2026 meeting? I'll second that.

Been second. Any further discussion? Uh Mr. Chairman, I'll just make one comment that I there were a couple other minor changes that I also submitted, but they can be incorporated into the table, you know, when we come back to the table. Okay. Excellent. Okay, it's been moved and second. Uh, with no further discussions, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Oppose. Extension. Chair votes sign. I just want to say for the record, um, our commissioner Renee James is here with us and she just arrived prior to the vote. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the approval of the February 26, 2026 minutes. Is there a motion to approve? I I'll move that there. Second. I I'll second it. Any further discussion, Mr. Chair? Yes. I had a couple of minor corrections which I gave to the uh clerk. Do we need to go through them for the record? They're minor. No, I'm I'm I'm okay with that. Great. Any further discussions? So, oh, before we go any further, are you asking to table these till the next meeting? No. Okay. You're just saying that you submitted some

minor correction. Okay. Any further discussions on the minutes for the February 26, 2026 meeting? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Abstension. One abstension. Commissioner Bolton and the chair Volt sign. Actually, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I just want to clarify. I said corrections. I should have said edits. They weren't really There's nothing really wrong with the minutes. It's just edits. Okay. Not a problem. Okay. Excellent. Uh, next item on the agenda. I'll ask the secretary under new business if she'd read that application.

I just wanted to clarify because I thought you said I was sitting for Renee and Renee is here. So, I can't be sitting for her, right? So, I'm going to be sitting for Leon. That's fine.

Um, the first 5A on a new business is TPZ zoning site plan signoff authorization to director and assistant director of building and land use. Okay. Uh Jonathan,

I'll start with we put this on the agenda at the suggestion of Commissioner O'Brien uh who expressed a a um I guess a concern and maybe too strong a word, but certainly an observation that um that maybe the uh official signoffs in the department, administrative signoffs as required were limited just to the CEO. It's um Linda and Mai's belief that uh in accordance with existing state statutes and with the Bloomfield zoning regulations uh that u the director and the assistant director uh do have that authority uh and um that there is not a necessity for further action by the commission at this time to authorize that authority. We believe it's already in in place and and over the over the time has actually been been utilized.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner O'Brien, are you okay with that?

Yeah. No. Well, I would like to clarify cuz you know, John and I had a brief conversation after the last meeting and where I was coming from was not what he was suggesting. Where I was coming from was we had um applicants who sat here for hours on um um an application that I thought we should delegate to the staff to be able to sign off. It was a site plan that had no change in the zoning envelope whatsoever. So I wanted to go further than uh what this was. I was not questioning what what John said I was questioning. What I was doing was saying that this the director or the assistant director should have the ability. If a site plan comes in and it's a building and the use is allowed and there's no change in the zoning envelope, then I don't think the site plan should have to come to the commission to be approved. Um, and that was what I had in mind. I do I do I I would I am supportive of the of reinforcing the notion that the director and the assistant director can sign on zoning signoffs which is what is in front of us tonight. I have no problem with that. But I was going further and saying when we have like a routine site plan. Um and I can think of another one. There was a a woman came in uh up here on um and she was uh you know it was an accounting's office and she was putting something else in there. Whatever it was, there was absolutely no changes. There was no

changing use. There was no you know it wasn't allowed use in the zone. She wasn't changing parking. She wasn't changing landscaping. There was nothing that we had to say whatever. And so in those instances, it was an effort to streamline the process um rather than um having an applicant come before us. Well, it's not unusual uh for the uh for me the director to uh not fully understand what I'm being talked about. Well, no, maybe I didn't explain and it was late at night and it was a short conversation. So, and we

I'm I'm just saying I wanted to clarify it because I wasn't questioning you or the assistant director's authority on zoning.

Well, I fully appreciate that clarification and Linda and I and I think the entire staff agree with what you want to accomplish uh and have felt that way. I have since I've returned. Um unfortunat amendments to the ordinance that unfortunately our zoning regulations are so structured that um that the kind of issues you're bringing up have required um a special permit and therefore review by the commission. We would love to to um ameliate that. And I think once we get through the POC and once we get through uh the initial uh amendments that we need to do to respond to the state housing act that that should be high on the agenda to do it. Um there it um requires a fair amount of language uh changes. Um none of it um difficult. Um but it there is an effort to make sure we catch it all and it's scattered throughout the regulations from the town center where it says any change in use um and uh to the types of efforts that you brought up. We would love to have that further flexibility and obviously so would the uh so would the public in terms of getting approvals though that that is um that has been and will be high on our agenda. Okay.

So, I I took a look at it and the reason that I didn't draft anything for tonight because it was only a short conversation you and I had, I didn't know what the rest of the commission felt. And I, you know, I I've had said since I've been here, I didn't like things dropped on the desk in front of me the night of the meeting. So, I don't want to come in here tonight with something written, but I've looked through the regulations. I've seen what it says and it wouldn't be very difficult for me to write and I'd be happy to write something for the next meeting if that's something that the commission would be willing to entertain, but I didn't want to bring it tonight and, you know, plop it in front of the commission for the first time.

Oh, well, I I think it makes sense. I mean, if there's no change in use and we're just talking about a site plan application, I don't see no reason why staff can't sign off on it because for us, we don't even vote on it if it's a change of use. So, I don't have a problem with it. Sure. Commissioner James,

I was going to add, I feel like this came up when I first joined TPZ that I remember there was a woman who wanted to open a smoothie shop over in uh I don't know where um TJ Burritos is, and it like just really not too much of a change, but you know, she had to sit through a super long meeting. And I just think I I would agree with something like that just to make it easier for, you know, people who are just trying to get off the ground with things. small business owners could probably appreciate one less step in the process. So, uh, yes, Commissioner Goff.

Yeah, I I I would echo both Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner James. Um but I I want to sort of clarify I think one of the things that uh the director said um I think Commissioner O'Brien was talking about the various zones we have with which have master plans and site plans and there's okay we we approve the site plan but then 6 months later they're building and they've got to change something minor and I I agree wholeheartedly with that. I don't think we need to see it again. Um, but I think that one of the things that the director was talking about was in the center district zone, I think every use has to have a special permit. So, that's another, you know, that's another issue. And I think I I I completely agree with the examples that have been pointed out. The the um whatever the realy office that wanted to become a massage, you know, massage business that we talked about, the one that Commissioner James talked about with uh you know, smoothie or whatever. Uh I think those are things we expect in the center district. I think the fine line comes between um you know when you get to the things that we've had a little more trouble with in the center district such as cannabis retail or you know liquor stores or things like that and I think that's easy to remedy. I think you just make a distinction between some things that have like you know licensing requirements by the state or something like that. But I I would I think both of those changes would be excellent changes because uh yeah, you know, I expect businesses to be coming and going from the shops. I mean, hopefully not going real often, but I expect them to be coming and going and we shouldn't have to sign off on that.

Okay. Thank you. Um anyone else? Okay. Sound like we're in agreement with that. So, we'll uh we'll move forward with that. So, if this this tonight, what the staff is looking for is the commission to affirm the right the to affirm the ability of the director and the assistant director to sign zoning permits were appropriate. Is that what you're looking for? Because if you're looking for, I would make that motion. When you say appropriate, meaning no change of use. Correct. Well, no. There there are various places in which in the regulations that call for a zoning sign off.

Yeah, that's um that's uh pretty much written under the procedures in section 9.1 and 9.2. This is just acknowledgement and affirming that you know staff is authorized um to you know uh with the information before you um you know just affirming that staff is authorized uh to sign off on administrative zoning permits. That's all acknowledgement that you're aware. Yes. Okay. Do do we need to clarify um the type of business? For example, what uh Commissioner Goff said in the event it's something that's uh has to be approved through the state. I'm sorry. So,

does that have to be written in here is what I'm asking. No, no, not at all. This is just acknowledgement that you understand um pretty much that sections that we do comply with um general statute 8-2 and 8-3 regarding um you know, having staff uh that they're authorized to sign off on zoning permits. That's all. Sure. Yes. Commissioner Mallette, I I think there's two things going on here. One's the the memo of what they are already doing and what the regulations say they can sign off on. There's a second piece of we need to look into amending our um regs so we expand the responsibility

the actual things that articulate what you know the actual itemized items that they can do right um and so I think they're two different things well based on that I would say we don't need to do anything tonight correct no uh John mentioned it after we do the PLCD then he'll go through and start looking at the racks. Well, it it was I volunteered to write some something up for the commission to consider it. Sure, you can do that. But now you said after the PCD. Well, I was only reiterating what John with the director. I was I was saying I'm happy to start the ball.

Not a problem. All right. With the commissioner. Not a problem. Okay, that's fine. Okay, next item on the agenda. I'll ask the secretary if you read under old business. Yes. Old business 6A one proposed new section for solar regulations. Uh Jonathan. Oh. Oh, here's someone's here for that.

Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, um we have forwarded to you um the re probably revised revised um proposed regulations for solar. Uh they have um received extensive review by the uh conservation and energy committee uh and um have been afforded the commission members opportunities to comment and we have received comments back. we have incorporated all those comments and um I guess at this point if the uh if the commission is of of a consensus um the action would be to um the um to direct the staff to u to assign these to a to a public hearing at your next meeting.

All righty. And Nick is prepared here to give you a quick presentation if you so choose to or would like to see it. I'm not sure if uh everyone has read the regulations and are good with it. If not, um Nick is here to just present the additional information based on feedback from the last hearing and also uh based on CEC's um uh input. Sure. Proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh for the record, Nicholas Kabusta, environmental planner, town of Bloomfield. Okay. Thank you for this opportunity. Uh as the assistant director and director noted, u I prepared a small slide deck uh just kind of summarizing both the edits and additions to the last draft of the regulations that we're proposing. I also uh subheaded additional information because at the last meeting where I was present, I think there was an interest among some commissioners about learning generally more about solar energy and its logistics to better inform how to vote and how to you know react to these things. So that's also in this slide here. So without further ado, great. So a little more information about solar specifically the way it's broken down in the proposed regulation. Um there are several ways to harness solar energy via photovotayic cells aka solar panels. Uh you can mount them to a rooftop. If you do that uh within Connecticut, you must be in compliance with building codes and permitting. So that being it would go not it would not just be under the jurisdiction of zoning regulations. It would also to be in compliance with state building codes. Um in Bloomfield, it gave some examples. There are already on many houses. I'm sure you've all seen commercial buildings and even schools here in town. Um, another way is they're mounted to the ground. This can be a standard racking as it's referred to in the industry or polemounted. I I have images on the next slide that'll clarify that. In Bloomfield, there are some residential properties that have these kinds of ground mounted solar systems. A pretty noteworthy one also is behind the Bloomfield border that is actually Connecticut's first community solar project. So, a very noteworthy example of ground mounted solar here in Bloomfield. Lastly, there's kind of the alternate structure category. Um, carports fall into that category. Non-buildings, uh, you'll see sometimes they're on pergolas or canopies. Might have to get down that rabbit hole, but

that's where the carport, uh, kind of falls into that bucket. Uh, in Bloomfield, a noteworthy example that already exists are the carports at Seabberry. Onto the next slide, please. This just illustrates what I just talked about. Uh maybe I should have put labels, but for your information, on the left handmost column, those are two examples of roof mounted solar. The top is a more or less residential home, and the bottom is what it looks like on a commercial building, maybe a warehouse or shipping center, that kind of thing. The middle column are two examples of ground mounted solar. The top is the polemounted I was talking about. Uh the bottom one is the standard or racking mounted. They both go on the ground. It's just a matter of how you support them essentially and the support on the ground under underneath. Lastly, on the right are some examples of carports. Uh these have very varying designs. You know, some are very utilitarian, just kind of like two metal, you know, some metal poles holding up a flat area. Some are more aesthetic in their design, but they more or less look like that. Next slide, please. Okay. So, in terms of uh once you make the energy, where does it go? I thought it'd be helpful to understand that. So there's essentially two options really. You can generate energy and keep it on the generating property either wholly or partially. Uh meaning you could either use all the energy produced or some of the energy can go back on the grid. And I'll explain what that means in the next bullet point here. So the other option is that the energy you produce is sold or delivered to the state grid. Uh so it can be used beyond the generating property. Um the generating property in this sense delivers the energy to the grid. Uh and in traditionally the the property that generates the energy receives some kind of compensation. You may have heard of the term net metering. You know like you produce the energy the energy you then sell off the the cost that you then produce for the grid gets subtracted from your bill. Otherwise you know it kind of equals out in that sense. Um in Bluefield in Connecticut uh

this kind of delivery system is maintained by Eversource. Um the transmission to the grid is largely dependent on the current hosting capacity in a given m municipality. On the next grid on the next slide I explain what that means and looks like. So this map uh is from is provided by Eversource like I was saying they are responsible for the delivery system if it goes beyond the generating property. I want to define hosting capacity because it's kind of a vague word. I'll just read it word for word. It's the maximum amount of energy that resources that can be added to the distribution system without requiring additional upgrades. Uh and those or it can also you know be restricted by if an additional system would cause the rest of the the system or grid to be less reliable essentially drain too much resources and energy away from the rest of the grid. Um larger scale solar developments are heavily dependent on the existing hosting capacity. So for roof mounted solar or if you're generating on your property, this map isn't as relevant. But this map kind of guides in Bloomfield and the entire state actually where larger scale developments of solar can happen. Um in terms of color coding, it might be hard to see especially for folks with uh potentially red green uh issues unfortunately. Um but I can also do some pointing here. Essentially for those you can tell the green means it has a high hosting capacity. a high potential to host larger slow developments. The darker the red means it's less capable. So I'll do some pointing here away. But essentially on the the highest hosting capacity as you can kind of see is on the eastern side of town on the roads of Grandby Toby Philly Winberry. Um oh actually um record Miss Recording Secretary could you hit the next slide? I think I can

actually Yeah, there we go. I forgot I did that. One more, please. Yes. So, these are the general areas where there's the highest hosting capacity. It's mostly in that kind of one rectangle area. There's a teeny tiny bit of green in way northern Bloomfield, but that's where the the highest potential for large solar development exists in town. Next slide, please. So, I also want to mention because this word is going to come up both uh tonight in general, but also down the road is the Connecticut Sighting Council. Many folks might know about this, but I think it's worth mentioning anyway. Uh it's a state entity. So, it's beyond the they um they are preempted. Bluefield is preempted by the sighting council. They have authority over uh what the town can do in terms of uh local regulations, in terms of the state. Um they have jurisdiction over the sighting of certain energy projects. Also I mentioned telecommunications hazardous waste but for our purposes it's the energy projects we want to focus on here. Um part of why they exist uh is to ensure that when certain energy projects of our a certain large enough size they become vital not just to a town's energy uh provisioning but the states that's why it becomes then like a a state issue a state interest if you will. Moving on please. So, as it relates to these regulations and solar in general, uh I got this wording exactly from the sighting council's website, uh I'll just read it word for word for now. So, in terms of their jurisdiction as it relates to electric generating or storage facilities using any fuel, it does not include emergency generating devices or I can kind of skip some of this wordage here. uh it does not include uh a system that has a generating capacity of one megawatt or less if utilizing renewable energy sources. In this case, that would be solar. So, in short, the Connecticut Sighting Council regulates solar projects that are greater than 1

megawatt. Uh but it does not have jurisdiction necessarily or they are not as concerned with projects that are 1 megawatt or less. the default regulatory body there is your local municipality. Moving on, please. So, that's kind of like I I was trying to fill in some holes there from the last meeting. Now, I'm going to just do some broad points about the additions that were made to this new draft. Um, I'll just kind of, you know, just read them off here. Uh, we added a purpose section that was absent from the first draft. I think that would be important for general clarification. Um most of the additions were made to the section regarding largecale systems. Um there was a a majority of commissioners as well as comments from the CEC and the public which informed this next bullet point here uh which was the largecale systems permission was amended to be only in the I1 and I2 zones. Those are the industrial zones in town. Um, another addition was we added to the list of considerations for a special permit. Uh, these considerations were taken directly from the interim policy for sighting of utility scale renewable energy facilities. This policy was passed I think in 2024. I have it right here. Uh, it was reviewed by town council and our town manager here. Uh, next. Oh. Oh, sorry. Back, please. I I meant to say next bullet point. My apologies. Um I'll I'll try and be brief here, but I just we added language to negate uh property owners from kind of working their way around not you know having a system that is beyond one megawatt, you know, by having you know.99 systems next to another N9 system. You're connected but they're different properties. That was just to avoid loopholes if you will. Uh the next addition was adding screening requirements when a large scale system abuts a residential area. Next slide please. some smaller additions to the maintenance and decommissioning plans.

Uh once again added considerations for maintenance plan that was from the previously approved policy I mentioned earlier. Um and then another theme uh somebody one of the commissioners mentioned at the last meeting uh what happens if the property that contains solar is sold or you know what happens down the line when their interests change so to speak. that kind of informed these next two bullet points uh in which uh even if a maintenance plan a decommissioning plan is approved by the commission at one point in time uh the owner can petition to edit or change the conditions in the maintenance plan for whatever reason is not guaranteed but they may petition to have their plans reheard. Uh lastly, as I mentioned earlier, uh the change there's a change of ownership section that more delves more into that exact scenario. And that is all I have. Lastly, I just wanted to say moving forward, you know, I'll be happy to address additional comments and cons uh you know, questions. Um I thought it'd be appropriate to mention this is for the future. This is not for this existing regulation before you. Uh but there have been um inquiries within the CEC about the future of solar in Bloomfield. uh and to explore ways that local regulations could encourage the installation of solar on certain commercial properties. So that is the current regulation before you discusses the logistics of what is permitted and appropriate. Potentially in the future there could be regulations that then guide that actual implementation as well. Um and that and then I'd mentioned there are existing regulations and that elsewhere that we can draw inspiration from. That is all I have for you today. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh on the commission, anyone have any questions regarding the proposal for the solar regulations? Okay, Commissioner Goff. Yeah. Um well, first of all, just I think you've done an excellent job on this. I think it's uh it's looking very good. I I have two questions. Um one is on a comment uh about the ground mounted solar or no, the canopy solar. Uh, and this is in the um it's not actually in the regulations now. It's a comment off on the side of the regulations.

Uh, solar parking lot canopy consider an accessory use. And then there's comment and I think it's going to be included as an accessory use by right in every zone except the center district zone. Um, and I think I know you had some correspondence with uh the chair of the CC on this. Uh, and I understand I I can understand the notion that we want a downtown center that's walkable. We don't want, you know, if we start putting things with solar all over the place, that could be problematic. Um, I just have would have a suggestion that maybe we have some allowance for that if it's reviewed. um maybe by design review or this or this or this commission

um because you know I I look at the bridge that was constructed for part of the new processor library and I think at one point in fact I mean and this this may have been never in the actual plans and Lois can comment if if she's on the uh building committee for that. Um, but I don't know if it was ever in the plans, but I think some blue sky thinking about that bridge uh along the way was, "Oh, well, we'll we'll cover, you know, that will be a walk a bridge. It'll have a canopy over it, and guess what? The canopy will be solar." And I don't think that would have any negative effect. In fact, I think it would have a good effect. So, um, I guess my question is, would that I mean, that's easily doable, right? to to make when you put these in the regulations maybe you know it's it's allowable by a use by right in every

zone except the center district zone maybe the gateway zone I don't know uh for the same reasons uh but maybe allowable by some kind of review yes uh I think you captured the setit of the initial exclusion perfectly was that very idea um I do agree I do think uh the point you mentioned about the bridge uh could be a a good reason to then open up potentially what I wrote down was perhaps uh you know instead of it being excluded in that zone permitted if reviewed by the design review board you know having in addition to the special permit um I think that's a good idea and I'd be happy to incorporate that if there is consensus and

and my second question um and again I I think you know I think I hope we will send these to public hearing I think they're ready to go and I think they're ready to get asked uh with with appropriate comments and considerations from the public. Um but have you do you know what balcony solar is

vaguely but I wouldn't mind hearing more about it? Well, well, balcony. So, um, this is happening a lot in other, uh, in other countries, Germany in particular, but a lot of Europe. And in fact, it's been passed in two states, Virginia and Utah and the United States. And there is currently, and I wrote it down so I would I I would remember. Let me look. Didn't have a I didn't have a a piece of paper in front of me, so I put it in my uh phone. It's currently a provision of House Bill 5340 in the Connecticut legislature. So, um, balcony solar is essentially solar panels where you don't have to do any of the wiring and they're smaller. So, as the name sounds, the idea is you don't put them on your roof. Generally, you put them on the balcony. They are smaller. They produce less electricity than what you put on the rooftop. But the big advantage of them is they involve no wiring. You plug them into an outlet. Mhm.

Um and they these things are taking off like wildfire for the obvious reasons that you know you don't get involved with this. Um there are some concerns by utilities because you know does the wiring interfere with feeding back into the grid if there's a power breakout. But I think all that can be worked out and as I said Virginia and Utah right past that. Uh, one thing you may want to look at in just in terms of these rags, I mean, we have a public hearing so forth. It, you know, do you think that the regs as they stand now

would would cover that and do they need to, you know, what we should be thinking a little bit proactively in terms of that. I think it's coming and in fact, I think people can buy these systems now sort of pirating them. uh you're not supposed to have them clearly you know that would be something the building department would also be looking at but I you know uh we just ask that you take a look at that.

Sure. Um may I respond to some thoughts initially which is I am not sure if that exact technology is covered right now. However, I think in the very first conversation uh month ago about this kind of regulation was that it's an acknowledgement that this regulation involves technology and technology changes every single day. Um, and so personally, I would not be opposed at all to revisiting these regulations if technology changes, if these kinds of systems you're talking about become extremely popular and and we it makes sense to regulate them in some way. Um, I'd be open to looking more into it now, but that is my thought is that I see this regulation is like I mean every regulation is living and breathing, but this one especially because technology is changing rapidly, it makes sense to revisit this when that becomes necessary. I I I really believe that. Thank you,

Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. Um, there was just one bullet in your PowerPoint that I wanted a clarification on. You said you added special permit uses. Where did you add them? I don't recall that bullet, but um could you please um navigate like an I1 and I2 zone? Well, so is what what are we using the special permit? Oh, I think I know what you're referring to. Where are we allow where are we requiring special permits and what are we requiring it for? If you could just clarify that.

Yes. Um, could you please navigate to I think it's like the third slide. What are the Yeah, large scale. Oh, I'm sorry. I messed up. It's that near the end. I'm very sorry. I I'm just making you do circles here. Little bit more. One more I think. One more. There we go. Thank you. Yes. You said added a list of shall be considered by special permit. You didn't say what where.

Yep. So because it is under the bucket. This is applying to large scale systems which are now in this current draft only permitted in the I1 and I2 zone. So these considerations for the special permit referred to a special permit to be applied for a large scale solar system either in the I1 or I2 zones that is all. Okay. So I just want to clarify because the original we were going to allow them by special permit in residential and we're not doing that. That is correct. Thank you.

Uh yes, Commissioner Mlette. So, um I see in the uh the drafted uh where we're limiting the large scale to I1 and I2, but there was a a comment about um a limitation in the center district. Can you refer where that was? Sure. Um yep. So, that was for the solar parking lot canopy section, uh which is section 6.14.8. E, I think on your paper it would be page one, two, the bottom of page three if you're looking at the one with the comments on it. Yeah, it's only on the red line. It's on the red line. The red lines one. Oh, the red line version. Thank you.

Apologies. Yeah, thank you. I got it now. Thanks. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. If there's no further questions, the chair entertain a motion to move this forward to a public hearing. So moved. It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Abstension. Chair vign. Hey. Uh, next item on the agenda. I ask the secretary. Proposed text amendments section 2.2 and 7.16 related to cannabis establishments.

Okay. Jonathan

again, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, uh this is a set of proposed text amendments that we have been working on for a fairly extensive period of time. Uh we have received comments back um both in general and from members of the commission. Um we think it's ready to go to public hearing. Uh this one does need to move along fairly rapidly because we have the moratorum that we've extended a couple of times that we really should not be continuing to extend. Uh and um Alex is um here virtually uh to um to either go through it or um explain any addition changes that uh have been made since your last review. and we would recommend that that the commission uh does move this to public hearing.

Okay. Uh Alex, can you quickly go through the changes that was made?

Absolutely. Uh Alex Samlot, um zoning enforcement officer for the record. Uh I'm going to attempt to share my screen. Okay. Um, so after reviewing comments provided by the commission, uh, and I do see my PowerPoint up on the screen, uh, I took a look at the buffering sections. Um, and I think I did a very good preliminary job of kind of cutting through the weeds, so to speak. Uh, I eliminated certain redundancies. uh there were differences in like 200 feet uh for some of the buffers that there would be in my opinion no substantial change. I was able to merge a few of those sections. Um that being said, I do think there is a way to combine uh the uses and buffering measurement methodology that I have here to make it even more concise um and maybe a little bit more straightforward. uh but just just to be able to visualize what these buffers are as one of the comments uh that I received during the last presentation uh I would like to just show a very kind of rough sketch of what those buffers look like. Uh so can you all see the map on the PowerPoint?

Yes.

Okay. Uh so using 10 mozzy drive um being the the only uh the only up and running facility that I am aware of as the kind of I guess case study so to speak. Uh using the 1,500 ft uh approximate oh I'm sorry uh using the 500 ft uh approximate buffer tool. Um you can see how the parcels that are within that radius. Uh some of the feedback that was received during that application was the daycare which is this yellow star. um this this buffering methodology would would include that daycare uh under the regs that I am proposing and you know just being able to see what the parcels are um and any conflicts I think might be of some benefit. So being able to visualize the other proposed section being the 1,500 ft uh approximate buffer between facilities um you know just to be able to understand what 1,500 ft is. uh just from a kind of macro scale viewpoint. Uh I did the same thing uh with the GIS service that we currently have uh being the best tool available. And this is what 1,500 um feet would look like. The red star being 10 mozzy and the yellow star being 101 Gambby which was the other application that um TPZ had received for uh a similar use. And the actual regs themselves, um, the actual edits that I made are are pretty minimal, just a rework of the buffers. And, you know, upon further review, I do think there's a way to streamline them further. Uh, but I'd love to hear the

commission's feedback on this as well as just the regs as they stand from the the previous discussion. Okay. Is that the end of your presentation or you just want us to respond on just this particular issue? Um, I'd like to just uh how about we go with a response for this particular issue? Um, and then proceed with the general conversation.

All right. Commissioner, do you have any questions regarding the 1500 ft proposal he's he's putting forward? Commissioner James. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm curious, I guess, the existing um 10 Mosy or is that Ten Mosie? Um yes. Would it just be like kind of like grandfathered in or is the Yeah. Uh just to clarify, so 101 Graanby Street was approved for another cannabis um you know, uh facility um but growth facility. Um, but they uh I believe that they withdrew that's no longer moving forward. Yep.

So I mean I guess for even the 500 ft where it's like right next to the daycare well that that one in that case. Yes. Um I believe that you know with what is being proposed now um just doesn't allow another facility of such in close proximity to each other. um as well as considering if there are any schools, daycarees, churches, etc. So, as you can see, um this buffer probably allows just one in the whole I1 district in that area. Um just a kind of a general view, a visual for what that buffer looks like versus 500 ft.

Okay. So, it's like it it's already up and running, so it's there. Yes, like say they closed and someone wanted to like come back in their space, they couldn't because that day there. Nope. The use is there. So, it's the use. Okay. Okay. It goes with the land. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Goff.

Yeah. Actually, I I do want a little clarification on this po point and I want to raise something. Um, when I look through these and and Oh, he's online. Um, so I I think these, you know, I I appreciate what uh uh Alex has done uh Mr. Samalot has done uh improving these and I think they're they're much improved. However, I was confused by 716.4 for A and B. Uh because I think as U assistant director Lauraniano just pointed out uh B to me is just the distance that a facility needs to be from another facility because it says adult use cannabis retail or hybrid retail shall be located less than 1500 ft from another retail you know retail or hybrid retail location. So the 1500 feet applies only to that. The distance from parks and child care and uh churches and libraries that's in the previous one which is a and that is a 500 ft radius. And additionally, I think there's a mistake or not an omission in that one because if you read through the list of things there, it does not include the canops retail or hybrid retail facilities. So, I think in a uh I think I think that's fine. And I think the 500 ft radius from those types of facilities is what this commission's looking for, but I think it also should include uh and be applicable to the retail facilities. Um, I mean, I think it's I think that's just an emission. And I think that's part of the reason that this cannabis stuff is so difficult because, you know, when you start looking at categories, you end up with like 15 different categories because you've got medical this and you know, retail and hybrid and grow

facilities and transportation facilities. So I I Alex, I would like your reaction. It seems to me that in a you need to include the retail facilities. agreed. I I think that the uses and you know while I'm in potentially another minor rewrite just also the buffering measurement methodology can essentially be combined basically putting all uses together um for the 500 foot buffer to the public parks you know daycarees house of worship libraries um residential purposes as well as the 1500 foot you know buffer between retail I I don't see any reason uh having reviewed this and looked at it a second time why the buffers couldn't apply to both sets of uses. Um as well as the methodology. So um if you'll notice in B at the end and you know this is borrowed language. Uh however I don't believe that there's a tremendous benefit to measuring from door to door. Um I I in addition to what you're mentioning, I do think that the measurements can be taken from the parcels.

I I mean the technical thing of whether it's doortodoor parcels I agree with you on uh but I don't think A and B need to be combined. I think they say two different things. I think a is speaking about what these facilities, how these facilities need to be separated from other town facilities, libraries, parks, etc. And I think that should be a se, you know, that should be one point, which it is. It just needs to include the retail. And B is saying how far these need to be separated from each other. This is like how many liquor stores you have in town or something like that. I mean we we'll get to that in its entirety but um B is a separate dis is a separate separation and applies only to the different the distance between uh retail facilities. Now you could also if if the commission desired and I don't know if we care about this uh I think the 1500 ft for you know 1500 ft is basically what about a quarter of a mile. Uh I think the 1500 ft it's a little over a quarter mile. Uh I think the 1500 ft makes sense for retail. Does that also make sense for grow facilities? I I don't know. I don't know if I have a problem with grow facilities being closer. Um but we'll we can talk about that further. But I do think these should be in two separate headings. And what's critical is that we add the retail to to to heading A.

Okay. Noted. Uh and I I do agree with that.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Goff. Any other questions? Commissioner O'Brien. I I just want to say as somebody who's had to defend regulations uh in court, um the commission's got to have something in the record as to say why we've came up with 1,500 ft. Uh you can't just say, "Well, I think that's good." I mean, the zoning is a basis based on health, welfare, and public safety. So you have to say what is the health, welfare and public safety consideration consistent with your plan of conservation and development that would cause us to impose a 1,500 foot requirement.

Alex.

Okay. Um, yeah, it it's Let me pull up the regs themselves. Uh, so uh if you'll follow along with me to the I mean to just have a discussion about this. Uh I believe that's essentially outlined in the purpose section. Um you know I I would encourage back and forth uh about what could be improved uh with you know our reasoning uh behind these regulations. But I believe the purpose of this section uh is where that would be outlined. Um so what are your thoughts?

I sorry. Um, yes. Linda, did you want to comment? No, just this is for the commission's review. I I know I reviewed this staff and we had a meeting on this. Um, I would just keep um to protect and preserve Bloomfield's neighborhood. That's all that's my thing because I think, you know, going back to public safety, um, you know, and health and welfare, we'd want to keep that language there if that's the intent. That's all I Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, yes, Commissioner G.

Uh, just to ask a question of which I'm I am ignorant. Um, so I understand Commissioner Bryan's point. Um, currently, what are the state statutes relative to the proximity of one liquor store to another? Because I know that's heavily regulated. State liquor stores. Um that's a controlled by the state liquor commission and they they established that distance. They also have established the number that you can have in a town. No, I

but when it comes to the local planning and zoning commissions and what the courts have been moving in the direction of is that they don't like caps put on particular uses. Um, I remember back in the 1990s when I wrote the first affordable housing regulation in the state of Connecticut in the town of Orange, the commission wanted to have a cap on the number that could be built. Um, we were able to do it in the 1990s. I don't think you can do it today. Um, and there was no justification on the number. It just made the commission feel better uh to say, "Oh, we won't be overrun with what they thought was going to be a terrible thing to have affordable housing in their town." Um, and um, so what I'm saying is when, you know, we're doing things backwards here, if if I could, we we put a plan in, we put a land use map in, we say where things ought to be, and then we write our zoning regulations based on that plan, and and we're doing things backwards. We're three and a half years late in putting a plan of conservation and development in effect. We haven't seen the land use map in months.

Commissioner, yeah, let's let's stick back to the cannabis.

What I'm saying is when you write zoning regulations, they got to tie back to something. We can't create them out of what we like and what we feel on a particular night. We have to have we have to have reasons for doing things. And you know, like I brought up the last time with respect to this. Um and and the answer I got was well when well mar I still call it marijuana. We'll call it cannabis. Well, the cannabis is was only recently legal. Therefore, we should like restrict it. Well, it is legal now. It's no different from a vape shop or a liquor store. And if we don't require in our zoning regulations that those things can't, you know, have to be 1500 ft apart, what's our justification for doing it for this? I don't think we have one.

M. Can I just respond because Commissioner Goff?

Yeah. No, I uh thank you for that answer. Um, but that the first thing you said I I think you misinterpreted my question. Uh, because I appreciate your your thinking that we need to have some justification. And what I was asking was um I know that as you pointed out liquor laws, permits, locations are highly regulated by the state. And what I was asking is is there a justification or is there a stated justification in the reason that liquor stores I assume they have to be so far apart uh you can't have more than a certain number and I was asking could we you know is that somewhere we can reach out for the reasoning behind this

guidance that was that was my my purpose and I I don't know the as I said I don't know the answer to that all I'm saying is When we adopt these regulations, if we adopt them, the state statutes require that when you amend the zoning regulations, you state on the record your reasons. And so, we have to have a resolution that has some justification for what we pass. I'm just asking what it is.

All right. Uh, thank you, Alex. Are you comfortable with uh what you have proposed there? Yeah, I mean there's already um minor edits that that I believe would improve what's what's up here. uh if in addition to that um you know a presentation relating to both the existing and um you know proposed plan of conservation and development you know that that's something that I'm open to.

Okay. So, is this something that you would have by our if if we put this on the agenda for a public hearing, is that uh something that you can amend before then? Yes. I mean the include in these we're we're only a few commission members deep but um you know with with what I um you know with what has been suggested so far uh it's very reasonable in terms of you know both turnaround time and you know ability to produce something that you know could be reviewed.

Okay. So so maybe we should put it in for the meeting after the next meeting. so we can have chance to review it. Question. Yeah. Okay. Um my only comment to that is I just would like to collect you know uh the total amount of feedback so I can aggregate it for for that you know review. Um Mr.

Yes. Commission I I I agree with um Mr. uh Samadot uh because there are two other important points here um besides the one we've already raised about the um uh the section 7164 the separation requirements um first of all right above that I guess it's 7:15 or 7163D

um uh this lists a bunch of uses we should make sure it includes all of the uses that are that are there. Uh I didn't see a problem with that. But this now limits the um high the retailing facilities to I1 and I2 industrial zones. And I look back at the um last draft, not the draft you presented last time, but the draft and I apologize to the commission. I didn't look at the date on it, but the last time we looked at a draft of this and um two things. One is at that point we included retail, we we intercluded the retail and and dispensary facilities in the gateway district zone I1, I2, and commercial zone. Um I very I I think there's very good reason to bl take it out of the gateway district zone. They're trying to make something different from that. Um and there have been issues with that. Uh but I do wonder why we would not, you know, there are issues with the commercial zone because we have nothing zoned commercial. Uh we haven't reszoneed properties into the commercial zone. Uh but if we're going to have a commercial zone, it does seem it does seem to me that retail cannabis would be a possible use. Uh we didn't like it in the center district, but um but that was you know that was a different issue and that's a different zone. So I would raise the question of D in in um 7153D whether it should include commercial. And then again, I did look back at the last the draft we had earlier, and I brought this up last time, and it didn't seem to reappear. Uh, last time in that section, there was a there was a uh specification E, uh, the town planning and zoning commission shall not grant

special permit and site plan approval for more than three total cannabis, retail, hybrid retail, or dispensary facility establishment where said approvals remain effective. Um, now I I don't think that's really what we I think when we were looking at this that wasn't what we intended because what we intended as I recall the discussion was three facilities overall to um two uh uh two grow facilities and one retail facility. And to Mr. uh Commissioner O'Brien's point he'll make on this, we'd have to give a reason for that. Uh the original legislation for you know that it was not in the final legislation but the original draft legislation for retail cannabis was that you had one retail facility for every you could have one retail facility for every 25,000 of population and and Bloomfield is just at essentially you know a little under 25,000. Um, so I I I certainly agree with what Commissioner O'Brien will say that if we want to put that back in, we will need to justify it. We will need to justify it from the plan of conservation development. We'll need to justify it why we would do it. But I think there was always a strong feeling by the commission that, you know, given the size of the town, we wanted a certain number of these. Um, so I again I I I I think we need to move this on at some point because we have the moratorum and we don't want to continue the moratorum. Uh, I've certainly be willing to see some of those changes and see what happens at a public hearing and what we have to leave and take out. Um, but those are the rest of my comments. Thank you.

Okay. Um, were there any more discussions? I was under the impression that Commissioner O'Brien was concerned about the 1500 ft um designation that that would need justification, not necessarily the state statutes regarding how many facilities we have. Well, it's not a state statute. It was in the original draft state statute. So, I think if we I mean to his comment about affordable housing, which back in the 90s was probably interpreted as section 8 housing, um that if we say we're limiting it, I I think that's the argument. If we say we're limiting something, we have to say why we're limiting it.

No, I I get that, but I thought it was regarding the 1500 ft and not necessarily the amount of facilities. That's what I that's what I said, Mr. chairman, but Commissioner Goth is was an astute listener and he picked up that if we need to give a reason for 1500 ft, we probably ought to give a reason for three. So I but I thought it was part of the regulation, so I didn't think it needed a reason. Um, okay, we can move forward.

Well, point of clarification, I I did not see that limit in the existing rags. Uh, and to my knowledge, there was uh some discussion prior to my involvement in this. Um, but I I did want that out there uh for discussion. You know, that that E section would would need to be added if that's what's desired. Okay. So, you agreed to create some some language regarding a justification of the 1500 ft that you're proposing.

Yes. Um I I open it to further discussion. Um whether the limitation of three uh would be part of this. Um that is not currently part of my plan, but I I await feedback on that. Does the commission have any comments regarding that? Okay, seeing none, Commissioner James.

Well, um I guess I'm curious cuz with the 1500 ft distance separation and then also um 500 from any of all the listed um all of the list uh listed like schools and uh places of worship and so on. And it's only in the I1 or I the industrial zone. So how many places actually could there be in in that somebody could like a business could go in town? It really is like very limiting. Is like are there even three areas that that could exist? It's kind of it's like it just seems very limited which I mean I don't know is if that's what we want then it that is what it is. But I don't I guess I'm curious. Is there room for three in town um given the limitations?

Well, I think it would be two cultivation facilities and one retail, right? So, we actually did have two approved and one was withdrawn and then we did have a request for one retail that we denied. So, what I would propose is I guess um to move this forward for a public hearing. May I have a question? Sure. Commissioner Marsh,

just clarification. When we're talking about the 1500 feet, are we talking about 1500 ft between the two growth facilities? So, they couldn't be uh Oh. Okay, I think I got my answer.

And there is a question about in you know whatever hopefully minor rewrite I do of this whether that should include retail, you know, retail to retail as well. Um and then not to jump around too much, there's a fair bit of redundancy in the buffers. Uh so I understand that there's a lot of restriction. Uh however, there's there's a lot of almost repetitive um spatial restriction in the sense that the I1 and the I2 districts already don't have a significant amount of the the the items mentioned within the buffers. That being said, there there are in uh abuing zones as well as that's not to say that there aren't, you know, a fair amount of those uses some of those uses in the industrial zones such as daycarees. So, I think by limiting it to the industrial zones, um you know, a lot of the 500 foot buffering is already covered. But that being said, not a 100% of it. Um, I think that's the primary I think the industrial zones is the primary spatial restriction. Uh, and then I am curious the commission's thought on the commercial district. Uh, that is something that due to the lack of properties, I haven't I haven't put, you know, a significant amount of consideration to. Uh, there's really no data on it. So, I am curious. the commission's thoughts on that just to have, you know, accurate notes on on what I should do, you know, for the next edit.

Uh, yes, Commissioner Mallette. Would it be helpful if we kept um the buffers, meaning the 1500 and 500, and also added the limit of three and whatever is most restrictive? Would that help? um move this along.

Yes, I'm I'm open to that. And then if we did consider commercial, you know, I I think it would still be first of all, we don't have one. So, right at the the very least, it would be by special permit only for you know, a review for just like what happened with the um the center district, right?

We deemed it not appropriate and then we took a second look and said actually probably not any any scenario where it would be approved. Okay. Thank you. Okay. With uh no further comments, the chair would make a chair would entertain a motion to move this forward for a public hearing. Mr. Chairman, shouldn't we see the revised draft before we go to public hearing?

Um, I have a comment on that I guess. Uh, Mr. Chair, um, I think normally I would agree with that. Uh but I also think we are running up against a time issue because I don't think we want to I I think we need to get something on the books because we have extended this moratorum over and over again. Um I think this is in fairly good shape. Um I think you've raised an issue. Uh I think the things that we're talking I mean the adjustments that need to be made in terms of leaving out retail from the 500 ft and adding I think we put commercial in at this point because we can have the public hearing and see what people think and consider it and we put in a limit on the number of facilities. We can hear what people think and consider it. So I think essentially at this point we can look at that and um include that in in the public hearing. I I understand.

All I'm saying is there are nine people sitting up here, two of them staff, and there's one staff on the thing. And so there's nine different people who heard the conversation tonight as to what our thoughts were. And who knows what's going to come back. And when it comes back, it may be an agreeing with this commissioner. It might be agreeing with me or might be agreeing with you. We don't know. So, I just think that it makes sense that before you schedule a public hearing on something that is supposedly the commission's view, it ought to be the commission's view and we ought to know what that view is.

Okay. Thank you for that comment. Mr. Chairman, you need a second to the motion. Uh, was there a Did anyone I don't think anyone even uh moved the motion. I think Kevin Commissioner G made a comment before we could get anyone to uh move the motion. So, is there is there a motion to move this application forward? Moved. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second.

Okay. Any further discussions regarding moving this application forward for public hearing? Um I have a comment, Mr. Chair. Um so if we move it forward, um are we agreed that we would make the changes we Commissioner Mallette talked about so that they would be in the review copy for the public um and and for the and for this commission um so we can get this done um and go go from there. And yes, so I I will support the motion. And I understand Commissioner O'Brien's point and

so are we also going to get some reason as to why we're putting such a severe restrictions on this use? Yes, he's going to address that also. Okay. Is there any further discussion regarding moving this application forward for a public hearing? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Okay, one abstension. I mean I'm sorry not one extension one opposition and the chair votes eye. Thank you. Uh I will ask the secretary if she would read the last item on the agenda

proposed text amendments to section 5.5.D and 5.5.H related to planned elderly district PEC. Hey, thank you. Is there anyone here to speak on that application? It's not a public hearing. Only discussion between the members of the commission and the staff. Mr. Chairman. Okay. Then are you or Linda? Mr. Chairman, this is

this has been on and off the agenda a few times and it um was prepared in response to um almost a year ago. um the commission requesting the staff to um to um clarify uh the language uh in these two sections and that is the intent of the language uh uh in the sections is to uh to clarify it make conformity with the purpose statement uh that's set up at the beginning of section five and um that is um commission would recommend uh that the uh that the staff would recommend that the commission also move this proposed amendment to public hearing.

Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions regarding the proposed text amendment for the PEC? Uh okay. If you have a comment.

Yeah. Um as the director pointed out, this has been on and off. Um I have a major problem with the commission even taking this up at this point and that is the fact that this is one of the issues uh of um of substance that was not ruled on in the Duncaster um the Duncaster appeal. So the judge in the Duncaster appeal uh sent this back ruled that our hearing process was flawed but did not rule on the merits of the appellants um case uh case and one of those rule one of those issues was our regulations very clearly state that you can't have multifamily dwellings. Um, I know there is some precedent for that because Seabberry has cottages. Uh, but that there's there's no reason I don't know why that is the case. Uh, I haven't gone back to the record to figure that out. U, but I feel that even taking this up at this point since we have an outstanding legal claim out there is is inappropriate. Um it may you know it may be legal but I think it will come back to bite us. I think that ace needs to be resolved and I don't know how it's going to be resolved because the the judge remanded it back to the TPZ if Cbury or Duncaster chose to do that. That has not happened. Um so that's my preliminary thing. If we want to discuss this further Alex,

I also would change would I also have other comments about making change making changes to the PEC zone. Um, so uh we can discuss that, but I I do think there's a a fundamental problem here until that's resolved. That's that's my opinion. Thank you.

Uh, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah. You know, I've given this a lot of thought and um I understand what the where the commissioner is coming from. Um but in reading that um the the the opinion that we got back, the judge says that there were certain um procedural things that he gives the commission the opportunity to address. And then he says, I really am not going to rule on the other on the other issue until such time as uh you fix the procedural things, right? But he doesn't preclude us from looking at the totality of the issue. And if it it seems to me stands to reason if the judge feels that we can correct procedural issues, the judge also wouldn't have a problem if if we decide and this doesn't say we're that we've decided, but if we decide that this makes sense and um so I don't think there's any harm. Now, I will say that when this came up on the plan on our planning meeting, the question was asked of director Coleman, what is the town attorney's opinion on this? And I thought that we were going to get an answer on that. And so I assume that if this is back in in front of us, the town attorney must have greenlighted it. Otherwise, why is it here? Um,

uh, Commissioner Goff. Yeah. Can I just respond? I I I I don't know what the town attorney has said or if he Well, let's find out. Okay. No, we can. But my point is my point is regardless of what the town attorney may have said on it. You can't, you know, quite honestly, if the town, if the town attorney is saying this is a change you may need to make ultimately to make this to make this um allowable, then it's pretty clear that it wasn't allowable before. But that wasn't the question before before the town. The question for the town attorney was, was it appropriate for us to take this up with pending litigation? It wasn't

okay. It isn't that we needed to do it or we didn't need to do it. The other thing I'd just like to clarify, Commissioner Goff, is in the ruling,

I don't think it ever mentioned anything regarding the PEC being an outstanding issue. It said it just said that we're only going to address these issues, but it never specifically said any other issues that it was uh pending to address. I I I I I think I think you're incorrect on that. I think the two issues two issues that it mentioned specifically were this issue and the issue of was this a zoning ch you know should this be addressed as a zoning the whole thing be addressed as a zoning change because the master plan was not what it was initially. Uh, so I I I can ask we can ask the director, but I think those were that was one of the outstanding issues that he specifically said he was not going to to to rule on.

Um, I I mean this is a matter of record. We can look. Okay. So, Jonathan, your recommendation is to move forward on this for public. Our recommendation is to move forward and we we were advised by the town attorney that that would not be inappropriate. May I ask a question? Yes, Commissioner Marshia Neely.

So, I'm I'm looking at um one section 5.5D, right? And um A where residences for occupants over age 62, where at least one person is over age 62, and all others are age 50. So if the other person is not over age 50, does that disqualify that person? I mean, you know, I I know someone that's 62 and his wife is 40. Does would that disqualify the people? I just need to know. according to the regulations. Yeah. Says that uh you have to be over 62 and uh and everybody else have to be over 50.

So I would say yes. So we we did agree on that. Well, I don't think that's that is not that. We don't have anything to do with that. That's that's been in the ordinance um since the beginning. Yeah. And we did not change that. Right. So, Mr. Is there any reason we couldn't change it? Uh, because it really precludes grandparents raising grandchildren to have their grandchild live with them. And it never made sense to me and all the regulations that I've written, I've always taken it out. Commissioner Goff,

um, actually, um, you will I just wanted to read from the decision. Um, okay.

So, this is page two, I guess. Um, the commission approved the expansion defend uh defendants saw it as a quote dimensional change unquote modification of the master plan under section 55H2A of Bloomfield zoning regulations that required special permit approval under section 9.5 um ROR 139393. Uh plaintiffs argue that approval under this section and by special permit was a substantive error. They assert that the defend defendant's expansion instead involved a change of use for the undeveloped eastern parcel at 90 Ller road and therefore section 5.5 H2B controlled uh controlled requiring zoning map amendment approval under section 9.7. Further plaintiffs argue that defendants proposed types of residential dwellings that's this are not allowed in the master plan. So this is an outstanding legal issue at this point and I can appreciate you know we can change the there you can always get well you can get an opinion from a lawyer there is um there is actual impropriety and there's appearance of impropriety. Again, we don't need to do anything on this until the issue of what's going to happen after the appeal is resolved. And my issue is why even open this can of worms at this point in time.

Commissioner O'Brien.

Yeah. I I I I think it's not good idea to um look at a a document in front of you with respect to an application. The the document in front of you has to stand on its own. Either this makes sense or it doesn't make sense. Um, and you know, I I I would I would the only issue I have on this and I had questions with the sentence that said some a jurisdictions shall apply at the time of purchase. I I I have no idea what that means. It sounds like it was written by AI. Um, so I would simply put at least one person is over age 62. Period. And cross out the whole rest of a

I agree. and and and move it forward. Um, and if you want a a motion, Mr. Chairman, I would I would recommend we we we put a period there, cross out the rest, and I move I move we go to public hearing. Okay. Is there any discussion regarding Commissioner O'Brien's recommendation? Just one second. Excuse me. Was there a second? No, no, no. I'm just saying we're we're still discussing it. I'm saying is there any further discussion? Yeah, we didn't we didn't um Mr. Chair, thank you. Um

should we want should we choose Well, there are a couple things about the planned elderly community district. Um, first of all, I I understand the comment about grandparents housing and and so forth, and I think those are very important in, for example, the age restricted um unit we have at Arbella uh that that we approved a while ago. Uh because there you are going to have people probably doing that kind of thing. Uh I think we need to remember that planned elderly community is a is a different kind of district. This is not just housing for people over a certain age. This is this is a um these are what are called life care communities. And the um the theory behind them is that people go into these with the intention of metriculating as necessary to different levels of care. So people go into these kinds of facilities if they ultimately need uh semi-skilled nursing skill. if they ultimately nu you know roundthe-clock nursing skill if they need memory care uh these are these are set up for that so I would find it very strange uh if grandparents were bringing their children to this and sending into the local schools that said you know that's that's neither here nor there in terms of where the regulations can say it I just don't think you're going to get many takers

well it's an issue that could be decided by the facility itself. Yeah. Um and if the facility wanted to allow one or two people to have their grandchild children there, then that's up to the facility. I don't think it's going to wreck harm to the town of Bloomfield. No. No.

And so that's why I don't think it needs to be in the regulation. So um just so um the other thing here is the you know the issue here is the issue that arose when we had the hearing was that um Duncaster the applicant of the application wanted to put in essentially single family houses but they continue to use the terminology that Seabberry has used which is cottages and what I would what I would propose if we want to change this uh in such a way to make it equivalent to the other uh community in town is that we look at a maximum size of of a cottage and we restrict that because again um the I what we were getting when the application came in was that they were going to build 2400 2800 square foot houses. uh that does not seem consistent with the uh purpose and design of a planned elderly community. Um so that you know I I think this would need some work if we were to pass it. Um so that's my other comment. Thank you.

All right. I have a comment. Uh sure, Commissioner Marsha Neely. Oh,

I'll be brief. Uh there there's a program in Connecticut where if you are a senior and you need uh someone to help you medically at home, you can you can um have a family member live with you and take care of you, not necessarily someone the same age as the person that's infirmed at home, the elderly person who has since become infirmed. And so I bring that up because there's so many different scenarios that we can take into consideration. And I I do um partially agree with Commissioner Goff that um you know what the facility is designed for or thought of to be. But uh you know you have a 62 year old whose spouse is 40. You have a 62year-old who needs medical help. and now you have a 30 a 30-some year old grandchild who's going to live with this person to care for this person. Those are different scenarios and and so I'd like to say if we decide to move forward with this um we should have some type of wording in there where you know these different um situational life-changing situations uh can be addressed individually by the facility where a person is not summarily dismissed because they are under 62 years old. Thanks.

Thank you, uh, Commissioner James.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, one of my thoughts is, um, the the language multif family dwelling units, um, and it just occurred to me that during a lot of our discussions on planned luxury residential districts, um, and a lot of the applications that came forward were what seemingly look like single family homes. And the PLR is purpose is to um establish multifamily housing. Um but at the time the argument was that because it's I think it's what is it shared interest community or I forget what it's exactly called but there was some way to explain why these single family homes were acceptable and uh the zones call for just multifamily housing. So my thought is, you know, we just need some consistency in all of our regulations. How are we interpreting multif family versus a single family? Um just remembering that from PLR's conversations.

Uh yes, Commissioner Mlette.

Um I I do agree. I'd like to see the um the the PLR and the PEC be uh consistent um or at least um better defined when it comes to whether we're going to call, you know, planned development and whether that does or does not include, you know, detached, semi- detached, attached units. um whe whether that's multif family or planned or um what we have specifically for the PEC I think makes that much uh more straightforward with just simply saying residents we let the PEC and and um you know I think we still have full control over density and things like that. I have no issue um removing uh the condition of all others um for the lower age just so we can accommodate um some of the u scenarios that were brought up tonight whether it's a careg care caregiver a younger spouse um and then obviously if they did move towards more um specific care. They're probably, you know, going to be in a different facility anyway where, you know, now obviously that um other family members probably would not be or caregivers because it'd be more, you know, maybe nursing care or something like that. And that that's where I think the facilities rules would kick in. um you know all of course under um non-discriminatory you know statutes that the state has as far as housing is concerned. Okay. Thank you.

Um actually we never got a first motion. I think a motion made a motion to you make the change recommendation and to move it forward to a public hearing and then we went to discussion but we didn't get a second chair. I'll second that. Okay. A motion was made to move this forward. Um there's been yes with the changes regarding removing the to add a 62 foot period and cross out everything else. Okay.

All right. There's a motion on the floor that's been made by Commissioner O'Brien to remove the over 50 age restriction on there. It's been seconded by Commissioner Mlette. Is there any further discussion regarding this? U Mr. Chair, Commissioner James,

I guess I would like to ask um Mr. Coleman. Um, what's the thought process behind doing it now versus I mean, just to give a little credit to Commissioner Goff's concerns like if we do this, what's what's the difference if we do this three or four months from now? I'd never known government to move very fast anyways. It's just um from a zoning perspective, it just puts off for to additional time what something that the commission's been talking about for over a year. Um and um you know, we're trying to clean up the regulations and um that's why we wanted to move this one along.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Commissioner G.

Yeah. No, I I I I would I would again second what Commissioner James just said. Again, we have let this is set there for a year. We have no new applications from planned elderly communities in this town. Um in fact, I think it's highly unlikely we will get another. Um, so at this point it seems the only reason to move this ahead is because it will muddy the waters on an outstanding issue and I I just don't see any reason to do that at this point. Let it sit when the when the issue with Doncaster is resolved, which one would hope we would know they were going to do at some point, whether we're going to have to rehear it or they're going to withdraw that application and put in a different plan. then we can take this up. Um, but that's my opinion.

Again, I don't think it's appropriate to tie this to any one application either. This makes sense on the face and if it's something the commission's been discussing for a year, you adopt regulations based upon your best thinking as to what you want in your community. And if you have no problem with residences as opposed to multifamily dwelling units, then that's the only thing I'm seeing we're changing. We're changing the term multifamily dwelling units to residences and we're eliminating that other people living in there have to be um uh over 50 years old. So either that's a good idea or it isn't a good idea. If it's a good idea four months from now, it's a good idea now. It has nothing it should have nothing to do with anything that may or may not be out there and certainly it isn't something you do with respect to pending litigation.

Mr. Sure. Uh, Commissioner Mlette, if if this were to come back, um, meaning the the Duncaster case, would we have to hear it under the the regulations as they were and decide as they were? Um, and not necessarily under this because that I'm just assuming that um, yeah, I would think this this change wouldn't impact. I don't believe because it was heard initially under the old regulations

were the right so we would you know be deciding them as you know they were written so the what we would be remedying would be the issue with zoom um and these would still be asis they were and um Jonathan can you just it would it would make sure

it would depend on how the application returns to If the application returns to us as a reapplication as as um authorized by the court where we're just holding a u another public hearing uh that u does not have technical difficulties uh and is is the application that we heard before he would operate under the regulations that were in force at that time. Mhm.

If they choose to withdraw this application and at another point um submit a new and different application or resubmit the same application as a new application then the then the u regulations that were in force at that point would um would be in force. So, in other words, depending, it's all a timing. Um, but if um they chose to to withdraw and submit a um you I'll call a second application, that application would have to be considered under the regulations in place at that point.

Mr. Chair, can I ask one commission? Can I ask one clarifying question to the director? Um, so my understanding would be with our zoning regulations, if they withdrew the application, if they simply withdrew the application, they could not submit the same application for a year. Is that correct? I I I believe it nothing prohibits them from coming back. the the town and planning and zoting commission does not have to hear it, but nothing prohibits them or should restrict them from coming back to you. Well, I thought if they withdrew an application,

there's nothing that says you cannot come back within a year. It says that the commission um uh does does not have to listen to it again another but it doesn't restrict them from from an applicant from coming back for um you know for your consideration. So, so it sounds, and sorry, just as a followup on that, it sounds to me like, you know, this could be interpreted in a court of law as a as a way to remedy a problem with their previous application if we were to pass this if we were to pass this um this change. And then the they said great now we'll withdraw the application and submit the same thing again but now it's under new rules.

I would just be very you know be very cautious. Um sorry I just you're you're you're talking about an application that has not even you know they're not even we don't even know what's going to happen. Well, that's my point. And and and here we are.

We're taking something that is in an outstanding appeal that the judge has remanded that no decision has been made on and by the scenario you just um pointed out, we are potentially um remedying, I guess, a one of the issues that the judge did not rule on as a substantive issue. I just think I I don't know why this commission would want to get involved with that. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say with respect to that that you're assuming that there's some issue in that second part that the judge didn't rule on. There is. And so, well, in your opinion,

no, it says so. I read it. No, no. The judge says I'm not going to consider I'm not going to rule on that issue now. resolve the the procedural issues and then it'll come back to me and at that time I'll rule on it. So that's you know but that doesn't say that the judge might decide that it was fine. He might. He might. But but

so you can't say that this is remmoning an issue that you don't know is an issue because the judge said I'm the the it was put forward as an issue by those who opposed it. The judge hasn't ruled and until the judge rules we don't know. May Mary uh yes Commissioner Marshall Neely. Um, okay. So, getting back to 3A, I'm just going to read what I think I understand. Okay.

Residences for occupants over age 62 where scribble out at least where one person is over age 62. Period. And then I I would I would ask you to consider some age considerations may apply at the time of purchase instead of some age restrictions shall apply. Some age considerations may apply at the time. That gives the facility an opportunity to make a decision. Or is that too lenient? Can you help me out with that? And no, I I appreciate you clarifying the motion to move forward.

I'm okay as a maker of the motion. It would I just asked the commissioner, why would we limited it to the time of purchase? I mean, could that's a good point.

From the staff perspective, I mean, Mr. Chairman, I think that um Commissioner O'Brien's recommendation is, you know, this was this was written many eons ago in a different era and it seems to me that um that the uh TPZ really has no business being in the covenants of a particular development and that u we can set the sort of minimum because that's what we want the development to be. Beyond that, it seems to me all the other issues related to um age and and uh where and type of unit and all of that uh is um should be part of the covenants in the in that run with the facility.

Okay. Okay. Uh this is not a public hearing. you you're with the Bloomfield Town Attorney's Office. Okay. Um is We don't have a question. Yeah.

Yeah. Unfortunately. Yeah. Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor to move this application forward for public hearing with modifications as to removing uh the uh all all others are over age 50 from the uh from the uh current current language. Commissioner Marshall Neil pointed out and cons restriction and consider. Well, she said take out restrictions and put consideration.

Yeah, but I had only said put a period at the end of 62 and get rid of everything else, but she correctly said we should take out at least two. So, it should say where one person is over age 62. Okay, I'm fine with that. Okay. Is there a second to the proposal by Commissioner Marshall Neely to modify Commissioner O'Brien original request? I'll second that.

It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of moving this application to a public hearing signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed? I abstensions and the chair votes I. Thank you. Um okay. Um Jonathan, if there's anything you want to add, now's the time. Nothing to add at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Will the chair entertain a motion to adjurnn? Second. Great motion adjourn 8:50 p.m. Have a great night. Thank you.

Thank you all for your time. Don't you see? back to me. Three months later, I kept saying I kept saying why haven't you Oh, thank you.