Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Are we all set? Okay,

we're all set. Oh, I'm sorry. Say that again. Fixing it. You can proceed. I got it. I got it. Okay. This is uh regular meeting of the planning board. First item on the agenda, the approval of minutes for the regular meeting of December 10th and the special meeting of

This is a public This is a public hearing. Did I keep going? This is a public hearing. a request of the town of Middletown for development plan review and requests for a waiver from section 521.2 2. C of the Middletown rules and regulations regarding the subdivision and development of land regarding use of non-compliant exterior building materials for construction of a deck expansion, a steel framed fabric structure and associated work on property located at 315 Sachu Point Road, tax assessors plat 127, lot 18. We have a motion to open the public hearing. That moves

motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. Oppose. Nay. Chair votes I. Public hearing is open. Still need to record the meeting.

We're recording it as well. I see. So hold off going. Okay. So you are up. Uh, my office is recused from item 5A. Say that again. Is recused. So, do we have a solicitor for this item? Yeah.

Good evening.

Good evening. Um, hello, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning board. My name is Justin Matus. I am a registered professional engineer in the state of Rhode Island here representing the town of Middletown for a deck expansion at the Second Beach property. A quick background on the project, what's existing out there today is a deck made of two materials, concrete and wood. This will be an expansion of the existing deck, um, which will include a resurfacing of the wooden portion. The concrete will remain as is. Uh the expansion will be about 800 square feet. And on top of that deck will be a steel frame tent structure of about 340 square feet that will have a panoramic clear um sides to it that are removable. You can lift them up um in the good weather, take them down in the in the not so good weather. And we will also be, you know, accommodating the other site amenities around it. The boardwalk that goes around the existing deck will remain. We will expand it to go around the the new footprint of the deck and we will also just increase the site circulation throughout the deck. Um, as is existing, there is confusion with patrons of who's using the concession stand and who's using the restroom facilities. Uh, this project will increase or improve, excuse me, um, the site circulation on that deck to improve the patron's usage of the concession stand. Um, any questions on the project? Um, I'm happy to answer them. Any questions?

Um, could you tell me something about the fabric that's going to be used uh for the the shaded area? Yes. The plan is specified as a sunrella or equal product. So, if you're familiar with the typical awnings that you know come out from buildings, um you might see them in front of a bank or something like that. That's the type of fabric that we'll be using. the sides will be clear. Um, so you'll be able to see the surrounding environment. If the walls are down again, they can be rolled up. They can also be removed. They will be removed in the winter season when the the beach is closed. Any other questions, Charlie?

There's there's no no chance of advertising. Is there no chance of advertising happening on these on that product? Um the project was competitively bid and the tent product is not specifically a product specific call out. Um so that will be competitively bid and the product has to be approved by the town before it can be purchased. If that answers your question whe

Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Sorry, I thought you meant the bidding process. No, there will not be any advertising logos affixed to the tent structure. Okay, that's that's that satisfies. Thank you. Uh let me remind everyone, please talk into the microphone when you have the floor. Mike, so the decking material, is it similar to the existing decking material that's up uh there now? Correct. It'll be pressuret treated wood. Pressure treated wood. Is it does it splinter or anything like that? No, it will be treated. It'll be covered with an oilbased clear um coating on top of the deck that will decrease the weatherization of the wood as well as prevent it from splintering.

The comments, questions, Joe? Um my comment are just referring to the uh Crossman engineering uh memo that and I was pleased to read that there's says there's no impacts made to the abuing coastal features as a result of the project and that also that it blends with the uh natural coastal character of the site. So I'm I was pleased to read that. Thank you. I guess I would just if I can, Mr. Chairman. um piggyback on to that comment. The project was approved and permitted through the Coastal Management Resource Council. So, just wanted to point that out as well. Thank you, Leon.

Uh yeah, just a question on the decking material. Um why did you choose PT and not a composite more weather resistant? The project was specked with an IP surface um which is a more durable wood. However, it's it's more expensive. Um, so the the final product specifications was a costbenefit analysis um for for the for the deck. That's how we ended up on that material. Is that a is that are we approving the material as well tonight or is that is that excuse me I materials

I apologize I stand corrected. Um there was an ad alternate in the bids for a composite decking. Um I guess the town went with the composite decking option. So it will be surfaced with a composite a TX or similar. Okay, great. Other comments? No problem. Does anyone from the public wish to speak?

We have a motion to close the public hearing. So move. Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. I oppose nay. Here votes I. The public hearing is closed. May I? Let's see. Um for this we are um approving the development plan review subject to the conditions of the There were no conditions.

No conditions. no conditions. Um, you'd be approving it uh with assuming you agree with the waiver that's been requested for the materials. So, it's subject to the findings. Approval to uh uh to approve this project subject to findings and the one waiver request. May I have such a motion, please? So, moved. Motion is made and seconded to approve this development plan review subject to the findings and the one waiver request including the one waiver request. There any discussion? All those in favor say I.

I nay. Votes I. Motion passes. Good luck with it. Next item on the agenda is um item 4A. This is a public hearing consideration of adoption of proposed amendments to the Middletown rules and regulations regarding the subdivision and development of land necessary to address amendments to state law passed in the 2025 session of the Rhode Island General Assembly, including amendments to article 2 regarding definitions section 402, 403, 404, 406, and 407. 7 regarding subdivision and land development application review procedures and section 805 regarding appeal procedures and provide a recommendation to the town council for ratification of said amendments. I have a motion to open the public hearing.

So moved. Motion is made and seconded to open the public hearing. Is there any discussion? Those in favor say I. I votes eye. The public hearing is open. Ron, you have the floor.

Thank you. Um, so just a reminder that these are amendments that have been talked about previously with the with the uh planning board. Um, all of the proposed revisions to the town subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances are those required by state law. There's no discretion on the part of the town regarding adopting these. and that and in fact they're already in place as a and the town has been implementing them as as we need to uh because they are in state law. We are simply bringing the town's regulations and zoning ordinance into conformance with the state law. And um that's the purpose of the of the hearing tonight is to uh present what's being proposed and then ask the planning board to forward a recommendation to the town council. So there are two parts to this. There's one the formal public hearing is relative to the amendments to the regulations. the the planning board is required to hold a public hearing before adopting amendments to the town subdivision regulations. The second part is relative to the zoning ordinance amendments. Um the planning board will provide a recommendation to the town council on the zoning ordinance amendments, but you're not technically holding a public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendments. Having said all that, I think the discussion is going to include both both aspects. So, just uh be aware that technically the public hearing is only for the um the amendments to the subdivision regulations. So, I've just got a few slides just to remind everybody what we're what we're going through tonight and um and I'll answer any questions you might have. So, we have three bills adopted in the last session that we're dealing with tonight. The first of which is H uh 5794.

And just to briefly highlight some of the revisions and this is the most extensive uh list of revisions that were required to adopt. Um definition of a minor subdivision has been expanded to include um all subdivisions on public streets with frontage on public streets. all all minor subdivisions regardless of the number of lots um on on public streets um that's a change. Previously, it was subdivisions of less than 10 lots, but now it's any number of lots. Uh, provided that there's frontage on a public street, frontage on private streets, new streets. Um, still still have that limitation of 10 lots. Um, and anything beyond that would be a major subdivision. Subdivision of over oversized lots into substandard lots. Um there's provisions uh that allow for that to happen. A change that requires state permitting at final uh stage for major subdivisions and major land development projects rather than uh at preliminary plan stage. Changes to regulations regarding adaptive reuse of commercial buildings. I'll talk a little bit more about that as I get into the actual amendments. Uh modifications to de dimensional requirements are permitted based on neighborhood character. So the zoning official has the ability to look at existing development within a neighborhood and and approve modifications to zoning requirements based on what's happening within that neighborhood. I'll get into a little bit more detail in a little bit. And then um there's some clarifying language

regarding inclusionary zoning and the density bonuses. And um mainly what that language talks about is the density bonus that is required under the statute actually qualifies as a municipal subsidy. Um so that a developer coming in on inclusionary or an inclusionary zoning project which we don't yet have adopted in town but just for your information um that the uh density bonus would qualify as as a as a municipal subsidy. Uh the next bill H5801 uh this has to do with uh low moderate income housing basically the comprehensive permitting process that we've become familiar with. Um again density bonuses count as a municipal subsidy. Um master plan level of review has been reinstated. You might recall that previously state law eliminated the master plan stage of review. um that's been I guess uh addressed by allowing an optional master plan. So if a developer wished to come to the planning board to get master plan approval without starting at preliminary plan which requires full engineering and full design, they they have that option to come back or to come to the board with a master plan stage of review. So that's that's been reinstated. Um and then it there's some changes to the findings uh regarding comprehensive permits. And then the last bill 5795 uh pretty straightforward requires that the zoning uh official issue a certificate of zoning um conformity within 20 days of of the request. So that's just simple change to the zoning ordinance.

So the changes to address these uh statutory revisions um we've got the the actual drafts which are in the packet. So we could look through each each section, but just to summarize in the subdivision regulations again, definitions article two changes the definition of a minor subdivision. As mentioned, um it's actually nine or fewer lots on a new street or any number of lots on an existing street would qualify as a minor subdivision. Under article 4, procedures for subdivision and land development projects section 402, um a pre-application meeting is now optional. It's no longer required that the developer um request a pre-application meeting. Um section 403 um would indicate that a certificate of completeness cannot be withheld. And this is for an application. So when I'm reviewing an application to determine whether it's complete or not, I cannot withhold a certificate of completeness unless it's uh a checklist a submission checklist item. Uh previously the practice had been for example if a condition of a prior stage of review had not been addressed. So, for example, if a master plan approval had a condition that something be done and that condition hadn't yet been satisfied by preliminary, I would hold back the the approval or the um certificate of completeness. That can't happen anymore. You can only withhold a certificate of completeness if it's something that's on the application checklist for that stage of review. Um section 404, um this is just regarding required findings um for plans that are reviewed administratively. Section 406 regarding minor subdivisions

um of of um oversized lots. So, this one's interesting because what it allows for is a subdivision that creates lots that do not comply with the underlying zoning dimensional requirements. if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed lot size is equal or greater than at least 50% of the lot of the surrounding lots within within 200 ft. Um so it it does allow without without the need for zoning relief creation of sub substandard lots again provided that it's um at least as big as 50% or more of the lots within within that 200 foot uh area. Um I mentioned earlier section 407. This this shifts the requirement to gain state permitting from the preliminary plan stage to the final plan stage for major uh subdivisions and land development projects. And then section 805 is uh clarifications regarding the appeal uh process. Again, it's procedural uh modifications primarily. And then amendments to the zoning ordinance that are required. Uh se to section 311 again inserting that 20-day limit to provide the zoning certificate. Section 323 regarding some findings uh for granting of zoning relief for subdivisions under unified review. Section 728. Um this is regarding adaptive reuse projects. And this is the one section, and we highlighted this the last time I talked with you, where the planning board in the town has some discretion in in the language that ends up in that

section. Um the two areas where there's discretion are the density um provisions for adaptive reuse projects that uh that do not provide at least 10% affordable housing. For adaptive reuse that does provide at least 10% affordable housing units. There's basically no no density limit subject to building and fire code limitations for the building. Um, but the town does have the ability to impose a density limitation if the project does not have at least 10% affordable housing. I've inserted for discussion purposes uh 3,000 square feet per unit as a density uh provision. We talked at the last well the last time we talked about this that that's consistent with um the projects that we've seen come through the planning board adaptive uh reuse projects such as the one right behind us the former KBH building and a couple of the others are in that roughly that range of 3,000 square feet per unit uh for those projects. So that's that's where that number comes from uh open for discussion if if the board wish to. The other area where there's um some discretion is that our current um ordinance limits adaptive reuse to buildings within their existing building envelope. Expansions of existing commercial buildings are not permitted except for code issues and uh providing adequate access. So for like st if we need an additional stairway or something, there can be those minor um additions to existing buildings. But generally speaking, under the current the current ordinance, expansion of buildings is not permitted. The statute

allows the town, if it wished, to allow for whatever level of expansion of existing buildings you wish to allow. The language that's before you tonight is keeping keeping it as it as it is, which is basically no expansion permitted of any of existing commercial buildings as part of an adaptive reuse project. So that's something you can choose to discuss. Uh section 805 um cl this is just clarification of the way non-conforming lots are handled. Um you'll recall that prior, it wasn't 2025, it was prior um legislative session where um uh zoning dimensional requirements for non-conforming lots are um relaxed um in proportion to the lot to the amount that the lot is non-conforming for lot area. So for example, if if a lot is 40% less um than the than the maximum or the minimum lot size, then the dimensional requirements are also reduced by that 40%. So that that hasn't changed. What's been clarified is that if that lot would comply with another zoning district within the town that you would apply those dimensional requirements from that zoning district to the lot rather than doing that calculation. So, for example, if you had a 15,000 square foot lot in an R20 zoning district, that's a non-conforming lot because it's not 20,000 square feet. you would apply the dimensional standards of the R10 district in Middletown's case because we have R10 and R20. Um, since that lot would be in conformance in the R10 district, you would apply the dimensional requirements for setbacks and and whatnot of the R10 district to that lot. So, that's that's

the clarification that's made um through this legislation. And then finally, article 17 um comprehensive permit applications. Uh I talked about this already. Master plan review stage has been reinstated. Um the other thing that's changed is for comprehensive permit applications. Previously there were find required findings for approval and then required findings. If the town wished to deny the application, you had to make findings. Um the findings for denial have been removed. So basically what it is is the board would be considering the application and you'd have to make the findings of approval and if you can't make the findings for approval then you deny the application. It's basically in line with what you normally do anyway. Um it just it removes that idea that you have to make findings in order to uh different findings in order to deny the application. So that's um a summary of what's being proposed. Again, you've got those two minor areas of discretion regarding adaptive reuse projects. Um, other than that, all the other amendments are consistent. The language is consistent with what's required by state law and already being implemented in the town. Questions for Ron

Beyond and Charlie,

I'll just go down. Thank you for the summary, Ron. I'll just go down. I have questions on several of these. Um on section uh 403, you mentioned um withholding a certificate of completeness and you give an example of um conditions that weren't met and you couldn't withhold a your example or in your summary you said that you couldn't withhold a certificate of completeness if If a theoretical theoretically if a condition was not met but only you can only withheld withhold sorry the certificate of completeness if checklist items are missing. So who holds the developer accountable for planning board? So what would happen is I would have to certify it complete if it meets if it the submission requirements are all met. they would be put on the next agenda. When they get to the planning board, you know, the discussion, assuming that that condition is still has still hasn't been met, there would be discussion. It would end up in my memo to the board that that condition had not been met. The planning board would then have to decide how it wish to proceed. Doesn't mean the planning board has to approve. It's not forcing the planning board to approve an application where a condition hasn't been met. What it simply is saying is I can't keep it off an agenda because

Okay. Okay. Because it hasn't been certified complete. So, this was a question I had also. If the planning board puts additional conditions on, they still they're still valid. Is that still valid and must be It's all Exactly. It's all about certification of the application to get it on a planning board agenda.

Okay. So, it it you you you issue the certificate of completeness of the application to get it to an agenda item and then it comes in for discussion. Right. All right. Uh the next question was um that uh section 728 um your example again the adaptive reuse and you mentioned a 3,000 square foot minimum per unit. That's not a minimum on the unit size. No, that's 3,000 square feet of land per unit. Yeah.

Okay. So the example you gave is that the the the adaptive reuse of the my eyes are all of a sudden older than they were 20 minutes ago. Barely read um the example of uh the KBH building. How many units? 80 82 I think. Yeah. Oh 82 times 30,000. The 3,000 square feet. That the lot size. It's a big lot. It does. Okay. Yeah. I just I'm trying to do the math there. So, it seems like that's a pretty big lie. Yeah. Hit it. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, that's kind of what we've done. Yep. That's the precedent.

Um, and just for clarification, uh, section 805 where the, uh, lot area would comply with a small a smaller zoning district. Our our smallest zoning district in Middletown is R10, right? Okay. What would happen if we decided to create like an R5 zone?

If the town had an R5 zoning district and let's say a lot was 8,000 square feet. So, it's less than the R10. Well, in the R5, so you've created a new R5 zoning district. If the lot is between 5,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet, you would go back to the dimensional requirements for that R5 district. Okay? You always go down like an 8,000, let's just say theoretically, if Middletown had an R5 zoning district. Now, yeah, an 8,000 foot lot in an R10 district would fall to the requirements of an R5 district. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Okay.

Yes. Yes. Because that lot would com would fit within the R5. Yes. It's the next one that it satisfies and then all the so all the proportional dimensional variations all that math goes away, right? It just goes to that district. So this this change really impacts for for Middletown since we don't have an R5 districts. Our smallest is R10. Um, any lot that's smaller than R10, Chris Costa, the zoning official, has to do that calculation, right? Okay, those are my questions.

Uh, Ron, this is really um housekeeping. bring the town up to speed with what the state has uh passed regarding uh a more affordable u housing situation for the the state and um not I certainly agree with it. I think that we we've come a long way. Um what I'm what I'm curious about is there seems to be a conflict with those moves to make more affordable housing compared to um uh fees to actually do the building. Some towns and cities I think are a little excessive. I think Middletown might fall into that that group. I'm so I'm curious. Does the state have any any authority to visit that portion of housing? Well, which I guess question.

Well, which fees are we talking about? I'll say building fees. I'll say impact fees. I'll say uh anything along those lines because I think here here we are encouraging development. We're encouraging uh people to recognize that there's now affordable housing. Y but at the same time um there's what I see as a conflict.

Yeah. So im impact fees which are different than permit fees and license fees, you know, all the other fees. So impact fees are strictly the town's prerogative. There's enabling legislation which allows towns to adopt development impact fees. We're not required to, but the town of Middletown has development impact fees. Um we're about I think in February, one of the February meetings, we'll have a revised um fee schedule presented to the town council. based on the study that was just completed.

Ultimately, the town council decides first whether or not it wishes to have impact fees and if it does, what the level of those fees will be. So, that's purely discretionary on the part of the town. Um, building permit fees. Um, I I guess you could say that's still discretionary. The town's the town sets the sets the building permit fees. they've got to be calculated in a way that demonstrates that it's based on the amount of the cost to the town to do plan reviews and that sort of thing. So there is some uh regulation of how those fees are adopted and but it yeah I mean the town I I suppose doesn't need to collect um permit fees if it wished not to. I I kind think I think that you know it's I I see impact fees as a as a as a problem for some families that may not be able to afford them. So that's that's my thought, but I I guess I could bring that up with the council.

Yeah. Um so the state wouldn't have any any say on that issue. Not at this point. I mean, you know, if the state were to take up legislation, then then that would be a different thing. Um, I'm not aware of any legislation pending uh regarding impact fees. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Other comments? Joe, did you have comments? Yeah. No, my comment was um just to ask you, Ron, based on as of July 25, correct? Yeah.

And we're just trying to come into compliance. This is really just designed to improve and streamline the process and bringing more affordable and more units to the market. Well, that I think that was the intent of the state legislation. Yeah. I I just wanted the public just to get that on record. There there's um so, you know, I we're going through three of the bills,

right? Um there's more there's more to come from the 2025 legislation that we haven't put forward yet to you. That'll be coming. And then of course now this 26 session has just started and I understand from what the speaker has said in public that there may be additional legislation coming. So um we're you know a little bit behind in adopting what was adopted in the last session. We're still subject to the law. the town has to follow whatever the state law requires us to do. But um yeah, that that's the intent. That's the intent, right? Yeah. Right.

And I I I think Steve and then Steve also

I wanted to talk about section 728 which I understand which is one of the um areas where we do have discretion and wanted to explore a bit the expansion provision where we have no expansion opportunity in conjunction with adaptive reuse projects and I see there has been two possible difficulties um with this. First it what it means is if developer wishes to do an adaptive reuse to residential where he's got a smaller building and then he's going to make it a big bigger building. He has to do it in a two-step process. He has to come in with his commercial building, see go through the whole process for variances and so on to expand the building as a commercial building and then go through the adaptive reuse uh process which I think inefficient and works against adding more residential properties to the town, which is what we're seeking. And the second problem is I think it's um very confusing for this planning board, if not almost like a misrepresentation um because we're getting information for the commercial expansion when it's not really actually going to be a commercial use. And by way of example um have 345 valley road coming up which we went and did a site visit. It was told to us it's going to be a commercial use. We looked at the inputs from the different commissions and so on as a commercial use, but if it's actually

going to be residential, we might have had different ideas on landscaping and um and zero setback on the other property. So um I think to the extent we have the discretion to permit expansion of an existing building pursuant to an adaptive reuse take advantage of that discretion and phrase the law that way problem I mentioned before I mean it's make it it seems like we make it more difficult than it has to be Charlie then I think that's was just a poor wording in by legislators past created that problem but anyway maybe Well, you've got that. I think what that's the point that was being made. You have that ability now if you if you wish to allow for expansion of existing buildings. You can do that. Um it would just have to be a discussion of well how much of an expansion are you going to allow to happen as part of an adaptive reuse?

I thought I thought adaptive reuse is confined to the envelope of the existing structure. That's that's what the way it's currently written. What we're what we're talking about is the fact that State law allows the town to allow for it. So, we could change that. Yes. Y make a recommendation. Why don't you draft something for us to consider? Well, it's it's actually pretty simple. It's it's probably going to be a percentage of floor area that you're talking about. Um whether it's 25 also involves putting a second story on on a one-story building. That's that's another issue.

Why wouldn't why wouldn't we allow an expansion as long as it's conforming? In other words, if it's a for example, if it's a singlestory building and the building height allows for and you know it's within the setbacks, it allows for an expansion by right. Converting a building from a commercial to a residential or an adaptive reuse to a residential would be allowed by right. You would be also be allowed to add additional structure as long as that structure was conforming dimensionally without any limitation otherwise.

I I would say yeah I because it sounds if it's a conforming structure why would we make them come for round two on that first meeting?

Well I mean that's that's within the board's discretion to propose something ultimately the council's going to decide. I guess my my thinking on that would be that and not that this is necessarily a problem. If you're trying to create housing then then but if you you could have a you know a pretty big piece of property with a small commercial building on it adaptive reuse project the way you're describing it could basically take a small building and make it a very large building and still still calling it adaptive reuse when it's really basically a new big structure. I guess my counter to that would be if if it's if it's allowed by right in the zoning district anyway, why would we think we have the right to limit that?

You might want to if it was an empty piece of land and someone came in and and and proposed the same structure and there was no building on it, we would not have a set in the size of the structure. It would be according to the zoning regulations, right? So it wouldn't be housing. It might be a commercial use. You can't you can't housing isn't allowed by right. It's the adaptive reuse of existing building that allows commercial building to become right.

So I think what the what uh Leon and Mr. suggesting skips that step, right? Because if someone wants to come in, say it's commercial, and take advantage of the loophole, a decision like that would effectively remove the loophole in a way that's beneficial to a developer. It might encourage more projects, make them more financially. If that's something you're interested in, it probably makes sense to have the administrative office come up with some language, put it on because every every other item on this list is nondiscretionary. Um, so that one could be looked at again.

I I I think that makes sense because I know building officials, you know, they're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place about this development. They may not even get it framed or something. Uh with the the whole idea that it's gonna it's it's a waste of the board's time. It's a waste of resources for people to make essentially fake plans. Yeah. That will never go into effect. Did you come up with some language?

Yeah. Good. So, if you I mean, we'll see. You still have to entertain public input, but if if the board's interested in in moving the other items forward, we can hold that one back. Okay, Charlie, go ahead. The only question that I originally had, but I I got distracted because of this conversation, was how many units do you think Middletown mean over the year? I I I can get that number for you.

Okay. That would be interesting because that alone creates revenue to the town that might offset the need for these. That would be helpful. I'd like other comments. Yeah. And just on the on the impact fees,

I've struggled with this. I wrote a letter to, you know, the local outlets too about this and to me it's it's almost like these especially with regard to the development impact fee. Um like Charlie said, the all the legislation is encouraging the development of housing and incentivizing the development of housing. Yet, when we when we add a fee that's discretionary, like you said, especially the development impact fee, it's really a penalty. I see it as a penalty for development. Um because it's a disincentive to um to develop any to develop a housing unit. And a lot of times it's not trivial. These fees are, you know, between five and $7,000. And that that could be the make or break decision point. That's within that margin of a homeowner making a decision to to add more, you know, square footage or edu or housing to their to their property. Um, so I really think we should uh look into that and um I think this board should really, you know, do a deep a deep dive into what other communities are doing, what the real impacts of these fees are, where these fees are going. And to Charlie's point as well, once the housing unit is developed, the assessor does come, assesses that property, and you're paying taxes forever on that house. So, I'm struggling to understand what this fee is used for. If you're already paying a permit fee, you you're the home gets built, it gets taxed, it gets assessed, it gets taxed, it gets added to the tax base. So, this fee is kind of it's it almost feels like I hate to say it, but almost like a money grab and an opportunity for the town just to grab a

little more money um from a homeowner or developer. And it is a disincentive like every single every single

it's it's on our agenda to discuss with the town council. So, we'll get some feedback from the other comments. But, I have some comments on the text of the of these changes. If you look at page nine of the definitions where it's uh defining a minor subdivision, The um the last sentence of that introductory paragraph I believe should read oversized lot subdivision is a subdivision of an existing lot because that wording occurs uh later on under section 406 where identical wording of the whole section is is included all together. Yeah. That's uh one item. Um on page two of uh what where it talks about uh the five-year affordable housing plan. Which section are you looking? It's uh hold on a second. It's near the end. low and moderate moderate income housing comprehensive permit. On page two of that comprehensive permit section, the middle of the page, it talks about a five-year affordable housing plan. And um I raised this question when we were working on the draft of the comp plan. And we were told that the comp plan

serves as the five-year affordable housing plan. But I there's nothing in the comp plan that says that lays out a plan for affordable housing in the next five, you know, over a fiveyear period. That's I have trouble with the comp plan being this plan that state red calls for. Well, that's what in practice that's done is that the comprehensive plan, the housing element in the comprehensive plan serves that purpose. If the town wants to create a separate five-year affordable housing plan, you can certainly do that. Um, but all I can say is the practice is that if you have a state approved afford state approved comprehensive plan housing element satisfies that requirement.

By whom? by the state or the town to satisfy the requirement of It satisfies who for being the fiveyear? It satisfies the requirement of the statute.

For whom? Of the of the statute. So the state. Yes. Okay. Okay. doesn't make sense to me. But if if the state accepts it, uh that's all I have on on the text. Any other comments? So, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? I'm Christopher Row, 177 Chases Lane. I am a member of the zoning board for the zoning board. I've got questions because I'm on the zoning board um that that came up listening through this. So these items were approved by the state legislature last year as I understand as I'm trying to understand this. So this is just coming up through you through the planning board and then we'll go to the council for ratification of that of these changes. But in the meantime, so the question first question is are these changes because they were already approved by the state? Are they in effect locally or do they have to wait for the full ratification process being ratified and approved through the town council? They're in effect. Okay. So they are in effect already. So I'll ask the the the final question I've got then is is there any process in place or planned on for eitherformational or training sessions for zoning board members to be informed of what these changes are because one of the things that I've I've already run into a couple

of times at a couple of zoning board meetings were that some a petition was coming before the zoning And I've been in talking to Chris Costa and found out that oh, he's just gotten something. He's just got it on his desk that there's been a change in dimensional requirements and oftentimes things are coming up that oh someone's wants to do a variance. So what happens? It's not allowed. So they put in for a zoning change so that they can go ahead and get a to the zoning codes that gets approved. And then as soon as they get that approved, as soon as that zoning change has been approved, lo and behold, there's the petition coming in front of the zoning board. And zoning board doesn't even know that there's been a change to the zoning codes because we're each given a copy. I've got a copy of the zoning code, you know, I've got it in a notebook so that when we get a a petition before the zoning board, we get a okay, these are, you know, this is a petition is coming before you for a variance on the following items. But I'm looking at a book that doesn't have even have those changes to the variances listed because Chris has just gotten them last week. So, I'm looking for information about and a question about how is informationational or training about these changes supposed to be gotten to the zoning board members so that when a petition comes to us, we know what they are and we can review that as a petition is being is is coming before the board. There's a major problem there that I see.

What that that occurred? There was training. The state did training in November. Okay. Well, hopefully that that works and we'll see how that works and I'll let you know if it doesn't. Thank you. Yes. That's not typically amendments are once they're council that we're aware for sure. I know

in I want to I want to say it was in September because I've only been on on the zoning board since July. I believe it was either a it was I think it was possibly September when I was in talking to Chris about a petition before the board and I was, you know, we're getting ready. We've got a meeting going on. I think it was the next night and I'm like, and that's when he told me, "Oh yeah, I've got I've got a change to it right here." Um, and I did I talked to Wendy Marshall about getting put on the email distribution list for those changes, but got enough. I haven't seen anything yet. And you know this, so this is an example of okay, these are changes to the zoning, especially for example with the the whole thing with 805. Um that's not that's why I'm that. So you're saying it hasn't been adopted by the town yet, but you're saying but I'm also being told that they are in as of July of last year. So there's a there's a there's a mismatch. I don't even know what follow mismatch between saying well it's in effect since July of last year but oh well it hasn't been ratified yet Follow that. A lot of these are what is

Thank you. online. If you're online and you wish to speak, Go ahead, Kathy. There's a note that says turn up volume. If it's not working, then try again. I It's not.

No, she's not muted. You can't comment. No. Sorry, Kathy. Does she have the ability to type a comment? Is that not a option?

No comments or anything?

Nothing there. I mean, it could be possible that that her microphone's not working. See if we we've tried everything. Yep. Okay. Uh, sorry Kathy. Anyone else who wishes to speak? We have a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? Those in favor say I. I. I. Oppos? Nay.

Chair votes I. Motion passes. Uh may I have a motion to uh forward these amendments to the town council for their approval? Without move. First to make a recommendation for Yeah. So again, since we're dealing with rec regulations and zoning amendments, I think there should be two motions.

Two motions. Okay. So first motion would be regarding the amendments to the regulations and your motion would be to adopt those amendments because that's the planning board's perview to adopt amendments to the regulations subject to ratification by the town council. So that would be your first motion. The second motion would be to recommend to the council adoption of the zoning ordinance amendments minus se the amendments to section 728 which is the adaptive reuse. and we we'll be doing more work on that one. Okay. So, uh first we will address the uh regulation changes to the to the regulation. We have a motion to adopt those changes. So moved. Second.

Motion is made and seconded to adopt the changes to the regulations. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. Oppose. Nay. Votes I. Motion passes. May I have a motion to make a recommendation to the town council to approve the amendments to the zoning ordinance? So moved except for section 728. Except for section 728. Not yet finalized. There any discussion? All those in favor say I.

I. Oppose. Nay. Votes I. Motion passes. Thanks, Rob. That was a great summary. Hope so.

The next item is item 4E, a review of the proposed guidelines for traffic studies submitted to the planning board for development project applications. Ron made some uh changes which are shown in the uh attached draft. Does anyone have any comments on these? This is for this is 4E 4 E. So, since the last time this was discussed, Paul and I met with the solicitor's office, including Michael and and Peter Rean. Um, there was some minor um changes to the to the proposed draft. The most significant changes though are in section one, right at the beginning, thresholds for requiring a traffic impact study. Um the first being a change to have the threshold lowered so that any projects creating 20 or more new trips during the peak hour would be required to complete a traffic impact study. And the reason for that is the earlier draft had 100 trips per hour. And that's a that's a pretty high threshold. And I can't think of a project that's come to Middletown in recent times that would have that level of traffic impact. Um, and recognizing that the board does like to see the traffic studies for for projects that don't meet that threshold, uh, the proposal was for any projects resulting in 20 or more uh, trips during the peak hour. And then the second more significant change is that the last sentence in that section where we had

language in there that said that any development on uh East Main Road, West Main Road, Valley Road, and Aquinic Avenue would be required to do a full traffic impact study. Uh we are proposing that that be removed and that's due to the fact that you might have a really minor development being proposed on those state roads like a small subdivision, two lot subdivision or a small uh commercial project. Um that certainly wouldn't meet the 20 trips per hour threshold. And it didn't seem to make sense to require something um that's that minor to do a full traffic study. Um All projects would still be required to under section two to do a a preliminary traffic memo where some initial information is provided to the board as to anticipated traffic impacts and the board can ultimately decide um whether a full study uh would be required based on the thresholds that are provided. Um that that flexibility I guess is is in there and it didn't seem to make sense to require small to to go through that full um effort. Anyone have any comments? Um I have a comment on page two, Ron with it u talking about this uh preliminary evaluation that uh top bullet at the at the top of page two says an initial determination that the project is expected to have a significant impact on adjacent roadway traffic. If it is agreed by the proponent and the town that the traffic impact will be minimal, no further traffic study is needed. Could we add there or let me get your opinion on

whether we could add there a for example if the project generates fewer trips than the current or previous use? I don't know that it's necessary to be that specific. I think it's I mean, if you want to add that in there to clarify for future generations that that's what the intent was, then we can do that. It might be worth doing that. I think it's a if a project, you know, generates 20 RIPs, but it's but the current one generates 35.

Yeah. You're you're saying that that language be would be for an as an example of a of a case where example use an eg. It's not just it's not that only those as an example. You could say for example that's fine. Yeah.

How would we know what the previous uh use generated? Is that another study or what? Well, that that's part of the initial the initial memo that's presented with the application. They have to give some discussion of the level of impact without going through the full study. So there are uh trip tables that are used accepted you know engineering practice so many trips based on the use that's being proposed versus the existing use for example.

Um I mean we we've had this housing project right behind us. They came in and said that it's going to generate fewer trips than when it was used as a commercial building. Tell us. Yeah. I mean, okay, but how do they know? How do they know that that they know how many trips a commercial building uses? It's based on on, you know, approved federal and state guidelines. I think it's worth adding Any other comments?

So, Leon, you had uh some strong comments about strengthening traffic studies. This help? I'm not sure. Not sure if it's going to help or hurt. Um it's definitely seems a little more comprehensive. Oh, it's it's a lot more comprehensive.

So, you know, I feel like when we get these traffic studies, they're they're just they're very, you know, a lot to take in. I think a lot of us up here don't know don't really know how to properly analyze the traffic. Just a lot of information. Um, what I want to point out with that statement is on on page six, you look at the near the bottom uh under conclusions, it says, determine the scale of traffic impacts of the proposed development on the study area and provide a conclusive statement about the impacts of each on each of the below parameters. So, each of those 12 listed they are to give us a conclusive statement.

Yeah. So that should help. Yeah. So I think this is a step in the right direction. I would say let's keep an eye on it and if it gets complex and overly you know um burdensome even for a developer we maybe ask them you know their input on that and maybe fine tune this and optimize it over time. Well, I think you're right. We do have to follow it and make sure it's working properly.

I'm just going to say since some of us, you know, is filtering through the impacts of these traffic statements can be uh challenging for some of us. Uh does it make sense, Ron, to have uh the opportunity to have it also peer-reviewed by the town's a town traffic that that happens typically when we well particularly when we get a full traffic study that's always reviewed by the town. I'm just wondering if we need to add anything on that line. I don't know that it's necessary. I think it's up, you know, just I guess I don't want to put something in here that's gonna request that. Yeah.

All right. at the board's discretion. If for some reason the town's consulting engineer didn't review something and provide comment that you want them to, then that can happen on a case- by case basis. Other other comments? Yeah. So, so just to follow up on that, um we do have, you know, technical review committee, we have other committee, the tree commission. Are traffic studies part of any of those reviews, town reviews or committee reviews? It's part of the TRC review, technical review committee review. And since we don't have a traffic engineer on staff with the town, that's when I send it to our current

on call engineer, which is Crossman Engineering, and they'll produce a memo after they review the traffic report. That is part of the TRC review. Yeah. So that's all. Okay. All right. Since they drafted these, they should what to do with that. They may regret having helped this venture. Any other comments? Hey, may I have a a motion to adopt these for use by the planning board? So, before you do that, yeah,

um these guidelines, I'm anticipating you would want them to be part of the subdivision and land development regulations. that's where they would live and the solicitor can chime in if he feels otherwise. But if that's the case, then we have to hold a public hearing um before you adopt it as part of the regulations. Last time I spoke to you, you mentioned it would just be guidelines for the planning board, but if it's that way, I think it makes sense to formally adopt it. Okay. So, we need to schedule a public hearing then, right?

I can put this on for the next well advertising requirements and whatnot. perhaps for the next regular meeting. If I if I can't meet the advertising, it would be the following meeting. I think that would be fine. Yeah. So, it will be advertised for a public hearing at the next meeting or the following meeting. Whichever there's three weeks advertising requirement. So, it's it's one you can get available. Yeah. Next available. Yeah.

All right. Very good. Next item is item 4F, review and approval of a memo to the town council regarding discussion topics for the February 17, 2026 joint planning board town council meeting. So um we have this list of of uh nine items. That's quite a bit for these joint meetings. It's it's going to be tight to cover all of these. Anybody have any comments on them? This will be sent to the town council ahead of time. So they will see this list before we sit down. That correct?

Right. I have a question. Yeah. Do they do they have any uh thing for us that they since it's a joint meeting if there's a back and forth, isn't there? Well, the meeting there's going to be a back and forth. I'm not anticipating getting any documentation before the meeting from the town council. Okay. So, any comments? Okay to everyone. Okay. Good. Good. So, uh I don't think we have to formally approve it. We can just prepare this and send it out. Give it to everyone.

Good. The uh next item is item 5C. Receive the draft Middletown comprehensive community plan from the comprehensive plan update committee and discuss the adoption process and schedule. So, um you you talked about having either a public workshop or a public hearing. I don't think we need a public workshop. We had workshops during the committee hearings. So I would suggest we just go to a public hearing on the comp plan. How do other the everyone?

Okay. So could I think we should probably schedule a special meeting doing this. So could you send out the doodle and I will do that. Okay. Any other comments on this? Very good. Next item are the updates. Um items 6A, the uh project updates. Does anyone have any comments on the project updates? I don't have any comments either. So moving right along. Any reports? tree commission BJ.

Um, yes. I I was told by uh Karen Day that they re received a request from the conservation committee to suggest plantings for the Valley Road project. They're going to do that before the next meeting in February. And they're also going to look at the Windham Hotel plans in on that date. and uh they will let the planning board us know their thoughts after that meeting that they have. Um I think that's about it. Also, they've been doing a lot of work on potential locations for the street planting for 20 26 and it's amazing what the work that they've done. There's an awful lot. work is usually very timely.

Yes. Yes, they are really right with it. It's quite a quite a good group. It is a good group. Yes. Here I have here potential locations for stren street planting 2026. It has at least uh 10 various places in town from Valley Park to Berkeley Avenue to Boulevard month. uh my antomi uh different kinds of trees all listed and any comments. Did you say any of those were street trees? Um planted

the u remember the the project we approved um on West Main Road. The u the Jeep dealer came in and requested putting a fence up on the side street with some street trees. Has that been done? Do you know? I'm not sure. Last time I went by it had not been done. Okay. I noticed that too. I I'll make a request. I'll find out why. Were they going to be implanted or were they going to be put into Well, I I was under the impression they would be put into the ground, but I haven't seen either. Well, they're going to be the fence. They're going to be plantings on the West Main road side of the property and then the fence on the back. Yeah. But but where they're putting the fence, they said they would put street trees in.

Right. Okay. I'm not about that. Back in check. I remember. Yes. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Back and check. At any rate, I haven't seen the fence either. So, and that's an item that we're going to talk to the town council about following up on these uh plans. It was discussed that project

uh open space and fields. So, uh the open space and fields committee wanted the uh uh the town council to receive uh a document that they've been working on. It's called the uh you know their uh score their uh property scoring uh document. They use it to evaluate parcels around town that potentially could be purchased by the town that could be used in remote in remote sections of the town for recreational purpose for purposes for the for the local communities. and uh uh you know so that uh let's see local communities and um also enhance the overall quality of life for the areas. So uh so they wanted that to be uh they wanted it to be included into the comprehensive plan and they requested that you know via a memo I think to the town council and also to uh to Ron. So Ron I guess has decided that he's going to reference it in the uh in a comprehensive plan. Okay, that was that was the request this week.

That reminds me, your memo said that um the planning department is still making edits to the comp. So, uh will the will that be finalized by the time we have the public hearing? Yes. Okay. Thank you. U Conservation Commission,

there was a meeting Monday. I unfortunately uh was not able to attend. Um but they did discuss the 345 Valley Road project and produced a memo on the budget. And then also uh there was a discussion on the future vision and purpose of the conservation commission. So um that'll be discussed voted out. I don't know if wants a fellow member of the conservation commission.

Yeah. Matthew Scrinski and Winter Green Drive, Middletown. Um, yeah, I'm the secretary of the conservation commission. So, we pretty much discussed what Leon talked about. And we also brought up the I read the whole comprehensive plan um all every page of it over break. So, that was fun. But, um, it's a lot of good stuff. Honestly, you got to give Melissa Welch and everybody on the commission a lot of credit because it's a it's a huge a great path forward. I think it sets a lot of good precedent. it's now the action that just has to follow it. And it's a good guide, especially for the planning board to implement these strategies. And another thing we also discussed was the um watershed protection plan and how to implement that and the planning board. Um because how we protect ourselves from climate change, beach erosion, it's all mentioned in that. Um, I think the planning board is going to have a large say in like how we protect residents and implement that into our policies and zoning. And um, I think I think another thing that I mentioned is that a lot of our commissions are in silos right now. And I think more inter collaboration between boards is going to be very beneficial to the overall speed of getting things done because you know we have the zoning board and you have to talk to the planning board and then I have to come up and present our ideas and I think you know maybe every quarter we should do a sit down with all the boards and hash out some ideas and get some legislation passed just to speed it up. Um because I am an applicant for the planning board. Who knows if it's going to go anywhere? There's two vacancies, probably a competitive spot. But, you know, I figured even if I'm just doing this, it will on the comm um conservation commission, it's good to sit down with you guys and hash out some ideas. We're up to five members now, right?

I believe there are two vacancies though. That correct? I think there was there were four at Monday's meeting, right? Why don't you come up to the microphone? I have the the town recently up three three three three vacancies.

Yeah. So the conservation commission has three vacancies. This is for reference the recently updated members of every commission that um I asked them to update it. So this is on the town website. The conservation commission has two. The planning board has two if I understand it. Yeah. But we need more members. So, so as secretary, do you have a recruitment pamphlet that you need? Ryan. All right. Along with everybody else. Yeah, as secretary, I take the the meeting minutes honestly. So, I do Who's that for this board? You are. Um, but yeah, I do the meeting minutes and then try and recruit more people to the conservation commission.

You are. Yeah, we're trying. I'm sure you are. Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? No. No, that's okay. Um and the citizens advisory. There was no Okay. Uh we have a regular meeting scheduled for February 11th. There anything else anyone wants to bring up? Motion. Uh so with the there's two terms that are expiring. Uh this This is the last meeting. Is this the last meeting before our terms expire?

Well, it doesn't matter. You continue to serve um until you're replaced. So, even though your term is expiring, I forget the exact date. It's in February. Um you'll continue to serve unless and until the council replaces you. Council actually appoints the two, right? You know, do we know when that when that meeting is? I believe the deadline for applications is the end of this month and then it's going to be after your probably get another meeting. Oh yeah, at least one more. We can we can prepare our goodbye statements. At least one more. Parting wishes.

At least one more. Any other anybody have anything to bring up? If not, may I have a motion to adjurnn? Do I have a second to the motion to adjurnn? Second. Motion's made and second to adjurnn. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Post nay. Chair votes eye. Meetings adjourn. You're going to reapply again. I don't know. I thought you were trying to figure out. I was going to ask, do we have to keep going? Yeah. So, I gotta go. wrestle with them when I get home. Thank you, sir.