Remarks by Luke Winchester
361 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 15
- Play at 2:10:01
“Further questions, comments from the commission? Thank you. Seeing none, at this time we'll call for citizen comments in regards to this item on the agenda. Any citizens who wish to make a comment are welcome and encouraged to do so. And please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no citizen comments at this time, I'm looking for a recommendation in regards to this item on the agenda.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:10:34
“I would have to receive sponsorship, but it would be allowed to proceed forward to the Board of Commissioners. That would be correct.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:10:52
“And a second. It's a motion and a second for a negative recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Aye. Against? Abstentions? That is a negative recommendation. I am going to move upon the assumption that we should hear item 11b at this time as well. very well perfect um next item up on our agenda is also a recommendation item back to the board of commissioners review the rezone request to ctc commercial town center for the downtown mount jewett parcels located 69 71 and 73 east hill street 46 48 and 50 a and b east caldwell avenue 46 west division street…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:12:12
“Comments remain the same, except it appears this time I have multiple applicants that are even greater than the applicants were on the land use plan amendments. And again, we don't show anything towards that i know that this body very doesn't very often recommend rezone requests without any type of a concept plan or knowledge of what is proposed or wanting to be done without such knowledge or concept there so just comments remain the same here too thank you Can we go ahead and open the floor for citizen comments? Anyone wishing to make a comment in regards to this item on the agenda is…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:14:41
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:15:27
“Let some people exit here real quick. I'll give you guys a chance to regroup here.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:17:19
“Very good. Thank you. First of all, we appreciate your guys' effort on this right here. I'm happy I got a bunch, so I can either lead or I'll lead. All right. Item 1A, John, and I know there's no change right here, but this is just kind of a Q&A, kind of a deal back for you. Grading plan indicating the anticipated finished topography of the area involved contour shall be shown vertical intervals no greater than two feet where topography does not extend 10% and five feet elsewhere. Does... Things like that address, you know, I guess kind of how, one of the things I like to look at on a plan,…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:19:30
“Okay. I thought it did, but just kind of one of those things that jumped into my head on that. So, B, I made a comment here. Can we make this firm to further assist buildings not moving? And so, A, what I'm meaning there is the circulation diagram of, which is important because if you move your buildings then the circulation or how we think a plan is going to move people in, move people out, not necessarily just their access points to the main roads, but interior circulation can, you know, movement of a building can change exactly how a site functions and not functions, not only the access…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:21:43
“but it still could be in substantial compliance, which was my frustration.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:22:13
“slow driving i understand that and that's what i mean that it doesn't really give you the teeth to that because to me backing out at an intersection should be a public safety so now and then hence triggering a major modification and not in substantial compliance”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:22:51
“So I mean, so you think that I look at circulation internally on a site. I know it's a big emphasis for me. I know your ingress and egress points, which are bigger regardless, but how you drive through and maneuver and then some of these building movements have created something that doesn't feel, doesn't drive the same. And I want to be able to give you teeth to kick it back to planning. um to say hey this you know moving the buildings where your buildings may work or you're in compliance with number of units or parking or whatever it doesn't look or drive the same you know and that's kind…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:24:17
“all start taking a microscope to these things when they come through yeah and it's just like that one you know i know the original plan we didn't have some of those intersections and parking and i know they were trying to avoid variance to this body because the variance would have kicked them in and then not been it's just substantial compliance so they found parking very creatively on that particular one perfect um e on this just because this affects it this is at final master development plan we often see a condition of landscape plan under review or whatnot so it's a landscaping plan…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:25:47
“Perfect, I thought so too, all right. So number three, tabulation proposed residential densities to be allocated to various parts of a residential plan unit development. One, I have a question, can we hold them to this? Example, approximately 1,000, but spread, or 1,000 units but spread across versus the FMDP where they were all together or vice versa out there. And so meaning that some have been a cluster where we had that 1,000 units maybe all in one building or we had, they were allowed 1,000 units or they were spread between five buildings where then they've come back, we have two…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:27:12
“I think if you want to... That's just a question back for you. To me, that could use a little bit of something maybe as you go to BOC to prevent it from being, you know, we got a 100-acre site, we've approved 1,000 units, and they're all spread evenly across that 100 acres, but then all of a sudden it comes back to us and all 1,000 units are really on 10 of those 100 acres. Right.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:27:45
“I do. I mean, you divulged into it better than I have. So I'm just saying it would be an opportunity if you think that. I mean, you see where I'm going with that.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:28:01
“Yeah, because some of them, they've manipulated that density that we did approve. And since it didn't increase the density, it is in substantial compliance. But we might have improved that density in a more scattered form or maybe in a more compact form, too, is equally likely. Like that one we saw tonight at Providence. I like the way that that one developed out. Yeah. So just something for you right there. Number two, I went all the way down under 8-203.5 to number two, vary the lot requirements submitted in the preliminary plan by more than 10%. I guess kind of explain that one to me.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:29:11
“okay okay perfect perfect um and then going to your edited number seven uh underneath that and this may include todd in this statement as well so it says vary the location uh massing uh or design of buildings from what was proposed in the preliminary master development plan to a degree determined unacceptable to the planning commission Should we include things such as roads, access points, or drive aisles included within that statement? Because it kind of jumps back and addresses what I was talking about earlier about the circulation patterns. So would this be an appropriate place to add,…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:32:26
“Okay. Yeah, just something that we might look into later. You guys get your hands full on everything else.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:35:00
“A lot of them, I'd like to see them increase the commercial area that goes with it.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:35:49
“I know ultimately it will be something to send to the BOC and what their desire is going to be, but just some food for thought for you as you prepare to take it to the BOC, you know, and kind of that leeway and autonomy back for you. You've done a really good job right here.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:36:06
“And some food for thought. Sure. Anybody else?”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:36:36
“How do you think we could sure that up to decrease that? And I guess from my standpoint, I'm prepared to push it forward. Would that be something that you could just coordinate with John to clean that up for protection purposes?”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:37:00
“I just wanted to make the planning commission aware of that.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:37:09
“I try to think through a lot of decisions up here over the years and one of them is residual effects, cause and effect of changes out there and certainly don't want to be a part of anything that would gather or cause difficulties. Hopefully this is to create clarity and ease ultimately as it pushes forward. So certainly I would encourage you to please work with staff to, if that's a concern, make sure it's addressed, please.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:38:15
“And it's okay if they change, but it just needs to come back as an amendment and let us look at it and understand it. Because there's a lot of them. I mean, we saw one tonight. It's changed three times. That Providence Commons House. I mean, and it's okay for them to change. Times change. I mean, that's 10 years ago. Heck, things change in less time these days, but 10 years is great.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026