Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're good. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the June meeting of the Old Lime Zoning Commission. This evening at the table, alternate Mary Gardner Coppola. We have our full-time members, four in a row, Mary Jo Nozzle, Michael Fuliano, Denise Savageau, myself, Paul Orzel. Our documenter, Amy Huat, full-time member and secretary, Jane Marsh, alternate Michael Peter Barnes. Also at the table is land use, our land use director, Eric Knapp. All right, before we begin the meeting, is there any public comment that anyone would like to make? Now, we do have one public hearing on the agenda, along with some other items, but is there any public comment anyone would like to make? Sir?

Yes, Scott Blanger, 18 Powell Road,

Just like to try to, I haven't come to any zoning meetings. One of the unfortunate things that I found out is that not having any teams in action, those that want to listen in on zoning can't. And on top of that, if there needs, try to save yourselves a few dollars, not having to have folks come down here try to boot from teams, unless it's a major presentation, it would be beneficial to allow teams to even have a presentation made if they can supply all the information to the zoning commission prior so you would have a good scenario.

Case in point, Miami Beach, unfortunately, was forced to spend quite a few dollars to have engineers come down here twice

costing us anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 out of our monies just to have them present here. They have to sit through a meeting for two hours before they're heard. So that would be the only other comment I would have done. If there is folks that people do presentations or he'd listen to that, they'd be offered to state their case ahead of any zoning meetings items that need to be done by the committee outside of the public. The public should be up front with, you know, whatever issues that, you know, new business or business. I know I sat at the last meeting I came here. I had to sit here for an hour and a half waiting for the actual meeting to be heard from all the different people in the audience. It's just a comment. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else?

The comment public comment could be on anything. Staging areas for

We're receiving that application tonight and getting sort of an introduction on it. The public hearing on that will not be tonight. The public hearing will be set for a future date.

Okay. I would just like to meet. Would this be an appropriate time to make a quick comment on that now?

If you'd like. So just for clarification, if you make comment now, we'll hear it. But if you want to on the record, you have to comment during the public hearing when we set that.

I just didn't want to interrupt the meeting. There will be discussion on it tonight.

There won't be discussion. We are going to be hearing from some of the folks on that committee. We're receiving the application, but we may not set a date for the public hearing. We may or we may not. But you can, like Denise said, you can make a comment, but your more formal document and documented comment will be at the public hearing, which is yet to be scheduled.

I would like to make a quick comment on that. Go right ahead. My concern is, and my name is Bill Reynolds from Fort Mapp. My concern is we've been through this before. I've been here before when it was part of the water watch. They absolutely made our three houses on that street, for no better term, a living hell. And now we've talked about this. We've made some different uh i don't know laws to try to protect the residents of old barn and for this to be on the table again take 753 days away from us to lose our houses our homes or yards is absolutely absurd it makes me want to cry for two years of that one project completely it was terrible for mine to sell a house in my neighborhood Finally, love the sound, but to do this again, to have the trucks, the noise, the slamming, the breathing is just one of her. There's health issues with my three neighbors. There's concerns about water drainage because our wells are right there. We have industrial zones in this town. We have other places in this county that does not have to be in a residential area. This is a little different than the other two because it is residential and it's not commercially zoned. It's designed to be a baseball field for kids. We're going to end up with a dioxide chemical plant at the end of this project. So we're going to find a torture for 752 days and as a thank you, we'll have a chemical plant. Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone else have any public comments? Okay. Then let's move on to throw our agenda.

Zoning regulations rewrite. Eric, what do we have?

Well, I passed out what I made prepared for the comments. from last Thursday. I'm not sure if there's any discussion you'd like to have regarding the agenda item really this evening is we need to set a workshop date for sort of other commissions, committees to join us in sort of analyzing the public comment and then distilling that into what we think we want to do for new regulations. And we said we were going to try and do that about two weeks out from the public comments date. So again, tonight's meeting would be a perfect opportunity for you guys to sort of sit down and figure out when you'd like to hold that workshop so that Craig can get notice out to it and we can start making sure that everybody who wants to attend is able to attend.

Okay, so we've got... Eric, can you clarify, are you talking about workshop or the focus group to follow the environmental... We call that a workshop in our plan, I think, no?

On the housing or what? No, I'm sorry. The session with the various committees and commissions to refine the focus groups. Focus groups, okay. Let's call them what they are. I'm using the wrong term. Focus group for the previous public session we just had, okay? That's what I'm looking to try and Give them down a date for us so we can go out and set a meeting up for them.

So one of the things we had said on that, Eric, was we were going to try to – we want to make sure we're not setting it on the date of one of the agency meetings and try to somewhat work with them. But I don't know if we've heard back from any of those agencies yet. As you know, one of our challenges has been – We're not sure everyone is getting the emails or opening the emails, I should say. We know they're getting them. But the difference being is some of them are going to the town generic email address for a commission rather than to the chairman's personal email address so that he will open it or she will open it.

We got from Katie today all of their progress. personal email addresses and Craig sent everything back out to the personal email addresses to sort of try and make sure that we're covering all our bases here. So we only heard back from a couple of commissions signing misrepresentatives, but none of them have really said that they necessarily have to be at this meeting versus some other meeting. So I think part of what we're going to do after this, and if you want to pick a couple of dates so I can sort of give them some options, is go back out to all of our boards and commissions and say, we will be meeting on this date or possibly another date. Would you like to attend and help us prepare, refine, or however you want to call it, the public input in a way that will allow us to draft regulations following the public input? Again, I think we're just going to give that blanket out to everybody and have them come back with whatever their thoughts are. And again, we do have a couple of commissions that have given us representatives. We'll make sure that we use the representatives we've been given. For those that haven't chosen a representative, we'll just give it back to the chairs at their private email addresses now that we have those.

Yeah.

So... And in this one, we have FEC that's definitely going to be a significant player.

They've responded, right? They've worked in advance. They've responded.

Well, some of them have already given us information, but that's different than coming to another workshop with the focus groups.

Do we need to wait until they've all responded?

I wouldn't do that. I think we can give Eric some dates, I guess. Eric, are you looking at holding? So one of the things we heard from our consultant was that he was looking that as long as he had comments on that first environmental section, by the end of July, that it would be good. Obviously, we want to meet with the boards, kind of go over stuff with them and get some of their feedback as well, but also allow them to go back to their meetings in July. So I'm thinking we should do something towards the end of June. I would love to push it off later than that, but we either have to do it very early July, which is always a problem, as we know, Because it's the 4th. But also... It's going to be a bad week. So, do you have any thoughts on your schedule or what would work? Just with those things in mind. Yeah, so we have that. We have that scheduled. That's still our first.

We know that that date is for sure. So, the week of, again, the 22nd to 26th, you'd have no meetings. But let me see... The Inland Wetlands meets the 23rd. I was going to say, I know Inland Wetlands is meeting that week. ZBA meets the week before. So you would have basically the Monday or Wednesday or Thursday of that week to play with.

Do we want to have the folks feel okay if we, you know, and who can make it, can make it to the focus group, but the, you know, work with the focus group, but to try to hold. The other thing is we had talked about trying to get river clogging. To help facilitate that discussion as well. I mean, I can make that week work, but I'm going to... What do you think?

We're talking the week of the 22nd. We should probably wait until Wetlands has their meeting on the 23rd and do it Wednesday or Thursday just to give them the option of finishing anything up. Or if Monday works, then...

They don't need to have comments made to us. We're trying to... I think we're going to ask them to look at this. Yeah. They're still going to have... I'm looking at having it so that they can have, in July, if they have any other comments, then they can send written stuff in. Or get back, you know, with the liaison stuff, go back and forth with us about...

Yes, then Monday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Monday... Yeah, Monday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Listen,

My preference would be Thursday. If you're looking at dates, I can also do Monday.

I'll second Thursday.

Monday or Thursday works for me. Question, are you going to try to get River Cog?

I would like to try and get them to facilitate, so we're going to need to see what dates they might be available as well.

That Thursday they have their CRTC meeting.

So we're looking then at Monday, if that's

Wednesday the 24th was the other day you said?

Yes.

I could do Wednesday the 24th as well.

Like Wednesday.

Okay. Mary Jo, do we care with Wednesday? Do you or not?

Make it work.

Okay. Then let's aim for Wednesday. Yeah. Okay. And see what God can say.

What time are we looking at?

Um... Let's do 6.30 to 9. 6.30 to 8.30? Yeah. 6.30 to 8. Two hours is good. 6.30 to 8.30. That sounds great.

We can go over when we go over.

You know, you're on Pacific time there. Asian time.

No, I got good on that.

And then so we don't. So that we can really get the dates out ahead, I'd love to see if we can look at the date for the housing community outreach as well. Okay, let me see if we can finalize that as well. As we had said the last week in July possibly for that, what I didn't, you know, when we set that, when we talked about that, we weren't sure if other folks, so it would either be, you know, we know it's a tough time, but we also want to make sure that people who are The seasonal housing people are here, so it's kind of like a crazy time, but we were looking at that last week in July. I don't know what the consultant ended up saying about that.

He said he had that week available, so he should be able to make it. We haven't picked a specific date yet, so if you guys have a better date that week for the last week of July, now would be a great time to see if we can pin that date.

I'm good that week.

I will be out of town, but if there is access available, I can at least listen in.

Okay. We had the last one broadcast. The only thing is when we broke up into sort of discussion sessions there, you may not be able to hear one of the discussion sessions. Okay.

I'm good any day except for Friday the 24th.

We're probably not going to hold it Fridays.

I know Denise is hard charging on this.

I mean, because it's the last week of the month, I don't usually have any other commission meetings that week, so that's a relatively flexible week for me.

Are we looking at the week of the 27th?

Of July, yes. Of July. The inland wetlands is me. I just happen to have it on my calendar. I understand why. I understand why. The 28th. Because we have a joint calendar. 28th would be bad for wetlands, perhaps. Okay. Okay. And, you know, they may or may not be interested in housing, but they'll definitely be in this room. And I have to attend that meeting. You have to attend that meeting.

I would be there.

You would be?

The 31st.

Okay. Are there any other days that work for you there?

Any of those days work for me?

Yes.

27, 29, 30. Okay. Should we aim for...

29th, is that okay with everybody if I ask if Gomes is available the 29th? Yeah. Okay. So Wednesday, Wednesday the 29th. Well, is that another 6.30 to 8.30? Yeah, or we did... We did 7 to 9 last time. I'm not sure if you want to go 7 to 9 again this time or if you want to pick... 6.30 to 8.30.

Yeah, because then we can, if he can confirm that, then we can get the flyer out and all that stuff. And I think it's just really good to have it because, you know, people are now looking for it.

Yeah, well, since the last one, Craig has been going around with flyers for the survey and putting them all over town as well. So hopefully we'll get an increase in the survey amount results. Okay, sounds good.

We've been getting responses to the surveys.

We have somewhere over 200, but we're looking to get obviously more than that. So Greg is sort of trying to beat the bushes and get people to respond to the survey. Okay. It is going to be open through the end of this month. So if you know of anybody in town who hasn't taken it, you can certainly let them know the survey is still open.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, everybody in the audience, did you hear that? Yes.

That's all I have for that part of the agenda. Does anybody have anything else?

Everybody good with that? Yep. Okay, let's move on. Okay. Our public hearing for this evening, case 26-3. Madam Secretary.

I see that it looks like we have... Just two new exhibits. One is, no, we might have three. I'm not sure about exhibit N because it doesn't say, but site plan marked number 3875 from clerk's office and exhibit O, stormwater report 52926 and exhibit P, engineer's report 6526. And Exhibit Q, Jacobson Review Rebilling Worksheet.

Do we have, is the Fire Chiefs Exhibit A?

I need to add that in as well. The Fire Chiefs email that came in.

It came in today at 1.34.

Fire Chiefs email.

Yeah.

That'll be Exhibit R. from Chief Mike McCarthy.

And this is a continuation of the public hearing as well. So, okay. Attorney Shansky et al.

Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Commission. I'm Attorney Marjorie Shansky and I represent the applicant And I'm here with Jim Cassidy, professional engineer from Halle C. Pearson and Cassidy. We were here on May 11th and we pretty much gave a full presentation of the project to the commission. Both Mr. Cassidy and I had provided letters that were responsive to Mr. Knapp's memorandum about regulatory compliance. We individually and collectively demonstrated, I think, that the criteria of Section 11.25 and Sections 13A and B of the regulations are satisfied in the application. Mr. Jacobson's letter arrived this morning. Mr. Cassidy has prepared and will be sharing with the Commission a response to the various items that have been raised by Mr. Jacobson. all of which are attainable and information that is provided for you. I want to, and he also has a corrective memorandum Commissioner Marsh that you requested and it is with him this evening. And I apologize for describing things in your very presence. Thank you. I want to say with respect to the fire marshal memo or chief, I beg your pardon, email that we received today, I checked with my client and BL Company apparently responded to the items that were of interest to him. And I'm told that they've been addressed, perhaps except for the painting of the bridge.

Okay. I mean, we'll think that up and as part of the session.

Okay. But I, yeah. Okay. And so with that, I think Mr. Cassidy.

Good evening for the record. My name is Jim Cassidy, professional engineer, principal at Permanent Housing, Pearson and Cassidy out of Cromwell. First thing is I did present, as Marjorie mentioned, my memo showing how we comply with the section 1125 zoning regulations and doing it and going through the whole memo with you last month. We realized that, well, What we had done is we had copied from the current regulations, so there's some wrong section references in it. So I have provided, I have an updated copy with all the correct section numbers. Exhibit S. What's that? Exhibit S. Excuse, everybody want one?

Yes, please.

Anyone else?

So I was not going to go through it. It's the same responses as we had in the last one, just the section numbers have been corrected. refers to the regulation at the time that we submitted. This is just an update to what we presented last week. Again, it was referencing newer section numbers, so we, because the application was submitted prior to the amendment to your regulation, we had to refer to the old section numbers. In addition to last meeting, we were waiting for your engineering review comments. We did receive them this morning. I apologize that I have a lot of time to revise plans, but I took an effort and I went through each one of the comments. And basically what I did is I took the re-memo and I redlined the comments on our responses to each one of these comments. And what I'd like to do is go over that with the commission at this point. I don't find anything that's not obtainable to or easily addressable that's in this memo. So hopefully I don't bore you, but I'll go through these. I'll go through these one by one. This first comment is a modular block retaining wall varying in height up to 13 feet is being proposed along the edge of pavement east of building number seven. Given the close proximity to the edge of the pavement in the building, the guide rail should be provided in consideration given to providing safety fence along the top of the wall. I simply responded that we will provide guide rail along the edge of the pavement, along the top of that retaining wall. In addition to per building code, if you have a retaining wall over three feet in height, that we will also be providing top protection which will assist to a four point high fence along the top of the wall. The area along the pavement edge on the south of the proposed building number three, extending from the southern end of building number four approximately to the center of the turnaround is indicating within a rock cut. It varies up to 15 feet in height. I would recommend the consideration given to providing a safety fence on the top of the rock. Once again, we've indicated that we would provide a safety fence along the top of that rock cut because it's a place that's going to be a reverse retaining wall. Even though the proposed grades reflect the entire vertical is 6V to 1H, which is 6 vertical to 1 foot horizontal cut within the rock, Limit availability for test fit shown suggests that there would be some earth overburden on top of the rock. As such, a detail should be provided is how the overburden would be graded, distance back from the top of the rock to the toe of the overburden, slope of the overburden, any cut off swales. It should also note that there will occur, grading may extend back into the adjacent parcel identified as parcel two, I think he really means parcel five as the joint parcel. While the parcel is presumably owned by the same legal entity, in the event that it is transferred to another party in the future, grading easily should be considered. What I noted is that during prior construction, we would be doing additional test bits based upon all the test bits that they have in that area. We were finding that ledge is pretty shallow at the top. That's why we're showing the vertical face. But if required, we would provide detail for grading of the overburden. Overburden is the earth that sits on top of the ledge. And if required, we would obtain a grading easement on that additional property to ensure that it can be graded that way in the future. Number four, the proposed rock cut will generally be north-facing. Any water seepage through the rock face may ice over during freezing winter months. In regards to this, consideration should be given to backfilling the shoulder behind the curb with crushed stone and grading at a slope towards the base of the rock face. Rock face, I'm sorry, rock cut with drainage, sub-drainage system, and mitigate the potential for ice mitigate by grading over the curve and into the roadway. So I responded to surface drainage at the total slope rock cut. I'm sorry. The surface drainage system at the toe of the rock cut along with the back fill the shoulder behind the curve and grading the slope back to the base will be provided. Number five.

I don't see that the will be provided. Is that off the page or something?

I apologize. I think it is since

Yep. Okay.

Number five, many of the proposed site improvements would appear to require a combination of earth rock cut. It is in this regard, we would question if the surplus material would be disposed of and where this would occur. And if any onsite crushing is proposed. We are proposing to use the surplus material on site. All I said is because we're not sure whether we're going to try to crush it. If we do, we have to comply with the town requirements and file for a separate permit for crushing it if necessary. But we do need material for the site around the buildings. So we are proposing to reutilize it.

So just quickly on that. So if you do have surplus material, you're looking at crushing it, could you not crush it and just take it off site?

Is there anything in the regulations that would prohibit us from not crushing it? This is the position I always take, is that when you take a look at crushing in comparison to having to remove material from site to bring material back on site, there's a lot less environment.

So you're looking that you're already going to be crushing to use the material on site.

That's the only way we'd crush it. If we need it for on site, we'd be crushing it to utilize it on site. I'm not looking at crushers to sell it off.

Yeah, no, but what I'm looking at is, you know, once you have surplus, are you going to crush it or just take it off?

Oh, if it's just surplus, we don't need it, it goes off site.

Yeah, that's what I'm, because he's saying, I guess that, so, because you're saying if crushing is required, basically you're saying crushing will be required.

Well, we know we have some rock. We're going to probably utilize the majority of it, depending on how it lasts. Our whole ramp, however we take it out, would be used for fill in non-structural areas, not under buildings, not under pavement, not under drainage. Any excess, if there is excess and we can crush it, we use it for bases and roadways.

Yeah, I guess I would just want to make sure we're clarifying that. It's like we're going to be crushing the rock that is to be used on site. But if it's not used onsite, it's just going to be, you know, we're not going to start crushing everything.

Okay.

Yeah. But his question, his comment does indicate where the disposal would be. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't say in your response where that disposal will be.

We can add a sentence that says any excess material would be removed from site.

Yes.

Number 6 given the close proximity to the edge of the existing payment located to the East Northeast building number 2, which is on the phase 1 portion of the brother. In adjacent on the adjacent parcel to. And the proposed depth of up to 8 feet for the adjacent stormwater base, and it's recommended that a guide rep provided along the top edge. You got to be added along the existing edge of payment. in this area. So anywhere we have that grade that's like a two to one into that basin, we'd add the additional guide rail. Number seven, stormwater basin on unit number two parcel is located on, sorry, stormwater basin for unit number two is located on unit number one parcel. Although presumably owned by the same legal entity, which it is, and the event is transferred to another party in the future, grading easement shall be considered. I noted a grading easement and also should I think be a drainage easement for the stormwater basin on unit number one will be provided.

Yeah, and actually I want to go a step further. I want to make sure that we can maintain that so it's not just a drainage but that you have an easement to have a stormwater structure there and that you can do maintenance on it because that's going to be critical. So yeah, but drainage easement just means you have the right to drain on something, not necessarily. I would make sure it's about maintaining that stormwater

Following up on the easements, if I go back to number three for a second, you said if required, you'd get the grading right. So would that requirement be based on the need to approach on the property that's adjacent, even though it's owned by the same?

Yeah. So, I mean, it depends upon what you have for overburden as to what detail you're going to have. If you only have a couple feet of overburden, we're basically going to be sloping. grading on about a four-foot-wide shelf and then sloping back two feet.

So if you would have required an easement, had the adjacent parcel been owned by someone else, you'll apply for the easement even though it hasn't changed hands.

Yeah, so it says the grading right.

I'm going to add the first-hand maintenance in there after change.

That's a good point. Continuing on to item B, erosion and sediment control. Silt fence hay bales must be provided at the toe of all proposed slopes. In regards of the location, the controls need to be revised on drawing 5 of 17. We had already revised these, but I'll go through them individually. Apparently what happened is last time we made the revision of the configuration of the units, the old location of the sediment barriers remained, so we updated them all accordingly. So they are all at the toe of the slopes. But he indicated three spots you might see them. along the entire east side of the toe of the fill slope for proposed stormwater basin and grass swale. The plan has been updated to show silt fence with hay bales along the entire east side of the fill slope for the stormwater quality basin and drainage swale. I apologize if I take the letter four spells wrong. The second one is along the entire northwest side of the toe of the fill slope associated with proposed subsurface building number three and number four. I've noted the plan has been updated to show silt fence with hay bales along the entire northwest side of the slope associated post subsurface disposal system for building number three and number four. Continuing on around the northwestern and eastern perimeter of rain garden number two. Same thing, the silt fence and hay bale has been added along the northwest and eastern perimeter of rain garden number two. And then finally, along the entire northern and eastern side of the tow of the proposed retaining wall, east of building number two. And again, I said a sill fence and a bale were added along the northern east side of the tow of the proposed retaining wall number two. Continuing on for erosion sediment control, the erosion sediment control sequence drawing seven, sorry, 11 of 17 identifies stormwater basin item number 19, to be constructed and installed after the installation of storm drainage system item number nine, which would result in the stormwater discharging into an area that will be disturbed with ongoing construction of the swale, the basin, and the berm. The sequence will make construction and establishment of the permanent vegetation more problematic and give a given the close proximity to wetlands, a greater susceptibility to sediment erosion issues. So what I noted is that construction sequence will be provided to require the installation and stabilization of the stormwater quality basin to the construction of the drainage system.

So at that point, it will be acting as a temporary sedimentation basin. Then you'll clean it out and make it function as the stormwater quality basin. So could we make sure we're very clear on that and that we have that in the sequencing that the temporary sedimentation basin will be cleaned out so that we have, at the end of the day, a functioning stormwater system?

So what I was actually looking at doing is building the whole stormwater quality basin first and stabilizing it. Then if we need, the site disturbance area is pretty small. It's a little over an acre, believe it or not. So it's not much bigger than a residential house. as we need in that area, have a separate temporary sediment basin so I don't corrupt the final stormwater quality basin.

That's what my concern is. So one of the things that folks miss is that we need to have an erosion sediment control plan, which includes things like that. And a lot of times we get what we see, except for the silt vents and whatever, but what we see is the final stormwater plan. And we really need to have these, it's one of the big, challenges we have with the erosion and sediment control guide versus the stormwater. Everybody goes right to the stormwater manual, does all that stuff, and they forget that we need to do this during construction.

Yeah, so that's why I usually like to have a temporary sediment trap more in the site area, especially this one where you're going to take all the stormwater.

So you're going to add that to the plan, that you're going to have a temporary sediment?

I can pick the location. What the issue we always have is we tend to have to move it around during the construction process. Like initially when I'm doing the cuts, I probably have it in the area of the building. Obviously, once we have the basin for the road and that rock penton, and we could do our seating on that area, and we start construction of the building, I would move the smaller basin.

Okay. Could you just make sure that you kind of, even though it's going to be moving and you might not have the exact location of it, say that a temporary set basins will be installed as needed?

We know in the Russian Senate control notes on the plans already.

Okay. That's on there.

Okay. So continuing on, given the location of the adjacent wetlands, we would recommend that the outside slope of the stormwater quality basin burn be protected with an erosion control blanket, so that's item number three. I did note that we would add a erosion control blanket to the outside basin of that stormwater quality basin. I would probably ask to go as far again to actually add one to the interior to it, just so it can be stabilized quicker. COMMON NUMBER FOUR, THERE ARE VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ON A DRAWING, SHEET 11 AND 17, THAT DO NOT, ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE THE COPY, HAVE THE COPIES PASTE, AND SOMETIMES THINGS COME OVER, AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, PROBABLY MAKES REFERENCE TO A CONCRETE LOADING DOCK, WHICH WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL PROJECT, WHICH I WILL ULTIMATELY GET RID OF OUT OF THIS PROJECT. SO, REMNANT FROM IN THE DAY, I USED TO DO ALL THE TRACTOR SUPPLIES, SO... I REMINDED NO. SO CONTINUING ON THE START AND COMPLETION DATE AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE SHOULD BE UPDATED. I PUT ONCE ALL MUNICIPAL AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH APPROVALS ARE OBTAINED, WE'LL UPDATE THE START DATE AND COMPLETION DATE. AS I MENTIONED, WE STILL NEED TO GET PUBLIC HEALTH FOR A WHILE. SO I DON'T WANT TO COMMIT US TO HOW LONG ALL THAT'S GOING TO TAKE. BUT AT THAT POINT WE HAVE A MORE REALISTIC TIMEFRAME ON THE OVERALL CONSTRUCTION. And then number six, catch basin inlet protection should be graphically shown on the plan sheet 507. As we're going through the process, we move much of this catch basin, so we do have a standard legend that shows inlet protection. So we actually have updated the erosion control plan to show that the catch basins will be protected throughout the construction process. C, water quality. While the typical stormwater basin section and drawing 12 of 17 specifies proposed earth and berm have a minimum top width of eight feet, which is recommended standard. It also scales about six feet with unproposed stormwater quality based in plan view. In addition, the typical stormwater section shows the outside berm be at a three foot horizontal to one foot vertical, while there are locations where the parent Apparently, to avoid encroachment into the wetlands, the lower portion of the berm side slope is steeper. Sorry, steep berm side slope has been adjusted to two horizontal and one vertical on the proposed stormwater quality basin. As I noted, I've had to go back and tweak that berm. I took a look at it. I know what he's talking about and if there's other areas I can fine-tune the berm. I'll make the top width at 8 feet, but there was one section where it was tied to wetlands, so it looks like they may have gone a little steeper, but there's other areas that I can make up for it, so it has the same volume overall. It'll function the same.

Okay, so you addressed the width of the berm. He's talking about a three-to-one slope, a two-to-one slope. Are they?

There was a couple areas where it got very close to the wetlands. So it looks like someone in my office may have created a two-to-one for a small section. So it has a tweaked berm overslope. There's other areas where I can go the other way to compensate for the reduction of volume.

Okay. And are you making sure that it's not an area that needs to be mowed then, that it's stabilized so that because you can't mow a two-to-one slope?

I'm going to change it so it's all three-to-one.

Oh, okay. Good. Change all the slopes to three to one.

So on the final plan, so it's all three to one.

Okay. Could we add that?

Because that's not in your addition.

I'm writing it.

So next comment, since there is no inlet pipe that discharges directly into stormwater aquatic basin, the details should be modified to delete the inlet pipe and the low permeability fill at the outlet to avoid confusion. Again, fortunately, it's a standard detail for the basin cross-section that we put on the plan, which shows an inlet pipe. This particular stormwater quality basin will be actually letting water through a drainage well of where the inlet pipe, so we're just going to change the detail to show a drainage well going in through it instead.

Okay, so you don't have any inlet pipes coming in, just the swales, though?

Just the swales. So the swales are about 300 feet long. The pipe discharges to the swale. Sorry, I have long glasses on today, so I'm struggling. Given the implication of failure, we would recommend that the design engineer be required to observe the construction of stormwater bates and berm to ensure that the construction in substantial conformance with the design and upon completion of construction, provide a letter to the zoning enforcement officer to this regard. I put a note that says it will add a note to the plans as stated above. The same thing went down below to ensure the stormwater quality basin is maintained and maintains the required stage discharge relationship that the hydraulic model is based upon. to attenuate the increase in peak flow rates, we would recommend that the post-construction as-built drawing be prepared and that the design engineer either verify the basin and the outlet structure will function as designed and make recommendations for modifications so that it does. And again, I just noted that we'll add that note to the plan as described above. Number five. Based upon the state storage discharge curve in the stormwater quality basin, available storage volume provided within the bottom of the basin, elevation 25 to 3-inch diameter outlet or if it's elevation 26, it's 2,000 cubic feet or 0.056 acre feet. As compared to the required water quality volume, WQV of 0.061 acre feet. When adding the available storage within the rain garden, the total storage volume on the site is 0.056 acre feet, which is still less than the required. In addition to the reduction provided for the peak flow rate for the two-year frequency storm event is 28%. In comparison to the 50% reduction performance criteria specified, it in the Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual. What I noted, I've got a real small text here, so it's going to be wonderful to try to read this. What I noted is our intentions were actually to raise the orifice elevation. That's a three-inch orifice elevation by six inches, so the elevation ought to be 26.5. This would provide available storage capacity within the basin itself of 0.082 acre-feet. which is greater than the 0.061 acre feet required. The proposed two-year storm rate into the basin is basically 0.143 acre feet with, therefore, 50% reduction performance criteria would be 0.071 acre feet. So we'd also meet that reduction rate with this revision to the stormwater quality basin.

And the final design plans will be specific with those?

Yeah, it was updated in the report also. It didn't get updated on the plan, unfortunately, but it will be. Six, we recommend that catch basin inlet number two, which is the first catch basin located up gradient of the grass swale, that the outlet into the stormwater quality basin have a four foot sump with a snout provided at the outlet to provide primary treatment functions. So I just noted the catchment basin number two will be updated to provide the four foot deep sump with an extra unit, sorry, with a snout at the outlet.

It's going to be a deep.

Next comment, the width of the proposed drainage swale should be dimensioned in detail on the drawings for 17. The bottom width of the swale is 5B. The detail in sheet 417 will be updated accordingly. Number eight, the details should be provided for the proposed rain gardens, including the required soil mix, mulch, and planting. And I just noted that a detail for the rain garden, including the soil mixture and mulch and planting, will be added to the sheet I'm asking, continuing on, actually on to comment number nine. In comment number nine, it says, we'd question the yard drain outlet grate elevation of 41 in rain guard number one, which would appear to be the same elevation at the ponded water. The elevation of the ponded water overflows into the adjacent paved turnaround. So what I said is the top elevation of the rain guard is noted on the plan is actually 41.5, so a half foot higher. The top and right of the yard drain is 41, providing a half-footer freeboard in that rain garden. What I'm proposing to do is, because I have to do the detail for the rain garden for the prior comment, I'll do a blow-up detail of both the rain gardens with more detailed grading at a half-foot contour interval. If you were actually to look at the edge of the road, it's at Presley and Elevish 41, but you have this curb and a sidewalk. So the back of the walkway is actually at 41.5, but I think this is not depicted well because it's on a 40 scale plan and you can't see the half-floor contour interval, so I would provide an additional plan. Yeah, that would be good. To give more detail to those rain gardens. Comment number 10. If the rain garden number two were to overflow, their turf and berm, we would recommend turf reinforcement if you're provided for the full 35 feet in length. I just noted that turf reinforcement map will be provided for the full 35 foot in length. Comment number 11, the riprap spillway detail on 16 of 19 should be specified the required dimensions and elevations. I just noted the dimensions and elevations will be added to the riprap spillway detail on sheet 16 of 17. And then 12, the construction stormwater pollution plan, note number 6 and 7 on drawing 10 and 17 are not applicable to this project. Again, I apologize. This is a copy-paste, and it made reference to an underground system being maintained and also to a hydrodynamic separator being maintained, which don't apply to this particular plan, so they have been eliminated off the plans at this point. D, miscellaneous site layout plan drawing. Two of seven should specify dimensions, the width of the access road. While the width scales 24 feet, the road section on drawing 14 to 17 shows 22 feet in the width of this section. should be reconciled. So what we did, just so we have the right roads, but the details, we actually copied the road detail from the prior rule and showed a 22 foot width, but for your new requirements, your new regulations, it actually needs to be 24. So I will update that final detail. So it shows the 24, because the plans all scale 24. It's going to be a 24 foot wide road, but we will update the detail accordingly to meet your current requirements. Your D2, the road section refers to a typical road section on drawing 14 of 17 are inconsistent with the road stations on the site plan on drawing 2 of 17. What I noted is, again, we took that detail from the prior project, and what the detail says is that from station 0 to station 700, I believe it was, that the roadway is supposed to pitch in one direction. That's the first section of road that's already installed. The existing road out there actually ends at station 13 plus 00. So there's a second detail which shows a crown in the road. And then when it says it's from station 7 plus 00 to the remainder of the road, so our new piece of road goes from 1300 to 1850, it's all going to be crowned. That whole portion of the road would be crowned. So just notice that detail. The stationing is referenced correctly.

So it's going to be crowns that will dry off both ways?

Yes. So the detail is correct other than the width would be updated to 24 feet. Comment D3, where the pavement occurs in a rock cut, we recommend that an additional one foot of gravel-based material provided along with some of the drainage. I know that we will update the plans and add the additional foot of any other base material along with a sub-drainage system in the area of the rock cut. But that's a good idea. I mean, basically, it would give you two feet of free-draining material underneath the roadway, and we'll put a pipe and tie it into the current drain, basically, or French drain, and tie it into the nearest catch basin just so you don't have water sitting on top of the rock. So we'll update accordingly. And then finally, this comment number D4, while there is a future right-of-way to the northwest of the proposed developable area, it should be noted that filing, the filling of the subsurface disposal systems for building number three and four will extend into this area and will potentially, sorry, While there is a future roadway right away to the northwest of the proposed developable area, it should be noted that filling of the subsurface system for buildings number three and four extends into this area, as well as a portion of the leaching for buildings four. I noted that The owner for unit number five already has a right over that area to access the property. But as we brought up when we looked at the regulations or the condo documents, they do have a right to put utilities within that area. With the encroachment of the septic system within that area, there's still more than ample room to put a road in or the elevation of the road can be built up higher so it matches the elevation of the fill that's going in. So we're not precluding access to it. We're just utilizing a portion of it for the creation of a portion of our septic system, our self-purpose sewage disposal system.

So obviously you want to make sure we have that right of access, but we don't want any road building over a leaching field.

Technically you can. You could do it technically.

Well, you technically could, but then you have to make sure you don't have the compaction and impact to it. And you also might need to do maintenance of it. So could we make sure that you have it? not just a right of access, but access for maintenance?

Yes, we do. I mean, I was already in these days.

As long as that's there. And I guess I would just be somewhat concerned in terms of making sure that folks know where that leaching field is. Like I said, you can put road over it, but then you need to build the road differently so that you don't have compaction.

We have one in the parking lot zone all the time. But we have, it's over 50 foot right of way. We need a 24 foot wide roadway in about 10 feet.

Well, I guess I'm more concerned about making sure that people know where it is. So as long as that exact location is documented and as built so that they know where it is.

Definitely as built. And we can do other things like put markers on the corners of it or in corners of the fill package zone. that everyone knows to stay away from it. So with that, I mean, that's all the review comments we had. Sorry for stumbling along a little bit, but it's been a scramble of a day. It was a lot. When I got this report, I went like, oh. Yeah, so we went over your minutes from the last meeting, and there was a couple of things that we had brought up that they just wanted to go over and make sure that we're okay with. So at the last meeting, we talked about having a landscape plan to refurbish some of the buffer areas that we need greenland trees in. And the way I left the meeting, my understanding is that was something we're going to work on with staff once we had approval. So we're still committed to doing that. In addition to, you wanted to correct the memo, which I did give you this evening. You also said that the water supply would be demonstrated prior to clearing. As I mentioned, when we go through the well, we're going to partner with public health. It's a three-step process. First step is to identify a location. The next step is to actually do drilling and testing. So what we're committing to is that we would do those steps, make sure that we have adequate location for a well before we do any additional clearing just so we don't have a cleared site and a well that can't work. So we're in agreement to that also. You had a comment about the fire marshal's conditions, requirements, and as I stated last time, Some of the conditions he has was on the fire tank. I've already talked to him about the fire tank, and we committed to changing the pipe locations that he wanted. We are proposing a fire tank up in the area of this site. I have right now a siphon pipe on one end of this three-department tank, so I have the same pipe on one end. He asked me to move him to the center. along with making a pull-off area for him so he can pull up to the fire tank without any issue. So we're committed to taking care of that for him also. You also asked that the town design and construction standards for the roadway be met. Hopefully we went through them. I think I updated the plans accordingly. But if not, you know... Is that the increase to 35 feet?

What's that?

You know, the specification, we had a question on the base material, I believe, last time. Again, for your prior approval, it required three inches of pavement, and I think for your written requirement, it requires four inches. So we just wanted to verify that we're using the correct requirement for the road construction. Then you had another comment about soil testing to be completed as part of our final design of the septic system. I mean, we've done a lot of test bits out here, but there's none They're all around the septic systems, and I'm very comfortable with what we found. It's pretty consistent out there. But when we go to actually construct, we're going to have to do additional soil testing in the septic system to see if we need to make any final adjustments to it. And then finally, I would say probably one of the most important is you did have a resident here last time, Dr. Miller. He brought up a couple of concerns. Number one was that he wanted to make sure that the well that he has actually encroaches onto a piece of property. We're not supposing to use it or tie into it. We're not. proposing to create our own water source. But I would say more importantly, he had a concern about lighting out there. As I stated with this project, we are a good 800 feet off his property line. We provided a photometrics plan that indicated that we have no spill onto adjoining properties. And then we'd also be shielding the lighting fixtures. But more importantly, he asked me to go out there and take a look at the existing lighting fixtures, which after this meeting I did. And I called my client and basically said, these are atrocious. So we need to do something with them because I don't know what happened, but somehow they got replaced. And I can understand his concern. You can read a book by him right now. So we're committed to modifying those lights, whether it's putting a shield on or whether they have them replaced. I talked to my client before this meeting just to make sure that he understands that we need to do something with those. But we are committed to replacing the first three lights as you drive in the driveway that are directly adjacent to his property. Something needs to happen with them. I think Eversource came in and replaced them.

Was it fair to say they'd be dark sky type?

Yeah, they would have to be dark sky compliant, full cutoff fixtures, shielded, so it doesn't spread light onto the adjoining property.

So those were the items you had brought up last time.

I just wanted to make sure that I brought them up and that we were committed to taking care of all of them.

And you've seen Chief McCarthy's letter?

We did, and you know, again, we brought it up with the owner of the development. He has made the repairs to the bridge. Unfortunately, another company, BL Companies, did the design of the bridge, so I will get documentation from them on what repairs were made and also provide me the, and they wanted a letter confirming that the bridge was designed so it would support a piece of fire apparatus.

He is also asking that at the be verified and certified by a professional engineer.

I can't do that because I didn't design it, so we're going to go back to the original engineer that did the initial design, plus when they replaced the decking on the bridge, I can certify that portion.

Oh, with all his concerns that he's got.

I've already sent it off to the developer, so he's well aware of it.

And to that point, I would add that our client sent me an email this afternoon after we received The note from the fire chief and it included an email to him from john malaria pe from below company senior structural engineer writing to him on August 20 2025. We are all set the repairs look good, you can proceed with the scrape and paint so we'll get you the details on the certification from that, but I do and i'm happy to forward this to you, so that it's sort of in the record. But we do have information from a structural engineer that the repairs were indeed.

Again, and I appreciate that. The fire chief is asking whether I can structurally support the fire apparatus.

Understood. And we're happy to accommodate.

Thank you.

Thank you. The only other thing that I would remind the commission is that we spent time at the May 11th hearing talking about the maps of record that show when the first phase was being approved that showed the second phase. And so I provided those maps to you and the property description from the condominium declaration. I thank you for reopening the hearing so that we could talk about Mr. Jacobson's letter and give you assurances that everything is achievable and part of it has already been completed to that end. So we hope you will look favorably on these additional units to compliment those that have already been provided. Do you have any questions?

Commission.

I would say I'm very pleased that Nathan Jacobson was able to do this because this was a lot, but I am also pleased that given that you just got this today, you were able to do a lot today. I have not seen the fire chief's letter yet, but it brings back what we talked about the very first meeting, that bridge deck was a real concern of mine. And I'm very pleased that it came up again. We're going to get some assurance. And that was a real safety issue. So I'm glad it came up today.

So thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

So I'm assuming the commission has no more questions for the applicant or if not, then I will move to open this public hearing to anyone who would like to make a public comment regarding this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment? If so, please come forward, state your name and address and provide us with your public comment.

Okay. Thank you very much.

And if the commission doesn't have any more questions.

Make another motion to close the public hearing.

Okay. We have a motion to close the public hearing from Madam Secretary. Is there a second? Second. Second by Denise. Is there any additional discussion? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain. Okay, the public hearing is closed 5-0-0.

Moving on.

Is the commission in a position to discuss and possibly make a decision on this application tonight? We are.

There's an awful lot of conditions. Yes. We have to figure out how to say something.

Yeah, I've got eight listed here.

Feel free to add additional. Yeah, why don't you read the ones from last, because we have last times and then see what we need to add in. I don't have, this is just from tonight, but I can.

I have them from last time. Okay. Do we want to motion to approve and then go with conditions and then get a second?

It's probably everything to do at this point. It just may have a motion on the table and discuss it.

So I'll make the motion that we approve this application subject to certain conditions that we will then figure out what they are.

Okay.

Second.

Second. Okay. Additional discussion now on the conditions.

Sorry, that was Mary Jo.

Mary Jo. Second. Yes.

Okay. So, yeah, Eric, you want me to start?

When you start, and I'll sort of see if it cross-checks with anything I have on my list.

Okay, so I have here, the commission noted that the following must be met or provided. Landscaping plan, a corrected memo. Water supply will be demonstrated prior to site clearing. Fire marshal requirements must be met. Town design and construction standards for the road systems must be met. Soil testing must be completed. Light shielding and vegetation requirements on phase one of the and two must be met.

That's all I have.

That was five of the eight that I had previously written down here. So in addition, I have that we're going to get documentation from VL companies that confirms that the work was done on the bridge. and that the work is sufficient to address the fire chief's concerns regarding fire equipment. I have the Jacobson letter, which I know Jane has also written some additions to, but all concerns raised in the Jacobson letter will be addressed for the applicant representation tonight. And finally, we do have Jacobson's estimated costs, which is Exhibit Q. Let me see if I can pull that one out. Anyway, it's been provided to the applicant. Jacobs estimates his cost of doing this review at $1,982.84. That cost is to be borne by the applicant. And those are the additional three conditions that I have above and beyond what Amy mentioned a few minutes ago.

Can we add something very specific about the dark sky fixtures near Dr. Miller's property? I know it's sort of generally covered, but I'd really like to have it.

Okay, well, if you want to sort of... The remediation, specifically.

Amy mentioned it generally, but if you want to add more detail in on that commission of approval, then by all means... Those three lights that he was talking about?

Okay.

I'd just like to stay there in the proximity of Dr. Miller's property. Okay. Can we condition?

They still control the road. And my understanding is they've agreed to that condition. So we're not imposing it over their objection.

Do you need a new revised set of plans then based on this?

We're going to be getting revised plans anyway, right? Because we've already heard from the engineer that he needs to do a number of things to address Jacobson's concerns. We will be getting revised plans that do that. As part of all that, any additional commissions or approval from tonight are going to need to be incorporated into those revised plans.

And what was it, Eric, that he said that he would be then working with you on consulting?

The consulting matter was the landscaping plan, right? The landscaping plan has not been completed, but final terms of the updated landscaping plan, including a refreshing of material on the first phase, will be done with staff post-approval. Okay.

Yeah, one second. So you'd said, I just put dark sky compliant lighting will be added in proximity of a budding neighbors. Is that okay?

Or do you want specific?

And I'm sorry, what was the last one?

Well, the landscaping plan you already have in there, you mentioned as a condition of approval previously from the last thing that, again, The appellate is committed to updating the landscaping plan on both phases with town staff as a condition to approval.

And Michael and Mary Dota, do you want to hear again that one about the, yeah, let's read the one again about the light remediation. Might be an adjustment to that by Dr. Something's property.

Let's see. Dark sky compliant lighting will be added in the proximity of Dr. Miller's property.

You want to enhance that? Yeah, I think in addition, there was some updated lighting that needs to be replaced, not just added.

Yes, it's replaced. Yeah, it's not added. It should stay remediated.

Okay, so dark side compliant lighting will be replaced.

We'll replace existing lighting. We'll replace existing.

Existing lighting. And this, if I have a question, just for my edification, on the items that have changed since the previous project, the items that changed, the regulations that changed, was that the subdivision guidelines that changed?

Yeah, well, the subdivision guidelines still refer to the town road standards, but the town road standards themselves have been updated since its original approval went in. So they need to meet the current town road standards as part of this application.

And then I think what we have in there on the Jacobson letter, I don't know if we're that far yet. Are we to Jacobson yet?

Well, it's in the conditions, but if we want to add in certain things, I know Jane has a bunch of notes over here that she's added. I don't know if you want to.

I just want to make sure, you know, I mean. All the items in response to Jacobson. He's given us a letter.

He's given us a letter with response, and there's just a few things that need to be added to that.

Well, I added it. Every time he said he agreed with something like that.

So you have those.

Approve that, right?

The letter as written amendments by Jane pursuant to the comments made. As long as they have that, that's fine.

Good to go here, we think.

Let's hear him one more time, okay? A condition to approve for the following conditions.

All right. So we've got, let's see here, a landscaping plan. So these are the conditions. A landscaping plan must be provided, met or provided, a corrected memo provided by Water supply will be demonstrated prior to site clearing. The fire marshal requirements must be met. Town design and construction standards for the road condition road systems must be met. Soil testing must be completed and light shielding and vegetation requirements on phase one of the property and on phase two must be met. Also said that we need documentation. Make sure that's. Yeah. Okay. Documentation from BL Company that confirms work has been done on the bridge and is sufficient to address the fire chief's concerns. The Jacobson letter, yeah, the concerns in Jacobson letter addressed as added by Ms. Marsh during the meeting. Is that good? Okay. Okay. And then Jacobson's estimated cost to be borne by the, or just Jacobson's cost to be borne by the applicant. Do you actually want the amount in there?

Yes. Let me put the amount in here. Yes.

1,900 something, right?

1,982.84. Okay.

So the...

Jacobson's estimated cost of $1,982.84 to be borne by the applicant. Okay. Oh, sorry. Not done.

Just kidding.

Yeah. Dark sky compliant lighting will replace existing lighting. And I just said, particularly in the proximity of Dr. Miller's property, but if you'd like me to award some of that. Okay. And then landscaping plan will be updated with town staff for both for phase one and phase two. Yes.

Okay. Okay.

Any additional discussion? Okay. All in favor of approving the application? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Okay. The application is approved 5-0-0.

Okay.

So the next item on the agenda, just make sure Yep, is the receipt and setting of public hearings for new cases. We don't have any, but we have a discussion. We have one to pass. You have one that was received.

You have to receive it because it came in more than a day. Setting the public hearing is something we can discuss this evening. Right. The SOAR project has come in with a petition to amend their prior special permit to include as lay-down yards 250 and 224 Shore Road. I will let them sort of discuss with you What they have, I will indicate that as submitted, and we can certainly go through what they've given us, the application is incomplete at the present time. How much more we need and what is going to happen with that when we're going to set the public hearing is something that we need to sort of go through and discuss this evening. Jane, I know there is a file in there which has what we have so far on this proposal. I know there's a bunch of people in the audience who'd like to come and talk about the proposal.

That's whenever you're...

So just point of order. So until the application is complete, we will not set a public hearing.

That's the usual rule. Again, they are going to talk to you this evening about the sort of urgency of this and why they want a public hearing scheduled now. But again, we have three copies.

I'll sort of pass them around. And I will let the applicants...

Speak on this, and we can discuss what we would like to do on this. I'll start. My name is Doug Whalen, 41 Old Colony Road. I'm one of the signatures for the sewer program. Attorney Sharkey apologizes for not being here tonight. He would be here tonight, but he had a conflict with scheduling, so he's not here. We also have two other signatures of the sewer program, Frank Noe and Scott Belanger, here in the audience. So if you have any questions for us, we're here for you. What we're attempting to do is comply with all your concerns. stipulations and the special permit conditions for the sewer project that the three beaches in the town of Old Lyme are responsible for under a cost-sharing agreement. Today, I am representing all four entities to briefly go over our intentions. We take this project very seriously and we want to comply with all of your zoning concerns. There was some discussion that this project has been going on for many years and a delay would have no impact on the project. This is not true. It's critical to move this project forward immediately due to the conditions listed below. One of them is the notice to proceed with the contractors was issued August 30th, 2026. I mean, April 30th, 2026, after the review process was reviewed and approved by the state Connecticut DEP. So we had no control until state DEP gave us the authorization to move forward. The contractors were put on a time limit effective that date, so future delays will cause issues with the contractor's scheduling. The state of Connecticut DOT paving 156 was put on hold so we can get our sewer line in the ground on 156 before the paving program, which is scheduled this year. This courtesy by the state of Connecticut has a savings for the project of over $1 million, which will be beneficial not only to the beach associations, but the town of Old Lyon because we're all responsible for it. under the cost-sharing agreement.

Are you saying that the Town of Old Lyme has signed a cost-sharing agreement?

The Town of Old Lyme has signed a cost-sharing agreement. We have a copy of a signed cost-sharing agreement with the three beaches and the Town of Old Lyme.

And when was that?

It was September 2022. For the record, I'm Steve Humes. I'm a resident of Old County Beach and a member of the Board of Governors of Old County Beach and the WPCA of Old County Beach. but the town signed the cautionary agreement.

So the lay down and staging areas cannot be identified by the beach associations when we officially put all of our applications in. And the town, and we were going through the, as we were going through the design and bidding process, as it was clearly marked out in the project, that the contractors have to secure the lay down staging areas once they are awarded the contract. Because the beaches are, in the town did not have a contractor in place until DEP approved the notice to proceed, those areas could not be identified. So that was a big issue. And I know it sounds like we just ignored it. We never ignored it. It's just, we couldn't tell you an area because the contractors had to decide that. Once the contractors were approved to move forward, they tried to provide a lay down stage area that had as little truck traffic as possible going through the town of Old Lyme. So they looked at an area close to our project and not have to go through old line roadways for this project. Due to limited space south of 156, there was no suitable area that the contractor could use. An area close to the project and suitable for the contractors was identified north of 156 that would benefit the project and provide limited truck traffic in the town during the project. The other part was restrictions in the 100-foot uplands review area, which is condition five of the wetlands permit number 2009, are operationally impractical and will create traffic and safety logistical concerns. But the contractors are prepared, and we've already had at our last meeting, they provided you with a really impressive site plan for the laydown in areas with fencing and paving. you know, all different types of protections. So we are ready with the contractors to provide you with all of the programs that we feel that are going to address all of your concerns. But the problems that we have is that under some of the, you know, some of the restrictions like no fueling in the wetlands, drainage structures or catch basins, that won't occur. And the contract has already said they won't do that. But there's some parts where if vehicles are parked in an area, for example, dewatering, they can't shut down the dewatering operation, move the vehicle to an area, and then fuel it and then bring it back. But they have provisions in place to protect it. So we have all those ready for you. We're ready to present it to you. Eric had told us that we have to do it in a public hearing. So That's why we're here today to find out if there's anything else you need. But we have everything in place to take care of the lay down areas, to take care of condition five of the inland wetlands, which is the hundred foot uplands review area restrictions. We have provisions in place to address all those. But one of the things we're at a critical stage of the project to get approvals so the contractors can prepare a safe, and town-friendly project as they try to meet this requirement of the contracts and also to meet the DEP's consent order the beaches are under. We are asking the Zoning Commission to hold a special hearing in June so we can properly address your concerns.

What are we missing, Alex?

Okay, let me go through a number of things that I haven't seen. And first of all, Condition 5 of wetlands is outside of your jurisdiction. If they need to modify Condition 5 of wetlands, they're going to have to go to wetlands. So that's sort of, that's a new one to me. I will talk to them about going to wetlands, but that's outside of here. There are butters list does not have N-Tracks listed a butter. They don't have a remediation plan in plans they've given you. The plan they've given you, the plans they've given you are not actual 18 surveys, they're just sort of drawings on your GIS map. I didn't see an erosion control and sedimentation plan. As far as I'm aware, and maybe I'm missing something in the application, the other conditions of approval from the original permit that they need to modify have not been called out specifically to amend. We heard this evening what those conditions are. I don't know what all of them are. If I'm gonna get my legal notice in the newspaper, I have to know every single condition that they are looking to modify from the original approval because we're not doing this twice. So to my knowledge, all we have is a modification to the original permit to add into 24 and 250 Shore Road. We don't have the other conditions of approval they need modified. um and again we don't have what i would consider to be a plan that conforms to the requirements the regulations for the special permit so that's what i'm looking for um additionally sort of aggressive concern that was just raised um we still need to give a 35-day review period for this to be sent out so the first available date i can give you a public hearing is your regular meeting in June, which happens to be exactly 35 days from today. July. July. So yeah, your first July meeting is literally 35 days from today. So to allow proper referrals to go out and allow comments to come back, I need that full 35 days, which again puts us at the July meeting. Again, in the absence of these things, I'm not sure anything sooner than that would be justified in any case.

We have the two lay down areas addressed already. That's our application. And you're asking for an erosion control sedimentary plan? Sedimentation plan, yeah.

And a remediation plan. And again, these things were gone over with Brendan Sharkey last week when I talked to him. I don't know Yeah, I don't know. I mean, he physically was bringing me the application when we were talking about these things. So obviously it wasn't including the application he gave me. But if I'm going to have a complete plan, I'm going to need these additional items. And again, the other crucial one, if I'm going to get a legal notice in the newspaper, is any other conditions of approval that need to be modified. And you've mentioned one tonight, which is the refueling. There was also an issue regarding whether heavy equipment could remain on site overnight. I understand from the pre-construction meeting that the crane will not be leaving the site overnight. So if you need to modify that condition of approval, I need that included now. If there are others that I'm just not even aware of, I just need to make sure that we have a complete list of every modification so that we're not putting a legal notice in that doesn't adequately address all of these issues. If we leave something out of a legal notice, it can't be modified. And again, we only want to do this once, because obviously you guys are on a tight schedule here.

What about the River Cog?

This is not a River Cog issue. What about weapons? I'm going to have to deal with them separately on going to wetlands. That's a separate issue. I'm going to have to send them back to wetlands if we need to go to wetlands. We can't act until wetlands acts, right? You cannot act until wetlands acts. The other piece of this that I was talking to Attorney Sharkey about, we both were of the opinion that this did not require a CAM application, given what we're looking at. But I will be referring that over to Attorney Willis just to get a confirmation from him that's the case, okay? An application, a CAM application was not submitted with the materials that we have already. Again, he and I seem to be at the conclusion, not true, but I'm no longer at counsel. So I will refer this to counsel to confirm with Attorney Willis that he believes this can proceed without a CAM application.

We had it approved a lot in the industrial complex area that was approved for

these specific type of things, if I'm not mistaken, right? For approved projects. I don't know if you guys explored that as well.

That just means trucking through the town is going to increase emissions, congestion, and cost.

I don't know. I'm just saying right now you might be able to start there while you work through this.

Just thought, because that's already approved.

There's already an approved location?

in the industrial part?

In the industrial part, there was an applicant that came in here a couple months back that was seeking approval for basically a lay down or contract or story.

Is that Matt?

Yeah, Matt.

So what's the name again?

Septic Works. I don't know if that's the LLC it was under, but it was specifically for an improved construction project lay down there pretty much.

Do you know what project that was? I can email you the address.

All I'm getting at is you might want to look there while you work through these. At least you can get your stuff started because that's already an approved location.

It's a business that offers that as a service.

We understand that.

Thank you. I would highly recommend that your folks who are doing the construction, who are seeking areas, that they work that out and make sure that it's applicable. I understand that.

That's understandable. Yeah. And we did talk to them this morning, all of the three contractors, and we told them we'll get back to them after this meeting tonight. But it was our understanding that the erosion control cemetery plan was provided as part of the original plan.

Okay. As part of the original permit had erosion control plan, but there's no separate plan for the storage arch 24 to 50. At least not, I understand, an erosion control plan. So, yeah, if you look at the materials that are in the material that everybody has, you know, the narrative for an erosion control plan, the details for an erosion control plan, none of that is in there. So, again, they're relatively flat areas. I'm not suggesting you're going to need extensive erosion controls, but Given that you're right on 156 and given you're going to have very heavy trucks tracking through mud, I want any tracking pads. I want KBLs or something along the perimeter. I want something that makes sure that we're not going to get mud all over 156 as part of all of this. Because we were getting some of that during the water company use of 224, actually 250, I guess it was. which was illegal and they were cited for. I don't want to have to go through that again with the new project. So some detailed erosion control from an engineer is going to be required to make this go forward. And again, whether we need that before I schedule a public hearing or they schedule a public hearing, I'll let the commission decide.

But an actual erosion control plan is going to be really important here. So just like this is a supplement to the plan, the erosion control has to be just for that section, not the rest of it.

The other section he's already said.

The other section.

That's what I was, when he says you don't have an erosion control plan, I thought there was one submitted originally. That's for everything south of 156. Yes. But again, north of 156. North of 156 was not in the original proposal, so now you need an erosion control plan for that. And particularly that anti-tracking pad. And that was in the original plan. May 12th, when they get that plan, that was in that plan.

There were a couple of things that we talked about then. We talked about that. We talked about having, so if they're leaving equipment on site, making sure that they have a spill plan. So just all of that. That should all be.

And also we had fencing around the whole perimeter of the staging area.

Yeah, so just make sure that we had talked about some of that. So just make sure it's there. And it's, I think to Eric's point, it should be, it can't just be sketched on. It has to be, you know, an engineering.

I thought he addressed that under the 14.9, which is lay down areas outside of the work area.

I understand that 14.9 allows you to put lay down areas in zones that otherwise would not be allowed. But As a modification to a special permit, you still need to meet the special permit criteria for what needs to be shown on a plan. And again, I will leave it to your engineer to make this as detailed or as lightly detailed as you guys want. I would just say that I don't want you to be in a situation where I give this to Jacobson. And again, as you saw tonight, Jacobson comes back with a list of five pages of things that haven't been done right. And then you're looking at another month where you have to go back and amend your plan. I'm trying to get this all done in one shot. So make your plan as detailed as you can make it so that it all goes through in one shot and Jacobson doesn't have five pages of comments on it, all of which need to be addressed. Because again, the last thing you're going to want to do before your public hearing is the night of the public hearing, have somebody frantically trying to make changes to the plan. So the better the plan up front, the faster you can get it to me, the faster I can get it to my engineer, the more likely it is we're going to be able to get this resolved prior to the public hearing.

Good. Just a thought on the 224 versus the 250. 224 is the one you'd have to be concerned about the wetlands, right? Because of that title. So I don't know if there's a way to dictate 224 does this part of activities for the lay-down yard, and then 250 does these activities for the lay-down yard. I don't know if that consideration is made, but you might want to consider that because there might be an avenue where 224s are less used as far as equipment. Maybe it's more equipment stored or material stored.

They may not need as much equipment in 224 as they do in 250. That's what I'm getting at. So is there anything else, Eric, that we need to address other than that? So it's really an erosion control for the two lay down areas and then the lay down area review. Yeah.

I would go back and look at your butters list because, again, I didn't see Amtrak on there. I don't know if there's anything else that's missing. But I don't want you to have some sort of defective notice because you haven't notified everybody within 100 feet. And again, I know there was concern before about how you were going to remediate this site when you were done. And I haven't seen anything that really details a remediation plan once this is complete. So I would definitely look at that issue as well.

I thought that was addressed by the application, no? Didn't we say we're going to have it as good as or better than it is?

you said that but i think the commission probably wants to see what that's going to look like okay so um i mean they're sort of a a an engineer should be able to come up with a remediation plan without a lot of effort on this but we want just telling us it's going to be better um is probably not going to get you what you need from the commission so again some sort of detail on our remediation plan to help okay preceding the area

Absolutely. Whatever process they're going to do.

And you'll get us that information about the industrial park?

Yes, I will get that to you again tomorrow morning, 8 o'clock, when I get it. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else the commission wanted to have us address?

So I guess the question is... So July 13th, we're hoping to have this as... Yeah, so if we set this... It really depends, because if we set a public hearing, the materials need to be available.

Yes, and again, they also have to give me a complete list of every condition of approval they need modified, right? So I have to get my legal notice in in advance of that. If it does not happen, then I will put them on notice that they're at risk of me not putting my legal notice out there, and they're going to lose that July 13th date. Yeah.

So our next regular meeting was in September.

Let's have a special meeting. And by statute at 87D, you need to openly public hearing within 65 days of receipt, absent consent from the applicant to extend it beyond that. So you would probably need to hold a special meeting in August to address opening public hearing at that time. Okay.

At least you have an avenue through the industrial park at this time.

So Eric, just process-wise, are you comfortable with us setting the public hearing with their understanding that they have to get this material in as soon as possible because otherwise we'll have to pull it?

I guess what I would say is it's not going to be from my comfort level. I want the commission to understand what we're looking at. I will make it happen on my end. But again, the commission has to understand that, you know, we were waiting for things from the applicant and this is at the moment an incomplete application.

And just to make sure I understand what you're saying about the other location that's already approved this industrial park area. We do not have to come back to you for any type of approvals. We can have them start tomorrow.

I mean, they've already given us a special permit application that shows certain areas of that site used for certain purposes. As long as you conform to the existing special permit for that site, you're free to use that site, okay?

And it was explicitly for permitted product.

Got it.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Yeah, so...

I guess what you're asking, so our decision has to be, are we going to set the public hearing for July 13th or not? Yes.

The next motion from the commission has to be, we set a public hearing for whatever the date is. Or if you don't feel you're ready to set a public hearing, you have 65 days to open a public hearing. So you can wait until next year, July meeting to set a public hearing. Then you definitely need to hold a special meeting in August.

So if I may, what is the deadline by which you need the material to publish the legal notice? So in other words, is there a date between now and the 13th of July where you don't have what you need? You're going to tell us that we can't go forward on the 13th?

I mean, I will tell you to get my legal notice in. I mean, sooner is better. But let me just sort of look at my calendar here and give you some thoughts.

So if we receive the application.

You have to receive it.

And then if we hold off on setting a public hearing based on how fast they get their data in, when is the last date that we could have? All we need is a quorum to set up a public hearing. So what's the last date that we would need? Well, I just assume that we could hold that meeting and yet get it in for July.

What I would suggest, I mean, honestly, if you're going to do that, why don't you just set it for July 13th? And if we're not going to be able to hold it then, I will put you on notice that you're not going to go forward. Okay. I mean, we get this with ZBA all the time. When we get to the meeting, they're just not ready to go forward.

What about the wetlands? Will that come in?

I'm going to have to get them in front of wetlands this month, and we'll have to see how that goes. I honestly have not looked at the wetlands permit, and I don't know what that's going to involve. We don't need the wetlands for the public.

We just need the wetlands to do it.

That's only on 246. That's not around 224, not 250.

Okay, so working backwards from July 13th, in order for me to get that legal notice to And I'm going to need something essentially no later than like the 24th of June. Okay. A little more than 10 days, about two weeks from today. Because the first legal notice has to go in between 10 and 15 days before that hearing. So I need to have that first legal notice in essentially by beginning of July. So that involves getting the paper on board, having the legal notice prepared, probably reviewed by counsel. So 24th of June is really going to be about as late as I can go and still get that legal notice in.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'd ask the commission to kindly consider sending the hearing for July 13th. And if we can't meet that deadline and provide the information, we'll understand that the July 13th hearing has to be postponed.

Do we have what we need to have a meaningful 35-day review period if we did that?

I will send what we have out. If people don't feel they have enough, they'll let me know. Ultimately, the challenge here is I can only ship them what I have. If they come back and they say, I'm sorry, we don't have enough information, I don't know what to tell you, Michael. The faster they get the information, the faster I will ship it out to our referral agencies. I believe our attorney did provide you with a bunch of information, right? Yeah, but again, if I'm sending this to other agencies for their review, if I'm sending this up too deep, if I'm sending this to, you know, the other referral agencies we need to send it to, they're going to need enough information to allow them to perform a meaningful review within 35 days. So even if Even if we hold the public hearing on the 13th, if we haven't heard back from DEEP or all these other agencies, they may ask us to leave the hearing open to allow them to get back to us with comments. So, again, the faster you get back to me with your materials, the better it's going to be that we have all the referral agencies give us comments back in time for our July 13th meeting.

So the idea of having the hearing on the 13th would be in a position to hopefully put us in a position to approve it, right?

Ideally, they're going to want you to make the decision that night.

So if that's not going to happen, I'm thinking I would be more comfortable setting up a special meeting to set the public hearing once we know we've got a clear line of sight to having the review accomplished and to have a useful public hearing where we had at least a shot at approving it. and then have another special meeting in July to have the public hearing. I know there's two special meetings, one to set it and one to hold it. But, I mean, the whole idea of this is— You're sitting is just a quorum. I mean, you're already— So the idea is we want to be in a position to approve it. Not just to have the hearing. The hearing is a means to the end of approval.

We want you to be in a position to approve. Yeah, for sure. But I was thinking it would be easy for everybody if it's scheduled as the 13th meeting. We know what deadline we're working on.

I mean, you're already meeting on the 24th, right? You already have a meeting set for the 24th as it is a special meeting. So we can add it to that agenda. We could look at what we have by the 24th.

And we could do it at that meeting if possible.

Yeah. You know, I appreciate what Michael's saying, but I'm looking at the fact that we don't have to, yes, we want, if we don't have everything for the 13th, then we just extend the public hearing. But we're already in the process, you know, in terms of where we're going. I think if we, you know, have to have something on the agenda to set the public hearing and start it out, I appreciate that we have to send this out to other agencies to review, but I'm looking at DEP. They're going to look at the location, which we have the location or whatever. They are not going to look at the erosion sediment control plan. They're not going to look at the erosion. So what I'm saying is what's missing from the application and what we're saying we need so that we can review, I'm looking at does River Cog or whoever and DEP, and I don't know who else you have to send it to.

I'll have to look at my referral agency. It's super impactful.

What I'm saying is, are they, the stuff that's missing from the application, the fact that they missed one of the abutters, is that it's significant for us for action, but I don't think it's significant for the people who are going to be doing the, who need to see this.

I understand. But again, some of that's also going to depend on what additional changes they're going to ask for regarding, again, the refueling on site and things of that sort. We're sort of operating in the dark. But I happen to agree with you, Denise. I would rather set a public hearing and continue it than not set it. Because at least this way, we have something on the calendar. We can open it that night. And if we need to continue to a special meeting after that date, we can continue it at that time. And at that point, we'll have a better sense as to what referrals we're still missing or what other matters we still need.

I mean, I understand all the stuff we need to do. But I'm looking at the people who are looking at the referrals. They look at stuff in terms of the general concept of what's going on. You know, like DEB is going to look at, is it in the significant wetlands or is it, you know, is there a habitat there? They're not going to look at the details that we have to look at to approve a special site plan. So I'm not seeing that there's anything missing. We have an application before us. We have all the details we need to make the decision, but I don't think the referring agencies... I'm going to miss those details.

It's probably worth mentioning that with respect to DEEP, all the three beaches are operating under consent orders to remediate the underground pollution from the septic barriers. But DEEP is also funding a substantial portion of the project. So it's not going to be a surprise to DEEP, and they know all about what this project is scheduled to be.

So can I just go ahead and make a motion?

I just want to make sure.

Has everybody had enough discussion? Well, she can make a motion. You want to continue it in that?

Okay. So Jane's going to make a motion, too, to receive and set the public hearing for July 13th. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second.

Second by Denise. Anything? further discussion. Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Approved? Okay. July 13th meeting.

We will have all the information to Eric in a very timely fashion.

I will get you that industrial park information tomorrow. Thank you.

Appreciate your consideration. All right. What is in other?

Jane, I'm going to give you back this to go. Please stay here. Same thing on the other side?

No, I have nothing for other. Pre-application discussion? None. River Cog? Representative update?

That's true. That's me. I can make that brief. There have been two regional housing committee meetings since the last update. The first one, River Cog went through the basic process and briefed the committee on what we have already heard about just the timeline of At a high level, the River Cog is going to be working to come up with a regional housing needs assessment between now and early 27. And they are also going to be working to come up with an allocation of that needs assessment in the form of an affordable housing target, a 10-year affordable housing target that they are planning They have to deliver by June of 2027, but they intend to do it sooner if possible, at which point the town will need to, within 30 days, opt in or out of adopting the River Cog Regional Housing Plan when we're going on our own. So that's a year out now that we're looking. The second meeting of they started assembling all the data that would have to be put into the regional housing needs assessment. And it's really preliminary, and they're kind of binning the towns into various buckets regarding population growth or decline, household formation, just the parameters through which they would start to consider both needs and the allocation.

Is that mostly demographics, isn't it?

Yeah.

And economic indicators as well?

Yeah, a lot of it depends on census data and some of the ACS data that's come out since then.

So where are you getting budgeted?

In an interesting kind of middle ground. There's layers of buckets. Essentially, there's 17 towns in the lower Connecticut River Valley region. And at a high level, there's Middletown and the other 16.

Ah.

And after that, it gets to be finer and finer shades of gray. So one very interesting thing came out at the meeting that I questioned, and we got a first view of it, and it's going to be refined over time and subsequent meetings. But old lime in particular was characterized as having relatively stable growth, but bucking the trend of decreasing household size, we were shown with a very slight increase in household size. Was that just for people having children? So there's housing units, and then there's households. So the housing unit is the dwelling, and the household size is how many people reside in that dwelling. So we're shown. The trend has been towards shrinking. So very slightly over the past few years.

Is this also the bubble that's going through the school then?

It could be. It could be.

That's kind of challenging our projections for how big of the schools we need.

Yeah. It can. It can.

Because that's a bubble. My point is that it narrows out.

Yeah. So there's been declines in the older kids, but then there's a wave coming in from some of the younger kids. And there's still ripples coming from the pandemic. Yeah. So, and these are, I got to tell you, these are not dramatic changes. So go back to the Middletown and the other 16 and it's, it runs like that. So interestingly, so the household, the household size went up. We haven't seen, when you look at all the numbers they provided, we should see a bump in the vacancy rate, which we haven't seen. So right now I'm saying this, there's preliminary data, and I have not yet seen it all tick and tie between population, household size, and vacancy rate. And we're unique within the region in that we have an extraordinarily high apparent vacancy rate because of the seasonal residents, us in Westbrook, and to an extent Old Saybrook. So we showed over a third of the of the housing units being vacant, but a lot of those are seasonal. So it's going to be kind of difficult to really validate the data they're coming out with. And then I raised that, and again, I'll say that what we got was just a first look. We haven't even seen, I have not seen the spreadsheets come through from even what they presented to us. So this is a work in progress.

Thank you.

And there was nothing definitive about it, at this point for anyone. Again, I'll go back to, we're a year out from making a decision, so I think it behooves us to let them grind on this a little more, come up with some good questions that go back in to validate the conclusions they're coming out with, or even the trends they're identifying. And then probably in the first quarter next year, we're going to need to really roll up our sleeves and see what they have.

Do they make any distinction between the real transit towns and the ones that are the only reason we're a transit town is we're next to Saybrook. We're not because we have any.

Actually, we are in the eyes of the statute. We are a bona fide transit town because of the bus. We're not transit adjacent. We've got a bus. We're a transit bus. Yeah, we've got a bus stop.

Are they making any discussion based on that?

No. No, you're either a transit. So there's three things you can be. You can be a transit community, a transit adjacent community, which we would, if we weren't a transit community, we would have the option of that because Old Saybrook is. And then there are those who are the islands that are neither a transit nor transit adjacent. And even they have the option to opt in as a transit.

But are they being considered differently in terms of the River Cobb examination?

Between transit and transit adjacent?

Yeah. Transit or non-transit? Is every town getting allocated a certain amount of housing based on transit or non-transit?

It won't affect the allocation. What transit status does is give you the opportunity to create a transit district and get access to some funding in return for minimum densities.

The allocation won't be affected by whether you've got transit or not?

The allocation...

of how many houses there's gonna say each community has to produce.

It'll be a factor in the allocation, but not, my understanding is that's independent of whether you are the transit community that gives you access to the ability to create a transit district and get access to funding.

Yeah, I'm asking nothing about funding.

Okay.

I'm only asking about the allocation.

So the transit, yes, it does.

It does or it doesn't?

The transit. Whether you have transit, irrespective of whether it's considered a statute or not, is a factor in the allocation. And again, how much transit you have and the quality of that transit is all going into the factor of how many units potentially you might be allocated.

One of the other things that came up, and this actually came up, River Cod did in 2020, three to four, because the fair share law was partially passed and they had the study, they actually did a dry run on an allocation and a regional housing needs assessment. And one of the things that came up there was the transit. And the other thing that came up was infrastructure, sewer in particular. And because that's a more significant factor even is sewer infrastructure. And one of the things that Rivercar did initially, and I think that the OPM did it as well, is have the existence of sewer as a factor, not the remaining capacity of the system. So actually, correct me on this, Eric, but I think OPM is on the hook. They're overdue, actually, to come up with a capacity analysis of existing sewer systems that will actually go into the... That was due in June, and it's not... We got that letter just again reminding us that we may not expand the sewer systems in the

beach areas because those consent orders prohibit it. So that's where we have sewers, but they're not going to be usable by us.

And the Clean Water Act funding affects that as well.

I just wonder whether this level of consideration is really going to be done because there's so many things. There's reasons why Old Lyme doesn't have a lot of this stuff. It's that we do have the historical beach areas. They turned out to be pretty difficult, you know, in the modern age to service those people. And we know what's going to happen. So it's really not the target area where we'd want to say, well, let's put some more housing there.

And it doesn't exist yet.

Well, you just wouldn't want to do that. And it's not in, I don't think that was where anybody in the planning commission ever suggested where that we should locate more dense housing is in the beach areas because we already tried but it's basically an experiment that we know isn't working out in the 22nd 21st century without the proper infrastructure and and we're not alone even with the proper it was all laid out in the in a way that's not really and we're not alone all up all the way up the river to middle town michael when they look at that obviously they're looking at transit and i understand that

to a point, one of the challenges I see, depending on where they want housing, is access to jobs. And that means that you can't just, the transit has to provide access to jobs, or you have to have jobs in your community. And how do they figure that economic model in? Or don't they at all? Because I think that's a real challenge, and it's definitely a challenge if all of a sudden they say, And it can just take over your commercial zone if you don't do anything about it because then you're not going to have any jobs.

Yeah. And actually, that was... So River Cod opposed the fair share legislation. And one of the points of opposition was that it would effectively turn into a relocation program for people who were close to their jobs to be farther away from their jobs in affordable housing where the cost of transportation are a factor in affordability. So it was just... Yeah. So those are the things that we need to be talking about.

Well, and it wasn't that long ago where the Ninetown Transit was going bankrupt.

Well, they must be publicly funded because I don't see how.

They did. They did get some public funding. They went through a reorg. But, I mean, is that what they're basing the fact that we have the Ninetown Transit? Well, yeah. I mean, yeah. And is that nine towns that really serve a unit?

I would guess that's like 95% funded by the public.

I know. I see. So look at an old line. Uniquely, there are unique aspects that the whole idea of the seasonal resident, the seasonal units we have artificially inflate our base count of housing units by about 35%. So that's something we have to work with River Cog on getting an adjustment there. The whole vacancy aspect, we're showing a much higher vacancy rate than our real vacancy rate. And there's almost an assumption that some fraction of this vacancy can be converted into year-round.

That's not even a fact, but even with the sewers, they still have to meet the health code and all the other variables in the building code.

So when you look at it through just the narrower lens of what's unique about O-Lime and how do we make sure our allocation number comes out right, I think that's going to be a point of close attention. The transit, I think, will be as well, just so we don't get lumped in as assuming because we have a checkbox and that we're a transit community. It's not really a train. We have a train that goes through us, but not based on the bus line.

Once we have this allocation, does the 10% go away?

No. A30G remains in full force and effect.

What is the effect of this allocation?

The effect of this allocation is that the housing growth plan that is also mandated as part of the A25-1 is the plan is to achieve that target in 10 years.

But what if we don't? Because some of this is, I mean, we haven't achieved the 10%.

The sticks have not been fully defined, but what has been discussed is mostly in the form of funding, access to funding.

Yeah, which we don't usually get anyway.

I don't know. Or you move on here. We received a special permit application today from the Adams. You traditionally, or by statute, floor six, Lieutenant River Lake. The owner, Daniel Adams, Jillian Adams. Jillian Adams is here in the audience. Under standard rules, you can't accept an application the day you get it. However, she has requested that you receive it or add it to your agenda to be received and set a public hearing so she doesn't need to wait until September for a public hearing. So I don't know if you want to say anything.

more on it hi hi adam's my husband dan and i uh bought six lieutenant river lane um and remember we've been working with our architect uh brook gurdy to come up with some plans um i think they're relatively minor in scale um adding a room over a dining room not expanding the footprint there um and expanding um very slightly in the back of the house it is on the river so there's the gateway commission I believe.

Yeah. The reason they're in front of you is because it's a gateway special permit application. Otherwise, it's a single family house. You wouldn't be seeing this. It's over 4,000 square feet. Unfortunately, it's a special permit. That's what brings it in front of you. You're going to be getting a lot of these going forward, I expect. It also has a CAM application because of the nature of what it's doing here. And again, usually you have to receive it the day following it coming to the office. But again, given the fact you're not meeting in August, she's requested you guys set a public hearing for July.

You just heard we are going to join at that public hearing and be after.

We could set it, but depending on time, how long it takes for the other one, it may get pushed. But I mean, does anyone have any problem if we set it for July?

Well, if it's a, I mean, Eric,

It's not going to take much.

Well, I was just going to say, can we just put it first?

Let's put it first. Sure. That's a good point. Let's put it first.

For a single family home.

Yeah. Good idea.

Just put it first on the agenda.

I would agree. Let's do that.

I don't know if you had a chance to look at it, Eric.

Just briefly.

It's a special permit, but it's not only because it's over 4,000 square feet, but is there any other red flags that you're seeing in there?

Nothing other than I get to modify it. They're using the old section numbers, so I need to update the application for the new section numbers and the new regs. But there's nothing in here. Again, it's a standard McDonnell Sharp. application here they do pretty good work yeah so i'm relatively confident that i'm not going to see anything major on the application it has indicated they're not really changing the footprint footprint dramatically but because we're talking 4 000 plus square feet it has to go through special permit process sorry if you're willing to work with the applicant to go through that set of findings we have to make for the 4 000 foot thing then perhaps the uh

The hearing could be well-structured to go. Okay.

Move forward. I will make sure that they know what they need to show, and we'll get it set up ahead of time, okay? And it'll be the first public hearing on the agenda. Well, Amy's taking the other notes on it, and I'll make sure the correct notes to put it first, okay?

All right. Okay. I'll make a motion that we accept her application and set it down for July 13th.

Is there a second? I'll second. Second. Poor Michael got it first. Sorry. Ladies first. Michael seconded. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Okay. It's approved. 5-0-0. See you next month. Appreciate your time.

Okay.

All right. And the last item on the agenda. Was there anything else on the report I might want to add? I don't know. Any other questions for Mike?

We could talk all day and all night.

All right, so moving on.

We love you, James. We love you, but moving on. My family has been getting it lately, and they need the broom. That sounds like my family.

Listen, we're close to doing that, so just hang on. Okay, approval of the May Minutes. May, June. Right, it's May, May Minutes. um i will take a motion first of all that to approve the main minutes so moved by jane marsh now is there any discussion and i knew there's discussion number one down there mary gardner had a second had a second i'm sorry yes additional discussion you had a comment on the right minutes

Yeah, because I was not at the meeting, and I was marked present, and I was marked voting, actually.

Yeah, that's tough. When I don't attend the meeting, and there's not a roll call, like, I could have sworn I heard your voice, but yeah, I've got that marked. Do I need to figure out who did that motion then? Because I've got Mary Gardner down for one motion. It was her ghost. It was the ghost of Mary Gardner.

I mean, I'm not sure we should go back and let's not worry about it. If somebody complains, we'll just say she had to leave or something.

Okay. She came back real quick.

Yeah, somebody was Mary Jo. Only if somebody asked.

Just put somebody else in.

Mary Jo will follow in her story.

I'll take it. It wasn't controversial. We approved it unanimously. That was one.

Is there any additional discussion? Yes. But I think Eric

you helped reword it because if you recall Eric disappeared out there because we were closing the public hearing on Ms. Shansky's application and Eric disappeared out there and came back in because he had thought in advance I think or maybe she signaled to him I'm not sure but it wasn't the commission that decided it was a request from somebody and Eric He worded it quite nicely. He gave that wording to you, didn't he?

Yeah, I've got it. Let's see here. So you had said, well, let me just read it because I've updated it during a meeting and it's garbage. Okay, so you just say, rephrase it to something in the order of LOC NAP related to the commission of concern raised by Attorney Shansky. Right, that's why. So I'll add that in there. That's all I heard. Is there anything else?

Anything additional?

Okay, so all in favor of approving the May 11th meeting minutes with the two corrections? Aye.

Opposed? Abstained? Approved 5-0-0. Okay. Anybody want to adjourn?

Rita, want to hear some more from me? Well, you know, I'm not getting a motion to adjourn, so maybe so. I don't know.

I'd just like to say that I thought the workshop was really good. I would really like to say I thought Francisco and his team did a great job. I think we had about 25 people. I think they moved the meeting well. I don't know how it Anyone else?

I felt a little uncomfortable because there were so many zoning commission members there. And because there were so few other people there, it sort of forced us to participate instead of listen.

And I think one of the things on that is we can. My concern is I don't want to lead the conversation. I don't want to I don't want to either enhance what they're saying, either agree or disagree. I think, if anything, we should just be there. And if they can't get a point up on the board, help them bring the point over. Just have them say, so are you really saying this? And not really do, don't get engaged with them, okay? I don't think we should do that.

I think it's impossible, though, because the level of understanding of the public of what we even do at zoning and what we can do and what we can't do is very remote. So when you're trying to have these meetings and collect their ideas, if their ideas are that, you know, something's supposed to happen in the beach areas or something and that you have to rezone the whole beach area, well, you can't.

No, but Jane, it's important that we're here to listen to their opinions, even if we disagree with them.

No, it's not a matter of agreement. It's a matter of their information. I understand.

But once you start pushing back on them, you're discouraging them from giving their information.

I've done this for, let me just, I did this for 40 years at Pratt with customers, with our parts suppliers. The minute you start engaging with them, They're not going to talk. Shut them down. You'll just totally shut them down. Let them talk. Let them see their words up on the board. And then you go back, and as you're going through this, then you have that discussion. But truly, honestly, I know my stuff on this, and I've facilitated thousands of people, not only here but across the globe.

And again, that's part of why we have the next session in a couple weeks is to have the experts filter what we've heard and try and translate it into regs. And if there's stuff that we heard that's just not going to translate into regs, then that's when we can say, yeah, we heard this comment. We're really not able to do anything with that. Let's put it aside and work with the rest of the comments there. But pushing back in real time against people who came out wanting to share their opinions is It's just not a recipe for debate.

Again, just a fair warning out there. And you may help them or they might feel better that you help them.

But that next person who wanted to say something, similar, but says to themselves, I don't think I'm going to say anything because we discussed that. But the problem is what they wanted to say had a different golden nugget that we miss.

To help them, a lot of times someone who isn't familiar will express their opinion about what they want you to do rather than what they want the outcome to be. And if you can guide the discussion and say, well, what do you want this to look like? What are you trying to achieve? And not get into the debate about how you do it or what reg you have to change or what bulk standard you have to change and say, well, what do you want this to look like at the end? then we can come in and try to prioritize those and figure out, well, what changes do we need to get there if it makes the cut? But I agree with Paul having done a bunch of this, that if you start to debate it in real time, you lose the opportunity to listen.

And again, I'm getting the vibes that maybe I was in a different group than you guys, because our group, I felt that Francisco's staff did a really good job of clearly saying, you know, what's the concern? And then we'd get into solutions on the next one. And I thought they did a really good job. Now, did we get all the concerns out there? Probably not, because people, to your point, weren't really sure what they were going to do. But I thought that when we did the comparison between the groups, there was some similarity. So I was sort of resolving a second time. Yeah. So I thought, OK, so that I think people were heard. But the key for me was when they did the the little survey at the beginning. Yeah. So it was very clear from the start where majority of the people were, there were a few outliers. But I think that really helped set the tone for the conversation. And I think they did a really good job. If I, you know, was a, somebody spending money on this, which we are, I would say it, it, it, brought to me that we picked the good group for this. I felt very, very satisfied, and I felt like the majority of the people felt heard. Maybe 25 wasn't a big number, but on the other hand, if you had too big a group, I don't know that people would share.

To your point about the 25, I almost wanted to ask the question, by a show of hands, how many people were on board land use commissions that were part of the 25? Because that was my concern is that we had a significant amount of people, the 25 coming, but I would like to say at least 17 or 18 of the 25 were land use board members already. So we really only got content from 12 or 15 that have no prior land use board understanding. So that was my concern is how do we get more of the public engaged outside of our land use boards?

I think that's the trick we pad to the beginning.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

I can, I felt there were people in the group that never seen before in my group. This woman sitting in front of me was very eloquent and she, I, I questioned her at the end. So what do you do? Where are you?

Was that that younger woman?

Huh?

She like a bit younger. Yeah. She had to over in the right corner over there. Like, no, no, in the back and above, but she was to the right of the easy. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. So, I really felt like people were heard and people had some really substantive concerns. I think people addressed what Edie Twining put out front and what Joe Kamian had said. That really helped having them first because that got people thinking in response. This is a tough thing to do, as Paul knows. Really tough thing to do. It's never going to be perfect.

I want to make sure I'm understanding then, is the and I apologize I wasn't able to be there, but is the suggestion then that, I mean, obviously we need to be there so we can hear it, but that we play a silent partner kind of role, that we are just in listening mode?

That we tend to listen and see if what we're hearing is getting put on the board. If that's really, if they can't say it.

If the consultant is facilitating it, I also wouldn't want to get in the...

They were capturing it.

They're a facilitator.

We might know a little bit more as to what they might be trying to say. So then it's really just a matter of phrasing it. So are you trying to say... That's a clarifying question. Or what... Is this this or is this? So that's what we're trying to get at.

But not be a full participant. That's what I want to make sure. We're not expected to be doing.

There were situations where someone was referring to something local that the facilitator wasn't really aware of.

Yeah.

And so you needed somebody from the town or from the commission to be able to jump in and say, are you referring to this? Yeah.

No, that's great. It's really I'm really looking forward to it.

You don't want to you don't want to, you know, and then if you say something and if they start discussing amongst themselves, OK, yeah, that's fine. But now listen to what they're saying and saying. So you're saying.

For what it's worth, I had a conversation with someone who attended who came in very went in very skeptical and was. as you've noted, was really impressed with Gomez and his team and how they handled it and was a lot more positive about the whole process overall than when they went into it. They came to start poking holes in things.

One person at a time. The one thing I would say about all the board members attending, you don't know what they're going to say. It could be something about the board but understand possibly that's not the opinion of the whole board so i think that there's still residents and some folks and i'll just give uh we'll you know we know edie spokes and so She gave us the information on the Halls Road, but she also gave public comments about the land trust, which isn't a board. So, you know, people come and they have different lives besides just the board they serve on.

Oh, yeah, and I didn't mean to say that. Their value, their opinion is not important. It was just an observation. Yeah. How can we get more of the general public?

Do you have ideas about how to get...

I'm trying to talk to anyone I talk to. Someone made a Facebook comment today, like, you know, make sure you take the survey. I'm like, don't just take the survey. Show up in person. Like, we need these people. We need butts in the seat because that's where, like, the work's really going to happen.

Yeah.

I tell everybody.

I expect the residential one in July will be well attended. You would think, but. We'll see.

Surveys. The Shoreline Gateway did the survey. They got 1,900 respondents in a few months. So we're pretty far behind that at this point.