Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

property. Okay, we have hit 6:30. So, if you want to call the meeting to order, are we recording? We are recording. Um, we can take attendance here again. Amy and Paul are not here. The rest of my commission, Denise, Mary Joe, Michael Foliano, Mary Gardner, Capola, Michael Barnes, Jane Marsh, and Michael Miller are in attendance. And again, it is Michael Barnes turn to be seated for Paul. So that's sort of the the business end of it to start with May public hearing. Do we have any anybody here for Bill Hill Road 3-2 Bill Road? And we're going to have Jane read the

Got the legal notice here. Zoning Commission of the Town of Old Lime will hold a public hearing at a regular meeting on Monday, September 8th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. at Memorial Town Hall in the American Legion room, 52 Lime Street, Old Line, Connecticut to consider and hear comments on the following 3-2 Bill Road special permit application to convert garage into an accessory dwelling unit. Applicant Honey Udarby. At this hearing, interested parties may be heard and written communications received. Copies of the application are in the land use office, 52 Lime Street, Old Lime, Connecticut. And this was dated 31st day of August, 2025. Um, we have an exhibit in terms of a special permit application. There's an exhibit B drawings. Exhibit C, Ledge Light Health District, um, response. I guess exhibit D is the AB butters list and exhibit E email emailed to applicants three CO M

certificates of mailing we haven't gotten those back yet and additional and additional letters in line. Okay. And the legal notice that's exhibit. Okay. And so we're going to have a new exhibit starting tonight which is mailings. Okay. Okay. That's exhibit uh Jean. Okay, carry on. And we have folks here for the Yes. You have the floor. Okay, just state your names because we're recording here. We got to get your names for the record. Okay. I'm Elizabeth Barrera from San Choice Construction. And I'm Oscar Barress Construction.

Okay. We are the uh general contractor managers for this. Okay. So, tell us about your application.

So, the property at 3-2 Bill Road has a 5,000 ft um main dwelling unit and then a 1500 foot garage that previously was used as a living space um was not zoned for that. So, we are going through the park channels. Um we're requesting to convert this into um because the town regulation is not more than 800 square feet for an apartment. It'll be split into um just shy of 800 square ft for a one-bedroom um apartment that can pass this would like to see. Um and then a uh 775 foot studio/off. Um so the homeowner Honey Darin um can't be here today. This is school night. Um she lives down in New York with her family um and is looking for a place for her adult children um to come and stay when they're out of state. Um so

for them and their children the the garage that's going to be converted would be for their adult children to come visit them when they're studio and office space. Um her oldest daughter um is a ceramics artist. So having a space where she can get out of the city and work on things is something that I went looking for.

Okay. Per the reg mentioned um no more than 800 ft can be used for an accessory apartment which is why it got divided up the way it did. I did work with the applicants really extensively to try and figure out how to do this in a way that would be allowable under our zoning regulations. The building does predate 1997. So it is eligible to be considered for a special permit. it is in these right zone to be considered for a special permit. Um but again as you were aware um accessory dwelling units at least at the moment in old line require special permit approval which is why we're guarante the applicant this year. [Applause] Now the the whole property has been in disrepair for probably the last 20ome years. Not much has been done to it. We're looking to pretty much bring it up to its former glory and maybe a little bit better hope hopefully with the correct permits and for everything. But actually the building inspector stopped by. We had him come over for rough and inspections and plumbing and was very happy to see the work that was being done and the fact that we're actually doing work for the property.

He had been there before in the past. I do have pictures of the garage as it currently is and some renderings of what we're what it look like from the outside secretary. She used to run his exhibits but

these will all be a collection called exhibit H. [Applause] any you're not planning to change the footprint either building or it's all the same footprint will stay as is on Um, we don't really have a site plan per se, but you do need two dedicated parking spaces that are basically going to be for this unit. Those are those going to be available. We can make that a conditional approval.

Yep. The house actually each dwelling has its own as it is right now. Okay. So, there will be access to each one separately. Although, they're really not going to be

Can I Can I ask why why there two different kitchens? Am I missing out something? So the idea was to have space that could be separated. One of the requirements for the apartment was that the kitchen has to exist within the square footage of the apartment. Um which is a little bit small but then if somebody wanted to be I think working elsewhere space not for living space for working space versus people who are actually living in there. I mean the the question for the commission and again it was raised earlier by Michael Foliano talked to me about last week they are showing the second space in there as a ceramics studio. Um but obviously it has many of the characteristics of a dwelling unit. So the commission has to evaluate whether they believe this is sufficiently differentiated from a dwelling unit or whether they would like to add this space left in an unfinished condition. Um, so that it's clear that this is not to be used as a broken

and only one accessory apartment is allowed. Only one accessory apartment is allowed by regulation. So that that's it. We got one accessory apartment, no more than 100 square feet. Um, again, I went around with the applicant for some period of time trying to figure out what the other alternatives were and sort of home occupation was about as good as we were going to get there. So that's what they're proposing. But again, it does have many of the features that look like an accessory. Can you condition a stove? What? Look, I I'm not here to defend the Okay. Can you condition into where the permit says that obviously you're only allowed one, but like explicitly comment that there's not allowed to be absolutely

I mean that's obviously in the regs already, but if you want to make it clear in your approval that this is to be used just so that way I'm not saying necessarily kitchen part elements but I understand the studio with a space to be used. Um yeah, I guess you can condition it however you want to condition. This is a special probate. have a very large amount of latitude. Um, again, the the challenge is going to be, as it is always with these sorts of things, once it's there, I can't easily go in without a search warrant. So, what they do inside after I walk away,

don't know. On the other hand, the standard rule in zoning enforcement for commissions is you can't assume a violation. So, you can't assume that they're going to break the rules. Okay, you have to take them essentially, you know, for what they're saying. But again, this is special permit. If you don't believe that as configured, this is a a proper approval, then feel free to modify it however you think it needs to be modified. Well, the only way into the studio kitchen on the on the diagram on the left hand side, that's the only way into it. Yeah, each each has its own access. Get in from the inside.

Are they interconnected? They're not even connected. So where it says studio entrance and then studio the kitchenet is like a wall with a dotted line. What is that dotted line for? Oh, so that's the entrance just between these two. So that's a solid wall between that would be the apartment. These are doors. So that would just be an opening. Not even not even sliders, just an opening. nothing in that means nothing but that I just want to make sure there's there's nothing there and then that's the only way in from and that's an outdoor on the left hand side that goes to the outside yes

just to clarify there's no intention in any way of trying to make these two separate apartments where people will come in and have two separate apartments in any way I think there's no bathroom in this one the I think the challenge is that the the definition of a dwelling unit is not dependent on it being occup occupied. It's the presence of a kitchen, a bathroom and cooking facility and a stove. If it has cooking facilities, sanitation, just stove, and an area suitable for sleeping, it's it's a it's the stove. Where is the bathroom in this diagram? That's okay. I see your weure that it doesn't look as if there's any sort of bedroom space. There's no expectation of privacy. But that doesn't matter.

Is that a shower? No, that's a washer. That doesn't matter though because the office can be a bedroom, the you know even the kitchenet. It's the existence of the cooking facilities that make it a dwelling unit. That's the definition. So is there a possibility that you don't have a stove?

Well, no. Okay. Okay. But what I look for when I consider accessory dwelling units, just so the commission's aware and the applicant is aware, full size oven and fulls size refrigerator. So, if you can have basically something that is a microwave and a not full-size refrigerator, um that would in my zoning enforcement terms change it out of being a kitchen into something that would be much more um acceptable for zoning enforcement standards. So, again, I think Jane, you're correct. The full-size stove, you know, there's a full-size refrigerator. Both of those things are characteristics that I traditionally consider as part of an accessory dwelling unit. So

yeah, our rig's rated a set of rooms which include a kitchen and a bathroom that is accessory to a single detachable unit. We change the requirements to 72. Yeah, we don't need to find kitchen. So we I have again the building code does though.

It does. Yeah. So but again that's why that the stove and the full size refrigerator have been the characteristics that have traditionally even before I got here been used to evaluate whether it was an ADU or not. So, um, if they take out, so I've had this elsewhere, that if they take out the stove and they put in a less than fulls size refrigerator, we have traditionally said that's a kitchenette. It doesn't qualify as being a full-size kitchen and therefore that's acceptable. Whether that's how you want to interpret your own reg, I will leave that to you guys. But that's that is how it has been done in the past. That's a practice, but I don't I didn't see that anywhere in the regulations.

Clearly not in the regulations spelled out anywhere. That's just been the common practice of how we've done. Okay. So my concern is you know 15 years down the road property passes hands this can be two bedroom two two two units here. Michael I understand that and that's why that's why you that's exactly why your regs require a special permit here. Right. That's because they want you guys to be able to evaluate it and come up with whatever conditions of approval or denial you think are appropriate here. This is entirely a commission call as to what they want to see here. Okay.

So, and the only kind of um office use that can happen here is a customary home occupation too, right? It's in a residential area. Yes. They are they are seeking and you would be granting zoning approval for home occupation for the other half of that site. Yes. Yeah. But that's it's not anybody whose home is here because it's all separate. That is entirely true as well. But home occupation, I mean, traditionally the home occupation has to be for someone who lives in the dwelling. That is true. Yeah.

Um, but again, that's why we're here. Look, get this. But, you know, could someone come here later for some other purpose and consider it a home occupation? Yes. If you're saying based on the evidence you have in front of you, this is not a real home occupation. This is for a visitor, then that's that weighs into your evaluation what you're allowed to do here. Okay. Well, and it would suggest that either these two units be combined in one and that the person living here is doing the home occupation or the main house is doing the home occupation there. Well, and again, you're being told that the ADU is not for full-time habitation. ADU is just for Yeah,

that I can't do anything about now. I'm talking about the customary home occupation to have a home and it doesn't have a home. So, It seems problematic to approve it the way it is because it says we are approving both aspects of it. A potential studio and office that is not by a homeowner. I would I guess my question would be in what you're talking about Jane um like similar to the gentleman studio over here the uh the lime market you bought that studio would that be considered a home occ.

Yeah. We were just here last week or last month about that application. The Lime Art Academy that bought the building next door that that's part of their uh site plan. It's a different zone. Name a different They're in a different zone. Yeah. I guess this was asking was that considered an office? It's an existing thing too. It's been in existence for a very very long time. That's I guess what I was trying to get at. Is there any freestanding people like garages in town that already have apartment uh office space detached from the dwelling? You're saying Oh, sure. I mean, there's plenty of people that have home occupations, but because this one has a dwelling attached to it, it's that's No, I guess what she's saying is that this one could have no home attached to it.

Correct. But right now, it does have a home. Well, no, it doesn't. Well, I guess as I understand Jane's concerns, I mean, she she's certainly better able to explain them than I can, but she's as I've heard it, she indicated that a home occupation is for someone who lives in full-time one or the other of these units. And what we're being told is this is a studio space from someone who will come from New York to only use it as a very periodic thing. And therefore, it is not really a home occupation. It is something in the sort of a vacation workspace. That's that is as I understand Jane's concern.

Okay, I can understand that. I guess my concern is what's to say that that person at any point in time chooses to reside here permanently. I think that just because they come back and forth shouldn't change the fact of the use of the office space. Whether it's if you're allowed that space, I don't think there's any determining factor. It says you can only live in town for two months or two weeks. I think it's but they don't have to live in town at all. It's totally separate. There's nothing that makes the person who uses this unit because they've got it separated, it doesn't have to live in any it can live any place. So if I can interject

so when we had originally requested the permit, we had wanted to use the whole thing as living space. I mean, ideally, it would it would have been a twobedroom, two bathroom, one big living room space, which is what it had been used for previously, but the town regulations only allow for 800 ft. Regardless of the size of the building as it exists, we're trying to work within what's allowed by the town versus what's going to work for the family. When you say it was used that way before, when was it used that way before?

Prior owner. The owner before. So the private owner actually had it that way and that this repairs led to a massive leaking roof which caved in the roof in the garage and they ended up removing all the moldy sheetrock that was in there. There was a whole kitchen. Yeah, but if it's still does the infrastructure still exist the way it sits previously? You can see the plumbing or the flooring. So is that creating any opportunity for just a pre-existing non-conforming? If they can demonstrate that the use was never abandoned, right,

then at that point they continue to use it as a separate dwelling. But they have to demonstrate that it was that basically it the there's been no sort of intervening use of that site that permanently abandoned that use as as a dweller. Just lack of use due to condition. Lack of use is not enough. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. So that's not enough. And even if the conditions deteriorate, unless it's condemned or completely removed, it still stands. Wouldn't it wouldn't it match more closely their desired use to let them give you that evidence? Absolutely. If they can provide that evidence, then it can be all one.

Then we can make it all one again. And if again if we can demonstrate that it was never abandoned because chances are there's a health card a building file. There's got to be something if I don't know when this was built when so then there's definitely something on we had I mean we have pictures of the existing there were closets there was carpet. Yeah. So that that's all evidence for the four years. I requested everything they had and there really wasn't much as far as like no blueprints.

My only issue with that, Michael, is it had to have been a legal non-conforming use and from the testimony we've heard so far is that they didn't put it in originally legally. So the question becomes and again maybe that we can try and look at that evidence as to whether at the time that it went in it could have been permitted at that time so that it would would be considered a legal non-conforming use and that may take a little bit more research. So, I don't I don't know if it was put in illegally or if it wasn't I I I don't know how it worked back in the 70s, but

all the plumbing, everything that's there wasn't cut and retrofitted. It has been there since it was built. Okay. Well, then again, the the as you're probably hearing from from here, the the next step forward, and we can continue this hearing if you want us to just in case, but the next step forward is

to go back and do the research about whether it was put in legally in the 70s and if we can demonstrate that it was never abandoned between the time it was put in and the present day. If you can demonstrate both of those two things, then we can reapprove it as a full-sized unit. Okay. Um, so that's that's the again, if you want to go that route, I think what you might want to do is while we give you time to do that, we can continue this public hearing until next month. And then between now and next month, if you can provide the evidence of continuous use and legal installation, we can then withdraw the case and you can just go forward on the basis of converting the entire site.

Now, the original photo, I mean, has a pretty big garage door on it. You really think it was used as a residence? That's why it's going to be their burden to to demonstrate that. And again, if they can't, they can't. The field card, look at the 1970s. They got to have them in in the vault. 1970s, 1980s field cards might have significant data that you might be able to pull off of that that might has not made its way to the current computerized uh assessor's cards. I mean, if they can't demonstrate it, then they're no worse off than they are right now, right? So if they can't demonstrate it and gut says they can't based on

only some of it was a garage maybe the rest of it limits and then uh so they can't do that and we're stuck not stuck but we come back to this plan if they did away with the the whole kitchen aspect of it. That's up to you folks. I mean if you did see to me that that that would make it pass if they did away with the kitchen made it an office and a studio section. Then you still have this customary home occupation that doesn't have does it have to be an office? Can it just be a it can just be an art? It can be open space at that point. They don't have to define what it is. Well, I mean if you I think that I think the idea of defining it as an office creates that problem. But if you don't if you just basically say they're going to use it as a potting shed

or as a tackle room. Well, no. What they can say is simply they're using it as a playroom. It can be used. So you use you use the office when you submit a store. You need to say something else and not have a kitchen in there. Yeah, it could be a garage. Okay. But again, the first thing we're going to try you just have an accordion door. Yeah. The first thing we're going to do is see whether we can get you enough evidence of legal non-conforming use. But if you can't, then we'll probably see you next month to to see what we can do on Yeah. on plan B. Okay. Can we ask a couple other questions?

Two questions about the site. So, one is um based on GIS, it looks like it's inside of 20 ft uh setback from the abundant property line. It also looks like it's less than 20 ft from a from a charted wetland.

Yes, but they're not changing the building's pre-existing not. So, so I mean ultimately you wouldn't be able to put it there now, but they're, as they testified, they're not doing anything exterior to the site. So, wetlands doesn't really care because there's no exterior changes and anything more than 3 years on the site there. You know, zoning doesn't have any authority to say they can't keep it there. And I'm guessing when it went in, it was legally put in or even if it wasn't, again, it's been 50 years now. So on that standpoint, there's not much we're going to do about it. So as long as they're not changing the exterior configuration in any way, shape, or form, they're allowed to continue the pre-existing performing use of that site,

but the setback affect if they want the accessory around. No. Yeah, it's within the within the footprint of the existing setback that's already existing. I I mean, traditionally, yes, you have to put it in a conforming location, but again, if this is a pre-existing non-conforming thing, then we we we're kind of are where we are. Okay. Um, is there Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. You Thank you. I have some questions on the septic work that I just couldn't understand from what you presented. They did some test pits. Yes. by the existing buildings but not by the garage building. Is that correct? Yes, it is.

Yeah. All right. So, that's that's part of my uh confusion with this. On the app on the application that we received from the town, it had like four parkings on the property and there was a little red circle around which I assumed is the garage, right? that you that you've already started working in or something. Right up there. That's That is the garage. Yeah, that's where you're working. That's what we're talking about. That is what we're talking about. Yeah. Okay. Um and have you already started working on this?

No, we we we have new plans for a roof cuz the roof is caving in. That needs to be done regardless of what happens inside the building. Yeah. I gave them permission to fix the roof to prevent further damage. Thank you. That was good to hear. So, what you said here, you showed us the test pits on these other buildings, but it doesn't show the garage. The garage is the the right. So, you have the the m the one at the bottom is the pool. There's a pool on the property. Then you have the house. And then the one on the top is the garage.

Okay. See, I thought this looked like I know it's hard to see on this lovely photo, but it looked like those three buildings were in alignment. That was a fourth building. So, there really is only three. Oh, this is the building and that's the garage right there. Okay. Yeah, it it looked different to me. Okay. That's that's very helpful. So, you you've got these test pits because you're going to be approved as the accessory dwelling unit. It has to have its own septic when it was put in it was piped out to the existing septic. So everything goes into the same septic. Okay. Which today if we get approved, not today, but

by today's codes, you would require a separate septic system for a separate. Okay. And it looked like if I read the ledge information, there were some things that needed additional testing. No, they did the per test. They did the pit and then she came out the day after instead of test yes for everything just yes for here but they put the yes aside of what they want is it just does it currently have its own separate meter electrical season the intention is to keep it the same they put something in here

so one service for the propert it's big enough to do everything but they'll that exception of separating and going out of the property. So on the setback I'm looking at 7821G. Yeah, I know what you're looking at. So no accessory apartments from the creator allowed under a dwelling or accessory building which is not compliant to all applicants. Is there is there a pre-existing waiver for that? No, there is not. I could I could send them to ZBA for that requirement. Um in fact, I have a matter in front of ZBA in two weeks for exactly that. Um, it just seemed like a little, it seems unnecessary under the circumstances, but if you want, I will hold them to the head and send them to ZBA for it.

I just want to know what the No. Yeah. The the You're right that traditionally you can't do something in in that location. Um again given the fact that there's no external changes um and again um this is a 50some year old structure I didn't see that I didn't see the issue with with that. However technically you are correct that they if we hold them to that standard I have to send them to EPA for an approval but only if they go to the accessory department only if they go to the accessory department if they go for pre-existing that that that's true. Okay. you when you got that existing building though that's such a protected use as the non-conforming uses are highly protected.

Yes. But again the the question the question will be did it go in legally as a residential use when it went in and that's we're going to have to do the research on what that's going to look like. If they can demonstrate that then all this is unnecessary. If they can't then we're going to have to figure out sort of plan B. Okay. Okay. I just have a couple of questions in terms of because I I don't think some of this the application is right. Um I looked up the uh coastal boundary and or I should say the gateway and I don't think you're within the gateway zone. Can you check that you were in the gateway zone?

No, this really not the gateway zone. Okay. So that's why I'm wondering if this is checked wrong because it says site is it doesn't then there's another box that says is not and you check the is box you've checked it for the coastal boundary the gateway flood hazard zone and the water resource district and I'm thinking that these should all so I just think in front just let's clean up the application because you don't want someone saying well why did you require you know something we should re you should require you know because otherwise you have to require a review based on and I think it's just a matter of the way the form was that that was yeah the check box is hidden between is and is not

I know I know it's like I I I read it about five times to say am I missing this or but I I think we should make sure that application gets in the right way okay we will make sure that they give me an amended sheet that should I check the format I'm like nope this shouldn't clearly not in any of those areas there so we will just make sure that the right the application reads correctly. Yes. What in general for our uh edification, if there's parts of the application that are blank, like doesn't list the architect or something, what does the commission have to say about that? And what do you typically do in your past? Have you acquired that?

You don't necessarily have to have an architect. So, if they don't they don't have an architect, they don't have an architect. I mean, if there's material omission, if there's a material omission, then yes, we definitely fill it in. But if it's a question of do they have an architect, well, if they don't, then it's just left blank, and that's okay. Okay. Okay. So, I'm it's not defective. If they don't, if you haven't hired your architect, don't list your non-existent architect. And that that it's so maybe it should say not decided or something or yeah we can we can amend the rig to just leave the box for don't put not applicable. Well I'm saying like like he just said if there's no architect there's no architect. So

we're not modifying any of the statics of the house itself. We are working with engineer to make sure that everything is sound as it was cuz like I said there's no blueprints of the house. We've tried to get them. We try to get a contact of the original architect who was the I think this is just more a question for me as a member when you get applications. Is it's it it is it one sizefits-all or is there are there some things that aren't applicable and I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking and that's how I learned. What I may do is I may just put up top list of experts put check boxes there and they can check the boxes of the experts they have and then fill underneath what they've got.

Mh. Um, that way it'll be clear that if you check the box for architect, you'll fill out the architect. If you don't check the box for architect, then there's not going to be anything. So, I I will work with Craig to amend our reg our form to just have a a list of top of the possible experts. Okay. Yeah, that' be good question.

Okay. And just quickly, so you're going to you're putting up the roof, so you're not you're going to be the the walls are solid and you don't have to so you're not taking down anything. You're basically I mean, you got to obviously the inside. There was a portion of a wall where the roof taped in. Mhm. That had been repaired. Oh, it has been repaired. It had not been repaired to my standards. So, we're going to repair it. Okay. Correctly. Okay. But the structure and I'd say 95% of the walls are fine.

Okay. And so, and then um are you going to be doing any landscaping, grading, anything on the outside of the building? And I'm asking that landscaping might be like planting grass and maybe doing a couple sidewalks, but nothing like we're not looking to pour big patch or anything. Because right now it's, you know, in terms of our application, you're not saying that you have to go to the wetlands. There's wetlands very close proximity. So I was just seeing if there was anything that would trigger that that we need that we would need to be aware of. But they they need to see it as Where are you seeing wetlands? It's actually right behind the garage.

Yeah. Right. Of all the place of all the places on the site, it's right there. So Okay. Yeah, I see it. So just wanted to make sure that you walk closer to the property lining. It's you can see the neighbor actually has a pond on the other side. We used to be the brother of the original architects. And you're not looking to do anything within that that No, no. We're look we asked we're now we're not looking to do anything. Just mow the grass.

Exterior lighting any kind. Uh, so there's existing lighting as it is right now on the the main house is a big kind of privacy wall around the pool area that has lighting on top of it and then there's lightings around the main building. But you're not going to put any on this building. Well, we're going to do stoppet lights around basically like where the entrances are and but nothing like not blowing through the neighbors like straight down the ground. So I you don't see any lighting on your this plan. Is there a plan that shows the lighting? We have four exterior lighting. Yeah. I mean by code you need a light by every entrance door.

Yeah. But but we don't there's nothing that we have to approve. You can provide a site saying that where the lighting might be. So if you do that just show where the lighting would be that and and it has to be dark.

It's cuz your property is pretty close to the neighbor. I would reach out to anybody that you could find on a neighbors like just for example on an application I was part of at one time I found an 88-year-old lady who owned our property 70 years ago to get a sworn statement affidavit like contesting to the things that existed and I was able to get back a lot of pre-existing uses because the neighbor like I said the neighbor next door is brother of the original builder. I'm knocking on his door when I leave here. He's an older gentleman, but he's

he actually stopped by. I didn't get to see him. One of my guys met him that I could knock on the door and certainly ask to see what was originally there and see if because see if he has any plans or plans or which he might I know he did a very similar building in his house that he never finished. So like he has a similar house to this one that he was going to make a glass house that he never actually got to build it the way he wanted to. So, he might have some plans. I can ask him.

When you're finished, I'm not saying you all have to be, but when you are finished, you should make a motion to continue the hearing till next meeting. Okay. Any other questions from the commissioners? Yeah. And anybody else? Make a motion to continue the public. Can I I'm not Can I just a brief comment? We Good evening.

My name is Bob Wallace W Lis. We live on 55-1 Saunders Hollow. We are sort of connected in a strange way. We've lived here for 12 years. I'm a physician scientist. I'm not an architect. I'm not um and we actually looked at this house uh this was 12 years ago.

15 years ago. It it it's a remarkable house. Uh uh and we we I ended up deciding not to purchase it because it was in disrepair even back then. And uh uh we you can almost see your that house through the through the trees from hours. We're on the other side of the wetland. Our house was built by the same architect. Okay.

And it has the same sort of wonderful quirky things about it. Um not a flat roof fortunately. Um, I I I I'm totally in favor of the idea of this separate apartment. I really would like it. I It would be a a strength to the community to have that building restored. It really is wonderful or it could be wonderful. It's a very unique. Yeah, for sure. Yes. My only concern is your name?

My name is Johnny Marks and I am married to Bob Walls. I give it a 551 Saunders solo. My only concern is I would really not want it to be rented out in a short-term rental situation. Airbnb and I know old line doesn't have regulations pertaining to that. I'd love to see that for res other than for the beach communities which of course people do short-term rentals but for residential areas. Um because we live next to a absentee owner Airbnb and u no matter how responsible the owners are, the guests do not necessarily follow the rules and it makes it hard on the neighbors. Uh, so I know you can't give me any assurances about that. So they're they're not going to live in in the main house. I mean, the parents

they will are they're not going to live full time in the main house. They're still going to live in New York. And this is So then the house in New York, they're going to keep they own businesses in New York. Yeah. They're going to spend probably all summer. So this is the This is the second home. Yeah. But I wouldn't call this our home. It's Yeah. Yeah. Unless they have to they have like I said we like we mentioned before the whole purpose of this meeting is for the second dwelling which is for their adult children. I get that. Actually starting to take over the businesses and run them so they don't need to be in the city.

He works from home. He works he's in the video game industry and she owns a couple tea rooms and a vintage store. The kids are starting to take over the businesses or not take over but be able to run it so they don't need to be in the city every day to run the business. So they're getting this to kind of be able to come away from the city and being so close they can they can be here through the week if they have to go in for a day and come back that's feasible. But other than that I can't I just trying to fill you in with what their goal is for the house. Okay.

You just don't know. I also want to second my husband's family and we loved that house. house and to have it renovated and and fixed. We're actually trying to open up the spaces. We're opening up the spaces in front of the fireplace cuz there were in a hallway the second side of the Yeah. Someone someone enclosed what previously had been an open mind. I'm trying to

the uh there are no more comments. Um take a motion to continue this public meeting till the next regular meeting October 14th. So move second. All in favor? Any opposed? Put it back. Oh yeah. That's mine. You don't have to save the time for you guys loud for a couple days. They're passing in the break, but we're almost done.

I'm still recording. all this stuff. I'll put anything back here. Okay, I I'll have Craig work to put it back together tomorrow. Okay. Um, we don't have any old business. Um, the chair update I think is going to have to get passed because we're going to pass that.

Okay. Um, I don't really have any other correspondence and announcements for folks. So, the next thing on the agenda here would be adoption of dates for the regular meetings for next year. On the table in front of you are those dates. if you want to pass them around. [Laughter] That that said, you as acting chair, you're going to need to sign if we adopt it. So, don't don't go too far. So, do you need a motion for this? Yes. I'm going to need a motion to approve the the meeting dates so we can file them with the town clerk's office. And then if that's the case, I'm going to have Michael sign as acting chair that we've approved these meeting dates for next year. Does

everybody get a chance to take a look at these dates? It's still the second Monday. It should be the second Monday unless that's a legal holiday. How about Wednesday, October? I'd take a motion to approve the uh regular meeting uh dates set forth in the letter that was handed to us. So move second. All in favor? I I Okay, thank you. Um, so now we go to approval of minutes.

I would like to know the minutes from the last meeting. Um, it it suggests that Eric and I are going to come up with this communications thing on our own and just publish it. And I'd like the minutes to reflect that the intent actually is that after I get it lined up with Eric and we're scheduled to meet later this week, it will go back to you guys. Eric will send it back out to you guys because I want to make sure we're all in agreement. So um the minutes should reflect the intent to coordinate and collaborate within the commission not okay I remember that thank you

so can I ask for a motion to approve well we have two separate minutes we have the June 14th minutes and the August 19th minutes so you want to handle those separately or separately yeah the July 14th July 14th I'm sorry July 14th minutes all in favor I Who who was Mike from? Oh, Mike that Denise said she second. All in favor? I I Okay. So, then we go to the August 19th and I'm going to have it as amended. Make a motion to amend the August 19th, 2025 minutes. Second. And Eric, you have the uh what to amend it to? Huh? You have what?

Yeah. Well, I mean, you don't physically go back and amend them. What you do is what you put in taking notes. Yeah, I'm taking notes that we couldn't go back and indicate how the minutes should be reflected as it was being taking notes. All in favor? I I I Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Um uh new business. We have a new application in here for the country club who are sitting behind you folks. I think that'll be this one here.

Yep. Okay. Um, you guys approved their application for the new building. You sent an express condition of no blasting. Um, they have now come back and said that they really have to do blasting and are submitting a proposal to amend the earlier application. Um, so we need to receive it for the public hearing. They are here tonight to give you sort of a brief overview of what they're coming back to talk to you about. Might as introduce all four of us. I'll go first. Mac laser from field construction. We're the construction manager hired by the country club.

I'm Mike, civil engineer. Mike, I want to be general manager. Great chief architect.

So, it was brought to our attention as construction manager that the blasting was part of the uh previous application from April that we couldn't blast that we had to do drilling and then hammering of the existing ledge. There are a few areas up there that we're looking to do. There's an addition one off the back of the country club where we're staying the kitchen as well as doing under uh deck cart storage. Then up up near Johnny Cake Road, there's areas where we'll have the glass where we level out the entrance from Johnny Cake Road onto the property as well as when we take down the existing car barn and create a new parking lot up by the pool which is adjacent to the existing graveyard that's up there. I had two different blasting companies come out, walk the property with me, nail and lead removal as well. And they looked at it and they saw no reason why we shouldn't be able to blast in there safely. Um, they felt it would be less disturbing to the actual neighbors because if we're doing drilling and hoaming constantly, they don't even give you a proposal to give. Okay, this is your cost. It's a daily rate and depending on how hard the rock is, we could be out there drilling and ham hammering daily non-stop all day long for days on end. Whereas blasting is less invasive, the drill, they blast. It's quick set off and we move the rock, remove the rock. Um, for the hearing, as long as we go to the hearing a month from now, I'll be bringing in um, his name is Rick Holly from Connecticut Explosives Companies. I do I did bring his resume for everybody here and he's going to give a 15 20 minute presentation on blasting and the benefits of blasting. Um and for the country club for our estimates it's going to be cheaper for us to blast than it is to actually do the uh rock removal. Um and I have been dealing um my company new for construction. We're building the old line emergency operation center in town across from Rogers Lake. So I've been dealing with Dave Ro as a fire marshal on a daily daily basis at this point. Um, so I've

had this discussion with Dave. I realize it's not his decision, but he's informed me that over at Mile Creek School right now, they've had they run into ledge and they've been out there hole ramming and drilling and causing quite a bit of disturbance. So, he thought it was a decent idea to bring this back to everybody's attention as well. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we need we need to accept this and set a public hearing for October 14th. Second. Um, yeah, I'll make that motion. Okay, there we go. All in favor. I I

Okay. Um, Z report violations update. We're all set. We're all set. Would you like the resume? Um, yeah. We're going to take that for our file here and we'll make sure that gets sent out to the commission members next meeting. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Quest. Oh, no. They left as question. Well, is that is it allowed? Well, are you going to notify the neighbors if this Yeah, it's part of the application says that we have to notify Well, at the time of the blasting, I guess is what you're saying. That's what have to Yeah. by by state statute when you do blasting, you need to notify people within a certain radius. And they know that.

Okay. Good. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, no real new violations to report other than somebody who put in a uh deck on their roof uh without permits. Um, it's interesting. Three years ago, they came in and asked Dan then my position, can we do this? He said, no, you'll need a variance. They said, yes, we'll file a variance. And then they just did the work anyway. So, more to come on that, but it's not, you know, that sort of Where's that? Where is that? That's down at the um I'll get you an address. I decided based on what property it is here. Um can they see the sound? Can they see the sound?

Yeah, they can see it. This is it's shoreline. Obviously, they did it to be on the shoreline. Um and again, because of the size of the lot, because of the flood zone, everything else, they were told by Dan, "No, you can't do And when I contacted them, they're like, "Oops, sorry about that. Um, we'll file an application now." So, did that come from a complaint? How did that come from? But, you know, it came from the assessor's office because the assessor said, "Wait a minute. On my form here, it says they've got this roof thing. I'm looking in the permits. I don't see any permits for the roof thing.

What happened?" They've also apparently gutted the entire inside and redone it without any permits. That's not a zoning issue per se, unless there's flood zone issues. Um, but yeah, there's a whole bunch of work that seems to have been done without permits being obtained. So, more to come on that ledge's looking at it to see if there's another bedroom in there now. Um, probably not, but we'll, you know, there lots of further investigation on that. Is it a single family dwelling or It is a single family dwelling. Yep. Single family dwelling. Um, but you still need your building permit and that's basic fire. No, that's not what I'm talking about. I just didn't know if it was like that huge hotel thing.

No, no, this is a single family dwelling. And again, they they came to to Dan and said, "Should we be able to do it?" Dan said, "Nope, can't do it." And they said, "Okay, great." And then I got Then they did it. So, um, more to come on that. We're not we're not there yet. And we're just so far have a sort of basic inquiry letter going out to them saying, "What are you doing?" So, um, oral arguments, as you heard from Matt Willis, have taken place on 250 Shore Road. Um, we're continuing to chase down the, uh, violation at Mile Creek that is in court right now. Um, which you heard a little bit about last month as well. Um, looks like they have a new car out there.

Yes, they have a new car. There's some in barrels out there now. Um, they tried to move stuff across the street, but that ended up getting taken away as garbage by the uh, across the street. Do they own across? Yeah, they own across the street as well. Um, so they put some stuff across the street, but it was in the town right away, so public works came and took it. Um, oh my gosh, she probably lost her mind. That's unfortunate.

Look, I I understand, but there we are. Um, so there's that. Um, I also know that we're rapidly sort of coming to the end of the school project. Um, they uploaded 120 photographs inside just in the last week or so. Um, I know they have sort of a temporary ECO, whatever, so they operate on there, but they're still working on that site to try and get it complete. That's not a zoning violation. That's just an update on on the fact that I know that they're frantically trying to get it finalized so they can get a final CO on that thing. Was there I noticed are they doing the parking lot in two phases? Do you know?

Yeah, they they had to get enough of the parking lot done to start school, but it's not complete yet. Yeah, there's more site work to be done there. There's there's a bunch of stuff that again needs to happen to get it get the final CO in place. Um so I have not been out there for my final inspection of it either. Um and there's a whole bunch of wetlands and other things going on as well. Um again more to come. Question for you just kind of unrelated to that but also related to the sidewalk connection which I know is not there but would this commission review a sidewalk application if it would go from the cross lanes to the school?

Not usually. No. because you don't usually get sidewalk applications of that sort. Usually those sidewalks are in the town right away, so it's not really something that is a private property application. I mean, you don't usually you probably aren't going to be seeing that. Um, that's about all I've got for zoning enforcement unless anyone has questions about zoning enforcement. Any specific matters? I saw that the Hallmark sign had moved from the fence to the I don't know, but they had close today as last time. They moved it all over. Yeah. Well, I kept taking their stake signs. Um, so

I I took about seven of their stake signs. So, they came back with a banner, which was also illegal, but then it was close enough to the end of the season I wasn't going to Well, they actually moved the banner. I think it was it was on a vehicle or something. They moved it all over the place. So yeah, they thought you were going to take it then. I'm sure they kept it. Yeah. And the other one, and they told me it's going to be gone by the end of this month just up the street at Dan and Okay. They've got a bunch of stake signs there and a couple of flag signs. Um they always had the one flag sign, but I said, "Look, you got to get rid of the rest of them." And they've promised by the end of this month that they will take out all of that down. Um,

so, but I mean, as I mentioned last time, I've been just holding out the stake signs and they're storing stuff over on that cell phone lot again. Okay. I I I've gone by there a couple times and I've seen a couple of old cars, but I mean, it hasn't I'll go back and take another look at it. I do know that the antique store, whatever you want to call it, that's at the intersection that you guys were talking to about the other time. Um there is the um uh package store sign that's there that's on that site if you drive by. And I did stop to try and take the package store signed in.

It is screwed in on both sides with about I mean we want to drill I mean about five screws screwed in. So unless I go out there and like that's usually a DOT because they they usually rip them down. So right that's a state road. It is a state road. So yes, theoretically DOT could do something about it. I I they usually do. I stopped by to try and see if I could take it down, but it is literally it is screwed in with an actual drill on both sides. So I was unable to do anything about that particular side. So Oh my goodness.

Um yeah. So exciting times for first day science. What can I tell you? Um, but I think as the summer comes to a close, I'll probably have fewer stake signs. So, there seems to be a proliferation of them now at the exit 70 offramp there. So, we'll see how that goes. Okay. Um, okay. Rewriting of zoning regulations. I did, as you probably saw, get back to you with the things that you said were sort of tabled issues. I also went back to Francisco with things he was going to work on. He emailed me back saying it was all very helpful. He would work on it. I tried contacting him last week to ask if there were any updates. He is on vacation through this week, so I don't have anything new to report back from him other than to say again before he left on his vacation, he did say that all the comments we got to him were helpful and he's looking forward to whatever the next batch is. I don't know if you guys want to schedule any future special meetings or how you want to handle um working on the race from here forward. Um, special meetings seem to be a good way to do it. I don't

Yeah. Yeah. It just gets too confused on what So, um, I don't know what your pleasure is for scheduling special meetings or if you want to think about that and get back to me or how you want to handle that, but I think at some point we need to schedule another special meeting to make sure that we keep moving forward on this thing. I think it's easier to schedule. We can always cancel. Do you have a timeline for when Francisco is going to get this next batch back to you so that we can social media? He's not back till the 14th, I think. So, it's he's not back until like next week. I will get reach out. He hasn't even confirmed receipt of the Oh, no. He has he did get back to me and said these are all very helpful. So, I you know, I think we'll get comments back from him once he gets back from vacation, but that's not until next week sometime.

Should we review his comments before we move on to our next I think stage. That's up to you. I I would suggest since you're going to move to a different section anyway that you just keep rolling and then if there are things we need to go back and catch, we'll go back and catch them. But I I think we just need to set up a momentum here to move forward and try and pick up some more sections and move move on those. So So we finished looking at all the use regulations last time we went through that was with use and definitions. Did we do all the definitions? We got no you stopped definitions.

Yes. And then we need to look at everything in red and that may and some of it may be have done it. So I think if it's if it's in the use or if it's in the definitions but if it's someplace else in the document we should look at everything that is in red or blue maybe if we can see the difference in color. That's right. Yeah. Got to wear your transition blue. Yeah. Yeah. That was again one of the comments I got back to him was very hard to see in paper, easier to see on the screen apparently. Yeah.

So he he has that comment. Apparently he will be adjusting the the coloration so that that's not where I'm going for even though it's hard to read. It's not you can you can see at least there's something different but everything that is you know in color and then the other thing I had as a note so I'm just saying what we need to work on. The other thing I had as a note was that look at everything that was eliminated and how is that marked? So how if we know something was taken out? You have it in the table in the back. He he specifies.

Oh, okay. So we have to look at that table and see what was pulled out. That's what I I knew that I knew somewhere but I couldn't remember. Okay. So So look at table in the back. So those are the that's what I have in in terms of um when he came in and spoke to us the things we kind of wanted to do. Um, okay. And what kind of timeline are we looking for for a meeting on this? You know, once we got going, if we, you know, pretty quick, we went pretty quick. So, if we just get into it and just say like boom, boom, boom, drilling down. Okay. I think Do we want to try to pick some dates here, folks? Is that That's okay. I could hear you in 10 different ways asking for that question. Well, yeah. I'm just saying I was just trying to figure one or two before we answered that. So, that's

Well, let's start with one meeting and then see how far we got. I mean, we got we can always schedule more meetings, but let's at least get one on the on the calendar year and then go from there. So, he's going to let us know on the 14th of October. Yeah, I don't think that he But it doesn't matter. That's not going to matter. Yeah. And it's 14th September is when he's getting back. He's getting back next Sunday. He'll be in next week. And so, presumably, I will hopefully get comments back from him next week, but I'm not sure that's going to matter for purposes of, you know, continuing to review the regs. So when when do you folks think you want to hold your next special meeting?

Next week. Do folks I mean No, I can't do anything till October. I am gone. Um I think September uh the week. Well, I could I take it back. I could do the 20 I could do the night of the 28th. The 28th the week of the 28th I Okay. So the 29th, 30th that week there. 29th 30th. First, second, third. Yeah. Is there anybody else who has thoughts about that? The Monday the 29th. Monday's the 28th. 29th. 29th. Oh god. I'm in the wrong year cuz I I went to put this camera. Oh my god. Wrong year. Wow. I am in the wrong but I know I was busy in September. So Okay. Okay.

29th. Yep. So 9:29 time. I can't do it. But that you guys go ahead. Oh, you know what? Actually, I go ahead. Actually, I it doesn't work for me. I take that. Okay. Well, so so Denise, you don't have any dates in September. That I I I don't because I'm at a conference. What about next? I'm in a conference next week and I you know, and then I have I have a meeting at on the with DEP on the it's the one quart it's a quarterly meeting. So it just happens to be at 6 p.m. on the 29th. So let's look at the week of October. It can be any day.

No, the other days I the other days I can do at night. Okay. So you going back then to the week of the 29th 30th, 1st, 2nd, and third. Well, 3rd is a Friday. So it's 30th, 1st, 2nd. Um, yeah. So wait, I'm sorry, Denise. The the week of the 15th of September, you're not available at all. Any day. I know I know the Monday doesn't work. Yeah. Yeah. Those don't work. And the week of the 22nd, Denise, no days of the week.

No, because I'm I'm helping my sister who had knee surgery. But you're But you're saying, Denise, you don't have any. It's like I'm just saying I don't I just said I don't have it. I would have Let's 29th you can't do. So, I said I said I couldn't, but I can do it earlier. Can you do it the 30th? Can be here. So October 30th. I can Yeah, I can do the 30th. Can we do it earlier in the that day? If not, I'll on the 30th. Yeah. I just can't get over here. I'm not. Yeah. Okay. So, the first I could do I'll get

October 1st for October one. October 1. At what time? Late enough in the day. I have to be after 6:30. 6 6:30 6:30 better for you, right? Yes. Okay. So, how about 101 at 6:30? Okay. Sold. Yes. That's one thing. I know. Okay. So, we will set a special meeting for October 1st at 6:30 p.m. 6:30. Okay. Because Jane apparently says 6:30 is better for her. Better I have to stop working. What a terrible thing. Mhm.

And then only 20 people are mad if it's 6:30 instead of 6. Okay. So from home but for a DoD contract. Okay. So that's why next let's start let's start with Yeah. because then the week after that we'll be back here and we can discuss the next one. You can do multiple. Well, I mean, you do you want to set another one between then and your next regular meeting, which is the following Monday? No, I would rather set one. No, I'd rather set one. We'll be we'll be at the regular meeting and everybody will know their schedules better. Okay. I think this Okay. So, let's let's just set 10 one and then we'll come back and sort out more after the next regular meeting then. Okay. Right.

Um, so that's that leads us to people's schedules are going to be filling up, right? I I leave it to your folks discretion. I'm just wondering like so what what is the rhythm we're looking at? We're looking at for something in November potentially or later October looks like social media a month as we go forward. Does anyone have a problem with being earlier in the month? Well, again, you're already doing 101. No, September 20th somewhere around that. Denise already said she couldn't do that. I

mean, it's unfortunate. So, um, just as someone who also travels for work quite a bit, like I would 100% protect a special meeting for the commission. And so, if we could even tenatively identify a date in November if we're going to do it once a month, I I think um that would be helpful. Um, but if people feel that there's no way they can plan six weeks out, then we don't That's fine.

I think if we're starting on October 1st that there's a lot of uh territory there to put another meeting. I mean, it's the beginning of the month. I don't think we have to wait till November. Well, again, you guys are meeting on the 14th, which is the second Monday. Well, actually, Tuesday, because it's Columbus Day, right? Okay. Okay. So, you've got anytime after the 14th through the 31st to meet if you want to meet rest of October. And what's the meeting in November? What date is that? Meeting in November is going to be the 10th with 11th being Veterans Day. So, that'll be your last meeting next month, everybody.

Yeah. Election day is the 4th. Veterans Day is the 11th. Uh Thanksgiving is the 27th. What about meeting on the 20th of October? October. Yeah, we're really trying the 27th or Yeah, that works for me. The 20th of the Yeah, towards the end of October. That'll be three or four weeks after our last special meeting. I like it. Okay. 10:20 special. That's on the 6th. Does that work for you? Yeah. 6:30.

Okay. Um I mean, we can always obviously change it if we have to, but at least we Well, we don't need not a commitment to put it in this clerk's office yet. So, let's just put it in our calendar tenatively and if we at the regular if it looks like we need that date, we can fix it when we get to the 14th regular meeting and then at that point, we will put it on the on the calendar. Okay. All right. Great. 6:30 6:30 6:00 really um having a different time. Oh my god. So that's that issue moving to October 1st and October

20 regular meeting number nine commission members training hours. Um again I sent out last week the um statute and the opportunities for Yukon clear training. Um they do have again a number of um whole bunch of uh tapes that you can watch if you want to go back and watch some of the old stuff that they've done. Um again you have a for new full commission members you have a 4hour uh requirement the first year you're a full member. Um and once you've done the full four hours the first year it is four hours every two years thereafter. One hour must be affordable housing and one hour must be uh FOYA. So I do have a spreadsheet that has everyone's information they has given me so far. I did add your stuff in that you gave me. Um so if anybody has additional items that they've already done, great. If you choose to go and do any of the stuff that I've given you, I'm happy to put it on the spreadsheet. Um, it's my obligation at the end of the year to turn the spreadsheet over to the first select woman just detailing what we've done to be in compliance with the statute. Um, there's no penalty right now for not being in compliance, but again, theoretically, we're supposed to all try and get that training in. Um, if you want other training opportunities beyond the ones that I sent out to you on Friday, I'm happy to research other opportunities in the area. Um, I know Old Sabbrook and other other towns have these training sessions um because many of them share the same attorney we do. Matt Willis. So if I know that Matt is going to a nearby town to do some sort of training, I will make sure you guys are notified about it. Um and again the other one I know the town tends to do annually a FOYA um seminar. So at some point during your tenure you need to sit in for that hour. So you get training training for the for the FOYA credits.

Could you send us what we think we send you? I I will let you guys know what you what you've already told me you've done so you you know more or less where you are. I think you went to the all day seminar. I did and the foyer but I just Okay. I think yeah I think the clear covered foyer too. There is a possibility to do it through clear as well but I'm just I'm specifically mentioning it because in the four hours you you need to make sure at least one of them is affordable housing and one of them is foyer so that you cover all all your bases. Okay. I think the I'm pretty sure I have to look that up. I think the clear covered for you, but they do not cover the affordable housing. Yeah, they have affordable housing.

Well, they didn't in the in the general one. So, you have to look at I gave you a link to their sort of library of past ones as well. And you can sort of dig through that library. I'm sure somewhere somewhere in there you'll be able to find an affordable housing one. Yeah. the one we went to in February, the all day one, they provided an updated list of, and I'm going to get the title wrong, but it basically best practices. Um, and I know those of us that signed up got a copy, and it's quite big. Um, do you get a copy for the town? Yes. Okay. because I think I just thought it would be worth folks that might want to see it to be able to get it and maybe look at it or

Okay, let let me see what I can do to have that. Okay. Otherwise, I have my copy. I'm happy to bring that in too. But and we also again have a a staffed copy of Michael Ziska's book of what's legally required as well. Um it's too expensive for me to order one for each of you, but we do have a copy here if you guys want to come in and take a look at the at this book as well. So if you do any independent like say that you take an hour and look through that would that be that count? Yes. You just got to let me know what you've done. You know again the the goal here is not to try and nitpick and say what counts or doesn't count. The goal here is to try and get you to do as much CL work as you can. Thank you.

Okay. Um that's about all I've got folks. So, um, is there any other business to come before the commission here? Quick question back back to the the hearing. Is there any um if the applicants are going to go try to find a path to restore it? Is there any is there any time limit on how long? No, the statute's now very clear. The statute now says as long as you haven't abandoned it, which is irrevocably change it, you can discontinue it essentially indefinitely.

I hope it works. I just don't want to send them off in a wild goose chase if there have been like gas station cases where they have not used a gas station for 15 years, but they never took out the pumps. They never It just sat there as an unused gas station and then they were able to claim we always meant to reestablish it as a gas station and we just temporarily discontinued it and the fact that there's been a change in ownership. No, doesn't count. This is this is land use, remember? Okay. We don't count change in ownership. We It's a land use issue. Okay. Okay. And then I can on the non-conformance um again it only for the only for the that's only accessories accessory.

Yeah that that one yeah that that's potentially problematic on that one. However, but again since the structure is there I mean under 813A if the structure is there more than 3 years. I can't enforce against it. And again it's been 50 years at this point in time. So I'm going to assume that when they put it in whatever permit requirements were there they got. And if they didn't I I don't want to tell you. Um but again that the issue of the whether it was in fact used as a apartment in the entire space legally at that time is going to be the the the tricky question to do because as Mike pointed out there's a very large garage door there. I mean there's there's a lot of factual research that's going to need to be done.

Right. That's why I was if there's any technicalities you treat them before they go do all of that. I mean the example that you're aware of my former law partner Mike Mark Branch likes to give is you know there was a former speak easy that there were pictures of people who were drinking in the speak easy during prohibition and they wanted to basically reestablish it as a bar and the problem was it wasn't a legal uh use of the property when they were using it. So therefore it couldn't be reestablished because it was never legally established. Okay. So again, they have to demonstrate that at the time the use was established that it was established legally.

But does the whole thing have to have been an apartment or a dwelling? Couldn't it be a a a house with a a garage attached? You know, well, I mean, I guess the they're asking for the entire space. It's only 800 ft. I mean, they're asking for the entire space now to be used as a dwelling. So they're expanding the nonconformity at that point in time, right? Well, but but a regular house could have a a garage underneath and it wouldn't be non-conforming.

Okay. But this is would be a second full-time dwelling unit, right? I mean, so yeah, it couldn't have been a second full-time dwelling unit in the zone. It could have been. I don't know when the town started to enforce that idea that you had to have a separate cuz I had in on my property whole bunches of different dwellings, but it was at a particular time and I can't tell you when it was that the town decided that no, each one of those dwellings needed to be on a separate lot. Well, we'll go back and see what the ranks say, but I mean yeah, so that's that's possible that it can be another dwelling on the same property. I mean, I own a property that has two dwellings on a single individual lot. Absolutely. Again,

more I I don't want to sort of get too deep into the weeds on a pending application, but again, what they're what they're working, but I mean, again, the short answer is we will need to try and make sure that they can establish to my satisfaction initially um that they have a pre-existing non-conforming use of that building for a dwelling unit. Mhm. And more to come on that and we'll find out next month where they come out on that. Cuz the 70s they would have had a potential septic. They had a septic plan potentially. Yeah. But they didn't. This was this is shared septic. No, I know that even with the shared septic though. Okay. Um Yeah.

Have you looked in their file? Is there a file for the I know they just expuned a bunch of No, we haven't expuned anything. We made them. We put them all electronically, but I mean honestly we don't have them. Yeah. plans. If you didn't take your plan back, we disposed of, but we have electronically scanned all of them. You scanned it all. I mean, we just don't have the physical paper copies anymore. But our records of what zoning approvals were granted up here at least is not great from the 1970s, I'll be honest. Um, if it got recorded on the land records, great. It's going to be in the meeting minutes. If we going to go back to meeting minutes,

but as far as the actual records up here of what happened at the zoning commission in 1975, I got to tell you, not great. Yeah. So, okay. Research. And since we're going backwards, um I I was trying to remember the details from the country club. Um why we asked them to not blast and it had to do with the cemetery were concerned about the cemetery and I think they posted but didn't we also ask them to provide some kind of you know they were going to try and do some research into the cemetery and

the potential for their blasting to have they proposed not to do blasting. It was our own proposal. Right. But now that they're going to be doing the blasting, that that's what's going to be coming before us, the issue of the potential impact on the adjacent graveyard is going to come up again, right? Yes. And they they theoretically have been doing some of that research already, but I will get back to them and let them know that that's going to be a commission concern going forward. Yeah. on the highway. They just there's like a cemetery right off the highway right where they just did all that work and like it looks like they blasted like 3 ft from the side of the cemetery. Okay. Well, just because it's in on the record that we asked about.

Yeah. No, I'm just thinking to that point if if it does seem to not affect the Well, I guess we can't talk about it now. Let's wait for the hearing. Well, let's not get too deep into the weeds on the application. So, okay. Definitely less of an inconvenience than Great. So some need a motion to adjurnn at some point here. And I have 749. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. 7:49. I'm turning off the table. Okay.