Plan & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the June 2nd, 2026 meeting of the Orange Town Plan and Zoning Commission. I am Commissioner Ozzie Parenti. I'm with us this evening. Tom Tarenti. Paul Kaplan.

Jenny Bowser, Recording Secretary.

Steve Hotchkiss, Zoning Enforcement. Kevin Cornell. Jay McGuire. All right, good. I'm very happy to introduce Stephen Hotchkiss tonight. He's starting out this week, first day yesterday. As the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer, and working with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Yeah, Zoning Administrator, Inland Wetlands Administrator, Enforcement Officer for both as well. All right. Does it all. No, Jenny's here.

Thanks. Yeah, Jenny's the most happy of everybody. She almost jumped out of a window the other day.

Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

But anyway, welcome aboard, and we're glad to have you working with us. All right. First item on the agenda is a review of the minutes from the May 19, 2026 meeting. I had a couple of clarifications. On the second page...

Yes.

Fifth full paragraph.

Okay.

Last sentence. It was decided that Attorney Weaver would have further discussion with Attorney Williams to formulate a plan for a reasonable accommodation, and then I would add, or an amendment to the regulations allowing the intended use by special permit.

Can you please repeat that?

or an amendment to the regulations allowing the intended use by special permit, period. Because that was the other alternative we gave them. You know, you could move, you know, a petition to amend the zoning regulations and that would work.

Since reasonable accommodation is like a term of art because it applies to, yeah, should we say what the, you know, or should we tell people what, because just in normal language, a plan for a reasonable accommodation makes it sound like, yeah, you know.

How about a reasonable accommodation according to applicable law?

Yeah, that would be awesome.

and then go on with the language I put in.

Yep. Okay.

All right. And then on the next page, under 143, party manner, first line there, Attorney Weaver gave his response concerning 143, party manner. I would add, after the word concerning, complaints raised by neighbors about the intended use of 143 party manner.

Noted.

Then, one, two, three, four, four lines down from that, or four paragraphs, Chairman Parenti responded he wasn't sure of the legal effect that that posed. Effect is effect, I think, right? Tom? Yes. Efect, not outback.

You know, I've never used effect at the A, but when I did the grammar check... You still haven't. No, no, no. Well, good. Good, because it doesn't even make sense to me. Okay, so it is an E. Okay, noted.

And the only other thing I question, maybe somebody has a better recollection of this than me, but... Down a couple lines, it says, the line begins, Gregory Sim, a 153-party man, has stated his concern for the water being pumped from the basement and the town's response. Then it says, Mr. Sim also spoke of our state representative's interpretation of the project.

Yeah, that was with respect to whether it complied with the Fair Housing Act. All right, so we're, no, it was with respect to the pumping.

Yeah, but the wire handle.

No, there was two pieces.

Yeah.

Because then the next sentence follows. So the concern was that the pumping had to go to whether or not That was an issue with Inland Wetlands or the building department. But since there weren't any wetlands, it didn't fall under their purview. Right.

So there were two things that he raised, two concerns?

And the second one was that the interpretation of the Fair Housing Act was, you know, that they didn't think that it... Was properly applied. Properly applied. And then the next sentence is Attorney Weaver responding that... I thought there were two different things.

Yeah, I just... It seemed out of place to me.

Yeah.

And I just wondered if we could clean that up, make it a little... Got some language to suggest, Kevin, or... Well, first off...

You know, am I remembering correctly that the guy brought up two things? Well, listen, because of... Oh.

Yep. Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

So... Yep. Okay. Good. So I think it's appropriate that they dealt with it in two separate or four separate paragraphs. Let's welcome the interpretation of the project.

So... Maybe you want to say on the first...

I'm sorry. Gregory Sim of 153 stated his concerns for the water being pumped from the basement town's response. Mr. Sim spoke of our... Also spoke. Yeah.

Also spoke. Yeah, of... To our?

Interpretation of the project. Yeah, all right. Oh, I mean...

You want to say regarding the Fair Housing Act?

Well, there were two different. One was the fair housing, that was federal, and then the other was state.

How about we say Mr. Sim also spoke of our state representative's interpretation of the project under state and federal law. That should cover it.

Under stating?

Under state and federal law.

Under state and federal law.

That's all I had, Jenny.

Okay, thank you.

Anybody else? No. All right then, a motion to approve those minutes?

So moved, as amended.

All right, we have a motion. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Tarenti. All those in favor? Aye. All right, next item on our agenda is old business.

When we met last week and we heard Spire's plans to try and take over the UNH parcel, Attorney Weaver and their attorney were going to discuss potential pathways to... properly review and approve or disapprove that application.

They did. And I spoke to Attorney Weaver a couple of times, including earlier today.

Okay.

And they've reached an understanding, that being that they, the applicant, will file an application to amend the zoning regulations to include as a permitted use by special exception. Basically, a school like the one that's contracting to...

So they'll also... That pre... So that when they do a... They're going to have to apply for a special permit then?

Yeah.

Okay.

So they... Maybe Stephen can help us out on that. You've got to... And they file their application...

So they did. I believe they were brought in last Friday. But they do have an application for the special use and a text amendment, too.

So we'll consider them at the same time. First, the text amendment, which shouldn't take too long, given what we've heard on the project so far.

No, no, no. Just procedurally, if we approve a text amendment after it's been properly noticed, a certain period of time goes by, Isn't the special permit going to be filed under the revised regulation?

They'll have to do that. That's the whole point.

Right. So we're going to consider it, but then table it until the language is legal? Jess? Yeah, it's good.

Well, we can't, when we pass, assuming we pass it,

The text amendment.

Yeah, I got it. Assuming that we pass the text amendment first. Yeah. Okay. And then we deal with the, is there an effective date on the text amendment that we have to come up with? Yeah. Okay, but that can be right away, I believe, right? Or is there a period of time?

It would be 15 days after it's posted in the paper.

All right, so we won't be able to deal with the special exception at the same meeting.

Or we will.

How do we do that?

Put a delay on it. Well, you could close the public hearing. You could have the public hearing, I guess. But doesn't it seem a little out of sequence to be? Yeah, it does.

They're in a monstrous hurry for some reason. I think it's probably got to do with the, they won't sign a contract. I'm guessing.

Yeah, no, I asked them point blank if there was a contract and he was, you know, bobbing and weaving.

But, I mean, I'm saying the buyer or the seller, somebody won't sign a contract with contingencies of any kind. So they're looking to get it done faster.

I can understand people's personal problems, but I just want to approve things in a...

defensible sequence in case somebody gets it in their mind after the fact you get challenged and it's like how do you and the language wasn't I'll talk to Owen about that and that's a good point there may be a way of approving the text amendment and then approving the a special use permit with the understanding that it doesn't go into effect until 15 days after the text amendment is no longer available.

Right, and Kevin brought up a preliminary point, which is, do they have to apply under the new law? Or is the application when filed under the old law, do they have to revise it in some fashion? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. That's another question for now. I get it.

Right. And you just always want to avoid the appearance of prejudgment. Usually that's in a negative sense, but also you don't want to.

No, I get it. Kevin didn't, I mean, Owen didn't mention that today when I spoke with him. He just may not have thought about it. But I'll take that up with him and we'll, I think we were planning on having that on our agenda for the next meeting. June 16th, right?

Yes.

All right, so I'll talk to Owen right away on that. All right, anything else under old business? How about under new business? then I guess we can move on. Our fourth item on the agenda is a report of the zoning enforcement officer. I don't expect that you have much to report on tonight.

Not much yet. Next time we'll have a report, but tonight there's not much for me to get into.

Yeah, all right. You'll have to get up to speed. There are a few things that I know we want Stephen up to speed on, one being the UNH property, the amendments to the regulations that...

The PA-25.

Yeah, they relate to the new state law. What else? Oh, and there's a, I know there's an application coming for a municipal, approval of a municipal improvement.

Okay. Is that the one far thing?

It's the one where the, it's at Peck Place School.

Oh.

So after I reviewed that and saw what the proposal was, I don't think it elevates to the point of needing an 824. Okay. It's a 14 by 20 pavilion-type structure, anchored to the ground steel roof, but it wouldn't meet that substantial improvement classification that's in the statutes, in my opinion.

All right. All right. Well, then maybe we won't be looking at that, but that's on its way. Okay. All right. Anything else under the report of the zoning enforcement officer? Nothing else you want to mention?

I don't believe I have anything that you guys don't already know to speak of yet.

All right. Sounds good. All right. Now let's move on to our public hearing. We have one tonight.

Okay.

It's an application for the conversion of a single-family dwelling to accommodate an elderly apartment submitted by Jason and Daniela Roseman. This is for property known as 512 Canuba Trail, and the purpose of it is to construct an addition to accommodate an in-law apartment. All right, if we could start by... Reading the notice, the wiggle notice for the meeting.

Okay. Orange TPZC, notice of public hearing. Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 at 7 p.m. at the Orange Town Hall, 617 Orange Center Road, the Orange Town Plan and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the following. Application for the conversion of a single-family dwelling. to accommodate an elderly apartment submitted by Jason and Daniela Roseman for a property known as 512 Canuga Trail to construct an addition to accommodate an in-law apartment. Copy of this notice has been filed with the Orange Town Clerk. Additional information is on file in the Orange Zoning Department, dated in Orange, Connecticut, this 20th day of May, 2026.

All right, thank you, Kevin. Is the applicant present? Can you come to the podium and introduce yourself and give us a little overview of the project?

Of course.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Andrew Ortiz. I'm representing the homeowners Jason and Daniela, Jason Roseman and Daniela Capetta. I work for Baybrook Remodelers, the contractor for this project. Our proposal is to add an addition to the single family residence to include a conversion to accommodate an elderly apartment. We have submitted plans, a survey, and an application to show that we meet the requirements of the planning and zoning department. The addition meets the requirements of section 383, 140. The addition is 36 feet by 25 feet, six feet by four feet. The total square footage is 876 square feet, less than a 900 square foot allowance. The plans show the addition to include one bedroom, one and a half baths, a kitchenette, living room, and a den. The two living units show a common wall, a rear exterior entry door, and a door connecting both units. The new addition will be occupied by the parents of the homeowners, is over 55 years of age and related by blood. The owners have signed the application. and submitted a statement of use verifying that they meet the requirements, including the requirement that they submit an affidavit yearly showing continued use as a requirement for the special permit. Also, a survey was submitted that shows the property at 512 Canuga Trail meets the minimum lot size. The property at 504 Canuga Trail is also owned by the same homeowners as deeded on January 8th, 2015. They are considered one property by the zoning department and combined meet the bulk requirements for setbacks and coverage. Thank you for your consideration in approving this application for a special permit.

Okay, thank you very much. I have one question to start things off. If it's one parcel, if the zoning department recognizes it as one parcel, Why does this map show a lot line between 68 and 69? This lot line. Because if that lot line weren't there, I think it'd be pretty easy to conclude that you've met all the requirements.

I'm sorry. There's two incongruities with the... That the surveyor has on the plan there because he's showing the initial lot line You know that was probably from the original soap and then something he's calling a property line in the middle of the lot if those two things if if as you're Testifying that this is only one parcel and it should be considered that way Then those two lines should just go away. Yeah, okay

Well, he also has all the courses and distances that would lead one to believe that it's a combined parcel.

Yeah, if they go away, then we're just dealing with one parcel. Right.

And then, sorry. No, no. Do you have any information as to whether or not he combined the parcels and maybe did a deed or something like that?

I'm not sure. I believe the surveyor just took both of them and put them on one survey, but I'm also not informed on how he created this survey.

Is the homeowner here? Yes.

Yes.

Would he have any information on that issue?

Sorry, boss, you have to come up to the microphone. Just so they can get your name.

I'm Jason Roseman. I own 512 Canuca Trail. When I did the first survey, it was for an unrelated reason. I was thinking about putting a shed there, so... Fast forward a year or so later, we were thinking about my parents coming to live with us, so I contacted the same surveyor, and then he did the 504 lot that I own and used the existing survey and then came back out and did the measurement of the other lot. So I think they said they went to the town or the board here and tried to merge the 504 and 512 together to make one. Yeah, so that's what should have been done.

I have no reason to believe that's been done. I don't know if... Well, I mean, the tax assessor has it as two separate parcels.

Hmm.

So ordinarily, if it were merged, if these two parcels were merged, there would be a new map filed with the town clerk, and that map would find its way to the assessor, and they would, in that office, adjust their records accordingly.

Even if it's within the last, like, month, it would be done? Well, I don't know if it was...

Did you hear the word my law?

No, I don't. Don't they do that on schedule?

No, I think we could find out, but I think when you present documents for recording in the town clerk's office, they do what they do by way of recording the documents, but I think they give notice to the assessor as to the new owner, the change in ownership. and that must get noted on the field card right away.

Yeah, but I don't know if it carries out to, like, where you print this, like, from the GIS records and stuff like that. That's, like, on a schedule, I think. No, but I'm talking... Once a year.

Those are only updated... No, I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about updating this map. Yes. The question is, why does the surveyor continue to show these lot lines? and property line.

It should be just, you know, if it's one parcel. Well, there's usually a methodology to merge the parcels, which may have never been done. I don't know. It sounds like it hasn't been done.

That's why I was asking.

Or is it a situation like he did it, but it's not recorded yet?

It's possible.

Only the surveyor would know. And that's why he would put the line on here. So when you're looking at it, you're like, wait, this is not the right lot. He put the two there and then... Well, let me ask a question.

If they have not merged them and they're two separate lots, how does that affect this application?

Well, if the original lot line... They built... Well, the original house... Well, the addition is clearly going to be built across what used to be the original lot. But it's very specifically 25 feet away from something this surveyor is calling a property lot. Okay. You know, now, whether they tried to do a lot line adjustment to accomplish that or something without a filing, I don't know. But when... This is all just important paperwork to us, sir. It's not the...

what you're actually asking for. Yeah, I mean, the idea is a good one. Yeah, right. And we encourage it. Yeah, the paperwork just has... I think it's just a matter of trying to get...

Right. So if this had come to us and the surveyor, in exercising his licensing, had shown just this outside black line and said the parcel area is 62,000 square feet, those two lines weren't there, and this application said...

64,000, not 34,000.

And he actually calculated the ground coverage properly, which we don't know if he did. But it's going to be fine if it's the whole big piece. These questions wouldn't have come up. But the fact that he's put these on here, now we're like, it's a little confusing.

Yeah, I mean, well, the addition encroaches what's identified as the lot line, and we don't know how far away it is from the property line.

Well, if it's one parcel, it's what he says. It's 109 feet. If it's the smaller piece... Then we don't know if it complies. Well, it's 25 feet, but yeah, it's not shown.

Right.

So we need... So you need me to get a survey without the surveyor to come back and redo the lines?

I mean, all this doesn't... All this is not an issue because you're the owner of both pieces. Yeah.

Yeah. This is all going to be paperwork. It's going to work out.

It's going to work out. It's going to work out. You may need to get a lawyer to help you with the documents necessary to merge...

This has to be one parcel in order for this to comply with our regulations.

Paul, you've got to leave. I have it on.

It's on. Sorry, we got the wave. No one's ever told me to shut up. So, in any event, your surveyor or potential lawyer may have to do some work to combine the parcels.

They may have already done it, just not filed it yet. I think, because, I mean, I wasn't really involved in doing that. I was just, yes, yes, we got to do it. It was important. But I know they were talking about merging the lots. Ken from Bay Brook was talking about doing that. The survey talked about it, so I don't know.

There's a methodology to that. I mean, it may involve the drafting of a deed or two.

Mm-hmm.

you know, recording them, filing a new map with the town clerk's office. When I say a new map, I mean a map showing the outside courses and distances, but eliminating those lines that we've been talking about. Because then once it's one lot, then all of the requirements of that Section 140... Mm-hmm. I'm right.

Yeah. So the, and the application, as Kevin pointed out, is 34,000 square feet where, you know, once they merge it, it'll be 62,000 or whatever it is.

Yeah, and then you won't be over the ground coverage. Right. So you won't need a variance. But he also needs to show a little work because it's clear from his calculations with the lot size based on the 34,000 square feet, that he didn't count the in-ground pool as coverage, and it's supposed to. And then our new CEO will check through the records and see if the decks which are on structure might also be counted as coverage. But if it's the whole lot, you're going to be fine. If it's the small one, then... It's going to be over.

So we've opened a public hearing on it now. And we can put this on our agenda for next meeting two weeks from tonight. And maybe by then you can... Have everything you need. Yeah, I mean, or at least make progress as far as getting everybody working on it, you know? To the extent you need legal... and vice, and then to the extent you need a surveyor to do some further work. But I don't know. Do you see this the same way, Steve?

Yeah, I think the board here is hitting the nail on the head with this. The lot lines are a bit confusing when you go on the GIS. The property line with the angled shows rather than just a lot line. But, yeah, if we clean up those few matters, then it would be...

I do think that there should be, the map should be filed. You know, a mylar should be filed.

Absolutely. There should be a deed that the intent of the deed is to merge the property and then the Schedule A would be the... And the assessor will want to change his records.

But I think it's important to have that background all... So 10 years from now, somebody could figure out what we did.

But since we're at the public hearing, we can still discuss the merits of the application. Sure. You know, but we have to do that. Yeah, unless you're, yeah. Yeah, go, please. Don't leave the country.

So, I mean, our goal obviously today was to get this application approved. Can we clarify, like, exactly what it is that we need to do to have this approved? Yeah.

So we're going to discuss the merits of the application. And, you know, this is a use that, is encouraged in our plan of conservation development, in our regs and in our sort of history.

It meets the requirements as we set forth, I think, with the exception of what we were discussing. Right.

So the contemplated use and work, you know, I mean, just speaking for myself, is something that we're... you know, we've approved before and, you know, looked favorably upon. But we need the paperwork on the lot to be correct so that all the bulk area requirements are properly met. Because the way it's done now, it's confusing and contradictory.

It shows... What's your first name?

Angel.

Angel. It shows two separate lots, which I'm sure this is how it's been for years. And they need to be merged, okay? I'll leave that to your professionals. But right now, if it's just one lot, it doesn't conform to the requirements that we have. If it's merged, the 62,000 square feet would be more than sufficient to support what you're asking. Okay? What Kevin brought out was the other stuff which we encourage in this situation, meaning the elderly apartment, the square footage is correct. I mean, it meets the requirements in many of the areas, but with its separate lots, it does not.

Okay. See, like, for example, I mean, the other thing, you'd want to change everything that related to those lot lines or was measured off of those lot lines. Like, in your application, It references an area of the lot to be 34,229. Well, if you merge these lots, then it's going to be 62,000 plus.

If the map is correct. Will we need to modify the application once the survey is redone?

You will because the application was made with the, well, with this one lot instead of the combined lots. Okay.

So we need the surveyor to go to redo the survey, combine the lots.

He or she will know it. And they've already done the vast majority of the work. They just have to... They have to finalize it.

You may need legal because it may involve drafting of deeds, which the surveyor probably will not do. No.

Okay. And the one thing I would check and ask you to work with is, you know, have your surveyor work with the zoning enforcement officer is to make sure that even with the combined lot, that the ground coverage is below the 10%, because I think that your surveyor left out some things that should be counted in ground coverage.

Yeah. And also, he should note the height of the building. The addition. Of the addition. Because if it's over 35 feet, yeah, it's shown graphic.

It's shown graphically in a drawing, but yeah, you know just But it should be noted, you know, like you see you had this that a zoning table.

Yeah, there's zoning table here. Mm-hmm the things that Commissioner Cornell is talking about Building the addition height should be referencing. Okay. I But, you know, I think in the residential zone, the maximum height is 35 feet. That's correct. Yeah.

So if this is 36, then... Yeah, the graphic representation of the plans is... You can't talk. No. It's nowhere near. It's a single story. It's nowhere near. It's only a single story, and it's a two-story house. So it's going to be a lot less.

Yeah, and we're not, you know, the thing is we're not here to give legal advice either, so if there's some good reason why the property continues to be laid out this way, then your lawyer should deal with it, you know?

Right. Understood.

Anything else for the applicant? Does anyone in the audience want to speak about the application?

Good evening. Karen SIM, one 53 party manner road. I first want to just say that this is in support of the Roseman's application to house an elderly family member on a property that they reside in and own, and they're trying to go through the proper channels. I would like to understand why one 43 party manner road did not follow this process. They are asking for and are putting up a 1,642 square foot addition for a eight bedroom resident home for which the owner of the property will not reside. And they will be charging 10,000 to $12,000 a month per person, which is violating the rental laws of our town. which is exceeding four rentals in any given housing unit. I just want to point out that we've asked the Rosemans to come in. We've got Baybrook remodelers here. We're asking them to go back and do a survey. Why was the process not followed for 143? Which also has diagrams, septic plans, eight bedrooms, six bathrooms. five parking spots on a residential street. I just want the question to be answered, why was the process not followed and this application was rushed over an eight day period so that the people who were purchasing the home could close on the house? I just want to understand and I think the people of our town need to understand if the process is to be followed by everyone, it needs to be enforced, and there should be a stop work order immediately on 143 so that they can come in and do due process. It's not under the Fair Housing Act. It has nothing to do with fair housing. They were allowed to purchase the home for elderly or group home. The rest of the laws aren't circumvented, and I just want someone to tell me why the process was not followed and we've required other residents to follow the process.

Okay. We told you what our position was on it the last time when we had our town attorney here. And I'm not gonna argue with you about it.

Respectfully, you told and explained the rules for a number of people living there. No one has ever addressed why they didn't come through the zoning process, why their application was signed off in eight days.

I don't know the answer to that question. Nothing has come before this commission Because the person in authority at the time thought it was not required.

So that's- Well, it's not just the prior town attorney. This attorney last week came in a few weeks ago and basically came to the same conclusion.

Right. So there's never been, to my knowledge anyway, anything that's come before this commission that we failed to consider. That's what this is all about. That's as best I can do. I don't know what else to say. All right, so... Stephen. Stephen or Steve?

Either one's fine. I don't bother.

You'll work with the applicant on the Rosemans? Absolutely, yes. If he has any questions, you can walk him through what we're trying to accomplish. The sooner they can get busy on the merger of these properties and the and the work the surveyor needs to do, then as soon as we can get it, hopefully get it approved.

Okay, absolutely, yes, I will do that.

All right, any other comment on the application? No, I think it met, I think Kevin said it well, it met everything else that it intended to do.

All the bulk requirements, yeah. All right, then. So we'll agree to hold this open until the next meeting and see if we can, if we have, you know, before us at that time what we need to approve the application. All right. So that concludes our business for this evening.

Move to adjourn.

We have a motion to adjourn. Second? Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye.