Planning and Zoning - Special Meeting

All set. Yep. All set. Okay. The meeting will now come to order. We will begin with introductions in seating of all units and we'll begin introductions with our town staff. Secretary Henry Kangelo CEO, Dan Beret, town planner. Commission members, we'll begin introductions starting on my far left. Tom Bradfield. Joe Spa. Bob Ellsworth. Jen Talumper.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, may I have a motion to accept the agenda as Oh, I'm sorry. We need to seat alternatives. Sorry. So, Tom, you were seated for our um prior meeting which this has been continuation. So, I would ask that you remain seated for tonight's meeting. And Joe, if you would please be seated for Victoria for tonight's meeting. Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion to accept the agenda as presented? Second. Second. All in favor say I. Say no. Okay. The agenda is accepted as presented. Okay. Someone else second please. Chantel said that.

Okay. So the agenda is accepted as presented. Uh meeting procedures. Um let's see. So we will have our fiveminut rule in place for tonight. So any member of the public who would like to speak, you will have a five minute time limit. That's so that we can get everyone's um opinion on this. And if you wish to speak after your five minute limit is up. Um you may do so after everyone else who is um indicated that they want to speak has done so. So, we do have a signup sheet for any member of the public who would like to speak. Um, so you can either sign up now or as the meeting progresses, if you do wish to speak, we ask that you sign up here at pointing over here to the music stand. Um, Dan will be calling uh speakers from that list. Um, any questions, comments? Okay. So, uh we'll move on then to our public hearing and this is for application 25-0569 Marorrow Street request for special permit modification application and property of BRT Demarco PTP LLC map 19 lot 68 zone B-2 B-3 and TCVD center. So, as I mentioned, this public hearing remains open from our prior meetings. Um, I can give a brief overview of what took place at the first meeting. The applicant and his team did a did a presentation for the uh for the request for the uh special modification. The outstanding item was uh the town engineers memo and that that was the reason for continuing the meeting. So

the town engineer has been working with the applicants engineer and they have resolved all outstanding issues and concerns that the um town engineer did have. So based on that, I don't know if the applicant would like to give a brief overview of the special permit request or if um we do have some new members in the audience here today. So however you'd like to uh present, please go ahead.

Good evening. Uh for the record, my name is Steve Sullivan, professional engineer registered in state of Connecticut. Um as you mentioned, uh we did have some back and forth with the town engineer. Uh we did receive a memo the other day uh essentially stating that we've satisfied his comments uh just a couple minor changes uh regarding the parking calculation for daycare. Um we uh it was he found a study uh by one of the I think it was a Northwest Council of Elected uh government officials and uh that change was one space for every eight eight children. Uh I was using one space for every 10. So we added five more parking spaces for for required number parking. Uh but we were also able to eliminate some of the loading space for these two buildings because they're less than 20,000 square feet. So we actually gained five more parking spaces. Um so with that uh the parking waiver proposed at the last meeting was 13.96%. Now we're down to 13.90%. So, a slight reduction in that waiver. And then the only other requirement request was from the fire marshal. He asked that we add a hydrant just south of building B2. I apologize. I don't have my uh light tonight, but uh it's kind of that middle island uh just south of B2 where we added another hydrant. And uh and he was fine with that location. And um that's all the changes since the last meeting. Hi, for the record, I'm Mora New Guan from 72 Architects, and I do have the architectural presentation up there, but I don't even know if it's really worth thumbming through. I had some height um

inconsistencies on the last application, and I've straightened it out. It's effectively a typo. And the two-dimensional CAD drawing that you have tonight now matches all the renderings in the 3D images that I presented last time. The CAD drawing was out of whack. All the rest of the images stay the same. Thanks.

Good evening everybody. So the last thing that we were tracking was the sex dress. Oh, I think everybody knows you, but just your your name.

Yeah. [laughter] Um so we the last thing that we had on our list was the um arborist letter regarding the SAS tree and um in doing an analysis of that tree we both came to the conclusion that the brittleleness of the the um branches and the way that the root system sprawls out is very disruptive for sidewalks and stuff. So there is a a rundown from the arborist about that tree um being I think best to go away but then the pivot was to um a red maple or the replacement tree and we think that'll be both attractive and then we'll you know heave the sidewalks and things like that and or challenge the uh foundations as the with the roof system the way it grows. So we think that'll be an attractive substitute. We're proposing between a four and 5 inch caliber per tree that'll be about 20 ft tall upon planting. But that was that was our list of items.

Would that be in the same location as Seth Crest trees being removed? No. No. So Steve um have you got that on? I don't I don't have it on this plan, but we'll move it a little further south away from the road. Okay. Yeah, makes sense. Yep. Yeah. So it'll it'll kind of um it'll complement as you come around the corner the corner of stage sticks forward. So you see where it's because those those are now connected uh between B2 and Sage and um so you'll yeah it'll be away from in in from the scheme set.

Any else you like? No, no. I think those are our loose items or loose ends and um so we're certainly here to address any questions the public may have or the commission. Okay. So, we'll begin with um questions around submission. Dan, just so I'm clear, if I just heard what you just said, you're going to replace the Sassifrass with a red maple. Yes. So, the SAS tree will be removed from where? So will that change be reflected because the drawing shows a I believe the drawing shows those new sassifrass

right so we we supplemented but it's not on the plan I guess but it is um it was submitted to Dan specification for the red maple so we would just ask we can certainly follow that up and put it on the official plan okay yeah so it's it's part of the record and so if you want to make of worship and thing if we're we're happy to oblige you in any way we can. I guess I I just had one clarification. Uh I know they asked for what kind of what caliber tree you put in. I I can't remember if that was in the memo or not.

Yeah. Yeah. It was the proposed tree is between four and five inch caliper. Okay. And um and then from the the tree supplier, they said that would be about a 20ft tree upon planting at that thickness of trunk.

And Steve, could you just when you submit the plans just update that on the landscaping plan? Okay. I guess size and location. Yes. Yes, please. Yeah. Yeah. In the Oh, no. Oh, no. No. No. Oh, I see. Okay. All right. We will certainly follow that. Okay. Further questions from commission members. I just want to be just want to be clear on one thing. Um, we're taking the sassifrash tree out and we're replacing it with a maple. Red maple.

Yeah, the red maple inboard of basically where it is. The original plan had the um sidewalk going closer to Malro and and then it leans out over the road. So, you have both the brittle branches and all that kind of thing, but still I don't know. Everybody just feels a little sort of hazard. So the um sidewalk will now go straight in line with the Marlboro. So it stays the same distance off of it and that's that's I think better pedestrian experience because you're not walking out closer to the road the the car zooming by. And then from the standpoint of the tree, the tree will just come in quite a bit off of Marbor so it has room to kind of grow and and have separation from the two buildings really the the B2 and Sage House. I kind I'm I kind of believe that if we're taking a tree out, we should replace it with the same type. I don't think we store that to what's going on there.

Right. Did Did you read the arborist letter? Yeah, I did. So So our our thinking on that was just one that would not have a problematic root system, but was still in the same location, uh, you know, relative location. It'll come in from the road, but not so much that you have to keep it from heaving the sidewalks. It it it just it was the arborist recommendation not to replant the sassifrass is was was the reason we pivoted because our original thought was the same as what you you're getting at. I think it's refined though. I understood maybe was more hard more hard. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. and and part of the discussion in the back and forth was just what will be most attractive if you're not doing the same tree and then that was a broader discussion and we settled on the redne I have just a question for Dan more than this Dan um I know the fire marshall had submitted his review y Um, does that include the fire department? I mean, we're adding a whole floor of rooms. Uh, they're going to have to deal with the additional issues that causes.

Yeah, I do believe I submitted uh something to fire chief. I I didn't get a response back. Um, but they are aware of the plans. Yes. Okay. I talked to him about this. Yes. Before. So the concern would be that Portland has the equipment to address a fivetory building, right? That would be the question, I believe. Well, yeah. I mean, it's not unlike the the other the other two buildings, but we did add a floor and uh I did not get anything back. I know they commented originally.

Yeah, I I didn't get anything back that indicated uh any I didn't get anything back. That's I guess all I could say. or should be a a condition if we do move to approve this. Should be conditioned. Sure. I could certainly try to condition something. Yeah.

Before we open it up to the public, any more questions from commission members? Okay. Do we have people signed up then to speak? And I I didn't make this clear, but when you do come up to speed, please uh come up to the podium and state your name and address for our uh Yes, we did have one individual sign up. So, I guess if you just want to come up and state your name for the record, I I think I can say your name, but I butchered quite a few in the past. Yeah, I think I think I could have gotten that one, but

um Karen Maza, 13 Perry Avenue. Um I want to start by thanking you guys, as I usually do, for your time and your efforts to benefit the town of Portland. It's noticed and appreciated, so thank you. Um, I also want to acknowledge that working with developers in the early stages of a project is a delicate balance and it's important to be flexible to get the project off the ground and I think Portland has already demonstrated great flexibility and cooperation in regards to this project. Um, the town has repeatedly approved modifications and given tax incentives. At this point, the developer is fully invested. Units are built, tenants are in place, rent is being collected, and construction is ongoing. Because of this, the developer's previous threats to walk away and leave us with a pile of dirt, which was said in a previous meeting, doesn't hold weight anymore. It's time for the commission to start saying no to unnecessary and unjustifiable changes. Um, if for some reason you do feel compelled to approve a modification, the town should at least receive something in return. Up until now, the developer has continuously received concessions without providing benefits back to the town. The request for an extra floor and 37 independent living units is completely unjustified. It's simply a revenue increasing measure for the developer. I'm hearing you guys talk about the increase taxation on our fire department. Um, at a conservative $1,800 a month for each of those units, and I think that's probably on the low end, the estimated income is roughly $66,600 a month for the developer and adding those units with no clear benefit to

Portland. That request should be denied. requiring um if you're gonna allow him to do that, maybe you should get something in return for those 37 units. Maybe if he's allowed to build 37 more units and another floor, Portland could get 37 units in buildings E and F, the apartment buildings designated as affordable housing units. We're currently at 6.3% affordable housing in our town and the state mandate is 10%. So, if you're going to approve it, you should at least get something for this town in return because as it stands, the town is not getting a benefit from those 37 units. In regards to the two-story daycare for 174 children, that request should also be denied. The daycare also benefits the developer financially since the rental cost per square foot for such a facility is high. What does the town receive for that? Increased morning and afternoon traffic congestion. A private playground that's visible in our downtown area that none of the residents can use. I'm assuming there's going to be a playground. It's a mandate for Connecticut daycarees. And also we get a minimal negligible amount of green space that's essentially meaningless. The proposed changes create more burden than benefit for this community. As far as traffic concerns, we can't rely on the developer's word that traffic won't increase. That's irresponsible. Of course, he's going to say traffic won't increase because this is what he wants to do at a minimum. If you're going to approve this, you should require the developer to pay for a new

independent traffic study if you're adding 174 ch children daycare and 37 more units. And that traffic study should be done by someone of the town's choosing, not someone that the developer chooses. I can tell you as a resident that lives next door to this development, I'm already seeing unsafe traffic patterns. IC cars frequently turn right on red out of that development to avoid the long traffic light. They then use the cutthrough on Route 66 to do a Uturn and travel back towards Main Street. This is increasing every time I travel up and down Route 66. And none of that's captured in the traffic studies. Adding 37 units and 174 daycare drop offs and pickups every day is going to significantly worsen that situation. The development, in my opinion, and many others, is becoming too large and deviating too far from what was originally approved. We've only got one commercial tenant so far. And yet, here he is asking for more residential. Additionally, the apartment buildings don't match any of the architectural renderings as they were presented to the commission. They don't look anything like it. Multiple deadlines have been missed and now the developer wants yet another modification that mostly serves only his bottom line and doesn't bring any benefits to the town of Portland. The pattern here is clear that the town keeps giving and Dan keeps coming back asking for more and it gets approved. It's time for the commission to hold firm and say no and put your foot down and deny these modifications and hold him to the plan as it stands, which already includes a lot of previously approved modifications. Thank you.

Anybody here to address? Do you want to see if [snorts] Do Yeah. Do you want to just see if there's any comments online first? Nick, do we have any comments online? Okay.

Sorry, I can catch that. Tim Dickerson. Hey, Tim. Go ahead, please.

Hi. Uh Tim Dickerson, 12 Bell Court, Portland. Um I was not at the first meeting in November, so I'm just going by what the minutes said in there, but it says that the uh applicant is requesting an increase in independent living from 108 to 145 units. To my knowledge, there was never any approved independent living units on this project. There was assisted living units, which I thought the 108 was assisted living units. And I just want to make sure that it's only a typo and you're not going to change the whole um plan now and and give back uh make them all independent living now when we already all agreed to assisted living which requires a state certified uh organization to run it uh and meet certain standards where there those are not required for independent living. So and if you know the answer to that please let me know when I'm done. Uh, second, for the tra for the traffic, I agree. I think it's going to be a nightmare in this day and age. There are traffic models that you can get free and I would recommend that they provide a traffic model demonstration showing us the traffic models and how it'll work at a public meeting for the Portland residents to observe because if you start putting 174 children going into that daycare at the same time as you got everybody trying to get in and out of the the residential units, the apartments in there and go to Starbucks because they're coming from East Hampton. They need a Starbucks fix. they're not going to make it through the light cycle. And god forbid you have an accident at that traffic light. Nobody's getting in, nobody's getting out, and there's only one little emergency way to get in down next to the gas station. And finally, I'm not sure how much detail there is on the daycare, but I suspect that there's a lot of requirements for the state and both inside and outside recreational areas per per person. Um, so I would like to see more information on that or at least stipulate that it has to meet whatever the state standards are uh before that portion gets approved. Thank you.

So, I guess just uh from from from from my point of view uh on Tim's first part, um my understanding is everything is staying the same, the same condition of approval that was in the the prior uh motion for the last modification uh is still in there. Um and that condition is that uh as condition of approval that the applicant or future operator include the language in any independent living supplement dated 91024 from PCC application number 23-17 as a requirement in any agreement for the independent living residents to reside in the facility. So that basically was stating that um any resident that lived there would have to uh need one or more uh assistance with one or more daily uh tax

yeah activities of daily living. So uh that condition still stays. So from from the land use office perspective uh there's no change in the operation of that proposed uh use. We have anyone else online who would like to speak?

Nope. So in response to the comments broadly speaking um I do think that in terms of traffic we presented at the first meeting our analysis and and would stand by that. Um also the the need for the additional units and the pursuit of the rooftop restaurant and other things. I should have probably given an update on commercial leasing. We do have Starbucks, um, Jersey Mike's, Oleg, and since we were here, Bird Code is another, um, quick service chicken concept. And then there's another national player in the B1 building that we're in discussions with that we can't be public about. So, we are looking to build on the momentum that we're we're achieving. Now, we had a display at ICSC in New York City yesterday and today, which is a big retailer show, and there were probably 25 meetings about this project. So, we've um appreciated the collaboration with the town, and we feel that we're making progress finally and looking to just close it out. So, certainly that's where we're coming from. as it relates to the daycare that is regulated by the state and we would certainly have any operator who was in that comply with all the regulations that are necessary. So with that really I think that we're uh we'd like to close with that as our thank you. So, we'll make one last uh call for anyone who would like to speak from the public. If you would please

and uh Okay, yeah, I I can speak during the public speak whatever you want. Um, the only other thing that I want to say is that the rooftop restaurant existed before this modification was requested and it was fine without another floor and 37 more apartments. Thank you. And to say something?

I I think the idea of um affordable housing is an interesting one for the additional units. I'd like you to address that as an option. And also um one of the things that I'm sorry I was late by the way.

Um but I I also wanted to talk to the commission about requesting that you hire an independent traffic um analysis from someone that we choose. Um because I think that listening to the public that that has been something from the very very beginning that there's been a lot of distrust and disbelief in. And I think that it would um it it would be good for both the commission and for you to have the traffic study confirmed by another professional. Um, so those are the two things that had I been seated tonight, I would have brought up to you. And um, I'm okay with the red maple. I wish it were larger. I'm sure you know that. But I understand. So, but if you could talk about the possibility of making those additional units affordable housing. Um, since they're not built yet, you have the option of different kind of construction and that would definitely be something that we would be looking for in the future from a developer coming into town. So,

um I would say that I have a lot of affordable housing experience and have developed in other parts of the state and often very creatively. We bought a hotel um that we're repurposing into micro studio apartments that are couple hundred units of all affordable. And so there are places there's a time and a place for it and I do believe deeply in it. this is just not one of them at this job in that building. And so we're looking for the additional units to make the economic model work for the rooftop restaurant. I would push back that it's 34 35 more units I believe. Right. But it's also to make the rooftop restaurant work, right? It's not that it did work before. We've been trying to make it work and so we came back with this as enabling mechanism. Uh the affordability constraint would be a further headwind on that especially with the independent living component to it. So it's it's just not a fit here, but like I say, I I do believe strongly in it and I have ave I've developed hundreds of units in Connecticut. that you had um not having units added or approved or having them approved if they were affordable. What where would you stand on that? I just going to be blunt with you.

Yeah. No, I think that Well, and I'll be blunt back. So, um that's going to be our choice here that

it it always is. And so, and we're we're here to make our best case to succeed. And we're in the final chapter of this development because this is the final phase. And um we're trying to close out strong. I think that this is a premium opportunity in in the context of the independent living. I think it differentiates nicely from what is out there which is primarily a drive-in drive out experience right when you talk about senior living in general and with especially with any services and this is better integrated into the surrounding community in terms of walkability and such. So we are proceeding with some rosy assumptions about what can happen on the top line, the revenue side with premium rents to justify the extraordinary building costs associated with a structure of this size. I would also argue if we're having a a broader conversation um because I I guess I'll respond to a couple of things that are said to just make the case. Um there's been significant benefit to the town already that often that was not budgeted for. There was an additional $5 $600,000 in taxes that got paid this year and a like amount that'll be next year before the tax abatements kick in partial assessments. So there's there's a very good bargain being struck with the town as it relates to what's being developed. And I do think that independent living, you want something that is um a healthy economic model applied. Um and like I say, if I didn't [snorts] have such a track record with affordable housing, maybe I'd feel a little differently about my response. But it's just not appropriate in this

building for this job for it to maximize it chances of success to close strong. And we are trying to do that. We're trying to go into next spring building out B1, B2, and A. And hopefully three years from now, this is completely stabilized and finished and just a beautiful corner in u in town. That's what that's what our goal is. Was given the choice between not having not being given that choice. you're asking me that question, but I don't believe that's um that we would just remove the top floor to avoid the affordability. I think that was what your question boils down to.

No, we would be sitting here not acting on A, B1 or B2 and being able to move forward with the commercial leasing success we've just had. It's all needs to be mobilized at once and now to continue the progress if the town's response is that the progress is not um [clears throat] necessary because even though there's unplanned for tax revenue and there is um this other success right with commercial leasing that we have cued for B1 because that's the impetus for us to push forward with the other pieces. Um, if that's insufficient, then we have to go back and come up with what plan might work, but we've come to you with a plan that we think we can roll into the spring with and and complete the job. So, from that perspective, it's allowed us with the success we've had so far in the first couple of apartment buildings to go deeper into the historic building restorations and such. And those are huge. I don't talk about it very often, but those are huge money losers. I mean, it's unbelievable how much money those those three buildings are costing and they will never cash flow. So, there are many trade-offs that have been made with the town for a successful project and we've satisfied, I think, many many stakeholders and there will be some that just don't like a big project in the middle of town and want something traded at every interval. But I think that the reason that we've been able to make the job come as far as it has already is because we have worked together and and we've both given on each side and I appreciate that with the collabor the I feel like we've collaborated with the town and so like I'll try to reclose on that [laughter] because it is a positive thing. we are here presenting a positive thing but we

can't just say well let's just undermine the economic model and get rolling um it doesn't necessarily work that way and um and like I say I do believe in affordable housing in the state of Connecticut and have a track record for it so I kind of also want to point out that eight months ago they came to us with an application modified their site plan that included more residential that was overoundingly opposed by everybody in the town as far as I'm sorry.

So asking for more residential now kind of contradicts what we voted or everyone on this board except for me voted against earlier this year. This is an increase in what we considered commercial space. So, I I I guess it seems almost hypocritical now to be asking for more residential or are you asking to modify what we've already approved that the pre-existing limited what is it 240 units of residential to change some of that to affordable? Uh I was just asking about the the added floor, right?

The added floor. But if we changed that to affordable housing, then that would be adding residential which everyone came to us though in the plan. Well, it was considered a healthcare institution, right, Dan? Yeah, they're adding a floor to health the healthcare institution. So that's considered commercial

not residential. That's what we voted on. We voted down residential. We approved the increase in commercial with this current plan. This just adds to the commercial space. So, I mean, I'm all for affordable housing. It's just we got to get, you know, we got to be consistent at least with way what we're asking for. Um, the only other thing that I would like at least not necessarily a traffic study, but maybe some coordination with the local police department maybe to address the concern that was, you know, people taking the right turn and then immediately doing that U-turn because that could eventually lead to some type of accident or something, someone trying to beat lights. But I know it's not necessarily your problem, but if you know that turns into a consistent pattern, maybe it's just a matter of putting up a sign saying no right turn on red. I'm not sure if that's something you have.

We'd be happy to do any part of anything that we can along those lines. Sometimes it does come down to enforcement. You just say, "Hey, listen. Somebody's making an illegal U-turn." And and then it's just, you know, a cop out there and Perry. [laughter] But but I I certainly we can do our part. Now Joe as um I don't want to take away you know sometimes the expert's the guy from out of town and Joe's the guy from in town but when Joe comes down to Danbury and when he's teaching classes he's the expert [laughter] and he's a very highly regarded guy. I can say that as you know just as a Portland resident but he's statewide known to be one of the top traffic people period. So I don't I don't think in terms of backing him up. I certainly would say that if there's something that you'd like us to do to prove out what Joe's input is, um, and I'd just ask that it be a condition of approval because we are trying to release work to get these jobs, um, you know, the foundations designs finished so that they can start in the spring on uh, on these big buildings. But we're certainly happy to to validate what we've uh, testified to as a condition of approval if that if that helps. For me, I I'm not interested in seeing another travel study. I I trust this work. I have no reason to doubt it. Um I don't think anybody should be or you we should be asking you to spend more money on getting a new one. If anything, if anybody doubts it on the board than the we should be putting the bill for getting our own traffic consultant and hiring them to verify the work. But I don't think that's necessary. It's just more that you know that safety issue that was raised.

Oh, sure. Sure. you know, and if that's something you can coordinate with the local PD at all, you know, please. Um, sure. You know, at least monitor it to see if it's a consistent issue. No, I think and I think we do take that approach in terms of monitoring for sure. Like when we we have a lot of tech that goes into these buildings, a lot of perimeter surveillance. And so if there was an area of the site, we'd be happy to put a camera on that corner of the of the E building, say, that would be able to see that intersection and then we'd have footage of it if we wanted to, you know, see who the bad actors were. I mean, there's always ways to collaborate and we're happy to do so. So, you know, thank you.

Sure.

So, generally on a project like this and and we've already taken money in at one point you would have you could have asked for a traffic study prior. My only concern about asking for a traffic study now is our 35day clock is up. So, the applicant would have to give us an extension to keep the public hearing open to hear the traffic study. Um, and I couldn't bring I don't believe I could bring the traffic study back to a closed public hearing. Um, so that that unfortunately would be one wrinkle in that. Um, although I and I I'll leave it at that. I think it might be beneficial if I just try and summarize what I recall from the graphics report from last meeting and that was there was an acknowledgement that there would be a an increase in current traffic level but it is still below projected to be still below the traffic level that was approved previously. for this project. Did I get that right? Believe that's what this

and I and I don't need to hog the mic. Joe can certainly address anything, but if that's correct. Yes. Okay.

Further questions or comments? Okay. Hearing none. None. None. Then I'm going to uh ask for a motion to close the public hearing for application 25-05. So moved. Okay. Chantel made a motion. Uh may I have a second? Second then. Okay. Rob seconded that. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose say no. Okay. Okay. The public hearing for application 25-05 is now closed. Any further discussion amongst commission members?

Dan, what would the U condition be for the fire department? Uh, I guess I would condition it to just uh I'm I'm not sure to be frank because I don't know how I couldn't if say if he had a negative comment. I I don't know what what the outcome would be. Mhm. Um I I do I did talk to Chief Bua about this I believe and I I did not get any any negative response.

Can I just I don't I just my main concern is he's been aware of it and he's reviewed it. Yes, I know we approved the previous Right. Um but yeah, I do. But I also have the concern that it's going to have an impact on the fire department and the tax and ultimately the taxpayer. So yeah. So I don't believe the fire department has the equipment to to handle these three buildings the way they normally would. And my understanding is that Go ahead. I can talk. Uh not we closed the public hearing so I don't believe she can. No. Yeah. Yeah. Just just seated members.

Yeah. Sorry. Okay. So my understanding is that Portland relies on m mutual aid for neighboring towns. Yes. Um so I guess as part of a condition we we might want to require some sort of a written uh uh emergency response plan from the fire department if there were an incident at this building at this new five-story building. So there there is mutual aid. Middletown does assist Portland, right?

I don't know if that's a condition that I can necessarily uh come make uh make come to fruition uh for sure or not. Um you're asking me to to come up with a plan with an agency I don't have any control over or this board doesn't have any control over. So So the city of Middletown, it does provide mutual aid. I I don't know if I if they didn't want to sign on to a plan like that. I I don't have any um but yes, um I I do know that while they do provide mutual aid, um uh Pete Wily had kind of brought that up at a past meeting. Um you know, they are here to provide mutual aid, but they're not here to put out our fires necessarily, if that makes sense. So, they they would certainly respond But I don't I don't think they're I I don't know if I can get something in writing like that. I mean, I could share with you uh any current uh understanding or if we have any agreement that that is been signed or uh or something like that, I could certainly do that. Um I could certainly check to ensure that there is a mutual aid agreement. That could be certainly a condition. I just don't know if in my position I could get towns to come together and craft a a response plan to Portland.

I guess I'd be looking more for a response from the fire chief. Okay. In town. Y as to what the actions would be if there were an incident at this building. I think that's something that I I could do that I could do this October 29th. Why isn't the class in the memo? So, so uh um Shantel asked why the fifth floor wasn't addressed in the memo. Again, I can't speak to that. I provided the fire marshals with the plans, same plans and sets that you have. Yeah,

they they did not come.

Yeah, they they they did not comment on that. So, I don't want to speak for them. All I can say is I gave them the same plans that you guys have showing the additional floor with the memo from Steve Sullivan speaking to that modification. Um, and as far my understanding is Ry uh provided a memo Ray the fire marshal with his concerns and that was not one of them. Well, but it's like it's just not mentioned, you know, there there were no it's he's not even he's talking about all these other things and just kind of acknowledging them, but he's not even mentioning it.

I just think it's weird. Again, yeah, I I don't want to just I can't speak for him and I don't want to speak for him. The fire marshals are the are the professionals here. They're the experts. They're who I rely on. Um, you know, I distributed this application like everyone else. Okay.

Um, and so I don't want to draw conclusions for Rey, but um, you know, I would say his memo was was the input that he provided for this application. So, if we were to um proceed with a motion for approval with a condition that we receive a satisfactory response from the fire marshall as to the fire department's actions to a potential incident at this building, would that be

the fire chief? So, I I would request the fire chief to uh provide a a written response plan um if a fire were to occur at E F or A. Uh if you'd like, I would just include A since I think that's the concern, but that's the concern. Um you know, I guess if he's going to do an analysis on A, he might as well ting on ENF as well. Um

but that wouldn't come to you guys necessarily. that would be something that would he I would request from him on a staff level. He would provide it and then I would add it to the file. Um I I I wouldn't bring it back to you guys because like you couldn't approve this now get that later and then say, "Oh, we don't you know you know what I mean?" And then vote it down. If they didn't if if Rob couldn't provide that and it didn't meet the condition, then obviously you know the the plan could go forward, right? But it would not come back to you for your review.

So, how would that get resolved? I would ask I would request him to to to do that uh analysis to to provide that plan. If he provided the plan, uh then the the application could move forward. If he didn't couldn't provide a provide that then it wouldn't who who would make the decision whether that plan is adequate or not. The fire chief I would not I'm not going to second guess the fire chief. Uh

no that's what I'm ask Yeah. Yeah. So if the fire chief provided you know a response a response plan um that would then satisfy that condition. Just have to point out though that you sub submitted this to the fire chief's review and if you had any concerns, he had a fair opportunity to address those and provide his concerns in writing as part of this process. The lack of any, you know, written comments on it kind of suggests to me that he has no issues. Presuming, of course, he did actually take a look at these like he was supposed to. I I do believe he did. Um he has looked at and reviewed the plans in the past. I just looked into the file. Um I have a a transmitt sheet when I route applications and I did route this application to the fire marshal or and the fire chief. Um again, I don't want to speak for him. Um all I can say is you know we received the memo from the fire marshal outlining his concerns and conditions of approval. I have a condition of approval for fire marshal you know any any outstanding conditions to be met as well as uh the standard conditions for them to review any final building plans. So if they I mean part of this is and this may be why they didn't appine on this other floor. They wait until the building plan comes in. So they can actually look [clears throat] at the finalized plans of the floor plan.

Can I just interject? I can see. It does. He does reference it here. It is here. Okay. So it is it does say it. I mean it's not it's not a big deal. Doesn't make a big deal about it, but he does Okay. Yeah. Again, I'm I'm feeling much better now. Okay. I apologize that I could No, no. I apologize because it is here. Okay. It's just not It wasn't deal. Yes. Okay. And I think that's part of it. They they review all these buildings again. And no, that's good.

I mean, they may be on site more than the building official um to be frank. Um they're there if almost every day um on site looking at something, making sure it's safe. Um so they are very dedicated uh to to making sure this is a safe project. Sorry. Did you still want the fire chief condition? I believe so. Yes. Yeah. I feel I feel we should. Yes. I feel we should have something in the file that he has reviewed the plan. I do have something in the file that already that he states he does.

Okay. I don't have anything that he states, but I I do have something in the file that he did receive the plan. Right. But I think we should have something documented that okay whether he has any issues I I assume not because he hasn't responded but I think he should formally respond and have it on the record. The nonresponse is what's making me uncomfortable right now. So So do you you want a response or do you want a plan? Do you just want a response that I I I was routed? I guess I I I'm you're I'm not sure what you want.

I would like a a reaction from him. Positive or negative? Just that he's he's had eyes on this. He's had eyes on it and he's comfortable. Okay. So, basically, I'm going to say as a condition of approval to verify uh that the fire chief has reviewed the plan. I can't Yeah. No. So [clears throat] that that is that what you're that that the fire chief I mean I I put in his box. Um I I don't know.

I think a formal a formal response on the record in writing would be sufficient. Correct.

So as a conditional approval formal response from the fire chief to the application. Correct. Okay. Any other questions or comments from commission members? I I I do have a a comment about u the back and forth that has gone on between um what's his name?

Our engineer Jeff. Jeff, excuse me. And the applicant. Um I you know, we just didn't see any of that back and forth. And it it really for me anyway, it is helpful to see all of that stuff. some of the emails if I don't if I don't under even if I don't understand it I like to see it because I like to see what's being asked. You would have understood these mainly the only things they really emailed about were were uh the parking calculation. Um the increase in the green space and how that was working. Um not too much. This was a a fairly all right

straightforward review um for the engineer. You know, normally he he he would have done a memo if there were were more. All right. Thanks. Good to know. Okay. Then Dan, do we have a motion?

Yeah, just let me copy down that uh D. How much of this am I reading Dan?

Not all the points. So um just to uh there and then I would pick up on the end.

Okay. Motion to approve application 25-05 69 Marorrow Street request for special permit modification application and property of BRT Demarco PTP LLC map 19 lot 68 zone B-2 B-3 and TCVD all based on architectural renderings and information submitted testimony provided and subject to the following instructions options and conditions that are integral to this approval. Number one, that this approval will expire in five years. Number two, that the certified letter of approval be placed on the plan. Number three, that three paper copies and a myar of the plan be submitted to the planning department for endorsement by an officer of the commission. The myar shall be filed on the land records within 180 days as per ZR section 10.53.2.a A number four that a zoning permit application be submitted in accordance with zoning regulation section 11.1.1A to ensure compliance with this approval. Number five, that the applicant meets all comments from the fire marshall memo dated 102925 and that final plans are subject to their review. Six, that as a condition of approval that the applicant or future operator include the language in the independent living supplement dated 91024 from planning and zoning commission application 23-17 as a requirement in any agreement for the independent living residents to reside at the facility. And number seven, as condition of approval, request a formal response to application from the fire chief. Reasons the proposal

conforms to zoning regulations 9.17 of the zoning regulations. May I have a second to the motion, please? Seconded. Okay, we'll now vote and we will begin with um Tom. I. Joe I Chantel Rob I I vote I as well. There will be none opposed. So the application is approved.

Right. Um only item now is a mo. May I have a motion to adjurnn, please? Second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose say no. Okay. Okay. The meeting is