Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm not hearing anything. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Monday Yeah. It it's Monday night, and we start exactly at 06:00. My name is Paul Leibowitz. And pursuant to state law, there will be no physical location for this meeting. This meeting will be held electronically and livestreamed at westportct.gov. This meeting is also shown on Westport's optimum government access channel 79, which is subject to availability. The public, of course, may attend and offer testimony during the meeting by using the meeting link published on the agenda prior to the meeting.

And the meeting agenda is available at westportct.gov on the meeting list and calendar web page. Of course, written comments may also be received prior to the meeting and should always be sent to pandz@westportct.gov by 12PM on the day of the meeting. If, if written comments are received after 12PM on the day of the meeting, they'll be entered into the record, but they won't be distributed until the next business day. Meeting materials are always available at westportct.gov on the planning and zoning web page under p and z pending applications and recent approvals. Again, my name is Paul Leibowitz, and this evening, I am expecting commissioners, Brie Injeski, John Bolton, Mike Kalis, Craig Shavoni.

And also sitting in tonight as an alternate, we have mister Vellante Michael Vellante. So and, of course, as always, our planning and zoning director, Michele Pirelli. So, Brie, would you like to read us in for the public hearing?

Sure. So for the public hearing, we are starting with work session.

Yes. Sure,

It's going to be the approval of minutes from the January 5, January 12, and January 26 meetings.

Alright. Does anybody have a motion on those? I assume everybody's read them. Correct? Yes. Motion to accept. Thank you. I'll second that. All in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you very much. Craig, make sure to un unmute yourself on the voting part. Alright. That dispenses with the work session. If you'll take us in a public hearing, that would be fabulous.

Alright. Now we are going into public hearing. And the first item on the agenda is item number two, which is text amendment number eight six zero p z two five zero zero six nine nine submitted by Emma Rojas of Landec to modify section 32 dash eight point one point two a, excavation and fill requirements to include accessory buildings or structures in the list of activities which are exempt from an excavation and fill review by the planning and zoning commission, provide such work complies with section 32 dash 8.2 excessive fill regulation in section 32 dash 8.3 standards. A copy of the text amendment is available online at the westport.gov on the planning and zoning office webpage under PNC pending applications and recent approvals. A copy may also be view viewed at the town hall, 110 Myrtle Avenue in the town clerk's office and planning and zoning office.

Applicant's presentation time is ten minutes.

Thank you. Kurt, the mic is yours.

Good evening, everyone. For the record, Kurt Lowenstein with Land Tech, professional engineer. In front of tonight, a little bit different type of application than usual. In this case tonight, I'm presenting a proposed text amendment submitted by my office, not for any individual project or property, but a broader amendment to the 32 dash eight section of the regs. Essentially, we're gonna be adding some minor text to exempt smaller accessory buildings from the exhibition and fill regulations.

These would be buildings such as ADUs, detached garages, pool houses, basically anything that meets the definition of an accessory building. This wouldn't be accessory structures in general, so we're not talking about patios or pergolas or things like that. We found that there's many applications that come in front of this commission that are ex commission fill permits in by a special permit application that are for very minor grading. You know, the larger projects, sometimes it comes one and the same, but we've seen a lot of applications that end up coming in front of the commission purely because there's some minor grading associated with some sort of accessory buildings. So by adding in the language of accessory buildings in the section that list exemption, this would be thirty two eight one two, and then I think it's subsection a.

It's that first paragraph there. We're seeking to try to streamline the approval process. So as far as, you know, procedure, as you all know, because these applications have come in front of you, almost a 100% of the applications as long as they meet the engineering review standards and the West port DPW has found that there's not going to be any adverse grading or drainage impacts resulting from the grading. They're almost always unanimously approved. So we're not trying to take any review away from the technical side of things.

This is really just hoping to streamline, like I said, and reduce some of the procedural approvals. By adding this text in, we're not, you know, changing the spirit of the regulation. DPW will still do their review. They would still endorse it. It would just happen at the zoning permit level versus the special permit level.

And in front of the commission scheduling a public hearing. You know, it'll help with homeowners that are just trying to do small projects, specifically with the ADUs and helping to promote, you know, the housing diversity and affordability in town. There are a lot of homeowners that may be looking to just do, say, a small ADU, but when they look at the approval process in the line, that can be a deterrent to them in some ways for these kind of minor projects. So I know we've, you know, been in contact with staff, and I I know we're gonna hear from Michelle to kinda refine the language and keep it as as broad, but not too broad to incorporate things, like I said, like patios and stuff. I know that's not the intent here, but I think it aligns well with the intent of town.

I think this kinda just got caught in the net, so to speak, of not being in the exemptions. I don't see any inconsistency with the POCD as far as allowing this additional language to be put into the exemptions. And in fact, the chapter 17, I believe, even, you know, promotes and emphasizes the, you know, the commission's ability and the town's ability to kinda relook at these regs over time and see, you know, how they can be approved upon. So we feel this is an improvement, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Michelle, your staff

report Thank you. Thank you. So just wanna briefly go over the well, first, wanna apologize. Apparently, my staff report didn't get uploaded to the website, so I apologize. I will post it after this meeting.

But anyway, so to go over what my analysis was was that currently the nonexempt exempt excavation and fill activities listed in 32 dash eight point one point two require special permit and site plan approval by the planning zoning commission. The regulation does not explicitly reference accessory structures, which has resulted in as described by Kurt, low impact projects being subject to full exploration and fill review by the planning zoning commission. The I'm sorry. I just wanna go through. There were comments from the engineering department.

I did have discussions with a Ted Gil regarding modifying the language slightly to of saying sorry. Instead of talking only about an accessory buildings, instead we would like to modify the language to say a principal building or structure, comma, accessory dwelling unit, comma, detached garage. So we would specifically list out accessory dwelling units and detached garage garages would be exempt along with the with principal buildings and structures and and the other things like swimming pools, tennis courts. The the idea is that we we wouldn't want to have multiple sheds or something else along those lines that would have a 25 foot exemption for each one of those. So in discussions, we think that a solution to that would be to modify what was submitted to add that language as we're drawing units and detached garages.

And, again, engineering is on board with that. I think it is something that has, we've had discussions throughout the years of, you know, did the commission mean to, you know, take exempt accessory, buildings and structures, and we've, just conservatively had everything go that was not specifically exempt as the regulation requires. So I think this does comply with the POCD at those specific section the specific section that Kurt referenced regarding streamlining the regulations and making things easier, especially as also described, the engineering department will still do their full review as always just like what they do with every project to to ensure that it complies with all the standards in thirty two eight. Lastly, we did receive comments from MetroCog indicating they did not have any concerns and, some comments from, department heads indicating that they also had no issues with the proposed, text amendment. That really describes it.

Here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it, commissioners. Any comments? Michelle, if somebody is putting a putting an accessory dwelling unit up during the course of new construction, obviously, it'll be subject to site plan special permit for the entire area. But if they do it after construction of the principal building, then, am I correct in understanding that it is, administrative review only and your sign off is still required?

Yes. We would still issue a zoning permit, but we we wouldn't your the special permit site plan to you would not be required because it would be it's under that exemption. And, also, for new single family for the new single family house, as long as the grading is not more than 25 feet from the new house and the ADU and the pool, all of those things, then it would also that would be a zoning permit. So it's only grading that's outside of that 25 feet from those ex exemptions that would be required to get a site plan special permit approval through you.

And when we did the, accessory dwelling unit, when we added it to our regs as, as of right, I guess we didn't think of, the excavation and fill, did we?

No. I don't think so. Alright.

Well I

mean, I think I think too that, you know, there always there's kind of has been been this hesitation about, you know, how far should we should we go with the with the exemption so that we didn't create, you know, some I think there was a a little bit of hesitancy and just being conservative, but I think we've seen that the engineering review and our administrative review really generally deals with all the issues that are, you know, that would potentially be addressed through you as well. So I think we've I think staff is definitely comfortable with the text and engine other departments seem to be comfortable with it as well.

Alright. Commissioners, is everybody comfortable with this with the text? And we

I just have a question, Paul, if I could.

Yes. Please do.

I guess I have two questions. One is how frequent an issue is this? Like, what are we really trying to solve here from a frequency perspective? And two, I'm curious why the applicant brought it to us when they don't have a purpose for it.

So that they don't, incur this again. Frequently, when you are faced with something multiple times, you decide to head it off by making the changes when the changes are due. I I actually commend them for doing that. If they didn't, they could've taken a different route. They could've come to us and said, hey. You guys need to change that, in which case we would have probably had to do it. But I'm I'm less concerned about who brought it and more concerned about getting it done. As far as as far the frequency

Well, dozens of applications for each cons I mean, I would say per year, we're doing something in the order of magnitude, maybe 15 to 20 that are just applications that would have x and fill and then add in the applications that have a broader project. It's it's a lot of applications that come in front of the commission, and the agendas are getting fuller and fuller because of the volume of development going on in Westport, over the last few years. And seeing applications that are just these kind of very small projects that are kinda jamming up the, agendas is really what the impetus for this, amendment is, bringing this in front of you.

Follow-up questions, mister Valente?

So I just wanna make sure I heard that right. One a month?

Is it

all the year? Times multiple per month. I and this is just our office. There's many other consultants that work in town. So, you know, you can I can't speak for how many they do exactly?

Michelle may have a better idea of that, but I can just speak from our firm. We're doing many, many applications per year. Sometimes I have multiple applications on a single agenda that are x and fill that are triggered just because of the, you know, kind of the grading beyond the principal residence for these kind of, you know, auxiliary structures. You know, one thing I would ask the commission to consider adding into the language, that's a point well taken, Michelle, that, you know, we don't want people putting a bunch of little sheds all around the property to skirt the rules. But consider maybe adding pool houses into there as well.

Just thinking about the types of allocations that we see coming in, you know, in front of us in Westport, that might be one other type of accessory building that might be worth considering adding into that language on top of the the ADU and then detached garages.

Go ahead, Michelle.

I just wanted to say, we did consider the pools pool houses as well. What held us back from that was that we don't have a definition for a pool house. So, I mean, we all know what it is when we see it, but we don't have an actual definition. So in in our book, it's just an accessory structure. So that's why we kinda limited it to but I do I do think adding that in, you know I I that would reduce it even reduce applications even further, but I just don't want to tie us into something that doesn't have a definition.

Other commission We could tie a future amendment into a definition, like an add definition for a pool house specifically and then tie it to adding that into the exemption. That's something we could explore.

Absolutely. Yeah. That makes sense.

Other commissioners? Michelle, I wanna just loop back with you. Obviously, this, all plans have to go through engineering. Correct?

Yes. All plans. All creating.

And there's no waiver there? No.

No. No. Not at all.

Okay. And so, Kurt, is it absolutely necessary to include detached garage in here?

Yes. I believe so. Because of the nature of a garage, the front entry of that garage needs to be, you know, essentially flat. Some lots are lucky and they do have that, but many lots require some form of regrading even if it's minor. You know, the thing to keep in mind here is that even if we're grading, you know, changing the grade by eight inches, six, eight inches, that still would be enough to trigger an excavation and fill application. So, yeah, I think it the detached garages is should be included.

Okay. Very good. Others before we go to the public? Seeing none, I'll see if there's anybody from the public who is here thinking about 32-8.1.two, adding accessory buildings to the assess excavation and fill permit. Anybody?

Okay. Seeing none, let's come back to come back to mister Lowenstein. Any last words you wanna leave us with?

Just the banks. I really appreciate you guys considering the proposed text here and looking forward to discussing with Michelle. Maybe we can get the the pool houses included in there in the future. But thank you very much, everyone.

Indeed. Commissioners, any reason why you should we should not be closing this? You wanna hold it open? You wanna think about it? Michelle, is there a reason why we can keep this open?

No. I mean, normally, the staff report would be available on the site, so I I don't know. I don't think it's, you know, required that it'd be held open, but that's the only reason I could think of that if if you wanted to. It is very straightforward, and they're really everything that was in my staff report was I I pretty much verbalized, but I just wanted to

Since if we close it, though, your staff report actually falls under the rules, doesn't it? We could still

Yes. We could I could still post it. And you can always you can we could always even if you decided to not decide tonight, I mean, I can still answer questions from the commission after the close of the hearing.

Alright. Very good. Close or continue? Close. Alright. I'm gonna second that. All those in favor of close, let's go around the room starting from my left. Mister Bolton, he says he says close. Miss Zinjewski?

Aye.

Closed. Miss Shivani?

Aye.

Closed. Mister Volante?

Aye.

Closed. Mister Kalise? Lower left corner. It's I

said yes.

Yeah. We need to hear it. Thank you. Appreciate that. And I am a yes as well. Secretary will record the vote, and, we'll pick this up again in a future work session to, do the voting on it. Michelle, thank you for bringing this forward. And, Kurt, thank you as well. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Back to you, Brie. What do we have next?

Right. Item number three on the agenda is do I have to read all of this?

No. Michelle, how much does she need to read?

Just just text amendment eight fifty nine, and then it was continued from January 12.

Okay. Great. Text amendment number 859PZ2500659 submitted by Wendy Van Wee on behalf of historic district commission. And this was when was it? See when it was opened on here.

Open January 12. And continued.

Oh, okay. January 12. Sorry. I'm continuing with testimony to February 2.

Alright. And we are blessed with the return of miss Wendy.

Who's not gonna talk for very long, so don't get panicked. I reviewed the tape from, January 12, and I think explained everything there. And I do apologize if I talk too much in answering your questions, but I was concerned that I was giving you the reasons so that you could come for my answers so that you could come to your own conclusions. But I'm also given to understatement, and I bring that up because our chairwoman, Grayson Broad, said something very important at that hearing that just isn't my style, but that I think is very correct. So I will repeat what Grayson said.

And she said, currently, thirty two eighteen is unintelligible. It is not a usable regulation as it exists. And if we don't change it, we should scrap it. I agree a 100%, but I wanna clarify what we mean by changing thirty two eighteen because there are really two different ways we're proposing to change it and they are separable. So you can either adopt neither or both or just the HGC substitute thirty two eighteen except for the subdivision provision, at the end.

So because the subdivision provision is separable, I can't see any risk at all to the town by adopting proposed thirty two eighteen without the subdivision section. There seemed to be some agreement last time that it would be an improvement over thirty two eight current thirty two eighteen, so I would at least urge you to do that. But neither can I see any real risk in adopting the subdivision section? It's very narrowly drawn to apply to only the most clearly historic houses. And if you find it's not going well, you can always repeal it.

Meanwhile, you have many reasons at your disposal to reject any particular application that you don't think should go through, without any jeopardy to the town. And conversely, experience with it may show that it's so beneficial to the town that you may want to expand it in the future. But because I see the proposed subdivision section as low risk and we have the potential of the high reward right now of saving 125 Riverside Avenue, I would also urge you to pass the subdivision section. Not many towns in America have an eighteenth century woodhouse in a prominent spot on the river. It is a rare and beautiful thing, and it would be a real shame to lose an opportunity to save it. And that, by the way, is an understatement. And I will take any questions.

Wendy, that is amazing.

Thank you, Paul. And what I mean

by that is your brevity is outstanding. Alright. So commissioners, a couple of things. First of all, for those who may not have seen it, there was a a very valuable back and forth by Brie and into our attorney's office, Peter Gelderman. And during the back and forth, there was language that was looked at, the word nullification.

I'm actually gonna let Brie explain it, but apparently, our town attorney is happier with the word revocation than nullification. But since I'm not an attorney, I'm gonna turn it over to Brie and see what she has to say.

So my question, just to bring everyone up to speed, was there is an inclusion in the draft that would, that says that any unauthorized alterations would may constitute a nullification of the permit. And I just had questions about what effect that nullification would have on the perpetual easement, and then if we need any procedural protections. And the town attorney essentially said that these are it's fine to have this type of language in there. However, it should be worded that the in in the event that this happens, that the permit is revoked, and that this is all then recorded on the land records, which is the ordinary course, of how things are done with special permits anyways. And so Michelle did propose some some alternative language so that it would say that the permit is revoked and not nullified, but that the revocation would then render the easement null and void.

And so I think that is there's a I think that's a a good amendment, to this one.

Thank you. Appreciate that. And you reminded me that I'm supposed to go to Michelle next and say, any changes.

Thank you. Michelle Crowley, planning and zoning director. I was just gonna really reiterate, what was discussed, by by, commissioner Anjeski. We, yes. I did I do have some proposed language in which would deal with as as discussed the nullification as well as some some language that talks about the enforcement.

So basically, that p and z would do the enforcement and HTC that was also suggested by Peter Gelderman that we don't have two enforcement entities that it might complicate things. So that was something else that I suggested. The last hearing, we also talked about taking out the language for accessory structures since we, yes, since we don't need to have it incentivized accessory structures any longer because of the ADU regulations. So I think that is also another possibility of a modification. Just thinking.

I think I think that was all I had. Those are the changes that that were suggested. And in terms of the subdivision, there is a pending application just as something that we wanna just have on the table, the pending application by Rick Benson to also modify thirty two eighteen more specific it's without so it would allow the subdivision of properties that have one historic property without the guidelines of the 1,800 structure as Wendy's text amendment has. I think the limitation on the number the 1,800 number, you know, it seems that it's clear that 1,800 structures we we would want to preserve. And so I think it's just something to keep in mind of moving forward in this text amendment that, you know, there is just the pros and cons of that section and and maybe a discussion about that before we make any decisions.

Thank you. And and are you here in case we need you?

Yes. I'm here.

Okay. Okay. So very good. Commissioners, you we've had a couple of goes at this. Anybody have any comments that they want to read into the record or ask questions of miss Venue?

I have one for you, Wendy. The the date is it keeps coming up as a potential issue. And can you just briefly give us your feeling? I know you did this the last time we met, but, you know, there's been discussion of, you know, what is the difference between the eighteen hundreds and the nineteen hundreds, or what's the difference between the nineteen hundreds and, let's say, the nineteen fifties in your mind when it comes to the HDC?

A house can be historic at any age. In terms of the text amendment, however, I think there's a tension between not blowing up the general zoning regulations by having it applied to so many houses and still trying to save the most important houses. So I think anytime you go up as I said last time, not every house under 1,800 is necessarily going to be historic, but we are the oldest area in America, and most of the other areas did not have wood houses that would ever stand. So New England is basically it. These are very, very special houses in America.

We could as you go further up in years, the houses become more common to many other areas. So they're still historic, they're still wonderful to keep, especially if they have, a lot a lot of their integrity left. But so houses can be a struck at any age. But here in this text amendment, I think there's a real tension between just keeping a lid on the amount of houses based on their historic quality, so that we don't blow up your zoning rights.

Okay. Very good. That's what I thought you you meant, so thank you for that. And, Wendy, it's also correct, isn't it, that there are other criteria that a house could fall under, a nineteen fifties house, for instance, of size age. So for instance, if it was, owned by a, you know, a a specific person, etcetera, and that's written into this regulation as well. Correct?

I put age as a limitation, not a criteria. One of the things that's wrong with old thirty two eighteen is age as a criteria and over 50 years old right now is nineteen seventy six. So it's it's a terrible criteria. And You're calling

us old way. What?

Yes. Yes. We are we are old.

Alright. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Older by the minute, I might add.

Other commissioners before this gets any older?

Yes.

Missy Craig?

Again, I commend you, Wendy, for, revising this this, piece of the zoning code. I still I brought it up before, and I I would like to talk through this. How do we manage the unintended consequences? I am all in support of, you know, how this applies to Riverside Avenue, I think. But what happens if a developer comes in and buys the parcel next door and, you know, says, okay.

You know, 200 units going up there or 500, you know, or 50 units. How do we how can is there any mechanism that we can put in this, that would stipulate, you know, contextuality or or, you know, either in height or in in I'm I'm I'm just I'm really, really concerned about this.

Well, I'm trying to understand your concern exactly because I I just think it's true. Any lot in town right

now It is true. Any lot.

I mean, Riverside right now, they can demolish the house and put in an eight thirty g. I mean, they they can do that. Right? And so I'm not sure how how it's different than any other lot. And I think putting restrictions on a new lot created is going to discourage people. I mean, I'm I'm happy to do it, but I I just think the the new lot would be obligated to all of the zoning other zoning rules like any other lot on the books. So I'm not sure that there have to be any other

Consequences.

Any other, yeah, protections, that wouldn't apply anywhere else. So I'm I mean, there's just nothing special about these lots being created that I can see. And as far as unintended consequences, I've seen a lot of unintended consequences over the years, with current thirty two eighteen. And, every unintended consequence I've seen, I've plugged that hole. So, I've I've plugged it as much as I possibly know how to do.

So Miss Giovanni? I

mean, if if we're going odds, I think the highest bidder for the Riverside property will be an eight thirty g developer. And so we're gonna see it or the likelihood is we're gonna see it head on. And I you know, you're right. They can come in on any lot that's for sale. But is there any way that we can link, I don't know, link the incentives that we're giving to keep this property a store property, which actually will be defiled for the $8.30 g by the $8.30 g that's gonna go next to it.

Is there any way through deed restrictions or maybe limiting? I I don't know what the answer is, and I don't know if I personally it's a very big concern.

Greg, can I ask you a question? Are you are you concerned in what this allows people to do, or are you, because I'm I'm I wanna I just wanna acknowledge with you that this takes off the table more than it puts on the table.

How how so? I'm sorry.

The hoops that this adds by defining the path to our historic structures does not exist currently. And, Wendy spent a pretty good amount of time last time, taking us through those changes and why this eliminates them, takes them out of the reach of most developers. And then she indeed then quoted back the director of the HTC stating that it is in fact a a huge measurable cleanup from what exists today. So I'm I'm wondering, in my mind, to me, that's the definition of getting rid of an a lot of unintended consequences rather than increasing them.

I'm in agreement with you, and I support this. I support any incentive that we can come up with to to maintain and preserve our historic structures. I'm just asking if there is possibly another tool that can be associated with this to prevent a massive development going in next door. If if they can be linked together, the properties can be linked together or and I think most people, you know, who are preserving historic properties Don't want eight thirty g next to the mine there, but I'm just asking, not that I don't support this because I I really do. I'm asking if there's any ability or solution or something creative we can do that we can predict the property that we're cutting off in?

Well, my first, response would be if there is a way that somebody could deed restrict property to prohibit eight thirty g, then I know.

Property in Connecticut would be deed restricted. So I don't think no. It's a state law. But I have no first of all, Lucien could go in right now and knock it down and put up an eight thirty g. There's absolutely nothing stopping him from doing that. And I can't see the sense of going through all of this headache and heartache to save the little house and then say, oh, okay. And by the way, next door, I wanna put up an eight thirty g. And and as so I'm just not really seeing it's increasing the risk of that. And then and I think Paul just said it's kind of decreasing the risk because they're saving an historic structure. And why would you want to ruin the setting of that by by putting in that that that is so Mhmm.

Incongruous. So I can't I I can't Okay. Okay. Your fears, I I just don't I don't see actually, I mean, it's something that in any of these applications that some of the public have a hard time understanding that there's not a choice between, like, keeping the building as it keeping everything as it is because the building's going to go down. So either you get the old keep the old building and have a new house or you just have one big house that that there's not that third choice when we're using without this kind of amendment, there's not that third choice of just keeping the house as is because it's leaving. You know?

So so what about owners of properties that aren't being purchased and redeveloped that say, okay. Now I have the ability to subdivide, and and we get 15 more lots.

I think that if you get 15 applications for subdivisions, and they'll be scattered all over town. We don't have historic resources bunched together. The and the ones that we do are generally already in our local historic district, so that subdivisions don't apply to that. We have them all over town. We got 15 applications to save 15 of our to potentially preserve 15 of our pre 1,800 houses, we should all have a celebration.

You know? I mean, that's just we we should celebrate because we're getting big bangs for our bucks there. I I think you know, I I've worked with developers and owners over time even when they can subdivide. Some people just wanna knock the house down because they want that piece of land or whatever. A lot of people are it doesn't happen until they're ready to move.

And I mentioned last time I know of actual humans who would like to downsize in this town, but are afraid to leave their substantial sized houses because they're afraid it will be torn down. And they'd be more than willing to and you wouldn't even notice it in town. Talking about density because they're back lots by and large. They're gonna be back lots that nobody sees. 125 Riverside is a little different, and it's one of the few lots I can think of where you're gonna have to act when you're going to have actually two houses side by side.

Mhmm.

But

in most cases, older houses are on the road. The lot that's gonna be created is in the back, but nobody's ever going to to see. And they're on the outskirts of town where there are no sewers and and such and such. So I don't think you really have an eight thirty g threat there. So this is what Riverside, I think, is an odd kind of situation, actually. Thank you. Make it less important.

Thank you. You're you're I'm feeling more comfortable with this.

Thank you. It. Michelle, did you have something to weigh in on that? I saw your hand up earlier.

Yeah. Thank you, Michelle Farrelli. I just wanted to say, I I'm sure that commissioner Chabon saw this, but there is a section. It's thirty two eighteen point seven subsection b three. And it does say when evaluating a specific proposed lot division, the primary considerations are whether the resulting law for the historic structure will be contextually consistent with the architectural design scale and massing of the historic structure. So there is something in here considering that.

Good. Very good. So, Brie, your hand was up.

Yeah. So I I know Craig said she she feels a little bit more, at ease with this, but I it raised a concern that I have is that, let's say, they subdivide this lot, and then the new owner with the historic structure decides they're gonna make some modifications that are not authorized. Suddenly that their special permit is revoked. Their perpetual easement is null and void, and then they're left to do what they please on that lot. And we now have two lots with two brand new houses where we would not have otherwise approved that subdivision because we just it wasn't gonna happen. The lot was too small.

So

I mean, that's an unintended consequence. Like, that's a very real one. Is that

Right. And, Michelle Michelle, do we have still have the tar and feather brigade, or did we do away with them?

Oh, yes. No. We still have it. Well and oh, well and good.

So, unfortunately, there are some unintended consequences that we cannot do much about. If somebody wants to be a bad actor, they're gonna be a bad actor regardless of what the penalty is. Miss Vendwe, do you have any thoughts there?

I think I mentioned last time I had two historic property on one two large historic buildings on one property subdivided to to sell off one so that it could have its own owner. They were too big for anybody to take care of. And I suffered all the time because there really is no there's no guarantee, but, ultimately, you have to believe people aren't gonna be wanton. They're not gonna spend a million or $2,000,000 and then go ahead and just wreck what what they've committed to do. So I I don't I don't think I have as good an answer as I had for Craig, but that that's just a fact.

But when it come you know, when you're talking about things that are we we're saving things because they are irreplaceable. And if something's irreplaceable, somebody can just destroy it, and then it's irreplaceable. And there's just that's just the fact. That's just the situation we find ourselves in. You know?

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to to do our best to save it. And I'm not aware is anybody here aware of anybody who's I'm not aware of anybody who's actually wantonly taken destroyed part of their historic house that when they were committed not to. So and you hear about things.

I mean, my concern is, like, the Yeah. We see houses aren't getting torn down weekly in Westport because people want the property, not the house that's there. Yep. But they're not

protected, and you don't see that in our local historic districts.

Yeah. I'm I I I'm just I'm this is my my concern. It's just that we are are going to create a pathway for subdividing already small lots. And then somebody just does something and their permit's revoked and then what?

I well, first of all, I think this is as I said, this is probably an unusual configuration at 125 Riverside that most of the lots that would be involved would be much larger lots on the outskirts, more towards the outskirts of town. But there's not been a case. We must have a 140 houses, let's say, in our historic local historic districts, Kings Highway North, Lincoln Street, Evergreen Avenue, Gorham Avenue. And it just has never happened that anybody's, like, knocked down their building. So

I'm back. Did you miss me?

I know. I didn't notice you were gone.

Oh, shame on you.

I was trying to think real hard for Brie, but I can't I can't offer her any peace. And I understand, Brie, because I I I you know, I'm afraid of the very same thing for my beautiful house.

Well, I mean, I and this may be a question to another question is for, like, the town attorney. I know we have in here that the permit can be revoked.

Like, I you know?

Authorized authorized alterations are made. Maybe we take that out, and so the this permit is never revoked. So you're stuck with the easement perpetually.

I haven't had time I don't have time to look everything up. I haven't looked it up, but I think

I know. And these are questions that are more like the legal side of it. So I I understand that. I some towns do it.

I think some towns or cities or whatever, because everybody deals with this problem. And you will read across the country that somebody just want may not knock down a historic structure. But and I think it's played with maybe you can't build on it for ten years or something like that. I don't know that we are that punitive in this town. So, I mean, I suppose you could have something like that. You know, if you knock down the historic structure, then it has to lay dormant for ten years or but I just don't know the town to be that punitive.

Okay.

Anything else?

Nothing from me.

Okay. Other commissioners? Mister Bolton?

Thanks. Let me just let me just, comment to, commissioner Justeki. I hear what you're saying about the pathway, but I I kinda look at this entire effort as being advisory and giving more guidance and and really spelling things out easier for folks, who wanna approach subject. I also find that it brings it more in alignment with the secretary of interior. But when you when you flush things out, right, and articulate them with more specificity or whatever, you're definitely inviting somebody to figure out how to get around all that.

And but I think that's gonna happen every single time we try to improve on something. So I think it's a good effort. It achieves a couple of things, at least for me it does. And I think the good of of it being guidance outweighs potential bad of an unintended, but I hear you. That's it.

Thank you very much. Any other commissioners? I do wanna point out, ladies and gentlemen, that, today, in fact, we have public comments, emailed to us. One, three, four, five, six, 79, 10 of it. About a dozen, all in favor, which I'm I'm gratified to see public comments coming in on this.

This is a, a rather dense application. No offense to Wendy. And so it's good to see that people are following along and advocating for the saving of properties. Last call on commissioners before I go to the public. Seeing none, I'm gonna open up to the public. Anybody here to speak about text amendment eight fifty nine modifications to 32 Dash 18?

Yeah. Hi, Paul. Rick Benson here. There you are. Sure. Hi. Hi. Good evening, commissioners. As miss Perleigh correctly indicated, I have another version of a text amendment that's number eight sixty one that presumably will be heard later this month. Miss Van, we seem to be worried about her amendment blowing up design regulations.

I just wanna remind you that since twenty two eighteen was put in place eighteen years ago, only five lots have been created in town. And and I think this regulation will prevent any new lots from being created. So my application, at the moment, depending on what what happens tonight, I'm sure I will have to revise my application to to blend better with whatever happens tonight. Miss Van Lee's general approach is to appears to to restrict further subdivision of properties, and mine takes a slightly different approach to try to make preservation easier and the creation of nuance perhaps easier. And I guess we'll discuss that at the next public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Rick. And in in fact, that is a topic that is on our mind. And after I call on any of the other public, I'll we're gonna gonna caucus with Michelle here tonight and get some idea of what we can do along those lines. So hang on, and we'll have that discussion. Thanks. Any other, any anybody else from the public would like to weigh in?

Hi. My name my name is Lincoln Bjorkman, and wildly in favor of, what I'm hearing as far as structures preservation, etcetera. With regards to other issues, further text amendments that do things like saying you can subdivide and not have a historic, structure on one of the parts that is created, particularly on small lots. We have a lot we have a strong point of view on this subject is that eight other trails will be in front of the PNC in that amendment. Don't need to go over here.

We've sent things in to stating our point of view, but I do hope as unintended or intended consequences, it is a robust discussion about spot zoning, subdivision, and development using the historic amendments as fodder to do that. We have a strong point of view. I live in an 1890 house, and, you know, I hope that it's never going to be allowed that someone could come in and, you know, subdivide my lot and use the front desk conforming lot to to just put in a house. And, yeah, just just I think I don't think that's what Sony wants. I don't I don't I'm not gonna tell anyone here what they want, but I will certainly advocate that that shouldn't be the way, zoning and subdivision and preservation work.

So happy to table that for the next time, this comes up with that potential amendment and a daughter trail.

Thank you. Welcome your thank you. Welcome your comments at that time. Thank you. Mister Benson, junior, did you have something to add?

Yes. Just I did speak at the last hearing, and sort of wanna reiterate, a few different points. Basically, as the existing thirty two eighteen is designed and everybody is discussing even here preserving more houses, but the proposed tax amendment does not do that. It vastly restricts the number of potential, properties that will be saved.

The

proposed our proposed tax amendment is only eliminating the need to have one historic property on each of the subdivisions. And as my father mentioned, there's only ever been five applications of this. And currently, even to get an application heard, you have to go through HTC, then a joint meeting with HTC and the architectural review board, and still a special hearing special permit hearing with PNC. So you currently still can veto pretty much anything. An eight thirty g is not necessarily as easy as any developer can do it.

The town still can reject it for health, safety, traffic. There are other outs, so they they wouldn't a 200 unit building wouldn't show up in a residential neighborhood. Not any property can be subdivided to the prior comment in the name one of the neighbors say it on their trail. HCC would still have to first confirm that it is historic, meet already strict requirements, which would only be stricter with this proposed amendment. Essentially, I don't think there would ever be another application if thirty two eighteen was amended.

It eliminates all incentives for developers or homeowners to preserve their home or to expand it or to use it as an accessory dwelling unit, which is against the town's other zoning code and plan to or desire to want to add more ADUs. This just restricts the number of possible applications from the get go, but it also does not actually deed restrict anything. So people can still you would only see it if somebody does wanna subdivide or alter, but HCC still today already has the ability to reject any proposal. So that's all. I don't wanna take up any more of your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your opinion. And just so that people understand, what is the nature of your of your association with the previous speaker?

I my father and I have as I mentioned in the prior hearing, we have an application for 8 Otter Trail, which currently has a house that is has a it's on the historic resources inventory. The zoning office actually suggested to us that we try to use 3218, and they actually suggested the text amendment that that changes the wording from requiring one historic property on each of the new lots to just one on one of the lots, meaning there can be a an empty lot essentially created without having another historic property on that second lot. And I guess miss there's Jordan is a neighbor at 8 Otter Tail. I I don't know if Thank

you very much. Appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Mister chair, can mister Benson just reiterate that he's not speaking on behalf of the zoning board of appeals just to be clear?

Again I am a member of the zoning board of appeals, but I am speaking only on personal behalf as this does relate to my father and I are developers in town, and we do have an application, for a subdivision which includes this text other text amendment that was referenced earlier to actually expand on the current regulations to open up more properties and enable the preservation of more homes, and not reduce it to maybe 30 totals, what I believe Wendy mentioned last time.

And what's, what's the age of the, of the property that's, on your lot that you have bought?

It's about a 100 years old.

Okay. And so it would not be covered by this tax amendment. Correct?

It would immediately be disqualified. Yes.

And so you're here advocating as a builder your position so that you can build on your lot?

Yes. And for all builders, some there

was

another member or another member of public last hearing also who basically reiterated that point that this would just limit it removes all incentives for developers. Nobody would try to use this.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure people on, commissioners understood, motivation behind, you advocating a specific position. Oh, I'm also just trying

to clarify because the the conversation seems to be that this will end up saving more properties, but that's not what it says, and that's not what

it In in your opinion.

I guess.

Thank you. Appreciate it. I appreciate your opinion, of course. Anybody else from the public? Anybody else wanna weigh in? And by the way, I was wrong, and I apologize to the rest of the commissioners. It is not a dozen letters. It's two dozen letters. I didn't count the ones in early in late January, so I apologize. We did get a lot of letters advocating for this approval.

Alright. Coming back to the commissioners now that the public has spoken. Anybody have any additional questions for miss Vandui? Seeing none, Wendy, do you have any last last things to add? Would you like to speak about?

Well, I do. And first of all, it's not true that nobody will ever apply under this because we're here because 125 Riverside has already said he wants to apply under this amendment. No matter which the reason there haven't been a lot of subdivisions is because, as I said last time, each little subdivision provision was crafted small, small, small so that only a few houses in town would apply so that the developers couldn't drive a truck through them. That was the words at every hearing. So you can slice it in many different ways.

We've sliced it horizontally so that we're trying to get our oldest houses saved and then our most extraordinary houses above that. Any verticals, as I would call vertical slicing, like the Benson's amendment seems to be, and I don't wanna talk about something that's not germane to mind. But, their amendment wouldn't allow for saving 125 Riverside Avenue because they can't 125 Riverside can drop down a zone and which is what theirs says. It doesn't have the land to do that. So everything is going to leave something out. And in our case, what we tried to leave out were the less historic

Thank you.

A higher standard. But I I I wanna make sure some of the questions that were asked last time were answered. I don't know. Brie, did you see an email I sent a couple of weeks ago to answer? Is Brie still here?

Yeah. Yep. I'm here. Yeah. Their The one that it was posted on the on the website. I read it. Yes.

Okay. And and so we got it straight about the the historic structure or terminology and

Got it. Yes. Yep. Okay. Yeah.

And but one one thing you did bring up that about the criteria and the the process, like, subsequent, alterations recommended, if you remember. And I said that that that probably should be a, something between Donna Douglas, our administrator, and PNC to kind of work out between them. And Donna's been on vacate planned vacation, basically since our hearing, so I haven't been able to talk to her. And, anyway, you know, I don't know if this is gonna pass and whether it's worth talking to her about it. But one important thing that you did say there was, on the subsequent alterations, it does say it has to if it if it involves a historic feature or a an addition, then it has to go before the HTC.

And then it does say that we shall send our report on that to the PNC, but you are absolutely right. It doesn't say what happens at that time. Okay. So we got that far. But this is what the current one says. So maybe we could throw in a few words if you'd like. I think it is important. You raised a really good point. What it says here is even this is it. I mean, is very vague.

This is current. Once a special permit HRS has been granted, the historic structure shall not be altered unless such alteration is reviewed by the HTC administrator to evaluate whether the HTC review is needed. I'm just gonna stop there for a second because for Donna Douglas in her first week on the job got a huge application, and she's looking at this, and she didn't know what to make of it. So

Wendy Wendy, where are you in, 3218?

Oh, I'm sorry. In old 3218, I'm on 3218Dot7.

K. Hang on a second. Okay. I'm with you now. Go ahead.

Okay. So so such alteration is reviewed by the HDC administrator to evaluate whether HDC review is needed and is reviewed by the PNC commission or their designee to determine if approval is required from the PNC commission. So that's for subsequent alterations. In a year or two, somebody comes by, they have 3218, and they wanna make changes. So that's what's currently there. It doesn't give standards. It doesn't say anything about that. I focused on the standards and such in the process When I wrote new, it would be 32 hang on. I'm sorry. 3218Dot3D. D. Mhmm. Okay.

Go ahead.

So that's for subsequent alterations. And I say it may not be required. Remember how I had we had a summary of all the historic features. And if it's not a historic feature, well, then review is probably not required, just administrative review. And it says, however, all applications for alterations that do impact significant historic or architectural exterior features to this historic structure, as well as all applications for additions must must be referred to the historic district commission for recommendation based on compliance with the secretary standards.

In making its recommendation, the HTC shall detail in writing for the PNC commission's reasons for concluding that the proposed alteration does or does not comply with the secretary standards. But Brie is absolutely right. And then what? Okay. So in the old one, it basically says, then it's reviewed by the PNC commissioner. They're designated to determine if approval is required from the PNC commission. So maybe that we should just import that last line into the new text.

Well, I I assume if you're going to do the referral to us that you're going to give a recommendation in there. And so you're going to be signifying whether or not it meets the criteria of being historic and, you know, whether or not it should be, considered historic structure and and in the designated report.

That's what I kind of assumed too until Brie brought it up, and then I realized Brie is right. It just doesn't say then what happens there.

And So, Michelle, I mean, basically, what we're looking to do is make sure in our underlying charter for this charter is probably not the right word, is that we will we will read well, we will ask for, receive, read, and act upon the designation report as as put together by, the HTC chambers.

Okay. Any anything's fine with me. And then if we if this does pass, I will work with Donna, and we will come up with paperwork for us between the two commission two bodies, HTC and PNC, I guess.

Okay. Brie, anything else?

No. Nope. Nothing for me. Thank you, Wendy, for putting so much effort into that one. I appreciate it.

That's the beauty of red line. We love having it. Alright. Commissioners, is there any reason why we should hold this open, or is anyone in favor of closing? Michelle, what what's your answer? Are we there? Do we have everything we need? Or is are there missing pieces?

No. I don't think there's missing pieces. I think we have, you know, we have a good you know, we can look at it to tweak a word here and there, but I think we have a good a good understanding of where we should be.

Okay. And is there enough is there enough reason to be able to come back if need be if we get to a the second amendment that's ahead of us in time to be able to add anything if need be?

Are you saying to not decide on this application and just close it and then

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Okay.

We have the wherewithal.

I have to think I'm try I'm trying to I think that out. Think that through. I mean, yes, I think we can close this application and not make a decision, and then we can hear the other application. And then we could come back and make a maybe finalize our decision on this one. I think that would work.

Commissioners, does anybody have a

have a motion? Motion to close.

Thank you. I'll second that. Anybody else? Everybody agree with that? Miss Shivani, do you agree?

Yes.

Miss, Injeski, do you agree?

Yes.

Mister Kalis, do you agree? Yes. Thank you very much. I agree as well. Thank you, Wendy, for your hard work. We really appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Would the secretary read us into the next item?

Yes. Alright. Item number, four on our agenda is 30 Beachside Avenue, which is a special permit site plan in coastal area management application PZ2500640 submitted by Robert Marks, Roger Ferris and Partners for property owned by thirty Beachside Avenue Owner LLC to permit nonexempt excavation and fill for the construction of a single family residence swimming pool driveway and terraces located in the residence A A A District. PID H 05036000. Applicant presentation time is fifteen minutes.

Thank you very much. Mister Marks.

Good evening. Hello. My name is Robert Marks. I'm an architect with Roger Ferris and Partners. I'm here this evening representing our client David Avarom in thirty Beachside LLC with a special permit coastal site plan application and excavation and fill application for a new six bedroom house, single family residence at 30 Beachside Avenue. Let me see if I can do

screen share. Michelle, you wanna make sure that happens?

Can you see my screen?

Yes.

Okay. So this is the existing survey of existing site conditions. There is an existing house on the property. Just the issue for us is let me just go through a couple of slides here. This slide is a snapshot of the wetlands demarcation lines on the Westport GIS.

And this slide is the same information transcribed onto a satellite photo. I think it's a little bit more legible. This property is within 200 feet of the mean high waterline and is within 100 feet of tidal wetlands. There are no wetlands on this property, either inland wetlands or coastal wetlands. And while the property is near Long Island Sound, it is not on Long Island Sound.

It's the mean high waterline and the tidal wetlands that trigger this camera view are those associated with New Creek, which is located near the property and on the other side of Beachside Avenue. This property is also in the FEMA a e 13 flood zone and portions of the property are under the jurisdiction of the water protection line ordinance. So on this slide, the site is highlighted in yellow in white in the middle of the image, and the wetlands are founded in purple on the left side here. This is New Creek starting up by GFA coming underneath the bridge, running down New Creek along the road to Burning Hill Beach, out to Long Island Sound. So on the west side, we have public land and another piece of property, 26 Beachside Avenue between our property and the wetlands, and the the pinch point where we come in close is is across the street on Beachside Avenue.

This slide is an overlay image of the existing house and the proposed house. The existing house on this property does not conform with either FEMA or the water protection line regulations. It is in the flood zone and about four feet below other than sign flood elevation and most of the house is below the elevation nine contour. Our plan is to retreat from the lowland areas on this property and to rebuild on higher ground with a more environmentally resilient design that complies with FEMA, the water protection line ordinance and with zoning regulations. Proposed work has been approved by the conservation commission, flood and erosion control board, hospitality health, and historic district commission has waived the hundred and eighty day moratorium on removal of the existing house.

So summarizing zoning considerations, this property is a 2.06 acre parcel in triple a zone. The proposed residence qualifies as a three story structure because the basement counts as full story in relation to existing grades. Although it will generally be perceived as a two story residence except at the narrower west elevation, which includes a walkout basement. So this is the lower level, the basement level. This is the Ground Floor level.

This is the 2nd Floor. I know it's hard to visualize from these images, but it makes a little bit more sense when we look at the elevations in the section. So to the red line is the existing average grade. The blue line is 50% best basement headroom, which is above its average existing grade, which triggers the basement and being counted as a story, although it will be perceived on these two elevations, the north and south as a two story building. This is east and west elevation.

The east elevation, which is on the bottom of the image, is the side, the narrow side that will face the street. It will present as a two story building towards the street. Basement is fully below grade on the street side. On the west side, which is the upper image, it will appear as a three story. That's where the walkout basement is.

This is the same information on a building section showing the street sign on the left and the rear side on the right. And a crop these cross checks that can show the same information. We are firming up against the house to comply with the FEMA regulations. The house is set at the elevation it is so that the lower level is at design for the flood elevation of Elevation 14. Summarizing excavation and fill criteria, proposed grading activities extend more than 25 feet from the principal building, driveway, pool, and septic areas, which in turn sponsor an application for the excavation and fill permit.

This grading beyond the 25 foot envelope is necessary first to fill in the footprint of the existing house, which we saw earlier in the existing conditions survey, which is at Elevation 9, feet below the design flood elevation, and to resolve grading to the proposed new residents and to ensure its compliance with FEMA regulations. Total proposed excavation and fill is 3,918 cubic yards, which is less than total allowable excavation and fill, which is 4,164 cubic yards. The maximum allowable cut and fill is 10 feet. Maximum proposed fill is nine feet. Maximum proposed cut is less than one foot.

Proposed fill I guess I should go to the topo here. Proposed fill does not exceed a ratio of point two or 20%. The fill relative to distance from the property line, No fill is required at the septic system. All soil in that area is to blend grades, existing grades with the proposed residence. The maximum proposed slope of all new grading is 20% or one foot vertical rise and five foot horizontal run.

No grading is proposed within five feet of the property line except where the driveway interests the property. We propose relocating the driveway, which is on the lower portion of this site plan to work more effectively with existing topography to reach the new higher building sites that minimal grading will be required for the new driveway All of these criteria meet the requirements of the excavation and fill regulations. Summarizing coastal resources, as noted earlier, the site is in the coastal hazard zone A 13. It's also adjacent to general coastal resources, shore lands and tidal wetlands across the street on across Beachside Avenue. We plan to protect the adjacent coastal resources before, during, and after construction.

Our civil engineering documentation includes erosion and sediment control plan to be implemented before beginning any construction activity. In addition to sedimentation control around the perimeter of the construction activity, the plan also includes anti tracking pads at the existing and proposed driveway curb cuts to retain loose debris on-site. The green line here around the perimeter of the site is the sedimentation control fence. The two amber colored rectangles are in anti tracking pads. There is additional silt and sedimentation control for stockpiling materials.

So that's double isolated inside the perimeter fence. Our civil engineering plans also include stormwater drainage calculations and stormwater storage and infiltration management designed to handle a twenty five year storm to improve the quality of water runoff and to reduce surface runoff below existing levels. That's those systems are shown on this plan. And finally, additionally, we are proposing a substantial landscape mitigation plan in vegetated buffer planting, including over one dozen shade trees, plus one story flowering trees, nine evergreen trees, and dozens of shrubs. We believe our application is consistent with the town's conservation and development plan to maintain and enhance community character to limit intensification or expansion of development by replacing one non conforming single family residence with one compliant and more resilient single family residence and to preserve coastal resources by protecting them during construction with silt and sedimentation control and afterwards with buffer planting.

All proposed structures including the residents terraces swimming pool will comply with all environmental and zoning regulations. In conclusion, the proposed design includes a new sanitary system, stormwater drainage, and to to manage water resources. We have also provided a landscape mitigation plan proposing a significant amount of vegetation to provide wildlife habitat and to buffer surrounding low lying areas. Thank you for your time. I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you, mister Marks. Appreciate it. When let's see. Michelle, you're next. Feel free to unmute for us. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. So this implication is, for 30 Beachside Avenue. It's a conforming lot with 2.06 acres and a resident's AAA district requiring two acres. The lot is wholly within the coastal area management boundary, the waterway protection line ordinance, and within the hundred year flood zone.

Sorry. The applicant is request oh, there are steep slopes and wetland, but no wetlands on the property. The application is the applicant is requesting special permit site plan approval for nonexempt excavation and fill pursuant to section thirty two eight. The proposals are proposal is to add 3,918 cubic yards of cut and fill where the regulations permit 4,162 cubic yards. And then the depth of the excavation and fill is nine feet at a maximum where 10 feet is is permitted.

The application also requires coastal site plan review after the new single family dwelling and associated improvements. There is a 230 foot vegetative buffer ranging from 10 feet to 40 feet wide along the rear of the property and consisting of salt tolerant plantings. Comments from the DEP dated December 2 recommend the applicant ensure installation and maintenance of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures during construction and ensure that the elevation of the structures meet FEMA AE zone standards and local flood management standards, which which it does. From the engineering department indicate the proposed activity doesn't have any adverse impacts to drainage grading or other public safety concerns, considerations. And the flood and erosion control board approved the application on September 3.

Also, conservation commission approved the project in September and the planting performance bond to cover the cost of the plantings will be submitted to the conservation department prior to issuance of a zoning permit. And lastly, the Azpedag Health District issued approvals for both the house house and the pool, last year. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate it. Commissioners, who wants to weigh in? Beachside Avenue. Questions for the applicant.

Feel free to put your hand up if you have any questions at all. Alright. Mister Marks, I only have a few. First of all, both the pool and the house itself, are gonna require poured concrete. Correct?

Yes. And

are you going to have to park out on the road and use an aerial boom?

No. If there is an aerial boom for concrete, there is room on the property for the trucks. They this will not be staged from the street.

Very good. And and and I assume that, goes for other materials besides just concrete.

That goes for everything. It's it's a two acre site, and there is enough level ground for staging for, contractor parking and material storage.

Okay. I did notice that one of your neighbors has recently passed title, and I'm wondering, are you aware of any plans there that might intercept with yours?

We we as a matter of fact, we lost that project. We were working on that property, 26 Beachside, and then, it was sold. And we do not have a relationship with the new owner, so we no longer know what's going on on that property, and we are not involved.

Okay. And your upland neighbor, they're aware that, you're doing this. You've reached out and contacted them?

Yes. Mhmm.

I have no questions. You've done a thorough job. I appreciate your time tonight. Other commissioners?

Thank you.

Seeing none, I'm gonna come back to, the public. At this time, is there anybody here interested in speaking about Beachside Avenue? Anybody in the public? 30 Beachside going once. Seeing none.

Michelle, the this is not coming to us because of the new regs on Coastal CAM. Correct? This would have been a CAM either way. Right?

Yes. Yes. I believe so. I mean, I need to come to you for the for the special permit site plan regardless.

Yeah.

But yes. Yes. I believe it would have come anyway, due to the proximity to the wetlands.

Yeah. Exactly. Actually, let me before we close this, mister Marks, the that river, which I I guess it's not really is that a river? What is that? That's

This this is New Creek, which is Creek. Yeah.

But it does get pretty high. Correct?

Flowing in and out. It it does it does flood. It it has flooded. It Yeah. I've seen it. Floods the road going into Burning Hill Beach, but it's not and there is a low spot. Yeah. There is some flooding around here. The house that's one of the reasons we're taking the approach that we are. We are trying to retreat from the lowlands, raise the structure, and make a more resilient housing stock.

So you're going up the hill, essentially? We're going up the hill. Yep. Alright. Thank you. I appreciate that. I I I I've seen it at times where you can't make the entrance on Bering Hill because of that flood.

Yes. That's true.

Alright. Any other commissioners? Last chance. Do we have enough information, commissioners, to close, or do you desire a continuance? Your opinion.

I will have some permission to close.

Thank you. Miss Second.

I was gonna say motion to close, but I'll second.

Alright. Very good. We have a motion to close. Let's go around the table, for a vote on that, miss Schavone. Close. Thank you. Mister Bolton? Close. Miss Injewski?

Closed.

Mister Kalise? Close. Mister Leibowitz is closed as well. Thank you, mister Marks.

Thank you.

Michelle, you'll, keep after this one so that we all meet at the finish line? Yes. Alright. Miss Zincheski, what is next on our

the next one on our agenda is item number five, which is 136 Main Street. It's a site plan application PZ2500676 submitted by one thirty six Main Street LLC, property owner for authorization of modifications to an existing parking lot reducing the parking from 35 spaces to 26 spaces located in the Business center Center district. PID is C10142000. Applicant's presentation time is five minutes.

Alright. Very good. And who do we have here from ARC? I see, Mike and Michael. Mike and Michael. Yes. Yes, sir.

It's, Michael Simbiusetti. I'm the development manager for Obishon Realty Company. I'm joined by the development associate Michael here.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Yes. First, I wanna acknowledge the fact that we are doing this retroactively or this this was a property we purchased, I believe, in July 2024. It was in October '24 that we actually performed this parking lot maintenance. It was in need of a restri obviously, in in need of a mill overlay,

but we took advantage of time the restripe as well.

Would do a I'm sorry. Sir. I'm sorry. Would you do me a favor? Speak a little bit closer to the microphone.

Oh, forgive me. I'm sorry. So we purchased the property in in July 2024. We conducted our standard tenant interviews, seeing what issues were, what areas were were there for improvement. What we heard time and again from everybody, including the office users upstairs and and not just the retail people on Ground Floor, was that the parking lot was an issue.

Congestion, traffic incidents, pedestrian issues. So when we did the mill overlay in October '24, we took advantage of that time to modernize the parking lot. In accordance with Westport's design standards for off street parking, the largest issue was the drive aisle was 17 feet. We moved that to the 25 feet that is currently required. In order to do that, we needed to lose a net of six parking spaces.

I'm sorry. Seven parking spaces that had to be reduced. So this was done in in the interest of of public safety. We went to ZBA. We got their approval fall or summer of last year. Sticking with the process here, we're looking for approval here for the site plan. Again, this is done retroactively. There's no excuse for that. That was our oversight. But we come at your mercy and look to hopefully get this approved.

Very good. Michelle, do you wanna give us a brief history?

Yes. Thank you very much. Michelle Prelley, planning and zoning director. So 136 Main Street is a point six four acre parcel in the north corner of Main Street and Elm Street and within the coastal area management boundary. If property is improved with a two story retail building, and the existing building was constructed in 1962.

So going back in terms of the history, in November 2024, complaint was received from the Westport Police Department notifying the PNC staff of the unpermitted lot restricing. On 01/27/2025, a notice of violation was sent to the realty company,

and

the NOV was responded to in in the next day. The staff indicate informs the applicant that the they would need to receive a variance to allow for the modification of the number of parking spaces from 35 spaces to 26 spaces. So so on in June, a variance was approved or granted to allow for that modification. The zoning board of appeals found that following unique and specific hardship, when they granted the application. Public safety, the removal of the existing parking spaces, and the resolution states is critical to address serious public safety hazards caused by undersized stalls and a narrow travel path that impeded vehicle maneuverability, emergency access, and pedestrian safety.

Secondly, it's a corner lot. And, given there's constraints of a corner lot with dual access points, a reduction in existing parking spaces is necessary to allow for a functional and compliant site layout that supports safe vehicle circulation. Those were the reasons for their granting of the variance. Again, this is in the Business Center District. This regulation in this district as intended to meet the unique needs of the downtown area.

In 1999, a text amendment four eighty nine was adopted, which removed parking minimums from the BCD and required that all existing parking be maintained. And a full history of the Business Center District can be found in, on the website in the record. So the applicant asked after they received their variance approval for a site plan, waiver. Staff did not grant the waiver and instead, the request was to go to the full planning zoning commission for a full site plan review, so that's why they're here now. The lot previously contained 35 spaces, and is now, now has 26 spaces as shown on the plot plan dated the March.

Again, this action should have required approvals from both ZBA and PNC. But at this point, they have received the ZBA approval, and so now they are here to, authorize the changes that they made, up until this point. That's the history. Again, of course, I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. In fact, I think I will start with you, Michelle, if you don't mind. The existing lot, as was purchased by this entity, while it was not in compliance, whereas, it it could actually stay the way it was. Could it not?

Yes. Yes. That's right. Okay. It

yes. And are we aware of any, major reports from the police, etcetera, of any accidents, whether it's pedestrian or automotive?

There were 11 reported accidents between 2020 and 2023.

How many? 11.

That's a lot.

And at the time of our filing for this application, there have been none since we purchased the property and, redid the parking lot.

Okay. And and so when you bought this property, were you aware of, that there were so many, accidents in there?

I I can't speak for the team that bought it, but, we, I'm sure it did thorough due diligence.

Okay. Close enough. But, look, you know, you you you are before us because you didn't come before us. And, you know, we kinda always wanna be your first stop or second. In this case, you could have gotten ZBA first.

Just so that we all understood each other, because, coming back after and asking for forgiveness is not the Westport way. And losing parking in the downtown area is kind of a hot subject, as I'm sure you may be aware. And there are more than a few people who, and rightly so, would not wanna see the loss of parking. So I'm glad you're here so that we can discuss this. So I guess we'll start off by asking, is there any other parking configuration that you could have done that would not have lost those same seven spots?

None that would be in accordance with the Westport design standards for Ashley Park. No. Okay.

Very good. And you say there's no accidents since you've restriped it?

From the time of our filing, which was, I believe, in October. Michelle, correct me if I'm wrong there. No. There had been none.

Alright. Very good. Other commissioners, who wants to talk about the loss of parking downtown and this beautiful new parking lot that they've made? Deafening silence. I will come back then to, the applicant, and ask that you let's let's weigh it.

Let's actually see if the, public has anything to say. Hang on one second while I make that happen. Alright. Anybody here from the public would like to speak about 136 Main Street From the public, 136 Main Street. Very good. Seeing none, I'll now come back to the applicant and ask if there's anything else you would like to say as we wrap this up.

Nothing further to add, other than to say we've been doing this for the better part of a hundred years. We knew better than to not go through the standard channels for approvals. I make no, excuses towards that. I, we we need to be acting better, and I appreciate the the council speaking with us today.

Alright. Thank you very much. Commissioners, come back to you. Do you have what you need to close this? If not, we can, we can we can put it up to another day.

I I would make a motion to close.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you very much. So let's go around the room. Mike Kalise. Closed. Thank you. Ms. Injewski, of course, you're closed. Mister Bolton? Closed. And miss Shivani?

Closed.

And I'm a close as well. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Let me get this off my screen. Okay. Would the secretary read in the next item?

Yes. We are going into work session. And item number six is old business, which is 345 Post West, which is a special permit site plan of application PZ2500746 submitted by Blue Point Wellness and Westport LLC for 345 Post Road West LLC to permit relocation of medical marijuana dispensary located in the General Business District, PID number B07035000.

Thank you very much. Do appreciate it. Commissioners, it's back to us. Here we are. We have discussion. If, if there's no discussion, I'll accept a motion. Who has, who has something they wanna say here? Mister Calise? What was your question? Anything to anything to, you have a question about, any discussion in work session here about to whether to approve or not to approve 345 Post Road West?

We are I have nothing at the moment. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Other commissioners, miss Schiavone, mister Bolton, miss Njeski?

I'm in support of it, of approving it. I think that, it the location has, met with the standards that, it needs to meet. I also approve the use. I think medical marijuana serves a number of people in this community. And for the objection to the use, I would ask that people have compassion for that, that, portion of our community.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Mister Bolton?

So we closed this right before we adjourned last week. Right. I don't dispute the the, you know, the benefits of of treatment with a dispensary and what they have to offer. And compassion is definitely something that is a part of this, but I don't think it should carry this. And the only thing that concerns me, mister chairs, it it looking at the history of all this, because we went back to, like, '21 '18 and, like, 2017, eighteen, twenty last week, was that they've always had their eye on this particular one address for some reason.

It always seems to come back to that even though it's it seems like it's a confluence of really random stuff happening with the lease and whether the next place will be ready in time and things like that, but it always goes back to $3.45. And I also note that the application was filed, I think, within a week, two weeks after there was a reclassification attempt by the Trump administration to downgrade it. And I just I don't know why I'm just getting this, like, feeling and texture of a incremental approach to getting a recreational facility at three forty five. I'm not saying that's what they said. I know their counsel.

She's been in front of us before. She's really credible. She's smart. She's good. But she said that's not on the agenda, but I can't seem to get that out of my head with all of the novelties associated with this application. You know, it it's everything just connects too conveniently for my view not to at least have some weight to it. So I am and and the other and here's where I I want to ask Michelle and Paul. They've already been approved for the same exact type of business activity and facility, which is on the other side of town. Correct?

Correct.

Mhmm. There's no portability whatsoever to this subject to just the location being the issue?

We we always have to have they always have to have our approval for a move.

Understood. And, again, it it so it's not something that could be portable within town.

The it it's it the only portability is their own licensure by the state. Right. We're not doing anything with that here.

Okay. Alright. No. Because that was one of the things that was sort of, I want to get straightened out because if there was some portability, I'd be like, well, jeez, they're already here. But I think what I stated earlier really holds my opinion, and and I can't really support

it for that reason.

Alright. And do you will you entertain any counterpoints? Always always open to So you I I know that your tenure here predate comes after the approval of the medical marijuana side. I'm aware of that. So you might not be as fluent in what the details were with this address.

So I'm gonna, for the best the best way I can, fill you in on some of the details about 345. This applicant has never asked for 345. It has never been part of their, desire, their needs, or their ask. So they have always been quite content with where they were. What they did come to us after the legislature in this state made recreational marijuana available and approved it, they came in and asked during a during a pre op whether or not we, as commissioner, incline to allow them to become a hybrid and, be able to sell recreational now that the state has approved it.

We declined, and they went back to being good, habitants of where they were. As you have heard recently since then, the owners have changed of that complex, and the new owners wants to keep the pizza parlor and the liquor store but doesn't want the medicinal marijuana. So they need a new place to go. The reason they picked this according to what they said last time is pretty obvious, and that is it's already been approved. So we approved this as a site.

We did not approve the, the people applying for it. We approved BluePoint Wellness as a as the we chose them as the one to receive the blessing and thus be able to be the first one to open, but we did not approve a second one. It was it was not because the site itself failed. In fact, it meets all the requirements. So I I just want I want you to understand both of those.

The fact that the hemp was reclassed and downgraded by the Trump administration, look. He's he he would the the he has come to us and asked for recreational, and he has asked for it more than once. And I fully expect he might be back at someday in the future and ask again. The good news is it'll always be our purview. It'll always be up to us. And right now, apparently, there is no appetite for it, so he's going to continue to do his business. So I just wanted to, that helps you in any way, give you some background.

But there was a pre app, right, in in '20

The pre app the pre app was to change it was to become a hybrid.

Right. And that was but it was for $3.45, wasn't

it? No. It's for where they were.

Okay. That's yeah. That's I thought it was $3.45. That's why I said earlier

it's No. You're no. It has been yeah.

Alright. Alright. I appreciate that. That's good background.

I'm sure he doesn't wanna move because they have a lot invested in that building. It was beautifully outfitted, changed from a nail salon to a medical, marijuana place, and and I'm sure he's sorry to see it go. But, landlords are landlords, and so he wants he needs to move. Got it. Other commissioners?

I would just say that I am I'm supportive of this, of their move, And I understand what what commissioner Bolton is saying and the concerns about recreational marijuana, but it's it's such a highly regulated industry that I just don't I I don't think there's to me, there's not a risk. But if they move to this location, they're just going to start selling recreationally without having the proper license from the state and obviously without having the proper authorization from from Westport, neither of which they have. And so if that is what they want, they still have a number of hurdles to go through including us. And so I'm I'm I'm comfortable with them making the move. They've proven themselves to be, you know, a good neighbor, a good business that has support in town.

So I think this is this is fine.

And I agree with you. Alright. So, anything else? Mister Khalise, anything you wanna ask for or or get from, Michelle's here? Any anything still on your mind that you need to be able to make a decision? No. Thank you, sir. Alright. Michelle, do you have do you have a, a proposal on this one?

Yes. I sent a a draft resolution of approval.

Oh, I apologize. I didn't see it at all. Let me, go to my video tape here. Oh, there it is. I apologize. Alright. So let's take a pause here. We can continue with this one item. And if you so desire, we can make a vote, or we can pivot. There are several others that we have done tonight, which we could potentially go through work session and come back on this. Do you wanna finish this or take another one in in in instead?

I'd be fine finishing this one.

K. Craig?

Finish it.

Alright. Mister Bolton? Finish. And, mister Cleese? I think he said finish. It looks like he said finish. Alright. So I'm gonna make a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

I will second that.

Alright. Thank you. Has everybody read Michelle's resolution? I think it encompasses everything that we had, discussed. Correct? And I can't say I know it because I didn't see it. Hang on one second.

I'm I mean Yeah. I I went through all the conformance that it had con things that we had discussed. It's in conformance with the standards of 24, the general business district 32 dash 25, the medical marijuana dispensary section. Finding 15 says that the PNC fines application complies with 32Dash253. There are no schools, day care centers, nursery schools, public buildings, places of worship, public parks, and public recreation areas within a thousand feet of the property.

And it complies with the cap on the number of dispensaries as this will be the only location.

Yep. I see it now, and I'm reading through it. If you give me just one more second. Sure. Police comments?

Let's see what they say here.

Under modifications on the page of the top of page four, number one, the special permit solely authorizes use of the property located at it should be 345 West. So I'll modify that.

Yes. Thank you. There's no other tenants in this building. Correct?

No.

There was in the past, but that's that's gone.

Yes.

Okay. And I believe they said there was a set aside up stairs for that would be unused. Correct?

It's yes. So it's gonna be used by this a portion of it's gonna be used by the staff

Right.

And a portion of it is not gonna be used. But when you look at the parking, I did calculate the parking based on the whole building as reach as retail.

Alright. Very good. Alright. So do I have a second on my motion?

Yes. I seconded it.

Okay. Let's go around the room. Miss Shivani?

Yes.

Thank you. Mister Bolton?

Can I just momentarily pass?

Miss Zinjewski? Yes. Mister Kalise? Yes. And miss Lewywoods is a yes? I'm a yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. What else do we have that we can vote on tonight? We could do beach side?

Mhmm.

You wanna do that? Do you have the resolution there, Brie?

Yes. We have the resolution there.

Alright. Hang on one second. Has everybody had a chance to read the resolution?

Yeah. I I did.

So did I. Mister Bolton, mister Kalis, miss Shivani, are you all up to speed? Because if you are, then I will call for a, a vote here. I'm yeah. I'm fine. Okay. Very good. I'm gonna make a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you very much. We're gonna vote go around and vote. Miss Shivani, you're first.

Aye.

Thank you, mister Kalise. Yes. Appreciate it. Mister Bolton. Aye. And miss Zinjewski.

Aye.

And I am a yes as well. That takes care of two. What else do we have?

We could do 136 Main if you want.

Oh, yes. Let's get that one off as well. Does anybody have any, discussion in work session regarding this oops application? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion.

Motion to approve.

I'll second that. Let's go around the room. Miss Shivani?

Aye. And

mister Kalise? Yes. Mister Bolton? Aye. And miss Zincheski?

Aye.

And I'm an aye as well. Thank you very much, commissioners. What is left? Anybody?

The tech I don't the text amendment for the and fill. I don't know we wanna Well or wait.

I'll take your counsel on this, Michelle. Is there outstanding issues that, need to be, looked at on this? Because I'm fairly, I'm okay with it the way it is.

What do you mean do you mean with accessory buildings or with the two that I've designated? Accessory dwelling units.

Details. Yeah. I mean, I wanna spell it out. Alright. You know what? You're right. Let's let's let that one go, Tom. Let's bring that one back after you we've had a chance to digest that. How do other commissioners feel about this one? Are you ready to commit to it, or do you seek more info?

So, Paul, because ADUs have been, like, tricky for us in the past. Right? We forgot about certain things, and then we came back and visited it, and then some more ADU stuff came in. And only because of what you just said, I leave it open in case we didn't think of something we should have because ADU seem to be our bugaboo.

Well, we closed this. Did we not, Michelle?

Yeah. We closed it, but, I mean, we can discuss it amongst ourselves.

Yeah. So we're we're down to the discussion part before we vote. I am and just so you know, I'm a little annoyed at myself because this is the third item to come out of our approval of ADUs that we had to go back and kind of, you know, smooth over. I can't believe back when we did this that we didn't think about excavation and fill, but apparently, we didn't. So and we didn't think about yes, Michelle.

I was just gonna say it it it's definitely that's part of it, but I think we we didn't, look at accessory structures overall in terms of. So it is the ADU, but I think it's also it goes beyond that too. Thinking about the exemption beyond principal single family dwellings and the other thing. So I think yes. But I just wanna clarify it's not just the ADUs, but I I do agree with what you're saying.

Yeah. I mean, I kinda wanna get it done and on the books so that someone else can't come in in the ensuing time between now and whenever we rehear this for a vote and say, well, the opportunity was still open. So I would be in favor of approving of of motioning for an approval and then voting on this today. And if you guys wanna wait and think about it, cogitate, that is our prerogative.

Help me with some guidance. Motion to cogitate. Alright.

We have a continuance. Everybody else agree?

No. Yeah.

I'm I would be okay closing it.

As would I. Mister Chavoni?

And, yeah,

I'm gonna close. Okay. And, mister Cleese? Yes. Mister Bolton, I apologize, but you're outvoted. No worries. I know. Okay. We have a resolution?

Yes. We do. We have a draft resolution.

And does the draft resolution clearly state the difference of what we're adding in this?

Yes. If you look at the revised text that's attached to the resolution, you'll see where I struck out accessory building and I added in in red accessory dwelling unit and detached garage.

Yes. I see that now. Alright. So we would be approving that one and not the initial one. Correct?

That's right. Yes. That's correct.

And is that resolution before us?

Yes. And I have included the modifications to the text that are that are described in the text. I included that under on page three. It says modification. The commission finds thirty two eight point one point two should be modified to clarify which accessory buildings are exempt from review by the PNC commission. Commission further fines, ADUs, and detached garages should be added to the activities which shall be exempt from requiring excavation fill permit but shall conform to the standards listed in 32 e.

Alright. Very good. That's that's comprehensive, I think, as we can get. So I'm gonna ask for a motion.

Motion to approve.

Thank you. I'm gonna second that. I'm gonna go around the room at this point. Remember, we're voting on the, modified version. Miss Shivani, you're first.

Aye.

Thank you. Mister Kalise? Yes. Thank you. Mister Bolton? Aye. Thank you. Miss Zinjewski? Aye. And I am an aye as well. Thank you, commissioners.

Can I just ask you, is an effective date of March 2 okay?

What's today's date? February 2?

Yeah. Well, only because we had the other text amendment. If we're not doing the other text amendment right away, we can probably just squeak this in and do it earlier. We could bump this up to, you wanna say, the sixteenth, February 16.

So two weeks.

Yeah.

Fine. I I'm fine with that.

Okay. Thanks.

What's left? Anything?

No. Just, just the historic residential structures text, which I don't think we're gonna decide tonight. I don't know if we wanna discuss or we're just gonna postpone.

We did not close that. Correct?

We we did close it. We closed it. Yes.

So the only thing left is the discussion. I personally would love to see it done and gone off of our books and and in in play, that's just me. How do you all feel?

I agree with you.

Okay. Miss Shivani, what do you think? Do you wanna you wanna

go? Agree.

Alright. Mister Bolton, are you in favor?

Oh, the new POCD coming up. Right? This is the time we this is the perfect time to to approve this.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And, mister Kalis, I assume you also are in favor of moving forward tonight on this? Yes. Thank you, sir. Alright. Do I have a proposal?

There's just a couple of, like Michelle, I know you attached the revised version to the draft resolution. There are a couple of edits that need to be made to that, though.

Okay. Well, we can we can talk about that now. Okay.

Yeah. Because on page 19, it looks like you left in, like, right after item e. You would revise that language, and then there's just, a little Yes. Sentence that needs to be deleted. I'm sorry. What On page 19.

Oh, okay. Exactly. Yeah.

Do you see that, like, midway down?

Yep.

Okay. And then also on the next page, 20 in paragraph c up at the top, you had, recommended that and, you know, in going with what the town attorney said that this will be enforceable only by the PNZ. Mhmm. So Which is that out both and then and the historic district commission.

Yes. Okay.

And that's your first.

And then, Michelle, we also discussed the fact that, we were gonna have some words about acting upon it. Yes. That would be

Yeah. That was

From d, I believe it was?

Yes. Yep. 18.3 D. Okay.

I wanna make sure that there's words that accommodate action. Alright. Commissioners, we have now modified, resolution, and, we're we're looking for, we're entertaining a, a motion on this.

So just I'm so sorry. Just to clarify, we would leave in the subdivision section as proposed by Wendy. I just wanna clarify. I

don't have a problem with that at all. Thanks. That's

gonna go so.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you very much. Let's go around the room. Starting with miss Shivani.

Aye.

Thank you, mister Kalise. Yes. Appreciate it. Mister Bolton? Yes. Thank you, sir. Miss Zincheski?

Yes.

And I am a yes as well. Michelle, we are cracking them out here.

We are. We've done a lot tonight, and it's only 08:00.

So we're done, aren't we? But before we motion to adjourn, I do wanna remind all that you are invited without refreshments on Wednesday at noon, that's day after tomorrow, for our first, subcommittee meeting of the year, and it's a doozy. If you recall, we are reconstituting the rules revision, and Michelle is going to be using this subcommittee as a tool to apply for and approve things that will satisfy the new rule eight eight thousand two, which was handed to us by the state. So it's gonna be through this body that we will formulate our action plan. It will then, of course, if it's if something is, is put together, it'll then, of course, be then, recommended that it go to the full commission, at which point it'll bubble up to the commission level, and we'll all have another crack at it and be able to discuss it.

But the beauty of subcommittee is we get to ask questions and caucus among ourselves and get familiar with it. This is that, planning that we all love to, talk about, mister Bolton in particular. And so this is the right place to, show up if you're gonna come. There are other action items that Michelle has added in there. We're gonna correct the situation with ADUs or at least discuss correcting them.

There was one more.

Yep. We were going to well, I mean, we have we have on the agenda talking about the house bill and things we need to eventually modify there. We have What was

the third?

The MHP mobile home park.

Oh, the mobile home park. Do you recall that we've heard from constituents that they're being stymied in the finance market because banks don't lend to mobile parks. And most of you might know that those are not really mobile parks. You cannot drag that thing out of there. You can't hook it up to your pickup truck and drive.