Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Monday, 02/09/2026. My name is Paul Leibowitz. And, of course, pursuant to state law, there is no physical location for this meeting. The meeting is being held electronically and livestreamed at www.westportct.gov. This meeting is also being shown on Westport's optimum government access channel 79, which is subject to availability, and the public may attend and offer testimony during the meeting by using the meeting link published in the agenda prior to the meeting.

The meeting agenda is available at westportct.gov as well on the meeting list and calendar web page, and all written comments may be received prior to the public meeting and should be sent to pnz@westportct.gov by 12PM on the day of the meeting and intended to be distributed for consideration by members of the planning and zoning commission. All written comments received after that time of 12PM on the day of the meeting will be entered into the record, but not distributed until the next business day. And, of course, all of the meeting materials that we use are submitted and available at westportct.gov on the planning and zoning department's webpage under p and z, pending applications and recent approvals. So, again, as I said, good evening. My name is Paul Leibowitz.

I'm the chair of Westport Planning and Zoning Commission. And tonight, I'm going to be joined by commissioners Mike Kalise, commissioners Bree Injewski, commissioners John Bolton, commissioners Craig Shavoni, and I believe commissioner, Patrice Zuccaro will be joining us. And I actually, know that, commissioner Mike Kammire will be slightly late. Now because he's going to be late, what I am going to do is ask the commission members if we can shuffle the

Excuse me, mister chairman. I just wanted to jump in because I did wanna clear I went did wanna remind that we told Rick Redness that he could be first because he does have other hearings tonight. He reminded me of that because so

Yeah. I I do. I I remember that as well. Alright. So does that move our plans around a little bit then?

Yeah. I mean, I I think to stick with our word that maybe we should just do I'm sorry. One second.

Hey, Paul. Yep. Who's I'm here, and I could certainly hear those items until Ken Meyer gets here because I was

Well, we're not gonna we're not gonna have him I appreciate that. Thank you. Let we're gonna continue to liberate.

I could ask a question?

Yes, sir.

How long is the item that you were going to move up?

Half hour.

Oh, okay. We can live with a half hour.

Yes. Excavation and fill.

Oh, fine. Well, we can live with that. Thank you.

It's only a few cubic yards. Okay. Alright. So back to commissioners, and back to you, mister Vellante. Thank you for your, for sitting in. First things first item of, therefore will be, the substitution of Mike Vellante for Patrice Zuccaro. I don't see Patrice. Patrice, are you here? Yeah.

I'm here.

You are here. Alright. Thank you. Would you turn your camera on, and locate yourself?

Sure will.

Thank you. So, Mike, we have a full quorum for this. I do appreciate you stepping up, and please stay close. Next item of of business is an order, commissioners, to move an item on the night of. We have to have a two thirds vote.

We have six people here. Two thirds vote would be four. We need four yeses or more than three nos In order to move Hockingham Road, that's 15 Hockingham Road, up, which was the second item on the schedule, and it would go before the the redness and me presentation for seven eighty five and text amendment eight sixty four? Eight sixty eight sixty four. Yeah.

So the first thing I wanna do is, ask for, whether or not you agree that we can shuffle the calendar. I'm gonna go around the room and ask you individually what says you should correct miss Shivani. Sure. Alright, mister Bolton. Try that, button again.

Not working. I'll come back to you. Miss ingest

There it is. It's working now.

And mister, police?

Yes. Thank you. You're saying that six are sitting in on this? Yes. Why don't you have Mike sitting on this and get a full call?

Trees here. So? It's not the the question before us is whether or not we are switching the first item with the second item. That's the question.

Senate.

Alright. Mister Bolton, can you, affirm your, vote? Wave your hand. That's an up. Miss Zacarra?

Yeah. I'm fine.

Alright. Great. So thank you, commissioners, and thank you to the applicant, mister Donald Coombe. And so first item of business is 15 Hockenham Road. Miss Zincheski, do you have your calendar in front of you, your agenda?

I do. Would you like me to read this one in?

Yes, please.

Alright. Item number one site will be 15 Hocknam Road, special permit site plan application PZ2500712 submitted by David co Donald Coon for property owned by Ed and Mindy Tan to prevent nonexempt excavation and fill for the reconstruction and reconfiguration of existing retaining walls located in The Residence A A District, P I D D 13131000. Applicant's presentation time is fifteen minutes.

Alright. Mister Kulme,

the stage is yours. Good evening, everybody. My name is Don. I work for the Laurel Rock company as a project manager. Do you mind putting on your I I've tried everything, and I can't get it to work. I don't know why. Is is there something I'm doing wrong? I mean, I I've clicked on every button that looks like I'm turning my camera on, and for whatever reason, it's not working.

Check the camera cover at the top of your laptop?

Yeah. No. They

no. Yeah. That's not

the issue. It is a new laptop. We all we just issued, so I don't know if there's a setting in the laptop that's not I don't I don't really know. Any other suggestions? No. Please proceed. Okay. Sorry about that. So, anyway, I work for the Laurel Rock Company as a project manager. I was in charge of the project at 15 Hockenham Road, which started in '24 and went into '25.

We did go through all of the proper channels with getting civil site plan and zoning location surveys and and did submit a full permit application package. I guess what I believe happened was that the grading plan built by the architect didn't show some amendments we made over on the south side of the house. If you're looking at the plan, there used to be two retaining walls that ran perpendicular to the house, that had a a recess between them. You know, in other words, they were retaining the dirt, allowing the windows to have, full access to seeing the yard. We ended up taking those walls and sweeping them in and creating more of a window well, and then ultimately filling that that area in to give the tans more flat space.

I missed the regulation that state anything outside of 25 feet required this excavation and fill permit, and it didn't come up or out until conservation or actually the town engineer went out and picked up on the difference in in what the plan showed and what the actual grade was. So, you know, I I then went through, Kusidi

is

the engineer and and planning and zoning and and came up with, you know, all of the, documentation of what happened versus, I guess, what what was shown when we went through permitting. I don't know if that that sums it up. So what we're asking for is permission now to do what's already done.

Alright. I see materials. You you mentioned a a site piece. Is that do we have that?

Yes. You do. I I submitted it as part of the application. It it shows the the bubbles of what, you know, where the 25 foot area was, and then it shows you you see that?

Yes. Thank you. Okay. Great. Alright. Michelle, staff report.

Thank you. This application is again special permit site plan for authorization of excavation and fill beyond the exempt areas in relation to a pool, porch, patio, and retaining walls. But the conservation department issued approvals for the pool, pool house, driveway, and patio in October, and the health district also issued issued approvals for the pool house, but has not issued the final approval for the pool yet. So that will be a condition of approval. Projects were completed, but have not received so they have received zoning permits, but they have not been issued zoning certificates of compliance, ZCCs, since the construction exceeded the scope of the permits required and required the excavation and fill approval through the commission.

There are about a 157 square feet of steep slopes on the property and 4,900 square feet of wetlands. The property is served by septic and public water, and it is a rare lot with an access way. There is, in terms of the proposal, about 2,343 cubic yards of fill and cut is allowed, and they have done about 361 cubic yards. That includes 213 cubic yards of fill and a 148 cubic yards of cut. The regrading did not occur within five feet of the property line, and the project resulted in about a three foot change in grade, that also complies with the depth and the height allowance of 10 feet.

Comments from the town engineer dated December 10 state, the grading that was done does not appear to have any adverse engineering impacts with respect to drainage grading or other public safety considerations. Additionally, as a condition of approval and issuance of the zoning certificate of compliance, the applicant will need to file the resolution on the land records, which is standard for a special permit, obtain final approval from the engineering department, and obtain final approval from the Aspedot Health District. I don't believe there were any comments from any neighbors. Everything has been posted on the website and has been available to the commission, and I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate it. Commissioners, I think we generally refer to this as an oops application.

Yes.

Anybody wanna take a crack at it? Questions for the applicant? None? Okay. I have a couple I wanna ask you. What was the idea behind removing the two retaining walls or the legs of those retaining walls and then, closing it in? What what were you looking for there?

It was more or less unusable space. They have two young kids, and not a tremendous amount of yard space in the back. So we're just trying to extend flat area back there. So with those walls the way they were, they were just more like drop offs into a, you know, a a cavern or a recess, of land that that really was, I guess, unusable for for their kids.

Okay. Very good. And the the idea that the the grading levels were mislabeled as as indicated by the engineering department, how does something like that happen?

So the grading plan, it it you know, like all projects, they're always evolving, right, even through the, even once we've been permitted, but generally not such a way that it affects permitting. This one just happened to not show up on the grading plan. It showed up in the concept of doing that, moving those walls. So when the civil engineer, ended up getting the proposed plan layout plan, it didn't indicate any grade change over there. So therefore, they didn't include it in their civil plan.

Is that, is that somebody that your office uses, quite often?

The civil engineer? Both both the architect and the civil engineer. Yes. Typically, this doesn't happen. It's kind of an oddity. I can't honestly say I can't remember ever doing something like this, taking retaining walls and swinging them 90 degrees and, you know, filling in like that. It's situational.

And just for my own benefit, did you guys recommend that to the applicant or was or to the homeowner or was this something that they asked for? Sure.

So the it was always on the table. What do we do with that space? And it did it was a think tank of all of us, you know, coming up with what would be a logical, way of trying to capitalize and utilizing that that area.

Alright. Well, I can't remember a time in the past when Consudus Engineering was in front of us with an oops application. So I I I'll take everything you've said at face value. The idea here is to be looking for, you know, whether or not it was a ask for, forgiveness afterward instead of permission first. We do we tend to frown on that as you may well know.

Sure. I I understand that, and and I promise you it was not. It didn't never occur to any of us, honestly, that that this would would turn into a a mistake on our part. It didn't didn't even think about that, honestly.

Very very good. I, I don't think I have anything else on this. Does any of the other commissioners have anything regarding Hockenham? Mister Bolton? I'm sorry, John. I I I can't hear you. No. Nothing. You wanna unplug it and plug it back in? Standard fare with the when things go wrong?

Alright. Well, he'll be back, I'm sure. Any of the other commissioners have anything that they'd like to ask of this applicant? If I don't see it, I'm gonna go to the public on this. So is anybody here to speak from the public here to speak regarding 15 Hockingham Road special permit site plan? You can put your hand up or wave furiously at me or use the electronic device. Alright. Seeing none, I'm gonna come back to the applicant and ask Don whether or you have any parting words for us.

No. No. I just really wanna emphasize that it was an oversight and lack of experience, I guess, my part for for knowing that doing something like that was something that required I mean, I am familiar with excavation and fill, but it was in in my mind, I'm just thinking it through. I I was thinking we were just using fill from the site and not not making any great changes, but now I know. So I Alright.

Very good. Commissioners, everybody okay with this? You wanna entertain a motion here?

Shouldn't close.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you. We have a first and a second. Secretary will please record that. Let's go around the room. I say yes. Patrice? Yes. Yay. Thank you. Mister mister Kalise? Yes. Thank you. Miss Shivani? Yes. Miss Zinjewski? Yes. Okay. And mister Bolton? Yes. Hey. It's one of big

It's a reboot.

Yeah. Classic. That. Alright. Fine. Thank you very much. Thank you, commissioners, for moving this guy up. I'm sure it gives mister Kemmire just a few more minutes to come. In the meantime, Michelle, how much of the two applications does Bree have to read?

She doesn't have to just has to read really the application number and the continue when it was continued from and the address or the text amendment.

Hey, Paul. Should we talk about whether Mike should should sit on this for me? Because I don't mind, and he was here last week or whenever it was that it was on. And so he should have the opportunity to finish it if he wants to.

Well, this is our fourth go around on this, so it's not a question of, of familiarity. That that's up to you, Patrice.

It is sort of a it is sort of familiarity because he he's been more at least had it he's heard it more often than I have. So if he wants to sit for it, I don't mind.

Mister Valente, are you available?

I am.

Just flip your, camera on. Thank you very much. Where did you sit on this last week? I did. Last time around? And did you sit previously to that?

I didn't sit to the one before that.

Okay.

Alright. I I mean, I attend the number.

No. I'm just asking. And, Patrice, did you sit on this at all?

Yeah. I've sat

on it.

How many times? Twice. So, I'm not sure I understand why you wanna step off it.

Well, because he's more familiar with it. It's been on the he heard it last week, so he's up to speed on it. If he wants to sit on it

Are you are you not up to speed?

Michael Kalise wants him to sit on it too, so I'm okay with not sitting on it.

It it's not a popularity contest. I wanna know. No.

I understand that, but it's it they he was here he's heard it last week. It's it's it's he's had more opportunity to sort of sit and listen and talk about it.

Mhmm. Okay. And did you, review the tape, from last week?

Not fully.

Well, there's our real answer. Alright. So, that's absolutely reason to, step off. If you're a commissioner and you don't review, then, you should always be telling the, committee, the commission that you are not familiar with the proceedings from the last week. And for that, Michelle, does that we don't have to vote that. We can as chairman, I can just put mister Vellante in the position. Correct?

Yes. That's right.

Mister Vellante, you ready? You know which button is which?

Yeah. I do. Alright.

Very good. Mister Redness, the floor is yours.

Okay. I'm just a little confused with all that, but do we have seven members sitting?

Ready. Go.

Okay. The record, Richard Redness, Redness and Mead, and we have been at this for some eighteen months. I guess I will share my screen.

Michelle, you on top of that?

Should be all set.

Okay. So picking up where we left off at the last hearing, what we're talking about is 785 Post Road West, Toyota dealership here, splash car wash here, another IHZ nearby right here backing up to us, and we have a few asks. One ask is we're looking for a small addition to the height of the existing building so that instead of office over the store, we would have two residential units over the store. We still are way below the allowable density, and, a lot's happened in ten years since this was done. So we need more housing than we need office, so we're asking for your approval of those two units.

The second thing is another something we've learned in the last ten years and that is special needs individuals are using the state definition rather than The United States definition. It limits the applicability to an IQ of 70, and that eliminates a lot of very needy, well qualified people that could be benefiting from this type of housing, but it's an artificial 70 IQ that prevents it. So we would like you to change that. That's our second request. Our third request, is the text change for off-site housing opportunity, a tool in the toolbox that you have discretion to apply.

And at the last meeting, I was told, go back and limit the applicability. Limit the applicability. And coincidentally, I found out that Fairfield recently allowed off-site affordable housing, and they they had the word sole discretion four times in their opening paragraph, and they limited it to for sale units, which is another limiting tool that we're happy if you want to include that because as I'll show you, that's basically the big difference between for sale and for rent. The other thing was limiting it going forward. So we said, okay.

You can limit it as the they have to be IHZ at the time that this regulation goes into effect. So that would prevent any future applications. And again, if that's what you'd like to do, you can do that with these words. And lastly, we were asked what happens to prior IHCs and we said, well, we could limit that too. If you have your final ZCC, you're not eligible.

So you can limit this if you so desire to 785 and 1620, the clubhouse, which is hasn't even come back for its final approval, which you might remember, we had condominiums next door that were interested in perhaps having that join them and be part of their condominium, etcetera. So it would be a good tool perhaps in the future for 1620, but it would just be for these two sites if you decide you want all the wording in green. The standards we've gone through before, you have to be with a nonprofit. That's important in terms of oversight, supervision, etcetera. We think a fee in lieu payment is consistent with the affordable house trust fund, with your affordability plan, etcetera.

So we think that's a good tool. Whether it gets used or not is up to you. And then the overall evaluation, we still use the criteria that was put out by staff back in 2018, which I'll show you in a second, and we just added another sole discretion just to make sure you know you have that. So we have six zones over eighteen years, and there's been three off-site approvals that have been, acted on. Three, eighteen years, six zones.

And you'll notice that number two was a four sale development. Number five was a four sale development, and then number six was a senior development. So none of their rentals have asked for nor received off-site affordable housing. Again, this is not breaking any new ice in our region. Darien allows off-site.

Fairfield, we just learned, but we also learned Fairfield is at the AMI, which is a higher level. The units it doesn't serve as a lower income level. New Canaan, Wilton, Westport, and Stanford. So there are plenty of examples around town where you have that. So what what we're proposing is that one townhouse would remain on-site and be, de restricted affordable at 80%, and that would be either through our rental with Homes With Hope or perhaps for sale.

We're still seeing if we can make that work, and that might be with Ableis or or Homes With Hope. And then we were asking for off-site at 3 George Street. This is 3 George Street's location. It and again, this was subject to the pre op that we showed you as to abut GBD here along the post road. Obviously, we abut retail and you see what is close by.

This is a mixed use. This is Rogers septic over in here, 3212. So this is the location on George Street. It it was zoned commercial. Had a commercial use unit over the garage and the front house, and that is what it looks like now.

What we showed in our pre op was that could be expanded to be a special needs housing, which means instead of a group home with individual bedrooms, it would be in of it would be individual mini apartments with little kitchenettes and a private bathroom. Then it would constitute a unit, five, and it would generate a lot more moratoria points and serve for a wider range of benefits to the population. This is the staff memo from 2018 in terms of how can you evaluate, what are the types of things, and we're not limited to this. You you can use whatever you want. But this is what was approved right here, and then this is what we're proposing as a combination on and off.

And this is, you know, is it satisfied? Is it superior? So from a floor area standpoint, it is significantly more floor area devoted to affordable housing. Number of people served on the minimum size, three units with five bedrooms. This minimum would be three with seven bedrooms or it could be as many as six.

So we think that's satisfied. Fee in lieu, there was no contemplation ten years ago. Now what the fee in lieu according to your regulations would amount to 670,000. This is virtually double that which has gone into 3 George Street. Moratorial points, as I say, if it were three for sale, it'd be three points.

Three for rent at 80 would be 4.5. And here, minimum points and up to 9.5 if it were the special needs housing. The affordability level is 80. Here, it would be sixty and eighty. The location, the post road, you know where that is between the two car dealership and and car wash.

And then the other one is a combination of that same location in 3 George Street, which is obviously more residential, so we feel that's superior for people to live in. There is a one car garage, and this has multiple garages, a yard, plus a basement. The finishes are new. Obviously, same on-site would be new, and the special needs would be renovated. So we say yes in terms of the new.

It's the same, and the renovations would be determined with an application to you all. Affordability plan, again, instead of private, it would be with a five zero one c three as required by the regulations, either h, homes with hope or ableist. And the limit, so if it was three on sites, they have a forty year limit. If it's this, if it's on and off, it's one forty year and two without a limit. And again, the other issues have to do with involvement with our known nonprofit affordable units.

So again, we we have tools in the toolbox, and we're looking for those individual decisions. I think, you know, we've been at this for a long time. We got swept up in the hamlet. People were very concerned about precedent and what, you know, what's happening with the hamlet and what they did or didn't like. And it's it's been a long, long journey, but it comes down to now pretty simple asks.

We we hope it's simple now before you. Two units over the store, improving the applicability of special needs individuals, and then allowing a mix of on and off-site with a limiting text. And that would conclude our presentation.

Thank you very much, mister Rednis. Make sure to take down your screen share.

I I did. Okay. Is it still up?

No. I'm just I'm not I don't have two monitors today.

Okay.

Alright. So thank you for that. And commissioners, it is now back to us to try and arm wrestle this. I'd like to go last only because my questions are a little more specific. So I'm gonna come to the commission and see who's got oh, Michelle, I'm sorry. You have your hand up.

Oh, thanks. I just had a quick summary I wanted to provide. Yes. I just wanted to to let you know that supplemental staff comments dated February 6 were posted to the website and provided information on the revised text amendment that was submitted, which mister Redness spoke about, as well as information requested from staff. In summary, the request was that staff provide the zoning districts and supplementary use regulations that are that require on-site affordable housing.

In my first staff report, I only listed the six, I believe, districts and situations that we've allowed off-site. There are 11 zoning districts and supplemental use regulations that require on-site affordable housing of some sort. Some of them have not been used, but they are on the books. So I just wanted to put that information into the record. As well as I just wanted to also remind the commission, and I I don't know.

It's probably might be better in work session, but, you know, in terms of the July application, there's definitely the ability, as a reminder for the commission to say, you know, approve in part, deny in part if if if that comes up in the future, whereas you want to approve the the two units and not approve the off-site. There's there's options to for us to discuss. So if if there's any questions about that, we can we can certainly discuss it. And if you want any more specifics about those 11 zoning districts, I can go into that, but I just wanted to let you know the work staff comments on the website. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Didn't mean to exclude you there. Sorry. Alright. Back to commissioners. Hands? Comments? Question? Thank you, John.

It's more of a general comment, but I I almost feel this is a little bit of a war of attrition because it's gotta be the fourth or fifth iteration of this coming back to us since July. And if there you know, I know it's been going on for a long time, but it wasn't just the Hamlet. This thing's been what's going on and brought back. The first iteration had nothing to do with special needs, although it said it did. And I'm not sure how much progress we've made up until February '26 back from June or July.

Actually, I think it was this club in March or April actually of '25, it's been around. No question. I just don't see a seismic shift in anything here that would, in any way, still address the concerns that we had over the summer and last spring. And then there's, you know, the obviously, the big policy issue is is this a town that wants to endorse off-site affordable housing. I know there's a lot of folks around here who don't like it.

I don't like it, and there's a bunch of reasons, socioeconomic and otherwise. So I guess, Rick, I do have one question for you if it's appropriate. Could you give me, like, in thirty seconds or less, something that is significantly different from the first presentation you made six or eight months ago to what you presented over the last week or two?

Sure. I think there's a couple of things I can say. In terms of special needs, when we began this, which is over a year ago, we were working with the town to get more special needs housing. That is why it was included, and and this was on the record, and Michelle clarified it. The we had special needs housing.

We were looking to put special needs housing on other town owned land, not in a town owned building. So we started with that. And for reasons that included the planning and zoning commission reviewing Barron South because we also looked at putting off-site affordable housing there. We looked at putting special needs housing on Crescent Park, the four lots that the town owns there. And when it became clear that the town was not going to be prepared at this time to move forward on any town owned land.

I see Michael Kamara coming on. Is that a seventh member?

Yes. Correct. Your math is not wrong.

Terrific. Thank you. So so so that's the first thing, John, in terms of when you say it had nothing to do with special needs housing, it absolutely had to do with special needs housing when we started and where we've come back to. So, yes, there was things in between that we looked at, but we're

we've

been trying to address the issues that people have raised. And you at the last meeting said looking to limit the applicability, just part of what we've done here with these four ways of limiting the applicability. We also showed that Darien allows special needs housing in almost all their zones. So there's been a combination of things to try to address special needs housing. It was very successful at one thirty six.

There's a waiting list. There are Westport families that could benefit. And so we've been trying to do this. The only reason that we temporarily took it out was because the town was out and because if you remember, we had a property that in Saugatuck that we were working on and that was with Homes With Hope. And we you know, again, everything has to happen in real time in terms of actually controlling property, closing on property, it being suitable in terms of its location, etcetera.

So when the opportunity presented itself for 3 George Street coming on the market, we showed it to Homes With Hope, and we showed it to Ableis. And Ableis was particularly interested. It laid out very well for them. The location was very well, and they were excited about it. So that's how we've proceeded.

So that's, you know, that's again, and I appreciate your concern during the time period when it when it wasn't special needs housing. And I I understand your feelings about that, but know that it started there and it's still there right now. And I know some people last time said, we'll let ableist buy 3 George Street, and they can do this, and we can still have the three units on-site. Well, that's not gonna happen. Ableists cannot afford to go out and pay market value and then put in all the money to make the individual apartments and then rent them all out to, all affordable housing.

The way we did January, they got it for nothing, zero. And we got a $250,000 fund for them to be able to keep it up over the next forty nine years because it's town owned land and it was a lease. So the town got the benefit of a sale. They got $2,000,000 worth of improvements, and they get the land back. They get they get it back.

So each one of these is very unique, and these are tools in the toolbox. And we we think that we finally put all the clarity together. So I think that's what's different than, you know, other iterations that we've had.

Thanks. Good answer.

Anything else, mister Bolton? That's it, mister chair. Thank you. Other other commissioners? I'd like to acknowledge that mister Kammeyer is on with us. Other commissioners, any questions for mister Redness? I see mister Galisa stand up.

Is it okay for me to speak? Yes, please. Okay. Rick, I have some questions about George Street. This is currently a two family house. Is it occupied?

The front house is not occupied. I'm not exactly sure if the re if the apartment over is. I don't think it is. I don't think it's occupied. The only thing that's occupied is the back garage. I think there's a nonresidential use still there.

And there's a there's a residential living room in the garage.

I'm not I don't I don't think there is, but I'll get you that answer definitely. I I'm not sure that there's anybody in there.

What what I'm really interested in knowing is getting to the chase of all this. What are we displacing? I mean, this this is a a two family house with the ability for a third. I've always known it as a two family house. It was owned by a local contractor, Victor Burkowski.

And, you know, one of the concerns that I've always had about offset affordable housing is the displacement of existing tenants and existing structures and properties that provide below market rents out of the system. And the removal of those with as you well know, nothing is gained. If we got a two family house with two below market tenants in it and they're not part of the system, and we displace them with a couple of eight thirty g options or something similar or house this type of housing, then we simply put two people in the street or two families in the street, and we've replaced them with solutions which are part of what we need to achieve when we're looking for numbers or release of requirements or anything of that nature. I mean, I I I do always have felt, and you've heard this before, that our existing housing stock in Westport, which provide these provide these low market opportunities, is a very valuable asset. And I'm just wondering what what what what are we doing here?

You know, what happens to this property? It's you had mentioned more than once that it's available for purchase, And I had never really checked it out. I I went into the MLS system today, and it's it's not listed on the MLS for sale. And it's been held by a local builder whom has been before us a number of times since the single digit twenty thousands, 2520 something like that. So, you know, I wonder what every what he's really trying to do here and where they're going.

And in fact, what would we really accomplish? This is not about housing for special needs. I mean, god knows we need this. It's a great idea. Every opportunity that we have to achieve this is wonderful, and and we need to move on it. But most of these opportunities are created by the applicant. And if in the process, we're taking advantage of something that exists that's already an asset in our housing inspector, then we've not gained anything.

Oh, and and, Michael, you know, we we've discussed this a little bit before, but there are new board members. So I think it's worth discussing again and going through some of some of the points that you've raised. Couldn't agree with you more about naturally occurring affordable housing, being an asset to a community. The problem that we have is twofold in Westport. Number one, since the IHZ was created, 2010, we we have more than one a week housing being torn down in Westport.

So we don't have protection for the existing naturally occurring affordable housing. And I'm not saying that all those demolitions are affordable. I mean, I've seen in Westport, you know, million plus dollar houses bought and torn down. But many, many times, they are your post World War two capes, etcetera, being torn down. So how do we protect them?

And Well, I mean, what you're speaking of Can I just finish medical?

I would just like to finish these and then happy to go back. But the other the other situation that we have in Westport is we we do have the issue of eight thirty g. We do have the issue of moratoria points. And the way the state statutes work, your naturally occurring affordable housing does not count. And so you don't benefit from that unless it's deed restricted.

So you would need a, you know, a a different policy to encourage people in naturally occurring afford affordable housing to deed restrict their properties. The the couple of other points that you made in terms of who's not living there, one of the reasons we know about this house, and it it is no longer owned by the person who owned it as you cited, it's now owned by Ryan Moran and RPM Homes. So and the prior occupant in the past of this was a local developer who I can assure you is not affordable and was living in that house and made some of the improvements to that house. So you can't always make the assumption that the people living in these houses are qualified as affordable. So a, what are we protecting?

B, it's not protected. C, you don't get any points for it. So, you know, those are the reasons why we need tools and regulations here so we can take advantage of the opportunities to get some, special needs housing in a unique setting like this. So, and I and I was informed that the person that, living over the garage is leaving soon. I do not know that person's income, so I don't know whether that person is a qualified affordable person.

So I I think there's just a difference between theory and practice. So I agree with you in theory, but unfortunately, in practice in Westport, it just doesn't hold up.

Well, I mean, what you're doing is you're bringing into the mix these single family houses, which might be much smaller than a builder might want to build, and the willingness of a builder to buy one of these house because it's a lot ready to build on. This house has been sitting around for a while as proven by the land records. And it it's a it's a good opportunity for a young couple who might wanna buy, live in one side, rent the other side out, be part of the housing stock in Westport that we that we don't like to acknowledge exists. We wanna we wanna we wanna move everything into the system. And I mean, I'm not not against the I'm I'm no.

I I shouldn't even have said that. It's it's not a matter of being against her for anything. I've I've long been in favor of creating a regulation which encourages housing of this type. In other words, assisted living houses. So it's I'm not against your concept, and I'm not against your desire to see it happen somewhere.

I just wonder about the sensibility of recurring at this particular location. And also, when we use this kind of a development and and use it as a springboard to change our off-site housing rights, it makes me a bit queasy. You know, I wonder what we're really trying to achieve here. July has come before us numerous times, well beyond the sense of the sheer cost of carrying this through. So so why is somebody it's been turned on before.

No. No. It's not been turned on.

No. It's not been turned on before.

But it's been before multiple times. And I wouldn't submit that at this point in time, the sheer expense of carrying it through the process far outweighs any financial gain that the developer would make by moving this one unit off-site. So I I just wonder about the whole thing. It's just Well There are a lot of moving pieces here that that don't give me answers.

Well, I'd I'd like to limit the moving pieces. So we're asking for that site to be approved for ableist to own that property. We have an opportunity to do that. You approve it, it happens. If if it doesn't happen and this house goes back on the market, there's certainly no guarantee that some young family is gonna move in and rent it out and, you know, rent out the garage or whatever.

The house next door to us on on the West Side, I'm told put a lot of money into that house. Bought it, put a lot of money into it. So this could very well be a tear down. This could very well be another McMansion going in. It's a great location, a nice neighborhood, sewers. So, you know, we don't know what's going to happen. It would be nice to think that there is a young couple that could benefit it that way, but we have a burden in hand for ableist to go in and serve the community with all affordable housing before it goes back on the market, and who knows what happens.

Has it has it ever been on the market?

Well, it was on the market enough that, you know, Ryan knew about it and bought it.

When I pulled the history on the MLS, it wasn't on the market.

Alright. Gentlemen gentlemen, this, this is a wonderful conversation. I'm wondering if we have Mike, if you have any questions regarding, what the crux of the argument, which here, we're trying to do off-site. I I three George is very interesting to me too. But I'm hoping we can drill down on off-site. Do you have some thoughts for, mister Redness on that?

You mean in terms of the regulation?

No. I'm talking to mister Kalise right now.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Michael Kalise? Yeah. Your thoughts on off-site? Because I really wanna give him the feedback so that he'll know what he might be facing and when we vote.

I I understand that, but I'm

I

but allowing off-site under the, I don't I don't wanna use the word pretense, but other than the side, under the a concept which yeah. It only exists in people's minds that made no application. We know it to be an existing two family house, which means that it's gonna have two market rentals, below market rentals, and changing a existing zoning regulation with an even heavier burden that's speaking to off-site housing for affordable. And they themselves have resolved a portion of their financial structure that they felt was a burden by with the two additional units on top of the stores. And both of those units could be affordable.

It's not to say that they're forced off-site. They have plenty of options.

So if I could just follow-up on one point, Zillow had it for sale 04/1625. It went on the market at $1,000,003.09 9. Okay? And then it had some price reductions before final sale. I'm I'm not sure what you looked at, Michael, but that's what it was.

And a million $3.09 9, I would argue, is not gonna go to or anything over 1,000,000 to the young family that you're referring to. So that's what and again, in terms of why have we been trying to do this, And and we're we're not gonna make the units over the store affordable. We discussed that last time. Though there would be three townhouses. That's what we have said.

So if you approve the two units over the store, which I I can't imagine any reason not to. It we're not even close to the density allowed. And then you approve the text for Ableus in terms of the IQ, and you say you could approve the text even, but you could say, but we don't wanna use it here. So you have those choices, but the three units on-site would be three townhouses.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Mister Colise, anything else? Mister Feliz? No. I'm I'm

I'm I I'm good. I've said my piece. I mean, basically, if this were the acquisition of a single family house somewhere that they wanted to put this particular project on, I might feel differently about it. But in any event, I've said what I needed to say.

Appreciate it. You have all the information you need from this applicant. Alright. Other commissioners? We've heard from two. Miss Shivani, please.

Just a question. I thought I understood through when we heard this the last time that the George Street property would be developed or could be developed for Ableis and Homes With Hope without, redness involvement. Am am I clear on that, or is redness's involvement contingent on this?

So let me try to understand the question and try to answer it. What we what we said in terms of, again, theories, we were talking about what could happen to 3 George Street. And we said it could go it it can go back on the market, k, which is

if this is getting

if if this is denied, it you know, that's a very real possibility. If homes with hope bought it, which I they won't because it's too expensive. But if they did, they could use it for two families. If Able has bought it, which they won't because it's too expensive. So those were debt those were in regards to what could that property be used for, and that was more from a neighborhood perspective as opposed to a planning and zoning perspective. K? So those are off the table. So if

So the only way this is gonna be developed for Homes four Hope and Abliss is if it's part of this project is what you're telling. Correct.

Correct. If it if the three units stay on-site, three townhouses stay on-site, that is entirely up to the applicant to decide. Does he just do them himself? Wait to forty years, and then they're no longer affordable? Does he lease them to a nonprofit? Does he sell them? All that is out of your purview.

Wait. The three townhouses on-site, if they were on-site, they would be

transferred to Ableist to manage? No. No. What what nothing we're not proposing that at all. If there are three units on-site, the property owner will do what they want with them. That's not up to the commission. We're not asking. That's like any other affordable on-site. They will lease them to whoever they qualify and put in there.

Okay. So how does then the, the upper story residential fit into all of this? And I I had to I have to say I'm a proponent of upper story residential over commercial spaces. But how does it fit into your equation here?

Okay. Great great question. So the office that was approved way back when was actually thinking about an office for the applicant. That's not in the cards anymore, so we don't need that. So the IHZ regulations allow 18 units per acre in the commercial zone and 12 units per acre in the residential zone.

So we haven't used any of the commercial zone for residential. So that's a completely separate request to now use some of our residential in the commercial zone. The affordability doesn't change because it would it went from 14 units, which rounded up to three units, to 15 units, which is still the same three units. So it was approved at 14. They combined two units into one.

So there's now 13 units in the back, two in the front, that's fifteen, twenty percent is three. So that's why we still need the three units. There's another equation that you have to do that I can go into if you really want to, but it's it gets very there's a lot of interactive requirements in the zone. But that's why we're being asked to do that, but it doesn't require any additional affordable housing to do it. Okay.

Thank you. Other

commissioners?

Yeah. I just have one question for Rick, and thank you for all the details. Of the three units to be supplied on-site on July, how many bedrooms are those?

Two each. Two each. Alright. Thank you. Yeah. Originally approved was five bedrooms. K? Because a smaller unit was approved in the other building, which was a flat. And so now we we're going to three townhouses. And, again, I can explain why if we need to.

You will with me.

Okay.

Other commissioners? Mister Vellante, that was it? You good?

Yeah. Yeah. I had I had all

the information.

Thank you. No problem. Comments, criticisms, corrections, miss Zinjewski?

So the the only real question that I have, is probably a quick one, is in this latest version, you included, an effective date in there, as of the effective date of the the regulation. And I was just could you just explain why that's included in there just because regulations aren't retroactive by nature? So I I was just I didn't understand why that's necessary to have that in there.

Well, the the that wasn't for retroactive. That was the proactive part. That in other words, again and it's funny. If if Patrizia was on here, she she would be arguing for more inclusion. If it's a good idea, we should do more of it. But as a result of the last meeting, we said, how can we limit this applicability? I understand both. So if the concern is setting a precedent and then someone else comes in for an IHZ and says, hey. I'm doing an IHZ and like, four fifty five that we have before you, it's a rental. And they said, well, we wanna do our off-site.

They're ineligible. They're ineligible because they're a rental. They're ineligible because they're coming after the effective date of this. So so we we we preclude anyone else from qualifying going forward. The going backwards is the ZCC so that the existing IHZs like the one right next door at 793 could come back and say, hey. We wanna take ours off-site. Now besides the fact that it's your sole discretion to let them, this would preclude them from even asking.

Okay.

So if you've already finished and you're occupied, you're done.

Okay. Got it. So I'm just gonna you know, I we were talking about theory and, you reality and what's gonna happen in practice. I do like, in practice, what you've proposed, I think it's it's it's a good idea. The bridge or the the inclusionary housing zone being used to allow that off-site there. Like, that that's a good property that you're or a good, affordable housing off-site that you're proposing. And my concern is just, you know, what else could happen if we approve this text amendment. Then it's the unknowns. I think that we're all just trying to trying to prepare for here. And I I think what you what you just explained to me, I don't read this, the way it's written as actually doing that.

I think there's a better way that this could be worded so that no applications for other IACs come after the effective date. But okay. Thank you for explaining that, and, also, thank you for explaining the the for sale unit piece of it. Because I also wasn't totally sure why that was added, but that's all that's just restricted so that it will only apply to those two those two properties.

So you raised a a very interesting point, and there are other ways to do it. What you did, if you notice when I pointed out the Roger's septic, you approved Roger's septic with a sunset clause, which basically said, you can do it here, and then it sunsets. You did it there. You can do it here. You don't have to include it so I so $16.20 is eligible. Yeah. You could you could you could give it a sunset clause, and so when they come back in, it's

not available. I'm not suggesting You're giving that it's a it's an

option for us. It's not a request on your part. Got it. Okay. Correct. Correct. Also, one more thing. You didn't even hear the fee in lieu of payment. And since this particular application is not asking for the fee in lieu of, and I know that'll move it. I I certainly questioned how all the fee in lieu works. I think other commissioners have as well. And I'm like, we really didn't get any more explanation about the fee lieu of this. So if this were to go forward, is that a requirement that that stays in here, or is there any benefit? Is there any anticipation of if we leave that in there, are you actually going to come back and ask for a fee in lieu of?

So the the answer is no. We're not. Okay. B, you can remove it. We don't care. The reason we left it in is because it's in your affordable housing plan. It's in the affordable housing trust fund documents that you have this tool in your toolbox. So what we do when we do regulations is we try to make them as useful as possible. But in this instance, we don't need it. You wanna take b out, by all means, take it out.

No. I I appreciate that that you drafted this more broadly, than just for your specific property so that it isn't, you know, the spot zoning. So I do appreciate that, but I just think there's lot of open questions about how that might work. And so I'm not particularly comfortable with, with the fee in lieu of it. At this point in time, maybe in the future, if it's all explained and and having Okay. Better better capability of, like, asking, like, questions about what that actually means. But right now, I'm I'm not I'm not comfortable with the fee in lieu of anything. Fine.

By all means, take it out.

But, okay, those are those are my only real questions, just kind of about the structure of how this was written.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bree. Do appreciate it. I I I my list is pretty long. Before I dive into that, I just wanna see if mister Kammire has anything, that he's unsure of who wants to ask.

No. I think everybody's done a good job. I'm still I'm in the camp of these are you know, George's is a great idea, and I'm in the camp of should this be linked or not. I don't know if I have any questions relating to it. I'm listening, and I'm looking forward to hearing what you asked, Paul.

It's it's some basic philosophies here when this slot was approved for what's built on it. Right? I think we've asked Rick a ton of questions. I think Rick has come forward with some great framework. And as you said, we have the choice to adopt the framework, but not for this you know, adopt the framework for the text amendment, but not for not apply it to this project. I know that's not a goal, clearly, of the developer, but I'm just you know, it's that's our prerogative as the commission. Do we think it's appropriate or not? Right? But as far as questions go, no. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to ask.

I think our fellow commissioners have asked all the questions, and I don't need any more answers.

Mister Redness, wanna take a break or shall I dive in?

No. I just want I I know that Michael came on late. I didn't know if he heard the Fairfield words that we added because you you had specifically said to limit applicability. I don't know if you heard what we added to limit. You

can go forward and repeat. Okay.

So I I can bring up the text, but but what we added was, we added two more times the word sole discretion. They they had it four times in the opening paragraph for recently approved off-site housing in Fairfield. So we added two more sole to the sole discretion, and plus you did have the legal opinion on that. We added the criteria that you had to be for sale housing. So rental housing would not be considered for off-site.

It has to be for sale. That's something that Fairfield did. It applied here, and that's a good line in the sand. We also then did two things to limit applicability, one going backwards and one going forwards, and we just went over that with what Brie's questions were. So I think you got those two.

Right. And I got that, I guess, on that. Yeah. No. Look. Part of me says you're disincentivizing people to not sell it. You're you're to create rental property. Right? You're incentivizing by allowing the off-site. You're incentivizing, hey. Buy it and and sell it and do your affordable off-site. Great. Go make a I'm saying it like, look. It's not our bag about with regards to go make a pile of money or not. Right?

But our our job is to, I guess, there's a mandate of affordable housing in the state. Right? That's our job. So we approve something for affordable housing. Now you're saying, if you sell these units, you can do your affordable off-site. You will look. I'm a strong believer that you will make more money by doing that. If you rent them and you have to do it on-site, you're going to make money potentially. I don't really know the economics of it. I'm not here to litigate the economics of that.

But you wanna keep incentives aligned. I don't know if that does that, although it does really limit the scope of this. Right? I get what you've done. That makes sense. That's my only comment there.

Oh, in terms of aligning, you know, it's interesting, and I was on the governor's task force when we set up the moratoria points in in nineteen ninety nine, two thousand. And one of the things that came out of it was rental versus affordable. And so affordables

Rental versus affordable for

I mean, rentals versus for sale. Sorry. Rentals versus So for you get an extra half point for a rental as compared to for sale.

So that incentivizes the town to want rentals, but it doesn't the town isn't the one paying the foot in the bill for any of this. Right?

That's correct.

It's it's mister developer, and mister developer is not in now even more incentive unless the economics of rentals are way better, then the developer is incentivized not to do this type of thing and fine. So here's By the way, it's good for the town. I get it. It's good for the town. Go find some other property and protect it. I get that too. I get the argument. I I'm just this is not this is not an easy thing. No. It's not.

No. It's not easy. And I get this question all the time about why so many rentals. Why so many rentals? Why are so many developers doing it?

Hundreds and hundreds of units and they're leasing up as opposed to for sale. And, you know, it's amazing some of the reasons that you hear why in terms of what discourages homeownership. I'm a big believer in homeownership and sharing an appreciation. It's very, very difficult in affordability because your appreciation is limited to the increase in area media and state median income. So if you own it, you put in a new roof and you, you know, fix up and replace things and do things, you don't get your money back.

So so there's it's very difficult with homeownership. Also, our federal policies and taxation. If you do of housing and you sell, you're you're treated like ordinary income versus if you have rental property, you can depreciate it. It's there's all these thinking way above my pay grade that discourage homeownership. So I I and I'm a believer in it, and that's one of the reasons why we we've worked with HDF over the years, which is affordable homeownership.

But, again, it it's there's a lot of balls to juggle. There's no question. But we have an opportunity here right before us, real life, real time. So, hopefully, we can make this happen. And it's more people, more more points, and Yeah. Hopefully, we can do it.

Mister Kemer, any We've been

talking about Ableist, not Homes With Hope. Right? This is an Ableist project, not a Homes With Hope project?

Well, the where we are with that, and we're we're been talking to Homes With Hope, as you know, for many years. So if the townhouse on-site turns out to be a rental, we've we've been working with Homes With Hope to manage that for the forty year period. That's that's what we're looking for. If it goes for sale, we've been talking to both Ableis and Homes With Hope as to how could we work out a sale of that, and that has not been determined. That could be either one of them if it went in that direction.

So that's that's where that sort of splits.

Who's responsible for the paperwork with deed restrictions and and making so that we get the points.

So that that's a combination of Michelle and the law department.

It's not on the developer or sorry. Oh, yeah. No. The developer

has to satisfy Michelle and the law department that the deed restrictions are consistent with eight thirty g.

Department of the town or a law department of The town. So Homes With Hope or Ableis is not responsible for the paperwork?

No. If if we were to do, like, what we did at 01:36, Ableis was responsible for the paperwork and worked that out with the town and the town attorney as to what those deed restrictions would be. That's if it if it's a situation where they are the responsible party. If we if we so if we under the proposal we have before you, ableist would be responsible in terms of satisfying the staff and the law department on the deed restrictions. Keep in mind that that would have another step to go if that was not going if it was gonna be a group home, it's one thing.

We don't need anything. But if it's going to be well, we would just deed restrict one unit. It but if it's going to be special needs housing, then, you know, it would have a similar deed restriction to what we did at 136.

And if and if it and if we don't if the decision is not to go off-site, it's only on-site who's responsible for that paperwork? The developer. The the developers.

RPM homes. Okay. That's it.

Is is, the ZCC contingent on that paperwork being submitted properly?

Final. Yes. Always.

Okay. So is this an administrative burden to either Ableist or Homes With Hope if we go in that direct if you go in that direction?

Which which direction? You mean with them

with them? Site if you go off well, I guess if you're on-site and homes with if you're on-site, it's on RPM homes to make sure everything is right. So there's no there's no administrative burden for anyone. If you go off-site, is it who's where's the burden lie if we go off-site with administrative work to make sure the points get done properly?

Well, the well, the burden in order to satisfy this package, the burden remains with the developer until the town is satisfied. What what happened at 01:36, and Amy Amy is away, and she's on here.

No. I'm I'm here. I'm here. I'm sorry. I'm in Florida with my my kid. I'm sorry. I I just wanted to can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. It's not an administrative burden. The organization, manages. We make sure that the SMI is in compliance and the documented disability, every year. So it it hasn't been a problem in Darien, and it hasn't been a problem at Westport.

Thinking that you're ableist. Right?

Yes. Yes. K.

And Helen is on too if you

No. But this isn't really germane to what we're doing.

I I we're I'm I'm done.

I have a question.

Where are you? Oh, there you are.

There I am. So 122 Wilton Road. My understanding is that the applications of kind of four points have fallen through the cracks. In talking to Michelle, she said both that homes with hope needed to do paperwork as well as Westport.

What's going I'm sorry. Should we be doing this now?

Oh, if you don't think we should be doing now, that's that's fine. But it did tie into what Michael brought up is where's the administration of

So I recognize that both of you are nibbling at it, and I know that's because we have an issue with the points not being allocated correctly. However, mister Redness is here to find out about off-site.

Well, again, no. Thank you, Paul. But I I also don't want anything if there's something that happened with that, which remember was an eight thirty g that the developer is a true nonprofit developer, made a great deal to sell that to Homes With Hope, through all of Helen's efforts with the state and the town, etcetera, and increase from six affordable to be all affordable. So, you know, but I I I've heard about this concern that people have about the points, etcetera, and I don't want, you know, a good thing that has a little something issue that needs to be worked out. A, diminish that effort because that was phenomenal and cloud our effort, which is entirely different, which we've done successfully before without any issues.

So to that extent, I'm glad it was brought up because all these issues, you know, let we gotta sort them out. So we're making an informed decision.

Well and also to those who wanna know the answer to that question, and I will count myself among you. We will get our answer because our staff, our department, is required to finalize that, and they will do their job. Right, Michelle? A nod as soon as the wind.

Yes. That is correct. We are working on it. It's we're finalizing paperwork for three of the units, which the income levels are slightly different than what we can get points for, so we're working on it with Homes With Hope.

Remember, not getting our points or finishing our paperwork is not part of this application.

I have a question. Sure. Is there a reason why the unit allocated for, affordable is designated special needs, or could that just go up to regular in the regular affordable equation?

Yeah. So, again, I apologize if I didn't make it clear. The unit that would remain the townhouse that would remain is 80% rental unit, whether it is owned by the developer or owned by Homes With Hope or owned owned by Ableis. So that is not designated as anything. There's no definite special needs.

There's no definite well, no. If the package includes one or the other, a nonprofit developer will be in charge of that unit for the forty years that it exists. But it's doesn't necessarily mean it's gonna be special needs. Could be, but it doesn't mean it has to be.

Okay. Thanks.

All good? All good. Other commissioners? So, Rick, I'd like to get a crack at this. There's a you you certainly gave us a lot to think about.

Now as I said to you the last time you were here, you took a very complicated situation and made it worse. So I'm gonna try and untangle this Gordian knot that you wrapped in a question and surrounded by, confusion. First thing I wanna say to you is I'm, I'm in favor of off-site housing. However, I think it comes with limitations, and I think you've done a good job of trying to put those limitations into place here. And I do recognize Darien's attempt at it, and it seems to be working.

And I do know that Fairfield is now, approaching that. So And there's no reason why Westport can't follow suit if done correctly. I haven't heard a single reason why it shouldn't be done. I've heard a lot of supposition about precedent, about scary monsters under the bed. If what if you do this, you open the door. I'm not afraid of the door if we're the ones controlling the knob. And so sole discretion means a lot. So the first thing I wanna do is drill down on that word, soul. I wanna make sure this is ironclad, dead clad. There's no there's no wiggle room.

If you're coming at us in ten years from now, you can't blow a hole in that. As as Brie said, the the verbiage is what counts. And I wanna make sure that that's what counts because I don't wanna come back and hear, well, we should've done that when Rick was with us. So just, just soothe my nerves with the word soul that this thing is truly bulletproof, and it is our sole discretion.

So, I mean, obviously, Fairfield felt the word was important, put it four times in its opening paragraph. And if someone comes to you as an applicant and says, I wanna do this, and it's terrible. It's a rundown house in a rundown neighborhood, you know, and it's just a bad location and nothing about it. And then you deny it and they take you to court because they said, hey, you did it before. You gotta do it now.

I am not a lawyer. I you've checked with your law department. I've been doing this almost fifty years. I've never seen an application that has discretion that was overturned because of someone saying that, no, you don't have discretion. Now there's a difference if it is a site plan and it meets the regulations Right. And you don't like it, but those are your regulations.

Right.

This is a voluntary thing that you do. It's like when you do a pre op. You have to sign the paper that says it's nonbinding. You all and you've done it before. You've said to somebody, hey. Yeah. We like this idea. Then they come in with an application. It's, woah. That's a little bit too much.

Okay. So Right. And then you have the I recall the first time around, you gave us, the 16 criteria. And so just wanna, jump in there. At if it's our sole discretion, it can be any one of the 16 or all 16 of them or any combination of the 16.

Or number eighteen, nineteen, whichever you come up with, and,

you know,

you you decide for some other reason. It's in a floodplain for some other reason.

And then, I did notice that one of them is, that we asked for as a condition or you suggest that we ask for as a condition that the quality be the same or better. And so and so that's interesting.

Yeah. Quality is an important consideration, again, because you're the judge and jury. And if someone is, you know, building something on-site and it has granite countertops and the one that they wanna do off-site, you know, is plywood, you know, you you can say that the, you know, the the that alone knocks you out.

You know? I get that.

Not saying that it necessarily would. It could be fantastic other than that. But

No. I was actually thinking just the other way around.

Okay. Alright.

So I I don't believe it it it has a precedent setting effect. I know people like to, to think about that, but it's only precedent if we allow it. And so if it's sole discretion, then it's not precedent. And so to me, that is a that's a workable I believe that what what I'm hoping is that that will outlast all of us, and therefore future commissioners will look at this and say, what they had in mind. That's what I'm looking for is to make sure that that's clear here. Let me switch topics and go to sixteen twenty. What effect do you have? What effect does this have on them in your mind?

So if you allowed this to be approved IHZ without ZCC, it's amazing how we talk in acronyms. So the only two presently existing IHZs without final ZCCs are July and 1620. So in theory, 1620 and last I was talking to Lansdowne in 1620, we were discussing how could we do this and how could they own it and could we access it through them, etcetera. They then shifted gears and didn't wanna entertain this now, but we were in pretty deep discussions and looking at alternate plans. And so let's assume for the sake of projection that that came back into being, you know, a year from now.

And 1620 got together with Lansdowne, and they came in with an application and they said, hey. We're gonna add these units to Lansdowne, which would require a text change, k, which you have discretion on. You're acting in a legislative capacity, so you have discretion on a text change. So they come in, they say, we want to expand Lansdowne, take the development rights, and we're gonna do this with it. Presto.

And we have 90 units at Lansdowne, and they're all homeownership, and we don't want, you know, a rental or affordable on-site. So the only way Lansdowne is doing the deal is with off-site. And so then they the application would come before you. It would be to change the text. We'd be modifying the 1620.

It would be a bundle of applications with a a lot of discretion before you even get to the off-site part that, you know, would have to be in place. But what if they came and they said, hey. We have a million dollars that can go to your trust fund, or we have an opportunity to build units on town owned land or to fix up these are all things that we've explored in the past. To fix up the crumbling units at Barron South so they could be properly used, indeed restricted. And and you like the idea, whichever one of those ideas you happen to like, then then they could use it.

They could go off-site. They could go somewhere else. And any one of those tools would be out there for you to decide if you liked.

Okay. I get it. And 1620, we've done the math. We've looked at the IHZs. Those are the only two left without ZCCs.

Correct.

Right. And so what we're really talking about here is if we choose to limit it that that much, then it would be those two. Let's talk

wanna limit without them, you could do that too. You could just say that, you know, that

Well, if we take that restriction off, in other words, it doesn't need to have a ZCC. It doesn't it it can it can have an existing ZCC now. If we say that, how many units is it?

So well, we'd have to go back and look at how many IHZs we have. So we 48.

Michelle, what was that number?

No. No. No. That that I think 48 was the number at one time of potential sites. The number of existing IHZs is,

I don't know, like,

two or three. Yeah.

Five or five? Four. Maybe four

out of the 48, we have we have five of them. Yeah. Okay. So so so the max number goes from 48 down to five. And if we want to, we can further limit it from five down to two.

Correct. And down to one if you'd so desire.

Right. Of those five, the list of limitations of sole discretion would still apply to them as well. Correct? Correct. Because that would because the new law would be in effect, and they would not be able to take advantage of any pre, you know, pre 2026 ruling or anything like that. They would be covered by this rule.

Well well, no. If if there's an existing IHZ out there, 793 right next door to this, that exists. It's, I believe, fully occupied, which means the affordables are occupied. So if someone you know, if you if you allow it to this question was raised. If you allow it to apply to all IGs, existing or proposed, then anybody could come in including an old IHZ.

And and I thought that you wanted to prevent that and in a way that also goes to Michael Kalise's, you know, theory. Here we have not only a naturally occurring affordable unit, we have an occupied affordable unit.

Well, let's let's stay on this let's stay on this path of five because we've already eliminated it down to five. Right? So of those five

Yeah.

They would they had they would have to be under this text amendment. Correct? They couldn't do anything other than what's in this text amendment if they wanted to go off-site.

If

Yes or no?

I'm I'm I just wanna make sure I get the question right. If the existing already built and occupied IHZs wanted to go off-site, depending on how you approve this, they could ask you.

Okay. And it would be under go ahead, Michelle.

I'm sorry. Michelle Pratt Crowley, planning zoning director. I just wanna say there's actually 459 Post Roadies, which is Bedford Square, has five affordable units, seven eighty five. So this one, 793, which has post roadies, which has six units, and 1135 Post Road East, which has two affordable units. The others are in 30 other zones.

Okay. There's four of them. Thank you, Michelle. I do appreciate that. So these four could come back and say, we'd like to go off-site, which means to my police's thought process, the affordable units that are on-site would then be shipped off-site, and they would then become for sale units on-site, and the ones off-site would then have to be, would have to, meet the definition of affordable. Correct?

Well, no. They don't have to be for sale. I'm sorry. 793 No.

No. I didn't say the ones the ones off-site are not for sale. The ones on-site are

The the ones on-site, yes. In other words, right now, 93, believe, is a rental. So what you're saying is if they wanted to go for sale, then yes. If they wanna go for sale and if you haven't precluded them, then, yes, they could be eligible.

I just needed to hear that you that you understood it as well the way I understood it. The reason is because that's what's at risk here if we approve this.

No. It's not at risk.

No. No. Time out. Time out. If we approve this where we allow them to have an existing ZCC.

Yes. Okay. Correct. And if we

and if they don't have a ZCC, then it goes down to two units. Correct. Alright. We're getting somewhere here. Okay. Remember, we're talking about precedent. Oh. You can't do precedent if you don't qualify. Right now, know that there's five that qualify or two depending on how we structure this. Okay? Five or two. There really is no others. Four or two. Thank you, Michelle. Four. 1141 does not count. Correct?

1141 is a senior resident. It already has off-site. Already allows us. It's already off-site, and you already did it.

Alright. Very good. Alright. So I'm less now concerned about precedent and more interested in the sole discretion. If it is truly airtight and we truly have, as a body, as a governing body, we truly have the discretion to do it, I'm willing to take a spin on it because it has to come before us.

It has to have the benefits, and the benefits are clearly defined. In fact, they're in the regulation. And so there is no unforeseen circumstance. There is only what we have, what we what we care for, and nobody can sneak something through because we didn't think of it. Let's talk about the three options that you have.

I'm okay with the 2nd Floor units, by the way. I I always thought that they should have been when I was there when you originally approved when we originally approved this as a commission, and I I I wasn't quite sold on what you were trying to put in there as commercial. I always thought it was a stupid spot with poor egress and exit and even worse parking for anything other than a very low use. And so, residential, is the lowest. So that's actually not a bad idea, and I like it.

The fact that they're not affordable doesn't bother me at all. I wouldn't don't even really think that they should be. So I'm okay there. You have so that's that's one of your asks, and I'm okay with that ask. The second one of your asks is that you convert one now instead of three on-site at 785 and allow the other two to go to George Street. Is that correct?

Correct.

Alright. I'm less okay with that, but willing to hear you out as to why that works. So, and I kinda wanna work backwards and start with George Street. Why is that only two units? If

you have

a if you have a very small footprint or square footage, sleeping quarter with a kitchenette, how many that that only handles two?

No. We we would be five. We if we went special needs housing like we did at one thirty six, it would be renovated into five units.

Okay. I missed that part.

Yeah. It's two units now. It's would we'd renovated into five with a text change to you as we described in the Pria. Yes.

Okay. I like that. And then what happens to the garage?

The garage would remain the the apartment over the garage

probably last time, the caretaker, if that's the right word.

The yeah. This the the qualified staff person would likely live above the garage. And would that units would be for the special needs individuals.

And would that require construction to the garage?

It would require renovation to the garage in terms of the space is is tired.

So Yeah. I know. I know. To was Yeah. We need to fix there. And Yeah. They illegally dropped all over their property the other day.

Will not be prosecuted.

I you know what? I don't have my badge, and I need a new one, but that's beside the point. Let me ask you a kind of a a far field question just so I cross it off my list. Can you put an ADU on this property, or can we restrict it so it cannot be put on this property?

So, yes, going forward, the application before you, you could restrict that. Again, I don't know I I I don't even know if that would be theoretically possible because a special if we go in the way the pre op described as special needs housing, you know, it's it's not it's now a special needs housing use. It's not a single family house use.

Correct.

And in terms of an ADU, it it it effectively has an ADU now.

I just wanna make sure with that somebody doesn't come back to us later and says, you you you failed to make sure that we can't.

Right. I guess the the question, I guess, would be is if you have a legally nonconforming two family house in a one family zone, can you still add an ADU? And I think Michelle could answer that question.

That's for another day. Okay. Alright. So if you're doing five units special needs and you have custodial help on-site and you're renovating it and then turning the entire thing over, What does that mean? They become the the ableist becomes they don't you don't put the deed in their name. They don't become the owner.

No. They well, but our proposal is they would become the owner.

Okay. If they're gonna become the owner. Yeah. Why does it have to be deed restricted? I'm I'm sorry. Let me say it let me say it differently. Why does the deed restriction have to have an endpoint?

No. The deed restriction would not have an endpoint.

K. Thank you.

The only reason we did an endpoint at January was because we had to cap the lease with the town.

Okay. So in this case, because it's a 100% owned, it would not have to have an endpoint.

It would be the the life of their use of the building. Yeah.

Alright. I'm gonna ask you a question here. You're not gonna like this one, but I'm gonna ask it anyway. Is there any possibility of a fund to allow Ableist or a like company to go below the AMI?

Well, they are going they they're we're doing this at SMI, so so it all would qualify for points. So in in terms of a fund

In other words, to go all the way down to deeply affordable and still be able to keep it running.

Yeah. I I think that when we hopefully bring an application in the future to you, you do have trust fund money. You you could, you know, we could develop a formula, which is way above my pay grade to to say, hey. We can write down the eighties to 60. We can write down the 60 to 40, But here's what it's going to cost. We've looked into that before. We actually looked into it on January before Homes with Hope got involved.

Right.

So there is a formula out there, and you do have money in your trust fund. So that's something that if you wanted to do, you know, that could be icing on a cake.

Alright. So, you know, this is now you're right in my wheelhouse. You've got, a high a high amount of units, a high amount of points, and a high amount of benefit to the town. And what the applicant gets is he gets to sell, put up for sale, those two of the three affordable units that he was thinking of selling.

Correct.

Okay. What if you're, in the future, what if both the investor, builder, owner is gone, he sold, And the, and the person that's that's handling the special needs housing has sold as well. Anybody coming in is through a sale is covered under these same rules and cannot make new stuff up?

Correct. They would be subject to the requirements and restrictions that are put on the land records and on your ZCC and your zoning approval.

So if Ableist became ABC company, there is the same restrictions. Correct. If, and if your guy over at seven eighty five sells the whole package three years from now when he's done, anybody who comes after is under the same restrictions.

Correct.

Now look. I told you going into this thing that I really did not like off-site housing because typically, as mister Kalis has enunciated, it does not move the needle. But this is moving the needle. It's, I've had discussions with other commissioners about, you know, what are the benefits to the town, and I hear a lot of benefits to the town and not a lot of downside. Let's talk about off-site versus for sale.

Why? Why is that so necessary for this guy? And and, you know, mister Kenmeyer was talking about it earlier. The ebb and flow of this of the economy just changes the whole math. You know, it seems like every five to ten years, we go from a must sell it to a must rent it market. So what's to say in five years from now, they don't wanna switch it all back?

Well, I listen. I undoing something undoing affordable housing is a lot harder than undoing regular housing.

Fair enough. Alright. Thank you for, putting this together. I for me, you've answered a lot of the questions that I started out with, and I certainly, have a different view, a more clear view of off-site housing and what it really means versus what people think it means. So I'm done. Who else wants to go? I saw mister Vellante, you had your hand up.

Yeah. I just had a had a question about the sole clause. Does that mean because we put sole in there that another applicant couldn't object to our opinion and so they it would preclude them from appealing a decision or suing us?

Paul, listen.

I I'm sorry. That was for Paul.

Oh, I'm

sorry. So the answer where Rick was gonna go is, anybody could sue anybody over you could sue a ham sandwich in this state. You know? The answer is, though, when a when a a judge looks at something that we've made a decision on, and we have said this is our decision, it's our sole decision, and through that, here's what we decide. It's gonna be awful hard for somebody to pick that apart and say, that's not what you meant.

Unless there's something in the record that speaks otherwise, our discretion is our discretion. So if we decide, and you you you know of the 16 points that Rick brought forward, if we decided that those 16 points are the those are the the determinant factors of whether or not something qualifies for off-site housing, then, yeah, that's it it's ours, and we own it, and no one else can come in and go, you guys didn't really mean that. Again, of course, it has to be in the record. And that's why sometimes, not always, but sometimes you'll hear us actually take a resolution where we're approving something and read every one of the pieces into the record so that it's really clear in a later date what it was we had in mind. Understood?

Yeah. But it doesn't preclude it. We would have to then defend ourselves and Always. Spend a lot of money and hope that we

would No. No. We have we have an entire legal staff that loves it when we get sued. No.

I didn't see it. But yeah. Michelle Free legal staff. Michelle's gonna be a gonna reach out. Big one, but it's not a free one.

No. No. It's never free.

It's not guaranteed.

That's right. But as long as we're using our sole discretion, it's guaranteed.

And, you know, they can they can appeal any decision you make. They can appeal conditions of decisions you make on on anything.

Right.

That's always that's always out there.

Alright. Now we're gonna before we go to the fun part of the evening, which is where we let, the, public come in and give their thoughts, we do have time for our, 08:00 bio break. So if everybody would like to take advantage of five minutes, agreed? Does everybody agree? Alright, mister Phyllis.

We are going on five minutes. We'll see you back here at that five after eight. Okay, ladies and gentlemen. We are back in session. That means we are going to go to the public.

First person I see is miss Simonelli. Miss Simonelli, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister chairman. I have several questions. I'm gonna try maybe to skip over some of them. But the the first one on, the issue of sole discretion, I really think you need an attorney's viewpoint on that, which I'm I'm sure you'll get, but I I do

recall Actually, we we already got it.

Oh, you did?

Yeah. In fact, they they they vetted it fully for us.

Okay. I I just recall mister Bloom, at one one of your meetings giving you chapter and verse on, you know, various reasons for denying an application and and how airtight it had to be. So I was just, you know, I'm just skeptical of some judge trying to define discretion and trying to define soul. But if you got the legal opinion, I guess I'm I'm satisfied there. I wanted to understand okay. And I'll go through my questions. The the the property on George Street is owned by the developer

since

July. Was that was that established then?

I'm not sure. What's your what is your question? Well, I'll I'll try to get you an answer.

Well, he purchased the property specifically to to use as leverage for this other project.

He bought it and is hoping to do something with it. Yes.

Okay. So there there's no altruism here in purchasing that that property for the use of ableist.

It's Well, no. That's not true at all. If you're he in order to go off-site, he knows he has to put it somewhere, so he's gotta he's gotta find something. And in the past, one of the roadblocks is that it takes, five meetings to decide whether or not to do something, And meanwhile, something that was on the market is long gone. So this guy, went ahead and bought it and is now waiting for the decision. As the applicant has said, if he, if he if it doesn't go his way, he can always just sell it again.

And Ableist will, operate, maintain this if if this all happens. They will they have sufficient funds to operate, this this new property.

Yeah. They're they're a very they're a very thoughtful effort. Yes.

Oh, okay. I was last week or last time that this was a meet there was a meeting. I think it was commissioner Bolton had questions about the definition of special needs. Was that resolved this week?

They gave us a different definition that we've not had on the books, which I believe definitely helps. Yes.

And that is the state, not the federal definition, I think he said?

Has to do with that. Has to do with IQ.

IQ. Okay. In the affordable units that the property developer will continue to own and operate, how is eligibility determined and documented?

Same way for all affordable within the town.

I mean, it's it's a

huge it's a huge list. I mean, I I would defer to Michelle Pirelli or the or or the affordable folks to go chapter and verse. We don't have enough time this evening to go through all the affordable things, but it's a it's a it's a lengthy process. It's a big application. You have to do it and you have to do it every year.

So the town I I was left under the impression that the property owner has the basically, the sole responsibility for vetting, the tenants the affordable tenants. But the town does get involved. Is that correct?

The answer is yes. We approve their affordable housing proposal.

The of the inhabitant.

We approve the tenant no. I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this, Tony.

I wanna know who controls access to the affordable units.

It it it's controlled by the person, in this case, Abelis, the person on-site

I'm not talking about George Street. I'm talking about the other affordable units, on-site unit.

Michelle Prelley, planning and zoning director. So the original lottery is done by the, by the applicant, by

the

developer, and then they also would do the changes in ownership. However, annually, the town, our housing specialist verifies all the information submitted annually, request the name name of the tenants, their income, and rental amounts, all the information that we need to verify annually that the applicant or the tenants are still in compliance and the rental amounts are still in compliance.

I see. So and so if they fall out of compliance, they get evicted or something?

They have to go to a a market rate unit or

unit. I gotcha. Okay. Thank you. That does answer my my question on that. I that's all the question. Oh, I'm sorry. I was, wondering, is this if you approve this tonight, is the project approved, or is just the text amendment approved?

Well, first of all, we would close, not necessarily approve. But if we voted on it in work session, then it would be the project would be approved. Remember, there's two things in front of us here. If you look at the agenda, you'll see that seven eighty five is in front of us and so is text amendment eight sixty four. So we'd have to prove each one.

So there's two votes, and you'd have to approve

each one.

Okay. Alright. And then, I guess, I will just conclude by saying I I still stand by what I said at the last hearing and in my email. I don't like off-site affordable housing. I don't see why it can't be left on-site. And further, if there was true interest in providing housing for for the ableist organization. I don't see why this developer couldn't help out from a more of an altruistic standpoint rather than opportunistic. Those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do appreciate it. Mister Brady?

Hello, sir. How are you?

Fine. Thank you.

Can you hear me? Oh, well, thank you guys for everything you do. I appreciate you have a very hard and sometimes I would think a thankless job. But I'm a thirty four year resident of Westport, a small business owner. And for those thirty four years, I have lived at 7 George Street.

Something mister Redness said about commercial zoning on George Street. I wanted to mention that that a small sliver of three George is commercially zoned and so are some of the other properties on George Street. But, you know, it's a wonderful little family neighborhood, and we're not here to fight whatever might happen. I think what I'm here to say is that, specifically, like mister Redness' client at 785 Post Road. I mean, this text amendment, the builder at 785 was granted permission to build it, the luxury townhomes with the at that point, he was supposed to provide three on-site affordable units.

And I think that he should have to live up to his agreement and not, you know, do a Hail Mary and bundle in three George to get that approval. I I believe the builders should be required to live up to what he agreed upon. If this text amendment passes, the planning zoning commission will be overwhelmed with requests from developers seeking to separate properties to pay off or circumvent affordable housing, obligations. This would set a precedent that allows this builder and others to come back to the commission asking for changes after they made agreements to what they were approved to build. And I believe at one point, I think it was commissioner Volante said at the last Zoom meeting, you know, are do we ready to open this barn door?

And I'm not sure that you guys should open that barn door because can it ever be closed? And this says, you know, it's two separate I wanted to give you a little history on George, which George is what you know, three George, whatever it happens, happens. But I don't believe the tax amendment is a great idea. I think it benefits a builder and not really the town. That's my opinion.

Appreciate it. Duly noted. Other, townsfolk? Anybody else wanna speak? This is a chance.

Yeah. I do, but I didn't get can't get my hand up.

Feel free to speak, mister Mandel.

There we go. Can you hear me?

I got a picture.

So I've been on the record for a long time that says that we should do on-site affordability. But if not, it has to be much better than what was proposed. It's interesting what what Harry just said was that a builder will come back. So I think if you move forward with this part, it has to be built into the application at that time, not say, okay. We're gonna do the three affordable and then come back and make the change would have to be at that point.

Mister Kammeyer, at the end of last session, basically got my brain thinking in into the aspect. The IHC was meant to be on-site, but only if it's superior, only if it's demonstratively better should we move forward with it. And I wrote, what, a year ago in January, if it's whatever it is, it has to be plus one. So if it's supposed to be three, they'd have to build four. And that's where the town gets some benefit.

In talking with Rick, Rick says to me, he goes, but that's a very simplistic view that one more unit is better. Well, what about x, y, and z? And we're seeing different concepts that could be brought forward. And that's the toolbox where it could be better for the town if we do this, but only if you guys think it's the case. Now when it comes to George Street, you may not think it's the case, but you may think that we should be able to move forward with this for other applications.

I think the idea of the timing of it for only allowing mister Redness' two pieces sort of smacks of of it being just for them. If it's a good idea to have the ability to look at it as being a better opportunity, then you shouldn't limit it just to these two because then it's just for them. It's just for this developer who clearly has a financial desire to do this or he wouldn't be coming back. There's something behind it. He's getting the value. The town needs to get the value as well. Our hands should be out. It's a toll. It's a payment. What does the town get for a developer coming in and saying, hey.

You know, I don't wanna do the three on-site. I've got another piece here, another idea. Well, town has to stick its hand out and say, pay your toll. Simplistically, that's one more unit in my mind. So if it's three, it needs to be four.

You don't have to be approving George Street at this point if you don't want to. You have to look at it separately. I think Paul just said, we would close this, we'd vote for it, and then we'd look at the things moving forward. That's the rub here is to whether you think that the proposal is demonstratively better as mister Kamara talked about, or else it's as what mister Brady said, your agreement was for three on-site, then do the three on-site unless it's so much better. The goal is to find more affordability.

More affordability is what everything we do is about. We are the leaders when it comes to that with 20% required for any project. Darien just went to 14%. They're lagging behind us. So that's the goal. How do we get more affordability? Now is it because we're going for points or are we going to get points because it's more deeply affordable? It's a mathematical equation. Speaking of math, the fee in lieu of doesn't seem to work for me because if they paid the fee in lieu of as as mathematically, it said, it's about $1,000,000. But the building they're going to buy is $1,300,000.

So we wouldn't wanna do fee in lieu because it costs more to buy the apartment. Think we would have to look at that and change those numbers if we wanna do the fee in lieu of. We have to look at it to see if it's matching the market, if it's changing, and how much is it worth? How much is a unit worth to not have to build it, but to pay us instead? We do have an affordable affordable, housing fund.

The RTM approved that two years ago. And by the way, there's $1,700,000 sitting in that fund. And maybe some of that goes to buying down more units from the next person that comes in so that we've got a 10 unit condo situation that's coming in and they're gonna build two or three and we throw money out and we get four or 550% of it becomes affordable. It's a possibility. So bottom line is it's a tool in the toolbox and you shouldn't just throw it out because it bothers you that they someone might be getting over on you on us unless you look at it in your sole discretion that this is better for the town to do it.

And if it's not better for the town, then don't do it. But it's a tool that you should be able to use. And I was listening to mister Leibowitz who's moved himself along here when he didn't seem to be so interested. Now he is. And he understands that there if there is a value to it, then go for it. But to go back to what miss what mister Brady said was, if it's not better, if it's not good, three units are right there. That's what was approved. That's what you all agreed to. But if there is a project that makes it better for the town, more affordability, more points, better for a nonprofit, better for special needs people, then it's an option that you should look at at least and make a decision. Not all of them you're gonna go for, but some of them you might.

It's an opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Mandel. I do appreciate that. Anyone else from the public like to speak to this, issue? Anybody else? Alright. Seeing none, I'm gonna come back to commissioners and ask you. You've heard a few comments from several of the public, a wide range of subjects, all of which are good. Do you have any additional questions for the applicant in lieu of what you heard? Michael, can I hear anything?

Yeah. Well, Matt just made some points. Do we need to make some tweaks to this before we and then come back on it?

So I I love that that you call them tweaks. They're actually that is our business. So the answer is, of course. The answer is absolutely. So if you go into work session, you could absolutely say, you know what? I I would vote for this, but and then to quote mister Mandel, I think we should get more so you can do that. They're not tweaks. They're what is it you want. I don't know if we should go

because this is crafted, if we go into work session, we lose the benefit of asking Rick questions. I would think it'd be more helpful to give feedback and have I don't know if the timing permits, but to give feedback and have Rick bring it back in front of us to discuss it to make sure we got it according to what it is that as a commission we want. Does that make sense, Paul?

It does. I mean, it's a it's a question of style. How do you wanna do it? I, I think depending on how in-depth of a change you wanted to make, you could easily do it either one of two of those ways. So for instance, if it was a a very small tweak, something that miss Injeski was saying about how she wants to just tighten up some of the language, that could be done in work session.

But if you believe that the conditions that you wanna change are tremendous and you wanna get the feedback from the applicant rather than commit to it beforehand, that's valid also. You could do it either way. And I by the way, I'd like to I'd like to just mention something about what mister Brady said. You know, he's absolutely right. We have three units.

That's not going away. There's no wiggle room there. We've got three units. Now the question is, do we believe that we could get better, improve for the for the town as mister Mandel put it, what is being offered. If not, then we say no. And what happens is we get three units. So it's I mean, we can't lose. Mister Kemaher, anything else? No. Any many other, commissioners? Mister Vellante? Mister

Kemaher? Would just say that I think you're right. We have three, but that's not to say it's three or swapping three. I think there is always the possibility that something positive could be done at George Street in addition to the three we have at 785. Right.

I don't I don't know that we should be looking at that as a trade, and I kind of at least I think where you were going, Paul, kinda makes sense to me rather than continuing to ask the applicant to refine and rewrite or asking the fox to design the henhouse. I I just think we've done that a couple times, and maybe now we need to decide what what what we want to require rather than, you know, attaboy. Continuing to try to re repaint this thing.

You are thinking like a commissioner. I love it. Now speaking of commissioners, we have miss Zuccaro here, and I know that you're neither on the staff tonight on the on the commission tonight or in the public, but you're welcome to speak. What do you think?

Thanks, Paul. I think that we need some time to work through the the language to get it perfect. I I I think that no matter what you do, it's going to be difficult to not set a precedent. And I know that we've said that that we have our sole discretion, but we know how that is because we just do. So I don't wanna go down that path.

But I think that, if you intend to make this as a tool in your toolbox, we need a little time to finesse the wording to make sure that it can be utilized as a tool in the toolbox for the future.

Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, the difference between this one and the first one that Rick brought to us is that first one literally had an expiration date of, like, the next day. It was hurry, hurry, hurry. This one, I think we have a little bit more time to do it right because number one, I believe that the applicant is willing to give us the time because they they believe in what they're asking for.

But, also, he owns the property. So if George if George Street is involved, he owns it. It's not somebody can't buy it out from one damn. And I think there's a benefit to that. If you need more time and you wanna, you know, contemplate it, you know, I get that.

The only pushback I'm gonna give you is that, we need to banish the word unintended and consequence from our lexicon because there is no such thing. It's a consequence that we write into the regulation. And so let's try not to do that. That's all. Simple. Don't be afraid of the future. Let's make sure that it's exactly how we want it. Who else?

Hey. Can I ask a quick question before anyone else?

Please do. How are you, Paul? Yep. Have

we ever gone into work sessions and talk about an application that's not closed?

No. You can't. That that's not called a work session. That's still called deliberation.

Interesting. Right. Because what Patrice just said is we need time to work through this, but what if we have questions? Right? What if we didn't close it and started just talking about it as if we were in work session and not and literally read through it as if we're in work session and talked about it the way Patrice is saying mentioning to do. That was that. I Well That's kind of reading through the lines here.

Yeah. I mean, you know, the the correct answer is you have a question about it. We get that answer from Michelle. You know, what's the right way to do this? We put it in. Yeah. Put it in. You're in charge. You have the sole discretion.

Yeah. I would just support what you just said there, Paul. Michael, I don't know that we need to ask the applicant questions. It's like also what Michael Volante said that we can take the reins on this one. We understand what needs to be done and if there's things that need to be changed. And I think there are things that definitely need to be changed the way this is written. I'm I'm confident that we can do that, with Michelle's guidance. And

Yeah. We get, Michelle's guidance, and we get, our town staff attorney's guidance there, both available to us through work session. Look. I mean, the applicant has explained everything. He's gone he every syllable, every I has been dotted, every t has been crossed in what he's asking for. If you have any questions, now is the time because there shouldn't be any there should be no questions as to what they're asking for. The only questions when we go into work session should be, and do you wanna do it? If not, why? If so, why? I mean, that's that's us.

That's called sole discretion. Other comments? Mister Bolton?

I'm pretty good for them. Right. I've heard all you know,

I mean, all the other commissioners ask really good questions, and you've laid it out there. I don't agree with you on a lot of policy issues that you enunciated, but I I I think we've covered this pretty well.

Alright. Are you willing to debate those in, in work session with me?

No. Absolutely. Yeah. I don't think we should I don't think it's appropriate for me to do that now.

No. No. It's not it's not even germane to the applicant. Right. Yep. Do you have a do you have a motion for me?

Motion to close.

I I I I'm sorry.

Woah. Woah. Woah. What

what could you possibly wanna say more?

Well, the the the public spoke, and usually the applicant gets to, you know, close.

That's right. Wait. Let me

All I wanna all I wanna do, I'm not gonna go through any of the things that have already been done or any of the questions and things that were raised. I just wanna point out that there are four items. One, two units over the store. That's a separate application. You know, the separate piece of an application.

Two is special needs housing. The definition is to go from the state to broaden it to the federal so that the IQ is increased. If you have any questions, Amy is on the call. If you have any questions about that, that is completely separate to on and off-site. K? Number three is the text. And as Matt said, that's a tool in the toolbox. You should have the tool in the toolbox. That's a separate vote. And the fourth is three George and one on-site.

So there's four distinct votes. The other thing I would say is, I'm glad you asked Patrizia her opinion because if there's a bit of the yin yang, and I understand both. If it's a great idea and Matt said the same thing. If it's a great idea, make it more universal. But what I've heard from the other members is, I'm concerned about the unintended consequences and would rather make it limited to start.

That is I every application that I've done, and I've done lots in town and lots of these tax changes and lots of affordable housing, every one of them we've had this debate. And almost every time, you go for the narrowest definition. I'm fine with that. I also agree with Patrizia and Matt that if it's a good idea, what are we afraid of? Let it out there.

But what I don't wanna do is see perfection be the enemy of good because we can't satisfy both of those. Because you do it one way, I'm not voting. If you do it this way, I'm not voting. And then that's the only thing I don't wanna see happen here. Okay? And that that's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time and patience.

Well, thank you, mister Redness. It's very beneficial. Alright. So given that you've laid it out so succinctly, I'm gonna go back to the commissioners now and ask. I'm gonna do it one by one, and I wanna make sure that everybody here is clear. Does do all the commissioners understand and have no more questions about two over the store? Can I get a hell yeah?

Yes. Yes.

Alright. So you have an opinion. You're ready to defend it. And if we go into work session, you're not, m m you're not ambivalent about your your knowledge there. You you understand it, you're ready to go. So I had a lot of yeses. Mister Cleese, mister Zuccaro, mister Vellante, yes to all three?

Yes.

Fabulous. Fabulous. Special needs. Let's start with mister Bolton. Do you agree? Do you, are you are you satisfied with what he brought forward? No. Okay. Do you need anything else from the applicant to make a decision on that?

I don't. The only thing I wanted to ask you was, well, you just pulled everybody. As far as talking about the units over the store Yeah. You you missed me, and that's fine.

But No. I I I asked a general question, then I zeroed in on people who who didn't say anything.

Okay. No. That's fine. No. I want to say that. Didn't didn't the applicant just say that's a totally separate application?

It is. Seven eighty five. Yes.

Right. So is there any reason why we're other than just, you know, trying to be more efficient? Why these are not being taken as stand ones?

No. He's he was given the commercial property in the front when we originally approved this.

I understand that, but it