Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for this evening, Monday, 02/23/2026. My name is Paul Leibowitz. I'm the chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And as some of you know, pursuant to state law, there is no physical location for this meeting because this meeting is being held electronically and livestreamed at westportct.gov. The meeting is also being shown on, Westport's optimum government access channel 79.

And the public, of course, may attend and offer testimony tonight for tonight's meeting by using the meeting links that are always published on the agenda prior to the meeting. Meeting agenda is available at westportct.gov on the meeting list and calendar web page, and your written comments may also be received prior to the public meeting and be sent to pnz@westportct.gov by 12PM the day of the meeting if intended to be distributed for consideration by the members of the planning zoning commission. Any comments that are received after 12PM on the day of the meeting will be entered into the record, probably read in in prior to the meeting, but not distributed until the next business day. Meeting materials submitted are available at westcourt c t dot gov on the planning and zoning web page under e n z planning applications and recent approvals. Tonight, I'm expecting full set of commissioners, myself and Michael Kammeyer, Patrizia Zuccaro, Michael Police, John Bolton, Brie Injewski, and Craig Siobhani.

So let's take a look. Brie, you are would you like to open the session and start us on our pre op?

I would love to. Item number one on our agenda is a pre application for 41 Crescent Road application p Z2600078 submitted by John f Fallon, Esquire for the review of a potential 30 unit residential community pursuant to Connecticut general statute section eight thirty g or the potential four lot subdivision. Time allocated is twenty minutes.

Attorney Fallon, are you here?

I am indeed, mister chairman. Good evening to you and other members of the commission. For the record, I'm John Fallon, and I am representing mister and missus Ayden Hayes, Maeve O'Connor, who are the owners of the property in question. I know you have a big agenda, so we'll try to get this in front of you quickly so we can benefit from your input and comment. This is an interesting and and somewhat unique situation.

Ayden and his wife purchased the property in 2022. They actually reside on the property in the existing 1890 home, where they are with his wife and children. As residents of the town of Westport, they have ties and commitments to the community, and that kind of what provokes us to come to you tonight. There's nothing wrong with a typical developer, but Aiden is not a typical developer. He is someone who is living on the property and is not primarily motivated by profit.

He's interested in doing, what the town feels is appropriate for this piece of property. It's a significant property. It's in the residence a zone. It's significantly oversized at 2.56 acres. So his goal, since he assembled the team and we have, you know, people here if you have any questions about that, but his goal was to come up with alternatives or possibilities for development that, on the one hand, will benefit the town by addressing unique and quality development, residential development in the town, and also will allow what the town and what this commission feels is appropriate in terms of residential development at this site.

You are the plan and zoning commission, so tonight we come to you definitely with your plan hats on, and we offer you for your comments, which we will listen to carefully, two different schemes, two different options for development. One is a four lot subdivision. That will allow the preservation of the existing historic house. And I would point out that all of the lots, will conform to all provisions of your zoning and subdivision regulations as it relates to lot area setbacks, etcetera. So there's no waivers sought here for the lots themselves.

The second alternative is an eight dash 30 g proposal. This community and this commission has shown a commitment, to affordable housing. That's admirable. You've benefited from a previous moratorium in light of that commitment, and this alternative allows for the development of 30 units of housing, nine of which will be affordable. Instructive, I think, is the prior application that was made by the prior owner in '19 in 2018.

That was for basically the identical four lot subdivision that we offer as an alternative. That received the approval of the conservation and the flood ward committee. It also was approved from in terms of engineering storm drainage by the engineering department. Indeed, that work was done by Andy Sumalinas of Landec, and he is our engineer tonight. He's here did you have any questions in that regard.

It was reviewed by police and fire, and police and fire offered no negative comments with regard to any concerns with regard to the subdivision. There was also a traffic consultant, Michael Galanti, who was who was retained, and he opined that there was no adverse impact or safety concerns associated with the four lot subdivision based upon any existing conditions with the intersection. The commission felt it was appropriate at the time to refer that for a peer review by Sharat Sharat Khalari at CDM Smith, and he too concluded that there were no issues with regard to the four lot subdivision that would create public health and safety issues. There were two waivers that were required with regard to that subdivision, and they would be required again, if the alternative of the 4 lot subdivision was pursued by mister Hayes. They were section 54 dash 7.1 and section 54 dash seven three.

The application was withdrawn, I can't tell you why, prior to a final decision by the commission. So the waivers were never acted on. And as you know, you act on waivers under section 51 dash three. It requires a three quarters vote, and the standard is that where the literal application of these regulations would result in undesirable development, adverse impacts, practical difficulties, or unusual hardship that substantial justice can be done. I think, basically, what's the root of the waiver consideration, if I can respectfully suggest it, is safety.

And so I think you look carefully, and the commission would have looked carefully, I believe, in 2018 of the testimony of mister Galanti, mister Sharat, the input from the police and fire department. But that's behind us. So we're here tonight seeking your input in terms of, one, a four lot subdivision that, although it would require the waivers that I just referenced and are also referenced in miss Perrilli's staff report, basically are compliant lots. We have retained mister Dave Sullivan of SLR. He he will offer testimony at the time of the subdivision application, if that is the route that we go in with your guidance, that will clearly say that there will be no public health and safety concerns associated with the four lot subdivision.

Indeed, one of the things I point out is section 57 dash 7.3, that we do need a waiver, says all intersecting street lines shall be rounded at the corner with a minimum radius of 20 feet. I would just point out that most, if all, the existing streets in the area do not comply with that standard. I also would point out that it doesn't seem clear to me that this particular section would apply, to an intersection, of a private road. But these are things that we'd look to down the road. In any event, we did submit with our material.

We gave you the site plan for the 30 unit eight dash 30 g, the four unit subdiv four Lot Subdivision. And mister Sullivan, who is here tonight, but in the interest of your time, I'm gonna let him address any questions if you have any. But he did, submit a concept plan delineating intersection enhancements that we can make with respect to either the four lot subdivision or the 8 Dash 30 G. I would make that clear that we don't believe nor was it indicated by either of the traffic engineers in 2018 that there are any safety issues with regard to, the intersections that currently exist. But, indeed, we offer for consideration enhancement to those functions at those intersections, that we believe are already safe, and that has been endorsed by mister Guanti in a previous application and mister Kwari.

So all of this, obviously, we don't get into the waivers if we go the eight dash 30 g route because you all know the standards for that, and I I don't need to elaborate on it. But we do believe that you look at the if you look at the record that we can present, mister Sullivan's enhancements, what I expect, again, would be the police and fire, no finding of adverse comments, another referral perhaps to mister Kolari to review, now mister Sullivan's work. All of that provides a proper basis, we think, for the commission, if we go this route, to grant the waivers, in accordance with section fifty one three. And at the end of the day, what we'll end up with there is a four lot subdivision conforming to the regulations as they relate to the lots themselves. The other option for consideration, 2.56 acre parcel not far from the commercial areas of town, would be the ATS 30 g.

I'm no apologist for the ATS 30 g that has benefits to the community in terms of diversification of housing and adding to the affordable housing inventory. But I will now be quiet because Abraham Lincoln said, you never learn anything with your mouth open. And the real reason we are here is to get your input with regard to these options that we bring to your, commission tonight for consideration and input. And I thank you for your time.

Very good. Thank you very much, attorney Fallon. Michelle, you have some words of wisdom for us? Yes.

Thank you, Michelle. Preli, planning and zoning director. Just wanna briefly go through, the cover letter that was posted to the website last week. This property at 41 Crescent Road is 2.56 acres with the majority of the property located in the residence A half acre zoning district. The northeast corner of the lot does have a portion of it that's residence AA, but however, the residence A standards control per the regulations.

There is an existing house that was built in approximately 1860 according to the tax card and is approximately 1,800 square feet. There's also inland wetlands on the property. The property is located on the East Side of Crescent Road between the intersections of Crescent Road, Heather Hill, and then Crescent Road and Ivy Terrace. It's located adjacent to a 90 degree bend in Crescent Road. The property is outside the one hundred year floodplain and CAM and water WPLO line.

Let's see. I just want to meet most recently go through the most recent application, which attorney Fallon referenced, which was in 2018. There's a proposal to subdivide the property to create a total of four lots with a new road and existing house to remain. The waivers were requested, to the street intersection standards of the subdivision regulations, that no more than two streets shall intersect at any one point, and that all intersecting street, line shall be rounded at the corner with a minimum radius of 20 feet. There are comments from the town engineer, Keith Wilberg, which are posted on the website as well indicating, his thoughts about the waivers.

We did feel that the waivers were required due to the number of intersections that were connecting at one point. So that would be something that would be required again in the future if a subdivision application is pursued. In terms of the eight thirty g application, Westport has approximately 3.97% or four twenty units of affordable housing according to the Connecticut Department of Housing website. As you know, this is less than 10%. A set aside development, is proposed, the alternate proposal is not required to comply with the existing zoning regulations, so the waivers would not be required.

The density is would being considered would be about 12 units per acre compared to the existing single family residence density, which is two units per acre. So the commission should just keep that in mind in their comments, and I'm here with any questions, of course. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate it, Michelle. Okay. So commissioners, we're being asked to weigh two options or or give our feelings about a third if we have one. Who wants to go? Anybody have any comments they wanted to start off with? Anybody wanna lead in? John, I I wanted to ask you something on the talk to me about your your thesis about the the two driveways coming together.

Well, I think, on on the one hand, the the section, that relates to let me just grab my notes here. Section, 20 54 dash 7.1, you know, clearly, is is plain. And our position on that would be that the root consideration for the commission in looking at a potential waiver under fifty one three is, you know, practicality and safety. And, I think that also holds true for section 54 dash 7.3. Although I will say there, I think, as I mentioned before, two other factors that I think would weigh favorably towards the waiver would be, one, I don't think there's a a a street in that neighborhood or area that complies with that radius now.

And in fact, again, you could make an argument. I know Keith disagrees with me, but you could make an argument that that section as written doesn't apply to an intersection of a public road with a private road. But I think, basically, our position on the two waivers that would be required for the four lot subdivision is that the four lot subdivision is good planning. It will perver preserve a historic home. It will create four lots that conform to your regulations.

And there's not been any evidence, in the prior application, which was identical, by by two traffic engineers that found there were any safety issues associated with a four lot subdivision based upon the con configuration of the current intersection, even without reference to the enhancements we'd be willing to make to further assure in that regard.

Thank you for that. Appreciate it. And are you aware of the letter that we that was sent in by the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Coalition?

I I saw that just before the meeting, and so, yes, I am familiar with it. You know, I I think at the whatever route we go based upon input that we receive, you know, obviously, the neighbors will will have an opportunity to address those considerations, and we'll have an opportunity to do that as well. I think the primary focus, based upon my brief reading of the letter, were, one, the matters of the intersection that I've already expounded on in terms of the the waiver situation. And in terms of the others that are mentioned, in terms of drainage and so on and so forth, I'd again point out that the, the drainage design was approved by the engineering department in 2018. It was designed by mister Semmelinas and his colleagues, and they they will provide, you know, that information again.

So, and the conservation commission and the flood board approved the prior application. So I I don't think there was finding of any environmental or drainage related issues associated with the four lot subdivision.

How how many were in the previous the the previous, go around?

There were four lots. It was substantially I it was a identical application, really. Okay.

I didn't see any, information about the ledge, and the grading the grading constraints, in either of the engineering reports, etcetera. But the neighbors did bring it up, so I'm asking your thoughts on that.

Based upon the work that was done for the subdivision in 2018, we don't feel there's any issues relative to ledge or, topography that would prevent either, the development of the property for four lots or the development as shown on the conceptual site plan of the 30 unit a Dash 30 g. But clearly, as we would do in any event, and especially with regard to the input that we received this afternoon from the neighbors, we'll make sure that when we come back to the commission for a formal application for either of these options, we have that issue totally addressed and, without any doubts.

And does the same thing go for the wetlands and indirect environmental effects?

Yes. Absolutely. I mean, these are these are new this would these will be new applications, so we can't simply rely on the fact that in 2018, we received conservation approval because we're gonna have to do it again, and, we will ensure that that is done in accordance with the regulations that are applicable.

You'll address any, storm drainage or, any flooding issues? Absolutely. Have to do it. What type of reports do you anticipate preparing if you were to move forward?

Well, I think in either case, mister Simulines is on the, in the Zoom meeting here, he may wanna comment on it. But, clearly, we're going to have to prepare a full drainage report. I would expect we would also in an environmental assessment relative to, confirmation of no adverse impact, any regulated areas, or, any wildlife or things of that nature. So a full, you know, a full application in in irregardless of which of the options we pursue.

Mister Sumolitis, you agree with that?

I do. And just to add to that a little bit, we recently reflagged all the on-site wetlands. We went before the conservation commission, a couple months ago and amended that line to today's condition. In addition to a stormwater management report, we would also most likely be submitting a wetlands impact and assessment report, not necessarily for this commission, but for the conservation commission.

Well, we would get a copy of that nonetheless.

Right. Correct.

And, how critical do you believe the, wetlands are up there?

Andy, I'll let you address that.

Yeah. I'm not the wetland specialist, and he's not on right now. But based on the previous findings, they were mostly used for compensatory storage, I would say, for stormwater. That's basically what the previous design was too, reusing those as compensatory storage for drainage.

Alright. Well, I appreciate both of you addressing, the issues as, spelled out in the, neighborhood letter that we received. Obviously, they are they represent, quite a few, interested parties. And as you know, and in case they didn't know, I'm just reminding everybody that in a pre app such as this that we're sitting with now, there is not an opportunity for the public to weigh in. They can they are, of course, welcome to be here and listen, but this is really, us signaling to you which direction we think you should or should not go.

That being said, I'm gonna turn it to the other commissioners who has something to say on 41 Crescent Road. Can have in here. Hang on, Mike. The lady's first. Sure. Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah. I just wanted to I guess my question is is it are these provisions of 54 dash seven, are these things that we can waive? They wouldn't require a variance? Yes. That might be a question for Michelle.

Sorry. Yes. Michelle Parley, planning and zoning director. Yes. They are able to be waived, by the commission.

Do you know

if they've been waived in the past

for any applications? Is there if not, I just didn't know if this is something that's been done.

I don't I don't wanna say for sure. I don't Okay. I I don't know for sure. I can find out for the next application. I apologize. But, yes, your regulations do authorize, the waiver of, those sections per, I wanna say, 50. I can tell you what the section is.

Yeah. I think it was 53.

Fifty one three.

513.

513.

Yep. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to confirm that that was the case with these. And then as far as fifty four seven three, which has to do with the minimum radius of 20 feet, what is the minimum radius that would be at this proposed street intersection?

Andy, could you address that for the commissioner?

Yeah. I'm just pulling up the plan. One sec.

And just before you answer that, let us know if it's different between one, version or the other.

You mean the old the the 2018, application?

No. Between a four lot subdivision or a, or a

I get it. Yeah. I get it. Sorry. Yeah.

I can pull up the plan, but we didn't put radiuses on the schematic we submitted. I'll just show you quickly. Michelle, can I share, please?

Yep. Should begin.

Yep.

This is essentially the intersection we're talking about, and this seems close to a 20 foot radius just by looking at it at an eye. Maybe it's slightly less. But you could see it it rounds into Heather Hill here, and this would be our new road that accesses into the site. This is the current driveway that comes in, and it services our lot, and then it spins off and services a lot to the to the north. So we would maintain that access for that lot to the north through our new proposed road.

So the old the, there is The existing, driveway would just be

Yeah. This will be eliminated, and then this would be the new road that comes in.

K.

Alright. Those are those are my questions.

Andy, before you take that down Oops. Too

quick.

Okay. Thank you. So this would then alter the, the drive pattern of this neighborhood by adding two stop signs. Correct? Or three?

Yes. We have one at the new road and then adding two two new stops.

And so you're asking the neighbors in this, in this neighborhood to, essentially change the way they drive in their neighborhood?

Well, just what I would say to that is our position with regard to either option is that the intersection that's presently constituted and controlled is safe and effective. There's no history of significant accidents there. We have mister Sullivan's review, and he has confirmed that with us. And we have the prior reviews by mister Galanti and mister Kalari back in 2018. So we're not suggesting that this intersection needs enhancements, and the commission could very well, in pursuing or reviewing either of these options, say, no.

We don't think you need to do anything. We offered this in a in a spirit of constructive, cooperation should there be any concerns on the part of anyone with regard to the safety of the intersection, after the four lot subdivision or the eight Dash 30 G. So this should not be construed as some position on the part of the property owner that, well, we agree the intersection is unsafe. It needs enhancement. That's just not the record. The police, the fire, Kalari, Galanti, Sullivan, all have said the intersection functions safely and properly.

Yeah. There's no doubt currently. I'm familiar with that. I don't believe there's been any huge accidents there. However, what I'm thinking more of is what Mr. Wilberg spoke about.

Well, Mr. Wilberg, I mean, obviously, we've had meetings, and we have a lot of respect for Mr. Wilberg. I do believe that although these two sections that would be subject to the waiver certainly have their place and are appropriate design standards in many situations. That does not extend to this current intersection or the proposal, that, you know, the four lot subdivision or, for that matter, the, at least by the standard eight fifty Gs Why or

do you say it doesn't apply to this, intersection?

I think this intersection functions well, and and the addition of the, road to accommodate the four lot subdivision, won't in any way negatively impact or adversely affect the function of the intersection. So I don't think it's a proper basis to deny the development of this 2.56 acre parcel in the Oh, no.

Nobody's talking about denial. What we're looking for is, best execution. So Right. So we town department says that they would really like this to be up to our existing standards, and he is the chief standard bearer for the town of Westport, if he wants something along those lines, you know, we gotta defer to our experts here.

Well, I I would say to you respectfully that I I think that the regulations give you the right, the the authority, to waive under section 50 one(three) provisions of your regulations when you deem it to be appropriate. And you're absolutely correct. You have to weigh the, you know, the input that you receive. But the input that you receive extends not only to Mr. Wilberg, but also the other consultants.

Your in this case or and will be the case again, your your peer review consultant on traffic issues. The other thing I would say in fairness to Keith is I have sat down with him. He and I have had numerous meetings about this. And I don't mean to speak for him, and you'll have the opportunity to do that depending on which of these we pursue. But I think he does not feel that his concern about the waiver is based upon a safety issue as it relates to this intersection.

I think he would articulate that he is concerned about it as a matter of precedent. And what I would say to him, and I have said to him and I would say to the commission is, you don't have to worry about precedent here because under your regulations and the standards for waiver under '61 fifty one three, it's always a case by case analysis. And just because you might look at this situation and the options for development, the four lot subdivision, the 30 Lot HS30G, and say, Hey, no. Based upon the information we've received about safety, etcetera, we think this is an appropriate basis to grant the waiver, That doesn't

mean I we get that.

You're bound in the future.

That's all.

I get that.

Pete's main concern was presidential.

So alright. And thank you for that. I I I wanted to get your opinion of what, of how we should be looking at that. Just one thing, though, about the safety standards or or as you as you say. You're basically talking about how the, how the intersection has worked up to now. Correct?

I'm saying that the intersection, not only how it works now, but based upon the input that we and others have received on the prior application, how it would work certainly with regard to the four lot subdivision. And we're comfortable that if if if it's the route that the commission perceives we should pursue, we could also make a make a compelling case based upon the agreement that will fund with the a dash thirty g.

John, I get it. Okay. Just remember, this is an informal setting. So we well, let's, let's try to focus in on it. Look. I I'm, you're absolutely right. We do have the ability to, waive criteria. And and we but I, for one, and I'll I'll only speak for myself, I I really am remiss to do that above the above the conditions given to me by a town engineer, town fire, town police, anybody, any one of the, you know, experts that we have on here. So that's gonna weigh heavily in in my thinking, but I I'm glad you told me how you feel about it.

Thanks.

The I'm not I'm really not sure I understand what you're doing to Ivy Terrace. So Ivy Terrace, what is the, what happens to Ivy Terrace as you come around the turn?

Mister Sullivan is here, and so I I'd ask him to address that. David, are you there?

I am.

I am. Okay. So the commissioner you heard the commissioner's question. Could you address that with regard to Ivy Terrace?

Most most importantly, what I'm looking at is what is the access way? What is its function? Why do we have that?

I IV tariffs, there's, absolutely no change to IV tariffs. So it, the the only change Ivy Terrace will will, experience is that traffic on Crescent Road will now stop giving them freer access to get onto and off of Crescent Road.

And the access way, what does that function?

The the new driveway?

Well, no. I I I I get it. You guys come in. You have a a two lane that comes in to reach your site, but on the four lot subdivision, you have an access way that parallels Ivy Terrace, and I'm trying to figure out what that is.

That would go away. The, access road or the drive the driveway currently now would go away and, could be replaced by the two direction road shown in this concept.

Okay.

So, again, to to back up a little bit, you know, we did look we the first thing we did was, because we heard everybody had looked at this, is we did our own independent safety review. In fact, we looked at ten years worth of crash data and found one collision. And I top of my head, I think it was a fixed object collision for a vehicle coming out of, Ivy Terrace. So there was no evidence that there was any safety concerns there. We did some field observations, looked at how it's operating.

And, you know, all we tried to do here was kind of rationalize the movements, make them a little more typical. You know, under this scenario, everybody gets a little bit freer access. And, Heather Hill, in particular, now has the ability to come out a little freer than under the scenario where folks are coming around Crescent Road without the stop. So it's just a little tweaking here and there to to bring it up to a little better standard. Nothing significant, I think. I think the most significant thing was probably closing the parallel, driveway.

Very good. Thank you. I appreciate all of that. Other commissioners, who's taking a look at this? Have any questions?

Patrice, Craig, John?

I'm happy to just quickly chime in just to say, Paul Paul, you just hit everything that I was gonna talk about. My biggest concern was that intersection. I think that's what we were hitting on in 2018. We were looking at that intersection. I believe, actually Yep. Some we went on-site, I believe. I remember

That was why, commissioner, you referred it. Based on my review of the record at the time, I wasn't involved, but I think that's why you referred it to mister Clary.

Yeah. I think that was the only thing we we were focused on. But if I were to were to the only thing I would say is that Paul I don't need to repeat what Paul said. So that he talked about the intersection and and that I agree with everything he said. The only if I were to have to say one versus the other, I think I prefer if boxes were checked and it complied, the subdivision is what I would think that would be best in that location if you wanted that type of feedback.

That's what we're looking for. Thank you, Garrett.

That's right. That's why they're here. Thank you for that, Michael. Appreciate that. Other commissioners, give some guidance. John's got his hand out. We'd love to know. Yes. Patrice, I see your hand is up.

Thanks. I think my only comment would be that, I I have concerns with with the 08:30 g as it relates to traffic coming out of the in the road surrounding. I think that would be my biggest concern is the congestion in there getting on and off of the post road and moving around. Those roads are particularly small just in general. So that would be my biggest concern.

But, yeah, if I if I had a choice, obviously, I would probably prefer the four, but, that's my thoughts.

Thank you. Other commissioners?

I I would prefer the 4 Lots Subdivision as well. The traffic impact, it would be pretty heavy from from any other option. Bear in mind that the state did improve the intersection with Post Road East, close to Hills Point Road. But on the other side, it's a 45 degree intersection, and it's right next to fire department. And I think it's, it's probably pretty risky to pile a lot of traffic into that that area, both entering and, and, exiting.

Other commissioners, mister Bolton, anything to add?

Thanks, Paul. Nothing really specific other than and there's this is not a criticism of the way it was presented tonight. But, basically, when and if this becomes a full application and comes on our agenda, it's just gonna basically boil down to whether or not we wanna make a bet that any type of public safety or public concern issue would be upheld. I mean, it's we're facing either a less dense proposal or an eight thirty g. And if we didn't like either, then we'd have to sit here and make a bet on the whole traffic issue, which is obviously a concern. That's really what it boils down to. But other than that, I appreciate the presentation.

Thank you.

Alright. Very good. I'm gonna leave you with two thoughts, attorney Fallon.

Mhmm.

The the idea of putting 29 units in there scares me to death. And I it's it's not the new intersection with the three way stop signs. I actually think that's an improvement. Whether it's legal and mister Wilberg likes it or not is a whole another kettle of fish. What scares me is the intersection, as was just enunciated, by mister Kalise, both the one next to, the McDonald's and the one next to the fire department.

In neither case is a left turn advisable. I'm sure if you live there, you probably get pretty good at it, and you could probably get out of there. But with the new configuration at the top of the hill at that light next to McDonald's, the left turn is almost always blocked by the, by the traffic heading, down up post road. They they can't make it in there, and, usually, there's no opportunity to go halfway or anything The like oncoming traffic from, from the other other intersection the other way, they're coming. And so there's an opportunity to ruin that perfect record of no crash data for eleven years.

In the context of an eight dash 30 g? Is that just so I'm understanding your comments?

I I think with either of them you know, obviously, a four lot subdivision, you get four cars, five cars, eight cars even, and they'll probably not have difficulty to and from. They'll probably learn pretty quickly how to get in and out of there. But a 29 unit or a 30 unit, I I would hate to it's kinda like we had them redo that they redid the whole intersection beautifully with all their studies about how how intensive it was, who was using it, which direction they were going. And now you're gonna as soon as they finish it, you're gonna add, 30 units to their to their, to their math that wasn't there before, and that's a that's a heavy load to ask. Now, if you go down the other end by the by the fire department, I mean, that's a little easier.

It's certainly easy to make a right. Right. That's, that's almost a yield. You can almost do that on the fly. The I don't even know if there's a stop sign there. But making the left there is still difficult because it's a four lane it's four lanes, and it's a quick four lanes. Right. People have, got ahead of speed going through there. So, you know, I'm I'm worried about that too.

Yeah. Mean, clearly, of the reasons we looked and have looked seriously at the four lot subdivision option is because, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Hayes lives there. He's raising his family there. We get it. We're just looking for input from you, and and hopefully and and by the way, I should say we're happy as we go through this process. If the neighbors wanna reach out, they know where to find me, and I'm happy to engage in a dialogue with them. But the point I think we all need to consider is, I think the impact of a four lot subdivision here is, without argument, in my respectful opinion, de minimis. And I think everybody and I don't mean the commission so much, but I'm I'm speaking whatever. I think everybody needs to realize that.

I understand the concerns that you raise, mister chairman, with regard to the eight dash 30 gs, but I will tell you the standard for eight-thirty gs is I just had one came down, the judge similar concerns about left hand turn, you know, how long the the the time for wait went from fifteen seconds during peak mornings to a minute and twelve seconds. And that was the reason they denied the application. And the judge says when dealing with eight dash 30 gs, matters of traffic convenience do not rise to the level of traffic safety. So I I just I appreciate the input you've given us. And as I said, the whole goal here is to try to work with the commission, work with the town to come up with a development, of this parcel, which is 2.56 acres in that zone, which is quality and meaningful and appropriate.

So we that's why we came before you tonight. We appreciate the input.

Well, that's interesting. Thank you for that. So so the owner who's lived there, he he agrees that that putting 30 units in there might be difficult. You, as well as a practitioner, you understand that that could actually be difficult in terms of, you know, how much traffic was there. And we could both agree, I think, that that might not be a basis for, determining, whether or not it's workable. So the question I have is, why did you bring that?

Well, we're because it's an option that we have seriously considered. You know, I'm not being, you know, as I said at the beginning, an apologist for eight-thirty gs.

No, I get that.

The eight-thirty gs option is not offered as some boogeyman here. The fact of the matter is the town has always shown, a strong commitment to affordable housing. I happen to believe this is a good location for affordable housing. If the if the if the commission were giving impa input to us along those lines and saying, look. If you deal with the traffic related issues, if you address these concerns that we have, we think an a dash 30 g here fairly proximate to the post road, etcetera, etcetera, would be a great use.

That's fine. But it's your input that we wanted to get. But the the a dash 30 g, I I first of all, I don't think mister Hayes you know, he's trying to come up with a solution here that it fits the needs of his family and himself and the town, and he thinks either of these options are, reasonable and effective. And from my standpoint, I think that the eight-thirty gs, provided we do the homework we would do, would would be something that should be approved and and by the commission and and judicially. But I I I would hope that, you know, we could come up with whatever plan is one that this commission is comfortable with, because I do respect your, you know, commitment to residential development in the community, be it eight thirty gs or a subdivision.

On that eight thirty gs, his, his own property goes away, does it not?

You mean the house?

Yeah. Yes.

I believe it does. Let me I I don't have an but is that correct, Andy? It does or is is are we maintaining that house as part of the, 8 Dash 30 G? I forget.

No. There's a there's a 66 unit. Right.

So there's that's that's correct.

Alright. Well, I I again, it's a it I'm a little mystified as to why somebody would come to us and say, I'd really like to put 29 units into my property and stay there, at at 830 G, which is fine. You have the right to do that, or a four lot subdivision. When it I don't I'm not sure any of the faces on this commission would say, Oh, gee, let's have the 830 Gs.

Well, that's good to know.

I mean Well, it's a little disingenuous, actually, if you ask me. I mean

It it was not intended to be disingenuous. It was intended to give the commission, in its planning function, an opportunity to assess potential development of the property that legally could be undertaken. And am I surprised that you're indicating that, you would prefer the four lot subdivision? No. I'm not surprised.

But that doesn't mean that the suggestion of the eight-thirty g approach was disingenuous. It's an it's it's another option for the development of this oversized parcel in this zone. And, you know, we thought the dialogue should be had, and and that's why we came before you with it.

Interesting. Okay. Alright. It's a it's it's an interesting tactic. I don't no one's ever come to us with, in a pre app situation with both of these saying column a, column b, when

as I said at beginning, it is unique. I said at the beginning, it's unique. But I do think that's partially because you have a very unique applicant here. You have somebody who's not you know, who lives sensitive to the community and, lives in it.

Okay. All right. Well, I think I've taken up more than your enough of your time. Any other commissioners before we let John go with a nod and a wink towards which way you think you want him to go? Anybody?

Alright. Mister, mister Fallon, do you

have what you need? I appreciate your time and your input, and, thank you all very much for, for that time and input.

Thank you, sir. I do appreciate it. Miss Injeski, would you take us through to the public hearing?

Yes. Going into public hearing, the first item on the agenda is, item number two for text amendment number eight five seven p z two five zero zero six three five submitted by Andy Simulides of Land Tech to modify Section 22 Dash 7 Restricted Office Retail District Number 1 to permit additions to existing historic buildings provided the addition does not exceed 50% of the existing building area. The lot is at least one acre inside. The building is listed on a historic resource inventory, and the addition is designed as an integral part of the existing structure both internally and externally. A copy of the text amendment is available online at www.westport.gov on the planning and zoning office webpage under PNZ pending applications and recent approvals.

A copy may also be viewed at town hall at 110 Myrtle Avenue in the Town clerk's Office and planning and zoning office. Applicants presentation time is fifteen minutes.

Very good. Thank you very much, Brie. So, Andy

Did you want me to read a number three as well? Are we opening these together?

Yeah. That was good. I was gonna ask if did consider joining us together.

But time out. I I I actually I'm sorry. A little bit of housekeeping if, if I if the commission will indulge me, please. I do see quite a few faces here that I'm very familiar with, people who, I know are here because they wanna weigh in on subject matters that are coming before us this evening. However, I failed to mention that we have, we have a, an agenda change, and I apologize for waiting this long.

I should have actually done it right in the beginning. We have been asked and we have, we have approved moving the last two items, which are in work session, off tonight and on to the sixteenth. So for those of you that might not have the agenda in front of you, it is the two the two items for July and for the tax amendment for off-site housing. I do apologize. I know I can see some of the people who are here wanna weigh in on that.

We moved it off because it's not ready. We're not ready. It's not ready. And this tonight's was is the wrong night for it. So, again, I I apologize for that. And, now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Alright. Item number three, which we are opening with number two, is 50 Post Road West special permit site plan application PZ2500639 submitted by Andy Simulides of Landec for property owned by Roterra Property Management LLC to utilize the provisions of section thirty two twelve inclusionary two family and multifamily dwellings to convert and expand the existing historic commercial building into 13 residential units and to construct four new townhouses for a total of 17 residential units, of which four will be deed restricted affordable units. Additional site improvements include a new parking area, landscaping sidewalks, and drainage enhancements located in the Restricted Office Retail District Number 1, PID C 09604000. Presentation time is fifteen minutes.

Thank you, Bree. That was quite a mouthful. Mister Sounalidis, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. For the record, my name is Andy Soumoulidis. I'm a principal with Landec here in Westport. I'm here on behalf of Bottero Property Management LLC. Thomas Bottero is also on the call this evening regarding the proposed redevelopment of 50 Post Road West. I'll just pull up the existing site plan or the existing survey. Hold on one sec. Bear with me.

Here we go. Thank you. Subject property is located in RORD Number 1 Zoning District and consists of approximately one acre. It contains two existing structures, and some associated surface parking. The principal structure here in the front is the captain Frederick Sherwood House constructed in 1835 in the Greek revival architectural style.

The building is listed on the historic resource inventory and represents an important visual and cultural landmark along Post Road West. The property also contains a rare accessory building constructed in 1960. Over the last decade, the set has remained pretty vacant. The previous uses of the property were office and retail. During that time, both buildings and the surrounding grounds have deteriorated significantly and are now in the dilapidated condition.

This application proposes an opportunity to restore and revitalize a property that is historically significant and highly visible within the community. What we're looking to do here is rehab the existing historical structure in the front of the property and add a small addition on the rear of that building, tear down the existing structure in the rear, and put up a new townhouse style building in the rear of the property. We are proposing 13 residential units in the front building, eight one bed and five two bed. Of that, two one bed and one two bed will be affordable. And in the rear building, we're proposing four townhouse styles, and one of those townhouses would be affordable.

So we're looking for a total of 17 units, where 18 units are allowed by your regulations. And the requirement there is three affordable housing units, and we're proposing four. Two one bedrooms and two two bedrooms. The one bedrooms throughout the, proposed historic building will be dispersed on each floor. So there's three floors to the building, there's one on each floor.

Just to talk about parking quickly while we're here. The proposed parking on this site is for 32 parking spaces where 34 are required. So we are looking for that 0.5 units of reduction, which is allowed by this commission to be approved. And it's really not a whole 0.5 spaces per unit. When you do the math, it's really 0.25 spaces per unit.

So we're looking to go for from 1.75 units for a one bedroom to 1.5 units and 2.25 units or 2.25 spaces for a two bed and to go to two spaces, totaling 32 parking spaces and two of those spaces being ADA, accessible. This project previously received ZBA approval, and the purpose of that ZBA approval was for the steepness of this driveway. This driveway currently, there are sections that exceed 23% slope, which is really not a safe condition given what we're seeing today in terms of, weather conditions. So what we're looking to do here is to soften up this drive, and we actually reduced it to be 18%, which is what we've used historically in other towns. But it still exceeds the limits in Westport, and that's why we saw the v CBA variance, and it was granted.

The parking lot was also graded, the existing parking lot, at 18%, and we really softened that up, to be 5%, which is the industry standard for a parking lot. And we have another upper parking lot here, again, for 32 spaces. We are also proposing some significant stormwater improvements where none exist today. So we actually, as part of this proposal, are reducing impervious surfaces slightly overall on the site. And where no stormwater, existed, we're proposing some significant stormwater improvements, a big infiltration system in the front of the property, a large detention system that sits in the middle of the property, some water quality treatment, for the parking lots, and ultimately dispersing out into into Post Road West.

What we're looking to do today is also includes, obviously, a text amendment. The text amendment is specific to that front building. The front building is approximately 3,300 currently square feet, and we're looking to do a 1,500 square foot addition to it. In order to accomplish that, we would need to amend section twenty two seven point two of the zoning regulations, which limits buildings within the zone to 2,500 square feet. The new building in the rear of the property is less than 2,500 square feet, so we don't need it for that rear building that was able to be done, according to the regulations.

But the adaptive reuse of this historical structure, requires that text amendment in order for us to to move forward with this proposal. In terms of the tax amendment, this applies only to properties listed in a historic resource inventory, requires a minimum lot area of one acre, and allows preservation and that the re reuse of the qualifying historic structures. Most importantly, this is the only property in the ROD one that these requirements apply to. So this is the only and and there's not a ton of properties in the ROD, as you guys know, but this property is the only property that checks all those boxes to allow for this development to happen. In addition to preserving the historic structure, the the proposal includes meaningful site improvements, reconfiguring traffic circulation to improve safety and traffic flow, as you've met as you heard earlier, upgrading parking areas, the storm water management and drainage improvements, as well as enhancing landscaping, along the streetscape, and along the rear of the property and on the sides of the properties that are adjacent to residential zones.

And we provided landscaping plan depicting those improvements as I get through the details and get to that landscaping plan. So you could see here the necessary streetscape street trees along the frontage, rows of, of screening of arborvitae along the boundaries of the residential districts, and then the necessary landscape trees in the parking areas for one per 10 spaces. We also proposing low level lighting, bollard lighting, path lighting, and the such, for this residential property. We believe this is consistent with the plan of conservation development. One of those requirements reuse the redevelopment of existing structures.

Again, as you heard earlier, this significantly historic structure can be reused, and readapted to a residential structure. Redevelopment of Westport's primary growth strategy. Westport is largely built out. Meaningful growth opportunities occur primarily through redevelopment of underutilized properties such as this. This site has been vacant for, you know, well over ten years and and represents precisely this opportunity.

Historic preservation and adaptive reviews, you've you've heard a lot about that this evening. The POCD encourages that. And balancing conversation with appropriate development. This project maintains the essence and character of Westport while introducing carefully scaled residential use that is respectful to the site in its setting. Community benefits.

This project achieves multiple project public objectives, preservation of historically significant structure, activation of a long vacant and deteriorating property, creation of diverse housing options including 20% affordable units. You heard earlier, three are required. We're proposing four. Environmental upgrades and improved site safety, enhanced streetscape along a prominent corridor. It represents preservation and progress, for the town of Westport.

Vaterra Property Management is committed to restoring this historic building with care, and delivering a development that respects Westport's care, Westport's past while contributing to its future. I'd like to note that ARB reviewed this project as well and gave their blessing. We've also received positive endorsement from the town engineering department. We received some minor comments from Connecticut DOT in terms of providing some sight lines, which are easily achieved here. It's it's pretty clear along the frontage there, and there's no turns or significant grade change in the elevations of post road west there that prevents sight lines.

So we don't anticipate any issues with gaining their approval. So we respectfully request the commission's consideration in the tax amendment, that would allow these associated improvements to happen. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the in-depth, walk through. Michelle, what do you have for us tonight?

Thank you. Michelle Prelik, planning and zoning director. So as you may recall, there was a pre application meeting requested for a potential text amendment to adaptively reuse the building to create multifamily units. That was held at a public meeting in February '20, '22, where positive feedback was provided. Wait, '22, I don't know if that's right.

I'll take a look at that. But there was a link to it in the staff comments, to the hearing. The text amendment proposes changes to RORD regulations to allow additions to existing historic buildings. The additions cannot exceed 50% of the existing building area. The lot has to be at least one acre, and the building has to be on the historic resources inventory.

Currently, the only parcel that would qualify for the amendment is the subject parcel at 50 Post Road West. The commission may consider some of the goals in the POCD that asks the promotion of creating opportunities to provide more affordable housing in Westport in the region where the demand exceeds the supply while preserving the integrity of the store structures. Also, the staff comments suggest the commission may find value in requiring a perpetual preservation easement on the existing historic structure as a condition of the approval of the special permit, I'll talk about in a couple of minutes. The property is 1.01 acres located again in the RORD 1 within the coastal area management boundary. There are steep slopes on the property.

It's currently developed with a building that's been vacant for quite some time, constructed in 1835 as Mr. Sumilidis went through the history. It's called the Captain Frederick Sherwood House. Both buildings were once served as residential use, but they've been converted to office use with light retail. A special permit site plan or coastal site plan application is also being requested. The ability to develop multifamily is pursuant to Section three thousand two and twelve. As discussed, the existing commercial building will be converted into 13 residential units,

and

then four new townhouses will be constructed in the rear. Four of the units will be deed restricted. There was discussion during the pre app that the request would be that there would be more than 20% or three affordable units. In response to that, the applicant is proposing four units, which was encouraged by the commission. Site plan improvements include new parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and drainage.

The required parking is 34 spaces, and the applicant is proposing 32 spaces pursuant to the half space request deduction allowed per section 30 two-twelve-eleven. Just wanted to talk about briefly in terms of traffic. The proposed multifamily residential use is expected to generate vehicle trips during typical commuting periods. However, the commercial use generally produces higher total daily trips and multiple concentrated peak periods due to employees, customers, deliveries all arriving and departing at the same time. Residential traffic, generally, the redevelopment will have a lower net impact on the surrounding roadway network because of the residential use.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of the traffic-

Study.

Yes, study. Just want to. That's something to consider. The residential use will have less impact than the commercial use of the property. Also, the applicant is requesting the reduction of the parking spaces, the 0.5 parking space per dwelling unit, which the commission has done in the past.

That is something else that's being requested. Lastly, the engineering department submitted comments dated December 30 stating that the drainage grading and sediment erosion controls all substantially comply with the town requirements. And if the application is approved, they will be required to secure a road opening permit and a sanitary sewer connection permit. And I sorry. I do think there one other thing I want to say is there may be one or two Naper letters on the website, which have been part of the record. And I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle. Appreciate it. So, Andy, quite quite comprehensive. I, for one, am very glad to see this come before us. I think when you look up the words white elephant in the dictionary, you might actually see this spot, and it's painted white.

No. But for you guys to tackle this is is is really gratifying to see because it's been going downhill steadily, and literally, it's on a hill, so I fully expected it to crash into the post road. So let me start there and talk about that entrance. I noticed that you recurve the entrance, so it kinda comes down in a loop and then goes straight. Talk to me about how many cars fit in there. One one car fits in there, right, in terms of

the It's two way traffic. Right. Yeah. It's two way traffic.

Yeah. It's two way traffic. What I'm what I'm getting at is, is the hill is pretty steep. And if you pull your car down to exit, you obviously have to be on the sidewalk. That's number one. Actually, is there a sidewalk there?

There isn't one, but there wasn't one.

Right. You'd have to put one in. Okay. So you'd you'd you'd have to cross the sidewalk, what I'm worried about is the sight lines up and down because you're you're coming out of there, you're gonna have to use the gas pedal pretty judiciously to get, certainly to go right if there's traffic coming, and going left is gonna take some neighborly help asking people to let you in. So I wanna make sure that if there's an opportunity to cut that hill back in any way, shape, or form to regrade it somewhat to enhance the view lines from the from the, driveway. Okay?

So we did that.

It has been done because I tried to look at the grading plan, and I couldn't tell what was changed.

Yeah. Let me pull it up. Just

Thank you.

Zoom in on that specific area. So in this front section, we actually meet the town's requirements in that first 50 feet, which is that 3% and then that 6%. Yeah. We're able to meet that. It's really the rest of the broad net. Yeah.

No. We can't do anything about that.

Yeah. But, yeah, we did we did reconfigure that, and that's why the retaining wall actually starts fairly close to the road to make that happen

Okay.

Along this southern border. Yeah. In order Okay. Now I see

it.

47 is your elevation there as opposed to alright. That's good.

We are cutting that down.

Yep. You did say in your landscape plan, though, that you're gonna put a tree right there on that corner. You might wanna avoid that.

Yeah. And and DOT commented on that also.

Alright. I mean, we still want street trees. They're required.

Right. We'll just put them in the right spot where it avoids all that.

We like the right spot. Thank you. Speak speaking of trees, none in the parking lot. That's interesting because we try to We we have four. Where are they? Oh, I see them now.

One, two, three, four.

But you're not taking, for instance, that island that's This one here? Yeah.

I think we can put one in there. That's totally fine.

You know, the idea of them providing shade for the cars in the summer, it's Yeah. It's pretty useful.

Alright. So We have no issue with adding the tree there.

Alright. That's good. You want a waiver of the traffic study. I have no problem with that. Me, personally, I think that this property has existed. The the idea that you're going from commercial to residential is decreasing. What I believe to be the the use, it's not gonna have an all day use, so I'm I'm okay with that. And I'm also okay with the the reduction in the actual number of spaces. You're not leaving somebody unparked. Right.

So I'm okay with that. I really appreciate the four units. It's gratifying to hear that when you come in for in front of us for a pre app and we ask for something that you actually put it in there, and that's great. We love that. You mentioned that you're gonna, reduce the impervious, coverage slightly or, overall. What do you mean by that?

So the existing coverage let me pull it back up. I mean, the the the site's already pretty well built out.

Yeah.

I'm just wondering where You can see here on on our, yeah, on our title block sheet. Existing lot coverage is 52.6% or 22,000 square feet, and our proposed is actually 51.7 or twenty one six. So it's a slight reduction.

And how did you get there? Was it some of the outbuildings that are being taken down?

It's really the reconfiguration of the parking lot. Okay. So you could see here the parking lot's really expanded to the residential boundaries here.

Yeah.

And we actually can't do that now, right, based on so with creating that buffer and pulling this parking lot in and kind of reconfiguring this whole parking lot, it actually pulled some of that pavement away and and made it more or or less impervious.

Pretty sure the neighbors appreciate that. Speaking of the neighbors Mhmm. You did see the letter, did you not?

Did, and I spoke with them.

Okay. Good. That's we always like that. Yeah. This is

it was these guys here.

They address topography, scale, and infrastructure limitations. Did you discuss that with them?

I did. So I actually spoke to so this is a condo association where there's four buildings in the front Right. And one bigger building in the back. Right. Cardello Architects, Bob Cardello, actually owns one of the condos. So I called Bob, and they said, Bob, what's going on here? We do a lot of work with Bob. He didn't bring it to my attention. I saw this letter, so I was quite surprised. And Bob said, have no issues. What's going on? I said, well, I see this letter from your president, your association. And I think the biggest thing is they didn't have copies of the plans to actually review and see what's going on. So I shared that with them, and, Bob shared that with Andrew today, and they seem to be fine with everything.

Seem to be fine with everything. Okay. So they'll probably speak. Is that what we'll hear?

No. He's probably not even here tonight is what I was told that he won't even unless that he did show up. I don't know. Alright. Not a problem. We we We'll find out.

Yeah. We'll find out. Listen. We like to make sure that we, we don't know what it's like living there. They do. Right. And so, that's important to me. As far as your, RORD one, I like what you did here. It's creative, works well, and to me, it's a way of saving this building because there's no way it was gonna become some kind of commercial building in the RR day. It just never was.

No. Not the way it's configured and how it is. The best use for it is really residential.

Right. The service the electrical service will all be buried, including the back units you'll take down any of the existing poles and lines and things like that?

Correct. Alright. We added a new transformer, that'll service this property. Okay.

Thank you for bringing it. I I I like what I see so far. Any other commissioners who has questions for mister Sumolitas? Brie, I see here.

Yep. Mhmm.

Yeah. I echo what Paul said. I think that this is this is great, what you're doing. My concern has to do with the proposed text amendment itself and whether more is actually needed. Because I'm looking at 22 dash eight, which addresses expansions, and I don't and I think there's going to be a conflict between the provisions of that section and the new 22 dash seven. And I just wanna make sure that any text amendments that we do are, in harmony with what's, what's already there and that this isn't going to kind of create put this put this in a spot where it's, going to not be in compliance with 22 dash eight.

And, Michelle, you can weigh in there too because you know the differences.

Okay. So so twenty two eight dash two maximum expansion?

That section? Yep. We're limited to 25% of the ground area for RODR 1 And 2.

Okay. So an existing principal building may be expanded provided that such additions are made an integral part of the interior It shouldn't exceed 25% of the ground floor area of the principal structure.

So I think 32 Dash 12 trumps that floor area because 3212 has a floor area section.

3212?

Yeah. That's where we're going under the inclusionary housing.

Let me look. I just have comments. Let me just take a look and see what she said. 32.

I think 3212 Dash hold on. I'm pulling it up.

No. That's.

Yeah. 3212.7 Floor Area. Address is the FAR.

One second. Okay. No. No case showing expenses is 50%. The bill the percentage of the addition is more than 25%?

Just

Yes. Okay.

Yes, but you are correct. Anything that is referenced in 3212 would supersede what's allowed in the RORD. I think that assessment's correct. Let me pull up 03/2012.

Yeah. What '32 12 doesn't do is address building area, and that's when it reverts back to the ROD.

Okay.

That's with a 2,500 square foot building footprint.

Okay. I just wanna make sure that this isn't gonna be an issue. Right.

That they're separate.

Yeah. I agree with that. I think that it is superstated by 3212. But it's I mean, that would be my assessment.

Okay. Yeah. As long as that is that's fine. That was the only that was the, you know, the major thing that kinda stuck out to me. But, otherwise, I think this is, what you've proposed is is it's great. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Other commissioners? Patrice, I know you're dying to ask something. Mister Bolton, anything?

Yeah. You know what? I I I had to say I was pleasantly surprised to see that what we worked on two months ago or a month ago with the historic tax revisions, that this seems to complement that. And I was expecting to see a actually, the other way around a contradiction. So I thought that got me, you know, my mind frame off to a start. But, you know, again, this is just such another general comment. I'll I'll reserve the rest for work session when if we get there. But I just hate to see so much density in that hill area where it gets tricky. We got some narrow side roads. We got a school nearby and whatnot.

But it's 2026 Westport. That's all I have to say for now. But, actually but good job with the, historic substance of it. It was very it built off what we did, and it was kinda nice to see that.

Okay. Good comments. Mr. Kalis, look like you have your mute button off.

Yes. It goes without saying that I'm very pleased that someone has chosen to restore an existing historic building, which has been sitting idle for so long. But I've got a few questions just to know. And some of them may be repetitive, which I apologize in advance, because I my my, audio is not that great. I guess the first thing I wanna ask is of Michelle.

And given the, RRD in the front and the residential in the back and the allowable bedroom count totaling both parcels, How does that comply with your proposal?

Just give me one second. I I don't believe, it's a split zone property. Let me just pull it up.

No. The entire property is is one zone.

Yeah. Because if it was a split zone property, it would be a rezoning, and it would be section 39 a. So they're allowed, 18 units an acre in the residential in the res in in the commercial zone, and they're asking for 17 units an acre. So it complies.

It it does comply?

Yes. It does.

Exactly. Or it's under or

over? 100%

over. It's what it's they're allowed 18 units an acre, and they're proposing 17 units per acre. So they're one unit one one unit less than what's allowed per acre.

And this proposal is your four door units are, all on-site as I read it. Is that correct?

Yes. That's correct.

Okay. So my my next question is, in terms of the, original structure, given its age, I would assume it's got a full basement, although I haven't verified that. Can can the applicant tell me what their plans, if one exists, what their plans is regarding that part of the structure?

Sure. I didn't go through the architectural, but there there is a fully built out basement. Most of it is mechanical and storage, and a portion of it that of that basement, we're gonna repurpose as a gym amenity for all the tenants on-site.

Okay. So I have it's gonna have mechanicals. Does that mean that, each unit will have its own separate mechanicals?

In terms of air handlers and the such, we have we show that on the utility plan. Yes. They'll be all out exterior. We have mechanical pads exterior of the site. Let me share the plan.

So this is that lower level plan of the historic structure. So this portion will be a gym with a couple changing rooms, a sauna. This is the mechanical space, and this is the storage space.

I see.

And then if I go to the we have utility pads here pads here to service the buildings.

Okay. So, given the the terrain, I would assume that no portion of the basement is on grade. Am I correct with

that? Correct.

Okay. So

So there's

Will there be an elevator system in the building?

No elevator system in the building. So what happens here, the 1st Floor is access that grade around this building. This parking level is actually at the 2nd Floor of the building. So you actually walk across basically a bridge

I see.

To get you into the 2nd Floor. Mhmm. And then in there, there's a staircase that brings you up a floor to the 3rd Floor. So for the 2nd And 3rd Floors, you access it from here. The 1st Floor units, you access at grade around the building. They're at grade entrances. So you see one here, here, the main porch, and then there's one here and here. And then there's a staircase on either end of the parking lot that bring you down to that level.

So this footprint that you're showing me here, which shows the is the gray portion the

The addition.

Addition? Correct. So it's basically squaring off the back of this building.

I see. Yeah. Nothing in the front. What's the existing footprint on this building?

It's about 3,300 square feet, and the addition's about 1,500 square feet.

I see. So it sort of have a 5,000 square foot footprint?

Correct.

And above grade, so that would be not not including the basement. We're talking two and a half stories or just simply two?

Yeah. Let me get you to the

I'm sorry?

I'm gonna get you to the architectural. So I'll show you the floor plan layout. So this is that 1st Floor.

Okay.

This this is the two bedroom affordable on the 1st Floor.

Okay.

You have an entrance here that gets you into unit, an entrance here that gets into unit, an entrance here. On the 1st Floor we have, we have one, two, two one bedrooms and three two bedrooms, so five units on the 1st Floor. 2nd Floor, we have three one bedrooms and two two bedrooms. You can see here this is the affordable one. You could see here this is that bridge off the parking lot that gets you in that grade.

That gets you in here. There's a stairwell that brings you up to the 3rd Floor, and then there's separate entrances to each one of the units at that floor. And then on the 3rd Floor, again, it's not a full 3rd Floor, is just three one bedrooms on the 3rd Floor.

That sort of actually will be individual units independent of the rest of the building on the 3rd Floor.

Correct. They each have their own entrance. So you see an entrance here, here, and here to get into each unit.

I see.

Three doors that get you in. This is the staircase and kind of circulation area.

And then the, the the building in the rear.

Yep. That's the townhouse building. Store

two story building.

And this is just two story. It's got a full basement, Balberry below grade, and then one, two, three, four units, Living space on the 1st Floor. And then you walk up to two bedrooms on the 2nd Floor.

And will they have parking within those spaces? Or

Not within the actual apartments. No. So there's this parking lot up here that services these.

It services that building.

Correct. And then there's a walkway that gets you up into the units, and these are the main entrances here with some small covered patios in the rear of them.

So now, jumping back to the front building.

Sure.

You you've got a on the on the half story, two and a half stories up in the half story, you've got a gable roof, and then you and then you're proposing

Let me show you

the elevations.

So this is the elevation of the front.

Right. And then in the rear, you're proposing the addition. And how will you be intersecting with that gable?

It's a little outside my wheelhouse. Let me ask if Tomas can jump in.

I'm sorry?

Let me ask the architect builder, Tomas Baterro. Michael,

how are you?

Hey. Good. How are you?

Good. With do you mind just repeating the question? How would you intersect with the the main, roofline?

Yeah.

So you're gonna see the two gables in the back where Andy was just pointing to, the west elevation on the bottom. So we're introducing those, and those will be intersecting the matching the existing, or sorry. The new ridge line, to the existing portion of the structure.

So it'll be of a a similar pitch to the front? Exactly. Lesser pitch, but it'd probably be a lesser pitch. Right?

Yeah. I gotta take a look

at that.

Andy, do you mind just going through? I think it we're trying to match all the existing. Yeah. It's very similar.

I see. So what I'm looking at is the the the rear with the addition.

That's a driveway side.

Rear with the addition.

That's the rear, the one that is the rear here.

I understand. Well, I think this is wonderful. I think it's it's a well thought out project, and someone who's, working to save this this this building, all in concert with our zoning regulations is a very, positive approach to our needs for housing as well as providing affordable units.

So

from everything I've seen and, of course, I haven't seen everything, but so from everything I've seen, I give it a thumbs up.

Alright. There you go. Thank you, mister Kalis. Other commissioners? Now's the chance.

Patrice. Thank

you. Just one question following up on what Michael was doing. Are are you it looks like you're not screening in the mechanical pads. Is that true?

So I think we're gonna we're planning

Sorry. Go ahead.

Down the bottleneck. Feed about 11 knots on the path.

I'm sorry. So, Patrice, just to answer your question, we do plan to, conceal those mechanical pads with either vegetation or some sort of decorative fencing.

Okay. Great. Thank you. It's not really on the plans, but that's good to hear. Okay. Just general comments. Right? I think this is a great project too. I kinda echo what the commissioners are saying. I think this is something good.

It's revitalizing, this building, which I've always really liked. The only two sort of maybe concerns I have is, one, that the text amendment only applies to this property and doesn't really expand to the totality of the town because maybe other buildings in town could utilize this text, and, we're signaling out just this property owner, which we know, a, I'm not a fan of text amendments, and then, b, to have them narrowly tailored to a particular lot, is is definitely not something I like. The other thing is the parking spots. I'm definitely of the opinion that people like cars, and they like to use their cars, and they like to have cars. And that even with people with affordable housing, they also own cars, and we should have enough car parking spaces so that people can have cars.

And then they invite people with their their guests, and then their guests need a place to park their car. So to me, if it was if it's possible, I would like to see at least what's required for the parking spots because I know people will use them. But outside of that, I think those are my only two real comments. I think this is, gonna be a nice project and a nice addition to us work. Thank you.

Thank you, Patrice. Appreciate it. Mister Kemar. Sure.

K. So first to address parking, Patrice, you just kind of I was thinking what she was thinking, so I just read a little bit more. So we're down two spaces from what's required, and the reality is that with is it eight one bedrooms, nine two bedrooms? Correct. Right. So two bedrooms, two cars, 16 plus eight. I think we're good with 32 spots. I don't really have a problem there. You're close. Would I like 34 spots?

Sure. But so that's parking. My other everybody covered everything else, but let's just talk quickly. This thing is on a hill. And, of course, with a hill, you've got water movement. Right? You had up earlier the site plan with the driveway. What's the plan with water? One. And since given what we just went on, what's the snow removal plan?

And how to manage snow removal so first off, I just asked two questions, but let's start with snow removal and parking. And what's the plan to avoid, taking parking spots based on what Patrizia is talking about? How you know, we need to maximize parking. And given you're gonna be down two, what is snow removal planned? So I'll pause there.

There you can see here, Michael, there's Yeah. Ample space along the backside here.

K. Personal removal. So it'll just get pushed off to there, and it's the curbing and whatnot would not a big deal?

Yeah. You would plow like, you would plow the edge of somebody's driveway or whatever, and you'd see a pile of snow here. Similarly, you know, piles of snow off off the hard surfaces there. There's plenty of area there, green space.

Okay.

But, outside the limits of the the trees that we're planting along the perimeter, lawn area, let's call it the the store snow. Okay.

And then let's go towards drainage and let's talk about where water is moving, where it's being stored. And I think in the drainage report, it talked about that soil isn't the best soil. But maybe you could just talk about, you know, how are we gonna handle it Sure. And how we're gonna handle those big storms.

Sure.

So currently, there's no drainage on the entire property. And what you see here is there's a series of catch basins, in the parking lot, a lot

of them

driveway, a couple of catch basins here, all going into what's a big detention system. So this just holds the water. So it goes through here, it gets treated, and then it holds it, and then it comes out and ties into an infiltration system. So this gets metered out over time to come out, and then it goes into this big infiltration system in the front to help promote infiltration because this is where the decent soils were on the piece of property. As you could see, you got lead job cropping and all that kind of stuff going on in the rear of the property.

But in the front, we actually had some decent soil, so we're promoting that filtration along the front. So that's basically a nutshell how we're handling storm water on this piece of property.

Will water run off the driveway onto the post road?

Nope. We have a trench drain right at the right out of property line.

Alright. So how

long that at the property line when we have a series of catch basins along that driveway.

Alright. How big is that drain?

This drain?

Yeah. Wide, I should say. 12 inch. 12 inch? So can that so

what This stretch drain only picks up this portion here.

Okay.

This catch basin picks up this portion. This catch basin picks up this portion. Basin picks up this portion. This catch basin picks up half of this. This catch basin picks up the other half of the driveway. So there's there's a lot of catchment areas, call it, to pick up the storm water.

When we get

those big summer rainstorms, is this based on what type of flow can it handle?

This design is based on the town standards of a twenty five year storm.

Okay.

And we don't get credit for existing impervious. So what happens in today's condition is drastically reduced, based on the model we have to put. So all this existing impervious that's in here that we're ripping out and reputting in and this existing building that we're ripping out and putting in and this structure even, that's considered new construction under Westport zoning regulations, we don't get credit for any of this existing impervious. So that 22,000 square feet of existing impervious currently runs off into the post road. Untreated, unmetered, runs into the post road and into the town's drainage system.

Now we have to retain all of that on-site taking, like, I like to use the word fresh meadow approach, like this is all pristine lawn as the existing condition, and we have to replicate that as on this site of what we're allowed to discharge off our site. That's the requirement. So even though it's the twenty five year storm, the glass board standards, it's much greater than that because you have to mimic this being all lawn area. Whereas towns like, you know, Norwalk and other surrounding towns, you get credit for existing impervious that you're ripping out and and replacing. I'll do the math and figure out what that storm event is so you can so I can have that answer for you next time, on on these pieces of property, but it's much greater than, you know, a twenty five year storm.

So it's designed for twenty five, but the reality is okay.

Yeah. It's bigger than greater than whatever is existing today. Okay. That's good to hear. Yeah.

Michael, anything else? Nope. Alright. Who have we not heard from? Anybody? Hi, Craig.

I wanna concur with everybody who's spoken tonight. I was thrilled when I saw this application on the agenda. It's so long overdue, and the only alternative would be demolition at this point. It proposes a, I think, a great site for adaptive reuse, and the reuse is exactly what you're talking about. That being said, I do have a few questions.

And, my questions, think, are resolvable. I wanna see them resolved because I wanna see this project go forward. One is for trash removal. Where are your dumpsters going to be located, and can there be hours of pickup that don't interfere with the residents both on the property? And as I saw, there was a letter written by a neighbor, addressing this issue.

Okay. I'll go on to question number two. Good.

I'm I'm I'm trying to share the screen. I'm sorry.

Okay. No. Is it Yeah.

My god. Ask two questions at once? I think you can

But we have we have two areas. One here on the lower parking area and one up here for the townhouses. So we have two refuse areas at the end of the bays here, where a truck can pull right in, open the gates, empty them out, and pull out. So there's two dumpster locations surrounded by chain link fence. No. Board on board fence.

Okay. And you can arrange the schedules so that they're within

It's all private pickup. So, yes, that could be a ring.

Good. Okay. Then, the parking. Patrizia brought this up, and and I agree. What happens? Is there enough parking? I know you've only reduced the spaces by, you know, two to three spaces. But as Patricia brought up, people like cars. They drive cars. They have friends over who have cars. And and what's distinctive about this lot is there really is no place to go on that overflow parking because you would have to cross Route 1. So is there any way more parking could be integrated into this design?

As as you know, the site is pretty challenging, in terms of topography, and we also abut a residential district. So if this was come you know, abutting a commercial district, I'd say, yes, there's ample opportunity to expand as the current parking lot does expand into those areas. But in terms of trying to get additional parking, it's it's quite challenging. There is probably an opportunity so there's a 30 foot buffer requirement because this is all residential along up to here. So in that respect, we have to maintain a 30 foot buffer as part of the regulations where we can't put parking in this.

That's why the parking ends here, and it doesn't expand all the way here. And similarly here, we had to cut it back here, by not being able to go all the way because this is all residentially zoned. There's probably maybe an opportunity to nose in a couple spaces here, but it's very challenging coming up this steep driveway and then trying to turn into a couple spaces, you know, in this area. Other than that, I don't really see an area where you can, you know, where you can get more parking, honestly. We could possibly explore some tandem spaces in some spots, perhaps, But it is pretty challenging to have that 30 foot buffer along the residential edge dealing with the existing topography as we have it, to get that additional.

Again, we're providing two spaces for each two bedroom and one and a half spaces for every one bedroom. That's greater than a lot what we do in other municipalities, in Fairfield County is their parking regulations. Again, this is walkable to downtown, So I'm not sure you're even going to get to there, but I do get the concern of, you know, everybody has a car and then you have guests over where they parking. How does that work? And that's something we'll have to deal with, as utilizing this piece of property.

Yes. And all I would ask is that you think more about it.

No. We thought hard about it.

I'm sure you thought hard about it.

34, so it wasn't even a topic of discussion. Trust me. And say, if you have 34, we need 34. We reconfigured this parking lot many different ways to get to that 34 number to to try and get there.

So Normally, I wouldn't be as concerned, but there's just no place you have a guest or you have a dinner party and, you know, what is no place to go.

You just tell your friends to Uber.

To Uber. Good point. Like, they were supposed to all Uber to the black duck under the old under the old, Roan proposal. Okay?

You just got a Uber.

Thank you.

You got it.

Okay. It looks like all the commissioners have given it at least one whack. Anybody else have anything to add before we go to the public? I'm gonna just ask you, one generalized question. There are a lot of mature trees on the right side of the property. How many of those do you think we'll be losing?

My unmute button. So there's a huge 36 inch maple in the front corner. There's no plans to take that down. There's a couple 12 inch maples that we're looking to keep. There's an 18 inch maple through two eighteen inch maples, that we're looking to keep. And looks like there's, like, a twin cherry tree and a and perhaps an apple tree. So there's probably two trees along that whole edge that we're looking to take down, but most are still. They're kind of right on the property line, and they're not in our in our way.

Outstanding. Thank you. Alright. So, it's now time to ask the public to weigh in. Those of you who have wanna make comments, please now is the time to put your hand up or just wave.

Miss Cutler, I see your hand is up. And then, Lou, you're next. And, Victoria, did you have your hand up?

No.

Okay. Very good. You're on, miss Cutler.

In front of your face.

I'm sorry. Would you, unmute yourself, please?

Can you hear me?

Now we can. Yes.

Okay. Great. So I have written something out just to read, so I hope that you'll have patience with me while I I read through No. What I've written. Basically, I wanna say, hi.

My name is Carol Cutler, and I live at 27 Wright Street, which was built in 1845 and is residential and part of Kings Highway North Historic District. Because my home predates modern zoning, it sits directly on the property line shared with 50 Post Road West. That makes any activity on that site uniquely close and potentially impactful to my home. I understand that the propose proposal to build four townhouses are within their required setbacks. However, that construction, according to the plans, would only be 25 feet from my 180 year old home.

My main concern is that the excavation and soil removal for these new foundations could affect the stability of my home. Given its age and construction, even modest ground movement could compromise the structural integrity of my foundation and walls. I am respectfully asking the commission to ensure that a careful engineering and geotechnical review is done with my historical home in mind and that any approval includes strong protections and conditions to prevent damage to my property. Additionally, I am concerned about the plan to plan a line of Douglas fir trees along the rear of my property, which is the rear of my home. While I appreciate the intent to provide screening, the mature root systems of these trees will extend toward my foundation, potentially causing cracking, moisture issues, and other long term structural problems for an 1845 building.

I would ask you to please consider whether different, different trees, different placement, or additional distance from my home would be more appropriate. My concern is how the rear project is designed and built so that it does not unintentionally damage a fragile historically significant home. So I respectfully ask the commission to carefully review the potential structure structural impacts of ex excavation and construction at 50 Post Road, the four townhouses that will have, the impact it will have on my eighteen forty five year old home. I ask that you consider a geotechnical and or structural engineering assessment focused specifically on the adjacent historic property. Reevaluate the proposed use of Douglas fir trees at the rear property line and consider alternative species placement or conditions that minimize the risk to my foundation, include reasonable protections and or conditions in any approval to safeguard the structural integrity and historical character of 27 Wright Street.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and for your ongoing work on behalf of the town. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional information, photographs, or to meet on-site if that would be helpful in your review.

Thank you very much. Do appreciate it. Mister Sumelitis, hopefully, you took some notes there.

I did. You wanna go address each one or at the end?

So, yeah, let's actually, let's tackle that. It's an old house, and it's hard up against the lot line. So Yep.

Let me share just so we're all clear. I'm assuming this is the building?

Correct. No.

Regular tree In terms of the trees, that's an easy one. We could easily pull those trees away, have, we have a licensed arborist in house so we can specify trees that don't have big roof systems that could compromise that foundation. So that's an easy one of pulling the landscaping off that property line. And in terms of stability of the basement, we could easily do an assessment, of that basement, take photos of the basement, and document that preconstruction, and then make sure that that remains intact. They typically do these, what's called a blast survey.

They actually put size make meeting close to the property line. You're obviously right on the property line, and there's all these other precautions we could take so much to when a pre blast survey is done, which is documented. And I think we could do the same here for your for your property and document that and make sure, you know, there's no heavy equipment causing any disturbance to your foundation there or the rest of the structure.

No matter where that

level Andy, I can just add in, this is Tomas Bottero. We're not doing any blasting on the property. This is just a cat three ten just hammering away at the ledge. There was also construction on neighboring properties to, properties to the north. I think it's 35 And 41. So it wouldn't be any any different than what they have already done.

That's not true.

You know the No.

My property is not I mean, the my property is directly on your property line. What they did at 35 didn't was not as close and did not it it's not the same situation.

Those are the brain. I trade pretty early. You know? My I I it's not I I usually

Okay. So, Andy, that can can we do that, an ongoing dialogue with, this neighbor to make sure that, your plans are known to her? Definitely. And any of the consequences to her property can be discussed before you, you know, put a put a lever in the ground, so to speak. Definitely. Miss Color, is that

I would appreciate that. I would I would just appreciate that.

Until then, I wanna Which number did you say you were?

Number 27.

Okay.

Yes. I really like the Okay.

I got confusing because it's also

25 Dash 27. Yeah.

25 Dash and

so That's what it is. Okay.

And it's the it's the house in the back.

Exactly. Different It was the

old carriage house to '25.

Right. So Google Maps doesn't show it because it's in the back.

Yeah.

Okay.

It shows it on the aerial.

Yeah. The aerial. Yes. Yeah. I I was hoping to get some kind of a ground look at it. Alright. So, what's expected, yeah, what's expected is a is an ongoing dialogue here, for a particular situation. Alright. Other, neighbors. And, miss Cutler, is is that it?

Yes. For now, that is. Thank you so much. I appreciate your listening to my concerns.

Not a problem. Mister Mueller.

How do we get there, Cynthia?

There we Go right ahead. You're on camera. Nope. Now you're muted. Fine. There you go.

There. Good evening. My name is Carl Mueller, and my wife and I own 35 Wright Street, which we recently totally renovated and also built a lovely cottage on the property. I would raise and echo comments made by your fellow commissioners. One, I'm concerned about the density of both the bill the construction and the residents.

When I looked at some of the materials, it said there were 17 residential units, which is one less than permitted, I guess, according to law. And that adds up to 26 bedrooms, which I would then assume amounts to 40 to 52 sleeping residents. And when I look at that number of people in the in that area, that seems to me to be a lot, if not excessive. When we go into the parking area, another concern, there are again 17 units. And according to my simple arithmetic, you'd have two cars per unit.

That's 34, which is exactly what's coming out in one recital of the number of parking lots. My question, of course, is are the parking lots sufficiently large? Because the larger automobiles and and mini trucks that people now drive are forcing the town to revise its parking regimen. And not to mention the fact that there is absolutely no room for guests unless some of the residents are out driving. So those are concerns that that we have.

And then, of course, with density, you have noise, you have odors, you have light, and you have trash. And I know all of these issues have been raised or touched upon, but I'm not clear that all of these have been totally addressed. Carol raised a one aspect of the impact on Wright Street, which is a matter of concern to us. She dealt with the with the land stability issue and the peculiar location of her, residents. I'm also concerned with water runoff because not only does the hill slope down to the east, it slopes down to the north, which could take some water from 50 Post Road West northward onto her property and onto the other two properties along that side of the 50 Post Road West.

We, of course, are all concerned about screening and that it's adequate and that it's attractive. And I know that Carol Cutler has a special concern about roots, but it seems to me you also mentioned a different species, arborvitae, and and not the, tree that Carol mentioned. I'm not sure what we're thinking of here. So those are the, general comments. I have one mathematical problem, and that is how do you increase the footprints of the two buildings by 4045% and reduce the over coverage by a couple of percentage points.

That seems to be a a mathematical act of wizardry. Thank

you. Anything else? Because we'll answer some of those. Was there is that your list?

No. Yeah. Well, there's one other. Please. And that is, I I know that, you're considering waiving the traffic requirement, but, the traffic, study. But I would point out that right now the the property isn't being used, so there's no base for studying what would go on there. I'm also concerned that the right street is not a through street. But if we have 52 residents at 50 Post Road West, we're gonna have a lot of people going up and down our our street. And our reaction to that will be to enforce.

You may not understand. It's just it said do not enter.

Yeah. You're not allowed to enter our street. But people will come from Kings Highway through down to to the property on Post Drug West.

There'll be a rent room.

I don't know what you can do about it. I know what we will do about it.

Very good. Anything else, sir? Nope. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Just so you know, the size of the, the size of the parking spaces themselves are guided by, town regulations. They must meet them. They must meet them, as they are today. As far as I know, we're not planning on making them larger or smaller. As far as water runoff, I I do believe the applicant has mentioned that they're not only going to, improve a site that has none now, but he's going to, collect all the water that's on his site.

That is required by Westport regulations, so they're gonna be in compliance there. As far as, odors and noise and things like that trash, this site is no different than any other site who wants to build. They're entitled to they're entitled to maximize the usage of their property, and I think they've done a fairly good job of addressing those items that you mentioned there. As far as going up and down Wright Street, yeah, you should, make sure that your rules on that street are followed. I agree with you there. So thank you for coming this evening. I appreciate it. Any other comments? Patrice?

Sorry, Paul. Just on that last comment, can we see the lighting plan? Because I don't think I actually saw the lighting plan on the Sure. I saw Michelle's report stating the type of lighting that would be provided, but could we walk through the plan to show where the lighting is gonna be and how it's gonna be designed?

I'm sure Mr. Ciudlidis can bring it up for us.

So we're basically doing low level bollard lighting. These aren't, you know, your typical pole with a fixture on top that you'll see in a commercial parking lot. So these squares here, as I zoom in, are small low level bollard lights. And I think we probably should have a picture of it here. Yeah. Here you go.

Yeah. So that's what

a bollard light looks like. Right? It's like a small pole.

You

know, three and a half foot tall with low level lighting.

Waist high.

Yeah. Exactly. And and that's what we have scattered throughout the parking lot. You see them here on the corner.

So there's no just so you know, there's no light spillover, Patrice? No no bleeding into the neighbors?

Right.

Because those are sorry. Because just Andy, those are three feet tall?

Yeah. Roughly. Three and

a half. Yeah.

Three and a half.

And then this was the landscaping talked about earlier. This is missus Cutler's house here, so we'll pull this landscaping off. And like I said, there's an opportunity to pull that further away from her house. There's plenty of room in this area to still provide the screening, yet be far enough away from from her structure.

Well and and, Andy, as far as that screening goes, you're you're adding what you're adding additional screening than what's there now. In other words, you're improving that?

Yeah, by 35 or 36 trees or something like that.

Okay. Appreciate it. Patrice, anything? You're good? Any other, neighbors need to weigh in before I go to mister Mull? Neighbors? Okay. Lou, welcome.

Thank you, mister, Leboits. Lewis Mall, 30 Ludlow Road. I am also a member of the RTM district two, and this property is in my neighborhood. I've lived here for twenty five and a half years and have watched the captain's house, deteriorate over that period of time. The previous owner did absolutely nothing to improve that property for twenty five and a half years.

And my biggest fear was that it was going to be demolished and something, in its place that would, just really be a detriment to the the neighborhood. In fact, I worked with the blight board to on several amendments to address that were shortcomings in our blight ordinance. We we had never addressed peeling paint and landscaping. And so one of the things that I was going to do once that those changes were made to the ordinance, I was gonna file a complaint against this property because of of the peeling paint and the broken shutters and the deteriorated roof, but then I saw that the property had been sold to Bratero, and, I thought I'd I'd first hear them out and see what they were going to do and give them a chance to, state their case. And I met with Tomas Buttero, and if you have a chance, I suggest to any of you to reach out to him.

He's a wonderful person to talk to and to deal with. And I'm sure that, neighbors will, once they get to know him, will feel comfortable. I I think we need, more developers like Thomas Potero in this town. One of the things that, I did I was the only member of the public to attend the ARB meeting on 50 Post Road West. And it was very interesting to listen to a group of architects and the give and take in that session.

And they made their concerns known. They offered constructive criticism. Mr. Potero took it and went back to the drawing boards, came back a second time, and they were quite pleased with the end result. And what I'm excited about this project is I think that this is the size and the scope and the scale, for the neighborhood, and that we should have more of these, and we should have them in every district in town, not just in a few districts along the Post Road.

So I would like to see more of this. We want to talk about, for a second, traffic. We are going to have 68 units at 85 Post Road and 17, units here at 50 Post Road. That's 85 units that are being dropped into this neighborhood. The most significant traffic issue in District 2 and in this area is at the intersection of Post Road and Riverside, Route 33, Wilton Road, whatever you want to call it.

And the It's actually criminal. We do not have pedestrian crosswalk signals in this area. And if people worry about cars, I'm more worried about pedestrians and our children when they walk to town. So any pressure that can be put on the state and I've been before, the task force on pedestrian and traffic safety time and time again, and I've written to the state and so forth and so on. But any time, any, government agency of the town of Westport that can put pressure on the Department of Transportation to fix the fact that there are there's only one signal light for pedestrians going from one side of the post road to the other.

There's no four way whatsoever, in that area. So that's really you don't have to be a traffic engineer.

You know?

That that is a failing intersection. There's nothing below an F in traffic studies. So I can give you a traffic study. It's a failing intersection. It's one of the worst in the state of Connecticut, and yet it doesn't have pedestrian signal lights.

And that's what we should be fighting for in our neighborhood and in our town for the safety of our children. What I see from the drawings that have been presented on 50, I see a historic building being preserved and a better use of it being put into place and that the neighborhood will be much better off with a building like this than with an eight thirty g that's across the road from it. So, I urge the commission to in endorse this, and I hope that, like I said earlier, that there are more Tomas Borteros out there, than Westport could use a few more, developers like that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, mister Mull. About that, just a a side note between you and I. About that post road, you you you and I both know the, the f rated, intersection. There's three crosswalks. I can imagine why would there not be four there?

You you you you have that left turn signal. I Paul, I I cannot aren't there at least three, a u shaped Yeah.

Pedestrian. Okay.

Well, there is a u shape. There is there's

No. A

There no, there isn't. There is one just straight there there there are the the, white lines, but there aren't signal lights.

Oh, I get you. Yeah.

You cannot get get from our side of Milton Road over to the the the town what I call the town side. Yep. There's no signal light.

Well, we're gonna need some, we're gonna need some help up in Hartford, obviously, if we're gonna talk to DOT about that. That's for future, discussion.

They they they promised me that for two, it's sometime in 2026 or '27. I'm key I've been holding my breath for twenty five years. Okay?

Sorry about that. Alright. Mister Tsunilidis, we're gonna come back to you. Wait. I'm sorry. Anybody else from the public have anything to add? Seeing none, I'm gonna come back. Oh, Robbie. I see your hand is up.

Hello, everyone. How are you? Just to echo what, mister Mull said, this is a well thought out plan for saving a structure that we like. They're not putting an eight thirty g that's five stories above missus Cutler's property, which they could do. I think the pre op this, earlier this evening is a perfect example of what developers are gonna do. They're gonna come to the the table and say, this is what we wanna do, or this is what we can do. So in listening to this this evening,

I