Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

you

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you you you Thank you. . you you Thank you.

which, you know, depresses the site even further on a sloping site, it becomes harder, more expensive, et cetera. But we're saying that that can be doubled, provided there is no objection from the town engineer. So that's important. This is the compromise language. If you've seen the correspondence from Ted Gill, Obviously, his preference, and we filed it originally that way, was more of the global rewrite of 32-8. The commission at a prior meeting was not comfortable with that global rewrite and wanted it kept a little simpler. So we've worked out this compromise, which we hope gets this done, and we're happy to help in subcommittee if you want to try to take on the whole section at another time. And basically it's saying, you know, when you have these sloping sites and you're doing sidewalks or site distances, and there's no objection from the town engineer, those standards shall not apply. And then again, the sidewalks and the site distances in the next section. So we've tried to put it all in a section and with a reference cross-reference to both sections of 32. And that is, this is just, and this was in the staff report, the other, yeah, this is just the other places where this has been done. But I believe that that ends our presentation with just a quick summary. Because we didn't go into it, we have an agreement with Whitney Glen that we've done, including landscaping on their property and helping remove dead material on their property. We've got the sidewalk, less traffic. The water quality and quantity, if you didn't remember, has been improved in both directions. We have better tools. We do not need commercial. We do need the housing. It's a lot of vacant commercial. uh we have the town engineer rewrite on-site bmrs this is a rental project nine moratoria points unanimous approval from arb border selectman rtm the location is designed for the growing need in town and the parking as we said is above what's required allowed in the zone and required by the new state regs and with that i would stop sharing

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Michelle, do you have something to add?

Yes, quickly. Thanks. I just wanted to remind everybody that we have got revised materials. The text that the applicant just went through and obviously went through all the changes. So that's great. The There was part at the previous meeting in May, there was discussion about the parking and which option, option one, which proposed the 61 standard parking spaces with 22-foot drive aisles for option two, which was 66 standard spaces and a 25-foot drive aisle. So those are all in the record for discussion. If anybody had further questions on that. And we did have some comments from Ted Gill regarding the language and the excavation and fill. So if it's at the chair's discretion, I'd like to ask him at some point to weigh in on his thoughts. That's all I have.

Thank you very much, Michelle. And yes, actually, let's do that now. So we have that fresh on top of Mr. Redness's comments. Mr. Gill wants to add something.

Sure. Yes. So I actually did go back and listen to the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where this application was heard. And I know that the commission, I had been at the first hearing and offered to answer any questions if anybody had any for me. And there weren't any at that meeting. But then last meeting that I was not able to attend, there were several questions, a lot of which I actually wrote up some answers to, although most were from commissioners, Ken Meyer and Zakara, who are not here tonight. So I don't know if the rest of the commission would like answers for any of those. But generally, there seemed to be, after everybody kind of got a chance to review, you know, what the real scope of that text amendment was to 32.8, there seemed to be a bit of confusion about why, you know, the engineering department was, you know, pushing in that direction, why we were encouraging the applicant to do that. and why we settled on all of the numbers, all of the specific different standards. And so I wanted to kind of go back and emphasize Our urging of the commission to look at 32.8 is not necessarily in order to adopt the specific numbers and standards that are in the text amendment as currently written. The specific numbers and standards, those can easily be changed. The slopes that Rendis and Mead set on in order to put this text amendment together were not dead set on 40 percent or 50 percent or 20 percent as the commission currently has. And we're not set on maximum fill or cut heights of 20 feet, right? Those are the specific numbers that Redness and Mead wanted because they think that that would be appropriate for the scope of what the commission should be able to approve. But those numbers themselves, we're not set on. What we are set on is the framework by which Excavation and fill permits, which currently the commission only reviews when you're outside of excavation and fill exemption limits. The idea that the commission is reviewing those applications, which in theory have the same cut and fill heights, the same slopes, the same volume of fill that we can approve at an administrative level. And the only way that they or all they have to do to avoid going to the commission is just add a little bump out on the house so that they can get an extra 25 foot exemption limit over in that direction. Or as unfortunately, some engineers do take one drainage system that works for their development and split it up into five in order to get five foot exemption limits around that. And now the exact same cut and fill that would have to go in front of the commission is now approvable under an administrative permit. I don't think that that necessarily creates a problem. So I think that those types of applications can easily be approved at an administrative level. But I think that if the commission's idea behind having an excavation and fill permit that has to go in front of the commission makes sense to the commissioners, then there should be a separate framework by which you can do grading that is not approvable administratively, as long as you receive a special permit for that. So we can adjust all of the numbers that Redness and Mead set on, but I would still encourage that we talk about that change to 32.8. I would also bring up there was some discussion regarding, you know, well, if there's just a couple of grading regs that this current individual development does not comply with, why isn't the applicant just going to ZBA, just go get a variance for these individual items? And I do want to go on record to say our department does agree with Rendis and Mead's stance that there are some things like the requirement to put in sidewalks along the post road. It doesn't make sense for us to have regulations that force applicants into a Catch-22. You have to put in sidewalks. Oh, but doing that causes you to violate our grading regulations. And so you need to get a variance from that or request permission to not put in the sidewalks. I think that's a negative. There's no positive to that regulation, Catch-22, that unfortunately we put a lot of developments there. And I don't think that the answer is... that we do either of those things, force people to go get a variance there, because I don't think that there's a possibility of a hardship in that case. That's not a hardship that our regulations are forcing you to do this. So it doesn't matter if it would get approved anyway. It just doesn't make sense, and we should address that within our regulations. Then the last thing that I want to say is basically just that We do have this text amendment to 32.8 that was written right before this individual application came through. This is the text amendment that I was working on with Redness Mead when we had this discussion outside of the scope of any individual application three years ago. And so that's why they were able to just attach it to this application when I made my first set of comments. I do believe that this larger scale change to 32.8 would be a net positive for our regulations. It would make the enforcement, the review and enforcement of your regulations for our department simpler, and it would make it make more sense. But if we were to not adopt this, but the commission were still to want this individual application to move forward, the original text amendment before this change to 32-8 came through, had a single bullet in a completely different section, not 32-8, that said that that type of development in that zone with all of these X, Y, and Z, narrowing it down so it's very few lots that actually meet this definition, is exempt entirely from 32-8. And I know that the commission has adopted something like six times, has adopted this type of text change. And from our department's perspective, these text changes do not make sense. It is a bad practice to be putting changes to 32-8 into different sections and exempting some lots wholesale. You know, I understand when the commission says we're nervous about allowing slopes that are 40 percent as opposed to the current 20 percent. But when the same commission then goes and approves some of these text amendments that don't have a maximum slope, they just say you're exempt from 32.8. They have no maximum slopes. They have no maximum fill heights. They have no maximum or no limits on grading within five feet of a lot line. Some of these. Um, that, that doesn't, it doesn't make sense to me that some lots would be entirely exempt. Um, so if the commission does agree that we should adopt a text amendment, I would just urge that whatever is changed should be within section 32, eight and limited to whatever developments we're saying makes sense. So. If we do think that they should not be required to get a variance for installing the sidewalks that we are encouraging and requiring, I would definitely encourage the latest text amendment that allows for them to do that, but it puts the change into 32.8, not under 39A or any other section that doesn't have to do with grading. So we feel a net positive towards the changes in scope to 32.8 wholesale. definitely a negative to any changes outside of 32.8 that have to do with exemptions from grading. And for making the small incremental change that's only going to allow this development to go forward, I think that the latest crafted smaller scope change to 32-8 is an acceptable in-between between those two. But I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission if you have any for me.

Thank you, Mr. Gill. I appreciate that explanation. And I do feel you there as far as 32-8 is concerned. And I'm encouraged by... um, uh, by your thoughts about it's being acceptable in this case. Uh, and then I'm going to invite you to come back because you will be back. We're going to put it in a subcommittee and we are definitely going to revisit, um, the, you know, eliminate the catch 22, as you said, it must be done. There's no reason for it to be there. I think it's basically just an outgrowth of, uh, of, uh, what we'll call previous administrations trying to be careful. Let's just call it that. And so note to Michelle, let's add this to our subcommittee list that this must get done. It should have been done a while ago. I know Mr. Gill would like it done. I'd like it done. But I'm glad to hear that you feel it's acceptable in this, as maybe we'll call it a one-off, although that's probably not the right word for it. So we can give it, as far as your concern, Mr. Gill, we can give it a special permit approval within the confines of this application without jeopardizing moving forward and doing the job correctly again, correct? Right. Fabulous. Thank you for showing up. We do appreciate it. Other commissioners have anything for Mr. Gill before we allow him to have a normal life unlike ours? Seeing none, I'm going to throw it to the rest of the commissioners for Mr. Redness and the changes that he wants. Comments, criticisms, corrections?

I just had one question just for some clarification. Rick, in the revised text change item C, which refers to the total coverage and building coverage. So I guess what is the total coverage of the proposed plan?

The, I would have to look on the chart to get the exact number, but we are below the 55% total coverage.

Okay. And then you're also below the 25% coverage. I guess my question is kind of, so At the very top of this, one of the requirements is the total coverage is reduced to 65%. And then we go into this list of things and you can have, there's another requirement that building coverage can be 25 if you reduce total to 65. I'm just kind of wondering why it was drafted this way and which one this project is going to be falling under. Are you taking the 25% building coverage and reducing total coverage? Correct.

Correct. It will fall under that category. And the only reason I can't pull out the number exactly is because we hope that you will agree that the 61 parking space solution is appropriate and not have to go all the way to the 66, which would comply with as if this were a different type of development and had 25-foot drive aisles. I don't have the number for that. I do know that if approved with the 61 parking space plan, we do meet both of those criteria.

Okay. All right. That was my only question for now.

Thank you very much. Other commissioners? All right, so seeing none, I'm going to pick up the mantle here. Thank you for bringing this back, Rick, with the tweaks, especially the parking. Parking looks excellent. I'm glad you're keeping those spaces along the interior and not as visible from the street, so I think that's a win-win. The two concerns I have, which are not concerns so much as they are things that I want to make sure you do correctly, is obviously the sidewalk system, the crosswalk system and sidewalks. You're aware that the sidewalk on the other side of the street that Whitney Glenn is on, it really doesn't exist. I mean, it's been... It's been renovated several times in the last six months, and I still don't think it's done right. So I'm hoping you'll put in a really nice full width, the whole ball of wax. This corner deserves it. All right. And then the other one is along the opposite side, along the gas station side. You were nice enough to show the photograph of how it'll look. And I just want to ask you to please shove as many trees as you can in there, the kind that grow really nice and tall. And let's encourage that landscaping to give us the kind of buffer that that corner deserves. Um, other than that, I, I think you've, you know, I think you brought this back in a reasonable manner. Um, and, and I, uh, you know, I, for one, I'm, uh, happy with the changes you've made. Other commissioners, anybody want to weigh in now before we go to the public? Craig?

Um, I have a question on this. Um, I know that you received traffic approvals and, uh, the driveways as I see them are going to stay the same. I have a bit of concern and maybe I'm looking for the perfect world, but I know just anecdotally from myself and other people who live on the other side of your development, we take that turn regularly. to bypass downtown. And you take that turn fast. And I've driven up your driveways in ingress and egress. And I'm just, is there any way you can put some markers or something to slow people down making that turn? because that driveway slides in fast and that crosswalk comes at you very, very quickly. Have you thought about this at all?

Yes, we have, which is why, and I can put up the, well, maybe I should, and then we can talk about how we did this. So let me share again. And let me see which slide this was. Okay. So what you're referring to is people speeding around this corner to East Main. Right. And obviously you're going downhill, so you're encouraged to kind of pick up speed. And what we've done is we've put, and this has been designed in conjunction with all the bodies we had to go before and our traffic engineer, Neil, I'm not sure if he is still on, but we have these signs here, 150 feet in advance in both directions. And then we have the flashing lights here. So we've tried to do that and we tried to place them in a way that because you got to look at the site distances you have in the vegetation and everything else. So we have done that. We think those are in the right place. Everyone thinks that that is the right place. In terms of speeding on streets, and I know people like speed bumps, and that is a whole separate process that Whitney Glen or other neighbors on East Main can try to do. It's not easy because of the plowing and other maintenance things. But we think we have certainly significantly improved the safety there. You know,

I agree with you. And what I'm specifically referring to is the right turn off of the post road. And also there's a traffic light that I believe the driveway from Trader Joe's kind of side swipes and people tend to try to run that light and get onto East Main Street. So you're coming fast around that corner and there's no lights to slow you down or anything. else, such as, I don't know, a marker on the street or a street bump. And I'm wondering if you've just thought that one through.

So, well, you're causing me to think it through right now. And I agree with you. Sort of the easier you make this turn, the faster the cars are able to negotiate it. And that is why many streets are preferred to be perpendicular to the street. Well, we're not going to redo East Main Street. However, we would be happy. And if Ted Gill is still on, he can help and chime in. You know, while we're doing this work out here. If we change this radius, and I'm making this up, I am not an engineer, way over my skis, but just listening to what you're saying, if this turning radius were shrunk, you could still make a pretty easy turn, but you'd have to slow down to negotiate it. So that's something that I think you are correct. that we could look into. And I would lean on Ted because Dave Ginter is not able to be on the call. But maybe Ted can help us out here on the sort of those thoughts. Thank you.

That could be a bit difficult. I can bring it up within our department about about, you know, work within the town's right of way and within the state right of way. We do have some leeway on regardless of what you approve. So I can bring that up with our our department. I think it would be. difficult for us to do something like that. I understand the issue of cars taking that corner too quickly, but also having them go around that corner, knowing that they have to slow down and slowing themselves down also runs the risk of cars behind them not realizing and rear-ending. So you could You could slow the cars down so it feels safer because the cars are slower and just have a spike in number of rear-end accidents that occur there. That's the only risk that you'd be taking. Obviously, I don't know. It's the first that I've really thought about that, but I can bring it up within our office and we can discuss with them as they're building this if there's anything that we can have them do while they're working there to tidy up that edge.

Thank you, Ted. And also, Ted brought up the other most important point, and that is it's also within the state right of way. So we do not control that. So that is not something that we could agree to do because the state needs to approve that. So I think we can look into it, work together. Certainly it will benefit the residents coming to live here because they're likely to adopt the same types of behavior that others do to use that road. But we can't agree to it as a condition because we don't control it and the town doesn't control it. But it's a good thought to explore for sure.

Do you have any idea of what the distance is from that driveway to the, I mean, there's no corner. It's a roundabout, but roughly how many feet?

Sure. Let's estimate it together. So if here to here is 150, so there's 300. There's 450. There's 600. So, you know, you're probably from the traveled way of the post road, it's looking like, you know, almost 700 feet. Okay. Just with what I just did.

Okay. Even some markings on the road.

I'm sorry, Craig. There's not a lot the applicant can do about people who are turning a corner that he doesn't have control over.

I realize that.

They're also not his dissidents necessarily coming around the corner. So, again, no amount of markings or speed bumps, et cetera, are within the purview of this applicant. Taking it up with the town in terms of trying to do traffic mitigation, that's another story it's worth looking into.

Paul, I'm fully aware of that. I just didn't want to miss the opportunity as we are talking about it to bring it up as something potentially that the town or that redness in conjunction with the town and us might look into. It certainly does not have bearing on, you know, how I would feel of this project. I realize it's not in the purview of them to figure this out.

Well, thank you for bringing it up and it's on Ted's radar scope and obviously ours too as we go forward.

Other commissioners? Other conditions? Other considerations? All right, before I go to the public, I would like to make mention of a couple things. For those of you who just joined us, you need to know that we are on item number five because items one, two, three, and four of tonight's agenda have been continued to 6-22-26, which is the next meeting. So if you're here for that, you're welcome to stay for this. All right. Michelle, anything else before we go to the public?

I did just want to... We can do it in work session, but we will need to, if we approve the application, decide on which parking we're going to be approving, obviously. But no, nothing else.

All right. Very good. So let's take this opportunity to go to the public. If you wish to speak about this item, which is 455 Post Road East and Text Amendment 877. 868. 868. Thank you very much. Please put your hand up or wave at us. First hand I see is Janine. Janine Scotti.

Hi. So I lived at Windy Glen for three years and I lived in a second floor unit that faced the Humane Society. So I was on the corner kind of at their back end. Once in a while you see a head walking a dog. But it really gave this impression that there was the unknown open space out there. So, as you guys are, I know in other meetings I've attended, I've seen that the builder, I think the project that you had going off of Old Road in the Stop and Shop area where you're doing that impervious road or pervious, there was a big concern from the neighbors about building having the builder have some sort of bond on taking care of the landscaping that was so important to them. And I think that a condition for the landscaping should be in place of a type of escrow bond. You guys know what it is because the trees that are going to help buffer You know, you're never going to—the Whitney Glenn buildings are two stories below this, right? So it's going to feel like a five-story building from inside Whitney Glenn. So you're never going to buffer that whole thing. I live right by the Post Road property, and all of a sudden there's something towering over you. But as far as when you're sitting in your living room on the second floor or your bedroom at Whitney Glenn, looking straight out, at least— that planting will not let you see the building. And so I don't know if it's deer problems, but every time I see things like an arborvitae, they get this weird shape to them. Either they're dying off or they're getting eaten. So I think, too, I don't know if Whitney, Glenn, I know they're amicable to so many of the things that Redness has been doing, but if they haven't put that down, I think the town should have their backs for this 60... to an older community and make sure their zen is protected, so to speak. Now, speaking about the traffic that was just mentioned, thank you, Ted, for waving the red flag. I live there. I've lived in town, but I've lived there and I use East Main Street a lot. The rate of speed coming up and around the firehouse and the width of the road of the post road lends itself to be a faster space. And so the way the road turns in helps you get off the fast piece of the post road onto this quiet street. However, I'm friends with the people in this condo. I know their rate of walking and a lot of things. So how to get them in, once the post road traffic comes into East Main Street, how do we slow them down to a rate of speed, but safely? You know, you can't have a speed hump right at the corner of the post road, but you could have one closer to this crossing area. So I think that the town, if Ted is still on, really has to... protect this community that is now going to have at least 65 more cars potentially coming down it every day that are leaving to go somewhere, right? They're not coming to the Humane Society and running an errand. They're leaving. I'm going to send something over to Michelle, but these triangles that are put into a development to guide a car one way or another, the one near my house is barely off the ground. And I don't know if that's a fire zone, a fire department regulation that lowers it so the fire trucks can go over. But it also makes people be able to use their SUVs and go the wrong way. Right. So we all know that. So. And the other thing is that if, Paul, you guys remind me, isn't the property that's also abutting Whitney Glen with the three little gray buildings came to you in a pre-app for some townhouses and stuff not too long ago? So is that still being developed? I can't remember. We'll find out.

Do you want me to answer?

We'll find out. I mean, they... You know, they have the right to develop their property. There's not much we can do about that.

Yeah, but so there is another group of houses going in there also at some point.

Potentially. You know, it really depends.

Okay, so it's not approved. So that would be some of the things. I mean, I don't really know. I think we're way down the pike, but why not? the townhouses were situated so close to Whitney Glen when they could have been on the other side of the property and then have fencing to protect for headlights and stuff turning into Whitney Glen. But I don't know if Rick feels the need to address how it was chosen to position so close to these other buildings that are two stories below. And that's my comments.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I see Diane is I can't read your name. If you will unmute and give us your name and address and feel free to speak. Try the unmute button, please. Lower left-hand corner.

Got it. Hello. There you go. Diane. Good afternoon. Diane Urmark representing my daughter, Rebecca Urmark in 136 Riverside. And I've spoken before this board before. Thank you for your time. We just wanted to reiterate the concern I have about Post Road and Riverside crossing into town. There's still not a proper crosswalk with a crosswalk a participant, a pedestrian button, and a flashing light with a person and a stop hand. So that concerns me very much. My daughter, along with many other people, pedestrians, walked across there to go to work. And I think it's on Rick's plan, but I just wanted to reiterate my deep concern about that corner.

Thank you very much. Do appreciate it.

Thank you.

Other members of the public? Concerns? Considerations? Seeing none, I'm going to come back to the Commission, see if there's any redress, or allow Rick to summarize. Okay, seeing none, Rick, it's on you.

Sure. So, in terms of... The Whitney Glen, part of our agreement with Whitney Glen involves landscaping on both sides of the property line. So we have been working with them to screen. And that is part of our approval, which would then run with the land. So we think we've addressed those things. We will continue to work with them because we'll be cooperating in the installation and construction. We have a long agreement that we have put together. So we look forward to executing all of this very shortly.

Great. Appreciate it. Rick, regarding the sight lines for that turn, just make sure that any of the plantings remain low.

Okay, yeah. And we will look at that with Ted also in terms of what can we do with that term in terms of site and signage, whatever we can do working with the state, we're happy to do.

All right. Commissioners, any other questions for this applicant? Otherwise, I'm going to ask for a motion.

Motion to close.

All right, I'll second that. Do we have a consensus? Mr. Calise? Close?

I agree to close.

Thank you. Ms. Schiavone? Close. Ms. Injeski? Close. And Mr. Leibowitz? Close. So thank you, Mr. Redness, for bringing this forward.

Paul, do we need to close each of them individually?

Yeah, I was just going to say that. Can we close them? That was for the text amendment and then.

That was for 869. And why don't, okay. So yeah, that was for 816. That was for map amendment 869. So that is closed. Let's now do, oh boy, where did it go?

Number six, post road east. Yes. 60265. I will do a motion to close on that one.

All right, and I'll second that. Thank you, Bree. Ms. Schiavone, how do you vote on that to close? Close. Thank you. And Mr. Calise? Mr. Calise, nod or wave or signal yes for closure? Yes. Thank you, sir. And I'm a yes as well. Michelle, does that bring us up to date?

One more. Number seven, which is PZ2600267. I will do a motion to close.

And I will second that. Commissioners, one more time. Craig? Close. Mr. Calise? Close. Thank you. Ms. Njeske, you already said, and did I. All right. who's got the agenda and can read the next item. One more time before we go to this next item, I want to remind those who might be here late that this evening, items one, two, three, and four on the agenda have been continued to 6-22-26, which is the next meeting next Monday. Those of you who are here for North Avenue or Riverside, it has been continued. continue.

Paul, can you say why they were continued?

I'm sorry?

Are you able to say why they were continued?

We agreed last week that we would give Mr. Green enough time, and now he is returning the favor, giving us enough time. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Speaking of agendas, as As a chair, I'd like to take the chair's prerogative to flip two of the items this evening. So before we move on, I'd like to actually take the last two out of order, if you don't mind, and do Texas Amendment 870 first, and then do 218 Hills Point Road at the end. But I need a consensus of, let's say, three of us four. I think that's the normal number. Do I have any, does anybody not want to do that? Does everybody vote to do that?

Yes, do we need a motion?

Yeah, I'll take a motion.

All right, motion to reorder the agenda.

Thank you. Yes, Craig, what about you?

I'm fine.

All right, and I'm fine also. Mike Calise, you okay with that? Yes. Thank you. All right, in that case, if the secretary would please ring in the next item.

All right, so we're taking number 11 first?

Yes, please.

All right, number 11 is text amendment number 870, application number PZ2600288, submitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission to modify Section 5, Definition of Special Needs Individual, to incorporate the definition of developmental disability from 42 U.S.C. Section 150028, and adding requirements that occupancy be coordinated as applicable with qualified nonprofit service providers or housing organizations. A copy of the text amendment is available online at www.westportct.gov on the Planning and Zoning Office webpage under P&Z pending applications and recent approvals. The copy may also be viewed at Town Hall, in the Town Clerk's Office, and Planning and Zoning Office.

Fabulous. Thank you very much. And as most of you may know, this has been in subcommittee and has had our fullest attention. Dates back to April. With that, I'm going to give it to Michelle Pirelli, our Director of Planning and Zoning.

Thank you, Michelle Pirelli, Planning and Zoning Director. I just want to make reference to my staff report dated June 9th, where I go through the history of this particular topic in terms of special needs individuals of when we first adopted the regulation in 2020 to add standards for special needs individuals. Then we made the modification in 22, where we modified the definition to include those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless, and the resolutions are part of the record. And the reasons for the approvals were also outlined in my staff report, as well as the discussion of the prior text amendment, text amendment 864, which we discussed and discussed in in april um and i think march um where we ultimately um denied the application but my my staff report does make reference to the fact that the commission um did um there did seem to be support for I'm sorry, I'm mixing applications up. I'm sorry, there's too many special needs things happening right now. So I just want to move forward to the work session in April where we did talk about the submission of a formal text amendment to modify the special needs individual's definition, and that was in order to reference the U.S. Code 42 U.S.C. Section 15002, and that is in order to serve a wider range of individuals. The text amendment broadens and clarifies the definition to include persons with developmental disabilities as defined under federal law, regardless of age. at which the disability began. The text then also discusses the special needs housing units be coordinated with qualified nonprofit service providers or housing organizations, and resident selection shall be informed by demonstrated need, availability of support services, and provider capacity. So we did send this text amendment out to departments and agencies. We received comments from West Cog in May indicating that they did not think that this had any inter-municipal impact, as well as Metro Cog. who also said based on their review, they had determined that the amendment is not regionally significant. We got comments from Human Services Department in May stating that they were felt it was a positive step toward expanding inclusive housing opportunities for adults with disabilities. So they wrote in with support of this text amendment. we do have quite a few letters um part of the records from from the public as well um so i wanted to make a reference to to those um all the other talent departments did not have any uh substantial comments um or concerns um so it's kind of where we are and if you need me to go into anything more specifically i'm happy to

Thank you very much, Michelle. I do appreciate it. So commissioners, here we are with a perfect case of an item that came to us under the guise of a previous application. And we are basically extracting it out of that application and making it part of our overall proposed modification to our overall rules from our rules revision subcommittee. This is where good ideas go to get approved. I personally have... looked at this, and to me, it makes perfect sense to adopt the federal guideline rather than be constrained by the state guideline. If we have the opportunity to use our land use rules to encourage the right type of building slash development then i think we should take every effort or make every effort to do so and it's incumbent upon us if we do not see that kind of building going on to wonder why. Why are they not building? What we learned from the first unit that was built on Riverside, that it needs to be a specific type and size and a specific way. And so this furthers that by giving it a wider scope for the people who will qualify for special needs housing. The key in my mind, this is why I think this is a good amendment, The key is if you have a wide spectrum of people who can apply for units to be built, it encourages the development of those units. I mean, it's plain and simple. If it's hard to fill up units because the process by which giving the special needs housing, by doing it, if it's hard to do, builders won't do it. Let's face it. They'll take the easier path and they'll go somewhere else. But if we make it a priority in this town and expand the eligibility, which expands the potential amount of people who could qualify for one of these units, I think it'll encourage. And so I'm willing to try it, and that's why this is before us. So, again, that's why I'm in favor of this. Other commissioners, anything to weigh in with? Craig, I see your hand is up. Bree, I see your hand is up as well. You guys can duke it out.

I'll let Claire go first. No, I'll let you go first.

Oh, please. Yeah, I would echo a lot of things that you just said, Paul. I think that this, I was supportive of this amendment the first time around. And I think that this is something that would do good for the not-for-profits that are running the special needs housing in town. And I think that this is a step in the right direction. I think the only one question or I think just a clarification thing here, Michelle, is that right now, this is really only going to apply to the special needs housing that's located on town land. Is that correct? Just the way the definition is and how everything works?

Yes. Special needs housing is only permitted on town-owned property at this point.

Anything beyond that would have to be its own separate tax change. This is really just limited to the existing ones. and anything to be developed on town land. So with that in mind, I'm very supportive.

And by the way, if we discover that that needs to be changed, that can be something we address later. But in the meantime, let's at least try to get this done. Craig, I saw your hand was up.

Yeah, I'm just curious. The 3 George Street application is not for town land, but it would be special needs housing. How does that work?

We would need to modify the regulations for that to occur. So we would have to modify the regulations in Section 3227, I believe, to allow it on the properties. As was discussed during the pre-app, there was a text amendment that was kind of drafted to make that happen.

Yeah. Craig, they always knew that they were facing what we'll call step two of that plan if it was going to go forward. Step two would have been just what you mentioned right there.

I may have forgotten. Which we're here for. I do have some comments, as Paul knows. I have discomfort of putting... homelessness and at risk of homelessness in the bucket of special needs. And I've done a lot of research on this. We would go down as the only community in Connecticut who would do this. or who has done this, and it is also at a federal level not done. I am completely in support of housing for disabled, housing for elderly, housing for, you know, transition home for homeless. I spend a lot of time mentoring and working with those populations. But I am uncomfortable melding them into one text amendment and not or not separating them within the text amendment. I think what's going to happen is that where Paul says it makes, you know, we widen the pool. That's wonderful. But. We also, because each of these different individuals and cohorts need a different level of services, which are at different prices and costs to the community, it also enables, gives a wider ability to cherry pick for some of our projects. wish you would separate this. I really wish you would. It would be consistent with the HUD guidelines. It would be consistent with how other towns, municipalities, and cities deal with this. I think there is a big difference between special needs as we're defining them now. And as Bree said, you know, I'm really happy we've, you know, gone with the larger definition, I don't think that they correlate well with at risk of homelessness or homelessness, unless there is a comorbidity, but just in general. In terms of the text amendment, I think it would be easy to change. um either you know knock out a few words or put a separate paragraph addressing homelessness and at risk of homelessness but i still am uncomfortable that they are melded together okay very good um well said michelle i see you have your hand up um hi michelle prely um i just wanted to clarify that that

homeless and at risk of homelessness is already in the definition. So we weren't looking to change that. So that part of the regulation or that text amendment was put in when we did project return on 125 Campo Road North. So just to clarify, I just wanted to make sure it was clear that that was not part of this proposal. And if we did want to change that, I believe it would have to have a new legal notice because I don't think that we've let the public know that we were planning to remove that section of the definition. So I just want to put that out there for discussion and for information.

Thank you for bringing it up. Hang on a second. Michelle, can you draw a bright line between why it's in there originally and the special needs? I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Isn't it correct that in danger of being homeless is in there for the reason that the services are being offered? So can you talk about the correlation there? Because that's an important component.

Yeah, so when the text amendment was drafted, there were It says homeless or at risk of being homeless. And again, it talks about they have to have supportive services. 501C3, Town of Westport, or the Housing Authority, specializing in providing supportive services in a residential setting. So I think that differentiates other homeless populations that maybe don't necessarily need supportive services. So in the case of the Project Return property, it's a town-owned property, a town-owned building that houses youth, women, females that are at risk of being homeless and also are providing a lot of services to support them and to provide support. in the residential setting, those supportive services, I know things like tons of services are being provided. So, maybe and it also says these services include individualized health and employment case management, other services, such as accessible mental health, substance addiction or employment. So, I think in the minds of the Commission when it was adopted was that it's similar because of the level of services that are needed. And yeah, so I think that that was kind of the history behind it, as well as we would just need to consider how we would categorize the property at 125 Comber Road North, because now they would not qualify. They would not be qualified as special needs individuals. So we would have to consider how that would be impacted. in changing the definition, as well as, again, a new application, because I don't think that was considered. We were only adding that criteria and not discussing the homeless part of it, and it wasn't noticed as that being done.

You know, it gets confusing because many of the Many of the populations within the homeless community receive services as Project Return gives them on the basis of they're at risk and being homeless. Project Return, it's a stretch and I've worked there. I've spent a lot of time with Project Return. special needs and needs for assistance get easily melded into it. And I understand that this got put into the amendment kind of to fill this donut hole, which I'm not sure actually needed to be filled ultimately, but it's a sticking point with me I have to say, and especially when we stand out as the only community in the state that does it this way, and it's contrary to how it's done at the federal and the state level, as well as I looked at pilot programs that were trying to do this that have been unsuccessful, putting together special needs and at risk of homelessness and homelessness But then on the flip side, and I shouldn't, I shouldn't shoot myself, my own self in the foot. What's the downside?

Well, the downsides, there's a couple of things that you have to recognize. First of all, just on the face of it, take what Michelle mentioned, and that is it's already on our books. We are already using it. And in fact, we have a unit that qualifies under this, the current definition of special needs. Which we're not eliminating that definition, we are adding to it. So we're making it broader. If you were to eliminate this, as Michelle said, not only would you have to take it back around through and redo it, but also we would have to then consider what we do with our existing unit. But then you, okay. That being said, I wanna make sure that we understand that this is not to create more homes for homeless. This is to create more spaces for special needs, some of whom are at risk of being homeless. And there is, in my mind, a very big definition. And the reason there's a definition difference is because the target here is not the broad development community looking to put up affordable housing. and such. This is strictly for the supportive services groups. Those that are coming in who are nonprofits, they have described this path that they take, not as cherry picking as you said, but in fact, just the opposite. If they have a structure or building that allows people with the newer definitions of special needs, it'll actually allow them to do more housing. not less. And they unto themselves, their own board of directors requires that they have fulfillment. So they're not going to offer supportive services to the least needy. That goes against everything that they're built to do. That's not who they are. And if a builder or developer came to us with that type of, you know, desire, we would kindly show him the door. So I don't think it's as dangerous as you think. But again, you know, everybody gets to vote here.

I'll give one example. You know, OK, we... We... Encourage a developer who comes in with an application and they're going to build 10 special needs units. And perhaps, you know, some might be off-site on 830, you know, or whatever. They're going to build these units. By taking in people who are at risk of homelessness, okay, at risk of homelessness could be, You know, anybody could be literally anybody.

And they don't require necessarily... Craig, that's not how this is written. At-risk of homelessness is not a category. What's a category, if you want to write it so it's clear, that's different. What's a category is special needs individuals who are at risk...

of homelessness okay then i'm then i'm reading it wrong um and i want to i want to look back at it then that's what's confusing me well let's ask our resident expert at text amendments brie to take a peek at it and see well so craig is not wrong it's not written as you have to be

It's an or, so I would read this as having an or.

Yeah, there's an or in there.

But all of this said, I am just kind of like, so Craig, you know, there is a whole, and Michelle, I'm not as familiar with this section, there is a whole separate provision in the code that provides for supportive housing. which addresses the homelessness and that side of it. This part with the special needs housing is very, very narrowly defined to projects that are on town-owned land. So this isn't just generally opening up this space It's very... I'm not sure what your concern is here, Craig. It's kind of... I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure what the bad thing that you think is going to happen. Also, with the understanding that this is already in... This is how it's already written. Like, we're not asking to change it, so... I mean, I don't like talking about unintended consequences, but I guess we could have seen some of the consequences. And I don't know if there's something specific that you have in mind that you've seen that you don't like that has resulted from this or what you think is going to happen.

I think it's going back to when Paul repeated it. My concern about cherry picking and developers coming in and a wheedling around this. Um, I guess I'm not concerned, you know, the benefits are going to come as the benefits come from the government and, and whoever, but, um, and the other one is, you know, and I'm, I'm not going to, you know, die on this mountain. Um, I just don't believe people at risk of homelessness correlate, um, with necessarily with the special needs population as a global idea. But I'll leave it there. I've expressed my concerns. I don't think it is town changing, not doing it. I would have preferred to see it done more in keeping with how other towns and the state and federal government do it. But I'm going to leave it there.

The benefits of what you just said, though, means that clearly the record will show of what we don't want versus what we do want. And I think that will be important to later generations. if they try to develop, say, something like Barron South, which is an example of town-owned property, then this record will reflect exactly what it is we had in mind. So both what you've just said and what Bri has just said and what I've just said will be part of it so that your fear of a developer trying to do something that we don't want It will not be able to happen. Because remember who the ultimate landlord, I'll use that term loosely, the ultimate landlord here is the town. It's us. It's our land. So we're not going to let somebody come in and try and apply for something that we don't agree with. Follow me?

I follow you. Thank you.

Let's throw this open to the public, unless anybody else has anything to add. Mr. Cleese, I don't believe you've weighed in.

No, I really don't have much to say on this. I have the same concerns that Craig has concerning the risk of homelessness. But to that extent, that's the only comment I can make.

All right, those in the public who wish to weigh in, this is a good time to tell us what you think of text amendment number 870, which is changing the definition of special needs individuals to incorporate federal statutes versus state. Anybody have any comments they'd like to make? I see Ms. Simonetti has her hand up.

Yes, thank you. Sorry for that delay. I don't have much to say about this, but I think a couple of meetings ago, I did comment about this. And my only concern is that the population of eligible students housing applicants, I guess, for lack of a better word, will be expanded. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, that could very well be a very good thing, but it does create more demand. That's my only comment on changing this definition.

Thank you. Thank you. Janine, you have your hand up.

I'll go on the record to say the silver lining of the garden was I became friends with Tony Simonetti. And we did not talk to each other before we both raised our hands. But, you know, I'm a sped para. And I think just I'd like that you guys are going to try to get this right. I think these are such marginalized populations, homeless, special needs children. We see all the controversy going on in our town right now. about the SPED program. And I just, I don't know if you guys have consulted with any other people, but how, and Craig's saying nobody else has done this before, but I think the intention is really great. But I just hope we really work hard at getting it right. And I'm glad, Brie, you're on the case too, because you have great skills to help hone this. And Craig has great information about where she's been. So keep at it, you guys, but let's really get this right.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Other members of the public? All right, let's bring it back to the commission. Michelle, you are allowed another bite of the apple.

I have nothing to add. Thank you.

Okay. I have one last thing to add, and I'm glad that Ms. Simonetti weighed in. It is exactly her point that as to why I would like to see this become approved. If there is an increase, if more people want it, it will create a market for it. And so that's the whole idea, is to create a market where it is financially feasible for builders to build. If they look at this and say, I don't want to lose money. It's too expensive. I can't afford it. I'm not going to do it. It is what the gentleman who came up from Darien said. during this initial discussion told us was the change that they made was to widen out the scope of potential people who could apply. And if you create a demand, then someone will try to satisfy it. And as the town, we want to attract this type of building. I believe it belongs here in Westport. If it's not anywhere else, well, then let us be the first. Okay, so with that, do I have a motion?

Motion to close.

And I'll second that, Craig. How do you plead? Close. Mr. Calise?

I say move, yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. And Brie, I assume you are as well.

Yes. All right. Okay. So those are all going to work session. It's 7.30. Why don't we take a five-minute break? And Michelle, who did you say was behind the camera tonight?

AJ.

Okay. AJ, can you mark your calendar or clock for five minutes?

Thank you.

So welcome back. If the secretary would read in the next item.

Item number 10 is 218 Hills Point Road a coastal site plan application PV2600130 submitted by property owner Inviswell LLC for the construction of a new single family residence dwelling a new accessory dwelling unit and a new drainage system located in the residence B district PID number E04112000. Applicant's presentation time is 15 minutes.

Thank you very much. And who is speaking for this applicant tonight?

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?

Mr. Green, yes, please do. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Once again, my name is Joel Green. I practice law in Bridgeport with the Law Offices of Green and Gross. And it's my pleasure to appear before you this evening on behalf of InvestWell LLC, the owner of the property at 218 Hills Point Road, along with the principals of that company, David Van Dorsten and Ellen Van Dorsten. I'm also with me this evening are Alexandra Mock, our environmental consultant, William Schaefer, an architect and a builder, and Mark Achman of Achman Associates and the Huntington Company. Just to set the table for this limited item, and when I say limited, this is an application tonight that is limited to coastal area management review by the Commission. And in order to enable the Commission to make the findings that it must make under the Act and your regulations, we will present those elements to the commission. But to sort of set the table for that and consistent with the staff report that you received in reviewing this application, The following has occurred. First of all, as the staff has confirmed, the application is complete. The application did not require any variances of any kind or any waivers of any kind. The application meets all of the applicable zoning requirements. I will note that a question arose as to the sight lines that was a discussion that I had with Ms. Pirelli, with the zoning enforcement officer, with the town engineer, and with Pete Gelderman, the town attorney. And the town attorney has confirmed, as you'll see in your materials, that the location of the driveway is a legally existing location for a driveway. And I believe that it may actually conform But under any circumstances, it is legally existing by virtue of its existence in that precise location for over 100 years. This application has been approved by the Flood and Erosion Control Board. And that occurred on April 8th. The Conservation Commission reviewed this application and approved it with conditions, including generally that the application and the project is constructed in strict compliance with the plans, with a permeable driveway and so forth. The town engineer has found that it is consistent. And so... So I guess the point that we get to is that the only function for the Commission this evening is once again to determine the consistency of the application with the Act and your regulations in terms of its impact on coastal resources. So to begin our presentation, I would like to Turn it over to Alexandra Mock, who I know has appeared before this commission and is our environmental consultant. And she will have she also has a PowerPoint presentation, which was submitted earlier. And I believe that she will share it with the commission and or staff may. I'll leave that to you, Mr. Chairman, as you please.

Very good.

There we go. Wow. Ms. Mock, would you just briefly and for the record highlight your education, training, and experience just for the record, just briefly, please?

Sure. Good evening. My name is Alexandra Mock. I'm an environmental consultant, and I'm a soil and wetland scientist. I'm a hydrogeologist and geologist. I'm a landscape designer and also certified in soil erosion control professional. Tonight, I'm going to be presenting the site development for 218 Hills Point Road. Let me just... here. and slideshow and beginning there we go so here's my first slide and as you can see this is the bird view or eye view from the top and you can see how this lot is currently being maintained the north is to the top so on the eastern side we have a hedge on the southern side we have a smaller hedge we have some trees along the southern and western property lines those trees are not on the property they are actually adjacent along the property lines also to the north we have few trees again none of those trees grow on the lot In the middle, we have a long area, and then the only improvements which we can see is the asphalt, a wall surrounding it, and then a little section of the pathway, and that's basically all what it is, the site. Let's go talk about the coastal resources. We are located here. You can see the low pointer, which shows where 218 Hills Point Road is, and we are across Old Mill Road. We are located within the Shorelands area. Shorelands is the area where the properties do not face the water or tidal wetlands. that kind of in the back, removed a little bit from the immediate coastal environment. The developed shorefront, which is the one which is facing the water, you can see on both sides to the northeast and also to the southeast. And then the next layer of jurisdiction or maybe coastal resources is the beaches and dunes. And these are actually the closest to our site. So if you were measuring from this corner, the closest point to the beach It's located 220 feet, so pretty much buffered by all this development in between and the closest coastal resource. We have also beaches on the other side of the overflow from the Sherwood Mill Pond. Sherwood Mill Pond is considered to be the coastal waters, and then we have more of the coastal waters within the area of Campo Cove. We have two tidal wetlands in the vicinity. This is the tidal wetland, which is the high wetland area, which is the vegetation usually is not being submerged during the high tide. This type of tidal wetland consists of the high tide bush and Spartina alterniflora. Then this area, which is the low marsh, Usually because it is submerged, the main vegetation here is going to be spartina patent. The lot is also located within the coastal hazard zone, so this is our Flood zone, so if you can see to the east, this entire neighborhood is within the coastal flood zone. I've seen on some of the emails that there were complaints about areas being flooded. It is expected this is the flood hazard zone. Let's go take a look at the survey. The survey features the driveway, which we already discussed, and the hedges. What else is on it? This is 0.144-acre site. It is located in what can be and is gently sloping. The highest point is elevation 16, which is northwest, and then slopes slowly and gently all the way to the southeastern corner, which is elevation 8. The site is served by public sewer and public water. here's the proposed development and let's go start from the biggest item which is the main residence it's highlighted in reddish and this is going to be two-story residence the ground floor is going to have a two-bay garage and then it's going to have a closet, elevator and the stairway access There will be no livable space at the ground floor because of the flood zone. The first floor is going to be at the elevation 17.9. The first floor is going to be containing the living space, which is going to be the living room, the kitchen, the family room, dining, and also a powder room, stairs and elevator. Then we're going to go to the second floor where we're going to have three bedrooms with two bathrooms. And on the very top, we're going to have a rooftop with an access to it. The next building is going to be our AUD or Accessory Dwelling Unit. And this one also going to have two storey. The first floor elevation is going to be at elevation 15. And then again, the same very similar, the first floor is going to be containing the living space and the upper one, the second floor is going to have one bedroom and one bath. In between, there is going to be kind of together combined or actually kind of put together by the proposed previous patio. So this patio here, then we'll have stairs going down, another patio, And then the walkway is going to lead us all the way to the driveway. Before we get to the driveway, we're going to be walking next to the swimming pool. So this pool is going to be 17 by 24 pool with a little patio for chairs and some activities for the family. And then we're going to have driveway. The driveway area is going to be permeable. This means that the surface is going to be permeable, so the stormwater will be able to infiltrate directly into the ground. It's not going to be collected. And then the entire stormwater from all the hard surfaces is going to be directed to this driveway. The driveway is going to have a thick gravel bed, which is going to provide the reservoir for the stormwater. And in addition to it, we are going to have an in-ground infiltration system which is going to be providing additional capacity. The drainage is being sized for all the surfaces, including the permeable patios. Where I would hint the flood zone, as I mentioned before. So this is the FEMA flood line, which is elevation 13, but real elevation 13 is actually here. So the flood zone actually theoretically or practically expands a little bit farther. So this is our 100-year storm or flood. And for that reason, because the elevation is 13, we are more than or at least two feet above the base elevation. So again, AUD, ADU is going to be at elevation 15, the first floor, and the main building is going to be at 17.9. In addition to it, to comply with FEMA regulations, we are going to have flood vents. Flood vents are important because they are to equalize the hydrostatic pressure. We're going to have five of them. Four of them are going to be within the garage door, and then there's going to be another one on this side of the building. And here's the base floor elevation of 13. So you can have an idea. And this is the first elevation, I mean, the elevation of the first floor for the main building. the same AUD, we have the... Here's the base elevation, base floor elevation, and then here's the 15 elevation for the first floor. We are proposing mitigation measures, and because we are close to the coastal resources, it is important to maintain high water quality. and there is potential that during the construction activities, there could be short-term impacts. As you can imagine, the area is going to be disturbed and there's always potential that during the storm event, some of the fine-grained particles could be washed off the construction site and carried to the street. The street has catch basins and as we can imagine, those catch basins are discharging to the coastal resources. We have to make sure that we have proper erosion control during the construction activities and any potential for stormwater runoff being silted is being avoided. Therefore, what we are proposing, we are proposing to set the construction envelope and in orange is shown the silt fence, which is going to be enclosing the entire area of the downslope. And then in addition to it, we're going to have entire tracking pad. And that tracking pad is basically a gravel bed, which prevents when the heavy equipment coming in and out, it prevents tracking of the fine grain material from the SERP site, the SERP soil onto the streets. So this is the prevention. In addition, we are going to have a stockpile area. So any excavated material is going to be stored here, also protected by the silt fence. And then we're going to have a dirt bag. If we need to pump the pool during the excavation then This is going to be for encounter our groundwater, which I don't believe so because this was very very good impermeable but if it happens then we're going to be pumping the pit into the dirt bag again preventing any saltation and declining of the stormwater runoff. So this is the potential short-term impact. Now, long-term impact could be associated with the fact that we are introducing some of the imperial surface into the area, and this, as we know, create stormwater runoffs and in order to make sure that the stormwater runoff is not only going to leave the site at high quality but also they're going to be controlled and not creating any erosion, we are proposing stormwater management and I did explain this Before that, basically the permeable asphalt is going to be absorbing all the stormwater from the area of the driveway. And then in addition, it's going to create a reservoir to accommodate the entire stormwater from the entire area. In addition, the overflow from the swimming pool is also going to go to the ingrain infiltration system. Because of the flood zone, we had to go and be reviewed by the Flood and Erosion Control Board and they requested that the area which is which can their jurisdiction be enhanced with some sort of plantings. So what we offer, we offered a low growing hedge. So this hedge is going to be growing now higher than three and a half feet. Actually, it's going to be probably stop growing at three feet. And then in addition to it, we have the native tree being proposed here in the corner. The flow of erosion control also, ask us to add additional trees so we're going to be planting two dogwoods they actually specified that there should be smaller trees so we're going to be planting two dogwoods here as you remember from the area photo off-site we have this gigantic tree so we don't want to have a conflict and then also on the other side as you remember we had a tree canopy like kind of overlapping this whole corner So this is actually the best location for the additional trees. There will be some more landscaping done, but at this moment, we do not have fully developed a landscaping plan. And this is all I have to say, and we're here to answer your questions. Again, we have our engineer, architect, and myself. So if you have any questions, we're here to address them.

Mr. Green, more presentation?

I don't know if the... We do. I don't know if the commission at this point has any questions for our engineer or architect. We're happy to provide answers, or I can just proceed.

Well, we can either do it now or at the end. Traditionally, we let you do a full presentation, and then we take our chance.

I think... that we've covered the coastal area management issues. I would just clarify that the, you know, just on the terminology, the actual, the pool patio is 17 by 24, but the pool itself is only eight feet by 12 feet. So it's almost in the way of a basin and not in the way of a pool of any size. I think at this point, I will reserve my comments for our closing remarks, and I can cover the sort of the CAM issues at that time. But once again, if the Commission has any questions at this juncture, we're happy to answer them. Very good. Michelle?

Thank you. Michelle Crowley, Planning and Zoning Director. I just wanted to give you some information. This lot is a conforming lot. It has 6,276 square feet located in the Residence B district, which requires 6,000 square feet of lot area. The lot is to be served by public water and sewer. As described, it's partially within the 100-year flood zone. Again, it's also in the coastal area management boundary. Therefore, CAM review is required. As also described by the applicant, the coastal resources that are located on or adjacent to the site is coastal hazard area, beaches and dunes, shellfish concentration area. I just want to indicate that the first floor of the ADU will be at above the base flood elevation. It'll be at 15 feet 2 inches, and the base flood elevation is 13. The EDU does comply. The height measure from average grade to the peak of the pitched roof is 26 feet, which is compliant. Flood and erosion control board and conservation both approved the project and the health department approved the pool as well. So the comments from Ted Gill dated April 13th indicated The plans do not depict sight lines for the driveway, which would appear to be significantly obstructed by the hedges, both on the property and in the town right-of-way. So he suggested that prior to obtaining a zoning permit, the applicant provide a plan showing the driveway will have adequate sight lines. He also stated the plans to pick stone walls on the frontage of the property within the town right-of-way. The walls and any other encroachments into the town right-of-way shall be removed prior to issuance of a zoning certificate of compliance. Saying all that, he concluded that the proposed activity does not have any adverse engineering impacts with respect to grading, drainage, or other public safety considerations. So the proposal We had a discussion, my staff and town attorney Pete Gilderman, regarding whether we, because the driveway was existing in the generally existing location, did the driveway have to be brought up to the state line requirements? And Peter Gilderman indicated that since the driveway will match the existing, it wasn't exactly clear on the plans at one point, so the plans were revised to show that the existing conditions and the existing driveway, which predate the zoning regulations, are considered legally not conforming because it's in the same configuration and it's been there prior to the zoning regulations. In conclusion, we did not have to we were not authorized to require them to comply with the sightline requirements because of the existing conditions of the driveway. So that was just happened, you know, within the last couple of weeks and that has been resolved at least from our standpoint. There was also comments from DEP indicating that they did not have any, think the project had any adverse impacts. and they found it to be consistent with the Coastal Connecticut Management Act. There were a lot of public information and letters submitted by the public, which have been available on the website for some time. And of course, I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Commissioners, who wants to weigh in? Mr. Cleese, anything to add?

One question I have is, what is the elevation at street level?

Very good, let's see if we can get that answered for you.

I will refer to our engineer, Mark Ockman, who's online.

Good evening. My name is Mark Ockman, professional engineer. The elevation at the street level is 7.3.

So the basement level, this house will have a basement, correct?

It's going to have no living space in it, so it's going to be compliant with the FEMA regulations with flood openings, etc.

What is the elevation of that?

The basement elevation is elevation 8.5, and a lot of that's due to driveway conformance. We can only be a certain percentage grade for the first 40 feet of driveway.

What provisions are made for drainage from the lower level of the house to street level? I assume the driveway is... Well, can you tell me how the driveway is constructed?

So the driveway will be constructed with permeable pavers and then there will be a stone sub base which will provide the storage for the driveway as well as a subsurface detention system within the permeable driveway area to provide storage and retention for the roof areas of both the ADU.

What will the size of each paper be?

They're generally roughly two and a half by five, and then they've got an open jointed paver to allow the water to dissipate into the storage bed underneath the pavers.

So you're saying basically that each paver is in excess of 10 square feet.

No, it's a two and a half inches by, each paper is two and a half inches by five and a half inches.

I'm sorry. They'll be laid in sand?

Yes, there'll be a sand bed, then underneath that will be a graded base of about six inches of number 57 stone, which is...

Okay, and you recognize that there will be a percolation test once it's all completed in terms of appropriate drainage within the driveway.

Yes, percolation tests and deep test pits were done prior to doing the site plan. It was a gravelly sand, but the installation of the permeable driveway will be overlooked or overseen during the construction process.

Okay. Because of the change in elevation, I'm concerned about runoff. And I know it was a big problem. But that's all I had.

Thank you, Commissioner police. Commissioner and Jessica or Miss Chivoni.

Yeah, I just had a question about the runoff and if there's going to be an improvement in runoff from the existing conditions.

yes there will be an improvement from existing conditions from a water quality standpoint a peak runoff and volume and storage volume so how what's the volume change going to be the volume the volume change is is we're gonna we're gonna be storing at least a 1.3 inch um runoff or rainfall event within within the permeable pavers themselves. So it's going to it's going to be that and then currently there's a driveway there so that right now the runoff from that driveway is just shedding right onto the street. So we're going to be basically storing a lot of that a lot of that runoff from the property including all the impervious surfaces within the permeable paver storage bed.

And then the two, the neighboring properties, the runoff under those properties, how's that going to be controlled?

I've got shown two swales on each side of the property so that all that will not shed onto the neighboring properties.

Okay, that's all I have for now, Paul.

Thank you. Ms. Shimoni?

I'm good.

Okay, I have a couple of questions for you. What's the elevation next door to the left, which would be west? Did your property significantly fall off or is it still gentle?

The property up above our property? No, to the left of your property. Oh, to the left? Oh, I thought you said to the west. It's basically similar contours, similar elevations, gradually increasing up from east to west.

And are you adding landscaping to the back portion of the lot?

I don't think anything is proposed to the back portion of the lot.

But there's going to be an ADU in the back portion.

Correct.

So, Mr. Green, are you suggesting that the neighbor will have full vision of a brand new ADU?

I just want to address that, if I may. I just need a moment, Mr. Chairman. I believe that there is some landscaping that addresses that. I think there are two flowering dogwoods constructed behind the house. I think that's shown on the landscape plan and then obviously sort of a robust landscaping plan along the road and along the western boundary, the southerly portion of the western boundary of the property. I would also note that Mr. Ferrari, who resides directly to the west and is an abutting property owner, submitted an email today supporting the application.

Yes, but he might not always be the neighbor. So I'm just wondering what you might have in the way of screening or shielding for the new ADU.

So I'm going to call on Ms. Mock on that, on the landscape plan.

Alexandra Mock, so the plan which I showed it to you on my slide, this was prepared for the Flood Erosion Control with the focus on the corner which they have a jurisdiction over with the WPLO line. We would be more than happy to do some screening if you feel like it's needed and you would like to have an insurance that is going to be done, please add this as a permit condition. I obviously would like to have some screening and some privacy for our site as well.

Yeah, it makes sense. The current owner has faced an empty lot for X number of years. And we certainly would want that for any neighbor that moved in there.

So as I understand it, and I've been by the site many times, there are robust plannings there now. And I guess my other comment, and I'm sure that my client is happy to... be a good neighbor and provide landscaping and wants the site to be attractive. But I would also, I guess, suggest that we're getting just a little bit out of the CAM standards in terms of which deals with, again, impacts on the coastal resources. And so, but I leave that to the commission.

Oh, well, thank you for that reminder. The current driveway for the other house next door, they don't share a driveway, correct?

They do not.

And so is there any access between these two lots?

There is no access between the lots, no.

Because I thought I saw something configured with a walkway in between the two properties.

That's not.

So do you mind if I ask what that is then?

So this walkway is going to be removed, a portion of it, and there's going to be, this is Alexandra Mark, and there's going to be a stone wall which will separate those two properties, so there's going to be no connection.

So you're adding a stone wall?

Yes, along the side of the driveway.

How tall is the stone wall?

Mark, can you help me with that one?

Yeah, it's roughly 1.5 to about 2.7 feet high at its highest.

And it's as high as at the road level?

No, it kind of climbs up, starts at a road at about 1.5 feet, and then gradually, as the elevations change on both sides of the property, it gets a little bit higher.

Okay, and you're adding great grading in there.

There's Phil, we're actually cutting or removing in order to meet the driveway standards, which will also help you in providing, you know, compensatory storage.

So those steps that you're showing there, they go up?

Correct? Yes.

Okay.

Here's the existing walkway, which is going to be disconnected. And this portion, which is all the property is going to be removed.

Does the pool have to be fenced in any way? I know it's not part of the CAM, but you're putting a pool right next to it, so I'm just wondering.

As long as it has an auto cover, I think they're changing that regulation in the next month or two, but as long as it has an auto cover, it does not need a pool fence.

Okay, I mean, I just want to make some general comments, even if it's not necessarily considered part of the camp. And it seems that you've utilized just about every square inch of this 0.14 lot. And if you look in the POCD, it really does say that we should try to avoid that type of behavior to not encourage it. The goal of the POCD is to limit the programs and activities down in the coastal sections. And this is certainly the opposite of that, I think. It asks for careful management and development. This seems to be maximum development. which I am absolutely not in favor of. You have absolutely all the rights of a homeowner to develop, but to maximize it both height and width to the lot line. You couldn't possibly jam a trampoline even in there. There's no room left whatsoever. I'm not at all happy with how intensive you've made this, considering the neighbors have been living for years with a nice green space there, even if the even if the hedges were too high to allow them to enjoy it. But that's it for me. Did everybody get a chance to weigh in? Craig, did you mention anything?

No.

Okay. Michelle, do we have any other comments that are available?

I'm sorry, did we go to the public?

no i think that might be a good thing to do now um so if anybody would like to weigh in on 218 hills point road campsite plan um i do see a hand up as miss scotty hi mr green i i saw you were here and i thought it was going to be about the neighbors and the lights but not yet um paul i'm really glad you brought up this

that what you're saying is what I talked about at the P&Z meeting that there's I'm glad the neighbor that's there right now is pleased. But when the properties in town change dramatically, the landscape of a neighborhood changes dramatically. And I think when we're inside the regs, there's probably not a lot you can do about it. But, you know, this idea about the ADU being for creating more housing in town, And I don't know, I think it's good that you're posing that question. And I think it's a big picture question for the PNZ.

Thank you very much, Ms. Scotti. Other members of the public need to weigh in or want to weigh in on this? Seeing none, I'll come back to the applicant and ask if you'd like to address your final remarks to the commission.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So look, I understand what the chair is expressing, but there actually is, on a proportional level, there is a fair amount of open space relative to the size of the lot, which is obviously relatively small, but it falls squarely within the zoning regulations. And also, I would note that the objective of the POCD, as Ms. Scotti just indicated. Certainly, there were objectives that this commission identified to create diversity in housing, to increase affordability, to provide options for seniors, and to do so without changing the neighborhood character, and we believe that this will not do any of that. And obviously, perhaps the most impact was once again in support of the plan. But significantly, and I can appreciate, you know, my familiarity with the history of the kinds of applications that this commission has heard. I understand your sensitivity, particularly in this area, to, you know, development there. Compared to the development that has gone on and the size and scale of the development that has gone on in this area, I can't help but comment this is relatively modest in terms of... And I know this commission is acutely aware of the kind of development that's gone on in that area, but I would suggest that, once again, it is fully zoning compliant and that, you know, with the elements such as... permeable paving and that sort of thing, that there has been a lot of sensitivity to those issues. I did want to comment though, and just to get to the legal standard, there is no evidence in the record of any sort of inconsistency with the Coastal Management Act and sort of the findings that this commission has to make in assessing this application. I appreciate the time and I appreciate the questions, honestly. And these are questions that I frequently raise. But in terms of this camera view, there's no evidence of any kind that this will degrade tidal wetlands, beaches, dunes, rocky shorefronts, bluffs and the like. So there's no evidence in the record at all or evidence. What I'll call substantial evidence in the commission is well aware of the need for sort of expert testimony on these sorts of elements. There is no evidence in the record that it will increase the hazard of coastal flooding because of, you know, altering the shoreline. Certainly this doesn't fall into that category at all. It doesn't degrade the existing patterns of coast. It's across the street and, you know, it's not a shorefront property. It doesn't degrade natural or existing drainage patterns. It doesn't alter groundwater flow. It doesn't degrade natural erosion patterns. It doesn't degrade visual quality, for example, as a large shorefront development might for people who are looking at the shore. It doesn't degrade water quality in any way, and it doesn't... have any effect of any kind, and there's no evidence of any kind that it affects wildlife and fish or shellfish habitat. So in terms of the kind of findings that the commission has to make, And this is sort of evidenced by, as I looked at this application, it really sort of was unanimously approved at every stop along the way that brings us to this moment of decision before the commission on once again this limited issue. And I will say again that my clients are sensitive to the appearance of their property. And as you are aware, my clients lived in this neighborhood and this neighborhood is important to them. And they have always kept their property in impeccable order and have always kept their property attractive, and they've been respectful of their neighbors in all respects. So, you know, that's above and beyond, again, I know, camera view, but I just wanted to state that for the record, and I fully expect that that will continue. I don't know if the commission has questions. Oh, I also wanted to note in response to the question that one of the commissioners asked, that it substantially improves the stormwater treatment and detention on the site by nearly stormwater discharge, I believe by almost 150%. I believe it's in the 140%. So a 40% improvement post-development. So again, it meets every standard for CAM, and there's really... Nothing in the evidence, I'm sorry, no evidence in the record to suggest otherwise. I certainly appreciate the commission's consideration and the thoughtful questions you asked. I don't know if you have more questions for me, but I appreciate your patience.

Sure, absolutely. Will you provide us with a revised planting plan so we can take a look at that? Absolutely.

Well, I'd be happy to do that. Can I suggest that that be a request to submit to staff for review in good faith?

Well, I was going to couple it with a site walk. I have not been down to the property. I'd like to come down to the property if you'd like to join us. I'd like to see it from the three vantage points. Do you mind? No, I have no objection at all. That'd be fine. And if we could, if we had that in hand while we were on site, that would be helpful. All right. Sure. And then I noticed that there's talk of a three foot edge, 42 inch. And I'm not familiar with how you enforce that with the next owner.

Also, can I answer this question? Well, first of all, I just looked at the area photo to refresh my memory of the site. There is a very tall Abrobides hedge between those two neighbors existing right now. So even a tall house is not going to be seen from their property. And the hedge in the front, basically, the type of... hedge or the type of the species which was chosen it's not going to grow any taller so it's not about whether or not you maintain or whether or not you are allowed to grow it this type of hedge is not going to grow any taller what i can do i can actually maybe change the type of the vegetation or the hedge which which goes along the property line to make it taller because now I know that you have a concern that screening is very important so to screen the driveway will be more than happy to change this to a different species which grows taller and are you talking about on top of the wall or let me just quickly share this with you okay so So I believe that you are concerned about the southern property line. So this area is all have a tall Abramides hedge. And then this section is a little bit lower. So maybe we can replace those species which are ones which grow a little bit taller.

So shorten the front and tall on the side.

So the front is going to be short because that's what the staff is recommending and we don't want this to allow to grow any taller. But the sites, like passing the corner, just for the privacy, this could be something taller. And then starting from there, there's a huge abrovidus hedge on the neighboring property, which are trees. So very evergreen and very dense. So I don't think there's a...

president should do anything there okay you know you mentioned uh um that there was a hedge between the two houses um uh between the proposed adu and mr ferrari's house but it's it's not um it doesn't it's not a full hatch is it um

We can add to make sure that it's going to meet so there's going to be no opening because there's an old hedge which is going to the portion which now runs along the stretch of this swimming pool and this hedge may be removed or may stay. So we'll make sure that the hedge is full but from what I'm seeing, the neighbor has almost full hedge going down.

I believe it's almost 12 feet high, Mr. Chairman, along the side. So I would just comment that In terms of the landscaping along the front of the property, we are sensitive, obviously, to sight lines, traffic safety and sight lines. So, obviously, everything along what I'll call the front of the property, along Hills Point Road, is limited in height. And I would suggest, if the chair is inclined, that can we call up the site plan again, Ms. Mott?

Yes. So just quickly, if I can show the how the so this is the scenario. So you can see that the southern boundary is like really heavily vegetated. So there's no issue here. It's really screen the same on the north hand side. And now let's go back to the site plan over here. There we go.

Is this the one you would like to see? Yeah, that's fine. I was hoping to see the one with the landscape plan.

Not a problem. We're going to go to the landscape. There we go.

I noticed that you didn't put anything in between you and the number four Campo Hill.

Well, that gets tricky in my experience, Mr. Chairman, because it's uphill, it's up gradient, and Residents are sensitive to their view towards the water in that area, so putting in robust landscaping up there, I think, is...

Yes, but by the same token, you're putting a 27-foot house in front of them, so I want to make sure that the preferred view is offered. All right. Well... I'll tell you what. Why don't you guys draw something up? I want to make sure that this is fully vetted. Let's meet down there. Pick a day next week or later this week, and let's get some... Let's draw this map a little more robustly. I'm pretty sure that... that there's more to this. The other thing is the neighbor to the immediate right, it's listed as grain and salt. Just correct me so that I know. That is not the current applicant, correct?

Are you talking about the north, the upper one?

No, I'm talking about 236 Hills Point, 216 Hills Point.

That is not the applicant. Not here.

All right, so that's a brand new owner, correct? Correct. And they bought next to a lot, which they probably had an inkling that it might Correct. That might happen. Are you familiar with whether or not the seller who owns both of these, who owns both of these properties, intimated during the sale?

Yes.

Would be building next door?

Yes. Yes, absolutely. Okay.

And so they were, and the new owners were part of the butter list? Yes. So they got the red letter notice?

Yes.

All right. Just make it short. Yeah.

That's fine.

Yeah. Pick a day, let's meet down there. I'm sure some of the other commissioners would like to see how this thing lays out. And let's, you know, in the meantime, does any commissioners have anything else? Anybody? All right, so I'll motion for continuance until we get a chance to finish that.

We just have to move it to a date certain. So we have the 22nd scheduled. The 29th, we have a meeting and then the 7th of July.

Well, the 22nd is already packed. We just moved a whole bunch of lights there. Although Mr. Green will probably be available. I think we'll, why don't we shoot for the 29th?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask, I guess we're going to submit a revised landscaping plan and, uh, I guess under the circumstances, can we limit the issue then going forward for purposes of public comment on the application to the new evidence that's submitted?

Limiting public comment is not something that we do in this commission. I appreciate where you're going with that. I won't let it get out of hand. Fair enough. That's fair.

Thank you.

All right, so motion to continue. Do I have a second? I will second that. Thank you. Michelle, the 29th?

Yes.

Okay, and if we could get those drawings beforehand, that would be helpful.

We will certainly. I'm confident we'll get that done, yes.

All right, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the commission. Will the Secretary please take us to work session?

Can we just get a vote on the motion to continue from Craig?

Oh, did we just do that? I'm sorry. Going from left to right, Mike Calise, how do you vote?

I say yes.

Thank you. Ms. Schiavone?

Yes.

Ms. Injeski?

Yes.

And Ms. Leibowitz? Yes.

All right. So now we are on to items number eight and nine. And that is text amendment number 867, application number PZ2600236, and 785, post road east, special permit site plan application number PZ2600238.

Did we go into work session?

Yeah. Oh, are we not taking these other two? Hang on.

My bad. Go ahead.

Carry on. All right. Eight and nine are open now.

Did you read the whole thing? I think they're new applications.

Oh, okay. I will read them. All right. So the full one is text amendment 867 application PZ2600236 submitted by Richard W. Redness, FAICP to modify section 39A inclusionary housing overlay district to permit some or all of the required affordable units to be provided offsite for special needs individuals. A copy of the text amendment is available online at www.westportct.gov on the planning and zoning office webpage under PNC pending applications and recent approval. The property may also be a Town Hall, 110 Myrtle Avenue, and the Town Clerk's Office and Planning and Zoning Office. And 785 Post Road East, the special permit site plan application number PZ2600238 submitted by 785 Post Road East LLC in care of Richard W. Redness, FAICP for property owned by 785 Post Road East LLC. Seeking to modify special permit site plan approval for 16-036 to satisfy the affordability requirement by providing three George Street to able us for housing for special needs individuals and affordable supportive staff and providing one unit onsite located in the inclusionary housing overlay district PID number E09191000. Very good.

Who's speaking this evening?

I will be speaking, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

For the record, Richard Redness. Well, we began this application 18 months ago, maybe even more now at this point. And we began trying to get off-site affordable housing, particularly special needs housing on town-owned land. And we were working with Ableis and Homes with Hope And we've gone through a lot of different ups and downs. And the last set of hearings was a little complicated with too many applications pending. And we apologize for that. You have addressed one of them with your separate application for special needs individuals. And we appreciate you taking that on. that is obviously not directly tied to this application, nor is it timely to this application. That's more of a futuristic, so we do encourage you to get that one right. We appreciate the concerns that were expressed in the definition, but we can discuss that with you. It's also something that depending upon how you act on your own application, Should you approve the two applications that we're now discussing? There would be a third application which was referenced in the pre-app that we did together to expand special needs housing beyond just town-owned land. That is not before you today. And that would only come before you should you approve these two applications. And we will describe that a little bit further just for clarity's sake on the pending applications. So if I can share my screen. Hold on. Let me.

Did that.

Yep, we did that.

Did that.

What happened here? Hold on. What did I do?

Upper left corner, 785.

Is that, do you see it? Okay. I'm actually getting a little bit better at this. Not all the way there yet. So there's two applications that we impending the text change and they both relate to 785. And 785 was approved a decade ago. It's hard to believe, but a decade ago this was approved and when we did get it approved, we have this all this open space. We at great cost and effort. put in a sewer line so that these houses here can connect. Should they ever have a problem with their septic system, they can connect to the sewer line. That was part of an accommodation we did for those neighbors. We planted on their side of the fence. We limited what could happen on the backs of those units with windows and lights. And so again, another whole neighborhood agreement. when this was done. Last we were here, again, we had one of the complications where we said we're going to put units over this commercial building. That's off the table. We wanted to simplify all of this. When this was approved as a rental, it was 14 units. It is now transitioned to for sale housing, and it is 13 units. So the requirement went down from 2.8 to 2.6, which still both round up to three. And we are before you with a text change. Again, orientation, we have car dealership on this side, car wash on this side, IHZ housing that came long after us, but got built before us. And we've taken a reg change that was much more complicated because it included town-owned land and other things that we tried to do working with the prior administration. We have simplified this application to reflect what feedback we got from the PZC. So at your sole discretion, some or all may be provided offsite. Provided it's administered by a 501 nonprofit with a track record of providing appropriate special needs services and where the commission makes a finding that the offsite affordable housing exceeds the overall intent and public benefit objectives of standard onsite. And that's it. So now it's a very simple text with a litmus test. But just to refresh your memories, we do have offsite options in the regs six other places, and it has been used three other times. Those are the gray highlighted, the white highlighted are where it's allowed, but it's never been used. The most recent is number four, where it was denied as part of an overall denial of the Hamlet. Questions came up in prior applications from the public, I believe. which was how much in terms of evaluating on-site versus off-site, should there be a fee-in-lieu equivalent, which was established probably a decade and a half ago or more in the Residency District. And so we thought it would be helpful to let you know in the prior approvals approximately what was the equivalent value. It wasn't a fee in lieu, which is in your POCD and your affordability plan that you should have a fee in lieu, but none of these have been fee in lieu. They've all been housing in lieu on off-site. So we just wanted you to see that and notice the yellow seven at the bottom is significantly higher in terms of its value on a per unit basis. And one of the reasons for that is another issue that came up in this long history that we've been working together, and that is transparency. When we were talking about SOGATOC as an offsite option, RPM Homes had an option on the property and didn't own it or control it. So we didn't want to disclose its address. We were criticized for that. So Ryan went out and bought 3 George Street. So he does control it and we can disclose it and we can be transparent. And you have one letter from neighbors and we have talked to others. The. We're not reinventing a wheel, obviously in Westport, but also not in other towns. Just to give you a perspective of tools in the toolbox. Other towns have offsite options. Some also have feet in lieu options and we just put those numbers in there for your information. And again, any of this that you want to go into more depth, we can't. And where we would like to locate is 3 George Street. And we put together this exhibit because one of the concerns that was expressed in a letter of opposition was that there's no commercial on this property. There is a commercial use currently still in use in the back of this property because the old zoning was 200 feet back, which did include that garage in the back. So that is what the facts are. Obviously, now it is no longer in commercial, but it is legally nonconforming. Similarly, it was previously used as a two-family house with one unit over the three-car garage, and then this was a single-family house. So we just wanted that in the record for 3 George Street because that's where we're looking to place that. This is what it looks like now or did when we took the picture. These are the commercial buildings along the post road. That's the commercial use automotive use that's there now. And in order to make a determination of superior to onsite, we used again the staff memo from 2018 with the 16 points. And I'd like to just walk you through those 16 points. And obviously, the evaluation is up to you. PZC sole discretion. But the facts are here. The floor area of what's required a little over 3,000 versus what is provided in the combination is over 4,000. And that excludes basement space. So we believe that yes is the right response. The number of people served.

Rick?

Yes.

You said combination on-site, off-site. Are you combining the square footage?

Yes, footnote two, I'll go slower and go through it. Footnote two is the total residential floor area. You're supposed to have 20% of the total residential floor area and 20% of the units. You have to satisfy both standards. So 20% of the floor area of 15,000 is you're required to have 3,168. And we are providing in combination, which is footnote three, of the on-site and the off-site. That's how you get to over 4,000 and excludes the basement in 3 George Street.

The number of people... And the on-site is an affordable rental? On-site.

On-site is, I believe it's an 1100 square foot unit.

You'll circle back and show us that?

Yeah, it's right here in footnote three.

I see it. I just want to see it on the plan.

Okay, let's see. Go ahead, continue. Yeah, no, but I just want to have Mr. Pinto on the call. to pull out and with Ryan, the correct number of, because now I think it's been identified which unit that is. So let's have that ready between those two guys. And we'll come back to you with that. Let me just make a note that we come back to you with that on site. Okay. Next is number of people served. And again, that depends on how many people are in a bedroom. But if you're using bedrooms as a way of determining how many people you can have, then we would have more bedrooms than if the three units were on site.

Well, here the unit count does not go up. So you're not including the one from 785 here?

No, they're both included. So again, I'll go through the math. So if it was on-site, two two-bedrooms and one one-bedroom. So that's five bedrooms. If it's off-site, it is six bedrooms with one bedroom on-site and five off-site. So there are more bedrooms, hence number three. Okay, that's fine.

It would have been helpful to break that up, but now we know.

Okay. The moratoria points is another criteria to evaluate. And that's where we put the TBD and requires a little bit more explanation, which I will go through. So If you have three onsite rentals at 80%, it's 4.5. If you have three onsite units for sale, it's only three points. What we're proposing is a minimum of three, and that is without special needs housing. So, which is footnote four, which says, and part of our pre-op that we did with you, individual units is special needs housing, which may be available, but that would be a future application by ABLIS, again, per our pre-op. Should what we described to you in the pre-op, and happy to review that again with you, Should it become special needs housing as opposed to a group home or a home with sharing facilities with up to five unrelated adults, it would generate more points. If it was a true special needs housing, that would be a future application. That discussion was a little bit touched on earlier this evening.

You need to come back either way, don't you?

No, not necessarily. If you would approve this text change and you approve 3 George Street as the relocation, that in itself satisfies the... ability for ableists to establish either a group home there or a group home in the front building with the staff living above the garage unit. That's a possibility. And that one could be deed restricted. But the goal, the goal is to maximize the amount of true apartments for special needs, like 136 Riverside. That meets the need of the community to establish living skills, etc., which, again, I think you're aware of and we can talk more about, and there are interested parties that can talk to it better than I do. So that's the moratoria points, just to be clear, and you have to determine that superiority. The location, again, the location of onsite is obviously between a car wash, multifamily, a car dealership, and the back of the houses on Richmondville. I mean, Roseville. And the adding 3 George Street is obviously much more of a residential neighborhood. It's a residential street, even though it backs up to commercial area. Amenities. There are no particular amenities on-site, off-site. There are larger opportunities for amenities in terms of yard and garages because the single unit does not have a garage and garden, et cetera. It's a regular residential setting. Finishes and quality, it's new construction onsite and it would be renovation offsite. And the reason we put little question marks there is because at the time we did this, we needed to confirm with ABLIS that if they are given this property as a result of these two applications, they will renovate this property The difference will be is whether they, and again, we would work with staff to get the nuance difference, but you can have a bedroom with its own bathroom. You can have a bedroom with a sink. You can have a refrigerator in a bedroom. There are certain things you can do that you can have without it becoming a kitchen and a separate unit. So the only difference will be what is in the kitchenette area of these units. That's the only difference between a group home with their plans for renovation and true special needs housing, which would require a future application. But it would be renovated. The affordability plan administration, again, private, on-site, and ableist, off-site, nonprofit, which obviously is superior in understanding how affordability plans are administered, etc., And the town interest or right of first refusal, that was a consideration back when regulations were started. I can't remember exactly, but maybe it's close to 20 years now. But if there's a 40-year limitation on site, one would be 40 years and two would be without limit because Avalos would just own it outright. So there's no sunset clause to it. Preferences for fair housing. This became an issue of discussion because when you're doing sort of typical affordable housing, you have to advertise least likely to apply, et cetera. What we have learned and working with the state and When you have a situation with a nonprofit and special needs housing, it's very important how you build the family, even though they're separate units, that live effectively together. So these are separate apartments. They have their own lock on them, but it is separate. in a single-family house and you are sharing spaces with the other apartments. It's an unusual situation. They have a waiting list. And how this works, and again, as we've testified before, this idea started in Darien and when the 11 units went online in Darien, there were four families from Westport that applied to be in Darien. One of them got in, three were put on a wait list. And then when we did 136, they came off the wait list and went to 136. Subsequent to that, the other Fourth person that was in 136 in the beginning was from Fairfield. They left, and coincidentally, another Westport family was able to come live at 136, and it's now four Staples graduates living at 136. The miscellaneous is onsite. You don't have the support and supervision of a nonprofit. So again, we feel that's superior. And then again, directly the nonprofit involvement is ableist. And so we believe that, let's see, yeah. We believe that we have tried to answer all the questions that have come up over the last 18 months while we've been doing this. And we've tried to be as transparent as possible and hope that we hit the mark this time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do appreciate it. Michelle.

Thank you very much. I'm Michelle Parley, zoning director. Yes, so just wanted to go over quickly. The proposal is a text amendment application to allow off-site affordable at discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, where the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a finding that the housing for special needs individuals exceeds the overall intent and public benefit of on-site housing. I know you'll recall there were similar text amendments submitted. Most of them were withdrawn. Testimony was taken on one previous version, as well as Text Amendment 864. Text Amendment 864 included the modification to the definition of special needs individuals, which we discussed earlier in the evening under our proposed text amendment, as well as the ability to allow off-site affordable housing at the discretion of the P&Z. Again, if the off-site proposal is superior, in that case was the wording that was used. In this case, it's public benefit. So during the April 6, 2026 hearing, Commission members, if you recall, weighed the benefits of allowing off-site affordable units for special needs individuals only. That was during the work session. There did appear by reviewing the tape to be consensus that the modification, that this modification specifically for special needs individuals was, appeared to be supported broadly. There was a motion that was made to approve the text amendment as proposed, which was not supported by a majority of the commission members. And then a new motion to adopt as modified wasn't made. So therefore the application was denied on April 6th. So the reasons are all included in my staff report. Also, so I just want to give you that brief history on where we've been and where we are now. My staff report went through, again, that history as well as the zoning regulations that require on-site affordable units and which zoning regulation sections permit off-site affordable. comments from DEP indicated they had no issues with the text amendment. West Cog comments also indicated they had no concerns. And then Metro Cog also no regional significance. Then I did want to make reference again to our memo from Pete Gilderman from December 16th of last year where he says that the Commission, if the Commission is going to permit off-site affordable housing to satisfy the minimum requirement, there should be some case-by-case discretion to ensure that proposed off-site location is appropriate. So reminding the Commission that reasons have to be stated as to why off-site is superior to affordable. or a greater public benefit to, as opposed to the onsite. And I think that's kind of all I have. And I'll pay for questions.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Should I go? I'm sorry. Should I move on to 785 specifically? That was kind of the text amendment. I can speak to the actual modification to 785 quickly, if that's okay. Again, this is modifying that previous resolution, 16-036, from 2016, as described to permit two of the three required affordable housing units to be provided offsite at 3 George Street. Just to go back, the multifamily development at 785 was approved with three affordable units to be provided on-site. Again, the request is to allow two of those units to be provided off-site at 3 George. So 3 George Street right now would not be permitted under the special needs housing regulations since it's not public, sorry, municipal or town-owned building. So a text amendment would be required if special needs housing is proposed by ABLEIS. If ABLEIS wanted to modify what's currently there, which is two units to special needs housing, up to six units and six individuals, then That would be permitted by a tax amendment application, but that's not being proposed right now. Right now, the proposal is to donate 3 George Street to Ableist to provide either two units or a group home. A group home cannot be regulated by zoning, so that would be permitted, or the use of the two dwelling units, which currently exist. the comments uh and the comments i spoke to from the cogs and um departments were um it was applied to both uh applications so i think that's all i have thank you thank you very much commissioners who's first mike calise anything

One of the things I'm wondering about in the text amendment itself, the comment is made by providing free joy street. What do you mean by that?

Would you like me to answer as we go or wait till the end?

Yeah, absolutely. There's just four of us tonight.

Okay. Thank you, Michael. Providing means donating. It will be donated to ableist for, it's either a dollar or $10, you know, that's what it means, providing it.

So they will actually be vesting them with ownership? Correct. And have they taken any steps whatsoever to come up with a plan to create a group home?

The only plans that we created were what we presented in the pre-app. They have, you know, toward the building, They know from the 136 experience, you know, what they can do. But because this has been going on quite some time, they have not invested in hiring an architect or anyone to actually design it. Because first they want to make sure they can own it. And then they're willing to put in the significant funds that it would take to renovate.

But I'm gathering from that, just to carry it to an extreme, if they decided that the project wouldn't work for them, they could sell the property.

Well, that's an interesting position. I think... I work with a lot of nonprofits. This one, they are always looking for opportunities. They have such a long list of people that need this type of housing. To get free housing in Westport, Connecticut, I can't imagine them selling it, but we're happy to figure out if you're worried about that what we can do i i'm not i'm not sure how we would handle that but but they will they will own the property and they could start to occupy it tomorrow if they owned it tomorrow because it is allowed by zoning so i don't i can't fathom any scenario where that would happen well in order to um for us to

agree that there's an off-site benefit which satisfies the off-site request that you're looking for. It would seem to me that there was some set of guarantees or a plan as to what would happen with this property. Additionally, this is an existing A building with three, I would assume, and I certainly could be corrected by this, but three below market rate tenants. And that's not true.

Well, tell us what is.

A, it's vacant. B, this property was previously occupied by well over income people.

uh so this this is not uh affordable housing how many units stretch the the unit over the garage and the front house they were leased no no i'm not i'm not talking about victor rafowski i'm talking about the existing situation which has i assume the front house To tennis or to electric meters on the outside. And then you say there's and I did see. A tenant in the garage area. So you currently have 3 tenants. There are not. Sacred by affordability of any kind. But who are certainly paying. Low rent.

All right, now I'm beginning to catch the drift here. Number one, this property would be permanently deed restricted, okay? So the property, and that can be a condition of approval. that it would be deed restricted by ableist to serve special needs individuals, okay? Regardless of anything you do with that definition, that's not critical to what we're doing. So this will be for ableist, this would be a condition of approval, deed restricted to be affordable. ALL THE UNITS ARE UNAFFORDABLE. THIS COULD BE DEED RESTRICTED TO ELIMINATE THE COMMERCIAL USE THAT IS TAKING PLACE. WE WOULD AGREE AND STIPULATE TO BOTH OF THOSE CONDITIONS THAT THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL BE ABANDONED AND THAT THE HOUSE BE DEED RESTRICTED FOR SPECIAL NEEDS PURPOSES ONLY AND WITH THE STAFF, YOU KNOW, THE AFFORDABLE STAFF AS WELL.

credits would you be looking for for this project?

What we would be looking for is the totality of the property going to Ableis. So if the intent is to apply for the text change per the pre-op that we did with you, that they would apply for the tech change. And I can go through that with you and how we can limit applicability, you know, where you have to be oversized, non-conforming, adjacent to post-road commercial property. You know, so we're not opening Pandora's box with the regulation. We went through that with you. But if, as is, that property could be too expensive RESIDENCES. ONE DEED RESTRICTED AT 80% OVER THE GARAGE AND ONE GROUP HOME IN THE FRONT WHICH WOULD GET NO POINTS BECAUSE THE WAY THE POINT SYSTEM WORKS, AGAIN, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT THE WAY IT WORKS IS IT AGGREGATES THE FAMILY INCOME. SO IF YOU HAD FOUR PEOPLE uh each with a job and income uh they they would aggregate all their incomes as a family and they would most likely be over income okay they'd be over 80 of the state median income if they all worked so so that we're not that's why we said in the chart we are not saying that there will be moratoria points if you approve this and if it does not become special needs housing, it will serve the same number of people, a minimum of five people, one staff, four, just like we did at 136. And by the way, 136, which is the same four residents and one staff was to replace seven units on site in richmondville we're trying to replace two the same thing we placed seven commissioner police well i just don't see the game i don't know either hang on it's going to lose

You have a property. It's going to lose. Market rate. And exchange them with. With. Tense which. Which we're looking for is one labeling as affordability. So there's no gain for the town. I again

I disagree, and I think that when you have in your town the amount of teardowns that you have in your town to think that this property, if you deny this application, who knows what happens in the future, but certainly if it was sold to someone, I heard that the house adjacent to this you know, is well over a million dollars. I have no facts for that. You can look at it yourself. To think that housing in Westport that is not deed restricted is going to stay as affordable market rate is just belies what's happening in Westport.

it's it's not deed restricted it will not remain and i can assure you with all that ryan has put into this property that it will not remain that way well that's you know that's your side of the argument but uh and i don't want to pursue this anymore but um i i just don't see the benefit that you claim out of this So basically, that's it.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Craig, you had something to say?

Yes. Something Rick said, first of all, that ableists once donated this property could in fact... have only one deed restricted unit and then go to, I don't know what, but we would not get moratorium points for the rest of it. And that would be up to them. And, you know, I know I talked to you, Paul, earlier. I can't find where I read it in the documents that that was the case, but that threw me. That all aside, um, It seems every time we come back to the table with this, there's either some creep of the plans or it gets more complicated. And I would like to go back to what is actually the proposal. Last time, it was so refreshing. The last time, last meeting, we talked about this and it was like, okay, you're going to have three onsite units and the proposal on Post Road was going to go forward. And I just breathed a sigh of relief because after looking for months at these matrices and all the different pieces that could go where and when and how, Can we please just settle in on one or two proposals that, you know, I mean, is it one unit on-site and then half a unit off-site or giving the property to ableists and then they might or might not develop? You know, affordable housing. No, somehow we have to get down to what's your proposal? And if there are two or three options, tell me what the two or three options are and we can assess what the pluses and minuses are. But It's just a muddle to me. And, you know, forgive me, maybe I'm missing a lot, but I just, it's exhausting to try to keep track of this.

So I think probably the easiest way to un-muddle, because last time when you discussed this, there were the votes to approve it, but it got muddled. And a vote was taken rather than an amendment that would limit off-site to special needs housing. So step one, text. You had members that wanted it to be, were fine with it the way the text was written. And then you had members who were in favor of it, if it was only for special needs housing offsite.

But that's what I understood was proposed.

Right. And you voted against it because that was not made as an amendment. You voted against it.

No, I voted against it because exactly what's coming up now is that... It was fuzzy in terms of whether this would be totally special needs housing or making us eligible for the moratoria points or not. You know, perhaps it's, you know, I'm muddled on this at this point, and I think a number of us are. We've talked about it independently and tried to, you know, look through your matrices and then go back to the economics of what might be or what might not be. But at this point, what I really want to know is, you know, we've seen your proposal. for 455 with the three affordable units there. Great, we could vote on that. But is that the proposal? If not, what is the proposal? What is the proposal here?

Let me try again. Let me try again. Number one, 455 is a rental. 455 is a rental. It's a separate application. It's a rental. I understand that. 785, the units are for sale. What we are proposing, and let me take you through Richmondville.

I don't want to hear about Richmondville. I've heard Richmondville. We've got to get just... Okay. So 785, you understand one unit on site, correct?

Correct.

One unit on site and then the others would be on George.

And three George Street would be the other two. That's the other two.

But OK, that's one proposal. That's the only proposal. Oh, that's the only proposal? Because that wasn't what we talked about. That's not what we talked about several weeks ago when we talked about this. We talked about the three on-site.

We didn't talk about three on-sites last time with 785. 785, and let's forget about the past and deal right now with what's before you. Right now what's before you is one on-site and two off-site. That's what's before you.

Hang on, hang on, two of you. Now, Rick, describe the two off-site in full detail for Craig.

Yes. Okay. Unit number one, excuse me, let me call that unit number two off-site is the unit over the garage Which could be for staff tomorrow.

Right.

I understand that. Do the rest. And that would be one and a half moratoria points.

Do the rest.

The building in the front tomorrow, if nothing else changed, would be a group home.

With how many people in there?

Four people. Right now, we're thinking four, just like, I don't want to mention it, four people would be living there. Four special needs individuals would be living in the front building as a group home or as four unrelated adults. So that's the proposal.

Hang on, Craig. Hang on, Craig. Now, don't try and explain any more. Okay? Craig? You see his, do you see what he's proposing?

I, now I undersee, now I understand.

Theo Hart, that was not hard, Rick.

See what he's proposing. Sorry. Okay. All right, now, ready, Craig, go. I got that one. So that's where that's where we are. That's what we're talking about. Then what happened to OK, then going back to Michael referred to it or somehow you got into it. And I saw it earlier written up and talked to Paul about it, that this may be end up for profit. with ABLIS and we would not be eligible for the moratorium points and for-profit was used and I just wish I was going through all the documents.

Hang on, let me moderate here. Rick, is there a for-profit angle with ABLIS?

No.

Thank you. Craig?

I've got to go back and find it.

There's no for-profit. It's a 501C3, but it may be. No. I've got to find it. I read it to you earlier, Paul. Time out, you two.

Okay, I read it to you, Paul.

It can't, and what's the reason it can't? Because it is deed-restricted.

Okay, but whatever it was, it did stipulate that it may not be eligible for moratoria points. That's different than for-profit. Okay, but that it would be income-producing. I'll find it. Because I did read it to Paul earlier today. I called him about it, and I read it to him. So it's just I've got to find it.

Do you understand that if there are four special needs housing, and the four of them, each of them coincidentally earned 50% of the state median income, and you aggregate four times 50 and you get, what do you get? Four times 50, 200. Which is more than the state of mind, yes. You're over income, so as a family of four, you are ineligible for moratoria points. You're still special needs, you're still affordable, but you're not getting the moratoria points.

Okay, hold it there, Rick. Don't go any farther. Craig. And it's because it's being defined as a group home.

I see. Okay, I just... We could just distill this.

Okay, this is the proposal. Please don't misconflate chasing moratorium points for providing four units special needs, because that's really the goal.

I'm not going to conflate this, but it goes back to also... You know, my issues were, you know, at risk of homelessness. You know, are these really special needs persons?

Yes, they are really special needs.

But I don't need to get into the weeds on that. I just have to say that, you know, again, we were going through the matrices and, you know, what the different options were if you're doing it on-site and off-site. And I just want to come down to... you know one or two options we're looking at one option so we're no longer looking at three on-site affordable units correct that's not before that's off the table okay because two weeks ago that was not off the table okay well that's where we are now we are looking at one on two off but i will say

I listened to your discussion on the definition. I wrote the original definition. I did not write the modified definition for Susie's house. I understand that. I understand your concern about homeless in that definition. And I can tell you, if you work it out with what you have with your pending application, and we appreciate you doing that, great. If you do not, when we come back with ABLEIS, with what we said in the pre-op, to do special needs housing, capital H, not individual, we will tackle it again, and we can surgically do what you want. Okay? So you should do it yourself.

I don't want that option. I just want you as a developer to come to us and tell us what your proposal is. Okay. I did. What you think is best for works economically for you is best for the town. Obviously, you understand our criteria and our goals and objectives in terms you know, meeting our POCD and, you know, and the needs of all populations in this town, special needs. You understand that, Rick, but just, you know, do one or two, and let us take one or two application and grapple with it and leave it there. And if this is what we're doing, great. That's what we're doing. One on, two off.

That's what we're doing.

Okay. That's what you're doing. And okay. Is that absolutely clear then in what we're reading in the application and the documents now?

I believe Michelle is nodding. I believe it is. I believe it's reflected in our chart. In your chart. Oh, my God. Okay.

Okay. You know, I will go back and thoughtfully revisit this and I feel a little more at ease that we're talking about one proposal and then what's left are the other issues that have to do with Paul and the site, the main site, I'll call it.

What are the issues with the main site?

Whatever's left, I don't know.

There is no, no, we got to be very clear. You have four board members sitting on it. We've been doing this for 18 months. We want to be very clear. We want to be very clear tonight. And what I'd like to do is go back to the chart because I know this.

You've been doing this for 18 months. We haven't been doing this for 18 months. You've been doing this for 18 months.

Let's not devolve into an argument.

Just to simply get an offsite unit.

Let's not... Mr. Cleese, let's not... Everybody has their hat on and everybody's trying to make a point, but I believe it's actually Bree's turn to ask questions.

So the first time around, it seemed like there was much more of a certainty about what was going to be happening at George Street, and now it seems like it's going to be up to Ableist to decide if they want to come forward with the text amendment, or would you be coming forward with the text amendment?

I will be working with Ableist on it. It will be up to you when the application comes.

That part I get. I just wanted to know what level... I'm OK. I actually like this version of the text amendment. What I'm less on board with this time around is the the actual application part of it, because that part seems less certain about what the outcome is going to be. I understand one on site. Three George, there's going to be the apartment above the garage. And then there's that main house. And that's what the question mark is right now, because we don't know if that is going to be what ableist is going to do with that. And I guess one big question I have is that the house is being donated to them. Are any funds to renovate that house being donated to them to renovate it in a way that it could be appropriate for special needs housing? Or is this or is there potential that this property just sits there?

No. Okay. All good questions. So, and the executive director, I don't know if Amy has made it to this meeting, but Kim, I think, may be able to answer some questions. But let me first try. With Darien, so they have a mortgage on the Darien property. They have to maintain the property, they have to pay the debt service, etc. The game plan in this instance is there is no mortgage on the property. They will be getting the property and then be able to mortgage it to create the funds to renovate. And they are perfectly capable of doing that. And they have looked at that and they are comfortable doing it. And they're comfortable being able to do what we said in the pre app, which is create the four separate mini apartments, add the kitchens. If you do not grant the special needs housing, they're going to renovate it anyway. and do everything short of call it the stove, for lack of a better, you know, transition from from a bedroom with amenities to an apartment. And so that is what they will be doing.

Okay. And do we have somebody from able list that is going to be able to speak to that, I guess? Maybe not tonight. I don't know if we're deciding. Somebody from ABLE is that they're on board with that plan just as much as you say they are. Okay.

Kim, if you could, Michelle, if you could recognize Kim.

I'm here. I can't find my hand-raising thing, so I apologize. But yes, we have been talking about this, and that would be the exact plan. We would have a staff that would have one unit on site, and then the individuals would be ideally studio apartments like Riverside, where they would have a little kitchenette that they... had of their own but that would be the plan um very similar to the riverside project as well as the east lane and dairy and project okay um do you know approximately like how long this would take to develop to renovate to renovate i i don't know that part so i will let Rick speak on that, but I could tell you that we are committed to the same kind of model like we have on 136. It works really well, and we're committed to do that over there as well.

Okay. And then, so, Rick, you've said a couple of times that there is no option to have three on-site. What are you doing if this gets denied?

Well, if it gets denied, then there would be three on-site. That's not an option that we're requesting is what I meant. Okay.

Got it. And he doesn't have to request it because it's already in the original.

Yes. It's already there. Okay. Those are, yeah, that's it for my questions right now.

Thank you.

But Bree, while we have you and your expertise, you know, do you see any issue with, because Michael raised the issue that they could sell it, et cetera. So if we donate it with the deed restriction, you know, we're happy to take that as a condition of approval and do that. So that property would be two deed-restricted affordable units, and that would satisfy the two-for-two, and we would eliminate the nonconforming commercial use on it. So I think we can check that box in terms of it being sold and no longer being affordable.

I mean, yeah, that was my understanding of what you had said, that this would be deed restricted as affordable. Correct. That seems, I mean, that's the standard of what we do, is it's deed restricted as affordable, so.

Correct.

Anything else, Brie?

Nope, nothing for me.

Rick, can the deed restriction be longer?

The deed restricted, what we're proposing is that there would be no termination to the 3 George Street.

Got it. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Craig, back from break. What do you think? Any additional questions? No? You're okay? Okay. I have not much to ask. The list of 16, do you envision that to be, you know, how would we execute that? You got to get two out of three? Is it like best out of seven games? What is it?

No, I think when we talked about this, and I can put it back up if you'd like, when we talked about it, and this is back now,

Don't say 18 months.

No, eight years ago.

Okay.

You know, when you're evaluating two different things, an apple and an orange, you know, how do you decide? And so we said, these are all the things that we could think of at that point that go into that decision.

Got it.

And so... And this is why, again, and people don't want to hear it, but why looking at other examples and what you've done in the past doesn't mean that you would do that now. It doesn't mean it affects this application. It just shows how people evaluated it. People look at 136 and we've heard nothing but praise about that from all commissioners. So you know, if somebody wanted to look at that and say, gee, we could have had seven on-site and we only got five off-site, you know, somebody could say, that's bad math. Why did we do that? But, you know, in totality, what happened was we had town-owned land, instead of being sold for $500,000, went The town got $500,000 as a prepaid lease, and then another over a million and a half dollars got put in the renovation. I remember. The end result was not how many units, how many points. Well, points did become a factor in it, but the end result was not how many units.

I got it.

So it was the overall gestalt of the experience of 136 that won.

I wasn't asking about gestalt. I was trying to figure out how to operate that chart to define superior, just looking into the future at what we could do with that. All right. So again, we've got four commissioners. I think everyone's asked their questions. One more bite of the apple. Anybody before I go to the public? All right, seeing none, but seeing Tony's hand up, I give you the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how coherent I can be because I have notes scribbled every which way on a piece of paper on this. And mostly, look, I'm no expert. on these matters and I give due respect to Mr. Redness because he certainly is. But it is, seems convoluted. I mean, I sympathize with the issues each one of the commissioners has raised almost to the point. I think the reason this has been taking so long is because it's not right. It just hasn't hit. And I appreciate all the efforts that have been put into it, but it seems to me that... The applicant knows this issue so well that they're really trying to, I don't wanna use the word game the project, but really use every single subtle aspect of this whole issue to his benefit. And that's not bad, I play bridge. And the more you know the game, the more of a complicated game you can play. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. So it is convoluted to me because I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm unsettled by it. So just moving to the George Street home, the responsibility to renovate that and to fund the renovation will be strictly ableist, if I'm hearing that correctly. Yeah, ableist is under no obligation to do so, I think. And, you know, nobody really has a handle other than the hearsay we've heard tonight that ableist is able to fund such a renovation. I'm a little bit confused by the fact that there are two affordable units, the baseline, yet we talk about having four affordable residents. Legally, it's going to be two. If it were on-site, it would be three. And I understand the four versus three and all of that. But at the bottom, it's two units, it seems to me. The other thing I wanted to mention that I didn't really get is... Well, let me just say this about affordability. I care deeply about affordability. I know Westport is a bubble, and I'm very fortunate to live here. Affordability is an issue, and the affordability of housing is an issue. And I mean, the New York Times just this weekend had a pretty scary article about all of the affordability of housing. So... I don't deny that special needs housing is important as well, but I just don't see us making a dent in this affordability issue and this housing issue. And it's not because I'm not opposed to special needs housing, but it's... it's not making a bigger dent in the affordability issue as as i see it i i guess is um kind of what i'm coming down to um and i i don't understand the legal obligations ableists will have once they assume ownership. I think Michael Calise had kind of touched on this as well. So I'll stop there. You could just tell by my rambling that I care about this type of an issue. I think there's a philosophical discussion surrounding it with many different aspects to it, and it just doesn't, at this point in time, given all of that complexity, it just doesn't seem right yet, or just doesn't seem right, period. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Other members of the public? Anyone else want to speak?

Paul, it's Robbie. Can I chime in? Yes, Mr. Robbie, go ahead. Robbie Guimond, Riverside Avenue. I don't believe Kim Truden was suggesting hearsay. I believe that ABLIS will do this. Rick, you're trying to recreate 136. You can just nod your head. Yes. All right. Thank you. And that's in perpetuity with the deed restriction? All right. Thank you very much. I urge you folks to approve this so we can get some more housing that we desperately need for the folks that need it and get the keys to the door to have a home. Thank you.

It really is that simple, isn't it? All right. Anybody else from the public need, want, speak on this? Coming back to the commission.

Hold on, I think, Mr. Chairman, I believe there are people that are, because there are people on this call that want to speak in favor. They may be having trouble.

That's me, Rick. It's Jen O'Gorman. I can't find also my... Oh, there it is. Well, my wave. I just wanted... Can I speak really quickly?

Would you give your name and address and feel free to speak, please?

Yes, it's Jennifer O'Gorman.

And your address, please?

My address? Home address? Yeah. Oh, I work for Ableus. My home address is 16... Okay, good. Yeah. So I just wanted to... When... whoever was speaking prior to about, you know, that we're, how do we know for what we're going to do with, or if we're going to do, you know, what we propose to do is, you know, we're in. we're in the business for, you know, to support individual special needs, support the individual, especially in this population who just don't have the funding, who need the affordable housing to be able, you know, to live independently with of course some supports that they need. And so, you know, while I can't sit here and say, We're going to do A, B, and C. I can tell you, if we get George Street, we will develop this for the individuals that we have on our wait list that need this so desperately because they don't fall under the umbrella of the GDS for funding, or they may not have the families with a lot of money, and it's a huge, huge need because these young adults or older adults don't don't have the resources that some other people do. So while I can't say talk about the legality of it, I can tell you that this is what we do, this is what we're passionate about, and this is what we will do if we acquire this property.

Thank you, appreciate it. Yep. Other members of the public weigh in before we go back to the commissioners. Seeing none, come back to the commission. Craig, you have your hand up, go ahead.

Yes. Would it be possible for Mr. Edness and Abelis, and I'm sorry, Gorman, I didn't quite get the full name. It's Jen O'Gorman. Jen, thank you. To come back with a more fleshed out proposal on what you're going to do, how it's going to be financed, how a number of our concerns can be met vis-a-vis deed restrictions, population you're going to serve. As Mr. Redness has said that we're now looking at both the Post Road and George Street as one proposal. We understand, I think, so far the Post Road piece of it, but not so much the George Street piece and the Ableist piece of it. If you came back with a rounded-out proposal, it would be very helpful to me. I will leave it to the other commissioners to weigh in on that.

Hang on, Rick. Thank you. So, Craig, it is certainly within your rights to suggest that you still need more information about that. But I do want to remind you that that was the subject of the pre-app that they came with, was how would they develop George Street, what it would entail, who would it serve, Now, how do they get the money? Well, that's not really within our bailiwick.

But it's still not clear because— No, it's actually crystal clear.

When a developer who owns a property hands it over to a nonprofit— That nonprofit can then go to the bank and say, I've got a million dollar piece of property on George Street in Westport, and I need $475,000 to build this. And they show them their plans. But what's this? See, but you're looking down the road. They can't get there unless they do this.

I understand that.

So bear with bear with me for a second. If if if we it will cost them money to develop those plans. OK, so they'll go to an architect and they'll spend X dollars and they'll go to the five other different trades peoples that need to. I'm not asking for that. But what they've told you, bear with me. Remember I told you I could see this in my head, okay? What they told you is use 136 as a template. Vision it. It's a building. It's got room for, I think that one's five. Five, Rick? Yes, four and one, yes. Four and one. No, the one on 136. Yeah, four and one. So they want to do that again. That works. Okay, we already did it. They want to do it again. They know how to do it because we did it once before. They know they can get the money for it because they know they can go to a bank. It's a million-dollar piece of property or more. I think they probably paid $1.3 million for it, okay? So they know they can get the money to renovate it. They have a list. They already know they can fill it. So the only thing they need is for us to say, okay, We think this is a good idea to have offsite housing that serves special needs people. Now, I personally trust that they will do what they say they're going to do because they already did it once and are currently doing it. And it is what they do for a living. So I don't have these trust issues or it's not fuzzy to me. Like, oh, what if they do this? I'm glad it's not.

I'm glad it's not.

They're basically saying four in one. And I believe that that's exactly what they're going to do.

Right. And here, I agree 100% with that. I think, Craig, the difficulty is what is the threshold for comfort? Because if we came back and we said, here's a plan, You can see it. It's got these rooms. You know, this is how it's going to be. That's what I'm asking.

Okay. Time out, Rick. Time out.

Time out.

What are you asking?

I'm asking, okay, deed restrictions. How can we be assured that, you know, hey, I trust him, too, but it's...

It's a condition of approval.

We're responsible for this long term.

Finish your question about the deed restriction.

So, you know, is one unit going to be deed restricted? Is the whole property going to be deed restricted?

A deed restriction is the land, the whole thing.

Three units will be deed restricted. Off-site, two units, the entire property, deed restricted. Condition of approval, enforceable.

law department however you want the condition to read it will be done it has to be done it's part of our approval correct okay so um we are now one one unit will be for a supervisory support person which will be over the garage and there will be either group housing or how many efficiency units on the front end?

Okay, very, very good nuanced question. The deed restriction. And again, Brie, please jump in. Yeah, Brie, help me.

So the deed restriction. It's the same number of units no matter what, Craig. They're either going to be, they're going to do what they're going to do to the big house. They're going to put in ideally four units with little kitchenettes. And if the zoning commission allows it, there will be a text amendment so that that doesn't have to be classified as a group home because then the town doesn't get any moratoria points because of math. Or with a text amendment, it could be special needs housing, which each of those then would count as a unit that gets us some points.

Bingo. Got it.

The end result of who served and what ableist is able to do with the property is the same. It's just the points. And if chasing points is all we care about, then this is not necessarily like the safest bet because we don't know. It's not the same as like the onsite. But the people served, what ableist is able to do with the land, none of that changes.

Right. So the deed restriction goes to the individuals that can live there. So the four people living there with special needs, whether they are in a group home or whether they have their own kitchen, they must be affordable. That's the deed restriction. The points are separate. So all the special needs people living here will be deed restricted affordable tenants of that building.

Forever. Forever. Thank you.

And the staff person, deed restricted affordable person.

Forever. Forever. Thank you. Okay. Kim, did you want to weigh in? I see you figured out your hand.

I did figure it out. I'm sorry. I did. I just wanted... I mean, I've been a part... I oversee Riverside as the director, and I oversee East Lane. And I think what I really want everyone to focus on is the group of individuals that... that it's really going to benefit. So we have our DDS individuals that were only allowed to have 25% in any of these type of units. And there's a whole group of individuals that may be on the autism waiver or have an IQ a little bit higher than 70 that don't get the assistance and the residential funding that would be attached to an agency like DDS. And that's where we're really trying to jump in. I had a mother that I gave a tour to a couple weeks ago, and she literally cried in my arms because she doesn't know where to go next because her son is part of that loophole that doesn't fit neatly into a category. And she's trying to figure out where does he live? Her and her husband are over 70. So there's a lot of families that come to us about that. And that's why we're so passionate about projects like this and making sure that they work and working really hard to make sure they're successful. because we see the results of families that don't fall into categories with funding that assist with residential supports other than direct care, like the housing supports and things. That has become very important and very much on the forefront because it's becoming more and more common with the individuals we support and that are looking for supports. I just wanted to bring that point up again. Because it is a very important point of this group of individuals that it's kind of, they get lost in the shuffle, you know, because they don't fall neatly anywhere.

You're here. Thank you, Kim. That's the whole reason we're here. Okay, Craig, back to you. Anything? I'm good.

Thank you, Kim. That was very helpful.

Good. Michael, another shot at the apple or any additional questions for Rick? Michael Calise?

I had trouble getting it up. No, I don't have any further questions. Okay. It's all... I've seen as much as I want to see. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioners, I'm going to propose that we motion to close unless anyone has something other on their mind.

I would second that.

In which case, I'll motion to close and you second it. I'm going to go around the room. Mr. Calise, how do you vote? You're already unmuted, so feel free to speak.

I don't know. Do you really think it's wise to close?

Well, I think this is about our eighth meeting on this, and I think we've pretty much gone through everything we could go through. If there's something else that you want to bring up, I've got all night.

Okay. I agree to close.

Craig? I agree to close. And Bree did, and I did. So therefore, consider this closed, Mr. Redness.

Can we close the other one, too?

Oh, sorry. Yes, Michelle, we have to do both, right?

Yes, that's what I was going to say. Oh, you're such a stickler.

Okay, who wants to make that motion?

I will make a motion to close the special permit application.

Very good, and I will second that. Mr. Calise, how do you vote for the second part of this two-parter?

Same.

Craig? Close. Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Do we have other business before we go to work session? Michelle?

No, we don't have anything else.

Okay. So would the secretary take us into work session, please?

We are in work session.

Thank you very much. Michelle, what would be our first item in work session?

Let's do this.

Let's do this. While it's fresh on the docket, I believe is the right word. Anybody want to take a stab at a motion?

On any particular one? Which one? The one we just talked about? The text amendment and 785 post short east.

Michelle, is there a particular order?

No, I think if you want to talk about the most recent text amendments, which is, there's too many text amendments, 867 and then 785.

So 867 and then 785, correct?

Yes, right.

All right. I'm going to make a motion to approve 867 and 785. I will second both of those. So let's discuss now that it's on the table. Is there anything standing in your way of voting yes on both or no on both or yes or no on either? I'll start with you, Craig.

Oh, you promised me I'd go last.

All right, I'll start with you, Bree.

I am in favor of both of these. I think that the text amendment as drafted this time around is it's nice and concise. I think it gives us the ability to control what offsite will be allowed and what won't be allowed. So I have got no issues with the text amendment. And I think that this particular proposal with the Three George Street option that's going to be donated to Ableus and Ableus' track record of developing these kind of properties and commitment to do the same with this one, I think would be a great benefit for the town. And hopefully everything goes as planned and we get as many moratoria points as possible. But if not, we still know that we have a great facility that's being run by a great not-for-profit and that is definitely advancing our POCD and making Westport a great place for people to live.

I'm so glad I called on you first.

Yes.

All right. So I'm the only thing I would add to it. Well, I'd add a couple of things that one is and it's deed restricted forever, which means that we can generation after generation will look proudly upon what we've done here. And yes, other cities and towns have not done this. They should do it. They should follow our lead. This, I think, is a proper way. of making sure that this particular constituency is adhered to. For me, what really crystallized it, I'm glad that the woman who is on site at 136, I'm glad she spoke up because she spoke about two different constituencies all within one unit. So the person who lives there and her parents both falling through the, I don't want to call it a donut hole because it's not, but they no longer qualify because of the inadequacy of the definition. And the thing that I hate the most is not having housing because of a definition. So that's why we're here is to make good definitions. And this text amendment does that. I personally do not like offsite housing for the sake of offsite housing. But if it's superior, as these will be and must be, and if it's deed restricted forever, as these will be and must be, and if they're servicing a constituency that is sorely underserved, then to me, this is worth making an exception to offsite housing. Would I give it to a developer just so he can sell something for more money on his own property? No, no way. But this one, to me, reaches out and accomplishes the most possible things we can have for Westport. So with that, I definitely think we should approve this. Michael Calise, anything to add to this conversation?

Not at the moment. I'm just really not pleased with the way all of this is being handled. Certainly, group housing is of great benefit. It's been of great benefit in 136, and there are literally Those are the states around town. It would make appropriate locations for proposing. And it's already in our regulation. A lot of the use. So I just don't like the connection. I don't like the connection between. Project. And group housing.

I get it. Craig, final thoughts.

Final thoughts. I in the end will support 870. I have reservations still about the at risk language in there. But at the same time, overall, I think the amendment does more good for the town than the question I might have about some specific language. So I do support it. I do think ultimately it's something that will benefit the town and benefit our goals and objectives and people with a variety of different needs. And I will support again the other amendment pertaining to 3 George Street. I will have faith in ABLIS. I'm happy to have heard from the representative from ABLIS on this. I really would like to hear more about specifically their plans and sensitivities, I somehow I've missed that along the way. But I do support that. Everything, Brie articulated everything that I could have thought of perfectly. So I'm in.

All right, they're going to take vote. Since we have emotions on the floor, it's been seconded. I'm going to start with Greg, I'll start with you.

Yep.

That's a yes. I'm a yes as well. I vote yes on this, Bree.

Yes.

Yes. Mike Calise? No. Thank you, sir. Michelle, do we have to do it twice?

Yes, please.

All right. So that one was for 785. So let's do for 785. Why did I drop?

867.

Thank you. 867. I'm going to motion to approve.

I will second that.

Thank you. Craig?

Yep.

Paul? Yes. Brie?

Yes.

Mike Cleese? Go ahead. You're unmuted now.

Yes.

Thank you. Michelle, you'll record the, or actually.

I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. Just to confirm.

First we did 785.

Yes. And Commissioner Cleese voted.

No.

No. And then for the Texan 867, yes.

That's correct.

Okay. Just want to make sure. Thank you.

Thank you. What else is on our work session this evening?

We can do 455 post road east if you're ready. We can also do a text amendment 870 on special needs, our text amendment.

All right. So who's going to pick? Pick one of the two. We have 15 minutes left of the session before we hit our 1030 limit.

Let's stick with the affordable housing one.

Very good.

The special needs, I guess.