Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning Commission - Special Meeting
May 3, 2022 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
First on the agenda. Thank you, Abby, for remembering to record us. Next up is roll call and seating of alternates. I see Scott Bersaun here, Steve Nelson, Leanne Hutchinson and myself as regular members. Anne Cremay is not with us this evening. Yes, Leanne.
Hi, I'll just mention for the record that my mother is an abutting property owner to this property, however, I am not.
Commissioner Hutchinson, you act on this application with respect only to the evidence that you've heard during the public hearing, the criteria, the regulations, and without any regard to your mother's ownership of property? Yes, I feel that I can. Thank you.
And so with that in mind, to replace Anne Cremay, Susan England is the next alternate up to participate. Anne Blanchard was the last alternate that we put in. And so Susan, you're seated for Anne Cremay this evening.
Okay, and Jed I would just like to note for the record that I did watch the recording of the previous meeting that I had missed. Commissioner
again for the record Mark Branch, Commissioner England, do you feel that you are qualified to participate and vote on this matter? Yes I do because I did watch I was at the first meeting and I did watch the entire entirety of the meeting of April 18. Thank you.
Okay, so having the roll call and seating of alternates done, next on the agenda is old business. This is a site plan application from Garrett homes. Jimmy: property of 580 Lake Road applicants seeking a site plan approval for permitted use in an industrial zone. I guess before we start, because everybody here is aware that the public hearing is closed. At the last meeting, I said we would be acting on this application at our next meeting on May 16. After discussing the application with the Attorney Branch, he pointed out to me that the site plan approval remains at sixty five days, even though we had the public hearing in there. And so we didn't have the amount of time that I thought we did to act on the application after
the closure of the public hearing. So that's why we're meeting tonight complete our action on the application before we exceed the sixty five days following receipt. There was one issue, and I think it certainly caught me by surprise, I think it caught most of us by surprise, that came up at the last meeting and that was the driveway entrance from 580 Lake Road onto Lake Road. And I looked at it as one issue, as I was discussing it with Agent Halsey, you know, he was looking at it as two different issues. So I'd just like to clarify my understanding of the issues out there because it would be nice to
get good resolution on the matters here before we make a motion to act on it. The regulation stated that there must be a 100 foot separation between the two driveways. Given that there was not, there were also words in the same section, and we'll put them up here in a minute on access control, that talked to the benefits of common driveways. And I understand that neither the current property owner or the potential property buyer for the retail store are interested in sharing a common driveway. It was pointed out that the commission does have discretion on using that. My interest in bringing that up at the last meeting was in an attempt to provide a condition of approval
that would allow the application to meet our regulations. That's why I looked at it as one issue. There's two there. I attended some training that Mark Branch gave our zoning board of appeals earlier this year. And in that we talked about the regulations for a town being kind of a best approach cookie cutter thing thinking that all lots were about the same. There was a recognition that all lots are not the same, and so there has to be a process for dealing with that. That process, as I understand it, is what the zoning board of appeals is all about. And they can grant a variance when a piece of property doesn't seem to meet the requirement. I think most people on the commission thought the proposed driveway was put in a good place. As we had talked at both public hearings that we had held, we act on the application not whether we like it or not, but whether or not it meets our regulations. And so I was hung up and not sure how to go with the 100 foot regulation that we weren't meeting there. So that's where I think we are tonight. I know agent Hallisey asked the applicants if they were interested in an extension to allow us to try and sort this out. Maybe
at the time it wasn't recognized there was anything to sort out. I still think there might be. But we were told that the applicants were not interested in an extension at that point in time. So anyhow, what I'd like to do next is I'm going to put up on the screen section of our regulations on access control so we can all see what the words are that are going to be the most of our discussion here this evening. So Abby, can you allow me to share my screen?
You should have the ability to. Let me know if you can't. Mr. Chairman, the record Mark Brans, one thing before you to that there is just one thing I would like to comment on if I may. Yes go ahead Mark. I did review your record the applicant has stated that this will be a retail use they have not disclosed the tenant and they do not have to either, it is irrelevant. Some of the letters that you received from members of the public speculated that this would be a particular tenant, a Dollar General, and asked you to deny it because it was Dollar General. I must instruct you to completely disregard those kinds of statements. Whether it's
Dollar Tree, Dollar General, Aldi, CVS, Walgreens, whoever it is, is irrelevant. Your regulations talk about a retail use, it's a permitted use in the zone, and who the tenant is, who the retailer is, is completely irrelevant. If you feel you cannot disregard that you need to recuse yourselves but I would just say to you that who the tenant is has no place in your discussions. Thank you.
Okay, thanks Attorney Branch. And that's why I think we tried to make it very clear at both public hearings that it wasn't whether we were in favor of one particular store or another, it was solely based on does the application meet the regulations? If yes, we have to approve it, if no, we have to deny it. And so that's where we are tonight. So here's the section out of our 23.4. I am aware that there was some feedback that possibly Ben Franklin Plumbing and a retail store were not similar uses here. Certainly, I read that, you know, it looks like the comma is around paths and sidewalks for similar use. Don't know exactly if that jimmy: requires you know if similar uses makes a difference with respect to common driveway
or not.
Mr Chairman, I think that's actually a typo I think it's supposed to be or similar uses or not for, but maybe this was before for similar uses, but I thought it was or maybe not. Okay,
it very well could be and you know, I didn't compare our regs to anybody else's. I was spending my time trying to make sure that I understood what our regulation said coming to the meeting tonight. But clearly, you know, down here is where struggled to think that the application was in compliance, said no proposed driveway shall be closer than 100 feet to any other existing or proposed driveway. And then it goes on to say unless the site is of such width that compliance with this requirement would preclude access. I read that to think that it would not preclude access if we moved the driveway a 100 feet away. I don't want to move the driveway 100 feet away that would put it right up at the intersection of Route 6.
And we also weren't precluding access. Coming off of Route 6 itself. So that's the regulation that I could not feel that we were in compliance with, and that's why I thought different lots had different peculiarities with them. And in this particular case, the peculiarity to reduce that distance below 100 feet is probably a good case for variance because it does make sense to where they put it. I also looked down here at the interest of public safety, the number of driveways onto public streets shall be minimized. And in one of the comments that came up in the public hearing, and here's a picture of the site, 580 Lake Road, here's Ben Franklin Plumbing. The site's about 100 feet here, but one of the concerns was within a couple 100 feet, we've got a stop sign at Merritt Valley Road. We've got a crosswalk for Hop River State Park Trail. We've got the entrance to Ben Franklin. We would have the entrance to a retail store. We would have a crosswalk going to a newly developed parking area over here,
and then we would have the traffic light. I thought the common driveway wherever feasible was good. I asked for feedback on why a common driveway might not be feasible. And I was told that, you know, it's messy, there's risk. And that's kind of what I thought the lawyers were for was to make, you know, life is messy. My only experience with common driveways is for a bunch of homes, and it seems to be, it seems to work okay there. So I was a little surprised that after having worked with the applicant well all through the subdivision process through this that what I consider to be kind of a minor point was a showstopper. But certainly, you know, the applicant and the owner have the rights to deal however they want on there. So my goal was to provide an opportunity to have a application that would meet our requirements. So that's where we are at this point. Agent Halsey, do you have any other information that was passed on to you that's relevant to to share with the Commission tonight?
Well, I did have a number of conversations with the applicant. And it pretty much. Going the lines of what you had indicated. I don't really want to introduce any new information. Mean, there was You can't. Yeah. Okay. So no, I don't have much to offer. I don't have anything that I can bring up at this time.
Okay. I guess in the interest of sharing information with the commission on information that's already in the public record, I just wanted to talk through a couple of things that I thought lent themselves to an easy sharing of a common driveway. And again, you know, we can make it a condition of approval or we cannot make it a condition of approval. But as I looked at the picture here that is in the record, And here's the driveway coming in from the retail store. Here's the driveway coming into Ben Franklin. And we could either move these two sections right up to the property line. That was one solution. I saw this little bump out here and I was thinking that it would be very easy to have the parking lot go up, connect into with a little stop sign here, share the Ben Franklin Drive coming out.
Or if there was a concern that most of the traffic would be from the retail store, we could even connect the Ben Franklin Driveway into this little section and come out here. So there were three different things when I looked at this that I said could be easily accommodated. I was trusting in the fact that the lawyers could make that satisfactory to all parties, especially given at the current point in time, the owner of both properties is the same person. So that's, I just wanted to share with the rest of the commission members what my ideas were when I talked about the proposal to share the driveway. So with that, Agent Halsey has prepared a draft motion, I guess. And I think hopefully. Oh, scroll down so you can see most of it here. Hopefully this is not catching anybody by surprise. There were a couple of tweaks to the draft that we sent out the other day. I think the only
thing in here that I think might be contentious is this paragraph. And it says the pavement at the southerly end of the parking lot east of Lake Road shall be extended to the property line with the adjacent Ben Franklin plumbing site to facilitate a future interconnection with that parking lot. It may come to pass that there would never be a connection with the Ben Franklin driveway. But if at some time Ben Franklin Plumbing property, well, the proposed driveway on the Lake Road may be constructed and may remain in use only until such time that Ben Franklin Plumbing property provides or is required to provide a shared access driveway serving both properties. I'm under the understanding, you know, and it makes sense that I cannot require Ben Franklin to do anything with respect to the shared driveway at this point in time. It's not their application. This is only an application for a retail store. So our proposal is that we would put the driveway into a position to accommodate future common driveway usage. My hope would be that the applicable parties would see that it was not that difficult. And at this point in time, they would choose to go with the common driveway. But I do understand that there's some fairly strong feelings on both parties that they're not interested in that. At that time, the separate driveway from Lake Road serving only 580 Lake Road would be removed and the party shall exchange cross easements for the new shared driveway and a vehicular pedestrian connection between the two parking lots such cross easements will be subject to review and approval by the Commission's attorney.
I'm not going to read through the rest of them here. I think if somebody chooses to make the motion, I will ask that person to read the motion into the record and it's fairly lengthy. So I won't read through it now. I'm hoping that somebody would choose to possibly make a motion and then we could, if we got a second on the motion, then we could discuss the different things prior to voting on the motion. Mr. Chairman?
Yes, Attorney Brandes. For the record, Mark Brandes. I I gave this another look this afternoon. I have provided to Halsey a slight tweak to this to add just before recording prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Can share screen sorry what?
Your voice cut out a little bit when you turned the other way even though you're wearing a mic.
I was gonna say that shouldn't be happening. I did add one more sentence just before the bold type, the all capitals requirements prior to, and I will read that for you. I have it on screen too. I can share screen the initial language that I propose to add to this draft motion. Again, recommending whether the Commission approve or deny, but if you do use this draft there's one sentence that needs to be added right after all the conditions and that sentence is: preceding conditions are integral to this motion for approval and that without them the application would have been in violation of the zoning regulations the Commission would have had no choice but deny it. Again I can put that as a share screen if you wish. All
right then I will do a share screen on that. Are you able to see the highlighted language? Yep. Okay that's what I just read to you.
Okay. Yep. Thank you, attorney Branch. And Welcome. To those who leave that up there, Jed? I am trying to figure out how to cut and paste from the screen to put it in. Is yours so?
Would tell you this revised language is in Jim Halsey's box at the zoning office. Okay,
but the basic letter that you added that to is what Jim sent you this afternoon? Yes, other than that it's exactly the same as what Jim sent this afternoon. Very good, yep, so we'll let your screen stay up there attorney Brad. That will be the conditions that we go act upon.
Chairman Larson, Jim Halsey. May I make one comment? There was a request early on during the public hearing process from an abutter regarding the construction of a fence to protect privacy. Perhaps I was remiss in not giving the commission the opportunity to address that directly. And it is not in this draft motion. Just pointing it out. I'm not suggesting it be in the motion. I'm just pointing out that it was a request that was never addressed by the commission directly.
It was read into the record at the first public hearing that we held. Yes, yes it was. And so I guess if a commission member feels strongly that it would be appropriate to put that in as a condition of approval, we could add that. Does anybody desire to make a motion regarding action on the application of 580 Lake Road?
Ed, can I ask a question first? Go ahead, Steve. So, if we were to approve this motion, I don't understand how it gives us the authority to approve this as a variance to the regulations without them applying the applicant applying for a variance. Can somebody explain that to me? You want to
take that one? I'll try to. You can't grant a variance. What does is it imposes a condition that brings the application into compliance so they don't need a variance. Okay, but how does it bring it into compliance?
Ben Franklin has no application in front of you. The regulation says that the Commission may make provision for shared driveways and that's what you're doing, you're making provision for shared driveway and that avoids the problem. So you can either have a 100 foot, the idea here is that people coming and going from two adjacent driveways not turn into each other, they collide as they do that. So you either want a 100 foot separating them or you want them combined into one driveway. Either is okay under your regulation. So what's happening here is this condition is saying that it doesn't have to be a 100 feet because it will be combined with the adjacent driveway at such time as that property comes in for further review if that ever happens.
But if it doesn't happen then we have a situation.
Yes, but your regulation says the Commission may require that any driveways be designed and easements to adjacent properties be conveyed in order to facilitate present or future sharing of such driveways. So you're making provision for future sharing. Great, thank you Attorney Brandt. You're welcome.
Okay, so going back to I am looking for a motion to act on I'll motion, do Chad, I can.
Thank you, Scott. Were you going to discuss the fence issue?
I was going to open the motion for discussion after we had a second for it. Fair enough. Thank you. I'm looking for a second. Thank you, Steve. Any discussion on I guess, so Attorney Branch, you've got the best copy. If you can start us right up at the top, and we'll take the conditions one by one to read through them and make sure that Commission understands and agrees with what it is we're looking for. So, the first one Oops. Stay again, Leanne.
I wonder if before the attorney starts to read the condition, you asked about discussion. I have a couple of questions and comments.
Well, put the motion on the table first and then you can discuss the motion unless if there's questions as to how the motion's drafted that's appropriate to ask now.
It's I guess my question is not how the motion is drafted. It has to do with some of the items that we've been discussing. It's up to you, Mr. Chairman.
So Leanne, would your questions be germane when we get to specific items in the conditions of approval, like the shared driveway item that would wait till then? Or is it something we should discuss before that's not really pertinent to these specific conditions? It is pertinent to the specific conditions.
Okay, so we'll allow you to ask any of the questions after I'll go through. I won't make attorney branch read his motion. I'll go through there and we can discuss each one as we get there. I guess before I would make the offer to the applicants, is it still your position that no extension of time to work on a win win solution to all concerned, you'll be entertained.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, Peter Alter, attorney representing the applicant from the firm of Altar and Pearson, and we would respectfully decline to discuss an extension.
Okay. Sidewalk shown along Lake Road frontage shall extend in a northerly direction to Route 6 pavement with a landing area adjacent to the pedestrian button pole. I think, you know, we talked about that the public hearing and the applicant agreed to that. It just hasn't been factored into the drawings, to the best of my knowledge, that's why we put it in there as a condition. Second item is sidewalk landing shall be shown as to extend from the new sidewalk along Lake Road out to Lake Road at the northeasterly corner and adjacent to the proposed driveway. Again, Agent Halsey, think it should be South Easterly Corner. I think you're right. Yes. Okay. I think I am too. I thought I made a change. That's
why we're reading through it line by line, just to make sure that we've got it the way we want it. Okay, and that was the second landing to cross the road to get to the parking area for the rail trail. Add sign detail, which includes dimensions to the final plan and which shall be in conformance with the zoning regulations. Again, we were shown a couple of signed plans, they just weren't incorporated into the site plan, and we would like to have those before we sign off on the site plan. Rights to drain on the subject property shall be granted to adjoining property currently in the name of Lake Road LLC situated to the southwest. Plan shall note same and requisite documentation shall be submitted to the town of Andover's building land use office for review and approval prior to filing with the town park. I think we had talked about that during the public hearing and no issues there. A note shall be added indicating that site line improvement shall be performed in accordance with Andover zoning regulations. And the down engineers recommendation is correspondence dated 04/13/2022. Which you've got to eliminate the word is, has been incorporated into the public record of this application. The letter of approval of the application listing all conditions of approval issued by the town of Andover shall be added to the final mylars. The design engineer shall assess the options of discharging the runoff from the roof into the subsurface system so as to further encourage
infiltration during all seasons, including the winter freeze conditions, and shall provide the assessments to the down engineer if upon consultation with the down engineer, the plant should be modified to reflect same. Notes shall be added to address the fact that a final engineered design for the pervious pavement structure shall be submitted to the town engineer for review and approval, and the design engineer shall oversee the installation of the pervious pavement structure engineer who will provide a certification that the installation was performed substantially in accordance with the design. The pavement at the southerly end of the parking lot East of Lake Road, I think that is West of Lake Road. The east side, the other side of the road is the site closest to Willamantic.
Shall be extended to the property line with the adjacent Ben Franklin plumbing site to facilitate a future interconnection with that parking lot. Proposed driveway onto Lake Road may be constructed and may remain in use only until such time as the Ben Franklin plumbing property provides or is required to provide the shared access driveway serving both properties. At that time, the separate driveway from Lake Road serving only 580 Lake Road will be removed and the party shall exchange cross easements for the new shared driveway and a vehicular and pedestrian connection between the two parking lots. Such cross easements will be subject to review and approval by the Commission's attorneys. And at any point as we're going through here, if the Commission members have questions, know, bring them up as we go. The plan shall note that the strip of land between the sidewalk along Lake Road and the road itself shall be. Jimmy: grass buffer and I would like that to say an eight foot grass buffer that's what we agreed upon in the public. The proceeding conditions are integral to this motion for approval in that without them, the application would have been in violation of the zoning regulations and the Commission would have had no choice but to deny it. Requirements prior to issuance of zoning permit per section 12D of the zoning regulations. File final plans and associate document with the town clerk in accordance with applicable regulations. Clearing along the neighboring property shall be done so as to provide the requisite sight line and a sight line demonstration shall be submitted to the Andover Building and Land Use Office for review and approval. Applicant to provide Andover Building and Land Use Department with documentation of approval
by the Department of Transportation to utilize existing culvert crossing Route 6. During the construction process, prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall provide an anticipated construction schedule and participate in pre construction conference with Downs. And I think that's the end of it. Is that not correct, Attorney Branch? Okay, you're on mute, but I see your head shaking up and down. That is it? That is correct, yes. Commissioner Hutchinson, I know you had some questions at the start. Did our corrections address those or did you have any other questions at this point in time? Yes. Yes, we did address them?
No, not quite yet. I mean, my question has to do with Can you scroll back to the paragraph that starts, I think something about the southerly part. I had it up myself on another screen. Okay. Pavement at this other end. Okay, thank you. Where it says the proposed driveway onto Lake Road may be constructed and may remain in use only until such time as the Benjamin Franklin plumbing property provides or is required to provide a shared access driving driveway serving both properties. At that time, the separate driveway from Lake Road serving only 580 Lake Road will be removed and the party shall exchange cross easement for the new shared driveway and a vehicular and pedestrian connection between the two parking lots. So, I'm not I don't foresee that that would ever happen. In other words, I think that this time is now. So, if the applicants are very reluctant to share the driveway, I don't foresee how this would ever come about in the future and cause the elimination of a proposed driveway into 580 Lake Road only, correct?
That is correct. Agree with your assumption that it would probably never come to pass. That doesn't mean that at some point in time, Ben Franklin would come to us with a site plan for something different. And at that point in time, we could require them to go complete the common driveway. But there is a good chance that that would never happen. I guess the other thing that I would say is that it makes what we're doing here is actually making the situation just a little bit worse than it currently is. But we can't issue a variance. That's what the ZBA does. And so this is the best that we can do to have an application that meets our requirements. Other options that I know I looked at, and I think the applicants have probably looked at too, is we could get the 100 foot separation by putting the driveway all the way out to Route 6, which isn't going to work. There could be some consideration to not having an entrance onto Lake Road, which I think from a safety perspective, you know, I don't like. I guess the other thing that could be done was, know, you could go so far as Ben Franklin would move their driveway up to provide the 100 foot separation. I think that's unlikely to but but that's another option. In my mind, the best solution was the variance. But given that we don't have a variance,
given that the applicant doesn't want an extension, this allows us to approve the application if the commission votes to accept this. If you don't think that is any good, then I guess you could vote against it, and that's a possibility too. The one place that I know, there are two driveways right close together, is I drive down, you know, behind the Stop and Shop in Willamantic, and there's an entrance onto, I think it's Valley Street over there, and it's right next to a driveway that goes into a facility with Dollar Tree and Planet Fitness and that sort of thing. And I'm not fond of that. And that's why I was really hoping that the applicants would see it in their heart to
figure out a way to share a common driveway. I think that is the best, safest solution. But we, this is, this is the best we can do to facilitate that at some point in the future.
Mr. Chairman, for the record Mark Brantz, two thoughts for you. First of all, I don't know the situation with Ben Franklin Plumbing, but if they came in for an addition, a change of use, any of those who bring them within your jurisdiction, that may never happen, I don't know, but it could. The other thought is, you see where my cursor is now. One thing that I'm going type this city in red line so you can consider it may be removed or shared with Ben Franklin Plumbing property. So that the idea here would be, it may be the Garrett Holmes Drive it would stay and the Ben Franklin one would close or maybe the Ben Franklin would stay
and the Garrett Holmes one would close. So I didn't mean to suggest that it had to be one or the other because I don't think the Commission cares. The idea here is as I mentioned before the purpose of your regulation is not to have two driveways so close that you have conflicting turning movements and also people get confused. You know these parking lots don't connect and so when someone thinks they're pulling into one driveway they accidentally pull to the other one and now they can't correct their mistake without going back out on the road. So that's why you have that regulation. And if this new language is okay, I can leave it in. If not, I can take it out. Guess it's up to the mover in second.
I like the addition. That's what we had talked about, you know, is is part of the possibilities there. Several possibilities for how how to accomplish that. And Attorney Branch, from your perspective, you know, is a common driveway easy, straightforward, low risk? Is
that doable? It's done every day all over Connecticut, especially for adjacent commercial properties. Cross easements are standard and typical, and I believe that Garrett Holmes LLC has experience with them already. Okay thanks Journey Branch. Actually I know that they do. Leigh Ann did you have any other questions?
Yes, Last month I asked about the driveway cut on Route 6, and I asked if a tractor trailer truck, which the applicant is saying there would only be one tractor trailer delivery a week, could come and go from Lake Road, and I guess from a driveway on Lake Road. And just to back up for a second, it looks to me like the driveway to Ben Franklin Plumbing now is short and level and uncomplicated, so it seems to me to be feasible if they would agree to share the driveway with this application. I think my preference would be to have as much traffic as possible controlled by the light. So, my question is, let's say there was a shared driveway or even if there was a driveway that this gets figured out and there were two driveways. My question is mainly, I was told last month that there is not enough room for tractor trailer trucks to come in off Lake Road, drive around the front of this retail operation, pull up to the side of it and be able to get back out onto Lake Road instead of Route 6. The tractor trailer truck would need to pull out on Route 6, and some concern was expressed about traffic. So, I guess it's a bit of a hypothetical question If the applicant and Ben Franklin right now don't want to share the driveway, as I said, even if there was another driveway, is there any room there to have the receiving dock of the building on the left hand side of the building as you would face it, so that a tractor trailer truck would not need to pull around the front of the building along the right side of the building and then
not have enough room to maneuver back through the parking lot. Is there any scenario where that would work?
Commissioner for the record Mark Grants the problem is the public hearing is closed and extension to reopen it has not been granted which is their right So, we really can't answer that question. We don't know. And we're not going to know.
Okay, so it's a bit of an unusual circumstance here, but I see that we can't exchange information, so I wasn't sure if that kind of a question was allowed. Okay, I guess that's the end of my remarks then. Thank you.
Okay. Any other commissioners have any other questions or comments on the application, the motion before us?
Jed, Steve Nelson here. Just a comment. I think one thing we need to consider is Ben Franklin Plumbing is not a retail establishment. It's a, you know, a plumbing supply and there's minimal traffic going in and out of the Ben Franklin driveway. By making these accommodations for future consideration of a shared driveway, I think the Commission is addressing the current situation as it applies to our regulations and as Attorney Brantz has pointed out.
I agree. And additionally, you know, the traffic going into Ben Franklin is probably early in the morning before a store might even be open. There might be some sharing at the same time. At the end of the day, don't know. But I do think either case, there's probably minimal traffic going in or out there. Right. Okay, any other comments, Steve? No, thank you. Any other commissioners have comments? Do of the commissioners wish to include a condition of approval that the retail store put up a fence between the store and the Christmas tree fire. Okay. Hearing none, we will leave that condition of approval out.
I don't think this is Leanne again. I don't think there's anything objectionable about asking for it.
I don't think there's anything objectionable about asking for it either. I just didn't feel it appropriate that we make that demand. The applicants heard the public comment. They didn't come back and include that as part of the plan. At this point, you know, don't have, I don't think that's something that we should be including as a condition to approve the application. Okay.
So I think that's that completes the discussion. On the motions. We did change a couple of items. And so, attorney Branch will correct me if I'm wrong, but the process is we make a motion to accept the changes to the motion. Correct. Would vote on that and then we would go back and vote on the entire motion. So at this point. That's correct. I'm looking for a motion to accept the changes that we made to the draft motion by our review. I'll make that motion, Jed.
Thank you, Steve. Looking for a second. I second. Thank you, Susan. Any further discussion before we vote on the changes to the motion? Hearing none, I'll call for a roll call vote. Scott? Yes. Susan? Yes. Steve? Yes. Leanne? Yes.
I vote yes as well. The motion passes five-zero-zero. We now go back to the original motion as amended. The amended motion, yes, as amended.
And any further discussion on the entire motion as amended? Hearing none, I'll call for a roll call vote on the motion that is before us here as we amended it this evening. Scott? Yes. Susan? Yes. Steve? Yes.
Leanne? No. I vote yes as well. The motion passes four one zero with Leanne opposed.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, Mark Branch again. I will email this to the zoning office, to you also Mr. Chairman, so you have it, and if it's okay with you, I will copy Attorney Alter on that email.
Sounds good, thank you Attorney Branch. Certainly. That completes our action On the application for 580 Lake Road, are there any questions from the applicants at this point? I just wanted to say thank you to everybody.
You're welcome. Guess we'll see what happens next. Yep. Helpful,
I do appreciate all the work together, so thank you.
HAB Thank you as well. HAB Moving on the next item is approval of the Minutes from 19 our regular meeting. And I did have Abbie a comment on page three. And the top paragraph, last, the second to the last sentence currently says Jay Larson stated these factors do not carry weight within this particular decision. That should be a period. The next sentence starts out, if the proposed site plan meets the PZZ regulations, we have to approve it. If the Commission does not approve of the site plan and the time period for acting on an application is exceeded, those are the words that need to be added and the time period for acting on the application is exceeded, then it is automatically approved. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.
Okay. Yeah, I did go back to watch the video to make sure, and I didn't say exactly those words. I think I said, as time moves on down the road, is close to exceeding the time period. But I don't think the minutes need to be verbatim. They got the point across. Only other comment I had, Debbie, is on page six, bottom sentence, got a letter inversion on spelling my last name there, and I'd ask you to fix that for the record. Sorry about that. Will do. Yep.
Any any other commission members have any other comments on the minutes? Hearing none, call for a roll call vote for approval. Scott? Yes. Susan? Yes. Steve? Yes. Leigh Ann? Aye.
I vote aye as well. The motion passes five-zero-zero. Next item is correspondence, Agent Halsey.
Well, I don't have anything to share, but we did get a letter of resignation from our board clerk, which I believe was distributed to all members. And just first of all, I'd like to thank her for doing a great job. And I will be working I will be trying to get somebody on board with whoever, the town administrator and whoever else may be involved. That's all I have on that matter.
Okay. And for the record, I think Abby is going to be with us until hopefully August, Abby? Correct, yep, absolutely. Okay, and
I know we all share Jim's comment that you've done a fantastic job. You look at The six pages eight pages of minutes from the last meeting and. You only got confused on one little paragraph there that that is a pretty outstanding job and I certainly appreciate what you've done for the Commission. I appreciate the appreciation. Thank you. Anything else agent Halsey? No.
Next meeting is our regular meeting on May 16 at 7PM. And with that in mind, I'll look for a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Okay. Thank you, Steve. I'll second that.
Scott Person seconded? Roll call vote. Scott? Aye. Susan? Aye. Steve? Aye. Leigh Ann?
Aye. And I vote aye as well that motion passes five-zero-zero. I appreciate everybody joining us this evening for another special meeting. I just really appreciate the support. Thank you. Good night, Good night, everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thanks for your help, Journey Branch. Always my pleasure. Take care, guys. Thank you, everybody. Good night. Night.