Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning- Public Hearing & Regular Meeting
August 18, 2026 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Machine-generated transcript — check the video if in doubt.
2020 ah, thank you, John. Thank for waiting. I'm calling to order the Hanover town or kind of Hanover planning and zoning commission for 08/18/2026. And I think we'll go right to the public hearing. Take it away, John. Sure.
Okay. So because this is a public hearing for the record, my name is John Viscowski, I'm the town's planner on a consulting basis. I have been working with the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission, which is the formal applicant on this to incorporate a number of changes into their zoning regulations, to reflect requirements that were included as part of Public Act 20 five-one, which was approved in special session last November by the Connecticut General Assembly. It was a large bill and it included several changes that every municipality in the state needed to make relative to their zoning regulations that were incorporated as part of amendments to Connecticut General Statute Section eight-two, which is the zoning enabling statute. I'll ask Mr. Chair, can you see my screen? Yes, So thank
this, what I'm gonna be walking through is just an excerpt of the specific sections of the regulations, which will be proposed for amendment pursuant to Public Act 20 five-one. For folks who were not here at the last couple of meetings, I've gone through this briefly with the commission and I'll provide a brief overview. Again, Public Act 20 five-one made a couple of changes relative to parking regulations and multifamily regulations, again, that every municipality is required to make. The two general areas concerned what is called transit oriented middle housing or just middle housing, which is defined by the new law as a multifamily housing unit of between two and nine units. The new law required that those be allowed to be constructed in all commercial and mixed use zoning districts in every municipality in the state by only a, what they refer to as a summary review process, which we would consider essentially a site plan review process, which is essentially an as of right administrative approval put in place by the commission with no special conditions and no public hearing process. So it's an as of right use in commercial and mixed use zones. Municipalities are still able to regulate
the style and standards for that middle housing in those zones, but it must be an as of right use. That's change number one. Change number two is in regards to the minimum number of off street parking spaces that can be required for a residential development. The new law eliminates essentially parking, minimum parking requirements for multifamily or residential developments of 16 units or under. It basically says the commission cannot deny a multifamily development or a residential development of 16 units or under for failure to provide off street parking. And it caps the minimum off street parking numbers of developments over 16 residential units to one parking space per studio or one bedroom and two parking spaces per three, two or more bedrooms. So again, it eliminates a commission's ability to require, you know, in some cases, any parking at all, and in most cases, an excess of parking that chews up, you know, development sites and reduces allowable densities. In the case of Andover are many communities that rely almost exclusively on vehicles for transportation, which is to say we don't have buses, we don't have trains, we don't have Metro lines.
This is really, you know, going to have very, very little impact because there is no reason that a developer who's building a multifamily in a market situation would not provide, you know, sufficient parking for his or her tenants. So, you know, the developer is still able and allowed to provide parking should they wish, it is just limits the ability of the commission to regulate the minimum numbers of that parking. So those are the two major changes. And so what we did to be responsive to those changes, so we added in section four of the general regulations, a new section, section 4.23 about middle housing in which we regulate what middle housing looks like. I'll go to that section now, let me make this a little bit bigger. So middle housing creates standards for this.
And again, we'll define it later in the regulations. These are the standards that will apply. Again, the only place that this is required would be the business district, which is the town's only landed commercial or mixed use district. The town has a mixed use floating district that already allows housing, but that again is not a landed district, it's a floating district. So this would not apply exclusively to that. So this would just be a business district. So basic minimum structural setbacks that basically mirror the structural setbacks for the housing or for the business district anyway, 50 foot front yard, 50 foot rear yard, 25 foot sides, a distance of 25 feet in between individual structures within the development, standard height requirement of maximum of two and a half stories at 35 feet, maximum impervious 50%. And again, all of this basically tracks commercial development standards. We did add a minimum landscape buffer of evergreen plantings five feet wide and a minimum of five feet tall at time of planting, or a opaque fence, a minimum of four feet high in order to create an effective year round visual buffer between properties in order to buffer residential from non residential uses. We do have maximum building size and architectural design standards elsewhere in the regulations. So instead of coming up with new standards for building sizes and architectural standards, we basically just referenced the other sections of the existing
regs. So that's, it's fairly basic, but again, our regulations tend to be fairly straightforward and mostly bulk and loading based for developments in the business district anyway. So this tends to reflect that.
John, two That's years have from the edge of the road, not the center line? That is,
I believe we define setback from the edge of the property. I believe we can double check-in the definitions, but I believe that's correct. Wayne, you can read
that I started thinking, so if we put a front yard setback at 50 foot and it's from the edge of the road that's that's more restrictive than we have in the residential zones and I would think we would I don't know how you do that with the wider roads that are on like Prop six. It
just seems strange to me that we've got a more restrictive front yard setback for the middle housing than we do in the every place else in residentials.
Oh, so you mean like residential, the residential zone along 6 for instance? Anywhere in town.
Any place where it would be measured the center line of the road. Is that well, we I mean, we don't change the definition of setback. So whatever the definition of setback is would would be consistent throughout. It
was different. We went through that with the electric plan out there when we said in the business district it was 50 feet from the edge of the road as opposed to every place else. It's 50 feet from the center line. All right, let me So yeah, we don't have to solve it tonight, but I just thought we need to make it clear, you know, that was.
All right, I just wanna see what we where we how we define setbacks. All proposed structure well, that's setbacks from property lines. I'm gonna go into our definition.
Yeah. And I think that's where yeah. I didn't bring my Sony bricks with the flames, but I can't
A line running parallel to the street should be located by setting back from the center. Well, so this would some from the center of the travel portion of the road.
The depth of the front yard is required. I think it's in something in I don't know if it's at the bottom of that paragraph or it's in the business section. It says Okay. Except along route business and industrial zone where the setback is measured from edge of pavement. So, So
So that would make it more restrictive in what we're trying to do with No, well, that's true. But I think the difference there being,
Route 6 being a high speed, relatively higher noise environment, a development, it makes more sense to set it a little bit farther back, I would say.
I'm happy with that. I just wanted to make sure it understood what we were saying there. Okay.
All right. Anything else or shall I continue Mr. Chairman? Well, so I guess my next question is,
I was trying to look at the table in section 11.2 and to see if we needed to update something with these particular setbacks. 11.2, all right, hang on. I don't think it's in this,
John. Yeah. No. I'm I'm I'm pulling back on the, in the the full the full reg. Yeah. Right there. Yeah. Probably,
and I didn't know if we needed to include something for middle housing in that, because when I was looking, I couldn't, I didn't have the ability to compare one document with the other. Yeah, no, so I wasn't proposing any,
so this would be, I mean, it does have, it is for this particular use. I mean, this would have a standard a 100 feet of frontage, which would remain, 20,000 square feet minimum, which would remain. The front yard would go from 45 to 50, but I don't necessarily believe we need to put that in this table because it is expressed in section 4.23, and same with setback. So the front yard would go from 45 to 50, the side would go from 10 to 20, and the rear would go from 35 to 50. Lot coverage would stay the same, building height would be 35 feet, or actually technically two and a half stories. But those regulations are spelled out in section 4.23. So I don't believe you necessarily need to change this table. You could add a superscript.
You you you could, but but, you know, then if we wanted well, yeah, I mean, you could.
I wouldn't think it would be bad to change your section 4.23 to say front yard 45B, that's still a bigger buffer than you would have on a residential road and then it would provide with that. They'd all be the same. Sure. But So it well That could be one way or the other. Either way. Whatever you're guiding me to like.
So that's a potential amendment. Just to make it track the existing the existing standard in that zone. That's fine. Alright. Shall I continue, mister chair?
So if they're saying, then you don't even need to mention the setbacks in force Yeah.
So we would just change minimum structural setbacks for middle housing development shall be as indicated in in, you know, table eleven two or whatever it is. Yeah. All of all of these things, like basically sections a, b, and c, if you would like. That's an option. You gotta that's right. You know, you got the separation between buildings. Yeah. So that's that we can we can flag that for consideration.
I do it again, repeating it in section four two three when you go to four two three.
Mean, you know, then then you don't have to chase the regulations all around all around the document.
Okay, we'll exceed that one, we're talking about our documents. Yeah.
Okay, so then in section ARD, Andover Resident Rural Design District, section five, accessory apartments. This is section 5.03. Oh, I'm sorry, this is, no, this is on section eight, sorry. We've jumped ahead to section eight, allowable uses in the commercial district. We added basically number 16, which would be middle housing per section 4.23, which then refers back to the section we just discussed, just to make it clear. And then that's allowable essentially by site plan administrative approval, not by special permit. There was in the industrial district, there is a provision that all uses provided in section eight that are allowed by site plan review in the business zone are allowable in the industrial zone. Industrial is generally not seemed to be felt to be compatible with residential development in most cases. And so we wanted to make sure that we excluded middle housing from the allowable uses in the industrial district to basically create a distinction between those two. And again, industrial zones are not subject to this provision. So that's the middle housing portion. Now I'm on the
table regarding minimum parking standards. And again, we have a minimum parking standards and a maximum parking standards following our discussion at last month. So for basically residential development, single family residents per dwelling, two family residents per dwelling, we are having, you know, there is no maximum. You can have as many parking spaces at your house as you want, again, assuming you're not paving over every square inch and exceeding your impervious surface, But there is no maximum arbitrary parking numbers. And then again, per Public Act 20 five-one, there is no minimum required. Again, people need cars to drive around. To get around town. They're going to provide parking, but the town does not have the ability anymore to, you know, set a minimum number for developments under 16. Accessory apartments, we are keeping that at a maximum of two, that's in our regulations, but again, we're removing the minimum number because again, that is just basically a second dwelling unit. For multifamily, we're basically mirroring the language that I reviewed. So for multifamily residences, condos, apartments, townhouses, upper level residential, and we're adding middle housing as a separate thing. Again, where you have the existing cap, which is 2.5 per dwelling. And then we are again capping the minimum at 16 or fewer units, there's no minimum. And then for 16 or over, it is one parking space per studio or one bedroom, two parking spaces for two plus bedrooms. Again, plus the commercial parking standard, should it be a mixed use development. So again, this is basically just closely tracking the state requirement. There is also as part of that parking standard, if the town requires, let's say
two parking spaces per, you know, two bedroom multifamily, there's a townhouse complex proposed multifamily complex of two bedroom units, say it's 16, let's say it's 20 units, we would require 40 spaces. If for some reason the developer believes they don't need that many, this statute also provides the ability for a developer applicant to submit a parking needs assessment, which is defined in the statute, which would basically be the developer's opportunity to convince the commission that because of some circumstances unique to their location and their development type, they don't need to provide even that bare minimum of parking. They can do the analysis. Let's basically say it's, you know, a senior residence housing right next to the center of the community center and a dial a ride bus stop, and really only one spot per unit is going to be required, and they're so restricted in terms of their square footage that they want to reduce the number of parking. In a circumstance, something like that, they could make an argument that they need fewer parking spaces so they can do this analysis, and this provides the opportunity for them to do so. Again, that's going to be fairly extreme cases, and again, in a community such as Andover, I don't suspect we're going to see many, if any of those at all. But again, the regulations by the statute are required.
Then we go into definitions. So we add a definition for conservation and traffic mitigation district. This is an area of town that if the town so desired, it could designate as a high parking demand area in which the town could also provide regulations for those developments of under 16 units. So if there is an area of town that is so parking constricted, and here I'm thinking a community like Mystic. If you're in Downtown Mystic, that's an extremely parking constrained area where even if you added four or six or eight residential units, you would create, you know, untenable parking demand. I don't necessarily think Andover has that, but the town does have the ability to designate an area like that, and this provides a definition for that where we could require off street parking. We did not have a definition of multifamily dwellings or single family dwellings, just to be clear, multiple one and two family dwellings, just adding definitions of to make sure that we're being clear about what we're referring to. So we're adding those. We are also adding definitions for middle housing, which is what we talked about, which is two through nine units. And again, this could be in a single structure, you know, a duplex, it could be an unit apartment, it could be townhouses, it could be two quadplexes, it could be multiple buildings. So in whatever arrangement, two through nine units is referred to as middle housing. And then we define mixed use development, which we have a provision for in the regulations, but do not define it, so we want to ensure that we define it properly.
And then we also add a definition for summary review, which is the term of art in the statute that we are basically equating to site plan review, which is something that the commission does have. And this is something that would be allowable for middle housing specifically in commercial or mixed use districts, whereby the commission must do essentially a site plan review, no public hearing, no conditional approvals. And should this commission wish, it could designate summary review to its zoning enforcement officer, if you wished. Obviously, we have a longstanding practice of seeing these by the full commission, but just providing a provision for that. So those are the definitions that we're adding, and that is
the conclusion of the proposed regulations as required by the state statute. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission or the public may have.
I would ask if somebody has a question, please state your name and then address the person we'd like to ask questions.
Commission first, anybody have any questions? This looks pretty straightforward, but Leanne? I have a question. Okay. Hi. Michelle
Bell. I know that I'm ready. So my question is the water. Will they have a water unit to supply all the units, or will they each have their own individual well and as well as septic?
That is entirely up to the developer, to comply with public health code. They could have, I mean, it's one building, they could have a single well and a single septic system, assuming it was scaled, assuming the water yield was sufficient and the septic system was scaled sufficiently to meet the water flow demand. But those regulations are set and enforced through the public health code, not zoning code.
Will each of the families be able to own their own unit or is this like a rental unit area?
That's entirely up to developer as well. This is a land use commission, not a land ownership commission. So if you wanna build eight units and sell them as condos, or rent them as apartments, or sell half and rent half, that is entirely up to the developer. The commission is agnostic about that.
Oh, one more thing. How much land is this gonna be put on? 20 acres, 40 acres?
The way the regulations are structured, again, this is only allowable in the business zone. So in those areas zone for business on Route 6, there is a minimum acreage of actually only 20,000 square feet. So only about a half an acre is the minimum. Again, however, we are an area without public sewer and without public water. So your density is limited basically by the quality of your soils and your ability to fit a structure within those setbacks that we've provided and still fit in your septic system, still fit in your well with well radius and whatever parking or other amenities you're able to do. So I don't really see in Andover that anyone would be able to do eight units on a half an acre. I don't see that as particularly feasible unless it was, you know, a sandbox that happened to have a gushing, you know, spring of water.
You know, broadly speaking, I would anticipate, you know, densities of anywhere between, you know, a half an acre to an acre per dwelling unit. But again, that is site specific and dependent on both the developer's ability and the capacity of the land to provide water and suitable septic system. So right now, you don't know how many units may go in? No, it's entirely up to the market. All this does is it allows developers or owners of property that are zoned business, which is again only along Route 6 and only on a portion of Route 6, to have another option on their property. Instead of, before this regulation, all they would really be allowed to do was commercial development, an office, a restaurant, a warehouse, whatever, or they could actually apply for a mixed use overlay, which is already allowable in the town. So multifamily was already allowed under certain circumstances. This basically just gives them another option for doing some small residential developments or a mixed use development where it hadn't been an option previously.
But this you know, queue up any developers. It doesn't target any specific property. It's it just provides another potential use for those properties that are zoned business.
Are you talking about a specific development that's under discussion? I think these are kind of more general regulations.
Well, I didn't know if they already had an idea of 10 units, 40 units, 80 units. Well, this would The only thing that would be allowable as of right would be up to nine units. That would be the cap on any individual property. Okay. Or or some other building, you know, a business building plus nine units. You could do a mixed use project. So it doesn't just need to be, you know, four, six, eight residential units. It could be eight residential units plus a store or a restaurant or an office or something like that. But that again, it's just in the business zone. I you know, Wayne would know better than I would, but it's, you know, maybe a couple of dozen properties along Route 6. The the universe of of of parcels in that zone are is pretty limited.
Yeah. It's Route 6 Corridor, but even even so, much of Route 6 Corridor is still zoned residential. And some and some industrial.
Yeah. The developer can come in and say, okay, I'm gonna buy that property and I'm gonna cause there must be bids out. Let's say you get five developers, they all want that. Would it be like a, like a bidding to see who gets it, or would it depend on what kind of units they're gonna put in, what kind of families they're gonna bring into the in Saratown?
That's between buyer and seller. You know, if if you have if you have eight developers that all want the same piece of property to put some sort of multifamily on, it's entirely up to the market on what they what they can pay. Good questions.
Hi, I'm Anna Chubbish from two sixteen Gearswamp Road. You can hear John? Yeah. Very good.
I was opposed to, I guess, that, as a premise, I guess, my leading up to the questions that I asked was against the Public Act 20 five-one being passed in the special session in the state. So I'll leave with that. We're here now though because it was enacted. Do we know of the of the land that's designated? And I apologize. I have not looked at the full map of Route 6. Of the the land that's on Route 6, whatever zoned business, is it all owned privately or is any of that owned by the town?
That's a good question. I believe almost all of it. I don't believe the town owns much, if any at all of commercially zoned property along Route 6. The exception might be the highway garage on I Long
can think of off the top of my head is the parking lot next to over Andover, that's town property. That's, yeah. Also on the corner of Lake Road and
Route 6, Right, other the other side. Yep. Which has got that roof, yeah.
So I'm gonna share my screen again. This is what's here as a generalized zoning map. You let me know when you can see that. Yeah, we can see. So this is a generalized zoning map of Andover, the red parcels, so this, you can see the, you know, the main corridor is, this is Route 6. Those properties in red are zoned business. So there's a couple of clusters that basically over by the Bolton Coventry line, on the North side of the road, there's a sort of North and East side of the road, there's a cluster over by the Christmas tree farm on the South side of Route 6, sort of in the middle of town, as well as near, I believe this is Lake Road, no Lake Road's down here. Oh, this is by 216, right? So the center of town over near Route 216 on both sides of the road is some commercial. And then over in by Route 87, sort of area mostly on the south side of the road extending up Route 87 is zone commercial. But those three sort of clusters are the only places where this would be allowed as of right. Thank
you. For the property that was mentioned is owned by the town. Who makes the decisions if an offer is made to purchase that van from the town? Which property are you referring to?
I guess I'm referring to whatever property is owned by the town that is their own business at this moment. That would have to go to town meeting, would assume for the disposition
of town land, the sale of town land that would have to go to town meeting, would assume.
It would be open to the public is what I'm, I guess I'm And
a of town property would also have to come back to planning and zoning for what's referred to as an eight twenty four referral, which would be a public process also in which commission would be asked if the sale of town land to a private entity is in keeping with the plan of conservation and development. So it is a multi phase public process.
Do we know if anyone, and I guess by anyone, I mean a developer or people of interest have approached the town to purchase town property to develop under this, excuse me, the middle And
frankly, can only speak personally. I have not had any conversations nor even a hint of conversation about that. My personal opinion is that it would be much, much, much easier to deal with a private seller, a private property owner than to hassle with rigmarole and red tape of acquiring a piece of publicly owned land. It's gonna take months to years longer to do something like that. And you could do a quick sale with a private developer pretty quickly, I would think. Just putting my feet in a developer shoes.
Yes. Oh, no. I understand. And I think I would agree. It would be much easier to go to, you know, a private owner as opposed to the town.
Developers don't like many members of the public yelling at them any more than you or I. I'll stop I'll stop my share for the second. And if anyone has any questions, I can put it back up. Any questions from online?
And once again, please state your name and move your questions directed to please. Okay, hearing none.
So if there are no questions from the commission or from the public, I think you're probably able to close the public hearing if you so desire, Mr. Chairman. All right, closing the public hearing at 07:37PM. Let's move on to our call order. Present is myself, Pat Dougherty, Leanne Hutchinson, Vice Chair, Scott Person. Thank you. Thank you. You.
James Paymans and Jed Larson and Ann Marie Daigle, who appears an alternate, but we have a full commission tonight. Thank you for attending Ann Marie. You're welcome.
Okay. Are there any additions agency agenda that's not currently on? I do have one, I'd just like to add the Andover Economic Development Commission's minutes from last month, the July meeting, And I'll give that to Wayne at the end of the meeting.
All right. Is that something you want to summarize or put on the record? Yeah, I'll just summarize.
The question came has come up to myself and other people in economic development and in the planning and zoning that if developers are allowed to make apartments, then they'll put an unfair burden on the school system. So we invited our tax assessor, John Chaconis to our last meeting, and he's also the tax assessor for the town of Colchester. And they just had, their town has a new 100 unit complex. And there was only one child who's been added to their school system so far. So I just wanna make that statement so that everybody know in the, you know, surrounding towns what's going on when it's not necessarily apples to apples. If you had apartments, you had kids. So just so everybody's aware from a tax and school expenditure point of view. Okay. That was a 100 rooms.
A 100 units. 100 units. 100 units of one unit. Yeah. So like this over 1,500. Not sure.
I think it was the standard type apartments that he was referring to. All right, anybody like to say anything public speak, topics that are not on this agenda? Hearing none. Moving on to old business. Alright. What do you what is everybody's feelings out there so far? Everything looks pretty good, squared away?
Yeah. You can Okay. Deliberate. Well, you can deliberate and push it on. Push your boat off.
So you guys I just think there's an advantage to making the setback from the front with middle housing and the business district the same. I don't care if it's 45 or 50. Right. But the more we keep things lined up instead of having the differences, I just think that's easier for everybody. Agree.
Okay. So Jed, if I might, so then I'm gonna put a table from section 11 on the screen. So your proposal would be to adjust proposed section 4.23, the setbacks, to basically match the business zone setbacks. So instead of 50, it will be 45, instead of 20, it would be 10, instead of 30, instead of 50, it will be 35 in the rear.
Okay. Yeah. I didn't know the other ones were different. I thought it was only the front setback, but No. The other ones are different.
And so, and again, I increased those slightly just to increase the buffering in between what might be otherwise incompatible uses.
Okay. I withdraw my comment. It makes it too hard. And I think there's a good rationale for that. You know, you point out in the business district where it
abuts a residential district, the side yard setback is 50 feet. Yeah.
It's 25, but well, actually total side yard, it's interesting that the one side yard is 25, but the total side yard is a 100. You would have a 25 foot, but the other one would have to be 75 feet.
I believe in Section 8, if you look in the business.
In Section eight. In section Okay. So so that so actually there might be an incompatibility between those two sets of regulations. But that's specific to where the business district abuts a residential. Residential zone or residential use?
Residential zone. Somewhere, I know it's, or maybe it's in 113, hold it, I'm sorry.
There is a separate line. Well, that's the line we just looked at where it's abutting a business adjacent to ARD. Yeah, there you go. Right, so that's
the same front yard setback, a 50 foot rear yard, and then a 25 foot single yard side back, and a 100 foot cumulative side yard setback. So it's actually more restrictive, at least on one side. Yes.
So Jed, you get to pick your poison on complication here.
Yeah, no, I would throw my comment. I see your point for having the board with housing.
So just to go back, so everyone is on the same page, the current proposed regulation would have a 50 foot front yard setback. And again, in the business district, front yard would be measured from the edge of pavement, not from the center line. Side yard 25 on either side, and then 50 foot rear yard.
Yep, I recommend we leave it just like you have a dirt yard. Okay.
So is that consistent with what you have on page one fifty eight for building setback line? Or 24 dot three? One fifty eight?
Yeah. It's 24.3 in definitions. So it looks like the building setback line is Yeah. We're not proposing to change that. Right.
Wait. I'm sorry. What page are you on? So it's on the it's page one fifty eight. Mark one fifty eight.
It's the definition for building setback line. Oh, okay. Yeah, let me, I'll bring that up. It's, yeah, so this would be, this would remain. So building setback line, can you guys see that? So building setback line is ordinarily measured from the center of the travel portion of the road. However, except along Route 6 business and industrial zones, and that's what we're talking about here, business zone, The setback is measured from the edge of pavement and so that we're all we're doing is adding another. Use with a specific setback in the business zone. So that would be measured from the edge of pavement.
John, if you don't mind, can we go back and look at section eleven three point two? Yep. Because I'm not sure that that is properly reflected in the chart.
Eleven point three point two. There we are. Minimum distance from residential zones. All buildings and structures still be located at least 50 feet in the side yard and 50 feet from the rear yard can reduce. Yeah, so that, you know, 50 feet from the side would indicate this, 100 feet cumulative minimum, it would change this number. And so this number, and actually we could change this on the fly as a scrivener's error. This number should probably change to 50, which is on the table business adjacent to ARD. So in order to reflect the wording of eleven twenty three, where you called out Wayne, this number should be 50. So I would say, you know, a motion to approve could include correcting the scrivener's error or businesses for the line of business adjacent to ARD in table 11.2.
So is there any place on that chart where we need to follow on total? It looks like, you know, now we got 50 on each side, so it's a 100. The line above it, we've got 10 on each side, so it's 20. I'm looking for some place. I think that was the only place that it was different. Yes.
But it's probably not hurting anything to be, be in there the way it is. Yeah.
So I don't care. It's not it's not incorrect. It just you know, we'll make it better by putting the 25 to 15. Yep. Agreed. Okay.
So I would also suggest, well, I guess in this case, ordinarily when you're doing a text amendment, the motion should mention that the text amendment is in keeping with the plan of conservation and development. In this case, I don't even necessarily know that you need to make that finding because the town has very little choice about this because it's a new state law. So I don't think you necessarily have to make a finding. You could just have a motion to approve the regulations as proposed. Again, with the addition of correcting the scrivener's error concerning businesses adjacent to ARD and in table 11.2. The move. Second. Any more discussion? All right, let's take a vote. Scott? Fine. Okay. Good? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
And I vote aye as well. Motion passes five zero. Okay, congratulations guys. You've got some regulations. Thank you.
Okay, moving on to our recommended building apartment fee ordinances to the board of selectmen.
General Reuter Wayne. Okay. Keep harping on this. Okay. I hope I got something put together that makes it clear. It's clear as mud when you start looking at all the town regulations around this and how they do it, how we do it, and everybody does it differently. In my exchanges with attorney Brent, he, in all of a certain terms said that the fees are set by ordinance per state statute A-one C is on it.
So Per charter only our board of selectmen is allowed to pass an ordinance here.
But I'm not Well, we have in our charter sort of a two tiered, you know, minor and minor and major. And we already have an ordinance that sets the zoning fee to $140 blanket. And that was done as a minor ordinance, I guess, for lack of a better word. So I don't I don't see why the board of selectman can't change that. They said it to begin with it seems to me that it can change it without going to a town meeting or anything like that.
So the the blank spots on the table, or is that just couldn't find the information?
Or? Yeah. I mean, I had a I struggled and struggled and struggled with the table because different towns call things different things. Yeah. And I tried to line things up with what we currently do that really doesn't come from the ordinance we have with what other towns are doing. I didn't try and increase fees or anything like that. There again, it is, I believe our role here is to get a standardized, get, again, put it on the board of selectments agenda to create a standardized schedule of fees for the various zoning permits. I think that we decided
that we could have a special meeting to get this pushed through.
Okay. And I'm, you know, I'd be happy to go and give her what we got here and pitch it. Of course, I'm gonna invite Patrick to come with me and stand by me and provide moral support. But I really believe we should have a standardized schedule of fees. I would, in turn, throw it in the lap of the board of selectmen because they're the ones that are gonna set those fees to One thing I can see in here is that
we we don't have anything where the planning is on the commission sub division, lease sub division, fee. We have a 500 set thing, but everybody else uses per lot.
Well, we have. It's $500. That gets you three lots. Three lots? Yep. Over three lots gets is a 100 plus a 100 and is a $100 at a $100 increase in the application fee and a $150 per lot. That's what the next line down is underneath that. So it increases based upon the number of lots after three greater than three. That's what we're doing right now. Other towns just have it based upon the number of lots and they add like Hebron adds in an additional fee based upon the square footage of the development that's going in. That that gets kinda complicated for us here.
John. If I recall, according to the new public act, we're not allowed to charge extra per square footage for applications. Is that am I misinterpreting that? Or
No. That's that's correct. It's yeah. There's there's there's no
scale. There's right. It's not scaled. You need it to, like, Hebron's then?
I'm not I'm not proposing we do that. I I don't know how to do that either simply because it's just Yeah. No. I right. I think Hebron Hebron may have to change their their or their ordinance. Okay. Thank you.
As part of this package, we have an ordinance that says that you can issue a building permit if the individual owes taxes or other fees to the town. I it's come up before where somebody owes taxes. We can't deny the zoning permit. We can deny building permit, not zoning permit. And I think for consistency, I think if the town does that for a building permit, it should do that for all your apartment. All of them. I'm sure attorney Brantz weighed in on that as well. Yeah. And all this is gonna have to go to the two attorneys, Brantz and Dennis O'Brien. They're gonna have to weigh in for the board of selector too, I would imagine. I would imagine the board of selector would want that over here. So unless you want me to go line by line, and I hope you don't, I'd like to present this to the board of slightly with the commission's policy. And I have had an informal conversation with, Chair McGuire. He would like to see it. Sooner than later. And also in here, the big thing is authorizing PNC to require bond or escrow when complex applications come before the commission that involve our use of outside third party outside expertise to evaluate those applications. I think that's really important. And, you know, if we have an applicant that comes in with a complex development, I think it should be on, the burden should be on them because we have to do our due diligence and we may not necessarily have that expertise in house.
Did
you talk to Dennis or Brian yet about this ordinance? Did he say we have to go to a town meeting?
No. He didn't say we not have to. He did not say we have to. No.
Just the board board of Selectman Board of Selectman has already
set one fee. That's been a little expanded from four.
And then it would also have the requirement for escrow escrow for
engineering review. For engineering professional cost savings. Right. Professional third party.
And what what's the amount and how is that gonna be based? Just so people know. Okay. That that's just the I don't need to go every line because that's that's also
the biggest part of this. Right? Right. And I I didn't borrow I I didn't make any of these these words out. My my for whatever accounts may be listening, I plagiarized stuff that looked good from their ordinances. So procedure would be if we have a complex application that we would go to if we need engineering we would go to town engineer and say give us an estimate of what you think the cost of town might be to to review this. And then we would ask the applicant to put 150% of that into escrow. And it would have to be in a separate internal account that the treasurer keeps track of. And I would draw it down from that. Anything that's left over goes back to the applicant, obviously. There is a the commission on I guess for lack of a better word, on appeal from the applicant. If the applicant provides the commission with enough justification, the commission can modify those fees or waive those fees. But it's in the commission's sole discretion whether to do that. And of course the town is going to be exempted from any fees that you for town project exempted from any fees.
So I'm not sure how that would work. An application comes in, but I guess we'd have to. Normally the application comes in, we certainly haven't discussed it at all. I guess we've got a sense on whether it's a big one or a little one. When it's accepted and we vote to do like public hearing or whatever, at that point, we'd have to say, we think this is one that needs to have the escrow account.
That's the way it appears to be done in Los Roundup County. Yeah, that's
precisely how it happens in other towns I've worked with. And we put the same regulation in place in Essex about fifteen years ago that did precisely that. If it's a complicated application at the time you scheduled the hearing, you also vote to refer it to the town's outside experts, whether that's legal, engineering, environmental, whatever. And then and then town staff would work with the, the third party consultants to obtain, an estimate for this analysis, and that would be the amount of fee put into escrow.
So our town engineer couldn't do that, the forest. He's not the third party consultant.
Yeah. No. The the town engineer could be the third party. Sure. Okay. Yeah. Because that's a that's a that's a private engineering firm, right, that you use. Yeah.
Okay. I hope I could pull it to you guys.
If we get that one thing in, it'll be a home run.
And just based on what we know is coming down the road, the time is right for something like this. You
bet. That's why I'm pushing. So are you ready to do that right now? I'm ready. I want to, yes. I would like the commission's blessing. You got it. And I would like to move. I don't know, Deborah. I'll get Deborah. Let's take our vote. Scott, I, Jay and Leanne. I have several questions. Okay. Okay. I'll try. Go ahead. Yep, go ahead.
Wayne, I'm not is is this something that you sent out since our meeting last month?
I sent it out for last month's meeting. I sent it out for this month's meeting.
Okay. It's like haven't I can't find it for this month's meeting. And I was interested in it last month. I I don't know why I can't find it for this month's meeting.
It's a change it's a little change from last month based upon my reading of the tea leaves here, but substantially the same.
So I think one of the things Leanne, it could be when I got that big email from Wayne, you would at least on my computer, it had about four different things to open up, then it has a little plus five or something and that means there's more stuff there that you have to to go get it. There were a bunch of attachments to this one's email. I wanted to make sure everybody had everything.
Okay. And which Jed, which email was that that this was part of this was one of the attachments?
Either. Two. It's the one that we've sent out in the agenda, the minutes. I just sent it to you again, Leanne. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Did it pop up?
It'd be in, like, a couple of minutes to read that and take a short recess.
Over for a break? Yes. July. Here I go. Did you get it, Leanne?
I'm still checking. Just one second. Thank you. Looks like it. Yes.
Okay. So we're talking about the one labeled or the zoning ordinance be draft seven thirty twenty six. That's what we're discussing.
Okay, I see it. I'm sorry I overlooked it before. I know because I had just made mention of this. We were talking about some other fee schedule. There are two or three meetings ago when I had mentioned something about this in passing. And then since then, obviously you've sent Wayne you sent some of these other rates like this last month and this month. And again, I'm sorry I overlooked it. Don't and I'm sorry I didn't compare it even not knowing that this was here compare it by myself since last month. So, if we're in the middle of voting right now, I wasn't completely comfortable with what came out last month. So if we're in the middle of voting, I'm gonna vote no.
Remember, this is just a recommendation to the board of selectmen. It's not a change in the fees. It's it's up to the board of selectmen.
But I I I'm I'm assuming and maybe Scott can jump in. I'm assuming that the board of selectmen would apply whatever we recommended. I mean, I don't know that. Probably none of us know that. I'm just assuming that it's probably that they would sit there and say, you know, the PNC spent time on this. They must have reasons for this. We're just gonna go with it. Darren Baker wrote that. We talked about it, Wayne. You talked about what?
Why why should, you know, why should the town be paying the applicants consultation fees?
You know, it's pretty obvious that they should come back again. So, technically, we're on a break right now, so we're just there.
Yeah. I understand that concept, Scott, about not subsidizing people, so to speak, if that's what you're getting at, Scott. I just didn't as I said, I didn't realize this is here. I don't feel like I've spent enough time on it. So if an exact fee schedule is what we're voting on now, just are we voting on an exact fee schedule that Wayne has compiled or the idea of one to send to the Board of Selectmen?
There is a fee schedule in there as a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. Yes.
Okay. That's what I thought. But I want to make sure when you said that Wayne or Scott said that we were sending this on to the Board of Selectmen. All right. I will vote no. Okay, go ahead, Amanda.
She voted yes. No. She'll vote no. Okay, fair enough. Thank you for spending this time on it. Yeah, you're welcome. And we're vote yes. Motion passes four, one, zero.
Moving on to So I will Go ahead. I'll draft the letter for your signature. Thank you. And Yep. Send it on about the board cycle and our top administrator.
All right. Moving on to new business and go ahead, Wayne.
All right. You have a zone change application and I would, again, I would make it clear that this is, we're talking about the receipt of the application, not anything substantive about the application. This is gonna require a public hearing and to be straightforward, we're limited by statute that says you have to schedule the public hearing within so many days of receipt of that. And you have to receive it within so many days of
Well, it's yeah, this is a regular meeting, so it is deemed received tonight. You have to open the public hearing within sixty five days of tonight. And I'd also note, so this is just a text amendment. Obviously, we've had a couple of preliminary conversations with these developers, with this applicant before about the concept that they would like to do at Rosewood Acres, the former Lynn Home Corner. These would be the text amendments, the regulatory changes necessary to allow a development such as theirs to take place. So this is, again, you're not approving a development, you're approving, or you're asked to consider regulatory changes that would enable some future development. So this is a multi step multi public hearing process. This is step one.
It's a text amendments to the mixed use floating zone, correct? More or less.
Yes, yeah, there might be a couple of definitional changes and stuff other than that, but for the most part, the the target is the the mixed use zone.
Yeah. Focuses on the yeah. So, John, who who started this?
This is generated by the developers, consultant team. It was led by, design professionals out of South Windsor. And I've had some initial discussions with them just to make sure that they were covering all of the bases that they needed to cover in terms of the different areas of the regulations. I did not write these though. Say that again.
I had conversations with the applicants just to make sure that they were addressing all of the different sections of the regulations that would be necessary to enable the sort of development they would like. So I had some preliminary conversations with them, but I was not involved in writing these. Again, we're constrained by a state statute.
We received it tonight, the next the next meetings and
say public hearing date within sixty five days of today. Correct, John? That's correct.
It's basically you have a public hearing in September or October.
So the thing I was just wrestling with myself on was how soon do we think this ordinance that we're talking about be effective and whether or not we need any consultants to take a look at the text amendment changes? And I'm not sure we do, But
Well, the text amendment changes. Yeah. I mean, we're gonna we're gonna bring attorney branch in, obviously. Yeah. And and Wayne and I will both review. Yeah.
We have to. We spend a lot of time on these. What's that? We spend a lot of time on these.
On regulations. Yes. We do. Yeah. They're all changed. Well, it's somewhat you know, somewhat.
It's a living Okay. Yeah. It's a living document. Let's see.
But yeah, I mean, you know, I would encourage you not to prejudge them before the public hearing takes place, but I would just note to the commission that text amendments have a great deal of latitude for the commission to approve or deny or modify. The answer of no is a completely legitimate response to a proposed text amendment. Obviously, it is up to the applicant to prove that this is a wise change and it is a change in keeping with the plan of conservation and development, which I would note, you guys just approved a brand new plan of conservation and development. So the new text of that, the new goals established there might very well inform your consideration of these proposed amendments. But this is not like a site plan that if it meets the regulations you have to approve it. A text amendment has a great deal of latitude and ability for the commission to say no. But again, I would encourage you to listen carefully through the public hearing process.
You would agree, John, that the commission does not have a choice here.
You don't have a choice to turn down the application. You have to go to public hearing.
Think it's Yeah. Commission has to schedule a public hearing. Yeah. And then deliberate the text amendment.
I'll make a motion that we schedule a public hearing for 09/15/2026.
Any other further discussion before we vote? Only we have to update.
We got to pay attention to this word. This is Yeah. As Scott said, we put a lot of time and energy in the in the regulations. If we're gonna we
want somebody's wanting us to change it here. We gotta make sure that that's a smart thing to do. Mhmm. So you have a motion and a second. Any other further discussion before we go? So what we're voting on is to schedule for October, but that would, that's an option. So
we have to schedule a public hearing either way, just that we're up for a vote is basically in September or October. So right now the motion is for September.
Ready for a vote? Or you could conceivably have us. You could conceivably schedule a special meeting just to consider this, correct?
Well Yeah. As long as it's within that sixty five days. Sure. That
At this point at this point, you don't have anything else on your agenda. I don't believe, Wayne. Right?
For September? No, not right now. There might be a concept plan for the lot next to the extra month for September, but that's already been put off twice. So I don't know where that's going. Alright. Let's move then. There's nothing else. Stop. Jay? Leanne? Aye.
Aye. Aye. Metzold, motion passes five zero zero. Can we get that published in the rear release? Yeah, it has to be. Thank you. Somebody mentioned maybe having a special meeting.
No, just threw that out there. It doesn't have to be yet. A special meeting you can have after the 09:15 meeting, you can schedule a special meeting to have a public hearing in between then. You can always ask, you can always have a special meeting, let's put it that way. True.
Basically, so basically what my question is, is we still haven't had a discussion on what kind of breakdown of that possible application.
Should that be? No, you, there, there should be no discussion. Okay. There is no application.
Not yet, yep. That's correct. All right, moving on. Correspondence. Correspondence
just went on. Oh, and I have something to add. Think they sent it to you. I
think you got it too. So you go ahead. Maybe you do. Well, maybe you remember.
It was a, hang on. An email from a consultant. Yes. Business development representative from Chicago, and they wanted to
consult us on short term rental market in our area and they wanna get hired to be our consultant, basically. That was the correspondence. And they called me. Oh, they did call you. Okay.
In regards to our last meeting when we then, you know, what do call it? Short term rentals. Short term rentals around the lake and anywhere else in town. What do they call that?
Yes. And anybody in the commission feel like hiring that consultation group or? Not after I got done with them today. Okay. Reversed what I told them. I'm not a true denier personally but Well John would have you know the Essex
I don't know if you put it out to everybody. Yeah so you and I and Wayne went through it, but I thought if we wanted to go down that path, that was pretty good tool. There's yeah, there's plenty of examples out there. I wouldn't suggest you need an outside consultant to as Wayne and I do all the time. You find some other good examples in the state and you copy them. Okay.
If the commission wants to do that, it certainly can empower John to put something together. Right. Does it correspond? Yeah. Okay. Okay.
So I guess this is the spot, commission discussion. Hi, Patrick. Go ahead, Nian.
Yes. I just wanted to say that I when I saw that I wasn't gonna get there in person tonight, I tried to sign in on a laptop that has a camera, and it didn't let me in quickly enough. So I'm sorry. I it's not more accessible, but, but I just wanted to mention that. Fine, Leanne. Thank you. You're welcome.
Anyone else? So, again, the question, I guess, Wayne, do we think we're doing pretty good on having when people leave here and we approve something, are they doing the extra steps that they're supposed to be doing? One thought it'd be, you know, we should have a a an Excel spreadsheet that has all the applications that we approve and then it says when they come back in and file it with the down records and all that stuff. I know it's the applicant's responsibility to do that, but we have seen time and time again where
it hasn't happened and it makes it hard for us to approve and find out what happened in the past.
To your point about what's happened in the past, I I completely agree that we need to keep better track of it so that people like me can find it Yeah. Without combing through minutes that are in a binder in the town in the vault. So to to that end, yes, we're doing a better job with Lynn internally to keep that organized so we can find that kind of stuff quickly. The problem being is we have a whole history back in 1950 of stuff that's not necessarily easy to find.
But I know, for instance, we had the home occupation up on. Mhmm.
And that particular application that we've not heard anything. That was a that was a lack of he did come in and file it on time. Okay. Good. Yeah.
Just wanna make sure we're trying to improve on the ability for you to go ahead. Just didn't know that we had come in and filed it.
Further examination of the record, I got it. So and then the what part we just had a well, the last week last commission meeting, we approved another special permit. Yep. And, you know, same thing. I'm I'm Patrick signed it. It's sitting there. Now, you know, there's not better communication between
us and the town clerk. Oh, I see what's going on here. Town clerk communicate with the the chair here.
I saw you heard about it. Well, here this week, we have a new new town clerk. We may not so we have better communication now so that okay, we can, that's good. When it happens, I get a copy, an actual copy of the, of what was filed with the volume and page number on it. So that is made a permanent piece of the record down here in the building department. So now no longer have to go searching through the land records to find that. Okay.
After we grant an approval or whatever they're coming in asking for, they don't have any responsibility after to
follow-up with us. Right? Or follow-up with Follow-up with you. No. But they have a responsibility to come in and if it's a special permit, it's gotta go into the land records. Right. And then there may be other things. There may be my wires that have to be fired with that.
If they wanna proceed, but they could they could walk out of here after that And they don't necessarily need to do anything moving forward. Right?
Well, they they gotta comply with the conditions of that special permit. Yeah.
If they move forward. If they move forward. If they decide never mind. What's permit of expired? Is there an ex there's
no expiration? Yeah. There is no there truly, there is no expiration.
Expiration? If you don't file it within, ninety days, then I think it goes invalid.
That's for a subdivision. What's that? That's for a subdivision. Special permit is valid upon filing. There is not an arbitrary deadline for filing. Okay. You can't apply for a building permit, you can't commence the use, etcetera, until it's filed. But subdivisions have a ninety day filing deadline, special permits and variances do not.
Okay. We could have a whole bunch of these special permits just hanging hanging out there for you. But they can't do anything
until they until they come in and record it in the land records. They cannot proceed. They can't go past They can't start construction. They can't get a building permit or any of that. And
if if the requirements, construction, regulations change and the subsequent time that they got this special permit, they would have to comply with the regulations.
No, once the special permit is issued, that's the regulations that they operate under from here at the time of position for eternity at the time of approval. It's okay. It's
so like twenty years later, they can come back and say, okay, I'm ready to start.
Yeah, unless there was a site plan associated with it, in which case the site plan can expire in five or ten years, but that's sort of a complicated set of case law. But broadly speaking, a site plan can expire, a special permit runs with the land. Wow. Shut up the room.
That's very interesting. I mean, it would be it would be nice to know that some if we decided moving forward, at least not like that, but keep some kind of traffic of these. Yeah. No. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Well, I think Wayne's trying hard to let the people know when you walk out of the room, you're not done. That's right. And that's what you used to be thinking. I'm trying to the first thing I say, you guys told it's
approved. And then you're walking out the door. A minute. You've got to you're gonna be getting correspondence. And Lynn then and is good about the correspondence. I I presented all to her. She, you know, knows what she's doing, gets it out. Okay. Any other further discussions? Thank you for coming. Thank you. Appreciate it. We need more color.
Moving on to administrative reports, mister zoning agent. Okay. Go ahead.
You got an email that I sent to you in Conservation for a slight vacant land associated with the time that was part of the Times Farm Camp is for sale for 3 something million dollars consists of two seventy acres most of that's in Coventry 70 acres Andover. Stugamong River runs right through it.
That was sold like a month or so ago was sold and I think that they're buying back out or something. You have to pay back for sale, It was a new new landowner from Cotton Tree that somebody had bought it. Yeah. Because I bought it at right at the right time I was watching them and I saw this a week. I think it was on the 4th Street.
Walking. Basically, I'm just suggesting that that this is a really I mean, it's a spectacular piece of property. I mean, they're stately headed up butts, skirt about river going through it. Is anybody's town interested in pursuing something with deep and and a state whatnot. It may be too late. It it should have been done when the time spoke in the channel three country camp or when it originally sold. So it looks like the vacant land is for sale, but there's a 40 acre piece where the complex is that's still owned by that organization from West Hartford. That's It's not for sale. Oh, that's not. But the Their side of it. Right.
But the property on Andover Side is Is for sale. Is vacant.
Yeah. Yeah. It's vacant land for sale. It's got the skunk along river running right through it. I just threw it out there. You know, is is this something that, like, the conservation commission. And, actually, Hank River was in today, and we talked about it too. So, basically, that's all. It just brings everybody's attention when I found out. Appreciate it.
And then I got a email from an SLR International Corporation, and they're doing a traffic study, Route 6 in Handy Road. I wasn't given any reason why and the people I talked to at SLR International Corporation in New Haven wouldn't tell me. So I don't know. I don't know, it's a state project or something else, but it struck me as I can't resist. Didn't
didn't our former town administrator wasn't he seeking a warrant for a traffic signal there?
Yes, I mean, there's a lot of people that want a traffic signal there. It's been talked about. But I would have thought if this had something to do with a permanent traffic signal, they would have been more than happy to tell me that. Right. I
know some folks at SLR, if you want me to do a little digging, Wayne.
Anyway, I just and they did not well, see, this is where I don't think it has anything to do with traffic signal. Because when I told them that there is a temporary signal currently there, she seemed surprised. So that's all I have. So what did they want from you?
They wanted to know if there are any planned develop any developments planned in that air in the area of that intersection that might affect traffic flow. And he isn't now. Right.
That could all mean that could also be a development in Coventry or Bolton, and they're just doing a radius of of intersections in the in the general area. It's just curiosity. Thank you. Go ahead, Jed.
We had no meeting this month. So nothing to report
Short and sweet. Alright. Yeah. Meeting next month, and you're hearing the concept plan again for Lynn Holmes Court, I believe. Okay. Yeah. Alright. And they were busy. They're busy up there. Very busy. Yeah. Very busy. Proponents for this Rosewood Acres. So Yeah. Doing the studies and all that good stuff. Yeah. All right, go ahead, John.
So just a couple of things, obviously, I've had, as I mentioned earlier, had a number of conversations with the developers and their team on this Rosewood Acres. We had a lot of conversations about the proposed regulations and things that they needed to cover, that may come up. So hopefully you'll find it a complete application and that sort of answers all of the zoning questions. I also had a series of short conversations with Jessica, the owner of the multifamily apartments on Kingsley off of Shawnee Mill. She's still exploring some of her options. I mean, she came in a couple of months ago, I think, and kind of talked about potential for expansion. I think she's still looking at the financing and construction costs and trying to figure out where some of that stuff would stand, did have a couple of follow-up conversations with her. And then lastly, continuing to work with the Capital Region Council of Governments on their initial steps towards the anticipated regional housing growth plan, which is gonna be completed over the next two years. They have set up a website, Crogg, the Capital Region Council of Government, so it's croggcgcg.gov/housinggrowthplanning. I have just sent you all an email with that link. It's an interesting website. It has a lot of information about the state statute that was passed that we discussed earlier this evening and their
procedure for doing some housing growth plans. I would be happy to discuss with any of you or all of you about their process. But again, they're sort of starting slow, doing a lot of background information gathering and analysis before they really get to any planning, which really won't happen until probably this time next year. The planning process will begin in earnest, but it's good background information and just staying in touch with them about that. So that's all I've got.
Thank you. Neglected to say that we reran the announcement for the thing alternate. And that is we put a September 3 September 3 date on that. Yeah. Letters of interest by September 3 so that we can put it so I can put it on the agenda for September 15? Yeah, please.
Okay, public speak. Anything, anybody public? Okay, hearing none. Moving on to the minutes.
I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the planning and zoning public hearing and regular meeting minutes from July 21 as submitted. Second. Miss Carson?
Hi. Just two minor things under administrative report. Under nine b, inland wetlands and watercourses, it says bridge project application approved. No further update. Is was that the Fazola Grove Bridge project? I believe it was too. That
is yeah. That's there's a little there's a little road. Sorry. What? Yes. And that was was all up.
Okay. It just doesn't say which bridge. And then on under nine C, I think Lindholm is spelled L I N D. Yes. It is. Yep. That's it. Okay.
Change of approval to approve minutes as amended. Send him.
All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes five zero zero. Next meeting with the public hearing is September 15. And all in favor of adjournment? Aye. Aye. Aye.
And you say aye. Aye. Okay. Well, you pass the mic to adjournment.
This transcript was generated by Deepgram from the meeting recording. Names, numbers, and other details may be inaccurate; the video is authoritative.