Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning- Regular Meeting
September 29, 2026 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Machine-generated transcript — check the video if in doubt.
September. Thank you, John. 09/29/2026, annual planning and zoning special meeting to continue the public hearing and continuation of 26 dash two z c, a proposal to amend various sections of the Andover zoning rights concerning mixed use floating zone. Do you have anything, John, before we ask the applicant to have their presentation, but...
No. I I think, you know, that that I I had spoken with the applicants within the last week to just go over some of the changes as I heard them and some of the outstanding questions that the Commission had at the previous hearing. And I think they've addressed most of them, and I'll ask them to go through some of those details. And Peter, I'm happy to put the regs up on the screen if you'd like. Thank you very much. That'd be great.
Thank you, John. I believe all the Commission members should have a hard copy.
If you do not, I need extra copies of me. Okay, go ahead. Okay, thank you Chairman Dyer and
members of the Commission. For your record again, I'm Peter McMullen, President and CEO of Design Officials in South Windsor nearby about twenty minutes away tonight, and look forward to showing how we've made some relatively minor adjustments to the regulations based on the testimony and comments from the commission and others at the last hearing two weeks ago. And thank you very much for having a special meeting for this purpose. Move this along. Gentleman to my right. There's two gentlemen who I didn't know. Leslie's here too. Mister Kaffore and mister Callahan are here and their partner, Gavin Duffy. So is he online? He's... Yeah. Oh, okay. So they... They're investing a lot in this and they'd like to have this go forward. But of course, we're not gonna talk about our project tonight as requested by Wayne and by John last time in the in the in the commission. So we're going to refrain from doing that as requested because these are just regulations applicable to the town in general and for the mixed use floating zone. So let me highlight some of the changes we made. Other than those that we discussed last time... Okay so I guess to go right to definitions 24.3, section 24, this definition with respect to building height. We're requiring a request making of those things. So we've modified that. So the... A lot of communities do, you know, the median median height of the roof is where they have the height of the building, but you have it at the ridge line and and the water pressure because the fire department has asked not to go over 35 feet. And as a consequence,
we're gonna leave it at that. And I spoke with the architect last last one that we're using, not to discuss their design or anything, but he indicated that 35 feet is not. We should be able to do well with that. We want... Do want... We don't wanna hold back here to come up with a really beautiful building and our clients to do what they need to do. Let's make this be... Ours beautiful development each... On the on the other developments beautiful. So we think that works. So we're gonna leave that on to which we're removing that language with regarding the definition of building height. And later on, I've talked about what we're doing with respect to the height itself. Also, we... Down below there's comments regarding the definition we added for self storage facility because you're... We thought there need to be additional language and everybody seemed to have be okay with that except for we're calling it occupancy site. I mean, office building, multiple occupant building. It's pretty much universal term for anybody in occupying space, not necessarily residential. But if we just say the individual self can units of storage space, they're being leased to lessees instead of occupants, that makes perfectly clear they're not residential in any nature. We also have language down below which was presented last time which indicates that there are no possibility of other uses of storage. No residential, no activities, you know, no no working on parts or anything like manufacturing, anything else or sorting or any other activity. We're having an office in there, what have you. It's shirts
exclusively, expressly for the purpose of storage and nothing else. They would come, they drop off things, they pick up things and they leave and that's the extent of it. But it's very valuable space and I think it's gonna be I think it's gonna be welcomed by the community because there's a need for that and including in any of the proposed mixed use flooding zone developments, it's a good idea to have some extra storage capabilities. People with seasonal things, they have things for activities, recreational and stuff like that. Always nice about that. And there are businesses around, they need to have some safe cleaning storage while they're in lockup. Okay. So we... The next page, didn't have anything to really speak of. If we go forward and we go to twenty six eleven, top of the page, height and area requirements, we have proposed not only to change the definition which will allow you to hire roof heights and then we said we will try even with that that revised definition here at 40 feet, we're just going bring it back to 35 feet... The original thirty thirty five feet, not not change that up to 40 in that instance. And then the next one... We we we we completely removed the minimum height of buildings, two floors of finished space, minimum ceiling type we discussed at pretty much at length. With building code and all that stuff, you're not gonna get low ceiling heights.
And and there's a strong likelihood that these types of developments, for example, office slash retail area and also self storage facilities, they're rarely going to be more than one story in a rural area, and also such as this. And also, if you have... Also, if you have if you have residential multifamily, some units can be two stories. We're not proposing you won't get any higher than that because of the height restriction, but some
some may very well be one story and as we stated previously. So I think I think doing away with that minimal height of buildings makes a lot of sense. And so we suggested that we're remove that entire section there and renumber the following sections. Also, if you go down to the bottom, we're changing the... You know, the individual business or office use within a commercial building. Greater than... We have 15,000 square feet as we discussed last time, 20,000 square feet. As you know, this community would very much like a grocery store in particular is one of the focus a particular focus of what we're trying to achieve. Hopefully we can attract one. We don't... There's no guarantee we will, but if you have the ability to go to 20,000 square feet by right in the building for a tenant and then you... And then we have a provision in there that you could go up to 25,000 square feet with special approval by the commission for a retail business including a grocery store or office used to maximize upon client commissions finding that's the same language as before but
you can go up to 25,000 square feet. Again, we may have an excellent tenant for retail building office tenant and then you have a grocery store wants to come in and then that can accommodate them let's say they're pretty common in an area like this to be anywhere from eight to 20,000 square feet for a particular tenancy and 20,000 square feet or just shy of that would be a lot for this location, but we might find one. And if there's not, if you bring one where you get your fresh produce and and fish and meats and and other sundries, we don't go a distance and people coming home from work, traveling on Route 6 to be convenient, right turn in and right turn out I think for some people or go out Route 87 up to Columbia, but that could be a terrific thing in the case of us or any other applicant under the zone. Let's see what else we have.
Oh, okay. We we said in the case of a mixed use building, the soundproofing shall be designed and installed to isolate the normal sounds of business activity from essential uses. And we understand some of this came out of the idea that originally they might be retail type uses on the 1st Floor and residential on 2nd Floor. I don't see that right now happening. This is unlikely. We see that in downtown areas, places. It's hard to make that work and that may be a possibility here, but I doubt it. But there are all kinds of soundproofing standards and so it's in the case of a mixed use building where you have residential and commercial combined. That may happen. I think it's a long shot, but that could happen. So we have that... That's where you're really addressing soundproofing, but those are those are well considered in the in the building code. And I just like to reserve comment once Wayne has his comments I'd just like to reserve comment on those. I don't know if he's presenting. I imagine he'll present those to you. Peter,
I think you overlooked one major change. Yeah. What's that? Which is the twenty six fourteen, the third paragraph there. You had provided, previously you had discussed going to 60, keeping it at 66%, going over to 70 under certain circumstances, it looks like you have removed that entirely and just moved 66 to 70.
Yes. Sorry about that. Yes. We discussed we discussed this, John, at length. Yes. Apologies, please. So the... What we're saying is you had a standard of 66%. What that does is that that that can affect a lot of different aspects of the development. So for example, you might find that you end up reducing the size of residential units so that therefore they may not be able to meet the unmet needs of the community. Empty nesters and young adults and young families and stuff like that which may occupy residential units. It gives you that flexibility. So going up to 70%, that's it. We're not talking about going above that, but it makes it simple. It says 66%, you go 4% more and you go to 70% of the net floor area within the entire proposed development. It doesn't mean you will be at 70%. Usually, you're less than that, but less than the maximum. But... So I... And discuss... Confirm with John, we thought that that might be the easiest way to handle that and that's just your maximum. So you have to have a minimum of 30% commercial and that would work if you're so inclined. If not, then I know we've been taking a look at... Not discussed exactly our site, but it it it affects what we do for... If you have a mixed use with residential,
it affects what you can do and the amenities you can have and the size of the units. And I'd hate to see us or any applicant reduce the size of the units basically to the detriment of the public, the residents of the town. So I just think that's something you should consider. That's what we... John and I consider it and you'll hear from John his view on that. Thank you John for pointing that out. Please
read through to your book. I got a question on that one particular issue then. Why didn't you just eliminate the requirement altogether that are rejected up to 70%? I mean I think our goal is to get warehousing
anything stands... Well, yeah, but I think when these were promulgated the idea was and in fact in your plant conservation development stuff and in your survey also a town survey, there was an interest in commercial development and they... These consensus was along Route 6, the most likely place where somebody would wanna do it and make sense. And you already have some business industrial zones along there. So I think the idea was to have... Build up your your commercial part of your Sprint list as well as the residential. Yes. There's a there's a a very important... From from a community's perspective, very important need to get some additional housing, housing types and housing so you can attract a wider variety of family sizes and and for people that stay here when they retire even if they they sell their house
and you can re... So you're in house for pretty good money right now, but they have a place to retire to and they don't necessarily have to own the place they live in. It can even be a rental property. So I think you should continue to have a requirement for commercial for that purpose, but it doesn't have to be dominant and at 30% or greater, you're still gonna get some commercial tax, but then you might get that grocery store that everybody wants or something like that. And some other uses there where you don't travel Manchester or Womanic or something to get that or Hebrew for that matter. So I I I think it's I think it's in the town's interest to have that requirement. Just tweak it a little bit, so there's a little flexibility so we don't impact... Adversely impact the size of units as people are figuring out... Developers figure out what size can they provide, what's the market, and what can they provide when they sell them or rent them? Or because this could be a consideration for units for sale as well. So prohibited... Prohibition for that. You know, we don't know which way anybody would necessarily go. The regulations should be open in both ways. So I think think there are advantages to the town to keep it with that requirement.
Maybe it's tweaked a little bit so we don't have to... We or any other applicant doesn't have to reduce the size of units just to meet that little standard. If they're off a little bit, they probably wouldn't be off by much, but they're off a little bit. Gives them a little flexibility so you don't have to, you know, say, gee, we really like whoever the tapkin is, we really like this particular unit style, one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, whatever. And we take... Have to reduce the size of it just because we can't meet that little standard right there. So I think it should have a commercial standard, it's my recommendation. And I... A percentage of it. I think 30% or more is a healthy one for what you... Having read your plant conservation development survey results and and and your original text. I I would keep it, but if you wouldn't mind tweaking it as we recommended, that'd be terrific. And then we we can, we or any other party can proceed. Thank you. I
have a few questions. I don't know if Wayne is gonna present some additional comments and then I can ask later in case he addresses it in the meantime. Oh, should I ask? Go ahead. Yeah. And 26404, the word conceptual was used a lot and or preliminary reviews and things like that. So I'm wondering at what point these things would be firmed up. Is there any... For for that... The actual final application?
Yes. So the regulations have always held that the next step act... Well, we're just in phone and text right now, but once someone comes in with the first application by your regulations, is you have to come in for a zone change coupled with a plant, the master plan. And as part of that master plan, have to have all kinds of... Cover all kinds of basis. What what should the parking be? Traffic. What kind of impact you might have? What... Where are gonna be doing that? You have an expert who figures that out. Stormwater drainage, an overall plan for that, a layout plan. We say conceptual, it's it's it'd be like conceptual a lot like the plans will be an advanced concept. I mean, it's really quite frankly, it's like preliminary engineering plan. And it... And so we're understanding where... What we can do and how we can address stormwater drainage. There'll be there'll be a discussion of that and there'll be some things on the plan and some would be a narrative form. There'll be statements signed by a licensed professional engineer like we have in our office who are in doing that. Know all. So they know all about the storm drainage, they see about the grading, the standards and stuff to meet the standards and so what we'd be doing, so an applicant, what they're doing in terms of housing, what are they proposing? With the master plan, you're gonna know what they're proposing, you're gonna know where the buildings are gonna go, what the units are gonna look like
in advance time zone. And, you know, floor layouts would be conceptual, but you're gonna know rough the size of them. Are you gonna know what amenities they have? Do they have a basement or not? Do they have a garage or not? Two bedroom units, they're gonna be one floor or two floors. Are they gonna be townhouse style or three bedroom units and where they are in the building? They may be in the middle of the building, they may be the end of the building. What kind of mix you guys have? How many percentage of those? How many units you'd have? For example, if you you can go one bedroom, you could go all two bedroom, you go all three bedroom, but if they wanna have it... The regulators really wanna have it mixed to meet this what the town would like to have.
And and then they would specify how many one bedroom units there are and basically their sizes and and what they're doing, what they look like from the outside illustration. And then same thing with a a two bedroom, three bedroom. If they do all three sizes, if they assess the market, does it work? But they would be they'd be... You would know what the project is and you'd know the uses in those and you'd be approving the layout and you'd be approving the standards and things we said that we... Their experts testified to at the hearing. You've approved the area
of it. Some cases, it may be multiple parcels being combined, or they have to meet that standard of frontage and size and all that. You'd be approving the... If they're creating lots within the development, you'd be approving those, whether on a public or private street, you can do both either way. The preference was to go for a private street. That way, especially for side development, not getting into tax specifics, but what we... My clients were doing would be a private road, an extensive private road system that they would be required to... And with any other applicant, if it's private road system, they would be required to design it, build it and maintain it in perpetuity. And so those are the states will be known and that's where you vote on for the zone change and the master plan accompanying it. And then when they come in for the second application, it's a site plan application for those items which are which allowed me as it states in here, a permitted regular permitted uses and those which are permitted by right. And then they... When... But you've already... You would approve those, the master plan, they know what they were. And then the second one, any special permit uses at the second hear... Hearing process application process,
You you would be required to go hearing on that, the special permit uses and and you'd be looking at it again, which... And once Wayne gives his remarks, I wanna comment on on this last item on that because don't you necessarily wanna do it twice. But but you will know it and it... And it... And it... This applicant has to has to indicate in writing that they meet it, and you're gonna have a lot more detail, but they're consistent with what you approved originally. So the traffic reports will be more detailed, architecture will be more detailed, civil engineering, the storm water drainage grading plans, road layout, how you're handling sidewalks, how you're getting access to the buildings, how the parking are, how how you're meeting those standards, both for commercial and for residential. All those details to be known and it's an... It's a it's a fully engineered site plan. And you don't need... Architectural plans are enough so you can make a judgment. We know the exact footprints.
We don't know that everywhere, outlet is inside the building plumbing, that MEP works, electrical plumbing, not all identified precisely because you need that for a building permit. You will have a lot of detail in the first round, but it's not as detailed because you don't pay until you have a goal for, hey, the zone is okay, you can now proceed with the master plan. You don't wanna engineer it because it's a lot of money, a lot of resources. And by that time, they may have already acquired the property and done all kinds of... And in this town, everything's gonna be on septic system and what. So there's... In the case of a large site like what we're proposing, we're not getting into details, there's extensive soils testing with the health department, regional health department, and our engineers out there and excavators, backbills, and stuff for... At multiple locations so so it can support each building in each unit. And that's a lot of money, a lot of effort, a lot of... And, you know, you don't wanna go ahead and do the engineering unless you have the general plan which we call master plan and then the
zone change and you know that you haven't seen, you're gonna afford to go forward. Otherwise, if you don't wanna have an engineer the whole thing and then you say, oh, we really don't like that location. We don't like that layout. We don't like those uses. We don't like to mix and all that stuff and then you're done. You should know exactly what you're getting just to find the details you work out with your professional staff. You'll have a professional engineer review it, want to work with them, town planner review it, some enforcement officer review it. There'll be weapons involvement on the final one as well, but it was commissioned and you can still go and formulate weapons commission ahead of time, but there'll be that as part of the site plan processes required by state law. So there's gonna be a lot of details and you're gonna make decisions on that with the first application. If you say, yeah, we like it or we want you adjusted, that's the time to do it and then we go engineer. So yeah, you're gonna know a lot with the first application.
Okay. Thank you. So basically, the intent is not... Is this this just reads to me as kind of open ended right now. But you're saying that the the process would have to be followed in the standards and the various professionals, we would still...
Yeah. For example... Be able to... And you you might you might very well have the town engineer, consulting town engineer look at it and the planner and stuff, and they'll be... Regarding the master plan, we're gonna have enough grading on the plan or any applicant for that matter and the regulation so that they can determine that it's doable, it's workable, and it goes to locations for buildings and the roadway work and then meet your standards. For example, the next step on this will be some modifications to subdivision regulations because your road standards need to be worked on and we would be required and there's a change that Wayne is making tonight and he'll... I'll leave it to him, but you know, you gotta meet the task standard for the private or public road. And those standards would tell you grades of... Grades and all stuff and this commission approves those. It reviews and approves them and it modifies them. So that is... That's another step, but that will have to be done before anybody proceed with this in my opinion. So, and I'm prepared to do that. I've done that my master's thesis was on subdivision regulations in Connecticut. That was a long time, but yeah we've done it a couple times.
Okay, and one other question on twenty six point six, it looks like several of the components have been crossed out, master traffic study, master parking survey, phasing plan, and the text in red has fewer components?
Yes, because if you hire all these people to do the level of detail that was in the regular... Original regulations, they'd be spending a lot of what they would do after you get a zone change, know, you have an overall layout and stuff. So that's a very expensive and I think extraordinarily expensive for not even know if you have a zone change. That... A lot of that stuff, you you have a plan, the master plan, and all the professionals opine on it and give their statements and give enough information for town staff, consulting engineers, stuff to review it and render their opinion to you. There's enough in that to make a decision for the commission and the professionals you have consulting with and and and and our design team or the Atkins design team will have to attest to that, that it works and what standards they're using and and and how they're gonna approach it. And then you do the final detailed stuff after you have this on change for master plan because you don't know what you have it. You don't want to engineer a whole thing and then find out you don't have a project
to work to them. Okay, I just yeah. It's all open ended. Yeah, you're just interested in the way other people read it and then Wayne has anything to it
with the traffic engineer all these people we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. So to
this point I would say this proposed amendment to the text, this proposed amendment to the regulation kicks up those things in the site plan or special permit application that happens subsequent to the zone change in approval of the master plan. In the site plan or special permit application they have to do the parking, the trace storm water drainage, all that stuff and that comes back to the commission for them to review. Yeah, you have two shots at it. If I said that, yes,
go ahead John. So yeah, just if I can sort of summarize, I think Peter got to the point and sort of move past the point, I'd like to sort of focus on the core point, which is, these regulations, both before the proposed changes and after the proposed changes, require full engineering and multiple reviews of the project by the Commission. And really, the core question is how much of the applicant are you asking to design an engineer upfront before you even decide to land this special zone? And how much are you going to ask them to engineer and design it after you land the zone? And so it's a question of the balance of how much information do you as a Commission need to be confident that this is a good project to apply at a specific location in town, thereby approving a Master Plan to change the zone? And how much information, you know, the details can wait, the costly engineering details can really wait until after you've decided to land the zone and then they proceed to final design. Right now, the master plan requirements that we have in our regulations, the current regulation, front loads that engineering.
The full storm water, the full traffic, the full engineering is required on the front end to so and as Peter was saying, that requires literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in engineering fees before they even find out from the Commission whether they're willing to change the zone to enable the future project. What Peter and his clients are asking for is to backload some of that design or to back off of that. So you'll see a lot of the conceptual stuff added to the Master Plan, you know, the hard engineering details taken out of that section, and then added to the back end the special perimeter site plan section. So they have a chance to spend less money, but still provide sufficient information according to them to allow the commission to make its decision. Do you want a project like this at this location? If you are confident about that, you can proceed and then it will allow them to do the hard engineering to basically deliver upon that initial promise. And that's really the question that they're asking you to do. The balance right now in the regulations is front loaded engineering fees, front loaded engineering design. They're asking for it to be backloaded,
but provide sufficient detail in the Master Plan to give the Commission confidence that yes, the terrain can support it, the grades are sufficient, the site is big enough and there's not too much wetlands to support the kind of density and the kind of uses they're providing. And then if you are confident in that, they're still going to have to spend tens of thousands of dollars certainly to paint a full picture of what they want to do. But then on the back end, that's when they do the hard engineering, they do the grading, they do the fine grading, they do the drainage reports, they design the retention basins and stuff like that. Questions that are really pretty much conceptual or I'm sorry, pretty much technical in nature. You guys aren't necessarily going to be the ones that are going to verify the drainage calcs that this drainage basin is suitable for a 2.5 inches rainstorm, etc. That's pretty much done with engineering staff. So they're basically asking you, do you really need all this hard engineering stuff upfront in order to make the decision to land the zone? They believe they don't. You know, speaking personally, I would tend to agree. I think this would encourage more entrepreneurship and allow developers to conceptualize projects and bring them before the Planning and Zoning Commission before they are 100% engineered, and then you know, put that on the back end. So hopefully that clarifies what they're... And so no details are being left behind. You know, they're not asking to bypass any engineering. They're just asking for it to be put in the second half of the project rather than the first half. And this is specific to the business sub, right, to the business district? This is... This would be for the mixed use the mixed use zone,
which are the only eligible areas are areas that that front Route 6.
Just confirmed. Thank you. Okay. So you're saying I am just... There's my concern was that if we remove x amount of language, then we can't point to it anymore. But you and Wayne seem to be all saying that there's time to to catch and and require all these things under the site plan review even though we take out some of this. Well, it's it's still things are required in
the site plan. Right. That's it or special permit application. Would you confirm that John?
Yes. And so if you'll note the new red language in 2610, site plan or special permit requirements, all of that language is being added. And so the burden of that detail on storm water and parking and that sort of thing is essentially being moved from the master plan process in twenty six point four down to twenty six point one zero. So it's not necessarily, I mean, it's not going away. You're not losing that language. It's just moving places again to the back end of the process.
Okay. Thank you. Because I was just wondering what the point is of removing some of this language
in the first place. Yeah. Just to reduce the upfront costs for an interpreter.
Okay. If I may also add to that, I'm involved lots of different projects, thousands of them since we started business forty years ago and we deal with all aspects of projects and a big component of that is the risk factor for the prospective developer. And also their financial institution that they're dealing with. They're dealing with investors or banks or a combination of both, and it's very detailed today. You just don't go up and get a big chunk of money to go do development, and they will tell you how much you can do at once, you know, or a larger development, you'll be phasing it. In terms of a lot of it is faith that, you know, they won't give you the money for doing all buildings or the whole road or whatever. They will they will they will restrict you on that. And they need to know when they get the initial zone change, the bank would know, investors would know, they would know to whether or we wanna go forward. And if it's a doable project and they look at it, then then then they'll know that they're confident that once you have the master plan and the zone change, that you will get an approval provided you meet the technical proficiencies that are outlined in your regulations and required under accepted engineering practice building code, etcetera. So that has to happen,
but they won't be able to finance going forward the full engineering of this thing if they don't know they have a zone change in the master plan approval ready and you haven't already approved the uses and that's important. Step one, you need to prove... Decide that the proposed uses commercial, industrial, residential, what have you are acceptable to the commission and then you agree to that and then they proceed with that. If you don't have an architect going further unless they know one, two, three bedroom units that have any and all that stuff. You need time to do the sign and it has to be the footprint of the building has to be pretty much exact that are given to the civil engineers before we get going. So we need to know, in fact, we do the master plan, we pretty much need to know real tight on what the footprint of the buildings are going be. Otherwise we can't design them and we have to know approximately where utilities be coming in, whether or not we're going to walk out basements, are we going basements at all, are they going to be walk out basements, kind of amenities is that? They're to garages and where are they? The size of them and all that stuff. So there's a whole bunch of factors how you do parking associated with each building and each use. It's critical and and you're not going to get your financing to go all the way through before you even know you have the zone and before you even know the engineering,
know the layout is okay and satisfactory and the uses are okay. So that gives them the confidence signal if you adopt these regulations basically as we're talking about tonight they know that they can proceed and they know they have a certain investment to get to the level for the master plan of the zone change and then they're going to a more substantial investment to get to second phase before anything can go to construction. Which is subject to you and in this in many cases the Inland Weapons Commission or agency. So a lot of a lot of checks and balances here. Is any part of it gonna be complete before you start that first one? We've already done... I shouldn't talk about mine. There will be... There will be the surveys already done and then we're gonna have... The regulations will be in place. But... Yeah. I'm getting too much into it. Yeah. Specifically might happen
Yeah. Down the road on six. But the question is, I guess at the master plan phase, what will be done? According to these regulations
or any mixed use for the most part will be finalized. I think that's the question. So, we're going to have enough traffic engineering to know it works and really basically what we have to do to make it work. The entrance drive and any other obstacles or points where it may be a little congested, so I had to delete that so there's no problems. We'll know what we have to do to meet the... We're going have to... For the second application of cycling, civil engineers will know if they design it the system for storm water drainage, so we meet the standards for two, five, ten, twenty five and one hundred year storms events or five storm events and those have to meet the standards. Also, the DEP has guidelines for that. We're gonna be meeting those standards and whatever subdivision regulation standards we have to do, and I'll let the town standards. So there's a whole bunch of standards accepted in engineering credit. That will be complete. The second round, but the first round, engineers the are already gonna know what they're gonna be doing to address that. They just don't know the exact size of of... For example, a detention base, water quality base, and they don't know that to meet the water quality standards and the attenuation or detention standards, so you don't have any flooding downstream stuff. You design an engineer's over designed it by deliberately. The standards are such that it's they're over designed, so you don't have problems in the future. So
that type of thing is important and they'll be doing a lot of work upfront. So all the engineers may say or other professionals say, yeah, this is doable. This is what we're going to be doing. And we're committing to that. The applicant is committing to that and the design team. And when they go to the second round, they're going to make sure that all the i's are dotted, all the t's are crossed so it's exact. And then so the engineer plane is, you know, basically ready to go construction. And if if if and when you approve that particular application, Whether it's a relatively modest one or three acres or so or it gets up to 50 or more acres. That is
at your discretion. Both applications.
Thank you. Yeah, I was just gonna make a statement. Also, Leanne, to help clarify our previous planning and zoning regulations did not before ten years ago, didn't even allow mixed use development on the same parcel. And this would be the first time this part of our zoning regs has actually been attempted to be even used, which is why a lot of this has got to be edited and figured out if it's even workable because it's never been applied. And then also the other contrast is like for regular subdivision, we have as right use on a parcel if they're gonna do a subdivision, it's a lot more cut and dry, developer already knows whether or not they are gonna be allowed to put a subdivision. It's not a question of if they are allowed to, this mixed use floating zone needs to pass planning and zoning first in order for anybody to even apply.
So I don't know if it helps condense it even a little bit more. And then anything else from any other questions or comments from the public or any written... Go ahead,
Bob. Yeah. State your name. Bob Hamburger, Shawnee Mill Road. I just have a couple of questions that really... Just to kind of contextualize what we're doing here and just for the sake of continuity, I was on planning and zoning a few years ago. Oh, great. I actually chaired the commission Oh, wow. Six years ago, seven years ago. So put things in contract, we talked about the maximum floor area, 15,000, 20,000 square feet. Can anybody here tell me what the size is for Dollar General? 15,000. 15,000? Okay. I'm good with so many.
Ten, fifteen, nobody knows for sure, but we have a feeling it's it's better. Yeah. Well, to to put that in context, we used to have a NIG a few years long time ago in Andover Plaza once market. It's a lot smaller than Dollar General. So if if the Dollar General is 15,000 square foot, that's actually a decent size right there. So whether you go 15,000, 20,000, it may be splitting hairs as to what would be an adequate size for a supermarket for this community. I would love to see another supermarket. We're kind of in a food desert here. It's it's ten or fifteen minutes in any direction to get into a reasonable supermarket.
Know, I would love to see that happen.
I'm sorry, for context, the Dollar General is about 10,000 square feet. Okay. I've put the assessor's card up on the website here. It's basically 75 by 140. It's just over 10,000 square feet. I love the internet. Yeah.
Going on to the idea of mixed use, residential use. One of the things that's been discussed a lot when I think of of mixed use, you know, part commercial and residential, I always think of the residential being upstairs, know, not on the the Ground Floor. So this comment in here that there should be no residential use if it's located on the ground level of any building, which is located within a 100 feet of the Route 6 Street line. Is this to say that there could be something... I mean, if a 50 foot setback was allowed or something, the residential was upstairs, that would be allowed? Or...
I I think it... No. It's... It can't be within 100 feet of Route 6 where you have a lot of traffic. I think you have 11,000 vehicles a day in... Oh, 60? 16? Wow. Yeah. That's a lot. Wow. So that may help us if we're trying to attract a grocery store. There's not... The population of town is very small. Of course, you have a road that goes right up to center. Columbia, so you have a little bit bigger town, but you get 16,000... Average daily traffic is 16,000 vehicles. It is pretty good, so they don't have to look at it based on just the town of Andover, which would be hard to support a store or even with... In conjunction with some of Columbia coming to the store, but you have so much drive by traffic. A lot of people commuting from Manchester to East Park and stuff like that to and from that and they can pull in and get their groceries for dinner and stuff like that.
They're probably not gonna... He was asking about the the mixed use avenue residents on the 1st Floor.
Versus on the 2nd Floor. I mean, what is the general setback requirement for development along Route 6 now? Is it a 100 feet? Technically it's 50 feet. Yeah, okay. So what I'm asking is... For residential you
know, for residents, it's 50 feet. Okay. And for now, point out that this language is existing language. It's not new language. Uh-huh. Yeah. It sounds a bit changing. We're not changing.
Right. I know. But we're discussing mixed use developed here and so I'm asking within that context, if you think of Main Street in Manchester, that's old fashioned mixed use development. There's retail on the 1st Floor and there's apartments up on the 2nd Floor. This language, this existing language talks about residents on the 1st Floor and needing a 100 foot setback and what I'm asking is if you have the kind of traditional mixed use residential and commercial with residential is up on the 2nd Floor, does that reduce the setback requirement?
If I may respond to that, Downtown Manchester, I've been there many times. The traffic speeds are generally speaking are lot lower and there are people going in and out parking spaces and stuff like that. Are there a lot of benefits to having housing on the 2nd, 3rd Floor level or whatever even closer to the street? Real close. Yeah. Right off the sidewalk, you know? Yeah. And so that's a complete... We're talking about... I don't know what the average speeds are. It's our traffic engineer will tell us that. But I don't know what they're posted there, 45. It's gotta be... It's 45. 45 or 50. I can check my GPS is telling me it was 50 miles an hour to one section as coming here in Route 6. So say 45, 50 miles an hour. And I mean, people, certain percentage of those will be going over that speed limit. Like, a lot of people will be going over that. And the noise factor
from that, including your truck tracker. Lot of trucks on there too. I know that I've been up and down this big for decades. Anyways, the truck traffic and and the car vehicle traffic at 45, fifty, fifty five miles an hour is so much higher than you'll have in the Downtown Manchester except for the guys who are all of a sudden decided to race it on Banana, go through the red lights, etcetera. So other than that, it's just... Don't want residential too close when the when you have the speed and and there's noise.
I would recommend keeping it what you have in your existing regs. Yeah. I'm really... What I'm just asking is, is it allowed? I mean, the language here says one thing. Is this just a hole in the in the regulations? Is it allowed as it... As things stand now? Yeah. I agree with what you're saying. You know, you know, I I don't know if you live around here. I mean, I go walk my truck far away. 01:00 in the morning, and I hear that the 18 wheelers going down a little mile of fluid six. You know, I hear I hear the trucks coming down 87 running the Jake brakes, you know, on three miles. Oh, wow. And your three miles. Yeah. To me, it sounds like what you're suggesting or
want to bring up is that any residential use, whether it's on the bottom floor or the top floor, has to be The existing language may be overly specific in that regard. Okay. I mean, that... That's that's something that, I guess the commission can consider. Okay.
Let me move on to my last item. Don't sit down.
Talking about the comprehensive and preliminary comprehensive stormwater drainage studies, and I like all of the things that are included there. A few years ago, this commission put a lot of work in to nutrient allocation and runoff attenuation in the lake zone because it's a sensitive environmental injury. Well, Route 6 runs right next to the Hop You know, Route... All of Route 6 is the the Hop River Watershed area. And I'm wondering if, you know, knowing that whether we need to pay even more attention to what's draining off, you know, whether it's what we're talking about here is sufficient considering that we're in the watershed area.
Well, are you familiar with the 2024 standards, December 2024 standards that DEP came up with? Probably not. Okay. I don't know those in-depth, but I hire people who do know they're in-depth. Our engineers, Lauren Mello, which may still be on. Yes, she's still on. She's got thirteen and a half years experience dealing with this type of thing. The standards just changed December 24. We have to address that. Water quality is huge. We have to do certain things we never used to have to do before those standards came out in December 24 to address water quality. So there's all kinds of stuff in water quality. And you know, when much of the town was developed years ago, there were no standards at all. There are now sophisticated standards that are very difficult to achieve and there'll be balancing and all kinds of stuff to make it work. And we also have the added element of septic systems that should meet the health care state of Connecticut. And there'll be the local sanitarium perhaps and some other people involved with that at the state level. But but anyways, that that will be addressed in detail and there are all kinds of calculations you have to do and so not only is it reviewed by your consultants for the town, town staff and your consulting town staff, but it also goes to this app... Any sizable application over five acres of development, which my clients is, falls in that, has to apply to DEEP, State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Department to make sure it meets those standards. So... And and then and then if it's over a certain size of... It's 20 acres I think right now of development.
You have to have a third party engineer that the... Our clients... The the applicant would have to hire to review what we did before he goes to state for review. Okay. So...
It. That's I'm I'd gonna do everything you want, but it's a lot better than it ever was before. And broadly
speaking, the new standards and Lauren Mello, engineer can back me up on this. Connecticut DEP, stormwater management standards are very conservative, which is to say, small C conservation of natural resources conservative. They essentially treat every piece of land in Connecticut as if it was in a sensitive watershed. They're pretty rigorous.
Yeah, I can add just a little bit more to that. Moving off the DEEP, there's also the Connecticut Department of Public Health which will review the septic systems. They just installed new specifications for nitrogen removal from the leachate water and we'll have to do extra calculations for that. Just reiterating what everyone else has been saying that there's a lot of boots and suspenders on the... Not only the storm water, but also the wastewater systems we have to comply with.
And as Lauren Nello, she's our director operations at our company and she's a licensed professional engineer with thirteen and a half years experience doing this type of thing.
Wayne, was there any written questions submitted for the this? Okay, thank you. So I had a question. The first part of our public hearing, we were discussing the residential units, one bed... Well, in here we still have efficiency one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom. Did we... We discussed that we're at a consensus of one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, we're gonna leave off the efficiency, but I don't know if that's an accurate memory
or I don't think we're allowed to discuss that yet. Unfortunately, that's Yeah. Good.
No. I mean, if you discussed that during the public hearing, that's still open discussion. You can discuss it, yeah.
Because my concern is that, I mean, the zoning regs say shall, now it's a requirement. So I don't know if that was the intent of our commission and the discussions and or the algorithm.
Yeah. Exactly. Which section are we looking at? In '26. This is... Yeah. The end of twenty six seventeen, I think. I'll I'm gonna put it up on the screen. Okay, great. It's the current regulation, which again, and I'm just bringing up it right now, the current regulation is in black. So the current regulations do require, well, shall consist of a mix of efficiency one bedroom and two bedroom units. So I guess, shall is obviously mandatory. The question I would have is what exactly does mix mean? Does that mean you need to have some representative of all of them? Or can some of the I think that's a worthwhile question. But yeah, all what they're what they're proposing to do is get rid of distributed within the entire proposed development so they could have a a three bedroom section, a two bedroom section that are that are isolated from each other, not integrated.
Right. And they're adding three bedrooms. So yeah, I think you put your finger on the question of the mix. Considering
the efficiency at this point of of changing our regs and then since it's a gap, efficiency wasn't there, but like I said, it was never implemented. None of this was implemented. Zoom never been implemented. That's what I mean.
It doesn't make sense. Yeah. And I think I I mentioned that... I'll find out that at the last hearing and that's it. In Downtown Hartford, I I toured efficiency units which are beautiful and they they're very popular and they get very good rents and single people like the movie.
So I guess mister mister chair is that... Is your concern that you think efficiencies aren't appropriate necessarily?
I'm not sure. I'm I'm wondering if... I think what he's asking is is the the verbiage the the verbiage is not clear enough whether by putting in chow, the the the the the zoning regulation is going to require that you always have a one, a two, a three bedroom. And the... And...
I perfectly think the verbiage clear. Shall mean shall. And it means that that there won't be a mix of efficiency, one bedroom, two bedroom, and now the applicant is proposing adding three bedrooms. What that mix is,
it doesn't... It could be two, three, one. So is it... But is is zero is is zero efficiencies? Is that meeting the mix? You need at least one. You will need at least one of each. Right? You know, the May,
it still allows you to do all those things that we wish,
but you don't have to have them all. But but but think about that. If you take it to a May,
could be all the efficiencies. For all threes. For... And then... Yeah. Just wondering what's
the best... I think Charlotte's appropriate, but... I think it's good the way it is. Just adding it for veterans because you give people the opportunity yeah, to do a mix of everything or,
like, in our case, I know we're not talking about ours as we plan on doing one, two, and three. If if... Right. But you but you intend to do efficiencies as well? No. No. Well, then you should take out the shell because this would... This... I think a a close read of this would require...
A mix means you need some of each. Well well well, we could... I think we just do one little change. A shell consists of a mix of one or more of the either one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom units. So one one or more of the types. So you would get rid of efficiency? Efficiency.
So so well... Not a lot people to be able to build efficiencies.
So I think you... The... I think the question is the the word shall the words shall consist of a mix. If you use that phrasing, you need to have at least one of each type.
Right. Okay. I don't I don't read it that way. I didn't read legally.
That's all I'm doing. Yeah. I'm just saying when I when I read it, I read it as there's gonna be a mistake. So it makes it gonna be one one bedroom and 33
bedrooms. So so given that, if that's interpretation which is different from mine, and that's fine, both professionals. I I I say what we do is we eliminate the term efficiency because that is highly unlikely you're get them in this town for now. And you can always add it in later, but but every development that comes in with residential units, they have to be one, two, and three bedroom. And if you ever wanted to add in efficiencies later, they seem to be in market form and desire for them, you can always add it in. But there's not a lot of difference necessarily between efficiency
and the one bedroom. Yeah. I know. Okay. I mean, I I could... I I I thought it was a one bedroom where I'm working the efficiency in Hartford and the
the the pen. Yeah. Well, let let me ask that. Okay. Go ahead. Because you're you're knowledgeable in developments and stuff like that. What is the practical difference between an efficiency and a one bedroom? Is it just a wall? It's just space but
they could be the same size. So, what is it? Well, it's not be considered deficiency.
Yes. I think it's a it's a bedroom door essentially. Well, actually actually,
what I went into was a studio in Hartford. RMS built it. Is it an efficiency or? Yes. So so the efficiency unit there was they had three solid walls and then partial walls on either side and then and then pocket doors. So when somebody went to bed, if there are two people in the unit, somebody went to bed, they could close the pocket doors and that's it and became a a one bedroom unit. And they were they were efficiency yields by definition. So you can have one, it's not a lot difference between that and a one bedroom. You can also have some efficiencies or there is no bedroom
per se, no separate walls, and it's just you pull out the bed from the wall or whatever, pull it down, and you and you have your your bed to sleep in at night. That's the old style. They're not always like that anymore. I'm just I'm just trying to get it. In the city when they're from your Exactly. Perspective.
You can have an 800 square foot studio slash efficiency Yeah. And an 800 square foot one bedroom. Absolutely.
But typically, you don't. Typically, you're gonna have a... Your efficiency is gonna be much smaller. Yes. So I think just going back for me, for my own clarification to the chair's first question shall I also read it and interpret it as that requires at least one of each of the listed style units. So maybe the amendment could be. I would if I'm the enforcement officer if I see a plan that says shall. Because then that will keep guys also. But
if you want based on the discussion we've had informally before we applied and subsequent to that, you want us to do more than just two bedroom units. Correct. So you want to have more than one style, right? It's either one bedroom, two bedroom or two bedroom, or whatever. You wanted to have that. So I think...
I'm not arguing either way as far as Okay. The efficiency is in there. The commission can strike it if if if... Strike that word and if it choose it, I'm okay with that. I I I...
My recommendation, I'm biased on this, but I would strike the term efficiency as you're interpreting it that we have to have all representative of all sides. So I I would I would do that for now until until you know that the market and once once the first significant project is built and if there ever is another one, then you can look at that and say, gee, you know, we think there's such demand for one bedroom and there's some a lot of single adults or whatever and they'd like to have an efficiency then we do it but there's not a lot of difference just a little bit smaller.
And this only applies to mixed use floating zone. Right. Yeah.
That's a good point. So if we took out shell it wouldn't preclude efficiency, Right? Somebody would just have to bring it up. No. You'd have to take out the word efficiency.
Leave... I I I strongly suggest you leave the word shell in there, include
one bedroom, two bedroom, three That's a thing to say. Yeah. So Yeah. All the around. So we're still beginning the Take out. One two and three bedroom. And if somebody really wanted for an efficiency They just have a little of efficiency. They... Okay. Because I don't see any They just wouldn't be required to they want it till they can just make it part of the application. I don't know why you can't consider the word. It's just scary when you actually have whatever you want. I guess that's just the national
store in a sense. It's tomato, right? Yeah, mean, once you have the word mix in there, I choose my mix. Right, and that's why I brought this up because
an applicant who at the other extreme proposed development with 30 efficiencies, one-three bedroom needs qualified for the Well, that's not how to feel legal. Not
not on that basis. But... Well, not on that basis, but later on down the road. So I would still like the opportunity to discuss what Wayne is suggesting to you going forward. Yeah. If I may, it was very courteous. I'm just bringing you up.
Okay. So you have that in front of you probably,
but do they not? Yes. Okay, so I would just like to comment a couple of those things if I may because it'll be before you for... I
have no problem with you commenting. Can discuss it and then you might win. I agree
with what he's saying with respect to the pavement with and it's gonna be the design of the road is in your subdivision regulations. There's gonna be a standard you're be addressing next application and I... Before we can even apply for the zoning and master plan or anyone else. So I think that would be done because you have authority of a subdivision regulations and that'll be done then. So the standard for runway scratch that language as he suggests the words with a pavement with 24 feet or greater to meet or exceed town standards. Just put it as he said that new public private roads constructed for vehicular traffic should be constructed to roadway standards in the handover subdivision regulations as amended from time to time and I'm sure John probably agrees with me that's that's a good way to handle it. I would agree with that. Next thing down is pedestrian walkways. It seems to be that his suggestion that meets American ADA standards where necessary. I think that's... That works based on our prior discussions. And then the final thing is he's suggesting that the uses when you have like for example, multi family use with commercial mixed use that you have... That it become in... In the regulations today which is what we thought they were gonna be, says that if the under... If the use already in the regulations permitted as a site plan approval, that is permitted by right, you just have to approve the thing. Is the particular land uses commercial, retail, etc. And the residential. You approve that with the first one, but to require that is not a special permit use right now. It doesn't have to go to that
And then all of a sudden you have in the second round after you get to master plan and your zone change, and you've already concluded the commission that you like the mix and you like the number of units and the style of all this stuff. And then the regulations read out of the special permits if you look at those, and I have it handy here. Section 23.4 k appropriateness of use all of sudden comes forward again in the special permit. Proposed use shall be appropriate for the designated location with regard to the site intensity of the proposed use and to it in its relation to existing land uses, etcetera. So so I would suggest unnecessary to make it special permit use when it isn't today. I think there's greater risk for my clients if you're going to take another look at the uses when you've already made that decision with a master plan and assumption. So I think it's, it doesn't seem it is also a greater risk for the applicant.
Can I get Wayne, I'm sorry Wayne, can you explain? I think I was trying to read this backwards. Can you explain what the what the the logic is? You
I just go through them one by one and when I get to it, was planning. Okay. Alright. And I... Then I'm happy to hear the the opponent agree with at least two of them, what I'm suggesting. So the first one, section twenty six eleven point three, as was explained, I would... I'm suggesting that the commission consider just adding a new section to the bulk regulations for multi use floating zones to address roadways. That's it. And and make them comply with subdivision standards. I think that's just a clean way of going and it actually has some standards that can be... It has standards that can be applied to a public or private roadway, new public private roadway
that's constructed. And in fact, the subdivision regulations, if this were conventional subdivision for the road, it would have to be built to those standards, whether it was also. So I'm happy to hear that. I in section 26.18 because we have kind of a roundabout round and round discussion about sidewalks. I'm proposing to kind of separate that and into what is acceptable along a road and then sidewalks that are found around buildings and whatnot. So I'm just saying I'm not calling it a sidewalk. I'm calling it a temporary walk away along a new road,
the four feet in the front, which I believe the proponent has already said that's that's a good way to go. And then simply say that the sidewalks that lead from the road to the building or around the building have to meet ADA standards which they would anyway. Yes. And now on to the 2,611.2. I take what the applicant said and I understand it. I want the commission to understand why I would like them to consider these words. The original multi use floating zone was conceived as retail underground floor resident and retail whatever retail business a business on the ground floor and above it residential. The way I saw the original regulations it considered it as possibly one building located somewhere around six. This turns that all around and is now providing for separate business, providing for residential to be in separate buildings from the business. I
think that in that case, now you are talking about multiple buildings on a plot, more than one, and I am just thinking that the Commission should consider those applications under the special permit process rather than the site plan process. The proponent disagrees with me. John may weigh in.
Okay. I think I understand. I had to read this about four or five times. I think your concern is because the new regulations would allow commercial buildings to be separate from residential components of the project. Your concern would be if sometime in the future, even though there's a broad allowable uses in the Mixed Use District, the concern would be converting a solely residential building, let's say cluster of townhouses, from residential to some commercial use that would be otherwise allowed by site plan in the mixed use district. So converting residential to non residential in the context of the mixed use. That too. Yeah. Is that what you're talking about?
No. What I'm talking about is simply separating in in a mixed use floating in a mixed use floating zone proposal, separation of the resident... Residential and the commercial. At some point, if I could be recognized on that. No. So this commission... And and then and just let me say, the the site plan process does allow for the commission to hold a public hearing, but it doesn't necessarily need to. And another reason I'm adding these words in in... If large development was proposed, do we want to have public input on that? Do you want to have public input on that?
That's all. My expectation if I run the Plains zoning commission is that if you have an exceptionally large community development compared to what we're used to in the town in particular, there's public interest that alone says, hey you know what, As a commission, we're gonna decide to bring public hearing. And I think you would. I don't think you need to require that. And I don't think you need to require a special exception because the decision you make about whether or not you could separate residential from commercial is gonna be at the time of the zone change in the master plan. It's gonna be locked in. There won't be a decision
six months later or five months later or whatever when the engineered plan comes in because you've already made that decision. So there's no point making a special permit use when you've already approved it in the first round. You just don't have the fine tune engineered and artificial details and traffic report that you that you would need and required to approve the whole project. So I recommend not doing that. It puts... I think it puts the applicant on the greater risk because you will then have the opportunity to review the uses again because it's right in the regulations with special permits. I think you've already will have done that and why they're already going to spend a lot of time and energy on working with lenders and investors too to get this project done. And then also, there may be a doubt that those original usually approved in the master plan and requires your regulation require consistency with master plan. Maybe you might... You may say, no, we don't want that particular use.
And all of sudden you don't have... And they've already spent all this money and time and effort and they shouldn't... Should not have started the project from the beginning if that's the case. Okay. I would say that that we... You guys have already said that nobody's used the the mixed use floaters on. Nobody's done any application for you. Right? So there's an idea of what I believe you said there's an idea of what it should be. Nobody knows what it should be because no one's ever done it yet. This is... This may be what it should be. I I...
Okay. Alright. So I I I read it three more times now. And I... So I think I understood a little bit better, Wayne. So you're you're suggesting... So on the... You're talking about on the front end, if there are separate buildings for exclusively residential and non residential, that would be a special permit process. If it was if it was a if it was a building or buildings that were all mixed use residential over business, that would just be site plan. Correct. That's what I'm trying to get in Okay.
I suppose I get that. In truth, don't necessarily agree because I tend to agree with Peter that the site or the master plan would be the time in which all of that conceptually would be laid out. Like here are a total of 15 buildings, 13 of them are going to be townhouse complexes, two of them are going to be commercial. That is known up front. And that is subject to a public hearing already per proposal. I would suggest that if something is going to substantially change in terms of building mix, building usage between the approval of the Master Plan and the submission of the final site plan, that change would, I would say, warrant a new Special Permit process, a new Public Hearing process, because essentially the concept of the Master Plan is changing. But if they come forward initially saying, Here are the 15 buildings. We haven't done the final architecture on it yet, but here are the 15 buildings. Two commercial, 13 are residential. That is already subject to the public hearing process.
Okay. I I I said what I wanted to say. In in my view,
the regulations are such that if the... This... You cannot apply for the site plan application, the second round, if if it's not in conformity with the master plan that was approved by the commission. Okay. So therefore, in my opinion, John, if we would we would need to go back to the commission for modification to the master plan. Right. Right. Same thing. Yes. Before... Yeah. Which requires public hearing and then you go... Then you do. So if they say the market pay... Market study says, we're gonna make a change until we get approved as a master plan. We can't go we can't go forward and surprise you with that or whatever. I agree. It has to go public hearing. So you wrote... We revert back to the master plan stage. You go back there to ask for modification, the commission agrees with that, then you go engineer the whole thing for the site plan. So that will cover the public hearings for those changes in my opinion.
Yeah. I... I'm not... Yeah. I'm not interested in cutting out the ability of the public to to review and comment. I... I do think, Wayne, that is that
public hearing process already in place. I put that in there for discussion purposes. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. That's it.
That's all I have to say. I like that you did. Thank you.
Yeah. That's good. I'd like to clarify something on the. And this doesn't have to do specifically with your project, but I know that you've you've had some ideas for your project that doesn't mean to be relevant to you. You can pick up a little bit, Jay. I'm sorry. Have an archive here. Oh, sure. Yeah. So sidewalks, right? So Annandaleburg, we have a public safety problem with our sidewalks. And we have a very low walkability rating in our town around our lake, for example, and not just our lake district, but around our lake. We have a lot of people that are trying to walk, they're trying to walk their dogs, they're trying to get around from house to house. It's very dangerous. They have all different kinds of ways of trying to be visible, but and that's the older they are, the more visible they are because they're wearing vests and flashlights and all kinds of blinkers. Kids aren't like that. Know, the kids are wearing black and they're walking around at night. And luckily we have not had an issue with people getting hit that I know of. But I would hate to see, since we're talking about sidewalks and talking about these changes, I'd hate to see in a business use district that we have a situation like that. And I know that this particular project is advocating for sidewalks,
but I would like us to consider having physical actual sidewalks in mixed use development and at least improve those situations for pedestrian traffic, especially that people that might be coming from the residential area into the business, if it's a grocery store, they may be coming back and forth with carts. I would like us to really consider adding to this text that the need for physical sidewalk, not just painted partition in a room.
I I would just say first adding it to the text amendment, maybe it's something that's in the discussions for... To get approved versus forcing. You know what I mean? Because if it's not... Because once once you do a sidewalk, now you got all these other regulations that you have to adhere to in certain slopes and grades. It's just...
Yeah. Yeah. What what what we're proposing without getting specific to what our design is, what we thought had thrown out to the commission was the idea that having it alongside the roadway and in our case we're talking about more than the four feet, it would it would accommodate multiple parties walking side by side. It would be, you know, a concrete sidewalk adjacent to a street. When the street grades, this is Andover, just some good grades are on here and the subject property we're talking about, without any specifics, have significant grades. To put a concrete sidewalk next to it as opposed to whatever the grade of the street is right next to it, there's a huge cost factor. I have clients who build sidewalks for a living, they're pretty big and they do a really good job. Very expensive per square foot to do that. We can provide a side... An applicant, excuse me, can provide a sidewalk, a substantial sidewalk, pedestrian way adjacent to the roadway. It's even wider and it's substantially less cost. So it's done when they built the roadway, it's done. They also would have sidewalks connecting that with
residential units, with the business, there'll be separate sidewalk along internally within the commercial area, there'll be sidewalks you can get from that sidewalk to and crossings etc into into the commercial walk around safely. So that... That's one area, but along the street network to require a separate detached offset concrete sidewalk is really big money and and a lot more money as a... And it also is... You have to remobilize. You know, you you do the ash... Let's say an asphalt street of 30 feet wide and then you have six feet of that. You can do that a lot less and you do it one fell swoop to mobilize and they have it done as opposed to have to bring back a concrete sidewalk vendor like my my client is a good guy,
but he's very expensive and they have to remobilize and they have to set up forms and all that other stuff. It's very expensive per square foot to do sidewalks, normal sidewalks separate from it as opposed to doing it the way we had suggested was one alternative to do it and you allow for that and then we can do it and say these guys are already gonna be spending a fortune and it's gonna be difficult to get lenders so
let's make it possible for them to do that. And I think I mean you know you... The point that you made is incredibly important to say yes, but I think there's a way to achieve that objective. And so rather than just you know stipulate that to the sidewalk solution, it's it's it's more so, you know, how do we make sure that the areas that were designated as sidewalks are safe for people to walk and so vehicles that are driving by are not in that. And in some cases, you know, the markers that we might be able to use to designate the walkway could even, you know, one could argue that at night if it's for example, you know, high reflective or there's reflective markers could even be better at achieving that objective as opposed to concrete sidewalks, right? Yeah, don't
think that I necessarily need to stipulate a concrete sidewalk like you'd see in Manchester. Absolutely. But I think that there, it could be cost efficient but safer solution. Absolutely. And just to peak the deadline.
Think that what Particularly, and I'm thinking about the wintertime when
the differences get a little blurrier and people are in a big step going, people are more out into the world.
Trying to think ahead. That's an infrastructural standard. It's in your subdivision regulations because you're gonna allow for... If you adopt the private roads and you'll address sidewalks in that for subdivision, whether it's public street or private one and you have that standard in there and that's the time to where you have the final say and what the standard is and then we have to conform to that. So I think without getting too deep into this, I think you're going to have that reviewed when you do the subdivision regulations because we can't do this project. We can't, for example, we can't do this project unless you change the subdivision regulations to allow for private street. And as part of that, you may address sidewalk. Are they required or not? And if so under what standards? I think we can address that more comprehensively at that time instead of it being very important for this because you're gonna be tackling it when you go to subdivision regulation amendment. Yeah. I'm
just putting the file. No. No. No. I I like that discussion. Don't wanna... It's healthy. Yeah. So may I ask may I ask the applicant if I've I've put up Wayne's language on the screen regarding sidewalks and pedestrian ways. He's suggesting language be added or substituted. Pedestrian walkways a minimum of four feet wide in four feet in width shall be provided along one side of newly constructed roadways. Building approaches and sidewalk shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements where required by Americans with Disabilities Act. Is that language acceptable to the applicant? Yes.
Yeah. That works. Jay, is that language acceptable to you? I think it came up with good recommendation. Yes. Jay, does that answer your concern?
Did Jay want some sort of... I'm I'm not... The original the original language just said there was gonna be a painted line, and, actually, I didn't... I actually didn't include that. I think what Jay is looking for is Painted line. To enhance the safety of this pedestrian walkway. And the proponents here have suggested reflective markers
might be a solution if I heard correctly. Oh, I see. Yeah. So the the... Their their language is here. What what what... I just have to make sure
you put it in the amendments that we would be probably not be able to do this if that... If if we had to do go with the curbing and and a concrete I'm
just... So this doesn't say this doesn't say... Hold on. So just just to be clear. Just to be clear. The proposed the proposed language Reflects, you know, sides of such street pavement may be marked to accommodate pedestrians. So that's proposed. What Wayne is suggesting about replacing that with this language that is highlighted. Pedestrian walkways and minimum four feet wide and width shall be provided along one side of newly constructed roadways. And so I'm asking, I guess, Peter and the other applicants, is this language acceptable?
Yes, but I was addressing what Jay was concerned about.
Okay, well I... So let me let me get... And so so Jay, this language would replace the language about pavement markings.
Yeah, yeah, I mean I think they're both equal in my eyes. Well, another thing to be a badge between one or the other. You can do it just, you can reference the subdivision regulations because it'll be addressed in that. Know, shall be provided along one side of newly constructed roadways in accordance with the subdivision regulations and then we're going to be addressing that in greater depth at that time instead of having to address that now and we're looking at the overall package.
If if you're if we're going to get another shot in. Yeah, we can probably have a report. Will.
I think I believe that. I know. We're okay. I... I'm I'm not that I'm not that intimately familiar with the subdivision regulations and what they say about roads. It's been a while since we've dealt with subdivisions. I haven't heard of that. We haven't had a subdivision. We haven't used one of those either. So
I'm just I'm just thinking about the... Our our future development that this might not be the only subdivision. Hopefully, then we might have another one in the future. Right. And if the subdivisions do not
subdivision regulations do not address sidewalks per se, they probably should.
But we'll still have a chance to go back and make that change. The commission...
If the proponents here aren't going to bring it up the commission can certainly bring it up.
Yeah that's fine. Yeah I think that we can find a balance that doesn't you know so until the project or you know yeah everybody wants safe for the kids and other people. Any pedestrians. Absolutely. So for
the commission's perspective, I'm okay with just referencing subdivision regulations as far as any sidewalks are concerned. How does that happen? Yeah. Is
there any disadvantage in the applicant's line such as your application if we left section 8.2 the maximum floor size the same as it is now and put the authority to go larger in the mixed use floating zone section?
The problem is we're advancing this very quickly. Yep. Or an applicant, any applicant might be very quickly to get to the stage of just a master plan and stuff. They're tying up properties and all that stuff. There's all kinds of factors here that are not usually your purview. So they're making a lot of commitments as we go along. They're already writing lots of checks. So I I I think it'd be... I think if we keep it the way we're proposing it and I think your talent planner is indicating he's okay with that, then we know where we're going with it and we don't have to make all kinds of other changes, articulate all that stuff. I think I think it's so it's not in... If you approve this, here's a standard. If we meet that,
no no greater than 70% of their residential, for example, then then we're good to go. And it's a relatively modest change from the 66%.
My point is going from 15,000 to 25,000. Oh that, yes. If we, because you know we've got a lot of small lots in the business zone they're not very big and the feedback has been that we're not looking for the big box stores but if somebody has a big lot of land that's way bigger than the average business life and starting come with a master of land do we put the authority to go bigger consistent with the size of a lot that you're proposing or something and do that in the mixed use loading zone as opposed to giving everybody that authority to put up 25,000 square foot business. What's
the downside to you? Well you know if you're going to do a 25,000 square foot business, have to, we say up to, particularly youths, we say up to, we're changing, we're suggesting for change from 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, but if we want to go over 20,000 square feet, the Commission has to take special actions in our thought.
That what it says in section 8.2? This is only a place which the mix used floating zone. Not 8.2, that's valid for anybody in the business or commercial building. What section are you in business, sir? 8.2.
Yes. And that's referencing the entire maximum building size of 25,000 square feet, maximum building. And the other section we're referring to talks about the actual tenant size in there. Yep. And right now it's
I think it's 15,000 square feet or we're suggesting... So there's right, so there's two there's two locations and I think Jed is correctly pointing out that the first section allows something that is then subsequently narrowed in the mixed use floating zone, but is not subsequently narrowed for standard commercial. So if you look at the screen right now, I'm on subsection E. This is maximum floor area, again, in the mixed use floating zone. Going from 20,000 square feet is the cap. However, it allows the Commission to go up to 25. So there is a special provision to go up to 25. However, the allowance that you put way back in Section 8.2 allows, you know, basically allows the bypass of that and goes up to 25,000 or 65,000 in aggregate throughout the business zone for any commercial building.
I think Jed brought something up. He's he's on to something here. Couldn't you just eliminate any changes to 8.2 and drop all that language into twenty six eleven three f? Yeah. Because we've got the authority to do an awful lot of things when we approve the master plan. Right. Because because
new new rules, the the rules that apply just to mixed use floating zone are brand new. And so, you know, can kind of bypass the the standard commercial stuff anyway.
Yeah. Right. But they are... I see what you're saying. That shouldn't be your No. Not. Drop it. Just drop it. Yeah. Drop the... We made
two and just... It works including the 65,000 square feet. You're looking at 8.2 right now?
Yeah. Think what Jen is saying is why not just leave 8.2 the way it is and drop the words you want in 8.2 into... 26113 f.
So it's in one location in the regs, but if you change it the way we're suggesting, you have it in two different sections applicable to it, it still it works.
Right. The the... I think the concern... The concern of the commission is that they do not want it in the general business zone. They don't wanna change it for the general business zone. They just want to change it for mixed use. Yeah. Oh. Yeah. Okay.
So we can take it right there, maximum floor area. Right. And we can say something that, you know, add on to with the existing land and say, however, in the mixed use floating zone, we will allow up to 25,000 square feet of, you
know, grocery tier area. This is I think I think what I think the point is, you don't need to touch this at all. Because this is just the Section eight just refers to the business zone. Right. And these are regulations that apply to business proposals in the business zone. What you're proposing to change is the the the building square footage in the mixed use overlay zone, which has a different set of standards. So there's no reason to touch this section of the the business zone regulations.
Okay. We'll just black that out. We'll just... 8.2... Does that... Jed, does that reflect what we're talking about?... Remains the same. I think that... You know, take it off hard. I don't wanna be deliberating the change, but no downside to the applicant.
Yeah. Well, now is the time when we can get off to the applicant about their proposal. Because what other section does it cover? It's not Yeah. It's not a deliberation. When he fix their position, we're gonna let him all
over the model. So let's just take a quick look at e now, twenty six eleven three, the bottom of it, and they draft. So to make sure we're doing what we wanna do. So we're saying... Oh, yeah. Eat. Yeah. So
this addresses... The first part only addresses the tenancy within the building. So it says, a tenant cannot be right now, cannot be greater than 15,000 square feet for a tenant, which affects us if we have a grocery store, it's a little bit bigger than that. It It doesn't tell you the maximum size of a commercial buildable. It doesn't. It just says tenancy. Okay. It doesn't address it so I I... You'd have to add Yeah let's add it there. Move it from here. Just move it over. Yeah. Move it over. Okay move 8.2. Because
we're doing and again mixed use that we're talking that we've heard some discussion about is different than what our initial envision it was. If somebody were to come in with a big chunk of property we might want to allow them to have more than the standard built business lots we have in the room. Okay. That doesn't... Yeah. That works. So that would go perhaps
over here. And what's the approximate square footage of your average
self storage unit? Three... Well, the regulations say 300 square feet is max. No. No. No. The... Oh, average? The building? Oh, the building? They're under they're under 25,000. 25,000 max. Well, our buildings will be under 12,000.
We have 40,000 total. But there'll be there'll be 20 of them in one I'm just asking because you're more knowledgeable in the sizes of these buildings than I am. So the 10,000 to 20,000 square foot would be like a
sweet spot for us. But John if you could look up what's the square footage of the Andover self storage that we currently have? Is that on that? Can
you give me the address or location what is it called? Andover Self Storage?
Yeah. I know how that's gonna be helpful. Is that the typical like low profile units? So it's seven feet or eight feet? Yeah. There could be consideration by an applicant of doing something a little bit higher ceilings you get more in and stuff like that. They can accommodate ladders and stuff like that. Some storage racking system and stuff. But a lot of them are really only seven feet high and some tough to get stuff in there. But there are some times where we find out that in the past we haven't complied with our regulations and nobody knows why.
Okay. Was just curious maybe this is one of these cases.
The self storage let me put this up. Jed make sure I'm looking at the right thing. Everyone's excited. This is 6,300 square feet. It looks like each each unit is between 5,000 and... Well, there's several smaller ones. The larger ones are 6,300. There's a total of... How many buildings? One.
I think we've got about we got six buildings here. So the total is probably around eighteen twenty thousand. Okay. Thanks.
Hey, John, I just sent you a Word document of those motions so you can edit it directly. Yeah, thanks for three buildings on there. Okay. So
did you hear my clients indicating that if for self storage is very expensive to put in fire suppression system. So if you go over the 12,000 square feet or more, you have to put one in automatically and that really increased the cost tremendously for just self storage. So it will be less than that.
I'm not asking about your... Yeah. Okay. No. No. I'm talking... Trying to picture in my head. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. It's... But no... Nobody's gonna do it unless they wanna have fire suppression system for for dry storage. And that's that's very expensive. That'll probably cost prohibitive. It's just... More business. Yeah. Yeah. So so we're not gonna do it. Nobody else do it. Okay.
Right now. Okay. Regular business, the max is built to be found. Unless
you get into... I've done these before. The climate is controlled, self storage, humidification, air conditioning, heating, you can store your your sweaters in there and all that stuff and that's really expensive per square foot and the people are paying through the nose for that. Yes. And they're popular But you gotta be willing to pay a lot more than just raise your socks to your knees. So I don't see that. Especially here. They have all over the place. Just seen them. I'm selling it over.
Well, I'm supposed to get the battery. Yeah. So this is the the the maximum square footage thing for commercials. Yeah. I mean, versus mixed use. What section is that? It's two.
Just for clarification. Yeah. So you the applicant would be requesting the maximum area from the business zone the 8.2 maximum floor area with the amendment the opposed amendments be applied to the mixed use floating zone. So the mixed use floating zone would allow the larger buildings. So now that you have your business zone, correct?
Yeah, you're doing the regular building something alone and we have to replicate that but we love to go a little bit bigger.
So this language, if might Mr. Chair and Peter, so the proposed amendments that we're talking about would be, again, to eliminate changes to 8.2. Would not be, the language that was proposed would be transferred down to the mixed use. So subsection e in the maximum floor area section, this language would reflect here in subsection e, no one building shall exceed 25,000 square feet, etc. We're only applying that
Yes. Not in the regular one. I wanted to clarify, appreciate that. Yes. Thank you. Very helpful. Yes, we are. Okay. I have another question. Go ahead Bob.
A lot of discussion here about the maximum building sites that's all that out of here. Why do we have a maximum building site? What public interest is being served from limiting the buildings? From the rural character of Andover and the surveys
where a good amount of population is not for big box stores. Not that our infrastructure would even support that in the first place, but in case it did, then that would be allowed all onward six. If we increase the size of the... So as long as they met the minimum, the maximum 60% lot coverage, you could put a 65,000 square foot box or on a whatever three acre lot, 106. And then you could do another one and another one. And that's what the surveys have said, we're not really into that as far as the rural character. But in the mixed use floating zone, we're trying to encourage the residential and commercial development at the same time, according to our plan of conservation development. So we're
changing the allowances a little bit here and there. And we have a fair amount written about maintaining the rural character, architectural center and shadow lines. That's
a good question Bob, thank you. Okay. Yeah, that's the way I'm interpreting our plant conservation development also, thank you. Because the reality is if we change too much and allow all kinds of things without special permits and or public hearings and or site plan review, then at some point the entire quarter could be overdeveloped. And that's why we're trying to balance conservation and development, you know, like the whole purpose of planning. Don't wanna be a big city. Well, no, not yet. Okay, where were we? Are we?
All right, any other questions, last chance? Going once, going twice? Sold. Closing the public hearing, oh wait, hang on, let me wait one second. Do we need to continue the public hearing with these amendments or is...
You haven't made any amendments yet. You've just talked about potential changes.
Potential changes. We can close the public hearing. Can close the public hearing, correct.
You want a motion in a second please. Yes, please.
Second. I made the motion, did. But you made it in? I guess I did.
Good. Can you get a second? We got a second. Okay.
Let's vote. No more discussion? No. You train me. Okay. Favor All of the amended... The proposed amendments to our zoning regulations for mixed use development of twenty six-2ZC. All in favor? I just closed the public hearing. Okay, I'm sorry. All
in favor of closing the public hearing. Sorry, I apologize. You can do it, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure I knew if we were voting What we're voting on.
Yeah. You're only voting on the public hearing. Public hearing. We have not entered. We haven't started the meeting. Haven't started the meeting. Okay. All in favor of closing the public hearing. Aye. Motion passes five zero zero. Before you continue with the,
let me just something that Robert's Rules of Orders allowed for routine administrative things like closing from you. You don't need to ask for a motion in a second. You can simply say, I wanna do this through unanimous consent. If there is no objection, so move. Let's say, can you save thirty seconds? Thanks, Bob. Which we just added back.
Go ahead, let's take a brief while I'm ready. Yes. A little warmer here. Mr.
Chair, do want me to pause the recording? How long are you taking a break? We're taking a break. Okay, I'm pausing the recording. Alright.
I'll have to order the special meeting... Planning and zoning special meeting March of September twenty ninth. Roll call, Jake Amens, Patrick Dougherty, Scott Persson, Jed Larson, Leanne Hutchinson. Next item of business, old business, considerate of an application p z c twenty six dash two z c. Okay, Scott.
Go ahead, Dan. If I might. Okay, so I want to I'm going put something up on the screen that sort of summarizes what I believe is the consensus proposed changes to what was presented this evening. And again, the present presentation this evening is the revised proposal dated 09/24/2026. And so I believe and hopefully, Wayne and Peter, hopefully you're following this as closely as I am, is what I'm going to propose, that there would be, if the Commission finds this favorable, that they consider a motion to approve the proposed regulations as drafted and revised to 09/24/2026 with the following changes. First, proposed changes to Section 8.3 are eliminated from consideration. Second, section twenty six point one one point three in proposed subsection D2 strike Hold on. Thought you said section 8.3. It is 8.2. 8.2.
Oh, I'm sorry. Is it 8.2? Sorry. Shoot. Thank you. 8.2. Thank you. 8.2 are eliminated. Thank you. One moment.
I'm sorry? What was the final resolution? What did you just say about 8.2?
So, had misstated the section number. I was talking about this oh, I don't have my you can't see this. Yeah, I had the maximum floor area section in the commercial in the business zone. I had miss cited it as 8.3, but it's actually 8.2. We're going leave it the way it was. So that was so so they're they're they're not proposing to change. We would we would not change anything about 8.2.
We revert back to the original language or would be they wouldn't be changed. So it would just say written. Currently exists in our in other words. Okay, thank you. Okay,
all right. So thank you. Second change, section 26.113 in proposed subsection D2 strike the words with a pavement width of 24 feet or greater built to meet or exceed town standards. We'll address that later. Section four or I'm sorry, change three reads Section 26.113 e shall replace all of the language following no building constructed after the effective date of the approval of a mixed use floating zone with the following language, and this is the language taken from 8.2 that they had discussed. So it would read, no building constructed after the effective date of the approval of the mixed use floating zone shall exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area, and building or no group of stores or shopping center commercial buildings shall exceed 65,000
square feet of gross interior floor area. And the the remained... Original remainder of that subsection will be eliminated. What about the 65,000 square foot? We're saying the aggregate right here.
You mean that a little bit bigger, John? Perfect. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Are we okay with that? Yeah. Thank you.
The fourth change, add a new section 26.20 roadways, language stating, our new public or private roadways constructed for vehicular traffic shall be constructed to the roadway standards in the Andover subdivision regulations as may be amended from time to time. And the fifth change in twenty six point one eight, striking all proposed language and substituting the following: Pedestrian walkways a minimum of four feet in width shall be provided along one side of newly constructed roadways. Building approaches and sidewalks shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements where required by Americans with Disabilities Act.
I thought the discussion landed using the same words for roadways as for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways that they'd be constructed to. Okay. Oh, you're right. You're right.
Subdivision regulations, Basically, exact same words. Public walkways and sidewalks constructed to
Alright. So here we go. So that... This would now say pedestrian walkways, comma, constructed to the standards of the Andover subdivision regulations as may... As amended from time to time shall be provided along one side, etcetera. Does that fit better, Wayne?
I guess that we could probably eliminate the last line. I I would think because that's really that's really an ADA thing anyway. It's not a... I don't know. I I would defer to people who know more about it. Yeah. That's fine. I mean, ADA is gonna ADA, so I I have no problem with that. So the ADA regulations are already baked into the
ADA is above us. That's Yeah. So if you're if you're building if you're building a public walkway, ADA, you know, would would comply where... Or would would apply where it applies. So
I would just Yeah. I would just add public walkways and sidewalks or something like that. Put the word sidewalk in there.
Pedestrian walkways. Walkways and sidewalks? Where where do you wanna... Where are you talking this? Wait.
Right there. And sidewalks. Right where your cursor is. Shall be constructed.
Yeah. Could... Well, so pedestrians walkways and sidewalks, comma, constructed to the standards, and then comma, shall be provided. So the shall is in there. Okay.
Alright. That... That's the word... I I... I'm not I'm basically doing a bob out of any kind of wordsmithing now. Well,
if find this wording awkward, would you prefer the shall go somewhere else?
No, that's fine. Okay, okay. If it's not a shell, then it's permissive and anything that's permissive is anything that's permissive shouldn't be in a regulation anyway.
Okay. So so that's so that's, you know, I'm I'm not making a motion. I'm merely summarizing my notes from our discussions in the public hearing and what I believe is... Is seems to be acceptable to both the Commission and the applicant in this case. I don't believe, obviously the public hearing is closed. So I can't directly ask the applicant if they are okay with these changes. I will just ask those of you in the room to look for any expressions of terror or to see if we're on the right track. But this is what I've taken from our discussion.
John? Blow me up a little bit more. I was going to make a motion now I can't read it.
Yes, I guess I need clarification about eight point two. I thought first it was said we were going to leave it alone without any of these new proposals and then it got moved And then the 65,000, is that being kept in or not? No.
Yes. Okay. So actually, I'm gonna stop my share. So the the the thing is there are are business district regulations and there are mixed use district regulations. And the initial proposal was to change both mixed use district regulations and building business zone regulations relative to business size. It was determined, I believe, by this Commission that the changes to 8.2 in the Business District, which would apply everywhere in the Business District, was not a necessary change in order to enable the sorts of development that the applicants are looking for. That the only place that those building size changes needed to take place were in Section 26.11 in the mixed use district regulations. So the original proposal to adjust 8.2 in the business zone was deemed unnecessary, but the language of the specific square footage was then moved to Section 26.11 to enable that sort of building size in the mixed use district. Am I explaining that correctly, Jed? Yes. In the mixed use floating zone? Correct. If we're... If... Are we talking now? We're delivering. Yeah. We're be delivering.
I think 65... I think 50,000 is preferable to 65,000. I think as we just were told tonight that the Dollar General is approximately 10,000 square feet. I think it was mentioned last meeting that it was closer to 15, and I think this would be as we met... We talked about later on in the meeting just now that the density and the big box idea would come into play here as far as the townspeople are concerned and what all of our POCDs for years have shown. So I think 50,000
is more appropriate. And to be clear, any individual building is capped at 25. The largest aggregate of all commercial buildings would be 65. Right.
So no individual resident or retail or commercial use is more than 25. So there will be no single big box.
There will be no building of 65,000 square feet. I understand that, but they would be immediately adjacent to each other. Right?
I... You know, separated with fire fire distances and things like that. You need to get a need to get a truck in between them.... Are they supposed to be in park? Is it there?
So the maximum one building size would still be 25,000. And then the rest of all the commercialbusiness retail and this in some applicants will be storage, commercial business, but not one building more than 25, which I think is still in line with our conservation development. But it's...
I I understand that. My my feeling and I think my my impression of the POCDs for years has been... And I think it equates to, like, a big box store. I understand the difference between 25,000 for one building and an aggregate of 50,000 or 65,000. But I think 65,000 is really on the high end for the size of the town geographically and what townspeople are looking for. So that's my only comment. That's the only thing that I would would not agree with. Okay. So we'll
let you... I mean, thank you. No motion has been made. That is this section right here. It's still subject to change because nobody's made a motion yet. But this is where I believe the discussion ended up with the consensus of the group. Obviously this is all subject to whoever is going make a motion for the language.
So even if there's a motion, even if the... Even if there is a motion, there could be a motion then. Yeah. We could discuss. But I
share your concerns Leanne and maybe we could put shall not exceed the specifications 8.2 unless you're in except on properties of greater than 50 acres. We got all these little spots and let's just say that we had somebody who was going to build a grocery store again 20,000 square feet twice as big as Dollar General so that might be a bit much for that stretch when we got feedback that Dollar General was big box store. But then you got some other stuff someplace else separated. You can separate things in a huge lot a lot more than you can on the standard business lot we got which is a couple of acres. So maybe there should be something that we can almost tie, you know, a 5,000 square foot increase with a given number of acres size of the lot. When you got this huge lot, I think that more tolerable than, you know, we don't want Andover looking like the Silas Dean Highway. But that would be, know, approved in a master plan that looks at... We've got some latitude to prevent that from happening too. On any application. On any application. Right. Yeah. Yeah,
what you're saying is, shall no group shall exceed 50,000 square feet except that on lots of greater than pick a number. The commission may authorize 65,000
square feet. And again we're talking about something that could be used anywhere but there's not an awful lot of sites in Andover that could even do it. 25,000. So we're really talking about a very specific use.
Well there's properties along with six acres, they can handle bigger, but bigger. Yeah.
And and I know people do want to increase the, you know, tax... The business tax base too. I'm just trying to balance that with the density. Excellent. So
is this is this closer and I'm you were you made the proposal so I want to make sure that this language reflects what you're talking about. So the language would be replaced with no building constructed after the effective date of the approval of a mixed use floating zone shall exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area and no group of stores or shopping center commercial buildings shall exceed 50,000 square feet of gross interior floor area except that the Commission may permit up to 65,000 square feet of gross interior floor area on lots of greater than and here's the question x acres fronting Route 6?
Well, think the concern is that you're allowing the 25,000 square foot maybe it should be 15,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet and may permit up to 25,000 square feet and 65,000 square feet on lots greater than maybe 25 acres or something so you know huge thing that...
Well yeah out of curiosity what's the acreage of the subject property, the property that's owned by the developers? I think it's 50 acres, 50 acres, more so
the other but then the other question is that is going to be subdivided and so the individual lots in there will be significantly smaller. I
guess is that, you know, again, so what you're... This is... We're going to tie ourselves in knots over 15,000 square feet. And you to allow buildings along Route 6 in this context to be a little bit bigger in certain circumstances. I don't know. I mean, the master plan process will allow you to have that control. If someone comes to you with a master plan that shows two twenty five thousand square feet buildings or, you know, well that would have to be it. So a 25,000, a 25,000, and a 15,000 that would cap max it out on a single lot. 25,000, 25,000, 15,000, that's 65,000. If you're presented with a Master Plan proposal that shows you this and it gives everyone a heart attack because it's too big and too overwhelming, the very easy answer is no. But if you've already... If talking yourselves into the possibility that 65,000 square feet may be allowable in the mixed use floating zone, I... My recommendation would be to allow it and let the let the master plan convince you of it making sense or not.
So maybe instead of the lots greater than maybe subject to the master plan approval.
Well, that's I mean, that's the whole point of the master plan. I I think that language is redundant. That's redundant. Right. But
I shouldn't be. I I said I was gonna. Doesn't this section twenty six eleven through whatever this section, doesn't that inform the master plan?
Yes. Yes. And so allowing buildings to be that large as again, Wayne, as you say, it's enabling. It doesn't mandate anything. And the commission needs to be convinced that the master plan reflects something that would be desirable in that location in order for them to decide on whether or not to land that zone there.
I'm still wrapping my mind around these things. The master plan is for a zone change. Correct. You don't get a change. You don't go. You don't you don't then you don't go to step two. Okay.
So we're saying for purposes of this, what's being put forth right now that we're voting on the nursing...... Not anything...... Words reading. We're deliberating is is quite large. So that would fall into... If there was a graduated, the wording was graduated on how big the whole parcel is as far as relative to the square feet. But but are you saying we could still turn something down or, you know, not turn down entirely, but turn down this... The maximum square footage?
Yes. If if you... So again, so the other... So I... I've replaced the... I've put back the original draft language. So
again, this is driven by a master plan process. So this gives you the maximum possible numbers, the maximum possible size of things. It gives them an up to and not to exceed. That doesn't mean that it will look right on any specific proposed parcel. If they come forward because of the topography, because of the location, because of the surrounding uses, if someone proposes a Master Plan mixed use floating zone on a specific piece of land along Route 6 and adjacent to Route 6, shows you commercial buildings of such size, 25,000 square feet, multiple buildings of 25,000 square feet in an aggregate up to 65,000 square feet total. If you look at that Master Plan as the Commission and say, No, this is not what the town wants. This is too big. This is out of scale with our plan of conservation and development and what we believe to be appropriate development on this section, Route 6, then you say no. We will not put the floating zone there. Or we will only put the floating zone there if you reduce the size of these buildings. That discretion is 100% in your hands. What this regulation does is it allows the developer to propose something up to that size. It doesn't lock you in, but it it it unlocks them for a potential.
And if I might add to that, John, also the reason that the mixed use development zone... The floating zone is is encouraged is because we wanna have that equilibrium between the residential square footage and commercial square footage. It's not just one or the other like it currently is on that whatever property it might be. So this way we're encouraging the residential development on a proportionate scale to the size of the commercial buildings, not, you know, one or the other, like the old ways of the... I mean, the mixed use zone. So that's like sometimes call it an economic incentive zone, sometimes call it mixed use, but that way you have a balance of residences and businesses to offset the tax burden.
It feels like the wording as it was originally gives us the proper safeguards to be able to decide if something's not right for Andover, but gives maximum flexibility to potential developer. So I'm good with it.
Leigh Ann, does that sort of answer your question somewhat? Yes.
Any other Go ahead. No, I was going to ask John to scroll back to where he said oh there I guess it's so I'll make a motion to approve the proposed regulation as drafted and revised to 09/24/2026 is being found in harmony with the 2026 Annual Report Plan of Conservation Development with an effective date of one November one, twenty twenty six with the following five changes that Opposed to changes to Section 8.2 are eliminated. Two, Section 26.11.3, Opposed to Section D2, spreading the words with a pavement width of 24 feet or greater built to meet or exceed town standards. Section 26.11.3 shall replace all of the language following no building constructed after the effective date of the approval of a mixed use floating zone with the following language
shall exceed 25,000 square feet in gross interior floor area and no group of stores or shopping center commercial buildings shall exceed 65,000 square feet of gross interior floor area. The original remainder of that subsection shall be eliminated. For a new section 26.20 Roadways New public or private roadways constructed for vehicular traffic shall be constructed to roadway standards in the annual receptive regulations as amended from time to time. And five, section 26.18, sidewalks and pedestrian walkways strike all existing language and proposed language and substitute the following. Pedestrian walkways and sidewalks constructed to the standards of Andover subdivision regulations as amended from time to time shall be provided along one side of the newly constructed roadways. I'll second that.
Any further discussion before we vote? Hearing none, Jay? I vote aye. Scott. Aye. Ted. Aye. Leanne. Aye. Motion passes five zero zero. Thank you very much. Congratulations gentlemen. Thank you. By
the way, now you're done. You say something? Wayne. I just
want to let the commission know that the alternate position has been advertised we should be on the agenda for the Arctologist. Awesome. That's it. That's all I had at this time. Alright. Thank you everybody. We have a motion here to motion to adjourn. Second. In favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. A good night. They were correct.
This transcript was generated by Deepgram from the meeting recording. Names, numbers, and other details may be inaccurate; the video is authoritative.