Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Commission, City of Damry on June 23rd, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Let the record show.

We're going to roll call at 702.

Commissioner Bennett.

Maybe on his way.

Commissioner Botello.

Present.

Commissioner Fuchs.

Present.

Commissioner Hall.

Present.

Mr.

James is absent.

Mr.

Jobby is absent.

Happy Berkeley, by the way, Commissioner Drowney, if you watch these case.

And he is also out of state, by the way.

Commissioner O'Neill.

Yeah.

Commissioner Trata.

Present.

Commissioner Nee Jane.

Here.

Commissioner Novis.

Here.

Commissioner Law.

Here.

I'm Chairman Haddad.

Commissioner Mee Jane, would you please sit in for Commissioner Jowdy for the entire evening?

Absolutely.

Commissioner O'Laughlin, would you please sit in for Commissioner James for the entire evening?

Yes.

Commissioner Novis, would you please sit in for Commissioner Bennett for the entire evening?

Yes, I will.

And if any of them show up and see at what point they're if they came in while it was legal or not.

The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 14th, 2026.

Follow uh Commissioner Botello with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you very much.

Um housekeeping.

All of our minutes are up to date and accepted, however, on May 27th and June 9th.

There are no meeting minutes because our agenda is clear and overall meetings on those days.

Public hearing.

We have two public hearings this evening.

And before I get to that, I want to read the legal notice.

I guess the mic is okay back there.

Yep.

Thank you very much.

Notices here by giving it the zoning commission of City of Gambry will hold public hearing on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026, commencing at 7 p.m.

in the city council chambers 155 year old to consider the following matters.

Petition of the City of Gambry by Raleigh Al Bakri, Planning Director to amend sections 2B, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E, 5F, and 5G, 5I, 8C, 10B, and 10I of the zoning regulations and add sections 5J and 8F to the zoning regulations.

Petition to City of Gambry by Raleigh L.

Bakri, Planning Director to remember zoning map to implement and implement a mixed use transit oriented district.

Priority housing development homeway zone and create two conservation and traffic mitigation districts in compliance with public act 25-01, formally known as House Bill 8002.

Copies of these applications are on file in Tom Clerk's office.

Parties and interests and citizens should have an opportunity to be heard at this time.

Published in the news signs on June 12, 2026 and June 19, 2026.

Purchase Order 2026-002.

I don't have to read any of our mandatory Zoom instructions.

So we just say this to some of these who may be new here.

What we're going to do is we open up a petition under the public hearing.

We're going to get some presentations and documents presented.

We're going to have a presentation.

This case is going to be from the planning director, Bomina Pocket.

We're then going to call for those wishing to speak in favor of the petition.

Come up.

There's two microphones over there.

Come up and speak.

They're probably already on.

If not, just press the button.

We don't restrict time.

However, we ask you not to repeat yourself and stay on point on topic B specific.

We then will ask for those to speak in opposition.

And then we're going to have the directors give the final remarks.

And a couple things may happen at that point after that point in time.

This commission could continue the public hearing.

If anyone desires to have that happen, if we're waiting on any exhibits or documents, we will continue it, but it looks like everything is in order.

We can close it and vote on it or close it and not vote on it for it until the next meeting, which is July 14, 2026.

I think I covered everything, Ms.

Reed.

That's how we do it.

That's how we do it.

The first petition this evening is a petition of the City of Damry by Walid El Bakri, Planning Director, to amend sections 2B, 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5B, 5F, 5G, 5i, 8C, 10B, and 101, 10I, the zoning regulations, and add sections 5J and BF to the zoning regulations.

Yeah.

I'm going to run this one here too.

Then the second petition this evening is a petition of the City of Damry by Ralid Al Bakri Planning Director to amend the zoning map to implement a mixed use transit planning district and U-TOD, the priority housing development overlay zone and create two conservation traffic litigation districts in compliance with HB8002.

So let me go to the 83A recommendation.

What we're doing is we're going to have one staff report and presentation for both petitions.

But both petitions will be acted on separately.

Is that correct, Mr.

Director?

June 4th, 2026, Peter J.

Head and Junior Chairman, and we usually don't do it that way, so that's why I'm specifying that for the newcomers.

Theodore J.

Hadden, Junior Chairman Gamber's own commission, Marvel Lee Fanal Fanelli Jr.

Chairman Damry Planning Commission.

At the Web based Zoom meeting held on June 3rd, 2026, the City of Gambury Planning Commission voted to give the above reference petition a positive recommendation for the following reasons.

Many of the proposed changes are mandated by the state of Connecticut.

And we're going to be getting into that, I'm sure.

Also, the proposed changes comply with the Plan of Conservation Development, POCD, which recommends incorporating multiple zoning districts near the downtown into one district that would permit high density residential development and include incentives for the development of affordable housing.

Additionally, this proposal also ensures that the zoning regulations allow for the development of new housing while protecting the integrity of the city's existing neighborhoods.

Mr.

Chiocio seconded the motion and was passed unanimously by voice vote with four eyes from Mr.

Chioccio, Mrs.

Hofstetter, Mr.

Rosario and Chairman Fanelli.

We have another A3A referral from the Planning Commission.

Also dated June 4th, 2026.

It's a Fiora J Head and Junior Chairman Gamberry Zoning Commission from Marvel D.

Fernandy Jr.

Gambury Planning Commission.

83A referral petition, City of Damry by Waline El Bakri, Planning Director to amend the zoning map, which was read previously in the Z legal notice, and as I introduced it this evening.

At the web-based Zoom meeting held on June 3, 2026, the City of Danbury Planning Commission voted to give the above reference petition in positive recommendation for recommendation of the following reasons.

Many of the proposed changes are mandated by the state of Connecticut.

Also the proposed changes comply with the plan of conservation development POCD, which recommends incorporating multiple zoning districts near the downtown into one district that would permit high density residential development and include incentives for the development of affordable housing.

Additionally, this proposal also ensures that the zoning regulations allow for the development of new housing while protecting the integrity of the city's existing neighborhoods.

Mr.

Chiucho made the motion to give this a positive recommendation.

Mr.

Mozario seconded the motion that was passed unanimously by voice and vote with four eyes from Mr.

Chiocio, Mrs.

Hofstetter, Mr.

Lozario, and Chairman Fernelli.

Let me also state for the record that we generally get what's called an 8-3B referral from the Western Connecticut Council of Governments.

It does not influence our vote.

And when West Cock does not submit on the day of or before the meeting, the definition is that they do not disapprove.

So that's the definition of those would be called record responses for WestCard this evening on both.

Have I forgotten anything like this?

Directory ROP.

Take your pace.

And you have the floor.

Can you hear me?

Is everybody here?

We're good, thank you.

Commission members, if it's all of you, turn off your mics.

And if you want to have raise your hand to be called on, we'll have you entered on at that point in time.

And direct will give instructions on the question and the answers on different parts of the question.

I'm going to give you an outline immediately.

So first off, we'll even need the other one.

Thanks for being here.

I'm going to start with a very quick story about what we are doing now.

Just if you remember a year ago, or actually a year and a half, we were working with two coordinates.

One design standards, and the other one is a mixed use.

However, when we were working on it, we knew that the state is going to come soon with new requirements.

So it seemed like time that we actually work all the way at the same time.

You will understand why, because it's all connected.

And I would say the most important piece for us will be the design standards.

Why?

Because there's so much development that might happen because of the state mandated requirements.

As we speak now, the city never had any design standards.

And I'm going to explain what it means.

So when you don't have it, you cannot influence the application in terms of the quality of design and how to respond.

That's an introduction I need to talk about.

And as a reminder for your commissioners, we had an open house back in build 16.

Some of you were able to attend.

What we have is very similar to what we were talking about during the open house.

So what we're going to talk about is all interconnected.

However, just to make it easier to follow, they are broken down into four different categories.

And because it's easier to ask questions about the specific category, we can have the question and answer at the end of each session.

So after finishing design standards, we can ask questions about what it means.

And of course, at the end of the whole presentation, we can have questionable.

Thank you.

So we're going to talk about design standards after that.

The state mandated requirements, which includes XSA apartment, and at the end, we are going to talk about the new mixed use the state we'll like to stab.

So the design standards we're talking about are going to affect all residential units except for single family.

And it's going to affect mixed use development.

It does not include commercial or user uses so far.

So this is very specific to mixed use and multi-family meaning two limits and more.

So in order to understand design, you need to have categories.

And if you look at the right-hand side, you'll see what I mean by categories.

So the document or the zoning amendment that you have seen has different categories, and I'm going to go over each one very quickly.

So the first one is building orientation.

Simply vote, you don't want a new building that is facing a lane or internal.

Second one is open space and amenities.

When you have more housing, it will just say you will need to have more amenities and open space, and you need to know how to design it.

So it's not an ad owner, it's an actual part of what you are doing.

Access and circulation.

It's very important when you have more people coming in and out to control the access for behavior, access and exit.

You don't want to be PI.

And you want it to be safe as well.

By parking, I mean the parking lot inside from development.

You need it to be landscape buffer so that it adds on to the neighboring area that doesn't take away from.

Also, landscaping is related to the design of parking lot.

Even utilities.

To give you an example, imagine if you have downtown a very great AC that everybody can see.

You need to actually somehow buffer it by landscape.

As we speak, we cannot control anyway as we speak now because we don't have any requirements.

So what you see usually is depend on what we have to have.

A lot of time, right?

And of course, the most important part is how to design the building, how to make it look bulking, not huge, how to have different roof types and covered to make it more interesting.

What you see on the left hand side is similar to what I was talking about, but I have some examples here of how design is actually implemented.

So it fits in and becomes an add-on and not something that takes away another.

And I'm not showing any bad examples because I don't want to sing out any information.

But we have bad examples in the city.

Again, what you see here, for example, if you have a mixed use, is about how to make it the design.

One thing that you can look at from the picture here, you have the parking in the back, not in the front.

So if you are walking or diving, you see a building, you don't see a parking lot.

This is a new requirement for the books.

And just if you look here at the pictures we have, see a building on the left hand side, it's not a small building.

How to make it more interesting, is you have different variations in color and shape.

You don't have it all as a black one.

If you look at the other one, you see how landscaping is integrated in the development, so it becomes more interesting.

Another one, which is the one for the bottom, you have a big building.

What can you do to make it look better?

You have different colors and different materials.

Another example that we have here, you see on the top left hand side.

You see how you integrate open space and water to make it actual a little bit.

It's not about adding units, it's about adding quality units.

Another example you see when you have commercial on the main floor, you see that the ceiling is higher.

So we will have a windows to add more variation to the along the same line.

You see the other common building.

This is actually what we expect, and this is why we have a requirement now to make it happen in that.

Also design using stone, different covers.

So at the end of the day, you once you have a higher standard of expectation.

What comes in will be better than a confused line.

I'm sure you have time to look at some of the pictures.

And now I'm done with this section, so I'm happy to answer any questions about design.

Commission members, any questions at this time, commission members.

And I mean, just as I remind we talked about this in more than one workshop.

All that we did with language changes based on legal requirement.

But substance is still the same.

Go ahead.

I just had a question when we're talking about this moving forward as for all properties in all districts or just in the district that you're talking about tonight.

So you research?

Yes.

So it will be applicable in all residential districts and mixed use.

It does not touch commercial or industrial.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

That's why all the examples we have seen.

These are mixed use.

I'll go back, we see mixed views, or just one.

Any other commission members on any questions?

I don't want to go ahead and myself, but for the mixed use lists that you talk about.

These will be applicable plus some additional requirement in the mixing use list.

Well, okay.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna move on to the state mandated requirements.

I will start with talking about definition.

I'm not gonna cover each of the definitions that you see in the document, only on the ones that are more important.

And I want to give you an idea of what the state requirements are.

Of course, number one, new definition, number two, which is significant.

We need to allow in all the districts you see, which are either mixed use, the new one for the existing one.

We need to allow for development of any development between two and nine units, and it must be permitted.

I'm going to go over one of them shortly.

Also, there are new parking requirements.

And very quickly, I'll talk about the new position.

It's a new requirement from the state.

Director, you're now going to talk about all state mandated until you tell us.

Yes, I actually will end up by talking about this tension.

So as we speak now, I will pause for a minute.

Please go over the slide and I will just talk on this.

We have in time.

So all the zoning districts we see are either commercial or mixed in use, including the future one that we would like to have.

So start with definitions.

We have a very interesting one that came from the state, which is community middle housing.

I'm not going to end the slide, but what it means is any development, including between two and nine units, regardless of the shape.

So there might be one building, there might be nine different buildings, there might be two buildings, each one having eight, one having one.

It doesn't matter, that's why I have the picture here.

That's what the state is calling community middle housing.

And we need to have it, and you will understand shortly why.

Which means that a qualified person, be it an engineer or some other field, will look at the site saying, hey, we are building 18 units, for example, here.

They will have to decide what they need are for parking on site.

They will do the study and will come back with numbers.

I'm just saying a number.

However, you only need 50 parking spaces.

That's what it means.

What it boils down to.

Did it happen before?

It was done before, but not as a legal requirement of the state.

Another one, which is an interesting definition, set aside development, which means that if you are developer building residential development, if you decide to set aside 30% of the units to be affordable housing.

That's a new terminology the state has, which is set aside.

By affordable housing, it means has to be deviated for affordable housing for minimum 40 years, 4D.

The last definition I'm going to talk about, which is very interesting and in my opinion, which will need it, but anyway, we have to have it.

It's the last one here.

Some I view.

So it doesn't go to planning permission, it doesn't acquire public year.

Why they came up with a new name, I don't know.

It was more fancy maybe.

So we don't have to worry about the name, it's about application that doesn't acquire public key.

So done by the administration.

And the reason is the state believes that public key and use can be difficult, and the state believes that a lot of the issues because of production of housing is limited, is because of public units.

So they want to eliminate some.

Sorry, being put under each of either mixed use or commercial zoning district as a new category, which is summary of view.

Which is basically approving it if it meets all the requirements without having to work on public unit.

And what is under the section?

Community-based housing, or mixed it used that has between two and nine bowling units.

And I'm gonna give you one example of how we are going to agree each one of these uses under the commercial or MSD use.

One exam is enough because it's actually negated with all the other space.

But what you need to understand is we are gonna have a requirement, what should we call measurements of health requirements?

Give you an example.

Say if you have a piece of land that is commercial, if you want to build X number of bullying units, of course, the maximum is nine unlocked housing.

You have to have minimum frontier, side yard.

Minimum what we call lot coverage, you cannot build the whole lot.

You have to have 15, sorry, 500 square feet of open space for each year.

So yes, we are allowing it, however, we are grading it.

So at the end of the day, it might not be economically viable to build one single family, or sorry, two units or not to measure that.

By this, we hope you will be able to control what's gonna happen in the future.

Because the open space, which is for us for the quality of life, is minimum 500 square feet for each universe.

If you look at the bus in general, you will see that a lot of them will not allow you to build much.

If you have to have front yard, backyard, road coverage, and open space.

That being said, just for you to know, I know the state is working on potentially in the future saying you cannot have bulk requirements in commercial zones.

Just for you to know, in case it comes back, say we have to amend it, but so far it's not one of the one and not the most is parking.

And I know it can be confusing, so bear with me here.

I would like to simplify what they are saying.

So back in the days, usually what used to be the case is you have a single family, you have to have two parking spaces.

You have more, say for example, five units, you have to have minimum sometimes two parking spaces for each unit, or sometimes not here, in other communities, you will have to have one for each unit plus like say 10 for the tools.

What the state is saying of the following, which we have to do.

We are keeping single family as it is, if you look at the top, so single family is still can require parking.

We are asking for the same we used to ask, which is two for a single family.

Where it gets a little bit confusing is what I'm gonna talk about now.

So if you have development that has 17 between two and 17 units, what's gonna happen is we cannot ask for any parking requirement.

What will happen is the applicant can submit the means of study that I mentioned, and you can say, well, I have 17 units, but in a we will only need 10 parking spaces.

We have to accept it.

We as a city will have to say, well, we have to accept it.

There will be here if you have more than 17 units, and if you look at this slide, you can ask for one parking space for every one bedroom, and you can leave the list.

However, if the applicant is to submit a study saying that they need less parking, we have to accept as a few numbers.

Another thing that I need to mention here, within the two bowling units and 17, there's an exception.

You can have two areas in the city where you can ask for parking, which we get.

I'll show it here.

So the state is calling this conservation and traffic mitigation district, you can have up to two.

In those districts, you can ask for parking.

However, if the evidence is submit a study showing that you need this, we have to accept it.

But we chose the two districts, one by the hospital here, and the one with main, because we have issues actually for honestly parking in those two areas, and we wanted to use the opportunity that the state gives us.

You back that up one slide.

Yes.

So I just want to see the house with a hospital.

That's a big white spot in summer.

Right?

That's the area.

Okay.

I'm sure it's not the seat case.

There's a lot of issues for honesty parking.

We don't have more issues happening.

Yeah.

So we thought that this would be a good location for the exception for parking.

And the other one is the one west of Green.

West of Green.

I'm not thinking that we did which I should go out.

We have a couple of questions.

Sure.

You know what?

Should we wait until we're almost done with this one?

And then we have all the questions about state.

Only because one of the questions I guess is about parking.

Okay, go ahead.

I have two questions to say.

Announcing that deep prescriptions for affordable housing is going to be four years.

And to group these 20 years.

Is that a mandate for delivery for example state?

So you must chairman, it's a state aspect.

The state is 40 years in order to qualify to be considered affordable, cannot be listed for it.

Is that going to go into the caption as of next July?

Which is going to be this would have to meet this role if it passes tonight, but it would be so you're not.

It has always been for the last 20 years, 40 years.

I know here and then there were some oversights that some were considered affordable even though they are only 20 years, but the state doesn't council.

Okay.

And the next question is your parking dream talking about count and versus the screwdriver.

So to your point, oh I won't have parking, we're going to have a big distinction.

It's something we can look at in the future.

God bless it.

When a developer comes in with their parking plan, is it just a parking study coming out of the developer's office and do they have to have something that's certified, and that's an agent since we have to accept regardless of what they come up with?

Is there at least a requirement that somebody other than friend the back room falls together a plan?

Believe it or not, there will be a lot of questions about this distinction from a lot of folks.

I will tell you what is happening.

For me, it would be an engineer, at least.

It doesn't make sense.

And whether the city finds it's a fish or not, it's not going to matter.

I hope the state is going to find what qualified professional means.

I'm at the conclusion of the study.

Well, so far we will internally we'll ask for an engineer to work on it.

Oh, okay.

But somebody might challenge us, maybe, but I'm not sure.

But it makes sense that an engineer would be a lot more likely.

Thank you.

I was basically gonna ask the same question, like who's qualified to do that study, and if we have any control over that because you can have people have their best friend make the study who happens to do whatever.

For the time.

Yeah, so it's definitely something.

It's a big it's qualified professional.

So in my opinion, an engineer that qualified.

Thank you.

There's no way to put that in the regulations and the town regulations versus the city.

I to put this a little bit unclear.

We don't want to overskip what our authority is.

You have to follow what the state is telling us to do.

But something we can discuss if it becomes an issue.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that.

Any questions?

So we did something clever in my view, so we needed to have something the state is called priority housing overlay.

So what we did is to recall, we have our TOD downtown.

So what we did, we said, well, we don't have to invent the only.

So we didn't have to do the work again, we did this market.

And the only difference is if you recall when we were talking about downtown, there's a high cap on the disturb district, so we cannot make it actually priority housing area if you have a high cap.

So we actually went outside of the uh historic downtown, and we were able to meet the requirement from the state, which is good.

So the final slide about the state mandated requirement.

I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on it unless you have questions.

All but happened is back in the day until actually today.

Legally speaking, you can have 10 percent, sorry, 20% of property owners.

If you actually have all the signatures, they can go against or protest a decision by resolve information.

They say they say no, it needs to be more.

So the state is changing the percentage from 20 to 50%, be it property owners or number of properties within a specific but uh 500 square.

But the intent is clear.

You want to make it a little bit more difficult for people to protest against decision, especially related to housing.

But this doesn't have anything to do with an environmental protest.

No, that's the problem.

That was the last point here about state mandated requirements.

Commissioner members, anything at this time from what we've seen so far?

Commission members?

Mr.

Twitter, you just adjusting the mic, or you have a question.

No, I understood.

Okay.

I actually have a little.

We're talking about this time in a lot of language is state mandate.

How much control will the city have over that mandate?

Because if they're saying build it, you gotta build it.

So you're still the question.

The only way to have control is to be strategic and know where the ship is sailing and trying to control where it's going instead of going against it.

So what did we do?

When I was talking about the table.

I might have mistaken for this is not mandated by the state.

So but the state is not saying you cannot do it.

So we were able to add it.

So by having those requirements, we still can control to an extent what we'll get.

Again, if you remember I mentioned that the state is looking at potentially, say in the future you may not have those requirements.

But so far, so by having those requirements, I don't know.

I don't know if we have a copy of the document, it will be easier to understand or so we say yes, you can do it, but on our own terms.

But our what are our own terms in what is it?

So director, you have been scaling to where the puck is going to be, not where the puck is.

Yes.

So any more questions?

Commissioner members, anything else at this time?

I know it's a lot, so guys just ask questions.

It can be confusing because I'm sure it's the biggest CFC.

Well, the big house, we went through a lot of this over the last several months.

Well, quite a bit, but thank you.

We're good, we're good now, right?

So now we're leaving state mandated into another section of your presentation.

Not exactly.

Okay.

We understand why.

Alright.

So the one you see here, which is accessory apartment, is also state mandated.

However, going back to what I just mentioned, you know where the ship is sailing, and we said vote against it, you try to go with it the best you can.

So the access apartment is a requirement by the state in any TOD.

So what we did, we looked at our TOD and said, well, actually, we would like to have more units in our TOD.

And I know Janica, you are in the development and real estate business, you will understand what I'm talking about.

I don't see someone that can have five units going to an accessory apartment.

However, the state wanted it, and that's what we feel is the case.

The issue is when you have a statement date, you don't differentiate between different communities.

So what happened is yes, it might be a solution in a smaller communities.

It's another solution if they are used and they actually acknowledge this factor.

So we haven't had it most likely.

Because this is TOD specific.

Yes.

And if you take a look, which we did someone's call again, what's in the TOD district, it's not likely that you'll see any absolutely.

What we are focusing on is the attachment one for the one that is actually inside.

We are not talking about detached points.

Okay.

So what are we gonna have in the TOD?

Well, just let me take you a step back.

If you call our TOD and our single family, right, right.

However, in order to have an excessive burning unit, you have to have a single file.

So we went back to our TOD and said you can have a single file.

Sounds confusing?

I hope not.

So we went backwards with the mountain of this centers just to meet the requirement.

Again, I will see it happening, but who knows?

So when we're talking about accessing bullying unit, you are talking about an attached one or one that is inside the house.

It cannot be more than 30% of the house cannot exceed one thousand square.

That's why I said highly unlikely.

If we can have four years, why would we have a smaller access?

And again, just very quickly, of course, if it is to have it, there will be a need for a zoning development, and there will be fire inspection, code requirements.

So it's not easy to have one.

In my mind, it's better to build another unit instead of an accessor.

And it's got to be overright.

Yes.

And the owner must actually have only some minimum savings.

You cannot just go and build one after a bike.

So it's more complicated than actually building an additional and from experience.

If you have a house and you want to build an accessive apartment, it's very costly to meet the difficult code.

So that's about it.

Any questions?

Yes.

Yes, first of all.

We talked about the accessory points being having ownership of the year before you have come up with the solution when we sell.

So when somebody actually somebody's house?

Yes.

In the certificate of zoning compliance, when they sell it, the new owners will have to notify notify us if you want to keep the uh access.

I don't want to go over the whole detail.

I can take a deep dive if you want, but we cover this kind of clearity.

Anything else?

Not this time here.

Okay.

Sure, I will move on.

Move on.

Well, here's another just a very interesting initiative that we have been working on about flies.

Is there a call the first time we talked about stay at so it's not quick?

So we have been working on it.

There were a lot of meetings between staff and some of the property owners and stakeholders.

I will start by giving you an idea about what we are talking about.

If you visualize what I'm talking about, the AO areas here is a subject area that we would like to have it as basic use.

It's starting from the intersection of down and mainstream that you see all the way to Bethany.

And in the stage.

So we're talking about 200 acres in total.

If you wanna get a better understanding of it, it's about 50% of what is now downtown.

So it's a half of what downtown is.

So what is the issue here?

Here's what's gone on as we speak.

If you look at the map here, you will see we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven different zoning districts, all next to each other.

It's a mishmash of zoning districts that it was not planned when I looked at the whole history.

It just evolved over time.

So you will be surprised to if we go for a walk to see what's going on.

So this is a challenge.

However, it could be an opportunity.

And this is what we looked at.

Well, what if we make one new district that would allow for all the existing uses in addition to new ones?

Being mixed use, which is what we landed on.

And of course, it will have to allow for any development between two and nine units.

So it's already allowed for housing by the state mandate.

So why not make it a mixed use one?

The only use that we have so far, but it's not utilized, and we are taking out is the firing range.

Actually, you couldn't have an area for shooting directors.

We are taking it out.

Taking it out.

Yep.

Because we don't have one and we don't want to have one.

So that's the own.

There was a shooting range approved a long time ago, but no plan road at the flooring center that never got never got built.

However, it still exists.

So somebody might come in and can do it.

We don't want this to happen because we are going to have more housing.

Director, can you go back one to that slide again?

I saw that there was uh an additional parcel.

Yes, thank you for reminding me.

So I would like to mention what happened.

So after the planning commission meeting, we received an official submission from the property owner of the piece of land.

I don't know if you can see it.

It's the one that I know the colors are not very clear.

It's the one immediate immediately to the east of the yellow area.

So if you visualize it, if you know Sharpite, it's just behind it.

It's a piece of land behind it.

The owner contacted myself and the chair, and he said he would like to be included in the new zoning that we are talking about.

We looked at the history of the site.

Uh I don't see any issues from a planning point of view for it to be included, since it's actually the wish of the owner.

However, because it actually went to the planning commission without including it, you as the zoning commission will have to vote on it first, be it included or not.

And you can ask me questions at the end.

And I believe we did we forward the actual email from the applicant.

I don't know.

Okay.

I I can forward it to you.

That's okay.

And the piece of land we're talking about, it's about an acre or so.

I don't remember exactly how big it is, but it makes a lot of sense because the only access that we have is coming from Shopite.

So the piece that joins Henry Abbott Tech and the Shop Right and is only accesses through the shop right?

Shopite, so far, yes.

And that's like little lane next to the elementary school, like that separate and doesn't have to be.

That's a separate one, yes.

That is okay.

It's part of that.

Yeah, no, but that's the that's the other side of the same opposite.

Yeah, you're in the right part of town.

You're in the right part of the embrace when you say that.

Yes.

No, no, it's just an individual or I don't know if the applicant is here tonight or not.

Uh yeah, go ahead.

You have to speak to the Commissioner O'Neill.

Sorry, thank you.

Uh is that currently uh buildable parcel because it has no road frontage or what zone is it in?

I'm just curious.

It's as we so you, Mr.

Chairman.

Sure.

As we speak, it's a residential.

I believe it's R820, so you can build the house on it.

However, the access is coming from where Sharpite is.

So as far as I understand, the interest is from the owners of the plaza where Shopite is to buy it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're all set directory.

Any question about this one?

I don't see any commission members.

Nope, we're good.

Thank you.

So what are we trying to achieve?

I don't know, the color is clear.

It's the orange color.

This is the whole area we would like to actually have as a mixed use.

So the main reason is first, just we want to fix the issue of so many zoning districts that are not related to each other, i.e.

not similar to each other.

Second, and most importantly, it's an opportunity.

You have a situation here, the state has mandates to allow housing in commercial areas.

Well, why don't we have it in our own terms to be mixed use?

This is the whole idea, of course, there are lots of details.

If you want to ask me a question, I would be happy to answer.

But I like to focus on the main message.

The main message, it's a good opportunity for the city.

And we have a lot of buy-in from all the property owners we contacted.

So it's exciting for all the folks I talked to.

Oh, good.

Commissioner members, any questions?

No.

Go ahead, Director.

Good.

So as I mentioned at some point, is we have design standards that are gonna be applicable everywhere.

But we would like, because we see this in 10 years as being a yield good corridor for the city to have additional requirements, only applicable in the MU TOD.

Does a lot of cleaning up for sure.

It's cleaning up, exactly.

So I'm gonna go to this slide first.

So what I talk about design standards, I mean we would like it to be mixed use.

So we would like the main floor to be at minimum 50% commercial.

We don't want to just symbolic mixed use where somebody has a small area and say it's mixed use.

It has to be significant, minimum 50%.

Would like the height of the ground floor to be a minimum 12 feet.

Oh, okay.

The reason is this is you could actually get more significant interaction.

And of course, there will be more design just to make it more like a corridor when you go to different cities that oh, it's nice.

The uh know how to mix the housing and commercial.

But something else is very important for us here, is that we would like, and this is very important.

If you are to have, of course, if you have two to nine units, we cannot ask for affordable housing because it's a state mandate to allow it.

However, what we would like to have in the mixed use.

If you have more than nine units, minimum ten percent will have to be affordable.

And this will be a requirement.

As you know, we are at 10.59%, affordable housing in the city.

If we fall below 10%, we lose our a lot of control over a lot of what we are doing in development.

I'm sure you know about what's happening to our neighboring communities.

So a lot of them went to court many, many times and they lost.

Many, many times they lost.

They always lose, yeah.

However, some of them are learning now, they're not fighting it.

They're accepting it as it is.

We don't want to fall below 10%.

And that's why we'll it's a good opportunity for us if we see more housing along the corridor, minimum 10%.

However, you can have we can have more if we allow more height.

If you're a member in the document, if you want to have 10 feet more, meaning another uh story, you have to encase affordable housing by 2.5%, meaning you will have to be 12.5%.

I'm sure O'Neill.

I just want to make a statement kind of for the general public about the term affordable housing, because in the past it's had connotations of not being nice.

And um recently I did an appraisal in Bethel and it was affordable housing and it was like half a million dollars.

So I just want to bring to the public's attention that affordable housing isn't the same thing.

And it goes by percentages of income for the local area.

Um so the incomes in Fairfield County are higher than other places across the country.

Um, and with these design standards, that also elevates what's being built.

So I think it's a win-win.

And I just kind of wanted to point that out because I think it's an important thing.

Some people have a knee-jerk reaction to when they hear the words affordable housing, and it's not the same old thing.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Neill.

Commissioner Botello.

Well, I think there's clarification that there's a difference between affordable housing and low-income housing.

And that's not what the directive is.

But once again, we would like to be able to see a more affordable housing, which is gonna be a reflective of supply and demand.

And that's what this is all about.

Thank you.

Commissioner members, anything else?

Uh Commissioner Trata.

Yeah, to get a perspective of this and to put it all in perspective, because we've been talking about it for a few months now.

This is kind of, I mean, what we're talking about here, this mixed housing, this mixed-use housing.

This is basically what they did in Brookfield, isn't it?

On Federal Road for the most part, when they repurposed a lot of that land and put up storefronts with apartments on top.

And this would this this would give us that opportunity in these areas that you're speaking of to keep the business but also put affordable housing in that.

That's exactly right.

We would like to, if you are talking about the example we have, would like to would like to have a better example too, because our corridor is bigger, and there are some opportunities I am aware of, and hopefully they will take off from now.

And two to five years from now, if this happens, you will see what you are talking about.

Okay.

And again, just for you to know, when we say mixed, sorry, uh mixed use of building, it doesn't have to be one on top of the other.

It can be the frontage and behind it.

So in our zoning uh regulations allow for horizontal or vertical mixed use.

So you don't have to have a building on top of business, it can be behind it.

Commission members.

Uh thank you.

Go.

Yeah.

Um it's related with the concept of the transit oriented development.

So I understand that I TOD stand for urban planning strategy that cluster mixed use housing businesses and public spaces around transit hubs, right?

So that's what I don't see here.

How the transit is gonna be handled here since you're talking about North Street, Penaro coming all the way down from Pembroke.

So that's one of the biggest transit congestion right now.

So with this concept with this planning, you know, how the transi hub is gonna help out.

I don't just don't see it here.

Uh so you, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to clarify two points.

There's a difference between transit, which is usually in our local community, will be bus and transportation.

So the goal is to have more like people who actually live there will have less use of their own car and will be using bus system.

What will happen, which happened elsewhere is you see more housing happening, there will be more bus stops, so people can have more alternative uses of bus system here, or because it's close, some people might bike.

So the idea that you don't go too far away from the core city and you plan that there will be you less use of cars, which is what the city is actually asking to.

So we planning to increase like public transportation in that area?

What will happen if there's more housing, heart, which is the bus system, will actually encase so the use of the car is gonna decrease exponentially, right?

That's what the goal is, which you're having in other cities.

There's more housing, and not everyone has a car, there will be more bus system and going in and out.

Like we're talking about Istanbul, for example.

So Stanford has the transit hub, the train station.

Yes.

And around the train station, they start building, you know, more housing.

Yes.

And the use of car had decreased uh greatly because all the housing around there.

So that's basically the concept that we want to do here.

Absolutely.

So but you cannot look at it in isolation.

You look at downtown and you look at the new corridor we would like to have.

Right.

If it actually works out well, there will be synergy between the two, and there will be less dependence on cars and more ability to have bus system.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody?

Anybody else?

Good.

Thank you, Director.

So I'm here if you have more questions.

We're good for now.

Okay.

Uh again, one more time for the commission members.

Any questions?

Okay.

Uh is there anyone else wishing to speak in fairly?

Can I have one just one more quickly for the director?

So since he's here, he's not going anywhere.

So I have a just one question quickly.

That the it's just related, you know, how many new housing units are projected from these changes?

Uh, and what percentage could realistically be affordable.

Well, affordable will be minimum 10%.

Or whatever the command.

Whatever the number minimum will be 10%.

As of today, I'm hoping at least there will be.

Well, you have to look at five years window or four years window.

I am hoping there will be 200 plus units.

In five?

In four to five years.

Or maybe more than that, but that would all depend on not just the changing the zoning, which sometimes we are in this field very good at.

It's about how to have the energy to follow through and implement what you are talking about.

Which we are working on it.

I can tell you that our economic development officer and myself have been talking to different folks.

Again, regulation are one thing and implementation is different.

Yeah.

If you ought to bid the gap between the two, you are going to be more successful.

You good, Commissioner Norris?

Yes.

Good.

Commissioner members, anything else?

Director, you're good.

Director, you done, you're good?

I'm good.

Right.

I'll now ask for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this petition.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Attorney Beecher.

How are you?

I'm well, Mr.

Chairman.

How are you?

Good, thank you.

You have the floor.

Thank you very much.

For the record, my name is Tom Beecher from the Collins Hannifan Law Firm.

Uh, and I represent uh Acropolis Venture LLC, uh ARC property LLC, uh, and HR Patel LLC, all of which own properties within this proposed new M U T O D uh zone.

And all are in favor of this new zone uh and the regulations.

Over the past 40 years, uh this North Street and Padeneerum Road corridor has grown with various uses, uh, commercial and residential, and some of the original zones of these properties are no longer fitting as uh the director pointed out earlier, or totally appropriate for the uses or the desired uses in this particular corridor.

I applaud this commission's and the planning director's uh initiative in bringing forward this M U T O D proposal.

And um this initiative as well as the downtown TOD are both designed to properly manage growth uh and also encourage appropriate development in the city.

Decades ago, staggered zones and narrowly crafted light or neighborhood commercial zones may have been appropriate heading from Main Street north up the Padenerum Road uh corridor.

Uh but the time has come to move to a more appropriate uniform zone.

This MUTOD will allow for this corridor to have consistent zoning and appropriate uses and simultaneously requires design standards for development that will benefit both the city as well as the property owners, even those property owners who aren't developing their own properties, it will benefit them as well.

This would actually be the third corridor to have its own set of uniform zoning regulations joining the downtown TOD and the CA80 on Mill Plain Road, the commercial arterial zone, which is strictly just the Mill Plain uh corridor.

The current zoning is, as I said, a variety of zones.

The corridor goes from CG20 to CL10, and then there's a large stretch of properties that are um starting at the McDonald's property, going up to Jeanette Road, which is stuck in the CN20 neighborhood commercial zone, which has very limited uses, and some of the properties in that particular in that particular zone are non-conforming uses.

Again, having a uniform zone will allow these CN20 properties and the C L 10 properties and others to have a uniform playing field throughout the whole corridor.

A small example, but an important one uh for one of my clients, HR Patel LLC, which owns the North Bridge Plaza right next to the McDonald's on Padeneram Road.

This property is in the CN20 zone.

There's two or three restaurants in that particular plaza.

Those restaurants can't serve mixed drinks.

The CM20, the CN zones are the only commercial zones out of eight zones that only allow wine and beer.

So this little problem for that particular restaurant in that particular plaza will be solved with this new zone, which will then have a uniform playing and level playing field for everybody.

You can get a mixed drink at Costellas just down the road, but not at any restaurant in this particular plaza.

Again, that may not be the most important issue facing you tonight when you look at changing this zone, but it's very important to my client and his tenants.

And of course, this commission would review any special permit for changes in the alcohol permits anyway.

The proposed uniform zone will also assist in making non-conforming properties conforming.

As I said before, there are certain properties in this zone that are non-conforming, and now with the added uses and combining all the uses from the various zones into the one, uh the properties will become conforming, most of them anyway.

So uh the mixed use concept and the encouragement of housing and affordable housing, all governed by the design standards that the director uh discussed and took a lot of time, obviously, to put together along with uh the workshop to this commission participated in are all appropriate enhancements for this corridor, and we urge you to adopt it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner members, are there any questions of attorney beecher at this time?

Commission members.

Thank you, Attorney Beecher.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?

Is there any Mr.

McCallister?

Yes.

Right up to the mic, help yourself.

Yes, my name is Paul McAllister, and I live at 33 Mabel Avenue in Danbury.

Um first off, I think that uh our state representatives have let uh us down and by basically forcing us to do something we probably didn't want to do.

Aside from that, I think that the MU TOD zone is going to be increasing traffic on uh the already overburdened Route 37, and I think as a result of this, we're probably have to put a uh traffic light at uh Pembroke and uh the queue.

And uh you know, uh right now because we had to put one at Stacy a couple of years ago, and uh it's just right now it's totally overburdened.

And uh I think that this will just increase more traffic in that area, and that's why I'm against it.

Hold on.

Commission members, any questions of Mr.

McAllister at this time?

Commission members, thank you, Mr.

McAllister.

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?

Director, would you like to close us out?

No one else.

No, I called for all opposition.

One more time.

Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this petition?

No.

Okay.

Commission members, any final questions of uh the director at this time?

No, we're handling this.

How do you want to do this?

First petition.

No, we will need to vote on the piece of land.

We have to do that.

But we're gonna do it to petition.

Okay.

So commission members, we'd look to close the have a motion to close a public hearing.

Chairman.

Both of them, but then we're gonna we have an issue on the first petition of um making a motion to accept that separate parcel into the first petition for a vote.

So we won't vote on that until we accept that or reject that.

So if we do this correctly, Mr.

Chairman, can I make a motion to close this hearing?

Under your guidelines.

There's a uh motion by Commissioner Botello to close both public hearings.

Now second.

Is it second by who?

Commissioner Trata.

Right there.

Second by Commissioner Trata.

Commission members, any discussion?

Any discussion?

Well, those in favor of closing the public the petitions this evening, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, not seeing any hands in opposition or voices unanimously.

These petitions are closed.

Yes.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to move this petitions to old business for possible discussion and voting.

Commission members, there's a motion made to move both petitions to old business for discussion of possible action.

Looking for a second.

Second, who seconded that?

Commissioner Hall seconded that.

Any discussion?

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify.

I'd like to mention Mr.

McCallister mentioned the uh traffic.

Well, not yet.

We'll have that during discussion on that petition.

Right now, there's a uh any discussion on the motion.

Uh does this second?

Those in favor, signal saying aye.

Aye.

All those aye.

So both petitions are uh going under old business for discussion of possible action.

Uh right now we have no continuation of public hearings under old business for discussion of possible action.

We have two petitions.

The first position is the city of Danbury by Walid Al Bakri Planning Director to amend sections 2B, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E, 5F, 5G, 5I, 8C, 10B, and 10.1 of the zoning regulations, and add sections 5J and 8F to the zoning regulations.

The public hearing was open on June 23rd, 2026, and it was closed on June 23rd, 2026.

Second petition under old business for discussion of possible action is a petition of the city of Danbury by Walid Al Bakri, planning director to amend the zoning map to implement a mixed use transit-oriented district, M U T O D, the priority housing development overlay zone, and create two conservation and traffic mitigation districts in compliance with HB 8002.

The public hearing was open on June 23rd, 2026 and was closed on June 23rd, 2026.

Let's take it the first one at a time.

Yes, first one is we're gonna do it at times the first one.

Uh what would be in order would be if somebody wants to make a motion to accept that separate parcel um into that petition.

I would make a motion to accept that separate parcel.

Motion made to accept that separate.

Can we call it a separate parcel?

Yep.

I and after that's the legal name of it after that.

Okay.

Okay.

So on that separate parcel, uh, Commissioner O'Neill added to that for the record will be the lot and parcel and legal description to it.

Is there a second?

I'll make a commissioner hall.

Any discussion?

Well, those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Commission members, what we're going to be taking action on this evening is the petition with an additional parcel.

And if anybody wants to take the floor with any motions, you're welcome to.

Commissioner Votello.

Mr.

Chairman, on the first petition.

And that would be we're looking at both petitions.

Nope, we're gonna do one at a time.

The motion may apply to both.

But we're just gonna do that petition.

Okay.

So we're gonna do the amendment to the motion that I compiled actually covers both of them.

So you want to dissect it or how would you do that?

Oh, you may you made a motion for combined.

Well, you could you why don't you see what's appropriate for the first one?

Okay.

How detailed is that?

That's detailed.

Um don't you read your motion, see if we can get a second, and then see if it gets modified.

Okay.

Do that, please.

Uh best we can do.

I I the way I looked at it, it looked like your mic on.

Bring close to the yes, I do.

The way the way I looked at it and analyzed it, it looked like both uh petitions were going to be presented, and then so I put it in the code.

Well, they were presented at the same time, but I we I want to vote on them separately.

Okay.

So I make a motion to approve the two positions presented this evening for the following findings and reasons.

Finding number one is state compliance.

These petitions ensure that the city of Danbury remains in compliance with the Connecticut Public Act 25-1, formally House Bill 8002, which establishes the framework for kinetics future housing growth and requires municipalities to upgrade their zoning regulations by July 1st, 2027.

Finding number two, modernizing of zoning regulations, the proposed amendments to sections 2.5.e, 5.

5.

8.

Together with the addition of sections 5.

10 point i.

10 point.

That's after 10 point B.

You got 10 point I.

Okay.

Then you got the additions of uh sections 5J and uh AF.

8F.

Modernize and strengthen the city's zoning regulations and create a more consistent framework for future development.

Finding number three, consolidation of commercial and mixed-use districts.

The petitions update and consolidate the city's commercial, mixed use, and downtown transit oriented development districts, creating greater consistency, predictability, and efficiency for residents, business property owners, developers, and the commission.

Finding number four.

This would pertain to the North Street Pad near them road.

You want me to hold off on that or continue?

No, I would um was does any would any of it apply to uh the first one?

Uh basically they they conjoined.

And that and number four, would any of that apply to the first one?

Which okay?

All right, we'll read in if you want me.

I will read it in.

Okay, the proposed mixed use transit oriented development corridor for North Street Pad Nearham Road area is the product of approximately 18 months of work by the planning and zoning department.

This commission and numerous stakeholders.

The proposal includes comprehensive site and building design standards that will guide high quality development while reflecting community expectations.

That was Mr.

Waleed's uh production.

Finding number five is balanced growth and housing opportunities.

The creation of the mixed use transit oriented development, which is the MUTOD, is the priority housing development overlay zone.

And the conservation and traffic mitigation districts represents a balanced approach to the future growth by encouraging appropriate appropriate housing opportunities while protecting environmental resources and addressing transportation impacts.

Finding number six, consistency with the with the plan of conservation of development, which both petitions do not conflict with the city's plan of conservation development, but rather they ensure that the future land uses are aligned with community expectations, coordinated infrastructure planning, and the city's long-term development objectives.

Finding number seven, protection of health of private public health, safety, and welfare.

Based upon the evidence presented by planning director Walid Albert and the record before this commission, I find that approval of these petitions will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare.

Instead, they promote orderly development, economic vitality, housing opportunity, environmental stewardship, and sound infrastructure planning for the benefit of the current and future residents of Danbury.

Therefore, Mr.

Chairman, I move that the Danbury Zoning Commission approve petition number one to amend sections 2.5.a, 5.b, 5.C, 5.E, 5.

Five point I, 8.C, and 10 point B of the zoning regulations, and to sections 5J and 8.

And further approve petition number 2 to amend the zoning map to implement the mixed use transit oriented development district.

Hold off on that one.

Okay.

So you want to also add to your last 5G and 10i.

Right.

Right.

Um and then the other one I will see.

I see as going to be pertaining under the number two anyway.

That's fine.

So let me ask you this, Mr.

Motion Maker.

Would you be willing to remove uh number four and number five for the second petition that's your re at your request, Mr.

Chairman?

So, but but we're going to be adding others that when we get to the second petition.

So, Commission members, there's a motion made with reasons stated as reason number one, reason number two, reason number three, reason number six, and reason number seven to approve the first petition.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Said goodbye, Commissioner Trata.

Commission members, now is the time to discuss the motion.

Any discussion on the motion with the reasons.

Any discussion on the motion with reasons.

Commissioner Nee Jane.

Push.

Um Mr.

McAllister brought up an excellent point regarding the traffic.

Uh however, uh to clean up that corridor.

Uh from an industrial, you know, you get you've got an industrial operation there that literally borders uh the main road.

Um multiple uh zoning uh spots uh and also trying to work with the state in regarding the uh the health of you know our housing uh ability I would have to agree with uh this petition and I would second it.

Thank you.

Commission members, any other discussion?

Any other discussion?

Oh I gotta go back here.

So Commission members, a yes is yes, a no is no on petition number one.

Commissioner Botello.

Yes, Commissioner Trada, yes, Commissioner Nee Jame, yes, Commissioner Fuchs, yes, Commissioner Hall, yes.

Commissioner O'Neill, yes.

Commissioner Novus, yes, Commissioner O'Lachlin, yes.

I will vote yes, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, nine zero.

Nine zero.

The petition is approved unanimously.

Director, thank you for your work on that.

And I'll talk to by I'll talk a little while further about the work on that because it was exemplary.

Um so now we're going to be looking at the second petition, which is the petition of the city of Danbury for a vote.

Petition of the City of Danbury by Walid Al Bakri, planning director to amend the zoning map to implement mixed use transit oriented district M U T O D, the priority housing development overlay zone, and create two conservation traffic mitigation districts in compliance with HB 8002.

Does anyone like to make a motion?

Once again, I'll bring the motion back.

Why don't you read um make your motion and read four, five, six, and seven?

Okay.

One, two, and three is not necessary.

Once again, finding number four, which is pertaining to North Street, Pad Nearham Road, TOD corridor.

The proposed mixed-use transit-oriented development corridor for the North Street Pad Nearham Road area is the product of approximately 18 months of work by the planning and zoning department, this commission and numerous stakeholders.

The proposal includes comprehensive site and building design standards that will guide high quality development while reflecting community expectations.

Finding number five, balanced growth and housing opportunities.

The creating creation of the mixed-use transit oriented development district, which is M U T O D, the priority housing development overlay zone in the conservation and traffic mitigation districts represents a balanced approach to future growth by encouraging appropriate and housing opportunities while protecting environmental resources and addressing transportation impacts.

And you did you want number six repeated?

Yes, we're gonna have you start your your number four is gonna become on petition number two.

Your number four is gonna be number one.

Okay, your number five is gonna be number two, and the next one is gonna be number three.

That would be number six on your own.

All right, which would be consistency with the plan of conservation and damper and development.

These petitions do not conflict with the city's plan of conservation and development.

Rather, they ensure that the future land uses are aligned with the community expectations, coordinated infrastructure planning in the city's long-term development objectives.

Should we add that once again the protection of health and safety?

Absolutely.

Okay, and once again, based upon the evidence presented by the planning director, Waleed Al Barkari, and the record before this commission, I find that approval of these petitions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

Instead, they promote orderly development, economic vitality, housing opportunity, environmental stewardship, sound infrastructure planning for the benefit and current of future residents and beyond.

Therefore, Mr.

Chairman, I ask that we do once again to uh to be able to amend petition number one to amend sections 2B, 5.5.

We already did those and we do not have to do that.

All right, sir.

Okay, so number two to amend the zoning map to implement next use transit oriented development district, the priority housing development overlay zone and the conservation and traffic mitigation districts, finding that these petitions comply with applicable state requirements, are consistent with the plan of conservation and development, advance the public interest, and will not adversely affect the health safety or welfare of the city of Danbury.

Thank you.

Commission members, before I ask for a second, don't forget that this motion was made with the petition and the addition of the other parcel that we also uh put in.

Is there a second?

A second second by Commissioner Trata.

Commission members, now is the time to discuss the um petition, the reasons, um, and the second.

Any discussion, Commission members?

Any discussion?

Any discussion.

Uh again, we're gonna go with a roll call on this.

Uh a yes is yes, a no is no.

Uh Commissioner Botello, yes, Commissioner Trata, yes.

Commissioner Fuchs, yes, Commissioner Hall, yes.

Commissioner O'Neill.

Yes, Commissioner Nee Jane.

Yes, Commissioner Novas.

Yes, Commissioner O'Laughlin.

Yes.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

And then I will vote.

Uh Chairman Hadid votes yes.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

I got everybody.

Uh, that is approved also.

Uh nine zero.

Uh thank you for the motions.

They were very well thought out.

I think we covered every base.

And the two of those reasons on each petition put us in proper compliance to be able to uh take that vote with the POCD and health safety and welfare.

Thank you, Commissioner Members.

Director, unbelievable.

Thank you.

This was like I've been on this commission for a real long time, and uh you really really excelled in this.

This was just an uh unbelievable undertaking for the public.

We've never seen petitions this deep and um well thought out, and it's just it was just amazing.

And thank you for having those workshops for us well in advance.

Mr.

Chairman, I would be a miss if I don't mention that Ali and Joanne helped a lot and Cobasian council as well.

So a big shout out for the two.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Allie and Joanne as well.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Mr.

Chairman.

I would like to mention Dan Cadagandi.

I don't know if you all know him.

Corporation Council as well.

You did work a lot, and we actually took a ill deep dive to go over all the requirement to make sure it's meets the requirement of the state.

Also, in the in the prior workshops, thank you to the um the public that came out to to view this and to speak on this, and for the public that are here that's here this evening to show an interest in this.

We appreciate that as well.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to second your comments about uh Wali.

I'd second them.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Everybody agrees.

Thank you.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

So now let's move on.

Um, we have no new business.

Uh we have no correspondence.

Uh we have no ref for reference only.

Um, and uh Ms.

Reed, are we still meeting July 14th?

We will let you know.

We are not sure.

There's still a window of a possibility.

Small, small, but small, but probably not.

Tiny.

Okay.

So we may not.

I actually know by the end of the week.

All right.

So, Chairman, if you have a minute, I know Ali is working on a very exciting project, and I'm gonna put it on the spot.

I'm gonna call other matters, and that would be your you're up to bat.

And you know the rules here.

Take as long as you'd like, you got the floor.

What do you got?

Um, okay, so as some of you may be aware, um, fast food restaurants um are a pretty particular definition, um, which encompasses any type of takeout really style restaurant.

So that includes a Chipotle style, um of those Chinese takeout restaurants as well.

Um, Jersey Mike's in particular.

The planning commission just approved um a special exception approval for that.

Um, going in by Buffalo Wild Wings on back.

Okay, sure.

Um, so the issue with this is those types of interior renovations um for fast food restaurants um that don't necessarily have a drive-thru still require a public hearing process and planning commission approval.

Um so the text amendment that I would be working on would um allow fast food restaurants, and I'm still workshopping some types of definition like fast casual and other types like that.

Um would allow permitted uses for those fast casual types of restaurants um to be allowed under site plan review and not require a public hearing process for a simple interior renovation um conversion for that fast casual restaurant.

That sounds like a nice streamline yes, it just adds an extra step for the developer, yeah.

Um, and it elongates the process a bit.

So hopefully this will streamline it a bit more and make that process a bit quicker.

But if they showed up, we can ask them to bring samples, but not so now nobody's gonna show up anyway.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you for your help for your work on that as well.

Uh director, anything else?

No, I wouldn't be able to have any questions.

Reed, have I forgotten anything?

I got everything.

Beautiful.

Commission members, this is the other matters.

Are there any other matters?

Are there any other matters?

Are there any other matters?

And I don't think I have any either.

I usually have notes, so we're good if somebody wants to make who did we not hear from?

I think uh Commissioner Fuchs is gonna make a motion to adjourn.

And Commissioner Lachlan's gonna second it.

Is that right?

All those in favor saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, let the record show we're adjourning at 8 31.

Is that correct?

My glasses aren't working.

Yeah, why not?

Yeah.

No, it's not.

That clock's wrong.

8 38.

Thank you, everyone.

Appreciate it.

Director, thank you.