We'll begin shortly.

The time is now six thirty four p.m.

And when he's ready, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Good evening.

Alderman Simpson present Alderwoman Scott here, Alderwoman McAdam, Alderman McNamara here, Alderman Malinowski, Alderman Russell, here, Alderman Hargreaves, Alderwoman Barbosa, Alderwoman Beloin Savedra, Alderman Connors, Alderman Gibson, Alderman Pabone, Alderwoman Sanchez, Alderman Santiago, Alderman Smedley, 11 present.

You have a corn.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Reading of the legal notice.

I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Alderman Simpson.

I'd like to make a motion to wave the reading.

The motion wave the reading of the legal notice.

Second.

Second Hargraves.

All in favor?

Having been noticed proper having been noticed properly, we'll begin this public hearing.

If anybody wishes to speak, or you state your name and address for the record, and your speaking time is three minutes, so I'll call it out.

The item uh public comments are being heard tonight on the purchase and sales agreement with RMS companies and heritage housing for 125 Columbus Boulevard for 500,000 dollars.

Does anybody wish to speak on this matter?

Does anybody wish to speak?

Third time, anybody hearing none?

Uh do we have remote?

Currently, not currently.

Okay, thank you.

You're trying to get it going.

Or you're trying to check it.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I'll wait a minute or so.

Anybody calling in, Mr.

Clerk?

No, member.

Hearing none.

Um I'm going to uh entertain a motion to adjourn this public hearing.

Hello.

Alderman Savedra and Alderman Hargraves.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

The committee meeting will begin shortly.

All righty.

Good evening, everybody.

I call to order the September twenty-second, twenty twenty-five zoning subcommittee public hearing and special meeting to order.

The time is now six thirty-eight p.m.

Mr.

Clerk, whenever you're ready, would you please call the roll?

Good evening again.

Welcome back.

Alderman Simpson.

Present.

Alderwoman Scott.

All the women McAdam.

Alderman McNamara.

Here.

Alderman Malinowski.

Alderman Russell.

Alderman Hargreaves.

Alderwomen Barbosa.

All the women Beloin Silvager.

Alderman Connors?

Alderman Gibson.

Alderman Pabone.

Alderwoman Sanchez.

Alderman Santiago.

Alderman Smedley.

Twelve present.

You have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And uh while you're there, will you please read into it?

I'd like to make a motion to wave the warrant reading or the warrant.

We have all right.

We have a motion to waive the reading made by Alderman Santiago, seconded by Alderman Russell.

All in favor of waiving the readings, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All the woman Boleyn Savedra.

And just for a point of clarification, Alderman Pavone is our alternate is in for Alderman Malinowski this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And having been noticed properly, we will begin the public hearing.

Please remember to state your name and address for the record and limit your speaking time to three minutes.

The items for the public hearing are item number three six eight eight one to amend sections of the zoning ordinances to allow daycare facilities in certain districts.

Item number three six eight eight two to amend sections of the zoning ordinances relating to fences located in the CBD and historic districts.

Item number three six eight eight three to amend sections of the zoning ordinances to adjust the lot coverage or impervious surf uh coverage requirements in the A two, I three, and TOD districts.

I have number three six eight eight four to amend sections of the zoning ordinances related to mechanical screening in industrial districts and item number three six eight eight five to amend sections of the zoning ordinances related to off-street parking to add a minimum uh maximum driveway and curb cut with for residential properties and to establish regulations for tandem parking.

Are there any speakers for these items?

Going twice.

Are there any speakers?

Any speakers?

Mr.

Clerk, any callers?

No.

All righty.

Thank you.

Seeing no speakers, we will now close the public hearing and move on to the special meeting.

The time is now six forty-one p.m.

The first item on our agenda, item number three six, eight, eight one.

May I have a motion?

Alderwoman Beloin Savedra.

I move this item back to the council with a neutral recommendation.

Second.

All righty.

We have a motion refer this back to the council with a neutral recommendation made by Alderwoman Beloin Savedra, seconded by Alderman Pabone.

Um and at this time, I'd like to call up Jeff Cormier to read into the record the City Plan Commission recommendation.

Maybe we'll also like into the presentation.

Yeah, and uh if you could just hit the speech icon.

Hello?

There we go.

Do you have copies of the presentation?

I can just or no, not yet.

Does it need a charger or an extra cord?

No, it's just needed a reboot.

All righty.

Well, I guess we can stand at ease for a moment.

While that's uh rebooting, Mr.

Cormir, would you mind reading into the record the city plan recommendation?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Or the commission recommendation.

Okay, city plan recommendation for item 36881, zoning amendment for daycare facilities in certain districts.

The city plan commission recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.

Child care is increasingly become a significant issue due to the lack of availability and affordability.

Daycare facilities for more than 12 children are commonly found on sites containing larger buildings and associated parking areas that are located along business corridors.

Allowing this use in business districts can provide all that is underutilized buildings and expand child care opportunities for residents.

I'm sorry, say again.

I was saying I think we can stay stand at ease again.

Okay, good evening, uh counselors.

Jeff Cormier, City Planner.

You have five zoning petitions before you this evening, all text amendments.

And I'll just jump right in.

So uh first item, item three six eighty one is about daycares.

So basically, uh in our current regulations, they're a little antiquated with what it referred to as a daycare facility.

It just referred to nursery schools, and they were only permitted in about two districts in the entire city.

So what we were doing here was modeling them, which is very common in other towns.

They're just modeled after the state standards.

The state has three classifications for different daycares.

It has home-based daycares, which are six children or less, and that's the typical ones that someone would run out of their home.

They have the home child care one, which is a seven to twelve uh kids, and there's different state license requirements for the different levels of children you have.

And then you have the larger one, which is what you think of like a kinder care or a stork club.

Those are daycare facilities, and those are for uh 12 students or 12 enrollees or older.

So those are the type that we were actually trying to permit in the city, but we already have home-based daycares, those are permitted by right in every residential district.

Something we don't have are the daycare centers.

We've had a couple people ask for those, uh, which kind of brought about this zoning change that we didn't necessarily have it and uh permitted in a lot of districts.

Uh one of them being um Master Yang's uh Taekwondo studio at the end of South Street.

So you have uh he actually runs a daycare program as part of his uh Taekwondo program.

He actually is affiliated with a number of schools in the city, and so he wanted to expand his program, and to do that he had to go seek variances to do it because the regulations didn't explicitly permit it.

So what we were trying to do here is add daycares as a permitted use, again, daycare facilities, 12 uh 12 students or and thank you, 12 students and more.

And we were looking to permit them in your typical business districts B1, B1R, B2, B3, and TOD.

Those are really along the major corridors where you would have a larger lots that have larger buildings with parking, because the number one uh sort of thing that goes along with daycare is parking and uh parents dropping off and stuff like that.

So we think it makes a lot of sense in those districts, and it was just a trying to modernize the standards and allowing that use more uh that could serve residents in the city.

The next petition, item 3682 is fences.

A lot of the fence regulations stuff already existed.

We are just trying to, we saw it to clarify a little bit.

Uh we found a discrepancies uh specifically in the central business district with regards to our historic districts.

But there's really four uh four items that are occurring in the fence uh regulation change.

One was in the I1 district, I one is John Downey Drive.

That's the industrial park zone.

That's the only I-1 in the whole city.

It didn't allow uh a certain height fence in the back where every other industrial uh district does.

So we had sought to just add uh eight foot tall fence permitted in the backyard, uh, like most industrial districts have eight to ten foot fencing.

So this would just allow it in the rear yard.

Second thing is that if you recall the CBDR, which is I'm sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Yeah, I just wanted to just just just for a point of clarification.

Um, these are all different um items, so will they need to be read into the record, or we can do that later or uh for the specific recommendations, yes.

But I correct me if I'm wrong, we've just sort of for the presentation have let the city kind of catches up to speed.

So for the city plan recommendations specifically, yes.

Okay, thank you.

So for the fence regulations, uh CBDR was a district, it was a central business district residential portion that if you guys recall, it was probably a couple months ago, it was sort of the periphery of the CBD that is uh more heavily residentially focused, and that didn't exist until a couple months ago.

So obviously in the fence regulations, fence height, CBDR wasn't a thing, so we added that in.

So it just matches the central business district fence regulations.

Uh on corner lots, we added that uh in residential districts, the max height on a corner lot, which is something that abuts two streets, and the max height on the side yard can't be more than four feet.

And the reason for that is because the front yard requirement for fences in residential districts, the max height is four feet.

So if on a corner lot, uh the way it was written, you could potentially have someone on their front yard have four feet, but six foot on the side, but then their neighbor who is that's their front yard, can only have four feet.

So there was a lack of equity between the height of fences.

Someone could have a six foot, but your property that also abuts the street couldn't have that.

So we were trying to just match the street corner.

It also allowed for better visibility because we had some instances I know our zoning officer had to deal with of people putting up six foot fences right along on the corner lot, right along the uh corner lot side, and it caused some visibility issues.

So we were just trying to have some consistency with a four foot around a corner.

And then lastly, in historic districts, uh what exists right now in the zoning regulations is that in historic districts, you basically can't the chain link, what you see, the silver galvanized chain link is prohibited in the front yard.

Uh that's very common in historic districts.

So if you look at old Weathersfield, Hartford, they generally don't permit that type of fencing in historic districts.

And then uh understanding that our historic districts take up most of the central business district.

So we have uh about five historic districts in the city.

They basically go from 72 south to about Heart Street and from Franklin Square west to uh about Lincoln.

That sort of encompasses the area of our historic districts.

So the majority of the CBD is in the historic district.

We didn't want to have any sort of conflicting regulations with if you're in historic district, you can have a different style or something than someone who's not in it, but you're both in the CBD neighbors right next to each other.

So we're just trying to create some consistency in the central business district and CBD.

So what in secondly, if you are looking at the pictures, you can see the bottom three, uh, the three, the two that have the check boxes, those are what's permitted right now, and that's what we're just seeking to uh add some specificity to.

That in a historic district, you just can't have the silver chain link in the front or the the coded chain link, but you can have any type of other, you know, wood, vinyl, picket fence, uh simulated iron, like aluminum, which you find pretty pretty commonly.

All that's fine.

It was just the uh chain link and vinyl coated, and that already is not permitted in historic districts.

We're just again making it consistent for CBD.

The third picture that has the X, that's a historic building that has the chain link in front.

The picture on the bottom right, um, the regulations currently did not address vacant lots, and that's because if you look at the the fence height regulations, it talks about what's permitted in the front yard.

Well, for a vacant lot, there is no front yard because there's no building.

And so, especially in the central business district, there's no front yard requirement.

You can build a building right up to the street, so there's no front yard anyway, because so there's no setback requirement in the CBD.

So, for instance, the bottom right is along Glenn Street, that picture, and the way the regulations were written, uh the person with the vacant lot could basically have any fence they wanted because there's no front yard.

There's no front yard on a vacant lot because there's no building that defines that front yard.

So the person next to them with a building would be subject to certain regulations, the vacant lot would not, and we just wanted to create some equity uh within that because we had certain amounts of vacant loss in the city, people just want to throw up like eight-foot tall chain link fences.

When you have their neighbor, an historic property who has like a four-foot-tall picket fence or you know, wrought iron style fence or something like that.

So that's really what we were seeking to accomplish with the fence regulations.

Uh item 36883 is uh regarding lot coverage and impervious coverage.

And so in certain districts, being the A2, which is a medium density residential, I three, which isn't actually mapped, but it's an industrial district, and then just the transit-oriented development districts.

In those districts, we found that they had the largest discrepancy between the lot coverage requirement and the impervious coverage requirement.

So if you think of lot coverage, that's the amount of lot that is covered by just the building or buildings.

So if you have like a garage, the main building, that's lot coverage.

Impervious coverage is that plus all the pavement.

So again, impervious coverage is meant to control stormwater runoff and things like that.

So in zones where we found very large discrepancies, meaning over 45 to 50% difference, uh, a lot of those don't necessarily make sense in terms of development.

So to give you an example, in the A2, we had uh 30% lot coverage, meaning 30% of the lot could be covered by building, 75% in curve impervious coverage.

So what that's gonna result in is a small building with lots of parking.

So the whole point is if you're gonna allow that much impervious coverage, which is already impervious to rainwater, you want a little bit larger development envelope so you can build the you could utilize the lot a little better.

Uh you could get more units in there than you otherwise could.

Uh and so for A2, instead of 30 building coverage 75, we were just increasing it a little to 5075.

I3, which was 30 lot coverage 85 impervious, we were just bumping it up to 4085.

Uh and then the TOD districts were unique that they had equal lot coverage to impervious coverage, which doesn't necessarily make sense because if you have a like TOD in the lower density ones, if you have a 50% building coverage but also a 50% impervious coverage, that means you'll never have cover your building will never be that big.

Your building will be like 30%, and then the parking and everything will bring you up to the 50.

So you can't really have them both the same.

It doesn't necessarily make sense.

Um so when we were going through this, we saw that in looking at these districts, TOD, we said, well, for the lower density ones, that's um a lot of those houses, they're smaller lots, so it makes sense you have a 50% building coverage, and then we were seeking to bump up the impervious to 75%.

The TOD high density mixed use, that was 7575, and we were looking at bumping that from 75 lot coverage and then 90 impervious, because you need to obviously accommodate for parking for your mixed-use building.

So those were the sort of tweaks we did to those four districts there under 3683.

Under petition 3684, this is regarding screening.

And so several months ago, um, we proposed an amendment that called for screening.

It basically is any mechanical equipment subject to a mechanical permit, she'll be screened from view along adjacent streets.

And that happens a lot in the central business district where people build nice buildings, but then you have these massive air handlers on top that are visible to everybody.

Uh common standard for these types of things are are that they are screened just by either a parapet wall or some type of they actually design and make uh HVAC screening that goes on top of the building.

So in residential districts or you know, B3 Broad Street where you're trying to preserve the character of the street and the street walls and everything and the look and feel of the street.

Um obviously you'd want some level of screening.

The picture you're seeing there, um that is uh West Main Street just down the street.

That's the accountant in the real estate office, and that was a project they did last year where they actually did go before historic because it's in a historic district.

They completely redid the entry there, and as part of that, the screening you're seeing, it's about a three-foot screening wall behind that is all their HVAC equipment.

So it's not visible from the street.

It preserves the uh the look of the building as well as you know, the section of the street, so they did a great job with that, but that's an example of the type of screening that we were seeking to preserve or implement with that regulation.

What this change does is that we had some instances specifically in the I-1, John Downey Drive, where it's all industrial.

So you have these big, massive industrial buildings that aren't subject to tons of pedestrian traffic.

Um, and that the type of screening that would go on top of those buildings, they're really big buildings, would impose a significant cost on those property owners and business owners.

Uh, we actually talked to a couple of them about it after the screening went in.

And we think that it probably doesn't uh make sense to actually within the industrial district itself require that type of screening from other industrial districts that you know have pallets all over the place and stuff like that.

It's not like you're preserving a uh a broad street, like a walkable environment or a downtown or a CBD.

So this regulation seeks to uh just limit uh the screening to every district except industrial, the within the industrial districts.

But if you're in an I2 or an I3, so those are found throughout the city.

I2 potentially has a lot of like small auto dealers and stuff like that.

Um those are sprinkled throughout the city, like Kokomo, that's an industrial uh district next to a TOD.

But if you are in an I2 or an I3 and you are adjacent to a solely residential use, like a single family or a three-family or something, then you still would be said subject to the screening requirement.

So it was just lowering it a little bit for people in the I-1 because that's just purely industrial park.

Um that was the mechanical screening one.

And one more and the last one, uh, item 3685 is for parking.

So for the parking, uh, what we sought to do here is we we have a lot of times when someone comes in, they want to add units to their building.

Uh they have to meet a parking requirement, whatever that parking requirement is in that district.

So the top picture you're seeing is like a four-unit building where they have a single wide driveway with you know six cars that go back.

So a lot of people will come in and say, well, I can meet my parking requirement, but it's gonna, it's just gonna be a long single single car driveway with four different residential units.

The result we find from that is that one or two people park in the driveway, everyone else ends up along the street.

So you're really not meeting the function of actually having the people park on the lot.

And so uh some towns allow tandem parking, and that's what we were trying to do here.

We are adding stacking regulations, which basically say you can certainly have stacking.

We don't have any regulations for it right now, so people can do exactly what you're seeing in the top right.

Um but we were hoping to add regulations that would allow for stacking within units.

So uh in the bottom right is a perfect example of that.

That's uh uh three-unit building, they have three spaces, and they have their parking by unit.

So you have the the two people, the two cars that are in unit one, they have their parking aisle.

And obviously, but within the same unit, you can move cars.

When you're talking about trying to get four other occupants in a building to move their cars out, you're just gonna have people parking on the street.

So we are trying to um allow the tandem parking for residential districts, uh, but not for commercial districts, because we've also had instances of a mixed-use building who say we want to meet our parking requirement by having tandem parking between our tenants and our patrons, which doesn't necessarily work because you have no control over when people patrons are coming to the business, you're gonna end up blocking those uh residential tenants in.

So the tandem parking would be allowed in residential districts between units only.

Uh we certainly have the item in there uh under section 250-40.50 that says any parking that's in existence, you know, at the effective date of this regulation is fine and non-conforming and can continue.

So this would be for people going forward who come in and want to add another unit to their building and say, Oh, I'm just gonna park, you know, extend my driveway and add more parking.

So that was one thing we were trying to accomplish with this.

Another one was about no more than 40% of the curb cut, um, can be along, you can't have a curb cut that's bigger than 40% of your lot line, your property line.

So if you think that the smallest basically legal uh lot line is 50 feet in the city.

So you have a lot of them are 50 feet.

A lot of them, if you get down to some of the larger residential, like S1 down in the southwest corner, their lots are 100 feet wide.

Um the way it's written now, you can have a maximum of a 20-foot wide driveway in a residential district.

We have had people who have a 50-foot wide driveway and have come in for variances to pave the entire front as a curb cut.

So all 50 feet would be a curb cut, and cars would pull in uh and they would basically use the street for maneuvering, which isn't safe, and you don't want people doing that.

And the parking is not really on site, they're just pulling on and backing out into the street.

There's a lot of safety issues with that.

So, due to some of those requests and people looking at the regulation saying, Oh, nothing says I can't do it, so I want a 50, 60 foot wide curb cut, you know, we wanted to at least have some some um regulation and guidance over it.

So 40% of a 50-foot lot is 20 feet wide.

That's how we arrived at that number.

So 20 feet wide is the max you can do in a residential district anyway.

Um if you and now there are some smaller lots, some smaller, non-conforming lots.

If you go north of North Street, south of Allen, or you see some in the historic district, west of Walnut Hill and Lexington, there are some lots that are 37 feet wide, 41 feet wide.

Um Gold Street has a bunch of lots that are 41 feet wide.

So then you're looking at like a 16-foot wide driveway, which is still adequate for a single car, um, and you can go back.

But you certainly, if you have a 37-foot wide driveway, you know, you probably don't want 20 feet of that being a curb cut that's going right into the house.

So those were uh I think those were the three things we were trying to accomplish with the uh parking in driveway.

And I'll take any questions at this point.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Um on this first item.

All righty seeing no discussion, uh believe we have a motion to refer this back to the council as a mutual recommendation.

All in favor, please say aye.

All right, all opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

All righty.

Uh the next item on our agenda is item number three six eight eight two.

May I have a motion?

Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

All the men in Santiago by just a hair.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to send back to the committee.

I mean, council with a neutral recommendation item number two 36882.

Second.

Thank you.

I have a second from Alderwomen Beloin Savedra.

Um Mr.

Cormier, would you please read into the record the City Plan Commission recommendation?

Okay.

Item 36882.

Zoning amendment for fences in the CBD and historic districts.

The City Plan Commission recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.

The amendment allows vinyl clad chain link fence along the sides and rear of properties and historic districts and the CBD, so as not to detract from the appearance of historically significant buildings.

Other types of fencing, such as wrought iron style, board and picket fencing are more compatible with historic guidelines and enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

All right.

Seeing none, all in favor of referring this back to the council with a neutral recommendation, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

Next item on our agenda is item number 36883.

May I have a motion?

Alderman belowing Savage.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to refer this back to the full council with a neutral recommendation.

Cool.

I have a motion to refer this back to the council with a neutral recommendation made by Alderman Bloin Savedra, seconded by Alderman Santiago.

Is there any discussion on this item?

All right, seeing none, all in favor of referring this back to the council with a neutral recommendation, please say aye.

All opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

I'm sorry, did I miss the city plan report for this one?

I haven't done it yet.

We're not don't not for this one.

Oh 3683, I haven't read it yet.

Yeah, please please read that into the room.

Yeah, yeah, let's do that first.

Sorry.

Item 3683, zoning amendment for lot coverage and pervious requirements.

The city plan commission recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.

Revising the impervious and lot coverage requirements in the A2, I3, and TOD districts creates a more balanced ratio between building and impervious coverage on a site.

More of a site can be allocated toward building development instead of pavement for parking areas.

This is in context with the POCD uh goal for improving site design standards to ensure best utilization of property.

Thank you.

And just for formalities, any discussion.

On 3683, the impervious.

Um because some of these topics we've covered at other meetings, I'm sure they were in different sections of the zoning.

But this council spent a lot of time on impervious surfaces and percentages, um, what's impervious and what's not because of the water issues in the city in different neighborhoods.

This doesn't change what we had passed about the percentage of a property that has to be pervious, correct?

No, it doesn't.

All right, that's I just want a clarification on that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Of course.

Uh any other discussion.

All right, see Alderman Pabone.

Got a question.

Who's gonna enforce all these DM rules?

When people come in for site plans, that's when they get reviewed by zoning.

So the regular people out there already, they're all they're all set.

They don't have to come in for nothing then.

Not if they're not doing anything, no.

Well, if they did it already, so what happens then?

Well, if it's if it's done by the time this is passed, then it's just a non-conforming condition.

So no.

Okay, thanks.

All right.

I believe Alderman McNamara.

Uh violations of these zoning and to the question of who's gonna enforce it.

Aren't they all triggered by a complaint from the public?

Typically, yeah.

Uh oh no, they would be triggered by if there's a complaint where someone starts paving a lot of their lot, they could be, or if someone, like I said, is is changing their property, like if you have a two-family house and you say I want to make my attic a three family, you know.

The next question would be, okay.

Well, you have to submit yours for your zoning permit to change the use of the property, but you have to show that you have compliant parking.

So, where are those two extra spaces going?

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

All right.

All in favor of sending this back to the oh, Alderman.

Uh Alder Woman Barbosa.

We had discussed a couple months ago about um allowing property owners to be able to build.

I'm gonna call them small houses in the back of their yards if they had the room.

How does that apply to parking now?

So you have regulations for tiny homes.

Uh those were or the they're they're called access not tiny homes, excuse me.

They're called accessory dwelling units.

You have regulations for them, and they were modeled after a couple different communities like Middletown had very similar ones.

So those actually require their own parking space.

The in the there's like uh seven or eight different criteria that go along if you wanted to apply for an accessory dwelling unit, and one of their criteria is that you have to show your additional parking space.

So, and I believe it's a special exception, so you would have to apply for that anyway and show how you're gonna meet the criteria on there.

And uh just to kind of tag along there, the parking minimums that I think you're referring to there, they're based on the number of units in in most districts where you would see an ADU, right?

Correct.

So that accessory dwelling unit being a separate unit, that's how the parking spaces get factored into the overall site plan, correct?

Yes.

So yeah, so kind of to catch all of them, it's all accounted for Alderman Hargraves.

Yeah, so I have some questions, so now my brain is going.

So as far as the the parking requirements, if the state was to pass a bill that says parking is um there's no minimum requirements that will supersede our zoning regulations.

If it's if whatever legislation they pass supersedes it, then yes, it would.

So that would be if they say no parking is required in all of our current parking minimums will just go away.

If they pass something that supersedes all town zoning requirements, then our parking then whatever they pass would certainly supersede ours as well.

I believe the last time they did that they allowed towns to opt out.

So uh that's something traditionally that the state has done with certain legislation, but yeah, I couldn't tell you going forward.

Thank you.

Alderman Hard Race.

Can I just be picky with words for a second on that?

If it were a removal of a requirement, the city can still and corporation council, please step in if I misspeak here.

But the city can make laws that further enforce the priorities of the state, we just can't reduce them.

So if they remove a requirement and we still have those uh required parking spaces, that's going in excess of state law.

So I I think it could be okay there.

What would uh impact our ordinances is if the state said you can't have parking minimums, then all of it would just unravel.

Well, I think that's what Alderman Hargraves is suggesting.

If there was ever legislation that did just that, is that correct?

Right.

Yeah, he's saying if you took away our you basically said there's no was it minimum lot required.

What was the your proposal or your question on the remote?

If you just remove that completely, yeah.

I mean, if it was if you if we had our you know minimum lot requirements um and that was removed, and essentially you had no lot requirements, um, you couldn't require anything that would conflict with the state's you know give granting a right that you didn't have to have any parking at all.

Thank you.

Which I don't think is gonna happen, but I don't know what can happen up in Hartford these days, so I don't know.

That was yeah, just I think I think until the state may uh figure out our car tax situation.

I think people are gonna still have cars around.

Um other discussion on this item.

Are we still in the impervious yes?

Still item number three on our agenda.

Seeing none, all in favor of sending this back with a neutral recommendation, please say aye.

Aye.

All in favor, nay.

Motion carries.

Next item on our agenda is item number three, six, eight, eight, four, to amend sections of the zoning ordinances related to mechanical screening in industrial districts.

May I have the motion?

Alderman Santiago.

Make a motion to send to the council with a neutral recommendation item number 3684.

Second.

I have a motion to send this back to the refer this to the council of the neutral recommendation made by Alderman Santiago, seconded by a handful, but I'm gonna give it to Alden Bloin Savedra.

Uh Mr.

Carmier, would you read into the record of the City Plan Commission recommendation?

Item 36884, zoning amendment for mechanical screening in industrial districts.

The City Plan Commission recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.

The POCD contains several goals toward improving site design standards and enhancing aesthetics, especially near residential areas.

The screening requirements are meant to provide a more attractive environment for business patrons and pedestrians, which aren't typically concentrated in industrial areas.

The proposed regulation will provide visual protection for adjacent residential uses while not imposing a significant financial burden on industrial businesses.

Thank you.

Any discussion, Alderman Santiago?

Yes.

Um my question is you mentioned Dom Johnny Drive, in which we are trying to change the the atmosphere of that area so that pedestrians were able to drop walk in, or so that's why I'm trying to get the conflict, even though it's industrial, but we are trying to make it so that individuals will be able to walk through that area.

So I'm trying the screening now is taken away from them.

Yeah, certainly.

Uh yeah, that I appreciate with the whole road project there and everything.

And certainly being walkable would be beneficial uh and is beneficial.

I think with the fact that it's just there's not it's not like a typical business district like a broad street where you have people parking and going in.

The other thing is that those buildings are so large that um you know it's it's very different from uh like you know, the our buildings over here, the high rail or something, just screening some small mechanicals on top.

I mean, they would it would be a significant cost burden to have to screen their entire roof line of everything, and then not to mention you know, a lot of these businesses, if we had them screen the roof line, they also have a lot going on on their site that's not necessarily screened because it's an I1 district.

So we didn't want to impose any really significant burdens on them, understanding that the whole purpose of the industrial park is to be an industrial park.

Um so that was the thought process behind it.

Okay, thank you.

So Alderman McNamara.

So it looks like the new language gives maximum flexibility to how you cover these things up, right?

Uh yeah, it just doesn't require it in the IP.

Or there's no restrictions on how you cover it up as long as it's it's always been, no, it's always been subject to like a lot of people with ground mechanicals might they might put a arborvite or something in front.

Uh some people, and I believe in that's always been a standard like um so with the ground stuff, you could put a little fence, you could put uh arborvite.

If it's on the roof, then generally you have to either move it back from the edge of the roof.

Yeah, that's okay.

Right?

So you'd either move it back from the edge of the roof.

Um it says architectural materials, fencing walls, or landscaping.

So the landscaping is like if you're on the ground, you could throw some arborvite there, cover it up.

So my my machine shop could plant a tree, right?

Or a shrub.

As long as it covers the stuff on the ground, you're probably not going to put that on your roof, but yeah.

Any other discussion?

All righty.

Seeing none, all in favor of uh recommending this referring this item back to the council with a neutral recommendation, please say aye.

All opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

Last item on our agenda is item number three six, eight, eight, five, to amend sections of the zoning ordinances related to off-street parking to add a maximum driveway and curb cut width for residential properties and to establish regulations for tandem parking.

May I have a motion?

Alderman Santiago.

Make a motion to send back to the council.

Sorry.

Make a motion to beat you to it.

Make a motion to uh send back to the council with a neutral recommendation item number three.

Beautiful.

And I believe we have a second from Alderman Russell.

All right.

And uh Mr.

Cramer Cormier, for the last time, would you like to read into the recommendation of the city plan commission?

Item three six, eight, eight five, zoning amendment for residential property, curb cut width and tandem parking.

The city plan commission recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.

A goal of the POCD is to evaluate and approved site standards to encourage more consistent design.

This amendment more clearly defines design standards for residential parking by identifying the number of driveways, total curb cut width for a property, and design of stacked parking.

Beautiful.

And is there any discussion on this item?

All right, seeing none, uh all in favor of referring this back to the council with a neutral recommendation, please say aye.

All opposed, nay.

The ayes have it.

Uh motion carries.

We have a motion to adjourn by Alderman Russell, seconded by Alderman Santiago.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned, and the time is seven seventeen PM.

Have a good night, everybody.

Oh, yes, that's right.

We have oh Lord.

Would we like a minute?

Would you like to jump right into it?

A couple minutes before we jump into the next meeting.

Very well.

We'll resume shortly.

Welcome back, everybody.

I call to order the September 22nd, 2025 public hearing and special meeting of the committee on planning zoning and housing.

The time is now 724 p.m.

Mr.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Good evening.

Good evening.

Alderman Simpson.

Present.

All the women, Scott.

Here.

All the women Barbosa.

All the women McAdam.

Alderman McNamara.

Here.

All the women Beloin Savedra.

Alderman Malinowski.

Alderman Russell.

Alderman Hargraves.

Seven present.

You have a quorum.

I believe Alderman Pabone is seated as an alternate.

Yep.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Also I was Sanchez is sitting in for Laura McAdam.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alternate them both tonight.

Okay.

And uh having been noticed properly, we're going to begin the public hearing.

Please remember to state your name and address for the record and limit your speaking time to three minutes.

The item for the public hearing is item number three six nine one two.

Acceptance of permanent easement for the installation and maintenance of traffic signal equipment from MTP1 Celebration Foods LLC for the Myrtle Street complete street uh complete street improvement project.

Are there any speakers for this item?

Again, are there any speakers for this item?

Third time, are there any speakers?

Mr.

Clerk, any callers?

Thank you.

Seeing no speakers, we're going to close the public hearing and move on to the special meeting.

The time is now 726 p.m.

And the first item on our agenda is item number three six nine one two.

May I have a motion.

Alderwoman Beloin Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I make a motion to refer this back to the full council with a neutral recommendation.

All righty.

I have a motion made by Alderman Bolin Savage to refer this back to the council with a neutral recommendation, seconded by Alden uh Alderman Russell.

Uh and Mr.

Cormier.

Would you please come back to us to read into the record uh the City Plan Commission recommendation?

Okay, the city plan uh recommendation for item three six nine one two acceptance of permanent easement.

Um recommendation.

The plan of conservation and development highlights several goals and objectives that are supportive of complete streets and the complete streets master plan specifically identifies Myrtle Street as a featured project.

The City Plan Commission recommends a favorable report on the permanent easement acquisition.

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion to refer with a neutral recommendation.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

The ayes have it.

Motion carries.

The next item on our agenda is item number three six nine one three, the purchase and sales agreement with RMS companies and heritage housing in for one twenty-five Columbus Boulevard for five hundred thousand dollars.

I have Alderman Mackam, right?

Go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I make motion accepted and referred to the council with a neutral recommendation.

This item.

I have a second from Alderwoman Beloin Savedra.

Um, Mr.

Cormier, one more time.

If you could read into the record the City Plan Commission recommendation.

City Plan recommendation item number three six nine one three, purchase and sale of one twenty five Columbus Boulevard.

The plan of conservation and development includes several goals and objectives related to housing in the downtown, as well as specifically identifying the site for high density residential use.

City plan uh commission provides a positive recommendation on the proposed property sale for residential redevelopment.

Thank you.

And any discussion on this item.

All righty seeing no further discussion, the motion to further this for the neutral recommendation.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

The ayes have it.

Motion carries.

I have a motion to adjourn, made by Alderman Hargrave, seconded by Alderwoman Barbosa.

All in favor of adjourning, please say aye.

Aye.

All nays, the ayes have it.

We are adjourned.

The time is seven twenty-eight.

Now have a good night.