My call to order the land use and urban redevelopment committee is June 17th, 2026 at 701 p.m.

Uh with us.

Uh co-chair price is excused.

Uh Representative Adams is present.

Uh Representative Representative Beckham is present.

Representative Boutreau is president.

Present.

Representative Field is present.

Representative Finkel is present.

Representative Gardner is present.

And Representative Pleach is present.

Ex officio members.

We have Representative Camperelli, Representative McEwen, Representative Weinberg, Representative Johnson, President Shaw, and Representative to the, I believe.

I've gotten everyone.

Did I miss anyone?

Please raise your hand.

Okay.

All right.

So first item we have is LU 32.09.

Ordinance for publication.

Ordinance establishing a conservation commission.

Originally LR 32019.

Submitted by Representatives Camporelli, Representative Sweinberg, and Representatives Day La Cruz.

With us, we have invited guests.

We have Attorney Anger, Director Canones.

We have from the Environmental Review Board.

Sorry, I don't have my glasses on.

And then we also have Ralph Blessing with us.

And so at this time, I'm going to uh going to start with our invited guests.

You want a motion to you want a motion first?

Yes, yeah.

Actually, can I get a motion first to take up this item?

Thank you, Representative Finkel.

I'll make a motion to take up this item.

Second.

All right.

I have a motion to take up item LU 32.009.

Ordinance for publication.

Ordinance establishing a conservation commission.

Uh all those in favor taking up this item say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

All right, the ayes have it.

Alright, so would our invited guests like to uh speak on this item?

Or yes, uh, Representative Camparelli.

I was just wondering, Chair, if I could give some opening remarks and background for the public and also for the committee about this ordinance to start.

Yes, being as you uh introduce this item, I see no problem with that.

So I will give you the floor.

Thank you so much.

Um good evening, everyone.

I want to take a minute to provide some context and background on this ordinance and why we believe it's an important and thoughtful step forward for the city of Stanford.

Uh the idea did not originate with me in late 2025.

Members of the public, along with the environmental protection board, executive director Bob Clowsey came before the board and asked that we modernize outdated language in our code and better define and separate the responsibilities currently assigned to the environmental protection board.

Director Clousey, who has more than two decades of experience in this field, strongly supported the creation of a standalone conservation commission and articulated why this structure would better serve Stanford moving forward.

I also met with the Director of Operations, Matt Canonis, several times last year before beginning work on this ordinance.

And he supported the concept then and continues to support it now.

More recently, I provided the current draft to Director Canonis so that it could be reviewed by the various land use boards to ensure we get it right.

We did, and it was also supported by land use chief blessing.

Importantly, this draft ordinance was not created in isolation, it was developed collaboratively with input from Director Clousey, city legal staff, and members of the environmental Protection board itself.

The EPB formally approved the ordinance before it was brought before this committee.

Each of them looked at it and reworked it and approved it.

At its core, this ordinance does something simple but important.

It creates a dedicated dedicated conservation commission for Stanford.

Right now, conservation responsibilities technically exist within the EPB, but in practice, much of the board's time is understandably consumed by its statutory inland wetland and floodplain responsibilities.

This leaves limited opportunity for broader conservation planning, climate resilience work, environmental research, and long-term advisory efforts.

Creating a separate conservation commission allows Stanford to take a more proactive approach to protecting natural resources, planning for climate resilience, preserving open space, and integrating sustainability into how our city grows and develops.

This is also not new or experimental concept.

In fact, it aligns with statewide practices.

The Connecticut Association for Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission recommends that municipalities maintain a separate conservation commission rather than combining those responsibilities into a single board.

It also directly aligns with Stanford's 2035 plan, which specifically calls for the creation of a standalone conservation commission to help guide climate action, sustainability initiatives, and environmental protection efforts.

In addition, organizations like CERCA, the Connecticut Institute of Resilience and Climate Adaption at UConn have emphasized the important role conservation commissions play in helping municipalities address flooding, erosion, extreme heat, water quality, and other climate related challenges through SMART nature planning, nature based planning.

Beyond policy alignment, the ordinance creates practical value for the city.

It improves coordination across departments, strengthens advisory support for our land use boards, increases opportunity for public engagement and education, and helps position Stanford to better pursue environmental and climate related initiatives and partnerships.

Finally, the ordinance also cleans up outdated and conflicting language in our code by clarifying that the Environmental Protection Board serves as Stanford's aqua protection agency.

Since the first draft was presented to the 31st, the 32nd board, members of this committee and leadership had budgetary and statutory worries.

A new draft was created to address those concerns, and that is what you have before you tonight.

We added language confirming that the commission is strictly advisory, and the Office of Operations has confirmed that they can use existing staff rather than to ask for additional appropriations.

So those were the two the two things we added based on feedback from uh members of this committee, including their chair and other members of the board.

Stanford continues to experience significant growth and development.

The question is not whether we grow, because growth is welcomed and inevitable.

The question is how we grow.

This ordinance helps ensure we are answering the call of the city's 2035 comprehensive plan, planning thoughtfully, protecting important natural resources, and balancing development with long-term environmental stewardship stewardship.

I appreciate the committee's consideration and welcome any questions or feedback.

Thank you, Representative Camparelli.

Um, Director Clausi, and apologies for uh not addressing you correctly before.

Would you like to uh speak um on this?

Or I could assume folks will have some questions for you.

So I think it might be helpful if you uh just introduce yourself and then speak to uh this uh ordinance and then I think uh we'll go to questions.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yeah, thanks, Representative Camparelli.

You you summed up a lot of what I was gonna say.

Um, you know, basically I'm very pleased that we've gotten to this point.

Uh the EPB at its April at its April meeting did uh approve, accept the uh I the draft that was uh before them at that time.

This is slightly different.

I don't think uh my board would have any problem with the revisions that have been made recently.

Um I think this is gonna add a lot of value to uh environmental protection in Stanford.

Uh there are so many things that a conservation commission can do that.

Unfortunately, uh given our uh bandwidth uh staffing-wise and commission member wise on the board of uh environmental protection board, we can't really uh take on.

Um, having a commission that's dedicated to look at the full range of of environmental concerns beyond uh wetland protection, beyond uh protecting life and property in flood prone areas, which are both regulatory uh tasks that have timelines and reporting requirements and a lot of other things that that sort of uh suck up staff time, you know, concert and and board time.

Conservation commission of uh, you know, with expertise of a broad range, uh, can do many, many things as I'm sure you've read this UConn fact sheet and maybe done some other research as as uh you consider this item, uh inventorying open space and developing plans for future open space acquisition, implementing public outreach uh and and public uh projects in the field related to wildlife preservation and invasive species management, advocating for Stanford's urban forest, coordinating drought response efforts uh in the event that we have a drought, uh collaborating with neighboring towns on cross-border topics such as watershed management planning and the development of greenways, conducting educational programs and events for the public, such as Earth Day celebrations, and working with local citizen groups to broaden and strengthen the impact of the city's already ongoing sustainability efforts.

I think it's a real uh great opportunity.

I'm glad you've taken this up.

I uh am confident that the commission can be established and provided with uh operational support from existing EPB land use bureau and other city staff.

I do have to say, however, that in my opinion, the full potential of a this commission will never be achieved without some technical staff who can single-mindedly support the implementation of the initiatives that the volunteer commission members feel are important.

But you know, having said that, let's uh if we can get this done, uh get it going, uh see how it goes and and show the value of it, let it speak for itself and and take it from there.

I'm not uh trying to push anything at this point.

I think the uh draft you have before you is very simple, straightforward, and uh the only question I would have is whether five members would allow the commission to benefit from the broad range of expertise that might be uh tapped into from the public if there were a few more members.

Um I also want to point out that there is a correction that needs to be made to the revisions to the EPB ordinance in section 6-30, I'm sorry, 6-23 uh-1A, it says State of Connecticut Environmental Protection Agency.

There is, and as far as I know, never has been any such thing.

So if that could be changed to the State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, I think that would fully update the EPB ordinance.

So uh thank you again for taking this up, and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have something that I can help you with, thank you, Director Closse.

Um can folks uh raise their hands if they have any questions.

Specifically, members of the land use committee, okay.

Okay.

Um I saw okay.

Uh Representative Politia.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, should we should we go ahead and actually uh make a motion to actually do that amendment really quick?

Um that Mr.

Clousey said.

Just trying to go back to the section, just so we we're not like uh, you know, we don't have motions and amendments all over the place just so we can amend that now, and then we're working on an amended document.

Yeah, um if someone wants to make that motion and then second it.

So I could so um I'll make a motion um uh Mr.

Clause, hopefully.

I'll have you repeat uh what you're saying after I make a motion just so we get the right section here and we can we can work on that.

So um, yeah, I I'd like to make the a motion to amend um the section and subsection that Mr.

Towsy said, I'll have him actually repeat that section now um into the record.

Um so if you can, Mr.

Clousey please go ahead.

Okay, right.

It was uh section six-23-1A, uh change state of Connecticut Environmental Protection Agency to State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection of State.

Okay, um I'll I'm gonna take that by voice vote.

All in favor of that amendment, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, the eyes have it, and uh Barbara, please um just make note of that amendment.

Um I was actually pulling it up.

Um, if you want to give me two seconds, uh, no rush.

And in the meantime, you guys can keep talking.

Yes, yeah, no rush, no worries.

Um okay, I didn't see any other hands.

Um, and I'm gonna I have a few questions uh for you, Director Clausi.

Um specifically kind of just talking about um, you know, the talk of the need for uh this conservation commission because of development in Stanford, and you know, specifically what I presume is housing development and other economic development.

Um I guess I'm I'm curious because in my part of Stanford, most of the housing growth and housing development is already existing structures, you know, being demoed or being converted from office space into apartments.

So my point is, you know, it's not really forests being chopped down.

Um so I guess part of my concern too is that we want to see that urban infill development because the denser housing we have in the already uh existing areas, the less likely you're gonna see development in you know, forested or undeveloped areas or wooded areas.

Um so I guess that leads me to my question, which is would you support some sort of housing neutrality amendment to this ordinance that just you know specifically makes the commission neutral on housing issues and and keeps the focus on conservation of wildlife, native plants, um, you know, keystone species.

Um I just think in order for um, you know, this to be beneficial for everyone, uh there should be some language that says that, but do you think that's amenable?

Well, I don't know that that there's any way that a conservation commission could um impact slow down uh stymie housing development if those developments go through the uh other approval processes of the zoning board, if they're wetlands that you'd have to probably come to EPB for a wetlands permit that's in a flood prone area, we'd have to make sure that it's compliant with uh the uh FEMA regulations, things like that.

Conservation commission is advisory.

And, you know, for I I could picture uh redeem development of a already developed property, the conservation commission would probably comment on the landscaping plan and uh encourage the use of native species in that plan.

Um but even that would be a comment, say to the zoning board, and the zoning board could take it or leave it.

I mean, it's not uh um prescriptive, it's just advisory.

I see, okay.

I I and that's good to know.

I mean, those are right, those are things that matter.

If you're gonna plant, you know, that plant infrastructure, it makes sense that it adds to the biodiversity and feeds keystone species.

I totally support that.

I guess just that that's my concern is that this uh commission or a future commission on say that type of property or project we just referenced says, you know, this this building, this proposal's too dense.

You know, that's that's an area that is just my concern that would a future conservation commission, you know, limit um or impact, you know, density.

The reason why I bring that up is because that matters at the end of the day with affordability, which I think, you know, last November the voters really spoke out about affordability.

I don't want to get into all the housing uh statistics, um, but they're they're pretty bleak in terms of affordability.

Um so I'm gonna reserve uh the rest of my questions uh for a later time and I will uh turn it over to uh Representative Sanford.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I guess my question would be more kind of aligned with what the vision for the commission would be in terms of an advisory.

Is it is it gonna be organic and internal as an advisory role to an admit the administration and future administrations and their staff, or my concern would be is that it would be used by other boards, maybe the board of reps, the board of finance, the board, pick your board as a way of weaponizing some type of agenda to uh my point is is that just because we say it's advisory that that still holds a lot of weight.

I mean, the board of ethics issues advisory opinions.

The whole comprehensive plan is is advisory in nature, so it still holds some weight.

So I'm not really against it, but I'm kind of wondering where their role lies within the administration, and if they are strictly advising the administration on their strategy, as opposed to getting involved in individual projects, I don't really have that much of an issue.

I mean right now we have a board of reps, a board of finance, a zoning board, a planning board, an administration.

We have a lot of opinions.

So to add five more or seven more, you know, do we do we start to stall progress in areas because we've got more people involved and in issuing more opinions.

So I have no problem with I think the role of an advisory commission looking at strategically big scope, big picture.

How do we how do we move forward and meet our environmental goals?

I'm just more, I think, concerned kind of with representative with Chair Hughes in a way that if we're gonna get involved in every in in project based individual project.

So I I don't know really what the question is but I think my question would be I guess do you see the role more as as as internal and strategy to the administration or a resource where anybody including myself can say you know I want to reach out and get an opinion on this and then invite you to my board meeting and get you to to speak on my behalf because you agree with what I'm saying like that that's kind of what I'm trying to avoid and that's kind of what my concern is and I'm sorry to be long winded but that I think that's kind of what I'm getting at.

Okay well I I think giving you a little bit of background on how things operate now would would maybe set your mind at ease a bit uh the environmental protection board does get referrals on zoning board applications so whether it's a redevelopment project or uh you know office conversion to residential or uh uh development of a uh vacant parcel we get referrals and we make comments our comments tend to be focused on wetland issues flood prone issues we do look at landscaping plans we do comment on them we get involved in uh some of the things that a conservation commission could do now if there's a separate conservation commission you have people who are going to set the commission's agenda and give direction to the city staff who are going to help to to support it administratively so perhaps our comments I have three environmental analysts that I work with and I do also do referral comments perhaps our comments will be become more broad scope but uh whereas comments we make about uh flood compliance are generally taken verbatim by the zoning board because it's a regulatory thing uh our comments on landscaping aren't necessarily taken anywhere by the zoning board just and I think likewise as a conservation comment in a an expanded uh referral back from EPB to the zoning board um those non-regulatory comments will be taken or left left by the zoning board um now you know I spoke to the director in Greenwich today at uh a little bit about how they do it and they have a separate wetlands agency and a conservation commission and with separate staffs and their conservation commission staff make comments on referral uh that are advisory and the planning and zoning commission in Greenwich takes it or leaves it they're not saying uh they're not really discussing density because density is set by the zoning regulations they're not doing any of that they're looking at are the trees in this part of the property bat habitat are the you know is the landscaping uh uh native uh to the extent that it's it's reasonable uh you know so those are the kind of comments that that I read about six of their reports today and there's nothing you know uh that I thought was uh uh a burden uh or uh restriction not not no no restrictions no i i appreciate it thank you and and uh yield thank you chair thank you representative sanford um i so uh one of our NVIDIA's has their hands up so uh Ralph maybe uh thank you very much um first I would like to uh thank uh Bob and uh representative of Campo Real for working hard uh on this um Bob has been really uh at the forefront of this and and brought in all his experience from granite uh for this so thank you for for uh keeping us on that track but um from a procedural uh uh perspective what I just wanted to say is the way it works if there is a zoning uh application coming in is uh the zoning board receives the application and it then gets referred out to um different agencies and boards those agencies and boards have um 35 days um if they don't get their act together within the 35 days um uh then except uh if there are regulatory requirements such as wetlands and things like that um uh it's their loss uh they uh are then assumed to be uh uh have a positive opinion or not opposing uh an application um so I don't think it creates any additional time uh uh in uh the review process um I think uh actually uh and I think uh Bob was right in saying the zoning board takes it or leave it like uh um uh the uh we get advisory uh opinions from uh HPAC and uh the board decides to include this recommendation or not to include this recommendation um I think conversely actually um I think in some instances or in many instances uh uh those boards can be helpful because um the zoning board doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to uh conservation issues so they're looking for uh advisory opinions uh to tell them uh um uh what they should do I mean um the the zoning board for example is is very interested in in making sure that uh trees are uh being replaced uh when there is a development project um but what's the right way of replacing those trees they don't know they are no arborists they are not uh landscaping experts so uh if uh there is uh someone who can point them in the right direction uh that is oftentimes something that saves the board a lot of discussion um I think also what is important is uh and that emerges over the course of time is um if if another uh board or commission uh uh acts crazy uh for lack of a better word then they're not being taken seriously if a board shows or commission shows uh that they are uh uh responsible um then uh they uh carry weight and in the um uh case of uh the zoning board they get input from the WPCA they get input from the transportation department they get input from the engineering department they have to weigh all those things um so uh I think they're they're very well aware of um uh that there are trade-offs between different uh sort of uh interests um and and I think uh the the board is is well equipped um to make those um uh judgments so I would think um that there is little uh that that can come out that about a conservation commission that is structured in a in a way that is proposed like as a purely advisory commission um and I mean the the uh the other thing that is important to uh uh keep in mind is that uh all the boards have their own uh authority.

Um so uh um happened in the past, but uh that the the board of representatives tried to get like someone from uh the zoning board to answer for their actions uh when they approved or denied something.

Um it was always sort of the the the opinion of both the zoning board and uh but also the law department that the zoning board does their own thing.

So they're not responsible to answering to uh the board of representative with regard to um uh zoning questions.

That's their purview and and that's what they do.

And I think that's really important to understand also about a commission uh and uh like the the uh uh conservation commission, it would be the same thing, like the the conservation commission, they cannot usurp uh the role of the zoning board.

So um there might be people on there who try it, but that's not how the different boards and commissions are uh structured and work together.

So with that, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ralph.

Um now I'm going to recognize uh Representative Fields.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I just wanted to say that I support this ordinance, and I do it for three reasons.

I think first it fills a real gap without creating any new bureaucracy.

The EPB already has conservation commission authority under state law, but its primary focus is wetlands regulation.

So it simply doesn't have the bandwidth the way I understand it for broader conservation work.

This creates a dedicated body to handle what the EPB can't using existing city staff and resources with no new personnel or budget impact.

I also think that my second point is that it's purely advisory.

So there's zero regulatory power.

The revised draft explicitly states the commission cannot approve deny delay or improv or impose conditions on anything.

So it cannot override the planning board ZBA EB EPB or or any other land use agency.

So the concerns raised about regulatory overreach have been directly addressed by corporation council.

And by third point is that it advances Stanford's own stated goals.

The conservation commission is recommended by the Stanford 2035 comprehensive plan, a plan that the city already adopted.

Supporting this ordinance means holding Stanford accountable to its own vision on climate resilience, urban tree canopy, coastal restoration, open space, and public education.

It's not a new idea, it's a commitment the city has already made, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Fields.

And now I'm gonna recognize it.

Thank you, sir.

Um yeah, I guess um through you to uh Mr.

Fausse, I did it did it kind of one question.

If you could clarify, um I know it's come up a few times.

Um but uh if an application is kind of in front of the EPB, um would they be able to refer it uh to the conservation commission um as kind of as this ordinance is currently written?

Um kind of just so uh you know, adding it would add a little bit more time on to the application process, obviously, to wait for it uh, you know, to come onto the conservation commission agenda um and then be heard and deliberated and and so forth.

Um but just what like to get some clarification on that.

Thank you.

Uh well I think it would not be referred to the commission as a whole.

It would be, you know, this is uh the the uh the referral um mechanism would be uh an administrative mechanism, and it does it's not an application being made to the conservation commission, it's a referral from EPB, and uh, you know, until there it's unless and until there's uh dedicated staff of the commission itself, the EPB would be referring the matter to itself because we so I I think uh uh what is done uh in again the example of Greenwich the commission members are provided copies of the referral comments that their staff make to the other boards and then they can sort of um you know advise their staff hey you know you gotta be a little harder on you know a little tougher on asking for native plants or whatever it is that that the board members feel are their priorities and then that is a check and balance and then goes works its way through the future referrals.

So I think that that that could be a mechanism where uh we could get input from the citizen experts who are gonna form the body of the commission sure thank you thank you very much um that was it for now thank you Mr.

Clause um I I yield the floor thank you chair thank you representative leach uh and now I'm gonna recognize representative McEwen thank you chair um my uh initial question is just procedural I noticed that there was an a revised ordinance that was added to the legislative record I believe yesterday and I just wanted to confirm that the motion before the committee now is to consider the the draft that has originally made its way through the process.

Yeah that is a very good question.

Um I believe um when I looked online it said updated um but that might best be a question for Barbara.

This is the one that Karen sent over to the I'm sorry that representative camparelli sent to the entire committee.

And this is the most current version this is the version that she said she was sending over and it was sent to the committee and it was put online and the only changes to it are what we did to uh correct the agency name to read the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

So this is the draft that Karen sent.

Understood thank you Miss Montalvo in that case uh chair I respectfully recommend that we process at the very least we could do so in a in a in a quick way but I would recommend that we entertain a motion to amend the ordinance and the nature of that amendment is to substitute it in its entirety with the revised version um just so that we are not in the practice of revising ordinances outside of and in between committee meetings and outside of the public and outside of debate.

And with that I yield all right uh point of inquiry yes representative camp rally and it's through you chair to uh the parliamentarian is that is that necessary I I'm just asking procedurally because we we never approved the the last ordinance this ordinance was sent and publicized uh and we're reviewing that this evening so I'm just I'm just curious I don't think I remember us ever doing that did I ask my question in a confusing way.

If I may respond chair yes you may thank you uh representative camrelli I do think it is necessary largely because in the absence of doing it that way what could end up happening is say for example this ordinance doesn't resolve itself in committee today uh and we kick it to next month and there's substantive debate and amendments and then in the interim somebody posts another revised version those amendments haven't been approved or vetted by the committee and nobody notices and we approve that later version with amendments included that otherwise haven't been approved.

So generally once an initial draft is proposed and it's come up in committee I would highly recommend against making edits offline that haven't been approved um or at the very least posting it and then it could be as simple as a motion to amend to replace the existing draft with the revised draft something that simple just so that we don't miss anything.

That's what I recommend yes.

Okay.

Thank you for explaining that I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And so Representative McEwen if you don't mind me asking so it what is the exact motion that you're saying a committee member should make what I'd recommend is a motion to amend the existing draft by essentially deleting and replacing it in its entirety with the revised draft that was posted yesterday in the legislative record.

It's a little long winded okay um I would at this time um entertain that motion if there's a committee member who wants to make that motion.

So move.

Do I have a second uh sorry who is that representative beckham thank you Representative Beckham seconded uh all in favor of that uh making that amended uh change to reflect the uh updated revised uh version that is on the website say aye uh any opposed any abstentions all right the eyes have it um representative is there anything else we have to do procedurally on that end no chair hughes I would suggest that now the committee is considering the revised draft uh that's the motion before that's the question before the committee now gotcha thank you and I will now recognize uh representative weinberg who is one of the co-sponsors of this item um uh thank you um before I get into my questions um I just want to make sure is it clear that the revised version that is now on the table uh includes the amendment that um that uh director clousey proposed and that uh representative policichia uh moved before earlier in this meeting yes I believe we are good on that end unless um parliamentarian believes otherwise okay okay great thanks um so uh this is a question either for uh for uh director uh for uh bureau chief blessing or for director clousey or for both um uh there are concerns that a conservation commission uh can be used as a backdoor way to obstruct a land use development project has has that been the case in other municipalities uh and uh second what protections exist in this ordinance to prevent such obstruction well i i mean the the ordinance is simple uh and refers back to the state statute and there's nothing in the state statute that gives the a conservation commission uh authority to uh unilaterally uh modify or require modification of a land use application let's say this going through the zoning board um i so i i i don't think it's necessarily spelled out it's not it's not spelled out in the ordinance but it's not permitted by the statute so it it is okay in my opinion but mr uh Ralph might have uh you know something to add to that um so i'm I'm not familiar with with any other um uh municipalities and in Connecticut uh how how it works there but um I mean it's it's sort of I think the distinction between uh ticks and how uh commission or commissions work and are supposed to work so um I think that um of course everyone can take something out of context from a commission meeting uh and claim uh or or or make false statements uh uh what what the commission might have meant or not meant so I think it's it's really up to uh the the commission members to um uh for example of a land use board to to have the wisdom and and uh to to uh really uh base their their uh decisions on on what the commission actually said and also what what really the um the responsibilities of those uh commissions are and um I think if uh a zoning board or a planning board is uh is aware that um it is only an advisory uh commission then I don't see any uh any issues with that and I think the the uh ordinance is is very clear with that and so is the state statute which which would if there was a conflict between our ordinance and uh the state statute would would rule uh in that case yeah thank you uh another question um and this is just is this a follow-up Ralph to uh comment that you made earlier so there there's there's another concern that um the existence of a conservation commission sort of adds another step to the um to the approval process for a uh for development project and therefore thereby could uh could extend the time period uh that it takes for uh for project to get uh to get final approval from the zoning board my understanding from what you said before is that a referral to the um to the conservation commission would uh like all other referrals would originate from either the land use bureau or the zoning board uh those those are made at the same time uh the conservation commission would have the same length of time to respond uh that the other um that the other commissions uh epb hpac etc have and therefore since those since the conservation committees activities would be running in parallel not in series with the other commissions um the the existence of a conservation commission uh asked to provide an advisory opinion would not lengthen uh the time period before which the zoning board can make a final decision uh did i understand you correctly that was a question for rap uh sorry i my internet connection was unstable there for a second but i think i i got the gist um of the question um there is a set and that's actually a statutory uh requirement there is a set referral period that is 35 days so um when uh the zoning board receives uh an application uh it gets referred out by the land use bureau and uh the referral letter says you have until x date 35 days from from the date received uh to submit uh your comments and and once again if no comments are received uh the statute and it has also been the practice of uh the uh uh the land use bureau if that isn't received, then uh uh it is assumed that the that agency or or commission uh has no problem with uh the application.

So it doesn't it adds uh an additional step in the sense that yes, instead of uh 10 uh referral letters, we have to write 11 referral letters, but it doesn't uh add time uh to the process.

Thank you.

Very helpful.

Uh with that I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Um, and to piggyback off that question, Ralph.

Um I just want to make sure I understood it correctly.

So does that quick turnaround not apply if there's this uh projects in wetlands?

Uh the that is correct, but that is something that is actually in the state statute.

So uh in the zoning regulations, uh it uh in in certain uh uh places in the zoning regulations, it says that in order for uh the zoning board or the zoning board of appeals to approve something, it needs the approval of the wetlands uh agency, and that is obviously taken from the state statute, but has to be written specifically in the zoning regulations or anything like that.

Otherwise, sort of the general rule applies and the general rules for the conservation commission as set up and as proposed, um, says, yeah, it's advisory.

So uh you get your 35 days like everyone else, and if you don't get your act together, sucks for you.

Thank you.

I guess that's just my concern because in Stanford we have a lot of wetlands.

Um, so and I I understand that those considerations need to be taken because of the sensitive environment of wetlands and the important habitat that is for a shoreline.

Um, but that's just I guess my my concern there is that the state statute requires that.

So it's the state statute that would be prolonging um the process to get approval for a permit.

Um, and that's that's part of my larger concern is you know, we're we're pointing to state statute, and you know, Connecticut state statutes in many ways I think are why we have a housing crisis.

Um I think there's something to be talked about there of what our regulatory environment has created, and it's it's not an affordable rental or housing market.

Um so I'll yield and I will uh recognize Representative Johnson.

Um thank you, Chair.

I guess my question is is larger on the uh budget side of things.

So I think that's always top of mind for all of us.

Um just curious because I guess we've been told this won't impact uh at least this year's budget, right?

No new cost, but in the the actual language of the ordinance, of course, there is a paragraph saying you know that they will suggest a operating capital budget for the fiscal year.

Um, so I guess it could come up in the future.

But the I guess the core of my question in in practice by having a separate commission, what are you getting if you aren't adding staff?

So I guess we can certainly agree that conservation is a a good goal to work towards.

I just wonder by adding because effectively all we're getting in this case is five more volunteers, right?

If we're not adding staff or administrative support, um, is there a more effective way to get these goals?

Whether that's expanding the EPB's uh resources, what have you?

And so that's that's largely my question is one more around efficacy over sort of intent because I think I'm I'm largely in alignment with the intent.

So just curious if that's been thought through um at all.

I'm happy to to jump in on this one if you want and then feel free.

Um so I I think in a in a perfect world, um, yes, I think having one dedicated staff member um to this, we would get probably greater uh impact and results.

It's just the the facts of having someone who can work greater hours with a specific focus.

So um, you know, I don't I don't combat that notion, and I think Bob shared that as a uh recommendation uh earlier.

I think from my perspective and looking at the the overall department, I do think there's capacity for us to be able to support this commission and staff it so i'm not suggesting that by not adding an additional staff member that there won't be staff support for this commission because i completely agree representative that just adding five volunteers without an alignment to city administration and city staff uh we won't see significant production um but i think that we do have some capacity to to support this uh i also think that um this aligns with the comprehensive plan which um is calling for um the filling of a full-time sustainability coordinator um right now we have a a part-time sustainability coordinator I think that there's potential uh should funding be secured that that is a responsibility that can be assigned to that individual um and you know I feel as though conservation um or sustainability really should be um intertwined with the overall operations of the city um so leaving it kind of limited to one person's uh responsibility or job um to me is is not the full potential of of what we can reach uh as a city that it needs to align so that way um it's not in constant contrast it's just part of how we're developing policy and and kind of weighing opportunities uh for conservation or sustainability for that matter so in the interim to uh be able to to launch this commission i i do think we have the capacity to support this I also think it's an opportunity to look at how we are constructing the cadence of meetings for uh some of our commissions with this being brand new uh it doesn't necessarily by charter or any ordinance have to take place in the evening there's opportunities to align it with the typical working day of staff which doesn't add overtime costs for the administrative support to run these meetings um so uh there there are I think creative ways to get this off the ground um and be able to support it and align it with existing efforts um that are I think primarily uh established through the vision of the comprehensive plan.

So that's my approach um and that's the reason I I kind of jumped in on this I think um from I'll let Bob and Ralph speak for themselves I think they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't seek additional staffing support to be able to to do this and I don't disagree that in a perfect world we have someone solely dedicated to it but um I do believe we can progress um with our existing structure and still support this commission.

Really appreciate it directorness uh I'll I'll yield for now uh Chair.

Thank you, Representative Johnson.

Um Representative Shaw.

Sorry President Shaw.

No worries thank you uh coach Hughes um my question is a little bit more also aligned with some somewhat of the resourcing um we we're saying these these folks at all volunteers is that perhaps this question may not be answered right now but is there a thought put into what kind of volunteers we would get for this the reason I ask is I mean obviously every board right is a volunteer board and so who is coming up for it is what we get.

But just considering very specifically what we're looking for here, right?

Like how do we make sure those goals are achieved by getting volunteers.

I mean I think that's probably one of the other questions of uh Clerk Johnson is like I mean you could get volunteers who are not completely aligned with the goals of the commission right so I I wonder how um has some thought been put into it or how we're going to think about it because again going back to um some of the concerns raised about like using um or um having issues with uh uh decisions being made on like land use and stuff we could potentially get people that are not aligned with the goals so um is there some thought or any other um facts that have been considered um at this point yeah i i can take a stab at that uh the appointment process initiates through through the mayor's office uh as you're all aware but um thank you president shaw for for that inquiry i think it's a fair question when we're we're looking at the profile of kind of ideal candidates for this um i think in a in a perfect world you do have someone with some professional um expertise or experience in this space I think that's not always going to be um feasible just in terms of seeking volunteers who are also residents of of the city so I think kind of at minimum you do want folks I think who balance the passion for uh this work with the practicality of what um compromises or kind of alignments are necessary in in certain cases so that we're progressing in this space responsibly and we're not creating a hostile conflict as opposed to what I would consider to be a healthy conflict which is we should be having um uh conversations where conservation might brush up against uh whether you know development came up this evening but it could be other uh other policies um uh that the the city seeks um so I think getting the perspective of conservation into the argument is ultimately what these individuals can elevate uh and I think looking at um the recommendation that I had offered that's in the in the current draft ordinance around the um responsibility for submitting recommendations around an annual budget or capital budget I think allows for a um more kind of progressive um disposition for for the commission um versus a uh one that would try to constrain project based work or or things of that nature and so by progressive looking at kind of what are opportunities for the city to invest in in this space and leaving it limited to a recommendation and aligning it with a department gives it some structure that frankly aligns with what our our current budget process is and we all during the budget process as this board knows have to weigh those those priorities.

It's just introducing conservation into that conversation during the budget process as well.

So I think that gives it some structure where it's not just what is this commission going to do at least at minimum there are kind of recommendations for opportunities for the city to invest to be considered during the budget process which I think elevates conservation into the the concert conversation um and looking at kind of how do we how where are our our city's values reflected it's in our operating and capital budget.

So that's why I thought that that would be a good insertion into uh the roles and responsibilities to give some something tangible to the commission without a kind of binding regulatory authority that could be um restrictive to some of the other goals uh of the city thank you for that response put that at you thank you Chair Pierce thank you President Shaw um and Representative McEwen I believe you've had your hand raised uh for a while so I'm gonna go to you and then I'll go to Representative Kent Riley.

Thank you Chair um I just had a couple of questions for Chief Blessing um and if you don't have the answers to these readily available perfectly understandable.

You had mentioned that uh some of the processes when the zoning board gets an application that you know solicitations for comment are sent out to numerous agencies boards or commissions or other third parties outside of the zoning board um and that that process and the turnaround time are statutorily mandated by state law do you happen to know what those statutes are by any chance um I'd love to read them again if you don't know them off the top of your head that's probably normal.

And and you know I would I'd appreciate that if you could get it to me offline if you don't uh I do indeed not know uh where they are but I can get you I'm I'm happy to uh get through that information okay perfect thank you so much and then my follow-up um is you'd also mentioned so I my my next question is um do those statutes off the top of your have mandate the speci does it enumerate the types of agencies that you have to solicit comment from or is that just a best practice is that that list is kind of become generated over time um that is really dependent on uh the project okay um so obviously i mean that there's some very clear criteria it's in a coastal area obviously uh it has to go uh to uh the uh to deep or or uh places like this if it is a project uh i mean we generally refer pretty much everything to uh the transportation department but obviously if if we're talking about uh a big traffic generator uh then uh yes we want the in uh input from uh the transportation department there's a couple of things uh that are also statutory required so for example if it's within uh uh near the border of a different municipality it has to be referred we have to send a letter to Greenwich or Darien or Nucana um but it's really uh that in the discretion of of the um uh staff and and obviously over the course of time uh we have developed sort of uh and staff has developed sort of a uh a list we we we literally have a checklist of all the agencies the possible agencies and then uh for each uh application we go down the list and say okay this should go to this agency maybe for this application we don't need it to send it to uh that agency so that's that's really how it works got it that's extremely helpful thank you and in your experience do you expect that this conservation commission would be added to that list whereby they would get solicited com or we would solicit comment with respect to every application or do you think it would be more targeted?

Um we would have to see how it works in practice um I think if we're talking about a site that that is reused uh um there's literally no tree on it then uh there would be a question why do we send it to the to the conservation commission if there's nothing to conserve um I think uh a lot of those things sort of develop and and uh uh emerge um over the course of time sometimes it's also that uh um uh uh commissions request to look into certain I mean the referral process is very easy I mean it's you have a form letter and uh uh you you or a form email and uh you change the email address and send it to an additional person uh or or uh commission on uh that list and since uh uh it's my understanding that that at least in the beginning the conservation commission will be with the land use bureau it's probably be the same staff person who would who would look uh uh at it um uh uh from an EPB perspective um uh for example I mean really the uh at a very basic level uh the additional workload that's created initially for uh the conservation commission is um that someone needs to s uh to schedule the meetings and and post the agendas and and uh those kinds of things and then uh everything else is really very much dependent on uh the commission itself and uh but also on uh uh on you in the sense that uh and the board of finance to then uh make a determination okay we we think the the conservation commission uh does a good job um uh maybe it makes sense to give them more staff um or um uh you and the board of finance decide yeah it's nice to have but we we don't need to equip it with um uh with more staff and i think uh what uh director kinyonas has said that um a lot of it has to do with just being smarter and being less siloed um overall um and also uh i mean yes there's always sort of the the the oh we have another commission and now we have five more people to herd and and and keep together uh i would maybe even turn it around a little bit and say hey we we get five people who add expertise in the best case uh uh and add value to um uh our review process and of course that depends on on the members of the commission um and i would hope that uh the mayor's uh mayor's office um uh is uh and they have been very thoughtful with vetting of of potential candidates uh but also um uh you uh in in your role as as confirming appointments make sure that that we get um uh top-notch uh people um uh on this commission and uh at the same time um i would warn against uh being too uh uh specific about who should be there like do they all need a degree in environmental science probably not um because that restricts your pool and and uh as we've seen with uh the affordable housing trust fund for example there's a requirement for having two members uh uh public members on the commission that have to be residents of affordable housing it's impossible to find someone who who uh fits the bill and has the time uh to be on that board so um but uh i mean i i think we we uh stanford is is big enough and and has a lot of folks here um uh who uh would in my mind be great uh commissioners thank you uh and i i think my last question is more logistics once these referrals are excuse me once these solicitations for comment have gone out to their respective third parties outside of the zoning board um in your experience how often is it the case that those bodies generate questions back to the zoning board or to the applicants themselves uh in the generation of their comments within the statutory limit in terms of time i mean that really depends on uh the uh so in most cases that interaction uh uh happens between uh the referral departments um and the applicants so um if the transportation department has questions about uh transportation stuff uh it's not that it comes back to us and we then ask the applicant it's a it's a dialogue between the applicant um and uh the reviewers um uh if they need clarification on one of the drawings um or or something like that and uh once again in the beginning it will literally be the same staff that that uh will be uh doing the EPB review um so uh it's uh it it's really from from like a staffing level um at the begin or or it's really that that uh the uh the issue is that the commission doesn't have the bandwidth uh to talk about conservation uh so um uh the staff probably already asks questions about conservation uh um uh in their exchanges with uh the applicant.

So uh uh I think I think or I'm I'm confident that we can get uh conservation commission going uh on on like a shoestring.

Um and uh I think uh at some point maybe and and uh I mean uh as as Director Kenuna said, uh I mean uh I I would be derelict of my duties if I wouldn't ask for more staff.

So expect me to come back.

Obviously, uh uh you will say no, you have said no in the past, and and uh um it is it is what it is.

Understood.

Well, thank you very much for for your answers to my questions is very, very helpful.

And and I'll get you that that would be great, thank you.

And with that I yield, Chair.

Thank you, Representative McEwen, and now I'm turning the floor over to Representative Camporelli.

Thank you, Chair Hughes.

Um my question is for basically anybody that wants to to answer it um is in terms of our invited guests, but I think mostly um Director Clousey.

Uh you seem to think that five members for the commission is maybe not enough.

And I'm wondering what amount you think is enough, and then I'd also like to hear from uh Chief Blessings and Director Canonis on that.

Uh well I I think uh, you know, it may be it may be challenging at first to find more than five people, maybe challenging to find five people, but uh I would say that something more along the lines of seven would uh broaden the opportunity that the commission would have uh a wide range of expertise and backgrounds to uh contribute to guiding uh the program of the commission.

I mean, they're gonna be deciding what it is uh they think is important for Stamford uh as they go along.

And uh, you know, five people.

If you, you know, a couple people don't come to a meeting, you don't have a meeting.

Uh if you have a meeting, it's like uh, you know, uh you get together to play play bridge, you know, just talking to each other.

So it's uh, you know, having a critical mass, I think is probably a bit more than five.

The state statute allows anywhere from three to eleven members on a conservation commission.

11, I think is would be unwieldy.

Uh three would obviously be too few, but somewhere between uh, you know, somewhere more north of north of five.

Thank you.

And does Director Canonis or Chief Blessing want to weigh in on that or oh go ahead, Ralph.

Go ahead, Ralph.

Yeah.

I mean, uh I would probably uh not go beyond seven.

Um to make it not um unwieldy.

Um I think another um uh consideration is um how you set the quorum for that commission so that you don't have a quorum that is that is so high that you really need everyone uh there, but that the commission is is still um uh workable.

Coming back to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the issue there is uh it's a seven-member commission and the quorum is five.

So there are often instances where uh it's difficult to get the five people.

So um I think that that would need to be balanced to have a to have a working uh a well-working um uh commission, especially when you when you have a volunteer uh commission.

I mean, people do have uh do have a life, I guess.

Um, so uh that's uh that would be uh a consideration.

Thank you.

I'll give uh representative.

I'll give my two cents for why I recommended five um versus seven.

I think that uh it's going to be um a challenge to find folks that have the credentials to to serve in in this capacity.

Um and I think that when you when you raise the number of individuals serving on a given board, you also raise the threshold of the quorum.

So you're adding two more individuals, but now instead of three, you need four.

Uh there's not really by design um the need for uh them to meet to take kind of votes on actions that will I think be part of the regulatory process by nature.

So um having less members, I think will allow for kind of more focused discussion and it will support the appointment process.

But I understand the perspective of just hey, if we can get more more folks that um that can contribute, we we can get more contributions.

Um, however, I would look to the recommendations I think we made around the the tree ordinance at the time, where if you're going to increase membership, perhaps the board considers aligning with um institutions within the community that have innate expertise and granting them their own uh ex officio appointment uh to serve because that does two things.

One, it kind of ensures that the individual that you're getting is a safe assumption that they're coming with some degree of expertise.

I'll throw like a Bartlett Arboretum as as one institution that comes to mind, um, you know, a save the sound.

Uh it's it there is a precedent for uh boards and commissions created by the city to integrate these community-based organizations outside of the appointment process for city volunteers.

So if they innately have one slot, you can expect um participation from um those institutions and bring their expertise into the board and conversation without straining the appointment process further, um, or running the risk of of not having the the candidate pool uh to to fill the membership requirements.

So that's my two cents.

This is certainly the the board's decision, but just give you some reasoning on kind of my why my recommendation was what it was.

Thank you so much.

Um I I just I wanted to just make a couple of statements uh in that you know we've kind of focused on uh this commission commenting on you know different land use things, but remember that this type of commission will do other things like for example uh invasive bugs, lantern flies, maybe come up with a plan for those, in invasive species like knotweed, uh, which is a real problem for our cities and our parks, um, oyster beds, horseshoe crabs, you know, things that need a little bit of support.

So it's not that just that, you know, it will be busy, you know, looking at the type of applications that um most of us have focused on tonight.

And then I just want to leave you guys with a quote because I'm a goofball.

So I want to leave you with a quote by uh Theodore Roosevelt um in preserving our natural uh our national parks, which are a treasure and which are being attacked by the current administration.

The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets, which it must turn over to the next generation, increased and not impaired in value, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camporelli.

Uh Representative Johnson.

Sure, uh quick question.

I think um Mr.

Blessing started to discuss, but maybe more of a question for uh I'm not sure if it's Representative Camper Eliot or maybe one of the other uh representatives who've helped draft the the current wording.

Has there been thought to requirements uh for the board members, right?

Whether it's degree types or professional experience, things along those lines.

And I think I I do appreciate that that increases the burden of finding the volunteers.

And I think that's a systematic issue we in the the city have with our numerous boards full of volunteers.

But I guess the my concern or not concern, but just question is was there thought to spelling out some of those requirements, right?

Because I I can't tell you the difference between uh I don't know, fur tree of a spoose tree, and I would actually hope that you would very specifically discourage me from giving an advisory opinion on uh conservation matters, right?

Um, and so just more of a yeah, conceptual question to uh presumably uh representative camperelli, but uh anyone else that might might want to weigh in there through you, Chair.

Yes, of course.

Was that question to me or the the professionals?

Uh to uh you or or anyone else who might have uh helped draft I didn't I didn't think to put a requirement in there.

I know that on the tree ordinance we did put uh requirements for the urban forester, um, but that's a paid position, and so it seemed more appropriate there.

I would love to put requirements in for this.

Um I love what the question that President Shaw asked about this, and I love the answer that Director Canonis gave, which was healthy conflict.

Um that's what we hope to have on a commission like this, you know, just the sort of you know, probing and questions and bringing information, really a support staff to our planning, our planning board and and and operations in general.

Um I think to everyone's point, it would be hard to get volunteers, especially volunteers that are going to work on this submission during the day.

You know, that's another caveat that we're giving.

Um but I would hope that you know all of the land use forwards would be weighing in and describing to the mayor and to uh chief of staff Fox the type of candidates that we want, because I certainly do not want a lot of lay people, you know, making decisions or bringing information.

I'm with you.

I would love, you know, people with degrees or you know, working experience um in conservation and and all the things that the city needs um to enhance the city.

This is just to enhance and support the current city staff.

It's not it's not to do anything but that.

Got it.

Thank you.

Uh I yield, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Johnson.

Um, and I just wanted to ask one question.

I'm not sure who could best answer this, either one of the co-sponsors or one of our guests.

Um, but I wanted to ask about the portion that would permit this uh commission to accept land as a donation if uh the current language says if the board of representatives approves of that.

Um, but I guess my question is, um, and anyone can answer this.

Um why does this I guess body and this is purely just truly a question?

Why does this body need to also you know hold land when we have like the Stanford Land Trust and you know city parks already that are under management?

And you know, we've had some discussion about parks that need investments.

Um I just my my concern is just you know a commission I guess stewarding large amounts of land.

I understand the purpose of the land stewardship, which is conservation, which obviously biodiversity and species need places to to live too.

Um so I guess could someone I guess uh answer the the reasoning for that.

I think the best person to answer that would be director clousey.

Um from I'm sorry, do I have permission to to speak?

I think you were asking questions.

Yes that's part of the co-sponsors in the inter.

Okay.

I think he would be the best person to to answer that question obviously the the conservation commission itself would not own the land um it would be looking at properties or not properties really but areas like wetlands or things like that that it could uh advocate for and perhaps get grant money for that's the other thing that I that I didn't say earlier the other thing that this commission can do is advocate for grant money so it's another another resource besides our grant office to advocate for environmental grants um so I I think it's given to the it the powers are given by the state statute uh it wouldn't necessarily own the land and it would still have to go through all of the boards in uh in order to be appropriated to to get that so it would first have to go through the mayor's office right the mayor would want to decide if if she wants to appropriate money for that and then it would go through um I guess the board of finance and then the board of reps so I mean I don't I don't see that as anything that could gum anything up or take land from housing or anything like that but I I think maybe the professionals should weigh in on that director blessing or or Mr Clouse.

Okay I I think I think what this is uh this section six-32b is basically a restatement of one of the clauses in this in the uh statute with it says the conservation commission may with the approval of such legislative body acquire land and easements in the name of the municipality um so uh you've you've kind of boiler plated that using your your the legislative body stating board of representatives so the commission can't really do anything without the board of representatives approval now would it would a conservation commission ever want I doubt it uh as as uh your your uh committee member said uh you know how are they gonna manage a piece of land I mean that's that's a big undertaking I mean so uh you know it's it's it's it's a it's a uh something that a commission may do is is allowed to do uh by the uh uh statute uh with the approval of the of the board of reps and uh I would be very surprised I mean there there could there be a case where a landowner doesn't want to give it directly to the land trust but would rather pass it through the conservation commission you know temporarily I who knows but that would be something for uh you or your successors to determine if it's appropriate.

Um yeah I would I would echo that the the owner would be the city of Stanford I mean if you look at the tax records or go to a school it's owned by the city of Stanford police headquarters it's owned by the city of Stanford the parks are owned uh by by the city of Stanford so so in that sense we have one uh uh um entity um I think um uh and and also when it comes to conservation easements they assigned uh Bob correct me if I'm wrong they're signed by the mayor um so uh that's that's where uh sort of the the the buck ends uh Ralph excuse me excuse me the conservation easements are granted by the property owner to the city yeah so that's that's something that they do yeah uh yeah without without the the mayor's involvement really yeah yeah and it's not it's not land it's not land ownership it's an easement over privately held property yeah yeah but yeah as Bob said all those easements are to the city it's not to the conservation commission or to EPB or to uh I don't know the department of transportation um so um uh I think and and I totally agree like the conservation commission uh the they couldn't manage that and uh I think uh where but on the other hand um having a conservation commission might encourage people to uh donate land for conservation purposes rather than giving it to the city and the city then puts a parking lot on it or something like that um so uh I would see it more uh um in in that way and there are all those checks and balances for every uh piece of land that the city acquires or disposes of that it that it has to go for for a very good reason through through all kinds of boards.

Okay thank you you know that that answers that and yeah no that wasn't my I'm not suggesting that you know that a commission would eat up land that's gonna be developed because like I said before I think most of the land we see development on is is already developed land um and totally understand kind of um the need for a commission uh to have that I I was just curious um about that and also uh to the to the point representative camperelli made on the the grant side I think that also um is a useful use of this commission um especially you know there's different NGOs that the commission could partner with like Soundwaters um and there's also I don't know if you're familiar with there's the Long Island Sound Futures Fund which uh does a lot of grants uh specifically for Long Island Sound resiliency and other restoration projects um but so is there any uh I'll yield my question questioning um is there any land use uh committee members who have any further questions for the co-sponsors or for the invited guests or any ex officio members who have further questions uh representative gardener thank you Chair Keys um I just the only concern I have with um with the formation of this commission is just the appointments commission like appointments process I know uh representative camperelli is with me on the uh the appointments committee for the board of representatives and it's uh it's a massive ongoing challenge appointing candidates quality candidates um and also the you know the impact of adding five more people to our list of can of candidates we have to approve for an ongoing sort of forever indefinite basis is a significant undertaking which we shouldn't take lightly uh especially given uh mr blessing's comments that the board should potentially be larger be seven members that would that would be an even more great workload which we have to maintain indefinitely into the future I do think finding quality candidates who meet the criteria is very very ch very challenging and uh while that's not something that's easy to uh discuss at this time since we don't have the full details about the the commission I do think that's something we should bear in mind that um achieving those goals of finding quality candidates is a real challenge which we shouldn't underestimate I yield thank you Representative Gardner any uh ex officio members with any more questions Representative Finkel.

Thank you Chair and just a point more point of information to make sure that everybody understands that what we're voting on is to substitute ordinance as we amended it at this meeting.

Yes it would be so it'd be as amended thank you.

Of course uh Representative Gardner I think your hand was up from before my apologies uh okay no worries.

So any other questions at this time um it's just seeing none um so I I think it sounds like we're you know all out of point um you know where we're all very close to you know aligning on this um it is getting late um i would uh propose or ask for uh an amendment to table to july's meeting um co chair price isn't here but also i think uh that would give us just the more opportunity to slightly add just clarifying language and on housing would be my only ask some sort of um housing neutrality language um and it wouldn't be language that stops the commission in any way from giving the advisory opinions um because that's allowed um or i should say we're not allowed to um prevent that um because of state statute um but also i think giving the board more time the full board more time to uh give input on this and further amend it in committee instead of on the full floor might save us some time um during this month's meeting um apologies that's my pancreas pump uh diabetes pump um but so i would open that uh there's someone on the committee with uh um wants to make a motion yeah motion to recommit second uh one click point of information point of information yeah is that the point of information i think we were looking to table it instead of sending it back to steering uh point of order uh tabling um a motion is used to take up and then uh something else immediately so if we had another item on our agenda for tonight then we could table to pick up that item but then it would come back this agenda so tabling is not a proper motion to uh postpone to next month okay um i'm gonna i'm gonna rec uh parliamentarian can you um recommend is that correct tabling is not the correct vertical yeah so if the intention is to push this to the next meeting um i'd recommend a motion to postpone definitely um specifically a motion to postpone definitely i think is is is what you're looking for yeah i'd like to make a motion before we do that motion i've had my hand raised yep uh i'll i was about to recognize you sir committee member representative field yeah thank you i'd like to make a motion to approve this now point of and for point of inquiry no one seconded that so i'm gonna say that point of inquiry yes representative camperelli i just i just wanted to say that the the way that you stated it just now seemed like this committee would be approving it would be going to the full floor for approval but that is not how it works the only thing that your committee would be approving it for right now would be to send it to a public hearing um so I'm not sure do you think it's not ready for a public hearing or so that's my question I I was confused by that um representative shaw did you have your hand raised or president shaw sorry sorry I was just going to have talk when there's a discussion about this but I can wait till we get the get um representative camponi's question answered yeah I mean I I would like to see it amended to have some sort of housing uh like I said neutrality language just clarifying um that this commission isn't you know focused on gumming up or being another barrier to housing I I feel like we all agreed to that and understand that that's not we want this to be so I I would like to see that in the text of the ordinance it it does.

We did add into the text of the ordinance, um, that this is completely an advisory commission.

It has no statutory authority, it has no ability to even prevent uh, as we've just heard from all of the land use boards, it has no ability to um gum up development, postpone a hearing, change anything.

It is it is basically um an advisory to city staff, it's a help to city staff to to give information.

So I I'd like, I mean, I don't, I don't know what more we could say as a city to make you feel comfortable that this is not to to prevent or gum up or do anything to housing.

Thank you, Representative Camp Raleigh.

Um, I'm gonna give the floor to Representative Adams.

Yeah.

Could we just Glad could you please just clarify what motion do we have right now and what we're discussing on?

I'm a little confused.

Yeah, so uh Representative Field made a motion uh to approve it tonight.

It was not seconded, and then I w recognized.

So we're back to the original motion to uh postpon.

Is that correct?

Uh, can I second representative fields motion then?

If the only issue is that it wasn't seconded.

So it was not seconded before, and I recognize Representative Adams.

Okay.

Thank you.

But you're not gonna let it be seconded now.

Well, you you would have to get rid of my motion, which is a motion to um um send by the committee because it was seconded.

Um I don't know what from um parliamentarian would um Senator by the committee and postpone it, what different would it do?

It still would have to go by the committee.

So when he um made a suggestion that postpone it would be a better way of doing it.

Could he explain what would it accomplish other than the debate to committee and come back next month?

May I answer that, Chair?

Yes, sure.

Um, so um through you to Representative Adams.

Um, happy to explain those differences.

Also, just to clarify my earlier statement, I I personally don't have a preference nor recommendation as to either path.

I was strictly advising the chair.

Um, the the motion that it seemed he was looking for to achieve what he was looking to do.

Uh, the difference between a motion to recommit to steering versus a motion to postpone definitely, a motion to recommit to steering uh would send it back to steering's agenda.

Well, they'll have a conversation as to whether or not it's appropriate to put it on LNU's uh agenda again to put it in pending or to send it somewhere else.

A motion to postpone definitely would kick this item automatically effectively to L and U's next agenda meeting uh without the input of steering.

That's largely the difference.

The board, the large board, of course, would have the authority to prevent that and to redirect it to this hearing if they felt it was appropriate to have some discussion there, but those are largely the differences between the two motions.

Thank you, Parliamentarian.

Uh President Shaw.

Thank you.

Um by any means, I'm not trying to prolongate this process, but I I kind of do take that there is some advantage to postponing and bringing it back, only because you know, here's like eight or nine of us having so many questions.

My worry is that we are going to get to caucus and like there's going to be this human amount of discussion happening.

So I'd rather just do this right and do this slow and send it to the full board for input and have some questions answered and whatever amendments people want to bring up, can at least we can have that ready for the next meeting rather than rushing it through.

And I I'm I'm just not fond of getting to public hearing with so many amendments, you know, that we want to make, and then you're just going through the process over and over again.

I'd rather just have a substantial amount of the amendments and inputs taken, and then we go to public hearing.

Um, and so that would be my recommendation.

And with that I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw and Parliamentarian.

Can I ask can something be procedurally can something be amended after it's had a public hearing?

Uh my understanding is the answer is no, if it really creates a substantive change, if we're amending like, you know, like a correction.

Uh if we added a section but we failed to update the numbering, I would argue we don't need another public hearing for that to correct that.

But if we're making any kind of substantive amendment, we would need another public hearing.

Great, thank you.

Uh I'm gonna represent Camparelli.

I totally forgot what I was going to say.

Oh, I know what I was gonna say.

I was gonna say that if you have some kind of an amendment, which I really have been asking for for over a month now, um, that it could come to me before we go to a caucus.

We could iron it out with the legal team and also bring the amendment back to the to the to the board to look at before we're we're having whole conversations with full board.

I I just think I understand what President Shaw is saying, but for us to talk about this in caucus when we don't even know what your amendment is or why it's needed, or you know, what what the three experts that just spoke to us think of it, I think would do the whole board an injustice and potentially be a big waste of time.

Um on the full board side, not that your suggestions or anything like that is a waste of time.

I don't I didn't mean that.

Um so that that was it.

That's all I want.

Thank you, Representative Camparelli.

Uh Representative Field.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I guess I'm confused because, you know, we had the three experts support it, and then I had asked for it to go to a vote.

You kind of said, Oh, well, no one seconded it, but then I didn't know there was really enough time for someone to second it, and somebody later said, Oh, well, I'll second it, and then nothing happened, and somebody changed the subject.

So I'm just confused about the process.

If I have to go if I ask for it to go to a motion to vote on it, and somebody is obviously seconding it, why can't we at least vote on it?

My understanding is it wasn't seconded at that moment.

You know, it wasn't seconded, and then someone else was recognized.

The opportunity, my understanding, parliamentarian is the motion at that point was dead when it wasn't seconded, and then I went to the next speaker.

Could I have clarification on if that is the correct process, parliamentarian?

Sure.

Uh so generally, yes.

If the motion isn't seconded at the time it's made, it's not before the committee, you're free to move on.

Of course, that representative is free to also make the motion again at a later time to seek a second.

That being said, my unsolicited opinion um is also a motion to vote, isn't proper here in committee to kind of force a vote.

Um it would be similar to kind of moving the previous question, also not appropriate.

What would be an appropriate way to kind of get a vote to happen is to instead advocate against a motion to commit.

Um, once that mo because that motion is currently before the committee.

So once that motion to recommit fails, obviously, of course, the committee would then move forward to bringing a vote.

So can I make a motion or can you make it sorry?

One second, Robert Field, can you remind us parliamentarian?

The motion that's on the floor.

My recollection is that representative Adams' motion was the last motion that was moved and seconded, and he phrased it as a motion to recommit.

It could be changed to a motion to postpone, but that's the which has not been done nor seconded.

But my understanding is the motion recommit to steering from representative Adams is currently before the committee.

Thank you.

Okay, and so I'm gonna go back and recognize Representative Adams.

Yeah, so if it's possible to kill two words at one stone, I would amend my motion um to um um what McEwen said, and then um postpone and then get it back to this committee next month.

Uh if if if not we'll just vote on send it back to committee.

Because I got a second on that already so I don't want to get out of line because my motion now to send it by committee has got a second and is up for a vote but if I could mend that um to um what McCuan saying and still have my second I will prefer that for the sake of time.

Okay I second the amended motion from rep evidence.

Okay thank you okay so I'm gonna call a roll call vote on that or Barbara point of information please yes uh representative Morrison or majority leader Morrison thank you Chair Hughes uh could we could we just have a um clarification of the amended motion that is on the floor yes I believe that it uh it is to recommit definitely to next month's land use committee is that the motion representative adams is that correct um yes because uh McEwan say if I just um right suspend it it would come directly back to land use committee next month so it would be it would definitely be a full conversation not a motion to recommit is I believe what you made uh whereas representative morrison said recommit but it would be a motion to postpone and not to recommit and the motion is to postpone definitely per parliamentary McEwan's recommendation is that right okay thank you very much Mr.

Chairman thank you Reverend Adams thank you uh Barbara can you please call the roll on the uh motion to uh postpone definitely absolutely I'm gonna start uh with everyone and I'm gonna come back to you representative adams how do you vote yes thank you representative beckham how do you vote yes thank you representative boudreau how do you vote no thank you representative field how do you vote um can I come back sure we can come back to you representative finkel how do you vote no thank you representative how do you vote yes representative police how do you vote yes okay um I'm gonna come back to um you after the chair uh representative field okay uh uh chair hughes how do you vote yes okay and representative field how do you vote no okay let me take a quick tally we have five yeses three no's and zero abstentions the motion to postpone definitely pass it thank you Barbara um at this time I would entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second all in favor of adjourning uh the meeting of the land use and urban redevelopment committee uh ends at 8 53 p.m.

thank you everyone have a good night good night all good night thank you everyone have a good night good night everyone