I'm gonna go ahead and jump on in and get started.

I'll call the meeting to order at this point.

It is 701 p.m.

on July 22nd, 2026.

Barbara, would you like to call the role or would you like me to do that?

Um it's your choice.

If you would like to call it, I'll record it.

If you want me to call it and record it, let me know.

I'm happy to I'm happy to call it if you don't mind recording it.

So for the Thanks.

For the record, uh, I am here.

Glenn Price, co-chair of the committee.

Uh Representative Adams.

Representative Beckham.

Present.

Representative Boudrell.

President.

Representative Field.

Present.

Representative Finkel.

Representative, excuse me, co-chair use.

My apologies.

President.

And Representative Politia.

Present.

Thanks.

Barbie, you got all that?

Yes, I do.

I also recognize that we have in attendance some of our invited guests.

Ralph Gling, Richard Friedman, Robert Clousey.

And just double checking.

I thought I saw someone else.

No, I'm oh, and um attorney Anger.

My apologies.

We've got several uh ex officio members joining us tonight, including if I miss anybody, I apologize.

Representative Gardner, Representative Johnson, uh Rosina Delacruz, Representative Campiarelli, and President Shaw, uh, as well as Parliamentary Parliamentarian Mike McEwen.

Uh I think that's everyone.

Uh if I have missed someone, and I was just corrected by Representative Gardner, not ex officio, just uh current board members.

My apologies.

Um we have one item to consider, uh, and I'm happy to go ahead and read the item.

Barbara, is it possible for you to put the item up on the screen?

Yes, I will share the agenda.

Just give me two seconds to get.

Please and thank you.

By the way, can you hear me now?

Yes, sir.

We can.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Can you on mute?

I'm sorry, did somebody ask me a question?

Oh no, I'm sorry.

I thought you were talking like that.

Oh, sorry.

I was talking about.

No, it's my fault.

My fault.

That's okay.

Uh.

Thank you, Barbara.

If you if you wouldn't mind uh scrolling down just a bit.

Thanks very much.

Uh ladies and gentlemen, tonight we will be considering LU32.009, an ordinance for publication uh establishing a conservation committee.

Uh excuse me, a conservation commission, originally LR32.019.

This was submitted by Representatives Camporelli, Representative Weinberg, Representative Delacruz, and Representative Finkel.

Um before I move for any discussion or motions on the item, I was going to call on Representative Camporelli to introduce uh the item and give a bit of an overview for everyone in attendance this evening.

Uh Representative Camporelli, uh are you up to the task at hand, please?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Barbara, can I ask you to put the PowerPoint up?

I am switching from the agenda to the PowerPoint.

Thank you.

Is it possible to make it bigger, Barbara?

If you close the next slide window, it should.

Your other option, if you'd like, Barbara, is you can go up to display sittings uh in the toward the top left and switch the uh displays.

Yeah, I have it on the second screen, and that's where I'm trying to show it from, which would show the full slide.

Uh let me try sharing it a different way so it shows that.

And then I still have control to move the slides for Representative Camper.

Apologies, thank you.

All these PDF experts.

Thank you.

No, thank you very much for your patience because I have it up in uh PowerPoint, and I have it in the slideshow where we can just click and it will move when you tell me to.

And it's just it's two different screens that don't want to play well together.

My apologies.

No worries, no worries, no worries.

There you go.

Thank you.

That's perfect.

Um, at the suggestion of our very wise chairman Price, and after speaking with several members this week, I realized there are still some significant misunderstandings about this ordinance.

Rather than assume everyone has had the opportunity to read all 15 pages, I'd like to spend just a few minutes explaining what this ordinance is, what it is not, and why many of the concerns that have been raised are already addressed by the by Connecticut state law.

Um a conservation commission is not something Stanford or I invented.

It is authorized under Connecticut General Statute 7-131A and exists in municipalities throughout Connecticut, many of them.

Its purpose is simple.

It's it's it studies natural resources, develops long-term conservation plans, educates the public, applies for grants, and provides science-based advice to our city.

It is not a regulatory commission.

It does not issue permits, it does not enforce regulation, it does not make binding decisions, its role is advisory.

Next slide.

This is not another regulatory body.

The EPB continues doing exactly what it does today.

The Conservation Commission simply performs the conservation functions that EPB already has.

This proposal actually came from the EPB.

The idea is straightforward and allows the EPB to focus on regulation while a dedicated advisory commission focuses on conservation.

No new authority is being granted.

So on the left portion of your screen is so basically both sides of the screen are what the EPV does right now.

What this proposal is to separate off the regulatory duties of the EPB, which are on the left-hand side, and create the new commission, which would be completely advisory, and their duties would be on the right.

Next slide.

How the commission benefits Stanford.

These issues aren't hypothetical.

They affect Stanford today.

We also what type of flooding we had this week, air quality issues, water quality, tree canopy, invasive species, climate resilience, open space.

A conservation commission gives Stanford a dedicated group focused on studying these issues before they become larger issues and more expansive problems.

This isn't about creating regulation.

It's about better planning, better science, better information.

Next slide.

These are the people responsible for planning Stanford's future.

They support this ordinance because it separates existing responsibilities without changing anyone's authority.

Why the proposed amendments are necessary?

Why the proposed amendments are unnecessary.

Many of the proposed amendments that you're going to hear tonight attempt to solve concerns that state law already addresses.

Its authority is already limited.

Corporation council has advised these amendments are not recommended because they are unnecessary and may create unintended legal ambiguity.

We also could not identify any other Connecticut municipalities that added any of these restrictions to their commissions.

That should cause us to ask.

If no one else in Connecticut has found them necessary, what problem is Stanford solving by adding them?

Slide five.

Housing and development.

It cannot.

It cannot stop projects.

It cannot deny applications.

It cannot delay review.

It cannot impose conditions.

It cannot set housing policy.

You've already heard from Director Canonis, Director Clousey, Chief Blessing, testify exactly to what I'm saying.

The commission provides scientific information and becomes an assist to our land use boards.

Nothing more.

Slide six.

This has probably generated the most confusion.

The commission does not own any land.

If someone wants to donate environmentally significant land to Stanford, the Commission evaluates it, studies its conservation value, and makes a recommendation to the city.

The city decides if it will if it will accept it, not the commission.

Slide seven.

Why leave the statute alone when it comes to land?

We've been unable to identify another Connecticut municipality that rewrote this portion of the statute.

So I'd simply ask if every other municipality has found the existing law sufficient.

Why are we changing it?

If a Stanford family wants to donate environmentally important land to the city or an easement, why would we eliminate that opportunity for Stanford?

Especially when no one in the city's land use office or the mayor's office is objecting to this.

I think I think we can all safely say that our mayor and the administration and the last administration and the one before that were all pro-development.

I don't expect that to change with the next mayor.

Slide eight.

A conservation commission brings together volunteers with expertise and interest in natural resources to study issues in depth and provide science-based recommendations.

It helps the city think long term.

Instead of reacting one project at a time, one flood at a time, the inventories natural resources, identifies conservation priorities, develops plans for open space and watershed, and helps position Stanford to compete with for state and federal grant funding.

This is not about creating another regulatory body.

It's about giving the city a dedicated group that can focus on bringing money to Stanford on conservation so that our elected officials and other boards have better information when they make decisions.

It isn't.

Healthy natural resources support healthy communities.

They reduce flooding, they reduce municipal costs, they improve public safety, they improve quality of life for everyone, they improve mental and physical health, and they make Stanford a more attractive place to live, work, and invest.

It simply establishes the advisory conservation commission authorized by Connecticut Law, requested by the Environmental Protection Board of Stanford, recommended by the Stanford 2035 Comprehensive Plan, which also recommends growth, and supported by Stanford's planning professionals.

I respectfully ask for your support in sending this ordinance to the full board for a public hearing without amendment as written, consistent with the recommendation of the city's legal department, land use boards, and state statute.

And I yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Caporelli.

Very uh very comprehensive, appreciate your efforts putting this together.

Thank you.

And can I may I just ask that Barbara if you put this into the public record?

Because there was a lot of information in the deck that I did not go over, but I wanted the public to be able to have that information.

There were things that we discussed in committee before.

Um I would like that to go into the record.

Please absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you again, Representative Temporary.

Barbara, would you uh uh mind uh promoting Eric Morrison to uh to the panel he's trying to get in?

I think it's having some challenges you texted me on on my phone.

Absolutely.

I'll do that first.

I'm gonna take down the um the slideshow and I'm gonna put the agenda item back up.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, and at this point, I will consider any motions or comments on the item at hand.

Representative field, you had a motion you'd like us to consider until you had your hand up for some time now.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Before we open discussion, I'd like to make a motion.

I move that we approve the conservation commission ordinance as written without amendment and advance it to a public hearing.

Point of order.

Uh we have a point of order from Representative Boudreau.

Uh yeah, my point of order, I believe the motion made by uh Representative Field is improper.

Uh he can make a motion to approve, but I don't believe that he can uh prevent amendments from occurring against that motion.

Parliamentary Parliamentarian McEwen, I will actually uh rely on you for some advice here, please.

Sure.

Yeah, happy to jump in.

Um so my understanding of the motion is just an indication that he's seeking to approve the motion, or excuse me, approve the ordinance that it's currently written and not restrict any further amendments, which wouldn't be possible.

Um that wasn't my understanding of the motion to begin with.

So I if that aligns with the opinion of the chair, I would consider the motion to be proper and that amendments also could be proper.

Thanks.

Thanks very much.

Uh so that being said, we're going to move forward with representative fields' motion to uh vote on it as is.

And I I believe I heard a second, but I'll open it back up to the board just to make uh make sure.

Second.

And I think we're going to need to do a roll call vote on this motion.

I don't think uh I don't think just doing anything.

Open up the discussion.

Yeah.

My apologies.

Folks, my my apologies.

My apologies.

Uh at this point, I'm happy to open it up for discussion before we vote on Representative Fields' motion.

Uh can I say why I was going, I should continue then, right?

According to Robert's rules of order, don't I now say um why I'm asking this?

Please go ahead.

So I'm I'm asking us to vote on this as written and to do it now for uh a few very specific reasons.

First, the questions have already been answered.

There has been this has really been slow walked on the claim that concerns were not addressed, but they were publicly on the record by the planning board, by the environmental protection board, by the director of operations, by the mayor's office, and by our own legal team.

Repeating the questions are open, repeating that the questions are open doesn't make them open.

Second, the EP asked for this themselves.

This isn't something being imposed on anyone.

The EPB requested the split because they're buried in wetlands permitting and can't get to the conservation work.

We're giving a city board the structure it asked for us, it asked us for.

Why we spelled out restrictions that were already there.

Fifth, no other town in Connecticut has done this.

Neither the sponsor nor the legal team could find a single municipality that added these restrictions.

We are being asked to invent language that exists nowhere else in the state.

Sixth, the fears are structurally impossible.

The board is advisory, it cannot stop a project, deny a permit, delay a review, impose a condition, own an acre of land, or set a single unit of housing density.

The things people are being told to fear, it has no power to do.

Seventh.

A public hearing is exactly where any remaining concern belongs.

If a colleague still has questions, the answer isn't to keep this in a back room.

It's to bring it into the public, where the public can hear both the concern and the response.

There is no reason to hold it up.

That's why I'm moving to approve it as written and send it to the to a public hearing tonight.

And you know, just personally, I have to ask why does this board think it's smarter than every other municipality and the state of Connecticut?

And with that, I yield.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Fields.

Uh Book Chair used, you've had your hand up and patiently waiting for several minutes.

So happily uh open the floor to you.

Thank you, Coach Price.

Um, so I want to address why I think we should not be voting on this at the moment and why I'm gonna vote no.

Um there are a lot of questions that have not been addressed.

Um, it's unfortunate that other representatives are gonna mischaracterize um things that they might not necessarily know about.

Um, for example, uh my concern was I wanted an amendment that would prevent the commission from seeking out giving advisory opinions before being asked.

That was one of my concerns as well as concern other concerns that I'd like to talk about and address with an amendment.

The you know, immediate open rush to pass this through kind of validates all of my concerns.

Um to say that this was um offered by the EPB.

My understanding was this was introduced and requested in September of 2025 by Jeanette Brzezinski is her name.

I believe she's a private citizen.

Um so this was requested by a citizen, not by the EPP.

Um so I just want to correct that.

Um that same individual has a long history of speaking out against housing projects and specifically density and converting commercial buildings to housing.

Um, so that alone speaks to why I have concerns.

Um who requested this.

Um, but so I I just think beyond that, we have folks here who I think have expertise in the field who came to answer questions.

Um, I think we should take time to ask questions.

I don't see the harm in another 45 minutes of debate or possible amendments.

So I'm gonna ask committee members to please vote no on this, and I yield.

Thank you, Coach Price.

Thank you, Coach.

President Shaw, you had uh a concern or comment.

Thank you.

I just wanted to kind of just I was gonna say the same point that Coach Hair Hughes said about asking questions.

We have all the guests here.

We invited them for a reason.

Atani Engler is here.

Um, I did see um Chief Mo Singh and also uh Chief uh Director Classy.

And I know people say their questions aren't an answer, but here we are.

We have them all.

Can we ask questions, please and get it clarified before we move on to anything else?

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Uh, Representative Caporelle, you had a comment to make.

Yes, I just I just wanted to correct something that Representative Youse said.

Um, first of all, it was the EPB that came to the board of reps in 2024 and asked for this.

Then Jeanette filling in, I can't say her last name.

Jeanette, I'm just gonna call her Jeanette B.

Um, came to the board, 31st board, and spoke about Bob Bob Clousey asking for this, and then it reiterated basically that the state of Connecticut and UConn, uh the university was recommending this to municipalities.

Um, and to characterize anyone's motives as this or that, I think is a little bit unfair.

Um, you know, a lot of people think that we can have both development and environmental uh safeguards.

Um, in fact, with everything that's happened in our town just in the last two weeks, I would think, you know, that I hope that this board of 40 Democrats believes that you know climate change is real.

Uh, we're dealing with smoke uh filled city from wildfires because of major drought that is happening in Canada right now, followed by torrential downpours, rains and snows that are coming at paces that you know we have never seen before, flooding all over our city.

I mean, I I would think that that maybe was her motivation.

Um, so again, this was brought to the board first by the EPB, is my understanding.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Caporelli.

Representative Johnson, you have your hand up.

Awesome.

Thanks so much, uh, Coach Price.

Uh, a couple questions, but we just start with one quick one.

It's more of a clarification.

Um I it was mentioned that the mayor's office is supportive of that.

I was wondering if it would be possible to get any sort of written indication of that because in chats I've had as recently as yesterday with members of the mayor's team.

That was not necessarily the message that was given.

So just would like to see a bit more uh clarity behind that.

Representative Johnson, was your question directed at me, or was it directed at the same time?

I'm sorry, yeah.

Perhaps to one of the the sponsors of the item.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Camporelli, are you over the case?

I'm happy to answer that.

Um I have not asked to put the mayor in that position, but I will just tell you that this ordinance was sent to corporation council and to the mayor's office um and was handed back to us by Lauren Meyer with some additional verbiage, which was advisory only and some other things.

Um the mayor's director of operations, which I would say runs the city, came and spoke publicly in favor of this.

Lauren Myers told me that they are in favor of it.

Um you have our land use chief who serves at the pleasure of the mayor here speaking on behalf of it.

So, you know, I would hope that all these people that actually work for the mayor and the city that are endorsing this are doing so with the with the you know blessing of the mayor.

So I hope that that answers your concern or question.

Uh I don't know who you spoke to, or if you're willing to say who you spoke to in the mayor's office.

With I mean, is can that be part of the public record or yeah, yeah, happy to uh had a had a chat with uh mostly Lauren uh yesterday, and it was more yes, characterize the office's uh position on this as one of leaving it to to the board, not one of support or um or uh uh whatever the the proper antonym of support would be.

Um uh I digress.

Uh second question is largely around, and I think I I love what you said around you know, we shouldn't make housing development or any development for that matter and environment a sort of forced dichotomy.

They absolutely can't be addressed together in good ways.

And so I think my remaining questions are largely around is this the most effective way to um pursue different uh conservation goals?

And so just curious if maybe um perhaps uh one of the land use people we have on the call with us today, or EPB people, I guess would probably be more appropriate through you, co-chair could talk to what other options were considered, such as just expanding the EPB by one or two seats or seeing if the city would add staff capacity, what have you?

Um just like to hear a bit more context there, if uh if you allow that, coach.

Uh I I certainly will.

Uh Representative Caporelli, I will defer to you on who the best expert is at this point that we've got in attendance to bring into the conversation.

If you don't mind advising me, I'd appreciate that.

I'm happy to call on them.

I mean, I I the so the question is why are we creating a conservation commission by separating it?

Yes.

Instead of instead of just adding staff to the EPV, I think that APB would be better to answer that and perhaps the lawyer.

Point of order.

Aren't we don't we have a motion on the floor?

We do have a motion on the floor.

I'm not I'm not clear on what your what your point of order uh uh uh is directing me towards.

Please help me.

Yeah, well, so I guess I just the motion should the discussion, I'm pretty sure at the moment should be germane to that motion.

Um not allowing for questioning the invitees.

That should happen, you know, after I'm assuming after we dispense of the motion.

I will actually ask for advice from President Shaw or Chairman or our parliamentary McEwen on uh what the best path forward is.

Can I should I call on some of our experts or should we be voting on this motion?

Well, we're still in discussion.

So I mean and and representative Johnson has asked a question related to the discussion.

So I'm in my view, you know, somebody is going to answer that.

She's asking, he's asking for this question to be answered.

And it is part of this discussion.

So I'm for me, it's it's unlovable.

So thank you.

I appreciate that.

Represent uh uh, excuse me, uh Representative Morrison, you had uh a question comment.

Uh yeah, I was just gonna say I concur with uh President Shaw.

The the motion on the floor is to pass the item and discussion about the item is pertinent to its passage.

So I would I would concur with President Shaw.

Thanks.

Appreciate that.

Uh so I will uh actually defer back to Representative Caporelli.

Representative Camparelli, who's the best person to speak to this uh to Representative Johnson's concerns.

I think the I think the EPB or the lawyer.

And or the lawyer.

I know I know Cynthia uh Enger is here from corporate counsel's office.

Do we have someone from the EPB?

Sorry, please go ahead.

I would start with Robert Clausen.

Uh and I see Robert is actually on the on the call.

Uh Robert, would you mind weighing in?

Is that uh is that something you're comfortable doing, please and thank you.

Yeah, sure.

Thank you for uh inviting me, and I really do appreciate you taking this matter up and considering it so carefully.

Uh the question I think was uh what's the most effective way to accomplish what a conservation commission is capable of doing.

And I have to say that because of the regulatory uh burden of uh both wetlands uh regulation and flood prone area regulation, that my board, uh the EPB really doesn't have the bandwidth to do the the wide range of things, whatever the the a conservation commission can do, uh and and a dedicated commission strictly dedicated to this, I think would be much more effective than either um having a like a separate section of the EPB meeting for discussing advisory matters uh or even adding um yeah that I think the board the board aspect is the key thing here.

We're not talking about additional staff as I understand it from um director of operations Kinonis.

We're gonna try to do this with existing resources uh and support a committee, a commission with existing resources at least until they get their their feet on the ground and and begin to uh develop their program and then uh they can advocate for what they think it think is necessary.

Thanks very much, uh Robert.

I appreciate your time and input.

Uh Representative Johnson, it looks like you still have your hand up, or is that uh new hand?

I'm not sure.

Apologies, maybe one more quick question and then I'll I'll yield for uh for now.

Uh final one was again more admin related than anything, but you mentioned um one of the primary functions of this group would be for grant uh applications.

And I know just from past discussions, we try to have most of the city's grant work done within the grants office and Anita Carpenter and her team.

Um so just has this been discussed with them on how that would work in a more practical sense.

And that's I guess a question through you to uh uh whoever maybe is best fit, maybe perhaps corporation counsel.

Um can I can I start?

Uh yeah, yeah, please go ahead, Representative Camparelli.

It's my understanding that we would then qualify because we had a conservation commission, we would qualify for additional uh state and federal grants.

Thanks very much.

So they wouldn't okay, so they wouldn't be doing grant work per se.

It just opens additional grants for the city.

That's my that's my belief.

Gotcha.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

That's my questions for now.

So I I yield back to you, coacher.

Thank you, Representative Johnson.

Representative Delophys, thank you for waiting so patiently.

Uh you had some thoughts on the matter.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to iterate that uh to pursue kind of the same information on goals of the Conservation Commission.

The mayor established a club climate council.

However, with how the gravitas of a commission was kind of not as effective.

And the Board of Reps passed a resolution, urging that the climate council be turned into a commission.

So there is precedent to pursue this course of action.

Uh thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Deltreuse.

Uh Representative Boudreau, you've got your hand up.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um I I personally think the ordinance is okay as it is.

Um Representative Caporelli's points from earlier mirrored much of my thinking on this as to why it is not a threat to housing.

It doesn't really have the powers uh as I see it to be a threat to housing.

Um I don't want to trivialize the concern that um that Representative Hughes has brought up because there is a real history of environmental regulation being weaponized.

So I'm hoping that we can kind of come to a uh a compromise on this where we don't introduce uh the issues of amendment that have been raised with ambiguity um or legality, but also can make a tangible step to help prevent any sort of hypothetical abuse.

Um to that end, I do have uh a motion to amend the main motion um by inserting the text that I sent to the chairs ahead of time.

Um if you are able to pull that up, Chair Price.

I I I think that we're still considering the motion from uh Representative Field on voting as is, and we're still interested.

This was my point of order from when he originally made that motion, despite the fact that his motivation in that motion was to approve as is, that's not actually a limitation that he can impose.

Uh we can still make some motions on that.

Um this is uh the text that uh Barbara's showing now.

Um what this would do is it would add a pretty straightforward limitation.

Uh there's a lot of words here, but that's uh just because I copy pasted from the city charter.

Essentially, there are cases in which the Conservation Commission needs board of reps approval.

And my amendment would give the mayor the power to veto that approval, uh subject to the same sort of override procedures as a normal ordinance.

Uh and so I think that helps uh to create uh an additional check against hypothetical abuse.

I don't foresee that abuse, so I don't think this will ever come up.

Uh, but I think it can help allay some of the concerns uh that uh representative Hughes and that other uh members of the board may have.

Um I don't think this adds any ambiguity.

I think this is very straightforward.

That was one of the concerns about amendment.

Uh this is just giving a mayoral veto.

Uh I understand that no other municipality has done this.

Um I don't necessarily think that that's fatal to any sort of idea or amendment.

There are a lot of things that I uh think are good ideas that no municipality in Connecticut has done.

Um the pet store ordinance, I believe no other municipality in Connecticut has done, and I voted for that.

Um and the legality of the change, uh, maybe corporation council is uh online to advise on this.

I can't imagine that this would be uh legally impermissible.

This is just us putting a uh a restriction on ourselves because state law already says that the board of reps would have to approve certain actions of the conservation commission, and this is just adding a restriction on what uh the board of reps can approve.

Uh we put rules on ourselves all the time.

That's basically what our entire board rules are.

Uh so that's that's my amendment here.

Uh I I hope people will support it.

I hope that this can uh get us to come together and uh pass the overall uh conservation commission with just a little bit more uh of a safeguard involved.

Thank you.

Thanks, Representative Boudreau.

Um, I actually have a point of information for Parliamentary McEwen.

Uh we've got uh hands up from Ralph Lessing and Richard Freeman.

Um I'm inclined to uh to to open the floor and allow questions or comments from folks who are not on the committee.

Am I permitted to do that or do we need to leave it to only committee members speaking to this at this point?

Excuse me.

That's a good question.

Um before I answer your question, I just wanted to remind the chair that uh unless I've missed something, I just wanted to make sure it's on your radar that Representative Boudreau needs a second to his motion to amend.

Um but putting that aside, um you're you're permitted to invite members to the committee that you think would be helpful in assisting the committee's decision here.

Um so to the extent you'd like to recognize those invitees, that's within your purview as chair.

Thanks very much.

I'm sorry, but aren't aren't we supposed to only discuss we why are we discussing a specific amendment before we're voting on the motion that's still on the floor?

I addressed this representative field.

My motion is a subsidiary motion to yours.

But it's not connected to it.

Point of order, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh pardon me should.

Uh I I just wanted to say that uh as far as I understand, nobody's been recognized to speak by the chair.

Um and to just confirm that that is the case.

Yeah, that is the case.

So uh thanks very much for that, and I appreciate that.

And I'd like to get some outside perspectives on this uh if uh if you'll permit me.

So to uh to that end, I'm going to thank Ralph Lessing for patiently having his hand up and and waiting to be recognized.

Uh Mr.

Blessing, please.

Yes.

Uh thank you for letting me speak.

I just wanted to add a little bit of color to uh the discussion about uh grants.

So um the uh yes, it is true that the grants run through the grants office, but um usually they were uh work very closely with the departments that would be uh required to uh project manage uh or or use the grant money.

Um so there's there's a close relationship with the grants department.

And uh also just with regard to conservation, we uh got today or yesterday uh an email from the state about uh um uh grant opportunity for for open space acquisition, which we haven't done in a really long time, and uh part of the reason why we haven't done uh or applied for those grants is not that I don't think we have land that should become uh land for conservation, but we simply don't have the uh uh the bandwidth uh to deal with those kinds of things.

So I just wanted to add that perspective.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Blessing.

And I'll I'll at this point, I'll turn my uh my attentions over to Richard Friedman.

Richard Freeman is a president of garden homes management.

I appreciate your patience, sir.

Um you have something to add.

Oh, yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair Price.

Um, as the chairman said, I'm the president of Garden Homes Management.

I'm also a member of the Board of Finance and the former chair.

Um, and I just have some pretty brief remarks that I think that are germane to this discussion.

Um I'm very glad that I don't have to preface my remarks by trying to convince this committee as to the importance of the construction of housing in Stamford and in the rest of the state.

I think the discussion that's preceded me has made it clear that everyone supports that.

Um it's worth noting that um construction of housing at a density greater than single family is actually one of the most environmentally friendly steps that a city can take because people living in multifamily housing use fewer resources, they require less paved roads, they travel less because they live closer to amenities like supermarkets and restaurants, and they take people off of 95 who might be commuting down to this part of the state from further parts that are less expensive.

So there's very few things that are more um uh climate friendly than building housing at a at a meaningful density, and that's how housing construction and conservation can coexist and coexist quite nicely.

Uh I actually have um I have no real opinions on the formation of this conservation commission.

Um, if if uh representative boudreau could unshare their screen, I'd like to put up the one concern I have, and it's been discussed, and um it's not an idle concern.

So let me uh let me share my screen.

Okay.

Okay, so this is the powers of the conservation commission um extracted from your draft ordinance.

And it's pretty simple.

It says that shall I only have the powers conferred by state law, and that it shall only act in an advisory and non-binding capacity.

And that's been stated repeatedly by people, uh precedent to me as as the reason that the commission cannot interfere with housing construction.

So let's go to the ordinance.

Let's go to the state law.

Well, this is the powers of a conservation commission from the state law, and it's a long list of items.

I have highlighted what I consider to be a fatal, a fatal sentence, which is that it may it may, may that's an important word, make recommendations to zoning commissions, planning commissions, inland wetlands agencies, and other municipal agencies on proposed land use changes.

Okay.

So that's advisory, as we've been told repeatedly.

I think people need to understand, and this was referenced by Representative Boudreau, how environmentalism can be weaponized against housing.

I've had it done against my projects repeatedly, and just because a commission is advisory does not mean that it cannot insert itself into a process and cause delays.

And just because a commission is advisory does not mean that it cannot insert itself into a process and cause delays.

Maybe they don't have a quorum.

You have to wait a month, maybe it's two months before they meet.

Maybe they don't vote on a recommendation in the first time they hear your application.

So just because it's an advisory commission does not mean that it cannot interfere with the land use process.

So if people are sincere in saying that it should not and will not have any impact on housing, then put it in the ordinance.

So here's here are the restrictions that are in the ordinance right now.

Um I have no opinion on these.

So if you go back here, it may make recommendations to zoning commissions, et cetera, on land use changes.

It shall not make recommendations to zoning commissions, planning commissions, inland wetlands agencies, and other municipal agencies on proposed land use changes.

No other town in Connecticut has done this.

We play a singular role, singular role in the entire state of Connecticut in constructing housing that's not being constructed in most other towns.

We are playing a critical role in filling the housing needs for this state.

So if we have to do something different, that's okay.

But that's not that's not really enough because that just says that the commission shall not make recommendations to other commissions.

It can still hear applications and make its own recommendations directly to the applicant.

So the commission shall not review land use or building permit applications of any type.

And you can see how I've detailed that out.

If people are genuine in their representations that this will not have an effect on housing, then these two amendments should not be objectionable.

Um, you know, you have to have lived through a traumatic experience, I think.

Some of you did.

It was the charter revision of the 31st board.

That was represented by its supporters as not being anti-housing when it clearly was.

So that was that almost passed.

So you have to be very careful about making permanent changes to the structure of city government because you're not going to be in office forever, and people who don't agree with you may come after you.

And I yield.

Thanks very much for your comments, Mr.

Freeman.

Appreciate you.

Uh I've got Representative Delacruz, then Representative Johnson, and then Representative Camporelli.

Uh, thank you, Chair Price.

Uh, I have a comment uh two comments.

One with regard to my friend honorable reach of freeman, uh, is concerned would apply to every borough and commission that today has advisory role.

Um, instead of using the word interfere, I think the word should be they participate.

Uh so if we want to shut the mouth of all those other boxary commissions, uh, I don't think that's a valid uh concern.

Uh the other comment, uh, Chair Price going back to uh Parliamentary McHugh and comment.

Uh, do we have a second on the subsidiary motion?

No, no, sir.

We haven't, I haven't uh I haven't gotten a second to that yet, but we're not quite there yet.

I was gonna entertain comments before I went and asked for a second.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I would just simply like it if uh Cynthia Anger, our attorney, can comment on uh representative Burdeaux's, and then so that we can start disposing of things because you know, vote on them or dispose of them on because I feel like we're we're all over the place now.

We have a we have another amendment.

We have another amendment suggested by a developer, an outside developer.

I I just it's point of order.

Thank you.

Representative Sanford.

Hey, Chair.

Um, my point of order is is there there was a motion.

Representative Burdreau had a motion and there was no second.

And now we're discussing the motion that he brought up.

So I think there needs to be a second, and if it fails, then we go back to the primary motion, which is to pass to vote on this.

And then if it does get a second, then you can open it up to discussion for the amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Sanford.

Do I have a second representative's uh amendment?

Going once going twice.

Representative Cuan, am I allowed to call that as uh done and resolved?

Uh yes, that's that's your call if the motion doesn't have support by a second.

Thank you.

Um appreciate that.

Uh so that being said, that motion has failed, and we will move uh on to the reconsideration of the main item.

Um, the bill of hand.

Are there are there any uh other comments or amendments to be added at this point?

Representative you see you have your hands up.

Yes, thank you, co-chair uh price.

Um, yeah, I I wanted to offer um the two amendments.

Um I want the first one I wanted to offer was uh Barbara had it um to put up on the screen.

Barbara, if you don't mind, do you have uh coacher Hughes's uh amendment?

You have to go out.

I don't have Coacher Hughes' amendment.

All I have right now is this one.

Um let me check my email and see where if I can find Coach Hughes's amendment.

Got it.

Coacher Hughes, do you have it handy?

Are you able to throw it up on the screen?

Uh so I believe I sent it.

I sent it at 513 to Barbara.

Let me see if I can't find it.

I have it, folks.

Pulling it up now.

I just found it as you said that you have.

Please feel free.

Okay.

Coacher Hughes.

Um, so you'll see the section.

Um commission is subject to certain restrictions.

Section A is unchanged.

Uh section B would be revised.

The commission may receive gifts in the name of the municipality for any of its purposes and shall administer the same for such purposes, subject to terms of the gift.

Uh Barbara, if you could please scroll a little.

Uh the new section would be the commission shall not acquire land or easements.

And I motion to uh amend this section to uh now include uh the revised language of subsection B and subsection C.

And I yield.

Point of inquiry.

Yes, President Shaw.

Through you two, um Coach Edith Hughes, do you or Barbara have a red line version of this?

I know it's easy revised in new, but I it's hard to figure it out what's changed.

Anyone has the right line motion.

I do not.

Representative Hughes, I'll I'll point that back over to you.

Do you happen to have that?

I do not.

Um, but my understanding was this was this amendment was seen by legal and possibly written by them.

I'll suck it this bishop, by the way, just so we have that for the thank you.

That's I was I was gonna call for a second.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Uh before we get there, um, I think there are still hands raised and people would like to comment uh on the uh on the amendment as it as it uh appears on the screen.

Umor Blumstrom, you've had your hand up for quite some time.

I'm inclined to ask you to speak at this point uh and raise any issues that you might have.

Hi, hi everyone.

Um I'm here on behalf of Director Kinones because he couldn't make it.

Um I am the environmental sustainability coordinator for the city.

So I just wanted to reiterate that the director does support the ordinance as written.

And it's my understanding there is also that support from the mayor's office.

And then from a sustainability standpoint, it is an important commission that will be able to as Director Clausia said, take um take some things off the plate of the EPB that are really important to address.

And um from my perspective, the additional changes are not necessary to meet the needs of this particular ordinance that the city desperately needs in order to address the issues of the climate crisis and some of the environmental issues we're facing.

And I do agree that we can also work to ensure that the housing that we're building in Stanford is very much aligned with environmental issues, and I think as Richard Freeman said, a lot of the housing that's built that could be commercial into residential or high density housing is very environmental.

So those are all things that we can keep in mind.

Thanks very much.

Appreciate your input.

I've got representative temporelli.

I've got representative Delacruz.

Representative temporelli, if you don't mind.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I just I want to reiterate something that uh representative Fields said, which is why why do why does this body think it knows better than all of the experts in this administration that support the ordinance that is that as it's written?

Um, I'd also like to address some of the things that um Mr.

Friedman uh said, and I would just like to say for the record that I respect Mr.

Friedman so very much.

I love the kind of housing that he's building in Stanford.

Um he builds affordable housing, he builds good good housing, and from what I understand, he's a wonderful landlord.

So I say everything that I'm gonna say respectfully.

Um the the types of environmental bodies that that stop development from happening are bodies that this board has absolutely no control over.

We cannot get rid of the EPB, okay.

Wetland permits hold up and sometimes stop development from happening for good reasons, biodiversity and not destroying planet Earth.

Um, the other thing that holds up uh housing, another regulatory body is the zoning board.

Okay.

So when we talk about environmental policy that is not going to hold up anything, but advises our boards and commission about good science that is necessary to build and plan and create a city that is livable and healthy.

That one of the things that I love about the 2035 comprehensive plan is that it calls for growth, it calls for middle housing, it calls for all different types of housing, but at the same time, it calls for environmental sustainability, it calls for green space, it calls for trees, and it called for this commission.

Okay, it asked for this commission to be put in place because when you're developing a city, as fast as we are developing a city, you want to make sure that you have experts assisting our boards and commissions so that we don't make environmental mistakes that that can be just horrible.

And I'm just gonna keep pointing to the flooding that we're all dealing with.

Um I've lived in my house for 27 years, okay, and I never had floods until the past three or four years.

And now every time we have torrential downpours, I'm going back and forth into a basement that has two sum pumps after not having any flooding for 25 years.

Um I also want to point something out.

Just give me a second to pull it up.

Um, and I can put this into the record for the board so that you guys have it in writing, and you can see that I got it from the census from the city's own website and for from the Connecticut uh government website.

Um from the city's own website, between 2015 and 2023, Stanford population grew by 8% faster than New York City's metropolitan area, which grew by 2%.

The state of Connecticut, which grew by 1%, and the entire United States that grew by 4%.

Between 2015 and 2025, Stanford's population grew by 8.3%, outpacing the United States, which was 5.8%, the New York metro area, which was 2.8%, and Connecticut, which was 2.5%.

The New York Metro area, which was 2.8%, and Connecticut, which was 2.5%.

This tells a compelling story about our administration and the administration before it.

Definitely pro-housing, pro-development, uh governance, right?

At the same time, this pro-development government, everybody that is in lands use is asking us to pass this.

Why?

Because this commission will be an assist, a free assist to our government, experts to advise our land use.

They're asking for this.

So, you know, the idea that these two things cannot live together, and that you know, it's either housing or it's this.

I just it's it's just not the right argument.

It's not the way the city's plan is structured.

If you look at the 2035 plan, which I have asked to put on on this committee so that this new board really has an idea of what it's calling for.

Yes, it's calling for, I think an increase of 15% in population, but it's also calling for all of these things that um that this board is trying to do right now.

Um, I think that's all I want to say, but I know I can raise my hand again.

So I think you for listening.

Yes, I've got uh Representative Delacruz and Representative Johnson, and then Representative Gordon.

Uh thank you, Chair Price for with me.

Are we now this I've lost track?

Are we now discussing another secondary motion to amend?

Yes, we are uh representative Del Cruz.

Uh co-chair you has introduced an amendment to the bill.

It's been seconded.

We haven't gone to a vote on it yet.

We're discussing that uh now.

I say so it has been seconded.

Okay.

Yes, yes, sir.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Yes, sir.

Representative Johnson.

Thank you so much.

Uh question through you, uh, if you'll allow to Representative Campirelli.

I'm still trying to wrap my head a little bit around better around what this group of volunteers will actually do.

So I'm curious in your mind how what what would they have done to have prevented, for example, the flooding you mentioned.

Um just looking forward.

I'm gonna let Director Clousey answer that question because he's gonna be better equipped to answer it.

And I can also answer, I can also add to it if something is missed, but I think he's the expert, so let him answer it.

Director, thank you.

Oh, okay.

Um, the conservation commission will be uh following up on a lot of things that the planning uh staff have worked on, uh, like uh coastal resiliency uh riverine flooding uh studies, uh things like that.

Uh conservation commission can also advise on uh say green infrastructure methods that a uh site plan might not include uh that would uh help to uh allow water to soak in to the ground rather than run off.

So I think you know, the the range of things they can advise on and provide expertise on will largely be based on the expertise of the uh people that are uh volunteer to serve on the commission.

Uh but they again they will be supported by uh my staff, uh planning and uh uh land use bureau staff in general, uh Emily Blomstrom's uh group upstairs, uh the uh uh Office of Operations, uh Director Kinonis, and uh we can help to uh you know support them.

So I I you know they're not gonna stop the rain, obviously, but they will be uh advising and perhaps uh emphasizing things that might get uh less attention from uh an EPB staff member who's dealing with uh regulatory issues uh on a regular basis and not looking at the big picture.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate your comments.

So then just to make sure I understood they they'd have the remit to comment on individual project design, like you said, for runoff uh solutions and things like that.

Well, in my experience, having worked in Greenwich for 20 years, where we had a separate wetlands agency and a conservation commission, the conservation commission did comment on uh zoning board applications and things.

Uh there um those were staff comments, but they were directed uh, you know, at a higher scale by the commission members.

So I think in the same vein, we if we have a commission that has members that are very interested in and experienced in certain things that perhaps uh our current city staff aren't as experienced in, we would be very happy to have their advice and guidance to help us make better decisions on uh reviewing applications, which uh EPB staff do every day.

Got it.

Thank you very much.

And and can I can I add to that?

I think I still have the floor, Chair Zacharr.

You do, please go ahead.

Okay.

So and and this is something that I put in my original desk deck, so I had it handy, but I had to cut it down because I felt like I'd be here for two hours telling you guys things like this.

But um, one of the things that I had is they could they could identify flood prone areas.

The commission can inventory floodplains, wetlands, stream corridors, areas with repetitive flood flooding, natural flood storage areas.

This helps the city understand where flooding is occurring and why.

Protect natural flood storage, wetlands, forests, floodplains, and open space naturally absorb and slow storm water, so they can make recommendations like that.

Um they can recommend uh protecting or restoring these areas because they reduce runoff, lower flood peaks, slow erosion, improve water quality.

And and there's other stuff, which I can which I can send you, representative um, or I can put into the public record.

Yeah, that'd be helpful.

Admittedly, I'm just getting back from several back-to-back work trips.

I'm still doing my homework, so I'd be happy to maybe jump on a call with you sometime in the next slide.

That would be fantastic.

Yeah, thank you.

Are you yielding the floor?

You know what?

I I did want to say one other thing.

I the the amendment that is before us right now, I I think comes with a with a special sort of timing because we just heard um Mr.

Blessing say that we potentially were in line for some grant money to help us acquire green space or or things like that.

And and so I believe that if the commission were stopped from accepting gifts.

You know, I just I don't really understand this for vision.

I don't understand why a city wouldn't want to take uh a gift that was given.

In other words, if I were going to give the city a gift of land, I might be giving that gift of land with a stipulation that it must be used for housing.

Or in this case, if I wanted it to be saved in perpetuity, like for example, Courtland Avenue Park, I might donate it to the city and say I would like this kept as green space in perpetuity, in which case the commission would be the proper place to stop first uh to see if the city even wanted the land.

Um so that's just that that's all I want to offer on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Caparelli.

I've got uh several hands up in order.

I've got Representative Gardner, President Shaw, Mr.

Blessing, and then Representative Boudreau.

Uh Representative Gardner, please.

Thank you, Chair Coach Price.

Uh at this point, I would like to propose an amendment to the ordinance which is starting on the floor.

So the amendment to Coach Price's uh Coach Hughes's amendment.

Uh so that would take us three degrees away away from the original motion, which I believe is permissible.

Um, I would like to add the comments from Richard Freeman to the ordinance.

So that would be the addition of his uh his specific uh wording, which he has specified.

So that would be the lines, which I'm sure I'm sure uh Bobber has available, but it would be the commission shall not make recommendations to zoning commissions, planning commissions, inland wetlands agencies, and other municipal agencies on the proposed land use changes.

And the second paragraph, the commission shall not review land use or building permit applications of any type, including but not limited to any application submitted to the zoning board, planning board, environmental protection board, land use bureau, building departments or fire marshal.

Those are the amendments I wish to add.

And I move back in point of information.

Yes, go ahead, please.

Can can we have uh the attorney speak on those amendments that Mr.

Friedman was trying to make?

Because I think that they were the same amendments that uh representative you tried to make and was told that it was not advisable.

So I just I just want to hear from the attorney if if we can pull up if if the parliamentarian is allowing us to consider yet another amendment before we dispose of this one.

I mean, I don't know.

But if he is, then I'd like the attorney to speak on it.

May I reach out?

Yeah, parliamentary.

I was actually going to call on your first advice here, please.

Sure.

It is permissible to an amendment to amend, excuse me, an amendment.

Um, and as Representative Gardner had stated, we can go up to essentially three degrees.

We can amend an amendment, but we cannot amend an amendment that amends so that so no further amendments to Representative Gardner's amendment motion can be made until we start disposing of them.

But we can talk, but we can entertain Representative Gardner's amendment of Representative Hughes' amendment.

Okay.

Then because these amendments are being thrown at us without our legal counsel seeing them before the meeting, if if she could just speak on the Richard Friedman one.

Counselor, are you are you uh available to speak on this?

I um well, I haven't seen them before tonight, so I can only speak from what I was able to hear and see.

But my impression is they are far beyond what the statute authorizes in terms of restricting the commission.

Um I think that um they are uh likely unlawful in view of the um the statutory language.

Thank you, counselor.

I've still got several hands raised, including President Shaw, who I'll call on at this point, please.

Thank you.

I actually was going to have um attorney Inger speak about this whole um ordinance that has gone through several uh versions and what her general thought of it.

And I also if she can um address the advisory, the role of advisory from I don't know if you can give an opinion or not not an opinion, and if you can comment on the word advisory in terms of relating to this commission at all, because I know it's been like used very loosely.

So that was my my my first thing.

Um my second thing is I'm just just really generally disappointed with the process of how this has been handled.

Um I don't mind anybody having amendments.

I'm just personally not a fan of something thrown at at the last minute in the meeting.

And we have committee meetings too, discuss the amendments.

I am not I'm not by any means saying um that it's wrong, but if people had these intentions, especially committee members had these intentions to make these amendments, I would have wanted it to have seen it.

And I personally would have had wanted to see what um attorney Inger would have um said in terms of these amendments, um, how have the legal take a look at it and give their opinions before we before we get to this point.

So that's just a gender disappointment I have with the entire process.

With that, um, I'm gonna again ask Attorney Anger if she can comment generally on her observations itself and maybe talk a little bit about the advisory when it's relating to this commission, if she can, if she's allowed.

Thank you.

Without a yield.

Am I allowed?

Yeah, please.

Uh I was about to I was about to call on you, counselor, please.

Okay.

Um, so I I hear the concern about um the commission um delaying land use applications.

That is simply not really um likely or possible under this statute because the boards that would it would be providing advisory opinions to have statutory deadlines that they have to adhere to.

Um, and so if a board were to refer um uh an application to the conservation commission, that commission would have to work within those those uh deadlines, or the referring agency would just proceed without their input.

Um so when we say advisory, that that really is what we're talking about in terms of not being able to delay any um processes.

Um advice is just that.

Um the boards and commissions that the conservation commission might be interacting with, can take the advice, can take some of the advice, can it not take the advice?

It is non-binding.

Um it is not mandatory that any other board or commission follow the advice of the conservation commission.

So um I hear some of the concerns about delay and binding effect, neither of those are contemplated within the statute.

Um, is there's was there anything more specific in the advisory role of the commission that I can address?

That's helpful for me at least.

Thank you, Attorney Anger.

President Shaw, you still have the floor.

Are you prepared to yield?

I'm sorry.

I yielded.

I'm sorry, I apologize.

I did yell, but I was going to just say thank you to it.

I apologize, Coachair Price.

But I'm happy to make it.

Thank you, uh, Councillor Anger.

Appreciate your your input.

Um we've we've got several hands up, uh, including uh Representative Finkel, who hasn't spoken yet.

So I'm gonna prioritize Representative Finkel, and then we'll go to Ralph Blessing and Representative Boudreau.

Representative Finkel.

Thank you, Chair.

Um just two things.

Number one, uh I am concerned about seeing amendments as a member of the committee at the committee meeting without having prior knowledge of any amendments that might be proposed.

And that that's the concern.

The other concern I have is what we're looking at is approving the commission to go to the full board to the full board to vote on whether to have a public hearing.

That's where we are right now.

So I would just recommend to everybody, based on our attorney's advisory opinion just now that we reject the various amendments at this point.

Vote to proceed with the motion originally proposed to send it on unedited to the full board and let the full board go and bring it to a public hearing, which then comes back to the committee for the public hearing.

Thank you, Chair, and I you.

Thank you, Representative Finkel.

Mr.

Blushing, thank you so much for waiting patiently, please.

Oh, no, thank you for uh letting me speak.

I just wanted to offer that I think uh the value of um the um commission would really be more in the policy field.

Um for example, um we have uh coastal resiliency study going on uh right now uh that the um uh land use bureau uh conducts together with with engineering.

And uh my fear is that we uh complete the study and it's uh just another study uh that we did we put in the bookshelf, and there is no one there who can really push for having uh those policy recommendations um uh implemented.

And uh what I mentioned before with regard to the grants, the uh the the problem with with applying for those types of grants is that uh whenever they come up, we we don't have a list of properties that we should acquire.

Those properties exist um uh obviously, but um no one really has sort of the the time uh to uh uh put together a comprehensive list and to prioritize uh those different properties uh that that where the city could um uh apply for grants um to move forward.

Um we have uh a drainage manual uh in the city uh that is a requirement um uh under the uh MS4 permit um uh that we have uh from from the EPA, and I think it would be great to have um a body that can provide uh advice on uh how to implement uh those kinds of things.

So um uh I I agree that that uh the the commission shouldn't get involved in sort of the the every little detail of a specific development project, but I think what we are missing right now is someone who can deal with the big picture items, and and that's really where the value of this commission might be.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Bushing.

Appreciate your input.

Uh I've got Representative Boudreau and then Representative Stanford.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um I have a question uh through you to uh attorney Anger, which is about the legality of these amendments.

Um what she had said, it sounded like, and maybe I misunderstood, it's very possible I'm not a lawyer.

It sounded like the kind of key issue is the places where the statute says shall versus where it says may.

And I'm looking at the statute right now, and I'm I'm seeing it shall conduct research into blah blah blah.

understand for uh thank you chair uh i have a question uh through you to uh attorney anger which is about the legality of these amendments um from what she had said it sounded like and maybe i misunderstood it's very possible i'm not a lawyer it sounded like the kind of key issue is the places where this statute says shall versus where it says may and i'm looking at the statute right now and i'm i'm seeing it shall conduct research into blah blah blah fine um it shall keep an index of all open areas fine um it uh shall keep records of its meetings and submit an annual report everything else I'm seeing in here is may all of the things that the amendment proposed would touch are may um so am I misunderstanding is there something I'm missing I'm I I guess I'm just confused about the um the legal concerns around the amendment if I may Councillor please I are you referring to um the amendment the proposed amendment from Mr was it free Freeman Freebird?

Freedman Freeman is that is that the one you're you're referring to um that and also uh representative Hughes' amendment that's on screen right now okay so um the represent that Mr.

Freeman's amendment um is goes to the heart of what a concert make conservation commission is authorized to do and the the discretion vested in May is the is discretion vested in the commission and its functions and when we talk about may versus shall in terms of statutory construction it's a general principle of statutory construction but when you drill down into the statute based on specific concerns those may often become corollaries to shall and and become in effect shall within meaning within the commission's discretion I don't know I I hope that answers your question.

With respect to the amendment on the screen that language is a result of Representative McKewin if I remember correctly's concern about wanting the commission to not be able to acquire land or easements um at all and removing any discretion from the board of representatives to approve acquisition of land and easements and I think that is within the board's discretion to say we're just not going to approve anything and this is what we put in the language in the ordin ordinance that whether that's good policy or not is not something I'm opining on that's not my role but I think the language in C will withstand scrutiny um a is unchanged and B is actually just the language from the statute okay thank you I don't know how much that cleared it up but I think that's just my limitations and understanding the law and not a problem with your explanation um so I'll yield my time thanks Representative Joe.

Representative Sanford thank you chair I'll try to make it quick because I I know it's you got a long night I hopefully not um you know I I I have concerns um you know but I I think if we're gonna sit here and try to wait for 40 people to agree on something um it it probably won't happen and we're just gonna get to a point where it's gonna have to vote whether you agree with it or not.

I I can't get my family to agree on where we're gonna go to dinner sometimes so I try to get 40 people to agree you know one of my parts that I had a concern with is um you know talking about some of our guests where you know people can insert themselves into into a process and to and to delay it and I think sometimes with the environment people can be very very passionate about something but that doesn't necessarily make them an expert um and so I think we have a duty as a board to really look at the applicants and make sure that their expertise lines up and and whether that lines up with our long term plan and our long term vision.

I agree with what Ralph Blessing was saying with getting people with help on the big picture items you know where how does this line up with the 2035 where are we going to be in 10 years where we're gonna be in five years or 15 years and the long term strategy plan.

I I I do think that we have the ability to to tweak things if if you know a year from now we find that it's not working the way we want but I also don't want to water it down and restrict an advisory board so much that you just have five people sitting there doing nothing because they have the they don't have any power to do anything because we we took that away from them and now they're just kind of sitting there looking at each other and and and talking about the weather so I I hope that you you know we can we can find some type of compromise and move this along um and and you know if we push it to a public hearing in the next month or so then we can get some additional feedback and then maybe maybe we make some tweaks based off of that input because there's there might be some input out there from the public that we just uh we haven't heard yet that that could you know ring some bells so anyway that's all I got I yield and uh thank you chair thank you representative standford uh representative police has joined for the first time uh in making remarks representative police yeah I appreciate your patience I am gonna ask you to keep it brief as I'm gonna ask everyone to keep it brief in the interest of time please go ahead absolutely

Um and and you know, if we push it to a public hearing in the next month or so, then we can get some additional feedback and then maybe make some tweaks based off of that input because there's there might be some input out there from the public that we just uh we haven't heard yet that that could you know ring some bells.

So anyway, that's all I got.

I yield and uh thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Stanford.

Uh Representative Politia has joined for the first time uh in making remarks.

Representative Police, I appreciate your patience.

I am going to ask you to keep it brief as I'm gonna ask everyone to keep it brief in the interest of time.

Please go ahead.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you for recognizing me, uh Chair Price.

Um I just have a question uh through you to uh counselor uh anger on the uh statutory limitations for applications.

Um I I um thank you, uh Councillor Anger.

I think it I think previously uh might have been director blessing, but I'm not sure, but I guess this question more for you.

Um I think it's the statute of limits, the statute was 45 days um for an application.

Um is that inclusive?

So if an application goes to the EPB, it goes on their agenda.

Um and say they refer it to if the this commission um is that inclusive of the 45 days, so it's of the 45 days that it's on the EPB agenda.

Um so uh say the EPB puts it on their agenda uh, you know, the 10th of pick any month, August.

Um and then they have you know 45 days from that date to review it.

Um and that's inclusive of the commission.

So if the commission doesn't take it up in their it would be probably their their September meeting, then it would be back in the hands of the EPB and the commission would obviously no longer be able to opine on it.

I I think I think that's right.

Um I think that EPB, for example, would not be waiting for the conservation commission if that's if that's what you're um correct, yeah.

They just move forward.

They didn't get a response.

Um, and and that's it, basically.

So yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

That thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um that that was it, and uh, I yield the floor.

Um thank you, Chair Price.

Thank you, Representative.

Um, Mr.

Friedman, I'm happy to have you uh weigh in again.

I'm I'm gonna ask you to please keep your uh remarks brief.

I will keep it brief.

Um the director uh director Clousey's comments on that the Greenwich Commission frequently referred land use applications and attorney Anger's comments on statutory time frames, that really sent a shiver up my spine.

I think I'm probably the only person in this meeting who has extensive experience with land use or land use applications.

And the statutory limits on a zoning board can be as long, depending on the application, can be as long as 165 days.

So that's close to half a year.

Our zoning board rarely uses anywhere close to that amount of time.

However, if either that board or the EPB then begins to refer applications to this board, it will extend that they will use up more of their statutorily permitted time, which they are not doing now.

The other comment I would like to make is the kinds of people who sit on conservation commissions are obviously people who value conservation.

It would be kind of counterproductive to sit on that commission if you didn't.

So Director Clousey referenced something about a storm drainage design.

Okay, so now we have a commission that's advising on a storm drainage design, and their preferred design, which may not have any backing in hard science, may require a larger retention basin and reduction in units.

So who's gonna make that distinct?

Who's gonna make that who's gonna weigh those trade-offs, right?

What's more valuable?

A larger basin or more units.

I suppose it would end up at the zoning board's lap.

But now we have another body weighing in on the side of probably in most cases reducing the number of units in a project.

And I am not saying this because I have some self-interest in this.

Thank you, Mr.

Freeman.

And Representative Caporelli, happy to call on you again, of course.

Uh again, please keep it brief.

I I just wanted to to have the attorney comment on some of the things, or or perhaps Ralph Blessing that Mr.

Friedman just said, because from my understanding, um, this commission is not authorized to speak about how many units or what size a development is or anything of that nature at all whatsoever.

Um that that is what we were told by the attorney in past meetings.

Um regarding the time.

So I would also like for Mr.

Blessing to speak on the time.

Um, because I think he is a he is a land use expert.

I I know that Mr.

Friedman just said that he was the only one that was, or the one that had the most experience, but I trust that our chief planner has a lot of experience.

Mr.

Glesson, can you uh speak to that?

Sure.

Um let me begin with that.

Um if you have someone uh on uh on any commission, uh the zoning board, uh, or the conservation commission, if they want to stop something uh something, uh, and they use the environmental uh arguments for that, they will do that.

I mean um the funny thing about many of the the zoning uh applications we get is that uh the same people who are um uh oftentimes for uh um uh more parking uh and want to have more parking for a project than the ones who bring uh environmental arguments for uh blocking uh or or not approving um a project.

I mean, in practice, how it works uh in Stanford is that when there is uh a uh zoning uh application, we receive it, the application is complete, it gets referred out to uh all kinds of um commissions and and uh city agencies.

So it goes to the transportation department, it goes to the planning uh uh board uh when it's required um by the charter or the state statute, and they get uh 35 days.

And if there is no comment received uh within those 35 days, then um the the board um uh moves ahead without those uh um comments, which doesn't mean that someone else, if if there is a different if there are different people on the board, that they wouldn't do it differently.

Thanks, Mr.

Blessing.

Representative Caporelli, uh are you satisfied or do you still have uh you still have the floor?

Do you have uh any other question?

I yield the floor.

Thanks very much.

Uh Representative Didalo has not been recognized, so I'm going to recognize him uh in priority.

Uh Representative Delacruz, you'll be after that.

And then Representative Johnson, Representative Didalow, uh please uh again, please keep it brief.

Thank you, Coach Bryce, as always.

I will.

Um I appreciate all the discussion and a lot of expert and different opinions here.

Um my biggest concern, I think that we've heard is regarding housing supply, but is at a certain point of the conservation commission, is the intent of this commission and its ability to enact practical changes.

Um I think, and I could be mistaken, is a lot of these changes are what can be done by the environmental planning board.

And my fear is that adding a conservation commission is another layer of bureaucracy, which the Democratic Party has an issue with.

If there was teeth, I think it makes sense, but the lack of teeth in it inherently, I think make it an extra layer of unnecessary bureaucracy, which cities and large municipalities already have despite the intentions of it when there are boards and other items in place and organizations that really have teeth and can enact changes to ensure and reach the goals and the conservation goals that we'd like to see and the importance of environmental protection in this city.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Delow.

Representative Delacruz.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I'll be very brief.

Uh, first I want to echo uh earlier comments of Representative Camborella about my friend and colleague volunteer Richard Freeman.

He wills the right kind of housing.

And I fully respect and admire him considering my friend.

However, I am not as Claravoya and perhaps he is.

I cannot speculate on the horrible things that will happen as a result of this commission being formed.

I think his fears are just sheer speculation.

And I yield.

With due respect.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative.

Representative Johnson.

Thank you very much.

I just want to echo.

I think Representative Didalow's point was very, very well made and largely echoes my uh lingering concern around sort of uh just additional bureaucracy for the sake of we keep getting told not to worry, there's no power here, which I think is actually my concern.

I'm not too concerned, honestly, about a threat to housing development here.

It's more my concerns more just uh wasted resources.

Beyond that, I actually would like to follow up on a question that uh Representative Campbell asked, but I don't think was answered.

So maybe through you to uh attorney anger if if they're still on the call.

Uh oh, I'm sorry, please go ahead.

Uh uh uh yeah, um I'm sorry, Representative Johnson, please go ahead.

My apologies.

No worries, thank you so much.

Um as far as the question of um Representative Camperley had asked before uh for you to opine on this board's or this commission's ability to comment on design, right?

So it's unit counts, things like that.

And that seems to be a little bit different from an answer I got earlier in the meeting where they would be able to comment on design of projects.

So it could be maybe get a little bit clearer answer from you on whether they have that uh within their remet or not.

Well, they yes, they don't have the authority to comment on the specific elements of a design, if that's what you're um concerned about.

They're they're what they are looking at in an advisory capacity is the impact of the development on the conservation issues.

Um does that help yes.

I guess maybe just to be crystal clear, they would not be able to write an opinion that says we think this project needs XYZ, whatever that is, more units, less units, bigger retention, small and smaller retention pond, whatever it may be.

No, that that would be the sort of technical expertise that would be in either the EPB's um Bailey Wick or the zoning board or the planning board.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

It's not anything that would be authorized under the statute.

Thank you.

Representative Johnson, is there anything else before you are you yielding the floor?

Uh no, I yield.

Thank you very much, Coach.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Delacruz, you've got your hand up.

I'm assuming that was from the last question.

Uh sorry, I neglected to lawyer.

Uh thank you.

Quite all right.

Representative Camparelli, you had uh some closing uh remarks to make.

Well, I just I just wanted to say that I completely respect the the fear that Representative Parker and uh Representative Didalow brought up about another your you know more bureaucracy, but this does not create another layer of regulatory bureaucracy.

It has no permitting authority, it has no enforcement authority, it cannot approve or deny applications, it cannot delay statutory review periods, it cannot impose conditions, it issues advisory recommendations based on education, uh, much like any other advisory board uh or commission.

And and and to speak to the point about if it has no teeth, then why do we actually need it?

I am I am not an expert in city government on land use boards, but we have heard the director of operations and our chief planner and the EPP and other areas of the city say we would like to do this.

We need this, we need the assist.

Um, and so I'm not sure why we would want to fight that.

These are not people that are trying to slow down development in our city or thwart it.

I think what they're trying to do is I think what they're trying to do is that they're trying to follow the 2035 plan, which calls for both dense housing, middle housing, uh, you know, single and double family housing, and all of this other beautiful stuff that makes our city healthy and livable and have better air quality and less invasive species and and things like that.

Um I guess I'll I'll just leave it there.

But I totally I understand the fear, and I think that everyone in the city has sort of tried to comfort those fears.

Um, I don't think they have a hidden agenda of slowing down development or anything like that.

I mean, these are the same people that have grown our city faster than any city in the country and faster than New York City and faster than the state.

Um so I trust that they're going to keep developing it and they would like some assistance in developing developing it smart.

And I yield.

Thank you so much for this committee for putting up with me.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Johnson, then Representative Hughes, and then Representative Gardner.

Thanks.

I just want to clarify my remarks real quick.

So my concern on the bureaucracy was not actually related to housing or development permits per se, but just more admin bureaucracy, right?

It's another layer of people for the mayor's team to go out and find volunteers for another month or two worth of agenda items on a very packed agenda for our appointments committee to convert them, another uh year's worth of minutes uh to keep up with and publish, etc.

etc.

So not I'm less concerned about the development kind of slowdown and more just general admin burden that'll be taken on by the city.

So just want to clarify that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Johnson.

Representative, uh, excuse me, coaches.

Thank you, Coach Price.

And it'll be real quick.

I just want to point out that um, you know, not during this meeting, but the previous meeting, um, Ralph Blessing, you know, testified or spoke to um, you know, the additional layer.

Um, and I believe his quote was instead of 10 referral letters.

Sorry, excuse me, instead of 10 referral letters, we have to write 11 referral letters.

Um, but those referral letters represent steps and um input to the housing uh process.

So it is creating a new step.

I mean, you're you're splitting the EPB in two.

Um, so I just want to point that out and uh thank you so much, Coach Air Price, and I yield.

Thank you, Coach Chair Hughes.

Representative Gardner Thank you, Coach Price.

I just want to clarify one point.

Um, I heard the I believe it was a legal council told us that the uh proposed board would not be giving any uh legal opinions whatsoever.

And then uh representative Cambrelli then mentioned that they would be giving advisory recommendations.

So I would just like to uh asked for the difference between an advisory recommendation and an opinion to be clarified, and if there is any difference whatsoever.

Um I'd also like us to just um focus on the opinions of the one person on this call who has actually uh made a difference to the housing situation we have in Stanford has actually made a difference in terms of uh you know helping more people find half housing and has also experienced these boards firsthand, which is of course Richard Freeman.

I think we should all be uh taking his opinion on the future of this commission far more seriously than than most other people here, as he has actually experienced it firsthand.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Gardner.

Uh Representative Johnson, you still got your hand up.

I'm assuming that's from uh apologies.

That's just me not using my phone correctly.

That's quite right.

Um so at this point we've got a motion and a second on the amendment in front of us, and I'd like to move for a vote on this amendment as you see it on your screen.

Um point of order.

Yes, please.

Uh just respectfully, I think uh you know, if I'm incorrect, please, of course, feel free to disregard.

Um, but I believe the question on the floor is representative Gardner's amendment uh rather than the one that's on the screen.

Which was Representative Hughes' amendment.

Yeah, I think good.

My apologies.

We've gone back and forth on this so many times.

My my apologies, folks.

Um my understanding, what we were uh working on and commenting on was representative Hughes' amendment uh to the uh to to the main issue.

Um am I mistaken here?

I was under the impression that Representative Gardner had made an amendment to Representative Hughes' amendment and received a second.

And I don't think there was a vote on Representative Gardner's amendment, but I I but ultimately, Chair, you're the you're the one that uh that makes the call.

Let's go ahead.

Uh I will certainly defer to parliamentarian and let's go ahead and vote on Representative Gardner's addition to report.

Yes, Representative Camp Roller.

I'm sorry, I I would just like to ask Mr.

Gardner if he still wants to vote on what the lawyer just told us is not permissible.

Like I don't understand why we are even voting on amendments that she clearly stated were not legal.

Are we are we looking to to pass something that would inevitably be vetoed because it's illegal.

Representative Gardner, I don't know if he wants to re retract that motion or he wants it voted.

Representative Gardner, I'll actually uh I'll I'll ask you where do you stand, please.

Well, seeing as a legal counsel uh representation started uh uh uh rebuttal of this point by saying I have not done any deep research on this.

Um I believe there is you know there is a chance that this may well be legal, and there's a chance that it may not be.

And I think in that case, we should follow the you know, trust the evidence of the doubt and uh and carry on with our vote as I've planned.

Before I move on to the vote, I do want to recognize councillor uh anger.

Yeah, it's it's it's less a question of research as it is reading the statute in relation to the the language itself, reading the statute in relation to the proposed amendment.

I don't believe that amendment was would withstand legal scrutiny.

And it looked like we had uh representative use uh excuse me, coaches had had uh his hand up or my mistake.

Yes, through you.

I just wanted to quickly say and just remind folks that my understanding was um in a and no disrespect that the council opinion is that it's an advisory opinion, and then it ultimately is up to us, and I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So what we're gonna be voting on is Representative Gardner's amendment to representative use's amendment as I understand it.

Um Parliamentary McEwen, please correct me if I'm wrong there.

No, that's my recollection.

I don't know if it's possible though to pull up the language of Representative Gardner's amendment so that the committee is a clear understanding of what they're voting on.

Does representative Gardner have his language written somewhere for me to display?

I believe yes, Barbara.

I can I can get it to you somehow.

Um it was the recommended, it was a wording that Richard Friedman provides.

Okay, if you would prefer, you can share your screen.

I've stopped the share, so you can do that.

I don't think I'm able to right now.

I don't have any text format available for you to put on the screen.

But okay, then if you can email it to me.

I point of information.

I believe Richard could probably put it up on the screen.

I can Richard, uh, I'm gonna ask you to please go ahead and do that if you don't mind.

Oh, and uh Representative Walson, I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand raised.

My apologies.

Um could Representative Gardner's um amendment be read into the record, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Um I'm happy to read it into the record.

Um Representative Gardner, would you like to read into the record or would you like me to read into the record?

I can do it, Representative Price, and of course sorry, well, coach price, and all of course all credit for this goes to Richard Freeman.

Um the points uh for the record, which are additional to Representative Hughes's original amendments.

So Representative Hughes' amendments were points A and B.

Uh, and then Richard Friedman's amendments and mine would be reference points C and D.

C, the commission shall not make recommendations to zoning commissions, planning commissions, inland wetlands agencies and other municipal agencies on proposed land use changes, and point D, the commission shall not review or uh shall not review land use or building permit applications of any type included but not limiting, including but not limited to any application submitted to the zoning board, planning board, environmental protection board, land use bureau, building department, or fire marshal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Gardner.

Representative Walson, uh uh do you yield?

Yes, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh okay, so we're gonna go ahead and move forward with the vote on the language that Representative Gardner just submitted.

Uh, I'm gonna do a roll call vote.

Uh Barbara, if you wouldn't mind recording this for me.

I am ready to record the votes.

Appreciate you.

Um, so again, folks, what we're voting on now is the language that Representative Gardner has added to Representative Hughes's amendment.

And that being said, we'll call for a vote.

Uh Representative Adams.

Yes.

Representative Beckham.

Representative Boudreau.

Abstain.

Representative Field.

No.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Polychia.

I'm staying.

I myself am a no.

And we had one pass, I think, from Representative Beckham.

Yes, I will render my vote.

I will say no.

Thank you.

Barbara, can you please?

I I've uh I was doing the mental math in my head, but I'm not that quick.

Can you please?

Yes, I've just added it all up.

We have three yes votes, four no votes, and two abstentions.

The motion to admit uh representative Gardner's language to Representative Yuzes amendment fails.

At this point, do we have any further amendments or opinions to offer before we move on to the vote on the issue at hand?

Point of order.

Representative Boudreaux.

So we just voted no on the amendment to Representative Hughes's amendment.

We still need to take a vote on Representative.

Representative directly.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

My apologies.

So at this point, we'll be moving forward with a vote on representative uses amendment to the issue at hand.

Before I move to that vote, last call for comments, questions, concerns.

Hearing none, I'll go ahead and move on to a vote on representative uses amendment to the issue at hand.

That's what's on the screen now.

Um representative you would you mind reading this into the record?

Or uh actually, no, that it's not necessary uh if I understand correctly, or or am I mistaken here?

Uh I read it into the record before, but happy to do that again.

No, no, thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks very much.

Uh that won't be necessary.

In the interest of time, let's go ahead and vote on representative uses amendment to uh to to the issue of hand.

Um that being said, we'll go back to a roll call vote.

Barbara, if you wouldn't if you wouldn't mind helping again.

Sure, I'm ready.

Thank you.

Representative Adams.

Yes.

Representative Beckham.

No.

Representative Boudreau.

No.

Representative Field.

No.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Pliche.

Yes.

I myself am a no.

Okay, I'll tally that for you.

Please and thank you.

Okay, we have four yeses, five no's, and zero abstentions.

That being heard, the motion or the the amendment to the issue at hand fails.

I'd like to at this point move on to LU32.009 and a vote on the ordinance.

Barbara, I'm going to call on you again if you if and when you're ready.

I'm ready.

This is the vote for the motion to approve the item and to send it to public hearing, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

I'm ready when you are.

Representative Adams.

Yes.

Representative Beckham?

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Field.

Yes.

Representative Finkel?

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

No.

Representative Yues.

No.

Representative Policia.

Pass.

I myself am a yes.

And Representative Pelici, we come back to you, please, sir.

I'm gonna have to abstain.

I had uh another amendment, but we'll gonna call that.

Thank you.

Uh Barbara, if you wouldn't mind.

We have six yeses, two no's and one abstention.

The ordinance passes through.

And I am happy to entertain any other motions at this point.

Representative.

Representative Delacruz, I I think Representative Camparelli had her her hand up before you made your motion.

My apologies.

Representative I was just gonna offer to Rep Pilici that we could talk about his amendment uh with the lawyer, uh you know, offline, and then you know, if it's permissible or or whatever, and then it could be it could be it could be potentially added.

I don't know.

I will defer back to parliamentarian acute on that one.

Or can it still be or can it still be can it still be handled now?

Can the lawyer speak to Mr.

Police about his amendment?

I I would defer to the chair here.

I I think that I mean the item has been voted on and approved.

I I would not recommend amending it further in this session, especially considering we we do have Robert's rules that guide the consideration of items that have been previously decided in the same session.

And so I think we're in that territory where it's been previously decided.

Okay, I just want to be fair.

So sorry.

I I'm I'm I'm inclined to I'm inclined to uh to agree with you, uh Provin Terra McEwen.

And uh so that being said, I'd like to close the matter at this point at least.

And if I'm not mistaken, Representative Delacruz, you had uh something that you wanted to add.

Um I'm not a member of the committee, but having concluded the item on the agenda, I think a motion to adjourn is appropriate.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate you.

So uh from anyone else on the committee, is there a motion?

So move.

Is there a second?

Second second.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Have a good night, everyone.

Thank you very much.

Thank you likewise.

Everyone have a good evening.

Thank you all for your attendance this evening.

Thank you.

Good job, James Bright.

Thank you too.

Just noting that the meeting has been adjourned at 8 57 p.m.

Thank you, Representative Camparelli.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.