2026-09-17 - Planning and Zoning Commission

00:00Keep the order

00:04and uh we'll start with the roll call.

00:08Why don't you start?

00:10>> Aaron Farbo, Sid Bludget,

00:11>> Amy Mian,

00:12>> David Morris,

00:13>> Mark Wacker, Joseph,

00:15>> and Doug Porter.

00:20>> Thank you, Dwight. Um, designation of

00:23alternates. Um, Amy and, uh, Dwight,

00:30we can see you both.

00:32>> Okay,

00:35>> that works.

00:37Um,

00:38then we'll do the pledge of

00:40>> allegiance.

00:47I pledge to the flag of the United

00:50States of America and to the republic

00:52for which it stands, one nation under

00:55God, indivisible, with [clears throat]

00:57liberty and justice for all.

01:07Um,

01:09other than thanking everybody for being

01:10here and their work, I really don't have

01:12anything to report. Um,

01:16do we have any citizens comments? Not on

01:18what we're going to discuss tonight.

01:22>> Yes. Yes. I'd like to just ask you to

01:24keep uh your thoughts and prayers for

01:26the Blanchad family. Daniel Blanch Shad

01:29was a surveyor who's been in front of us

01:31many a time mother Janet before passed

01:34away son

01:3839 years old father of two

01:41>> and just a great person

01:43keep the family in your thoughts

01:50>> um any other news or comments today

01:53thank you uh we have meeting minutes to

01:56approve Move

01:58August 20th, 2026.

02:03>> Make a motion to accept the minutes from

02:05August 20, 2026 presented.

02:10>> Have a second.

02:12>> Second.

02:14>> Any discussion?

02:20>> Hearing none. Um, all in favor?

02:25Any opposed?

02:27Any abstensions?

02:29>> Yes, I'm gonna abstain.

02:32>> Yeah, Joe.

02:36>> Um, that brings us to our public

02:38hearing. Um,

02:41number 676-04-26,

02:45uh, Route 169,

02:48Scranton Shops with Jaspondo and use.

02:52Um, so I understand there's been some

02:55changes. Um,

03:00for the record, Norm Tibo, Killingly

03:02Engineering Associates. I do have

03:05hard copies of the plan, so I'll be

03:07folks to follow along with if you'd

03:09like.

03:15>> Yes,

03:16>> Norm. I've put the color up on the

03:17screen, but if you want to have me put

03:19anything else up, let me know. Thank

03:21you. Thank you, John.

03:37>> Before I start, I I want to echo Doug's

03:40comments as well. I I sat with Daniel

03:43two weeks ago at a meeting. Very uh very

03:47uh sad, assured. Um, for the record,

03:51Norm Tibo, Killingly Engineering

03:53Associates, uh, even here representing

03:55Screen Village LLC this evening. Um,

03:59and, uh, after the meeting, well, it was

04:02two months ago now. Uh, there were, uh,

04:06a number of, uh, comments and concerns

04:08of both the commission uh, and the

04:10public. and uh uh Josh and I sat down

04:14and we we did consider and um everyone's

04:17comments and and and certainly took them

04:19to heart and uh made uh what we feel are

04:22some really good improvements to the

04:24plans to hopefully uh help uh you know

04:28to kind of calm people's uh fears and

04:31about what we're doing here. And uh so

04:33I'm just going to kind of go through

04:35everything. Uh first of all uh uh the I

04:40think one of the the the two biggest

04:42issues were number one traffic uh and

04:44the traffic was the result of uh the

04:47holiday displays that uh they were

04:49planning to do. So the the holiday

04:51displays uh were going to be uh sort of

04:54uh in the uh western part of the site

04:57and uh and also uh there were going

04:59there was going to be a train ride back

05:00there as well. um that uh that train

05:04ride uh is no longer going to happen. Uh

05:07Josh has uh decided to forgo that. Uh we

05:10didn't really have the area to make it

05:12work properly. So uh that that was

05:15actually taken off the plans. And then

05:18um uh John, if you could uh switch to

05:21the uh to the aerial photograph with the

05:24uh the Woodstock fairgrounds if we

05:26could. Oh.

05:28>> All right. Give me a second.

05:30>> Yeah.

05:34That would be the last that would be the

05:36last sheet of this set that I handed

05:38out. So, uh Josh has been in discussion

05:42with the folks at the Woodstock

05:43Fairgrounds. Uh and they just felt as

05:46though it was a much better fit uh to do

05:49the holiday displays uh here at the at

05:52the Woodstock Fairgrounds. And what I've

05:55uh shown you here is an aerial

05:56photograph where the cars in the in the

05:59heavy dash line would be where the where

06:01the uh the cars would come in. Uh and uh

06:05it's most likely going to be a drive by

06:07driveby display of animatronics uh for

06:10both Halloween and Christmas. Uh they it

06:13uh it will not result in a lot of all

06:16this additional traffic that would have

06:17been associated with the site. Uh I know

06:20people were concerned about the amount

06:21of parking there and access and egress.

06:24Um Josh had talked about um timed uh on

06:28the hour you know you get a ticket you

06:31can stay there for an hour an hour 15

06:33minutes whether whatever you know how do

06:35you actually control that? So

06:37logistically after taking a look at that

06:40uh Josh did approach uh the folks at uh

06:43the Woodstock Fairgrounds uh and they

06:45have come to an agreement to allow them

06:47to uh do these things twice a year.

06:50It'll be the during the month of October

06:51for the Halloween display uh and the

06:53month of December for the Christmas

06:55display. Uh that that would eliminate

06:58these um sort of surges of traffic uh

07:01that would have been associated with

07:02those activities uh at the project site.

07:07So,

07:09but we'll talk about traffic just a

07:11little bit anyway. Uh because um with

07:14the traffic light that was installed at

07:16the corner of 171 in Route 169, uh there

07:20was a traffic study actually that was

07:22done by the Connecticut Department of

07:23Transportation

07:25um which uh and they did an accident

07:28analysis and so forth. So, um what that

07:32report said, they talked about the the

07:34uh the peak AM and the peak PM. So, uh,

07:38traffic, uh, through that site, uh, uh,

07:41basically, you know, in front of, uh,

07:44the, uh, the Scranton shop site and all

07:45the way down to the light. Uh, the

07:48southbound landed between the the peak

07:50in the morning occurred between 6:45 and

07:527:45 a.m. Uh, and that would have been

07:55456 cars southbound and 351 cars

08:00northbound. So, a total of 807 vehicles

08:03uh, during the morning peak hour. uh

08:05clearly uh nothing is going to be done

08:08here uh during that time period. Uh the

08:10peak PM hour um also though it it really

08:14does kind of work out well as far as um

08:16you know any any kind of traffic that

08:18might be generated by this activity. The

08:19peakpm occurred between 3:15 and 4:15.

08:24uh and that resulted in 503 cars uh

08:27southbound and 483 cars northbound for a

08:31total of 986

08:34uh vehicles for that peak hour. Uh and

08:37then uh the daily traffic uh down uh

08:41this stretch of the road uh varies

08:43anywhere from 8,200 to about 9,500

08:46vehicles per day. So uh even if even if

08:50there were say a 100 vehicles going

08:53through that uh through this Woodstock

08:56fairground uh activities uh it would be

08:59a very very small percentage. You're

09:01talking of a a couple of percent uh

09:04increase in traffic going through there.

09:06So, um it's our opinion that uh with the

09:10with the removing that activity from

09:12this particular site and moving it to

09:14the to the fairgrounds, uh it's going to

09:17result in a much uh safer and much more

09:19manageable situation than what we would

09:21have had uh at this site itself. Uh

09:26secondly, um we did reconfigure the

09:28buildings a little bit as well. Um we we

09:32have these sort of in a linear fashion

09:33because the you know the intention here

09:35is to have an antiques village uh quote

09:38unquote. So the the village uh aspect of

09:42it would be more like you know you have

09:44these uh these sidewalks with the with

09:46the uh uh buildings on either side of it

09:49that could be easily uh maneuverable. Uh

09:53there is going to be an ADA accessible

09:55sidewalk all the way through the site

09:57for the from the two handicap spaces

09:58that we're proposing. uh in the gravel

10:01parking area. Uh that was another change

10:03as well. We went from grass parking to

10:05gravel parking because I think you know

10:07everyone was concerned about maintaining

10:09the grass and how would you demark that

10:11and so forth. So uh we did change that

10:14uh to gravel parking which prompted uh

10:18some questions from design

10:20professionals. Well the the gravel

10:22parking you have similar runoff um

10:25conditions with gravel parking that you

10:26do with pavement. So uh the concern was

10:29water quality. Uh so for the buildings

10:32themselves we proposed rain gardens uh

10:34for the buildings. Uh and uh they will

10:37be sort of uh just in the back of these

10:39here. And these rain gardens would be

10:41just slight depressions in the terrain.

10:43Uh they'll be planted with some uh

10:45drought tolerant and uh inundation

10:48tolerant uh plantings uh that are

10:50recommended uh by the state of

10:52Connecticut. Uh and we we have those

10:54couple of areas for the rain gardens.

10:56actually three of them because we have

10:58them combined for the two buildings here

11:00uh for the for the six smaller buildings

11:02uh and then for the for the storage uh

11:05building that that we're showing sort of

11:07central on the site itself. Um the other

11:11thing that we did uh along the edges of

11:14these gravel parking areas uh we are

11:16showing uh some water quality trenches

11:19and these are going to be uh 3 ft wide

11:20by two foot deep uh stone crush stone

11:23trenches where any kind of sediment that

11:26might be generated uh by uh the graphic

11:29parking area is going to run over uh

11:31those those uh little uh uh water

11:34quality trenches first. Uh and the way

11:36that they're constructed, uh these

11:37things are 24 inches deep. Uh but the

11:40top six inches of the stone uh would be

11:43would be uh stone that could be um

11:45maintained by removing it if it gets

11:47clogged too uh too clogged uh full of

11:50sediment. You've got 18 in wrapped in

11:52filter fabric below it. Uh and then the

11:54top six inches themselves. Uh it' be

11:56easy to maintain that by taking off a

11:58couple of inches if we see a condition

12:01where it's they've been collecting too

12:03much uh sediment. Uh we have a detail

12:06for the rain garden. Uh another thing

12:09that design professionals asked us to do

12:11was to put a uh inlet protection at the

12:14catch basin out of the road. Uh so we do

12:17have a geoteexile sediment control of

12:19the catch basin uh which we've noted on

12:21the plans here. Uh and another note they

12:24wanted to see added to the plans uh was

12:27all proposed sidewalks shall be

12:29installed in compliance with ADA

12:31standards. Uh so that is that is noted

12:33on the plans. uh the grading is such

12:36here that we do meet those requirements.

12:38There's a couple of spots where I'm

12:39doing a little bit of modification uh of

12:41the grading uh in order to um meet those

12:45requirements.

12:46Uh we have a we have a total of

12:5129

12:5330 33 30 38 parking spaces on the site.

12:59Um uh and as I said now uh the the bulk

13:03of the not even the bulk of the traffic

13:05but the traffic generated here is really

13:07going to be folks uh doing some shopping

13:10as they do currently uh at the Scranton

13:12shop antiques. And the intention of

13:15these uh additional buildings uh is also

13:18to um provide some uh um areas where

13:21folks can rent them out and you know and

13:24uh have some retail sales, some antiques

13:26and so forth. Uh, one of the existing

13:28buildings is going to be a coffee shop.

13:30Uh, the second one is an ice cream shop.

13:33Uh, we did run this by the Department of

13:35Health. We have [clears throat] B100A

13:37approval that I handed in for the record

13:38as well. Um and uh uh the only the only

13:43condition uh that the health department

13:44wants is that when when the ice cream

13:48shop and the coffee shop uh are set up

13:50and they start operating their prior to

13:52operation uh they are going to have to

13:54obtain uh their permits from the health

13:56department uh in order to do so. Um I

14:00think that's kind of it in a nutshell. I

14:03I think I covered everything that we

14:05talked about that that that that folks

14:07were concerned about. uh a couple of

14:10months back and we we tried our best to

14:13um try and um uh come up with a solution

14:17to the concerns that the commission had

14:19and folks in the public had as well. I'd

14:22be happy to answer any questions you

14:24might have.

14:30>> Thank you. Is there any change in the

14:32narrative that accompanies this

14:34application to describe this in a

14:38document that's on file as opposed to

14:40just the public presentation?

14:42>> The the uh well the the change the

14:44narrative the narrative doesn't change.

14:46I mean everything is really the same

14:48except for the train track. There is no

14:50more train track. Uh and the holiday

14:52displays are going to be across the

14:54street. Uh we did submit a revised

14:56application. Uh it made um uh the Wood

15:00Wood Woodstock Agricultural Society a

15:02co-licant with this uh to and we also uh

15:06sent out new notices for the folks uh

15:09that were within 500 ft of that property

15:12across the street. Uh so in order to

15:14cover all the bases

15:19>> not so much for you but an

15:21administrative question maybe for John

15:23Piscowski but I'll wait till we

15:26presentation here. No. If anybody else

15:28have any question,

15:30>> please do so.

15:31>> Questions.

15:34>> Yes. Yes. Doug.

15:35>> Um I think I think this should be broken

15:39into two applications. One application

15:42for the Scranton shop operation and then

15:44one application for the Woodstock Fair

15:47work. The Woodstock fair and Scranton

15:49shop working under two different

15:51scenarios. Woodstock Fair has been in

15:53place for a lot longer than I've been in

15:56Woodstock. Um, so they they are

15:58grandfathered in terms I think John

16:00agree or disagree in terms of how they

16:02use their space, but I just wanted to be

16:05clear that what's approved at the

16:07Scranton shop is this is it. I don't

16:10want to have any concerns that um well,

16:13and it says somewhere in your

16:15application, if we need overflow

16:16parking, we can use the fairgrounds for

16:18overflow with parking. But there's no

16:21reason you should need overflow parking

16:23with the what you have presented now.

16:25>> I I agree. So, and I come back to what

16:27Joseph said. I think that the

16:29application has to be cleaned up and say

16:31exactly what you're asking us to approve

16:33with one plan that shows it. Now, that

16:36plan is different than what was on file

16:38with the town yesterday.

16:42>> Um,

16:42>> so this is the first time where the

16:44commission has actually seen.

16:46>> Yeah, I just I just received the

16:49responses uh the the last three

16:52responses from design professionals

16:54yesterday, which which I address,

16:56>> but what's in what's in the what's in

16:58the file right now shows the 16th date,

17:03but that's different than what's shown

17:04on this plan. So, I I think what and I

17:06don't have necessarily any difficulties

17:08with what's presented, but I just think

17:09it needs to be clear what we're

17:12reviewing and how we're reviewing it.

17:13And I agree with uh Joseph. I think the

17:16narrative has to be in writing and

17:18clearly state what you're planning to do

17:20there. Now, I have other questions. Now,

17:22it says there's a rain garden for the

17:25water quality uh trenches, but I can't

17:28find it. I couldn't find it on the plan

17:30that's on file. Can you show me where

17:32that rain garden?

17:32>> Yeah, there's a number of them. Uh

17:34there's there's there's a rain garden

17:35here. Yeah. Uh there's a rain garden

17:37here. There's a rain garden here. Uh and

17:40there's a rain garden right here.

17:42>> Okay. So, how do those water quality

17:43trenches get to a rain garden?

17:45>> No, they don't. They're they're a

17:46totally separate thing. The rain gardens

17:48are a roof drainage.

17:49>> But your statement in your drainage

17:51analysis says that the rain gardens the

17:53water quality trenches are going to go

17:55to a rain garden.

17:56>> No, they I never said that. No, sir. The

17:59water quality trenches are a are a

18:02separate entity. Al together the water

18:04quality trenches are for runoff from the

18:07gravel park there

18:08>> from the gravel parking areas and the

18:10rain gardens are for roof drainage. Two

18:13separate methods of addressing storm

18:15water quality.

18:17>> How do you output the water out of this

18:21water quality trench [clears throat]

18:24which is a downgrade gradient? What

18:26happens with the water at the bottom of

18:27Well, the water the water ultimately any

18:30overflow sheet flows into the road.

18:32That's this is to address water quality,

18:35not not to basically what this what the

18:39intention of the trench is to do is to

18:41take any kind of uh sediment or or any

18:44kind of entrained um uh

18:49debris uh that may end up in the storm

18:52water and capture it before it before it

18:54goes down out into the world. But don't

18:56you think that's going to work? somewhat

18:57like a curtain drain and catch the

18:59water.

19:00>> It will catch It will catch some of it.

19:01Absolutely.

19:02>> Not go with the gradient down. You got a

19:04four or five foot rain right there. And

19:07isn't that going to flood at the bottom

19:08of the road?

19:10>> No. No. There's the the drainage area is

19:12very small here. You've got a very uh

19:14this is the high point right here in the

19:16parking area. You you literally have a

19:19couple of thousand square feet of

19:20drainage that goes in direct that

19:22direction. This was approved by the

19:24Connecticut DOT. They they have seen

19:27this plan actually before before we even

19:30put the water quality trenches there.

19:31That

19:32>> that's my concern is you didn't have

19:34these water quality trenches on there

19:36which is a potential to concentrate

19:38water and that was they haven't seen

19:40that and maybe you just asked

19:42>> it's it's a I I'd be happy to ask them.

19:44It's it's more of a level spreader. It's

19:46not going to concentrate water. It's

19:48it's going to slow the flow and it's

19:50going to create sheet flow rather than

19:52concentrate your

19:53>> I'm pleased that they're there. Yeah.

19:55because

19:56>> because previously, you know, the way

19:57that this driveway goes, right, it it

19:59does it does slope to the north, right?

20:01>> So, we had we had water coming down the

20:03driveway before and you had a a

20:05concentrated discharge point over here.

20:08Now, we're cross- sloping the driveway

20:09and it is noted on the plan. We're

20:11cross- sloping toward that swale. So,

20:13we're eliminating that concentrated

20:15runoff here. Uh and we're encouraging

20:18sheet flow down that short uh slope

20:20area.

20:27Just a go.

20:32Just a question. Uh it would help if

20:35there was a better legend on this uh

20:38second sheet.

20:41>> Other words,

20:44you've got the picture of where the uh

20:47water quality trenches are, but there's

20:49an old legend for it.

20:53a legend for the border quality trench.

20:55>> Yeah, there are call outs for it.

20:57>> We we we do have but now there are

21:00>> but you usually have a legend up in the

21:02corner for

21:03>> for symbols for different symbols for

21:06silk fence uh water quality trenches

21:10etc.

21:12Well, I I mean, typically those types of

21:14features are covered by details, which

21:16we have.

21:17>> I understand that detail, but there

21:18should be a legend for every symbol you

21:21have on here. Should have a legend.

21:23>> A symbol. Yes. Correct. But not not a

21:25not a construction detail.

21:27>> Not a construction. The construction

21:29details go on the last page or the last

21:31two pages.

21:32>> Well, they Well, wherever they fit on

21:34the plans, I mean,

21:35>> right. But all I'm saying is when I

21:37looked at this, there was no

21:40arrow saying this is the water quality

21:43trench.

21:48And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see

21:50it.

21:55>> Was there

21:59>> is I'm sorry, Norm. Are there are you

22:01talking the three foot by wide by two

22:03foot deep crushed stone water quality

22:06trench?

22:08>> Correct.

22:09>> So I'm going to zoom in

22:10>> right there.

22:12>> Okay. So it's not mentioned

22:14on the uh roadside building.

22:19>> It's not labeled there.

22:21>> Yeah.

22:22>> Is that correct?

22:23>> It's not labeled there. Okay.

22:26>> This to drain to stone trench. I mean it

22:28mentions the stone trench as a call out

22:30to gravel drive

22:32>> gravel drive cross slope to drain to

22:34stone trench. It does say there although

22:36it doesn't say water quality trench it

22:39does say cross slope to drain tube the

22:41stone trench.

22:43>> And then uh likewise with your silk

22:46fence on the upper side of the project

22:50uh there's nothing labeling that symbol

22:52either.

22:56Oh, that is in the legend. We do we do

22:59have the silt fence in the in the legend

23:01the lower left hand u portion of the

23:03plants.

23:04>> Not this one.

23:07>> Uh there is silk fence right here.

23:19So all I'm saying I'd like to see the

23:21legend improved.

23:27Uh, Mr. Chair, may I ask a quick

23:29question?

23:30>> Yes, you can, Jack. Go ahead.

23:32>> So, um, well, first, um, to answer to

23:35Doug Porter's question about, um, two

23:39separate applications.

23:41I would

23:44tend to disagree on the technicality,

23:46but but agree with his larger point. Um,

23:49is that these, you know, this obviously

23:51activity happening in two different

23:52places. Um I my my conversations with

23:57with the the chairman and and some

23:59others about uh and the first selectman

24:01about how

24:04uh the the Woodstock fair or use of the

24:08fairgrounds should be regulated. Um my

24:12sense of that is the Woods that

24:14fairgrounds has been established as an

24:16activity center

24:19um for you know 160 years or or what

24:23whatever it is and and has not sought to

24:26the best of my knowledge any kind of

24:29unique approvals for their annual course

24:33of activity that take place there.

24:35whether it's a the Woodstock Fair

24:36itself, whether it's a car cruise,

24:38whether it's a karate demonstration,

24:40whether it's a craft fair, um they they

24:43use their fairgrounds for activities and

24:45do not uh file some kind of uh you know

24:50report with planning and zoning about

24:51the number or intent uh intensity of

24:54their activities. So I my my tendency

24:59would be to treat this as just another

25:01activity um in their annual cycle of of

25:05use of the fairgrounds um without

25:08requiring any additional permitting for

25:11that. Um obviously if there is a

25:13hightraic event you know the expectation

25:15would be that they they contract with um

25:18constables like they would for any

25:21hightra event. Um as for the special

25:25permit for um the Scranton shops itself

25:29that would remain um and I you know that

25:32what we are looking at would be the

25:35latest iteration of their proposed

25:37special permit for the change of use of

25:39this facility. Um, obviously the

25:43explanation for the holiday display

25:44going across the street, um,

25:48you know, would would be a good part of

25:50the narrative, but I would say is

25:52actually not necessarily a critical part

25:55of,

25:56um,

25:58you know, of of the Scranton Shop's

26:00application because that's that's an

26:02activity that's taking place essentially

26:04independent of this. It's maybe managed

26:06by the same person or the same entity,

26:09but it it's this is a retail operation h

26:12happening at Scranton Shops and there is

26:14a holiday display drive-thru thing

26:16happening at the Woodstock Fairgrounds

26:18that is at this point entirely

26:21coincidental

26:23um through this. Uh I do think that that

26:25a revised narrative explaining how all

26:27of those things fit together would would

26:30be useful for the record. Um so that's

26:33my answer to that. My question for uh

26:37Mr. TBO

26:39is um I'm looking at so on the screen uh

26:42the black and white plan um I is dated

26:47the latest date uh changes 91626

26:52which is yesterday uh per additional

26:55engineering comments and the thing I

26:57would note here is that you've got the

26:59the pay attention to the arrangement of

27:02the the gray structures here is we have

27:05four in a line at the top with a large

27:06storage building number two and then two

27:10and two of these of these structures

27:14the um I'm now going to put on the

27:17screen the color

27:20>> John I think that was that was the

27:21incorrect set of plans. I I I I

27:24forwarded you I forwarded you the

27:26revised uh plans that one there. I I I

27:31forwarded you this set and I when I said

27:32disregard that last set.

27:34>> Oh, I didn't I don't I don't believe I

27:36saw the disregard part. Sorry. Um this

27:38is this is so you sent this the the

27:40color up later this afternoon. Um I

27:43don't know that that I had this as part

27:45of a whole new set. So this this that

27:47we're seeing on screen with the six

27:49three and three and the two

27:51>> that's what and that's what the

27:52commission has in front of them. Joe

27:54>> that was okay. All right. So I I don't

27:56believe I have this as a full plan set.

28:01>> I thought I sent it to you but you know

28:03I perhaps I did not.

28:05>> I yeah I think the one that you sent

28:07along with your the revised comments uh

28:10with the with the engineering stuff was

28:12the was the the one I put on screen

28:14earlier. So, we'll just have to make

28:16sure that and and the the trick being

28:18obviously this is dated the exact same

28:20way.

28:21>> Right. Right. It was just a

28:23reconfiguration of the

28:25>> of the building,

28:26>> which is which is which is fine, but

28:27obviously we want to make sure that we

28:29know which one we're approving. If we're

28:30approving,

28:31>> I believe I believe I had sent that to

28:33you and I talked with Josh and he said,

28:36"Hey, you know, I'd really like to do

28:38the buildings this and I and I made a

28:40quick change and I sent it back to you

28:42and said, "Hey, please disregard the

28:44last plan I sent you. This is the one

28:46that we're going to use." And I didn't

28:48change the date because I literally sent

28:50them to you about an hour apart.

28:53>> Okay. Yeah, I'm looking at my emails

28:55from you. I only have the one. This is

28:57the presentation drawing. That's the

28:58only email with an attachment I got from

29:00you this afternoon.

29:01>> Sorry.

29:02>> Okay. Yeah, that would have been uh a

29:05couple of days ago. That would have been

29:06um yesterday. Uh

29:10probably early yesterday

29:17>> question.

29:18>> Are you all set, John?

29:20>> I am. Thank you.

29:21>> Go ahead. Thank you.

29:24>> Hate to believe in the point, but All

29:26right. I see the symbol for the silk

29:28fence, but what is that other little

29:31thing behind it? The zipper. Oh, that's

29:34those are those are um uh hay bales.

29:38See, the engineer asked for a be labeled

29:41and put a legend.

29:43>> Yeah, we can do that.

29:45>> Uh the other thing in your infiltration

29:49trench, your water quality trench,

29:51>> what size stone you use in there?

29:54>> Number three. It's

29:55>> three forever. All of it?

29:56>> Yep. DOT number three stone. 3 inch

29:58minus.

29:59>> All right.

30:02pretty coarse.

30:04>> It works. The the smaller 3/4 inch stone

30:07or one and a half gets clogged way too

30:08fast.

30:10>> Okay. So, you're using the larger cell

30:12so it won't clog. Correct. All right.

30:18John, I've got a question for you

30:20administratively and now that we've got

30:23a couple different drawings, just want

30:26to make sure we have the right documents

30:28in the file at some point, including the

30:31uh cover page for the application

30:34itself, which there are two. the

30:37original one which is just the Scranton

30:40shops and then the more recent one that

30:43has the Scranton shops and Woodstock

30:46Fair. Um

30:49the minutes from the last meeting uh

30:53which just had the scranting shots on

30:55the application has the same uh uh

31:00special permit number as this today's

31:04meeting with that which has two

31:06applicants on the special permit. So, I

31:09just want to make sure in the file if

31:12there is going to be one with the

31:13Woodstock Agricultural Society as a

31:16co-licant, have we got dates showing on

31:21which application this commission is

31:24looking at? Uh, and kind of following up

31:27on Doug's comment, uh, as a separate

31:30permit for the agricultural society, but

31:33thinking about what you were saying,

31:35perhaps a different way would be to just

31:38have a pretty comprehensive agreement

31:42between the uh, Scranton shops and the

31:46agricultural society.

31:49That's a separate agreement

31:52because

31:53uh as a co-licant I'm wondering what the

31:57future might hold if the Woodstock

31:59Agriculture Society decides that well

32:02this is not really appropriate for the

32:04ground or some other management decides

32:07let's do something different and then

32:10Scranton Shops is left with their

32:13holiday display uh not being able to be

32:17displayed. Um, or conversely, if

32:22Scranton Shop's business doesn't work,

32:25does the Woodstock Agricultural Society

32:27as a co-licant to the special permit

32:29have rights over the scrand shop

32:33properties or the other part of this

32:36application.

32:37So, having the co-licants, I think, may

32:40provide may uh cause future problems uh

32:45if either one of those scenarios

32:47develop.

32:50So, I I I don't know if it's a better

32:52approach like to have a more uh

32:56descriptive agreement almost like a

33:00homeowners association agreement or

33:03driveway permit agreement between the

33:05two parties as opposed to having the

33:07agricultural society on the permit.

33:10That's just I don't know your thoughts,

33:12John. Administratively, how that

33:16may or may not cause a problem in the

33:18future. Okay. Um, so administratively I

33:22would actually say so if here's

33:27my

33:28take on this and and obviously this this

33:31commission needs to make that that call

33:35is that

33:37uh activities involving

33:41gatherings and celebrations

33:44with with you know events at the

33:46Woodstock fair have essentially been

33:49unre unre regulated by this commission

33:51for 160 years. Um, and I see no explicit

33:56reason that this

33:59proposed activity needs to set that

34:02precedent and and require permission. I

34:05think the the the

34:08and so ultimately it was probably I mean

34:11if you agree with that, I'm going to I'm

34:14going to assume that for a second and

34:16just follow me down this logic path. Um,

34:19if that is the if that is the case, it

34:21was probably unnecessary and perhaps we

34:23should have talked this through with the

34:25applicants a little bit further. Uh it

34:28was probably unnecessary to

34:31um

34:33notify all the neighbors of the

34:34Woodstock Fairgrounds because they are,

34:37you know, they're just continuing to

34:38hold gatherings and events. Allah

34:41Woodstock Fair

34:43um on on their on their property that is

34:46other than the same entrepreneur being

34:50involved in both things are in fact

34:53separately managed and separately

34:55regulated activities.

34:58Scranton Shops is regulated as a special

35:00permit. Woodstock Fairgrounds and

35:01Gatherings is essentially unregulated by

35:03this commission. Um and so in that sense

35:06we probably don't need to consider that

35:09at all as part of the special permit.

35:12Their portion of the special permit

35:14application can essentially be removed

35:16from the file

35:18and and we what we are left with is just

35:21the activities taking place at Scranton

35:23shops. As for any agreement between Josh

35:26and the Woodstock Agricultural Society,

35:30I don't care and and frankly nor should

35:33you. Um because if if again following

35:36down this logic line, if that agreement

35:38falls apart and Josh decides he

35:40absolutely needs this holiday display,

35:42well then he's going to have to bring

35:44his butt back to this commission and

35:46modify any special permit approval to do

35:48this a holiday display as he envisioned

35:50it a couple of months ago. That's a

35:52modification of special permit. It's a

35:54whole new process. Um, if the Woodstock

35:57Fairground, if if Josh goes away and

35:59Scranton shops become something else and

36:00the Woodstock Fairground said, "Hey, we

36:02really love this holiday display thing,

36:04great, they can keep doing their holiday

36:05display thing because we don't regulate

36:07them as such." So, that's that would be

36:10my my my logic flow would be would be to

36:12recommend that that you know, Mr. TBO

36:15and Josh basically say, "Uh, you know,

36:17you're right. Woodstock Fair Grounds

36:19doesn't actually need permission to do a

36:20holidays play. We'll take their

36:21application portion out. We're just

36:23talking about strand shops now.

36:25And I think that might be a cleaner

36:27approach to make sure there's only one

36:29applicant on this special permit for

36:31Scranton Villages and then Scranton

36:34Village and the Woodstock Agricultural

36:36Society come up with their own agreement

36:39on on how they would operate together.

36:42Uh who's responsible for liability

36:45insurance, who's making the revenue on

36:47this, uh how it all works uh over at the

36:50fairgrounds. Um, I that's my feeling. I

36:55think it would make any future questions

36:57about who has control over this special

37:00permit uh more clear if there's only one

37:03applicant,

37:06one applicant's name, I should say.

37:09And just a second on that, I just um

37:13seems that if I was a Woodstock fair, I

37:16would want somebody to be able to

37:17sometime in the future look back and

37:19say, "Well, you got a permit for this,

37:22so now you have to get a permit for

37:23everything."

37:25And I don't know,

37:27I don't not that that would happen right

37:30now, but it might somebody might look

37:31back and say, "This is a precedent

37:34setting thing." And I don't know if the

37:36Woodstock Fair

37:38Agriculture Society wants to start that

37:40process either.

37:41>> And I have follow-up questions with the

37:44um holiday displays at the fairground is

37:46lighting and signage at the entrance the

37:49time of operation costable traffic

37:52control for the holiday display who's

37:54responsible for that is that the

37:55agricultural society or is that Scranton

37:58village owners? Um,

38:01those are still questions, but I think

38:03if it's separate between uh Scranton

38:07Village and the Agricultural Society,

38:09somebody else has to answer those

38:11questions, not this permit applicant.

38:15>> Sure. You think they do or I'm kind of

38:17getting an opposite question that uh

38:22Woodstock Fairgrounds is kind of on

38:24their own. They do what they want. So we

38:27don't have any regulatory authority over

38:29lighting, noise, hours of operation,

38:32things like that.

38:35>> I think it needs to be stated. I wasn't

38:37saying what they should be. Just that

38:41there should be a clear hours of

38:42operation for the holiday display. I

38:45think even the WTO fair has, you know,

38:47its open and closing times.

38:49>> Yeah. But that's not set by this body.

38:52>> I I understand that.

38:53>> Right.

38:55So the the details of the contract or

38:57business decision between

38:59[clears throat] Scranton Villages and

39:00the Woods Agriculture Society is

39:03separate from

39:03>> should be separate

39:04>> from this permit application. Right.

39:07That's I that's what I I think we should

39:08just be

39:09>> doing the permit application for the

39:11villages and let Josh and Agriculture

39:15Society figure out

39:17>> work out their details

39:18>> with a holiday display. But I'm sure the

39:21insurance company for their cultural

39:24society will have clear

39:27directives for lighting and safety.

39:30>> Yeah.

39:34>> Yeah.

39:34>> Yeah. So, I mean that's kind of I I

39:36believe that's out of our realm right

39:38here.

39:41>> That's my opinion.

39:43I think I think we would as as this was

39:46moved across the street now there was

39:48some discussion as to whether or not

39:50would start fear gosh be the co-op. So I

39:53think we're ering on the side of caution

39:55>> by making them an applicant and also by

39:57notifying 500 foot of butters you know

40:01from the fairground itself. So, um, you

40:04know, like I said, air on the side of

40:06caution. You know, walk in here and then

40:08and then, you know, get the question,

40:10well, if there's stuff at the Woodstock

40:12Fairground, why aren't they the

40:13co-licricant? Why aren't people

40:14notified? So, I think it was just a

40:17matter of trying to cover all the bases

40:19and making sure that uh we had a

40:21complete package to bring to you and

40:23explain to you exactly what the

40:25intention was, what the changes were in

40:28the application.

40:32Okay. So, as far as the application

40:36here, what I'm hearing from commission

40:38commissioners are maybe a little more

40:41detail on some of the legends, but

40:42that's

40:44>> that Joe brought up and that we want a

40:46clear um

40:49>> distinction.

40:50>> Yeah. But just the story, the um

40:52>> narrative,

40:53>> the narrative

40:56that that addresses right the way it is

40:58now, which I this seems very nice.

41:01>> Um

41:03you know, looks like

41:04>> is that is that something that that you

41:06folks would like to have us come back

41:08with or is that something you feel is

41:09that could be adh done administratively?

41:12>> I think you have to.

41:14>> Yeah. Yeah, we have to see I want to

41:15have an absolute and clean record of

41:18what's what we've approved. And right

41:20now, I think it's muddled too much. It's

41:22gone back and forth. We have multiple

41:25sections of plans. There are 157 pages

41:28in one submission. The idea that we're

41:30going to have to make sure that

41:32everything is is correct in all of those

41:36things that are in there, I think, is

41:37too much. Let's make a clean application

41:40that addresses what you have on here.

41:46I think it makes it smoother uh for the

41:48applicant in the end because they'll

41:51know exactly what's approved and there's

41:53won't be any questions about it. I do

41:56have some additional questions. You now

41:59have uh erosion sediment control. You

42:01have rain gardens. Did you come up with

42:04any estimate of what the cost were for

42:06those project part of the projects and

42:08are you prepared to post a bond to cover

42:10that?

42:12I was not asked to provide a bond for

42:15it, but we can certainly do that.

42:18>> I'm sorry, Doug. Why would there would

42:19need to be a bond for a private

42:20development such as this?

42:23>> You asked for a bond for um the place up

42:26on the hill that does the antiques. They

42:29asked they had a postal bond for their

42:31rain gardens.

42:32>> I I I don't recall. I wasn't I wasn't

42:35staff at that point. I wasn't involved.

42:36But yes, there's site improvement work

42:38that's required to maintain the water

42:40quality on the site. And so fences, I

42:43don't know if the wetlands commission

42:44asked for a bond uh to cover their make

42:48sure it was done, but I think this is a

42:50special permit. It is one of the problem

42:52things that we have the ability to do is

42:53to ask for a bonding where we want that

42:56work to be done so that the water

42:57quality is maintained and so therefore I

43:00think it uh it should be done

43:02>> and it gives us it helps to give us an

43:04enforcement mechanism that the work gets

43:06done

43:07>> right

43:07>> and has wetlands seen this

43:11>> yes wetlands is approved

43:12>> they approved the new this what we see

43:14and have in front of us now

43:15>> no they have

43:16>> well there was

43:17>> they actually

43:18>> yeah they they approved a prior version

43:20but had that fewer fewer impact. Uh

43:23>> excuse me.

43:24>> Sorry.

43:25>> Yeah. They they approved uh a plan that

43:28had a lot more activity in the regulated

43:30area than what we have here,

43:32>> but they didn't look at things,

43:33>> but they have not seen that this one.

43:35No, they have not.

43:36>> Okay.

43:37>> And that's part of the concerns I have

43:40is that you have an approval from the

43:42And I don't think they're big issues,

43:43but I think it needs to be done

43:45correctly. you have an approval from the

43:46health department which refers to a

43:48different plan than what you're showing

43:50now.

43:51>> So I think you and the health department

43:54clipped that plan to their approval.

43:56>> So I think you need to have the courtesy

43:58of going back and saying we've made a

44:00final revision. We just want to have

44:01your final approved reapproval or saying

44:05uh we don't really need to comment.

44:07You're all set.

44:08>> Okay. But I also haven't seen a report

44:11from the fire marshal or from the fire

44:13department.

44:15Were they approached?

44:16>> They were not. I think there was uh

44:19there was a lot of uh discussion last

44:21month uh when they were having the um

44:25uh the train and the and the um uh you

44:30know Halloween and and uh Christmas

44:32displays here. There was a lot of

44:34discussion uh at that point uh with with

44:37the fire marshal. So, but those

44:39activities went away and all we really

44:42have now is parking for an antiques

44:44village.

44:45>> But you do do have structures that are

44:47close together. You have a more

44:50intensive use of the site and the site

44:52has been problematic in the past in

44:54terms of fire apparatus getting in and

44:55out. I think they'll be pleased with

44:57what they're seeing here, but I think

44:59our process requires that we have a

45:01report from the fire marshall and

45:03typically we ask the courtesy of the

45:04local fire department to give us their

45:06comments. Okay.

45:08>> Yeah, I think we're improving access

45:12considerably because,

45:14>> you know, as you know, this entrance

45:15here is uh I I believe Solen mentioned

45:18last uh in the last presentation that

45:20that emergency vehicles kind of bottom

45:22out over here because of the steepness

45:24of the drive, you know, and per DOT's uh

45:27requirements, we've got 3% for the first

45:2950 feet here, which

45:32>> that's part of my reason of bringing it

45:33up. In the past, the fire department has

45:35had difficulty with that. Right.

45:37>> So, we want to give them the opportunity

45:39to say, "Yes, this is an improvement.

45:40Let's go forward with it." Then have

45:42them six months from now and say, "Why

45:44didn't you guys ask us to look at this?

45:46>> It really didn't address the issues that

45:48we had."

45:50And I'm going to be a stickler, but

45:51that's what we're supposed to be doing.

45:53Um, are the flood planes on there?

45:56>> Uh, no, we don't have the flood plane on

45:58Yeah, we we get at that.

46:00>> Our regulations require that the flood

46:01planes be shown and they're not. Um,

46:05your drainage report is do dated August.

46:08And I know it's a technicality, but it's

46:10your plans dated September. So, how do

46:12you have a drainage report that refers

46:14to August when the plans are in

46:16September? So, you need to update your

46:18drainage report to reflect the final

46:20plans. I doubt if there'll be much

46:21change in the report. Um, but I think it

46:24should be there.

46:27There's no signature blocks for the

46:29commission, which is a requirement of

46:31our special permit regulations.

46:37There's no lighting plants though

46:40and I think you're well clearly it's

46:43dark now and it's only September. Uh you

46:46expect that that'll be used year round

46:48but how are people getting from those

46:50parking lots to those that village and

46:52what kind of lights?

46:53>> Yeah, we are showing some bottled

46:55lighting and lighting on the buildings.

46:56I could add the um u basically the the

46:59the throw details for the lights

47:01themselves.

47:02>> But our regulations don't allow lights

47:03on the building to reflect out. They

47:05have to go back in.

47:07>> They'll be they'll be dark sky

47:08compliant.

47:09>> But they're are they on those plans

47:11right now?

47:11>> Yeah, they're on right here. We're

47:13showing lights. We're showing lighting

47:14here.

47:15>> Showing that they're dark sky compliant.

47:19>> I don't see a light happen. All right.

47:27Did I say nothing?

47:31Mount HR

47:39business for specifics.

47:42>> And has our planner prepared a

47:43checklist? We're supposed to get a

47:45checklist from our planner of showing

47:48all the items are taken care of. We are

47:50a volunteer commission and again I spent

47:53several hours today reviewing these so

47:56that we would be ready and I think that

47:58should be done elsewhere. Um I also have

48:02a difficulty and I I actually I looked

48:04north at your suggestions too.

48:07There's hundreds of pages in this file

48:10and yesterday I went I started I got the

48:13package from the town. I got a copy of

48:15the plans and I'm reviewing those today

48:19and then I find there's a revised plan

48:21that was submitted yesterday or the day

48:23before. Mhm. Nobody gave any comm any of

48:26the commissioners notice that there was

48:28a new plan filed after the package was

48:31delivered to the commission members

48:33>> and then a new

48:33>> I think there's common courtesy that

48:35should be extended to the commissioners

48:37that by the way guys maybe you should

48:39look that there's a new plan in there

48:41not it actually was an addendum that was

48:44on your drainage plan where I finally

48:46found the revised plan. Um that's a lot

48:50of work to go through.

48:52Do you typically submit transmission

48:54transmittal forms uh to commissions when

48:57you submit a plan?

48:59>> Well, these the this particular thing

49:01I've just been submitting everything uh

49:03via email through John through uh

49:05through um

49:07>> uh the planner said if we bring hard

49:09copies, yes, we bring we bring

49:11transmitter forms.

49:12>> And see, I'm old

49:13>> and I always whenever I dealt with a

49:15surveyor, I always got a transmitter

49:16form,

49:17>> right? Correct. So, it was very easy for

49:18me to see what the most recent plan was.

49:21It's more difficult when we have the

49:23electronic stuff and I don't know if

49:25you've run into it elsewhere. Any

49:26suggestions that you can help so that we

49:29know exactly what the most recent plan

49:31is that we should be all open for. Okay.

49:33>> I think would be helpful.

49:34>> Well, like I said, I um know I received

49:37uh my my my last three comments uh

49:42yesterday uh from from engineering. So,

49:44I just, you know, I just made them the

49:46the the minor changes to the plans and I

49:48sent them to John. Um, I didn't think

49:50they were significant comments. One of

49:52them was to note uh they were ADA

49:54sidewalks uh which we added to the plan.

49:57Uh, the second one wanted that he wanted

49:59some computations for the more

50:00[clears throat] stuff. Uh, and then uh

50:03the the uh and the third one uh was um

50:07you know addressing water quality for

50:09the um uh for the grout lace. So, you

50:12know, I addressed those three comments.

50:13They weren't I didn't, like I said, I

50:15didn't think they were significant. Uh

50:17they didn't really uh impact the overall

50:19layout of the plan and and I I addressed

50:22those comments. I sent them back to

50:23John. He sent them back to design

50:26professionals and they issued a letter

50:28today saying that um their comments have

50:31been addressed.

50:32>> And then finally, there are two other

50:34things. Uh I think we need an applicant

50:36statement on the conformity to the plan

50:38of conservation and development and any

50:40off-site impacts. We need that clearly

50:42stated with this final application what

50:44the applicant feels the conditions are

50:47and how it complies with the plan of

50:49conservation development. And also I

50:51think we need the conservation checklist

50:52updated to this new plan. I don't think

50:55it's any of these things are going to

50:56create issues but they should be

50:59documented.

51:08May I ask a follow-up question to Doug?

51:11>> Sure. Yes, sir.

51:13>> While uh Mr. Tibo is making a list of

51:15things that need to be submitted, I'm

51:17going to put on the screen the

51:19commission's bond requirement ability.

51:23Uh please let me know if you can see

51:25this on screen. I don't know how clear

51:26it is.

51:28The commission may as a condition of any

51:30of approval of any modified site plan

51:32require a performance bond in an amount

51:34not to exceed the cost to perform any

51:36modifications required by such modified

51:38site plan plus an additional amount up

51:40to 10% of the amount of the bond or all

51:43improvements not installed prior to

51:44final approval of the issuance of a

51:46certificate of occupancy. Um all

51:50improvements is incredibly broad.

51:53Um, and this is a commission May. I I

51:57would I would ask Doug, what exactly do

51:59you believe you mean by uh the

52:01improvements you would like to see

52:02bonded for in this case?

52:05>> I I think you should have the rain

52:07gardens bonded for and the water quality

52:10trenches bonded for

52:13>> and the silk fence and hay b.

52:21>> Okay. Does anyone else want to add to

52:24that?

52:28>> And John, not that I uh I just think it

52:31gives us an opportunity to formally

52:34follow the work because the applicant's

52:36going to come back and say they want the

52:38bond released. And so now you can have

52:40the opportunity for the town's engineer,

52:43the town's highway foreman, or someone

52:45to go out and say, "Yes, the work was

52:46done." And it just gives us a checklist,

52:49uh an opportunity to make sure it gets

52:51done. Right now, we don't have any

52:54penalties in our uh enforcement

52:57penalties

52:58>> other than other than the refusal to

53:00issue it a certificate of occupancy.

53:03>> Yep. But this way it gives us an

53:07opportunity to say, you know, if you

53:08want the money released, you got to make

53:10sure this gets done.

53:11>> Okay. Yep. No, I I understand your

53:14point. I I'm just, you know, that's an

53:15incredibly broad allowance that I would,

53:18you know, I I would not want Mr. Tibo to

53:20have to calculate improvements that are

53:22completely unnecessary to to calculate.

53:27>> The applicant, someone's already

53:28calculated the cost because a business

53:31person is going to look at the cost to

53:32do this site development and say, "Okay,

53:34I got to put this kind of money away."

53:36We're not asking to be out to six

53:38decimal points. Um, a punch ballpark

53:42picture will work.

53:43>> Yeah. I mean, we have a we have a

53:44standard spreadsheet that we use, you

53:47know, fill in the blanks. So,

53:50because of north just got a question.

53:53Ch. It looks like there's a footing for

53:56a retaining wall going up somewhere

53:59around the parking lot. I'm just

54:00wondering if that's showing here.

54:03>> I not aware of that at this point. I

54:06think that the survey was done earlier

54:08this summer. Would

54:12there have been

54:15>> if there are activities going on the

54:18site now that that uh need to be added

54:21to the plans, I will meet uh I'll meet

54:23Josh out there and make sure that the uh

54:26we are fielding with

54:28>> Okay. Yeah, it's right when you come in

54:31the driveway that I think was

54:34>> there was a retaining wall there. There

54:36was the this this retaining wall was

54:38here and it dropped down on those stairs

54:40over there. I don't know if that's being

54:42replaced in kind or if it's something

54:43totally different,

54:44>> but I think it's somewhere over here.

54:46>> Okay.

54:46>> So,

54:47>> yes, if you can look at that.

54:48>> Okay.

54:54>> Any other u

54:57questions from the commissioners?

54:59So, can we just clarify so they won't

55:01have an issue next time that are we

55:03expecting a new plan number with the

55:06final one like um

55:09an applicant number or with a letter at

55:11the end that shows the final to clear up

55:12or a different number completely because

55:14you already mentioned that there were

55:16two different plans submitted under the

55:17same number. So, just so that we're all

55:18on the same page, how do we want that

55:20application number handled for the final

55:23submission?

55:24>> Yeah. Well, I think I I think the way

55:28that they left it, if the Woodstock

55:29Fairground is not going to be an

55:31applicant, then the original application

55:34I I believe if if the commission's okay

55:37with that, the original application with

55:39with Scranton Village LLC as the

55:41applicant should be sufficient, you

55:43know, provide

55:44>> with a new narrative and ID files. Okay,

55:47I just wanted to clarify. that we all

55:49were expecting the same thing next month

55:51>> and the only discriminating com uh

55:54indicator is the original application is

55:56from June 10, 2026 and the second

55:59application for the special permit is uh

56:02August 12, 2026 and that has both. So,

56:05no,

56:06>> just trying to make sure we

56:07>> Yeah. Do we have one

56:09>> one application? One number.

56:11>> Yeah.

56:12>> The same back to Scrant, right?

56:17>> I just want to make sure we're saying

56:18the same thing.

56:20>> Yeah.

56:21>> I think the simplest thing is just to

56:22have it as a revised application.

56:24>> Yeah. Just say revised application with

56:26a current date.

56:27>> Okay. Your timeline still goes, but then

56:31there is everybody. Oh, yeah. We approve

56:34when we go to approval or a vote or

56:36decision. It's based on the revised

56:38application of such and such a date.

56:40>> That's great. I just wanted to make sure

56:41we all

56:42>> No, because if it gets a new number,

56:43then it's a new application and then you

56:45don't want to

56:48>> Yeah. No, it's not it's not getting a

56:50new number.

56:51>> Okay. I

56:54>> um

56:57>> Yes. And I just have to make and I I

56:59don't know if John has dealt with this.

57:00Um all commissions course uh

57:04communications are supposed to be done

57:06in public and public meeting and I did

57:08send an email to the commission members

57:11when we were notified that there was

57:12going to be an exception uh an extension

57:15of this public hearing. John corrected

57:17me saying that I shouldn't have done

57:18that. I shouldn't have sent it to all

57:20the members of the commission. I told

57:22John that it was fine to enter that into

57:24the record so that everyone understood.

57:26And I want everyone to know that I

57:27contacted the commission members to say

57:30when we grant when we became aware that

57:33there was going to be a continuation

57:35requested a continuation of the public

57:37hearing. I thought we should notify the

57:39public that that was done because I

57:41thought it was unfair to ask the public

57:44to come to a meeting and then have the

57:46first thing we did at the meeting was

57:47extend the public hearing for another

57:49month. Um, and I just want to make sure

57:51that that's clear. I don't want anyone

57:53to challenge us in the future saying

57:55then was X part A communications. That's

57:57what it was. And we can enter my email

58:00into the into the record, but nobody

58:03responded to it, which thank you.

58:07John did respond to it, but I I'm very

58:10big on um notifying the public and not

58:13inconveniencing people. We know what's

58:15going to happen when we come to a

58:16meeting and there's a continuence. We

58:18know we're not going to talk about it a

58:20lot, but the general public doesn't know

58:21that. They're expecting to come here and

58:23express their opinions and then all of a

58:25sudden the commission is moving on to

58:28the next thing. Well, to help address an

58:30issue like that in the future, if we

58:32have some comment that we'd like to make

58:34to all the other commissioners, it

58:35really should go through John, right? We

58:38make our individual comment to John and

58:40John can distribute it appropriately.

58:42>> Yeah.

58:43>> Right.

58:44my my com and I I have you know I have

58:47no problem with that. Um and I

58:48appreciate Doug your comments. I think

58:50my comment to you and I don't remember

58:52if this is part of our email exchange is

58:54I'm not exactly sure what notifying the

58:56public would entail. I I did lean out my

58:59window and said, "Hey everybody,

59:02this is being continued." Um and I don't

59:04know if anyone heard me,

59:05>> but I'm I'm not sure what what notifying

59:08the public involves in this case.

59:10>> I don't either, John. But I just think

59:12we have to have courtesy not only to the

59:15volunteer members of the commission but

59:17also to the public because people they

59:20make efforts to come here and if

59:22nothing's going to happen

59:24>> they're disappointed.

59:28>> And on that we're going to the the

59:31talking about the public we're opening

59:33this up to public comment.

59:34>> But do we need to do that? There's so

59:36many changes this application that are

59:37going to come. I think people came.

59:40>> The public came.

59:42>> Yes.

59:43>> And there might be more chambers.

59:45>> I mean,

59:47>> yes.

59:48>> I expect we're going to continue this

59:49public hearing.

59:50>> I expect that's but clearly the public's

59:52here.

59:53>> But, you know, there might be somebody

59:54here that couldn't make it to the next

59:55meeting from somebody. So, that if

59:57they're here and they want to make a

59:58comment, this is this is where they get

1:00:00to do it. So,

1:00:02>> I'm opening it up to the public. Please

1:00:04just raise your hand. um try to stand up

1:00:06and state your name and speak loudly so

1:00:08that um everybody can hear.

1:00:11>> Is there any any comment?

1:00:13>> I do.

1:00:14>> Yes.

1:00:16>> Josh Vango Grand Village.

1:00:20Couple questions.

1:00:23Number one, the whole thing between me

1:00:27and the fairgrounds is between me and

1:00:29the fairgrounds.

1:00:30I do know legally you don't have a right

1:00:34to ask that. So we're not going to I'm

1:00:36not trying to provide that. What goes on

1:00:37between us is going to stay for that

1:00:41all day.

1:00:45Next talk about the fire marshall and

1:00:48all that. Years back

1:00:51there was going to be a house built on

1:00:52that property that was approved.

1:00:54The fire truck went up there that

1:00:56driveway with no problem.

1:01:06everything you guys are asking

1:01:08just seems to be a lot of power fetch

1:01:10stuff I've been around done a lot of

1:01:12meetings a lot of projects

1:01:15and and I get thank you for volunteering

1:01:18appreciate that you signed up for that

1:01:22okay do you notify the public every

1:01:25meeting

1:01:27>> I just want to Just one question. Do you

1:01:30notify the public every single meeting

1:01:32to come here?

1:01:34>> Yes or no?

1:01:34>> Yes.

1:01:35>> Yes.

1:01:36>> Every person in town is aware.

1:01:38>> It's on the town schedule. Every

1:01:39meeting.

1:01:40>> It's on the town schedule.

1:01:41>> Public meeting,

1:01:42>> right? Okay.

1:01:43>> Special permits. It's an entirely

1:01:45different setup and it affects all the

1:01:48>> Just want to double check and make sure

1:01:49that that's how it goes and it's not

1:01:50just for this one.

1:01:51>> No. And it gets noticed in a special

1:01:53hearing, but all our meetings are open

1:01:55to the public. They're listed on the

1:01:56town calendar.

1:01:58>> Yeah.

1:01:58>> Um

1:02:00>> so that when you said notify the public

1:02:02for this meeting,

1:02:04>> can you clarify that for me?

1:02:07I think um Doug's concern

1:02:10>> like Doug's concern

1:02:11>> Doug Doug's concern was that we we knew

1:02:14was everybody you ask for continuence

1:02:16which is fine and that's that's it works

1:02:19out for everybody but people would that

1:02:22the continuence doesn't get

1:02:25necessarily people don't notice that and

1:02:26they say oh it's a public hearing and

1:02:28the public hearing is open we continue

1:02:29it and we close it there's not really

1:02:32any comment so that that's that's Doug's

1:02:35concern as people show up a meeting

1:02:36thinking there's going to be a chance to

1:02:38speak and it just gets continued to the

1:02:41next whenever we schedule it for the

1:02:43next time. I think that's Doug's concern

1:02:46that the public, everybody,

1:02:49>> he didn't want all of you to come here

1:02:50tonight for us to say, um, no, we're

1:02:53just going to move it to the following

1:02:54months.

1:02:56>> So, that was to notify to make sure that

1:02:58>> No, you may this is not a unique

1:03:01situation here in Woodstock, right? So,

1:03:04you go to a public hearing, I mean, we

1:03:07went to a public hearing two weeks ago

1:03:09and there was a room full of people and

1:03:12they didn't have a warrant. So you know

1:03:15people that you know we couldn't present

1:03:17people couldn't comment and you know you

1:03:20know unfortunately you know that's there

1:03:22really isn't a mechanism and I know Doug

1:03:24I understand what you're saying but you

1:03:27know what is that mechanism if if if an

1:03:30application is being continued. Um I

1:03:33think you know in a lot of occasions

1:03:34you've got a a rather lengthy agenda and

1:03:37you've got a lot of dates on it and if

1:03:39one thing for some reason or another

1:03:41cannot be heard that night if it needs

1:03:43to be extended then then that's what

1:03:44happens but um I don't know if there is

1:03:47a solution uh to that. Yeah, that was

1:03:52that's nothing to do with this

1:03:53particular

1:03:53>> just

1:03:57thank you.

1:03:58>> Building is everything you asked for

1:04:00seems to be on those plans.

1:04:02>> It's there been shown over. You have to

1:04:06show.

1:04:09How much more do you want? How much more

1:04:12do you want to just keep going before I

1:04:13just say forget it. I'm done.

1:04:17>> Let me let me address that.

1:04:19They're 20 by 20 buildings. We're not

1:04:21putting up a huge turbine.

1:04:22>> I understand that. That's the issue.

1:04:24Every I think everybody here supports

1:04:25this. The issue is that with this um

1:04:28special permit,

1:04:30we have to make sure we have everything

1:04:32not locked down what we want. So that

1:04:35you can do what you want, but in the

1:04:36future you're asking for

1:04:38>> Yes. I'm not I'm not saying you're not

1:04:40>> I'm asking David, is everything you're

1:04:41asking for legal?

1:04:43>> Yes.

1:04:43>> That's all.

1:04:44>> Yes. Yeah.

1:04:45>> And we just want to make sure that it's

1:04:48specific enough so that if somebody else

1:04:50you you move on, somebody else buys this

1:04:52property and starts doing something

1:04:54that's not

1:04:56allowed on the special permit that we

1:04:58have the grounds to go in and say this

1:04:59isn't allowed.

1:05:00>> Your job as a town to come after

1:05:03somebody else.

1:05:03>> Yeah. But we also have to make sure that

1:05:05>> have a right to sell the property.

1:05:06>> Oh yeah. Oh no. You know, I don't that

1:05:09but the point is is that we've had this

1:05:11issue in the past where special permits

1:05:13have been vague. Yeah.

1:05:15>> And not specific enough. And then it

1:05:17comes back to bite us because stuff goes

1:05:19on that people complain about and we go

1:05:21back and we can't we look at the permit

1:05:23and it doesn't doesn't say, "Oh, you

1:05:26can't do this." And that's

1:05:29so we're trying.

1:05:29>> What on this permit does it say I can't

1:05:32do?

1:05:33>> Pardon me.

1:05:34>> What on this permit are you worried

1:05:35about that says I can't do?

1:05:37>> I'm not worried about you. I'm worried

1:05:38about somebody.

1:05:39>> I understand it. Okay. They're not

1:05:40worried about me. worried about 20 years

1:05:42down the road somebody else takes a

1:05:43property.

1:05:44>> Yeah. Who knows what they're going to

1:05:46do? I mean, we

1:05:46>> I just I just need an answer to that.

1:05:50>> Well, I don't know.

1:05:51>> Why is it on the application that right

1:05:54there with this application shows

1:05:57anything different than me going forward

1:05:59or anybody else doing anything else? If

1:06:01they do something else, clearly they're

1:06:03going to be in trouble because it's not

1:06:05on the application. They don't pull

1:06:06permits. That's not me. That's not this

1:06:10project.

1:06:12>> You're right. And I we

1:06:14>> you're right. But we just

1:06:16>> I think we just answered that right

1:06:17there.

1:06:19>> Yes. But we have to make sure this I

1:06:21mean we've had people come in and not

1:06:23it's not you it's not this project. It's

1:06:26our approach to special permit.

1:06:27>> I understand that. But if it's not me

1:06:29and it's not this project,

1:06:31>> then it doesn't need to be brought into

1:06:32this project.

1:06:33>> Well, no. It's it's the special permit

1:06:35procedure that we are trying to make

1:06:37sure

1:06:37>> that is your special permit procedure.

1:06:40>> Yes, that so that we protect

1:06:43>> seems to be our all in writing which I

1:06:46have reviewed. So as my

1:06:51just don't understand how much more you

1:06:55need

1:06:56>> and I don't want to get into an argument

1:06:58but I respect

1:07:01>> and this is where we have to be nip

1:07:04special permits are a totally unique

1:07:06situation. You do not have by rights to

1:07:09build this. You have to come through a

1:07:11special

1:07:12>> that's what we're doing. But the town of

1:07:13Woodstock has two zones, an industrial

1:07:17and community. Everything else is done

1:07:20by a special permit. And it's done that

1:07:22way for a reason. And they make it more

1:07:25informative. More information has to be

1:07:27provided because we have struggled

1:07:30trying to determine where we want

1:07:32commercial operations in the town. So we

1:07:35work through the special permit process

1:07:37>> which it's laid out. Is this property

1:07:41>> signature block is required on a special

1:07:43permit?

1:07:44>> Is this is this property labeled as

1:07:46commercial property in town? So,

1:07:47>> it's a special permit.

1:07:49>> I

1:07:49>> It's in the community This property is

1:07:51in the community district. It has a

1:07:52history of commercial use, but it is in

1:07:54the community district. So, any new

1:07:56commercial use requires a new special

1:07:58permit.

1:08:04Really

1:08:06really the only the only things as of

1:08:08right in the community district are uh

1:08:11single or uh single or single family

1:08:14residential or single family residential

1:08:15with an accessory apartment or

1:08:17agriculture. Pretty much everything else

1:08:19is a special permit.

1:08:30Okay. Thank you. Um

1:08:33Hans Hans Frank Canav

1:08:37I would suggest that uh in order to be

1:08:40clear on this whole thing that you guys

1:08:42in this meeting uh state the actual

1:08:46checklist of the items that need to be

1:08:48in the application so that it's in the

1:08:50minutes for the meeting so that

1:08:52everybody can go and look at those

1:08:53minutes at you know the next few days so

1:08:56that everybody's on the same page. You

1:08:57know, there's notes being taken here,

1:08:59but you know, the bond, you know, one

1:09:01person's throwing it out. Some people,

1:09:03you know, agreed with it. It's not

1:09:05really official yet, but I would suggest

1:09:07that I was on the board of ed for many,

1:09:09many years. And definitely the minutes

1:09:12of each meeting is looked at very

1:09:15thoroughly and it's a great checklist

1:09:16for everybody in the public to know

1:09:18exactly what's going on.

1:09:25>> Yes.

1:09:27Carl Kashevski, my wife and I from Josh

1:09:34had been to the meeting in July 7, July

1:09:3717th or July 20th earlier. We got moved

1:09:40to postponed from August. Here we are

1:09:44September 20th.

1:09:46[clears throat] It seems that uh in New

1:09:48England we have a very limited time for

1:09:50construction.

1:09:53During the July meeting, there was a

1:09:55presentation of things that wanted to be

1:09:58done.

1:10:00According to what I see, they've been

1:10:01answered. Now, more things are being

1:10:04brought up. To me, it seems like a

1:10:07welcome.

1:10:09If you hit this, then it moves. You give

1:10:13us this, we want this.

1:10:16I guess the the town of Woodstock as a

1:10:19small business person myself, somebody

1:10:22here trying to do something good for the

1:10:23community in small area. Take a look at

1:10:26what what he's done so far.

1:10:30And now we're going to go, you're going

1:10:32to postpone it again? I don't know.

1:10:34Maybe you are, maybe you won't. But

1:10:36we're going to be in October. And now

1:10:38we're going to start to hit the frost

1:10:40zone. If he has to do construction, what

1:10:42other

1:10:44requirements are you going to have?

1:10:46bonds, lighting,

1:10:49fire department. I agree with that

1:10:52gentleman right over there. Why don't

1:10:53you put a list together and then when he

1:10:55checks it off, he doesn't have to come

1:10:56to 14 different meetings and spend 20 or

1:11:01$30,000 for extra engineering.

1:11:04To me, planning boards and volunteers, I

1:11:07volunteer for all kind of things. And I

1:11:10understand that you have restrictions,

1:11:12but for God's sakes, will you work with

1:11:14somebody and at least allow them to do

1:11:16something and give them some some

1:11:18structure and say, "If you meet this,

1:11:21we're happy to work with you." Thank

1:11:23you.

1:11:26>> Um, Mr. Chair, if there's no one else

1:11:28online, we do have a hand raised on the

1:11:30on the internet on the internet.

1:11:32>> Yes, please. Whoever is online,

1:11:34>> Skyla.

1:11:37>> Hey, thank you. Um, my name is Skyla

1:11:39Fay. I live at 45 Stonebridge Road,

1:11:41which is right around the corner from

1:11:43Scranton Shops. Um, I have previously

1:11:46sent a letter to the town manager, um,

1:11:50outlining my various concerns and

1:11:52objections to the project. Um, I'm just

1:11:56going to confine my comments to the plan

1:11:59we've looked at tonight. Um, I think

1:12:03it's laughable that you have two

1:12:05handicapped parking spaces

1:12:08um for um a project this size. I know

1:12:13several people who require handicapped

1:12:16spaces. You've got ADA compliant

1:12:20sidewalks all over the place, but you

1:12:22only have two parking spaces that are

1:12:25handicapped appropriate. Um, so that's

1:12:28my only comment for this evening. I

1:12:30think it's absurd.

1:12:34>> Thank you. I I can uh I can respond to

1:12:37that. We're between um between 26 and 50

1:12:41parking spaces we are required to have

1:12:43two.

1:12:44>> Yeah.

1:12:46Um and just comment there is four or

1:12:51five pages of special permit

1:12:53requirements in the zoning regulations.

1:12:57Um

1:12:59just for everybody that they are listed

1:13:02in there.

1:13:03>> Mr. Chair.

1:13:04>> Yes, John.

1:13:05>> As just as a way of further

1:13:06clarification, again, the special permit

1:13:09is intended to to be uh unusual

1:13:13circumstances that that in the normal

1:13:15course of things, the the planning

1:13:16commission anticipates that it would

1:13:19allow residential and agricultural uses.

1:13:21Anything out of the ordinary, including

1:13:24commercial uses in the community

1:13:25district as the town has defined them,

1:13:27are special and deserve higher scrutiny

1:13:29and deserve to to prove that the

1:13:33proposed use can be accommodated

1:13:36uh safely and harmoniously with the

1:13:38surrounding land uses. Um the the the

1:13:42requirements that the commission has set

1:13:43up for itself in order to understand

1:13:46what the potential impacts positive or

1:13:49negative will be involve as the chairman

1:13:52said you know several pages of basically

1:13:55potential documents reports

1:13:58investigations and analysis

1:14:01um that may vary from sight to sight

1:14:03from from you know project to project.

1:14:05you know, a a self- storage facility is

1:14:08different from um a drive-through

1:14:10restaurant is different from a

1:14:13fairgrounds is, you know, is is

1:14:14different from a multif family

1:14:16apartment. Um and so that different type

1:14:18of analysis, storm water, traffic,

1:14:21lighting, um and some of the other

1:14:24elements requ um included may vary from

1:14:28from sight to sight and the and the

1:14:29commission is empowered by their own

1:14:31regulations to require that analysis.

1:14:34And in this case, um, it it appears that

1:14:37there are several things that the

1:14:39commission wants further. And if I could

1:14:41summarize, um, some of the things I

1:14:44heard this evening for for modifications

1:14:46or clarification,

1:14:48um, I'm I'm going to list them. Uh, and

1:14:51hopefully Norm is taking notes also, but

1:14:53we can coordinate this on after, but I

1:14:55believe the commission would like a

1:14:57revised narrative um, and cleaned up

1:14:59application form itself.

1:15:02uh a bond estimate for elements

1:15:04including rain gardens, silt fence and

1:15:07other erosion and sedimentation control

1:15:09and the um uh stone uh drainage

1:15:12trenches. Uh an updated drainage report

1:15:15dated um you know at the the same day or

1:15:18later than the most uh final plan set.

1:15:22Um a statement from the wetlands agency

1:15:25that that they have no further comments.

1:15:28um coordination with the fire marshall

1:15:30or fire chief to see if they have any

1:15:32comments on this. Um added signature

1:15:35block and modifications to the legend

1:15:38and then a um an updated conservation

1:15:41checklist and uh statement of uh

1:15:44appropriateness based on the special

1:15:46permit decision criteria.

1:15:49Um those are the elements that I noted

1:15:52um that should be provided or updated.

1:15:54Uh and the final element I would note

1:15:56would be to um Mr. Pando and and Mr.

1:16:00Tibo uh extension of this hearing. You

1:16:03have another approximately 30 days left

1:16:05or 35 days left of extensions to grant

1:16:08but you would have to grant them. Um if

1:16:11you are are so willing then this then

1:16:14this hearing could be extended for um

1:16:16until the October meeting.

1:16:26Does anybody else have anything to add

1:16:28to that list? I think that covers

1:16:29everything that we discussed. And what

1:16:31just before we go too much further,

1:16:33there's any more public comment?

1:16:35>> Yes.

1:16:36>> Uh Jessica Weaver Boost, I want to

1:16:38quickly say that word around the

1:16:43continuence

1:16:45Josh published it on social media. So, I

1:16:49saw it and luckily we're close to, you

1:16:52know, where the neighbors are. So, I

1:16:54greeted a lot of people in the parking

1:16:56lot last time and said, "Hey, you don't

1:16:58have to stay for this." I think this is

1:17:01a continuing problem in our town with

1:17:04getting the word out. I think in the

1:17:07future the thing you that would need to

1:17:09be done is asking

1:17:12the person with access in the town hall

1:17:15to make a social media post. I know it

1:17:19like was the day of or the day before,

1:17:22but that's the quickest way to get the

1:17:26word out the best to the general public

1:17:28that sorry, we're not going to be

1:17:30listening to you tonight because it's

1:17:31got moved out a few weeks. So

1:17:35just a suggestion.

1:17:46Any other public comments?

1:17:51Anybody online? We all set?

1:17:54Thank you. Um

1:17:57commissioners have anything else to add?

1:18:01So we should we're going to continue

1:18:03this hearing.

1:18:04>> Yes.

1:18:05>> I think you need to ask the applicant to

1:18:06give us an extension to allow ask for

1:18:09the extension so that we can meet it up

1:18:11right now.

1:18:18>> Do you need a motion to ex continue the

1:18:21hearing?

1:18:22>> I believe so. Okay. So I would

1:18:24>> continue the hearing to our next

1:18:26scheduled meeting

1:18:28>> and the applicant's request. Yeah.

1:18:30>> Second.

1:18:33>> We have a date for that.

1:18:35>> October 15th.

1:18:44>> Uh I mean that said I you know that that

1:18:46said the the I I'll note the plan of

1:18:49conservation and development public

1:18:50hearing is October 15th. um you know

1:18:54that whereas I mean this may actually

1:18:56get a larger crowd than we might

1:18:58anticipate for a PC. Um, you also have,

1:19:01you know, a a an available meeting the

1:19:04first Monday of the month should you

1:19:05wish to extend this for two weeks rather

1:19:08than four.

1:19:09>> The first Thursday,

1:19:12>> yeah,

1:19:13>> for October 1st and and that's, you

1:19:15know, that that's obviously up to the to

1:19:17the um both the commission and the and

1:19:19the applicant.

1:19:21>> Um,

1:19:24does does the applicant will they have

1:19:27time to address? We just we did this in

1:19:29two weeks.

1:19:32>> It is

1:19:34two weeks. Yeah,

1:19:36>> absolutely.

1:19:37>> Um and that way we can get this done

1:19:39quicker. Um does is the commission on

1:19:42board? I think we're meeting on the

1:19:44first anyway to have we're going to

1:19:45discuss our uh housing. Um so we had we

1:19:50were planning to meet on the first.

1:19:52>> Okay. Um

1:19:56and uh so does that work for

1:19:59commissioners? October 1st

1:20:02>> and that gets this process going quicker

1:20:04to change the motion.

1:20:05>> I'll make the motion to amend the motion

1:20:07to be October 1st or the first Thursday.

1:20:11I'll second it.

1:20:13>> All in favor?

1:20:15>> Any oppose? Any abstensions?

1:20:20So moved.

1:20:25All right. Um,

1:20:28Mr. Chair.

1:20:29>> Yes.

1:20:30>> All right. So, I not I'm assuming we're

1:20:32going to move on to new business. I just

1:20:34want to note that there was an item of

1:20:36new business that was received.

1:20:38>> Yes. Yesterday.

1:20:40>> Um, and so, uh, but I was not in the

1:20:45office until today. Um, Tracy is out. So

1:20:50uh it was not added to the formal agenda

1:20:55uh and reposted. However, this is a

1:20:56regular meeting so items can be added. I

1:20:59did add this to the online the online um

1:21:04meeting notice. This is basically just

1:21:06it's a new special permit application.

1:21:08All you need to do this evening is

1:21:10receive it and schedule a hearing. Um,

1:21:12I'm happy to show you briefly what it

1:21:15is, but again, this was received a

1:21:17minimum of 24 hours ahead of this

1:21:20meeting. Uh, and so by statute, the

1:21:22application is deemed received, but I

1:21:24but it just wanted to make sure that you

1:21:26see what it is.

1:21:28Um, I'll put it up on the screen right

1:21:30now.

1:21:32This is uh an application for a special

1:21:34permit for expansion of existing use um

1:21:38at Peekbrook Road and Crabtree Lane. Um

1:21:41on the on the former Crab Tree and

1:21:43Evelyn property currently Jeffco Fibers

1:21:46um the applicant property owner is

1:21:49looking to add um a large warehouse

1:21:53building add to the existing warehouse

1:21:55facility in two phases um for a total of

1:22:00uh 9500 and 9,400 square feet of

1:22:04additional warehouse um facility at this

1:22:06location. So it is it is you know more

1:22:10more industrial use in the industrial

1:22:12zone. Um special permit application

1:22:17uh the you know application materials

1:22:18were submitted. Um again I I literally

1:22:21just saw the plans today got an

1:22:24electronic copy at about 4:00 this

1:22:26afternoon and posted it but it was

1:22:28technically received prior to this

1:22:30meeting with sufficient statutory

1:22:32notice. So, I would ask you to formally

1:22:34receive this and schedule it for public

1:22:36hearing within the next 65 days.

1:22:39>> Don, the square footage on the

1:22:40application is 95,000, not 9,500.

1:22:44>> Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say 100? I meant

1:22:45thousand.

1:22:46>> Yes.

1:22:46>> I just wanted to clarify that for people

1:22:48who had not seen the actual paperwork

1:22:50yet.

1:22:50>> Yes.

1:22:51>> All right. Thank you.

1:22:52>> Yeah, it's it's over two acres of

1:22:53buildings.

1:22:55>> Thank you.

1:22:58>> So, the first I'm sorry. So, Mr.

1:23:01>> Okay,

1:23:01>> Mr. chair, this should probably be in

1:23:03two parts. Um, or you could do it

1:23:07however you want actually to to add a a

1:23:10an item of new business for the receipt

1:23:13of um what I am calling application

1:23:166770926

1:23:20uh to add that to the agenda and then to

1:23:22receive that as an application and

1:23:24schedule for a hearing in October or

1:23:26November.

1:23:28>> Okay. Um, so first we need a motion to

1:23:31um add Can we do it all in one motion?

1:23:34>> Two motions.

1:23:35>> Yeah,

1:23:36>> you I want it. It should, you know,

1:23:40>> motion to be added to the agenda. I'll

1:23:41second that.

1:23:42>> Okay, so we have a motion to be added to

1:23:44the agenda. Application number

1:23:45677-09-26.

1:23:50All in favor? I.

1:23:52>> Any opposed? Any abstensions? So, it's

1:23:55added.

1:23:57Um,

1:24:00we need to schedule a public hearing for

1:24:02this. Um,

1:24:04it's like next month.

1:24:08>> Um, do you want to do it at the same

1:24:09time we're having the public hearing for

1:24:10POCD?

1:24:11>> No.

1:24:12>> I don't think that's a good idea.

1:24:13>> I'd like to make a motion that we have

1:24:14this public hearing in November.

1:24:16Correct.

1:24:17>> John, what is the longest period that or

1:24:19when do we have to have it by?

1:24:21>> Uh, 65 days uh from date of receipt.

1:24:24Date of receipt is today. 65 days would

1:24:26put you at about the 22nd of November.

1:24:31>> And will that work with our meeting

1:24:32date?

1:24:33>> Yes.

1:24:33>> Your meeting date is November 19th.

1:24:36>> I suggest we have a public hearing on

1:24:39the 19th of November.

1:24:41>> So you're making a motion to accept and

1:24:43schedule on the 19th.

1:24:44>> Correct.

1:24:44>> I will second.

1:24:46>> Any reason why you want to bump it out

1:24:48that extra month?

1:24:50>> We have our BC public. And I'm also

1:24:54hoping that the planner will talk with

1:24:56the applicant and get some of the issues

1:24:57that I see immediately in the plans

1:25:00addressed so that they then when they

1:25:02come in uh in November, they'll have an

1:25:06opportunity to respond to us so we don't

1:25:09drag it out.

1:25:11>> It's hard because no matter what they

1:25:13submit, John, we have to accept it.

1:25:15Correct.

1:25:17>> No matter uh well, as long as Yeah. I

1:25:19mean, essentially, as long as they fill

1:25:21out a form, pay a fee, and give us

1:25:23something of a plan. Yes.

1:25:26>> It doesn't have to be a complete

1:25:27application, apparently.

1:25:29>> No.

1:25:31>> No. I mean, and you know, at the point

1:25:32of at after the after you've had the

1:25:34public hearing and it's not supplemented

1:25:36to make it complete, you have a very

1:25:38easy case of denial right there.

1:25:40>> Right.

1:25:42>> Because they don't have the phase two

1:25:43trial.

1:25:44>> Correct.

1:25:47>> There. Yeah. No, I again I just saw this

1:25:49this afternoon. Um I I I you know had

1:25:52talked to the the engineer um is based

1:25:56in Massachusetts prior to this but

1:25:58really this afternoon was the first time

1:26:00I've seen this so I haven't even gone

1:26:02through it to to fill out the checklist

1:26:04um Doug as I as I did for the prior

1:26:07application and is in the file. Um, but

1:26:10uh, yeah, and I and and I'd be happy to

1:26:12coordinate with you to make sure that

1:26:14the things that you see are missing are

1:26:15the same things that I see are missing.

1:26:18>> And John, just one of the things that I

1:26:19see right up and and I'm going through a

1:26:22transfer of my business, so I'm focusing

1:26:24on some legal issues. There are the

1:26:26signatures don't show who's signing. You

1:26:29know, you have two LLC's and a company.

1:26:32They have to show the position that

1:26:34they're in, but they have the right to

1:26:35sign those documents.

1:26:38And

1:26:41>> I've also I've also noted to the

1:26:43applicant that the um address on the

1:26:46application form is different from the

1:26:48address on the the site plan and neither

1:26:50of them as reflects the address of the

1:26:52actual building.

1:26:53>> There you go.

1:26:58>> It's it's a building on Crabtree Lane.

1:27:00The application is from, I think, 102

1:27:02Peakbrook, but on the site plan, uh,

1:27:05it's listed as 105 Peakbrook, which

1:27:06would be across the street on the Little

1:27:08River itself. So, it's not it's not

1:27:11there. Yeah, we there are there are some

1:27:13things to clarify.

1:27:15>> Yeah. And it's just hard. We have

1:27:17applicants criticizing us because we're

1:27:19going through checklist and they're

1:27:20saying you're dragging the process on,

1:27:22but some of it is when it doesn't start

1:27:24on the right steps, it it causes

1:27:27troubles right away.

1:27:30Okay. So, we have an open motion

1:27:33seconded

1:27:34>> and a seconded

1:27:36>> 19th

1:27:37>> for no for November 19th. All in favor?

1:27:40>> I

1:27:41>> Any opposed? Any abstensions? So moved.

1:27:46Um

1:27:49old business that has been continued.

1:27:53Um that brings us to

1:27:56home occupations.

1:27:58There are no new home occupation

1:28:00permits.

1:28:01>> Um,

1:28:04citizens comments

1:28:06from the public. Okay.

1:28:09Communications. Um, CEO report.

1:28:14Uh, this one actually got posted. Um,

1:28:19some

1:28:20uh some pools, a couple of accessory

1:28:22buildings, um, some solar arrays.

1:28:25Nothing too extraordinary. We did

1:28:27release uh required one new bond for a

1:28:30new single family residence that's

1:28:31nearing completion on center circle and

1:28:34released a bond uh for the Marionelli

1:28:36property up 198 and then again this

1:28:39afternoon received the new commission

1:28:41application for uh the Jeffco fires

1:28:43storage and warehouse building. Um I

1:28:47believe there is a new fee ordinance

1:28:49revised fee ordinance uh pending before

1:28:51town meeting pretty soon. Um, I don't

1:28:54know if that that town meeting has been

1:28:56scheduled yet. Um, and then of course a

1:28:59reminder that the um public hearing for

1:29:02the plan of conservation development is

1:29:04is upcoming in October.

1:29:08>> Is that the right date? No.

1:29:10>> No, it's the 15th. I'm sorry. That was a

1:29:12Yeah, I that's a typo,

1:29:15>> which is why I tried to quickly stop my

1:29:17share before you saw that.

1:29:21the the citation ordinance that the

1:29:23first select was working on. If there's

1:29:24a draft, can we see it before the

1:29:26meeting?

1:29:28>> Before what meeting?

1:29:30>> The town meeting because last time it

1:29:32didn't come out till like a day before

1:29:34and

1:29:35>> well, it's in the it's in the first

1:29:37selectman's hands. Um like

1:29:40>> will they release it before the meeting

1:29:42like in a timely fashion so we can

1:29:43review it before?

1:29:45>> Do you that may be a question better

1:29:48posed to the selectman.

1:29:53I will say I will say I have worked on

1:29:54it and I've sent draft back and forth to

1:29:56the attorney. I so I'm aware of it but

1:29:59I'm not sure it's final form and I'm not

1:30:00sure it's it's scheduled for for release

1:30:02or or meeting

1:30:06>> it today. Right.

1:30:07>> Okay. Is anything else John? I think

1:30:09that's

1:30:09>> the meeting is

1:30:10>> they may have done it today John.

1:30:12>> Yeah they that meeting was scheduled at

1:30:13the border select meeting this

1:30:14afternoon. So that was on the town

1:30:16meeting coming up.

1:30:19>> Okay. So the so the meeting has been

1:30:21scheduled.

1:30:22>> Yep.

1:30:22>> Yes.

1:30:22>> Okay.

1:30:27>> Okay. Um that brings us to the budget

1:30:29report. Um

1:30:30>> uh nothing extraordinary there. I I

1:30:32let's see.

1:30:36>> Still not entirely clear on how that

1:30:38what all those work, but

1:30:41>> so it's you we're still relatively new

1:30:43into the year. You have a a a total

1:30:46budget availability of $2,000. you still

1:30:49are remaining with 19 $1,838. So, you

1:30:53know,

1:30:53>> we're good.

1:30:54>> You're good for the holidays.

1:30:57>> Um, correspondence. We did get a letter

1:31:01from Tim Young saying that he was going

1:31:03to recuse himself from the um Scranton

1:31:06Shops u because its family's property.

1:31:10Um,

1:31:13and that was all. Anything else, John?

1:31:15>> That's in the file. And then I just note

1:31:16that online I did not print this because

1:31:18it's 30 pages and no one needs to see

1:31:20that. Um this is the NICOG newsletter. I

1:31:23would encourage you to to look at it

1:31:25online uh to save some paper. Um you

1:31:29know all the all the different NICOG

1:31:31things that are going on. Uh GIS program

1:31:33updates, public safety training. Um they

1:31:36did note this time uh you may recall my

1:31:40mini rant last time that uh they had not

1:31:42done anything to address the housing

1:31:44growth plan. Um they did uh at this

1:31:48point uh mention it uh and I will just

1:31:50show that section

1:31:53um in their planning portion

1:31:58uh right here.

1:32:02Current concerning public act 251 act

1:32:05concerning housing growth. Uh, according

1:32:07to public act 251, each of Connecticut's

1:32:10169 municipalities must adopt and submit

1:32:12for approval from the office of policy

1:32:14management a housing growth plan

1:32:16prepared as either a municipal housing

1:32:17growth plan or as part of a regional

1:32:18housing growth plan. Each of nine

1:32:21regional councils of government must

1:32:22adopt or submit an O to OPM a regional

1:32:25housing growth plan.

1:32:27Niko staff will be reaching out to

1:32:28municipal leaders soon with more

1:32:31information concerning public act 251

1:32:33and a regional housing growth plan. So,

1:32:35consider yourself notified.

1:32:37Was there a deadline for that notice to

1:32:38go to the OPM?

1:32:41>> What notice?

1:32:42>> Oh, well, the plan, I'm sorry, the the

1:32:45plan is due for Northeast Connecticut um

1:32:48at the end of uh 2028.

1:32:52>> Oh, plenty of time. [laughter]

1:32:59>> So, anyway, but the the full newsletter

1:33:01is on the um commission website for this

1:33:04this today's meeting.

1:33:09Um,

1:33:11>> anything else?

1:33:16>> And we have a motion to

1:33:18>> adjourn.

1:33:23Okay. Second.

1:33:26All

1:33:26>> in favor?

1:33:28Oppos? Any extensions?

```*