Planning & Zoning Commission

Chair Thom Pattavina (’27) Middletown Vice-Chair Vice-Chair Secretary Nicholas SebastianFazzino Giuliano(’21) Thom Pattavina (’23) (’25) Secretary Shanay Fulton (’25) Planning and Zoning Members Members ers Richard Pelletier (’23) Rogers Pylant (’25) Catherine Johnson(’27) (’23) Marcus Fazzino (’21) Elizabeth Emery (’27) Vacant (’21)Spencer (’27) Morgan Monarca Nathaniel Commission Alternates Alternates Kellin Atherton (’23) Tyler Eckstrom (’25) Shanay Fulton (’23) James O’Connell (’21) Alan Cunningham (’27) Emily McEvoy (’26) Ex- Ex- Officio Officio Mayor Mayor Ben Ben Florsheim Florsheim Marek Kozikowski, AICP, Director of Land Use REGULAR MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, April 9, 2025 Council Chambers, City Hall & Virtual on WebEx 7:00 P.M. The meeting was held both virtually and in -person. Members of the public had access via https://webex.com, the WebEx application, and via telephone. Start: 7:00 PM End: 10:03 PM 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was made. 2. Roll Call Present: Commissioner Thomas Pattavina Commissioner Sebastian Giuliano Commissioner Shanay Fulton Commissioner Rogers Pylant (Remotely – Arrived at 7:11pm)) Commissioner Morgan Monarca Commissioner Nathaniel Spencer Commissioner Emily McEvoy (Seated for Commissioner Emery) Commissioner Alan Cunningham (Seated for Commissioner Pylant for the beginning portion of the meeting. Later replaced) Absent: Commissioner Elizabeth Emery Commissioner Tyler Eckstrom Staff: Marek Kozikowski, Director of Land Use Public: Twenty-Five members of the public in person. Eleven members of the public on WebEx. 3. Items removed from the Agenda None. Page 1 of 11 4. Public comment on items on the agenda which are not currently scheduled for a public hearing None. 5. Confirmation that all hearing signs have been properly posted Director Kozikowski stated that all public hearing signs have been properly posted. Motion to move item 8.1 before the public hearings. Moved by Commissioner Giuliano, seconded by Commissioner Spencer. Passed unanimously: 7-0. 6. Public Hearings 6.1 Continued: Petition to amend Sections 6.2.2, and 5.6 of the Middletown Zoning Code regarding special exception standards for cannabis retail and cannabis micro-cultivation and allow cannabis retail as a special exception use in the B-1 zone. Applicant/Agent: Jesse Langer/Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. Z2025-3. 6.2 Continued: Request for a special exception to operate a cannabis retail establishment fronting Melilli Plaza (7 Melilli Plaza) in a building located at 428 Main Street in the B-1 zone. Applicant/Agent: Jesse Langer/Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. SE2025-2. Director Kozikowski reminded the commission that the text amendment application was combined with the special exception application. The applicant would still like to keep the public hearings combined unless the commission votes to separate them. Director Kozikowski also informed the commission that a regular commission member who was seated at the last meeting is not here tonight. Commissioner McEvoy is seated tonight for Commissioner Emery and he requested that Commissioner McEvoy state for the record that she has reviewed all the material and was present at the last meeting and is in a position to act on this. Commissioner McEvoy stated that she has reviewed the materials and is ready to act on this. Commissioner Pattavina stated that the commission will be voting on these applications independently. Jesse Langer, Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Langer asked Director Kozikowski if he should go through the requests that were made by the commission from last meeting or should Director Kozikowski go through them. Director Kozikowski went through the requests. The first question that was raised at the last meeting was to see if other communities that have a cannabis store located within their downtown area, if they’ve has caused any issues related to health and safety. In the three communities they looked into, New Haven, Branford, and Bristol, there were no issues to health and safety. The other issue was to get feedback as to whether these businesses are successful and do they have a positive impact on their communities economically. Unfortunately, they did not receive any comments back from those three municipalities. Mr. Langer added that they did receive comments from the Economic Director of North Hampton, Page 2 of 11 Massachusetts and the overall impact has been positive economically. Mr. Langer continued on to address the commission’s next request from last meeting that they wanted to see a rendering of the building’s façade on Main Street which they provided to the Land Use Department yesterday for distribution to the commission. There was also a request to reach out to the Downtown Business District. The Downtown Business District submitted an email stating that they could not reach a consensus. Mr. Langer added that these towns are benefiting from the additional revenue and charitable donations they are required to make. Jennifer Alexander, 110 Washington Street, requested clarification on what a 1500 foot distance requirement looks like in terms of other possible applicants. Ms. Alexander commented that this well- known applicant has influenced everyone here. When this came forward without an applicant, the commission voted against the application. Now that we do know who the applicant is, now we can picture how this can be a positive influence. What if it’s other applicants? How many cannabis stores can be in the downtown area? Ms. Alexander went on Google Maps to find out potentially where other cannabis stores can be located on Main Street. If this application were approved and this site was developed, you could have special exception applications to open a cannabis store at the Trolley Barn, O’Rourke’s Diner and possibly the Meeting House in the North end. On the South end, you could have all the properties in Metro Square. Ms. Alexander pointed out to the commission that they could potentially have three cannabis stores in the downtown area if they think having this type of establishment is good for Main Street. Ms. Alexander submitted a map of these locations to the commission. Ms. Alexander also heard that the Common Council had raised some questions about federal funding. Ms. Alexander asked the commission not to vote until that issue is resolved first. Trevor Davis, 585 Arbutus Street, owner of the Webster Bank building downtown, stated that he was on the fence about this until he heard the Chief of Police address the Downtown Business District. The Chief of Police can’t endorse either way but he did say that there have been no problems at the legal cannabis shops either here or at the other three cities that were mentioned earlier. Where the problems lie are the smoke shops. The customers of legal cannabis shops are the kind of people we want to attract here. They do have money and they won’t smoke right there. It’s the customers that attend the smoke shops that are the problem. Erika Thompson, 99 Grand Street, spoke on behalf of herself, her husband Dylan Thompson, and their roommates, Jake Ray and Richard Ray. They oppose the plans of changing the grocery store to a cannabis dispensary. On Monday, Councilwoman Blackwell brought to their attention that the Common Council approved plans for a grocery store at 428 Main Street. However somehow those plans evolved into a cannabis dispensary without a mandatory vote by ARPA and the Common Council. They do not take issue with the dispensary itself, but they have a huge issue with the notion of prioritizing a dispensary over a grocery store that has the potential to meet the needs of the North end community. Will a dispensary really bring business to Main Street? It seems people won’t go out of their way to buy overpriced marijuana. There is nothing special about another dispensary. Ms. Thompson worked at the hotel on Main Street and the biggest complaint about the hotel’s location was the lack of a walkable grocery store. There are approximately 200 to 300 guests most weekends that could be walking down Main Street, window shopping along the way. Finally, creating jobs is a good deterrent to homelessness and substance use disorders. Commissioner Pattavina made a point of clarification, this application has nothing to do with a grocery store. He requested that speakers limit their comments to the dispensary, not the grocery store and to Page 3 of 11 please limit your comments to five minutes. Anne McKinney. 438 Main Street, began by asking if compared to the other cities, did those cities have to make a zone change? She doesn’t believe we’ve done our due diligence with notification. She wants to know why she and others didn’t get notification other than going on the website. What if a person doesn’t have a computer? She isn’t against the dispensary itself, just the location. There are four hundred students going to the music academy, the dance studio, and therapy next door. If this were for medical marijuana and not recreational, she would be for it. She explained that people over 21 will purchase the marijuana and then sell it to underage kids. She expressed concerns about parking. There are too many issues that haven’t been clarified. Steven Kovach, member of the City Council, 259 Pearl Street, is here to speak on his own behalf. He spoke in support of these applications citing the benefits of the revenue the city will receive. There is already a grocery store on Main Street called It’s Only Natural. Opening a grocery store is extremely expensive and the property owner most likely couldn’t find a tenant. The building doesn’t have the square footage and is not large enough to operate a grocery store and it won’t generate as many jobs as has been suggested. Regulated sales will ensure safer, quality controlled products for consumers. This commission is responsible for the city zoning code and land use issues. Not the City Council and not the ARPA committee. Kristen Rzasa, 54 Dorothy Drive, commented that this will set a bad precedent if this is allowed on Main Street. What happens if stores go out of business? We gain one business but lose five? That doesn’t do well for revenue in Middletown. As for the parking situation, if we’re expecting 250 to 300 people daily. We can’t accommodate that capacity now. Ms. Rzasa responded to other comments that this business will generate revenue for the city to assist with the city budget. If this gets passed, we won’t see an immediate return. It doesn’t need to open in this particular location. Sheila Daniels, 896 Millbrook Road, told the commission to really take their decision seriously because this will set a precedent. You have a rule in place and you’re asking people to change it. There’s a reason why it’s in place and Ms. Daniels believes it should stay that way. You will compromise the integrity of Main Street if you approve this. There’s a lot of other things we can do. Ms. Daniels doesn’t want to draw people to Middletown to buy pot. Ms. Daniels has been hearing that there’s an economic benefit to this. We are putting the economy before our welfare, our health, and our safety. Ms. Daniels thinks it’s very telling that the Downtown Business District couldn’t come to a consensus. You’re here to make a neutral, objective decision for the betterment of Middletown. Not for the betterment of the applicant. Jeanette Blackwell, Councilwoman with the City of Middletown, stated that Erika Thompson’s comments about the grocery store has everything to do with why we’re here. On June 2nd, 2022 DFC of Middletown, LLC presented in front of the ARPA committee what now appears to be a fantasy. DFC of Middletown, LLC stated to the ARPA committee a project that included a grocery store indicating that area around 428 Main Street was a food desert. They also listed the benefits of the grocery store and the 125 jobs it will create. On June 6, 2022 the Common Council voted 10 to 2 in the affirmative to approve the project at 428 Main Street. There was a Planning and Zoning commission meeting which voted 1 to 6 against not to approve the text amendment to allow cannabis retail as a special exception use in the B- 1 zone from last fall. We move to an ARPA subsequent meeting where the mayor brought forward a question for the ARPA task force indicating that the original scope of the project was to revitalize and Page 4 of 11 restore a downtown building. But the business plans for what will go into the building has changed. A question was posed asking whether under the rules of ARPA and under the federal guidelines, what uses are appropriate and what are going to be allowable? There were two people who indicated that there was a grocery store that was the original scope of the project. Another person asked about the contractual commitment that would prevent the use of a space for a legal cannabis dispensary. The mayor indicated that that is not why we’re here. We’re discussing a grocery store and there was no need for action by the task force. The task force awarded DFC Middletown, LLC over $2.5 million. How did this project change when it was understood that the applicants need to stick to the scope of their projects? It didn’t go in front of the ARPA task force nor before the Common Council. Are there double standards? The Common Council voted this past Monday to send the matter back to the ARPA Task Force for a vote. If the vote is successful, it will come before the Common Council. Should this body approve the text amendment and the special exception, Councilwoman Blackwell hopes the people, based on the Connecticut Statutory definition of an aggrieved person, files an appeal. Commissioner Spencer heard quite a bit about the council meeting on Monday and he is confused where the discussion of a grocery store is getting implicated in this rehabilitation of five properties on Main Street. Commissioner Giuliano commented that Councilman Kovach is correct that this commission has jurisdiction over Land Use and not the Common Council. Councilwoman Blackwell is also correct in that this particular project had other bodies to weigh in on it to approve the funding. Commissioner Giuliano is reluctant to put the Planning and Zoning Commission at odds with the Common Council. He believes that we should let the Common Council resolve the issues they have before this commission acts. Commissioner Giuliano then stated that if this particular applicant cannot produce this project or the funding is called into question for this project, then we’re right back to where we were last time with a zone change and no specifics and we’re basically throwing the welcome mat out to everybody who might want to do this. Commissioner Giuliano doesn’t like amending the zoning code for no reason and he is not comfortable moving forward with this tonight. Commissioner Pattavina agrees with Commissioner Giuliano. They need clarification from the Common Council. Vinnie Loffredo, member of the city council, 90 Dora Drive, passed out the resolution to the commission members that Councilwoman Blackwell spoke to earlier. In the resolution is the scope of work for the five properties on Main Street. Mr. Loffredo brought the commission’s attention to the scope of work for 428 Main Street. Mr. Loffredo read through the scope of work for 428 Main Street which stated in part that the goal for 428 Main Street is to create a space for two small businesses. Those include a grocery store and a restaurant. Placing a grocery store on Main Street will solve the problem of nearby residents having direct access to a grocery store. When the Common Council adopted the resolution to develop these properties, they voted to adopt the recommendations presented by ARPA. At the Monday evening meeting of the city council, the issue was raised that an applicant cannot modify this agreement. Mr. Loffredo urged the commission not to take any action to approve the proposed zoning change. Commissioner Fulton agrees with Commissioner Giuliano that we need to wait until this goes before the ARPA Task Force. Page 5 of 11 Seth Kaimens, 150 Burgundy Hill Lane, is against the zoning change and believes the grocery store at that location will be more beneficial than a cannabis store. Kelly Sweeney, 259 Newtown Street, a member of the city common council requested that the commission defer their vote while the common council clarifies the process that got us here. Councilwoman Sweeney spoke to the integrity of the applicant and she applauds his investment in the community. She is hopeful that delaying their vote this evening will get us all back on track and we can figure out what needs to be adjusted in that application and the ARPA application to see this development come to our city. Commissioner Spencer inquired if staff has had any conversations with legal counsel to see where this all lies after Monday. Director Kozikowski responded that there has been no discussion with general counsel. Dominick DeMartino, applicant and owner of 428 Main Street, stated that he has no objections with postponing the vote. Mr. DeMartino explained that he recently finished a job at 584 Main Street using ARPA funds. Once, as a landlord, he finishes a job, it’s done. Our ARPA commitment is done. He stated that he is not obligated to do anything other than that. Mr. DeMartino also stated that he is not the applicant for the dispensary but the landlord. The applicant will put in their own funds to build it up, put their display cases in and stock inventory. They’re not taking money from ARPA to do that. The actual contract that was signed is quite clear on what can and can’t be done. What Mr. DeMartino needed to do to satisfy DECD and ARPA has been completed. Mr. DeMartino has tried to get a grocery tenant for 428 Main Street but could not find one that was interested. Lou Rinaldi, resident of Guilford, spoke against this application. Josiah Sleigh, works with the State level cannabis legislature advocacy, stated his opposition to the retail cannabis store. Microcultivation is lacking. Mr. Sleigh explained that you need Microcultivation to produce the products for a cannabis store. There are currently no growers. Mr. Sleigh believes that cities should be getting more tax income to impact the area. Christina Kapitan, founder of the CT Kettle Warriors, a local grassroots advocacy group organization which promotes positive thinking on cannabis commented that their organization has serious concerns about putting a cannabis retail store on Main Street. Something that is more community centric would be more appropriate. Cannabis stores aren’t something that the city is lacking. The city is lacking real solutions for food. Ms. Kapitan wants the commission to put the community first. Director Kozikowski referred to the ten letters that were received today. If they plan on closing the public hearing tonight, he’d like to read them into the record. If the public hearing is to be continued, he can forego reading the letters since the commission will have the time to review them. Commissioner Cunningham wants clarification on what is being asked of the commission in terms of this being pushed off to the common council. What would happen from there? The ARPA committee has already approved this application. Can the money be rescinded? Vinnie Loffredo responded that the ARPA committee didn’t vote on the change to the application. If Page 6 of 11 there was a vote, the modified application would have to go to the common council for approval. Councilwoman Blackwell added that the common council voted unanimously to have the matter remanded to the ARPA task force and they need to take a vote. Councilwoman Blackwell said for the record that back in June of 2022 when the common council voted on this project, if she knew then what she knows now, her vote would have been a no. Councilwoman Blackwell would not have supported it that particular location. Commissioner Cunningham then asked what would happen if the ARPA committee rejects this plan. Are we saying that nothing changes until he does what is on this paper? Mr. Loffredo commented that Commissioner Cunningham has analyzed the situation correctly. It will not come before the common council unless it passes the ARPA committee. Mr. Loffredo stated for the record that the applicant wants to avoid what we’d like to avoid which is the conflict that will be created. Commissioner Giuliano referred to the document Mr. Loffredo handed out to the commission in which the 428 Main Street project is described as a grocery store numerous times throughout the document. What’s being presented to the commission tonight is not at all what was presented to the ARPA committee and the Common Council. Commissioner Giuliano is willing to continue the public hearing. Commissioner Spencer asked Mr. DeMartino to provide a timeline for when he spoke to individuals who could open a market to when this applicant approached him. Mr. DeMartino responded that discussions in regards to the market was prior to the signing of any of these documents and prior to receiving any funds. He purchased 428 Main Street prior to receiving any funds. Mr. DeMartino understands how this looks and is willing to let the Common Council do what it needs to do and he is confident that everything will be clarified at the next meeting. Commissioner Spencer then asked Mr. DeMartino how much of the ARPA funds went into 428 Main Street. Mr. DeMartino responded that he doesn’t have a breakdown with him but he will have them at the next meeting. Commissioner McEvoy commented that she agrees with Councilwoman Sweeney that grocery or cannabis aside, development will be good for our city. The applicant is willing to return and that will give us the time to work out these issues. Commissioner Fulton commented that having four members of the common council speaking tonight is very concerning to her as well as the Downtown Business District not coming to a consensus. Commissioner Spencer agrees with Commissioner Fulton. Commissioner Spencer pointed out in the minutes of the December 11, 2024 ARPA Task Force meeting that there was a discussion of the changing of the specific allocation that was brought up by Mayor Florsheim, the change to the project. The ARPA consultant didn’t think there was a substantial enough change to take any action. Commissioner Cunningham commented that because the ARPA Task Force was already aware of this, Page 7 of 11 he is frustrated by the process that has played out. Sheila Daniels, 896 Millbrook Road, told the commission that they’re supposed to be objective and they’re commenting directly to the applicant. You’re serving the City, not individuals. Commissioner Spencer went on the record stating that he has never had a personal conversation with Mr. DeMartino. His support of this project isn’t based on any personal relationships. Commissioner Spencer personally supports this project because he believes it will be economically beneficial to Middletown but he does get frustrated with comments like that. Ms. Mckinney doesn’t feel that this has been very transparent. Businesses downtown weren’t notified of this project. Director Kozikowski explained that Section 5.7 of the zoning code outlines the notification requirements for public hearings. Notification must be published twice before the public hearing in a newspaper with regular circulation within the city – The Hartford Courant. There is a requirement to notify direct abutters of the public hearing. Other properties that touch the subject property require a letter of notification. Director Kozikowski explained the requirements of public hearing signs and specifications of where the public hearing signs are to be located. A public hearing sign for a text amendment is not required since a text amendment isn’t tied to a specific location so a public hearing sign. Ms. McKinney stated that she is an abutting property owner and she hasn’t received notification. Commissioner Giuliano commented that the ARPA application for this location is very specific citing a grocery store. No one will reasonably conclude that it can morph into a cannabis store. Let’s fix this first, and then bring it back to the commission. Erika Thompson, 99 Grand Street, reiterated that as a North end resident this is completely unacceptable. For something this substantial, North end residents need to be notified. This is a huge change in our community. Commissioner Pattavina asked Director Kozikowski if there was notification. Director Kozikowski responded that the applicant provided certified receipts and there were posted signs. Commissioner Spencer stated for the record that he is a downtown resident and then he showed pictures of the signs on his iPad. One is posted in the back of the building and one is posted in the window in the front of the building. Larry McHugh, 87 Olander Lane, stated that he didn’t like the implications from some people that Mr. DeMartino has done something shady. You have a developer who comes in here and spends millions of dollars, went through all the steps and now he has to listen to people taking personal whacks at him. Mr. McHugh respects all the commissioners but he feels it’s wrong the way they spoke to the applicant. Commissioner Pattavina stated that none of the commissions have been swayed by Mr. DeMartino or has a personal relationship with Mr. DeMartino. Page 8 of 11 Director Kozikowski stated that based on the statutory timeline requirement, the commission is obliged to close the public hearing tonight unless an extension is granted by the applicant. Director Kozikowski wrote an extension letter for the applicant and asked the applicant to sign it and select what date he’d like to take. Jesse Langer stated that they authorize an extension to the April 23rd meeting but will be happy to extend it further out if necessary. Mr. Langer appreciates the desire to make sure everything is in conformance and the funding for some of the project matches what is proposed. All will be cleared and he hopes to be back to conclude this matter. Director Kozikowski stated for the record that the applicant did submit an abutters list with certified receipts. Director Kozikowski read the five addresses list on the abutters list. Motion to continue the public hearing on item 6.1 and 6.2 to the April 23rd meeting. Moved by Commissioner Giuliano, seconded by Commissioner Spencer. Passed unanimously: 7-0. Commissioner Pattavina called for a five minute recess. 6.3 Petition to amend Section 3.4 of the Middletown Zoning Code regarding Rebuilding Destroyed Nonconforming Structures & Uses to bring it into compliance with Section 8-2 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Applicant/Agent: City of Middletown/Department of Land Use. Z2025-4. Director Kozikowski explained that the purpose for this text amendment is that the current regulations conflict with State Statutes. A nonconforming structure is one that doesn’t conform to our current zoning code. This is common in older neighborhoods. There has to be a clear intent from the property owner to abandon a nonconformity. This proposal only affects Section 3.4 which currently states a timeframe to rebuild a nonconforming structure. The new zoning text states that a nonconforming structure can be rebuilt but not in any nonconforming way. Commissioner Giuliano commented that this change is reasonable. Motion to close the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Giuliano, seconded by Commissioner Spencer. Passed unanimously: 7-0. Motion to approve the amendment. Moved by Commissioner Giuliano, seconded by Commissioner Fulton. Passed unanimously: 7-0. 7. Old Business None. 8. New Business 8.1. Endorsement of the Central Connecticut Trail Loop Plan for a multi-use trail through Middletown connecting the Farmington Canal Trail in Meriden to the Air Line Trail in Portland. Presentation by Philip Goff, VHB Project Consultant and Rivercog Staff. Sam Gold, Executive Director of RiverCOG, explained that they received a grant from the Connecticut Page 9 of 11 DOT along with some State money that the City of Middletown received to do this work. Philip Goff, Project Manager from VHB, 94 Grafton Street, Arlington, Massachusetts continued the presentation adding that they met with the public, DOT, and DEEP on this project. This project is to tie trails in Connecticut together into a one-hundred and eleven mile loop. Mr. Goff went through a slide presentation showing the commission a number of maps of the trails. He then explained in detail what is proposed for the City of Middletown trail and the path it will take over to Portland. This project is estimated to cost $23 million, about $2 million a mile. They are finishing up the report within the next week or so. Mr. Gold added that the next steps are important because they have money lined up for this project. Director Kozikowski reminded the commission that he has spoken about this project several times to this commission and he’s happy that this project being presented to this commission. This project hits multiple goals and objectives with the Plan of Conservation and Development so the Planning and Zoning Commission was the ideal choice to have endorse this project. Director Kozikowski asked the commission to endorse this plan on behalf of the City of Middletown. Commissioner Pattavina agreed with Director Kozikowski that this project hits multiple goals with the Plan of Conservation and Development. Motion to approve the endorsement. Moved by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Giuliano Passed unanimously: 7-0. 8.2. Request for a bond reduction to reduce the $90,000 public improvement bond held for the Talia’s Trail Subdivision of Mile Lane, LLC to $8,500 and reduce the $5,000 water and sewer bond to $0. Applicant: PCD/PW Departments S2013-4. Director Kozikowski explained that this was a subdivision that got final approval in 2007. The City has been actively working with the developer to complete the road that conforms to the town standards. Director Kozikowski has been working with the Public Works Department and Water and Sewer Department to work out the issues. The Water and Sewer Department are satisfied with the resolution of their concerns. The Public Works Department stated that the road is good enough. Director Kozikowski informed the commission to expect a subdivision application from a different developer to extend Talias Trail for six new building lots. That will be an ideal time for a re-mill and re-paving of the road. The City, Coccomo, and the new developer will share the cost of repaving the road. Each party will pay $8,500. Since the Water and Sewer Department are satisfied with the work that they’ve done, they are requesting to reduce the bond to zero. Commissioner Giuliano asked if Public Works is satisfied that $8,500 is sufficient to complete the public improvements. Director Kozikowski responded the money is already retained. When the new developer comes in and extends the road, the new developer is required to mill and pave the existing cul-de-sac area. Motion to approve. Moved by Commissioner Fulton, seconded by Commissioner McEvoy. Passed unanimously: 7-0. 9. Public comment on topics which are not or have not been subject of a public hearing None. 10. Minutes, Staff Reports and Commission Affairs 10.1. Minutes Page 10 of 11 Motion to approve the March 26, 2025 regular meeting. Moved by Commissioner Fulton, seconded by Commissioner Giuliano Passed unanimously: 7-0. 10.2. RiverCOG Report None. 10.3. Staff Report Director Kozikowski reported that next meeting he will be providing an updated fee schedule which he will be proposing to the Common Council for approval and adoption. Commissioner Spencer commented that the Common Council won’t be meeting before April 23rd. Commissioner Spencer requested Staff to get the perspective of legal counsel. He would like their input. Director Kozikowski responded he will speak to them. Commissioner Giuliano commented that this issue needs to go before the ARPA Task Force first. They should have something for the next meeting. We will most likely be at a May meeting to hear how the Council acted on this. Commissioner Spencer commented that he doesn’t know if the Common Council has the ability to refer this back to ARPA. That’s why he wants to hear from legal counsel. Commissioner McEvoy commented that her understanding is that the ARPA Task Force will have to reconvene after several months to address this. Commissioner McEvoy thinks that the applicant should solicit input from the people involved with making that decision. 10.4. Commission Affairs Commissioner Spencer commented that he likes hearing everyone’s perspective but he’d like to keep people on topic when speaking. Comments directed towards personalities, it would be helpful if those were limited in the future. 11. Adjournment Motion to adjourn. Moved by Commissioner Giuliano, seconded by Commissioner Fulton. Passed Unanimously: 7-0. Submitted, Marek Kozikowski, AICP Director of Land Use Page 11 of 11