January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 117 to 120 of 143 30 of 57 sheets 117 Appel how people get into the buildings. How people get1 to their units. The amenities. Again, these are all2 done with consideration to acceptable design principles.3 THE PUBLIC: What about design principles in4 terms of nearby neighbors. Can you maybe share your5 opinion on being well laid out and being well balanced6 between neighborhoods and how far a particular building7 should be of this magnitude to adjoining neighborhoods?8 I mean, looking down at the property at the map of the9 design would you say that, that is well laid out the way10 it's balanced out? Maybe it's to close to one or two11 neighborhoods.12 THE WITNESS: Short answer is, yes. No13 relief is being sought for the buffers. I'm not here to14 question the integrity of the zoning ordinance. This is15 a development that is going to have and preserve a soft16 green edge around the perimeter of the property. That's17 consistent with what we try to do from a planning18 standpoint.19 THE PUBLIC: All right. Thank you.20 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the22 public have questions?23 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Jessica Pearson.24 THE WITNESS: Hi there.25 118 THE PUBLIC: Couple of questions. Did you1 listen to all of this testimony or did you watch it on2 YouTube?3 THE WITNESS: Combination of the two. I've4 been here but I tend to stay in the back because it's5 crowded and I'm trying to maintain some space.6 THE PUBLIC: And you can hear back here?7 THE WITNESS: On Zoom. I can hear back there8 better than here sometimes.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 So you have listened to 100 percent of the11 -- or read the transcripts of the testimony?12 THE WITNESS: Yes.13 THE PUBLIC: So are you still saying it's14 uncontroverted?15 THE WITNESS: Yes.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I guess stick around for17 like Part 2. Well, I'm certainly not part of that Part18 2 but I'm just saying I think that you put the cart19 before the horse.20 THE WITNESS: If Part 2 makes me change my21 mind, I'll come back, I'm sure.22 THE PUBLIC: So this particular zone, this23 was drafted in order to accommodate this housing, would24 that be correct? It's an overlay zone of sorts.25 119 MR. PLOCKER: No, objection to that.1 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking a question to the2 planner.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You made a statement.4 This is not --5 THE PUBLIC: Oh, my God.6 CHAIRMAN

zone of sorts.25 119 MR. PLOCKER: No, objection to that.1 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking a question to the2 planner.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You made a statement.4 This is not --5 THE PUBLIC: Oh, my God.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- this is not an overlay.7 THE PUBLIC: Could somebody help me out8 here. It's ridiculous.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: This is a matter of law,10 this is not an overlay zone. It is a zone --11 THE PUBLIC: Okay.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- that was adopted by the13 town council. Let's just be accurate when we're14 talking, please. Okay.15 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking him. So he could16 have qualified that instead of you yelling at me and17 treating members of the public with such caustic18 disrespect. Please. I asked him, it was in the form of19 a question and I'm really getting tired of getting20 yelled at by you and treated with total disrespect.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm not treating you with22 --23 THE PUBLIC: It's caustic.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: When you're ready, let me25 120 finish. Okay.1 THE PUBLIC: I don't need to be lectured by2 you, sir. That's what you do to people in the public.3 You cow them. It's really tiresome. I am, please I'm4 trying to ask some questions. You can correct me, but5 you can't lecture me. I asked him if it was an overlay6 zone. He could have said, no, ma'am. It's not.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You stated it was an8 overlay zone. There's a difference.9 Go right ahead, ask your question.10 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. It's not.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you, sir. This is a12 gentleman.13 Okay. But it was drafted as a zone14 particular to this property, is that correct?15 THE WITNESS: Correct.16 THE PUBLIC: See, I asked a question.17 Okay. If that's the case, why if it was18 drafted in order to accommodate this property, why in19 fact would they need any waivers or any variances or any20 changes if they were part and parcel, and the council21 who drafted the zoning ordinance in conjunction22 hopefully with the planning board, why wouldn't they23 have taken everything into consideration and no waivers24 would have been needed, is that generally how it goes?25