Victor Amaral

The meeting, called to order at 7:06 p.m., included acknowledgments for a departing member and introductions for a new member and a representative from the Charter Review Commission. The primary agenda involved two key areas: approval of the minutes from the February meeting and a discussion regarding the review of the town charter as it applies to the Parking Commission. The discussion focused on the extensive nature of the parking commission's language in the charter compared to other commissions and the outdated status of related ordinances, most dating back to the 1960s. A significant concern raised was the legal standing of the commission to hear parking violation appeals, which is contingent upon an ordinance that has not been enacted despite mention in the 2016 charter review. The Bas Ordinances Committee recently recommended an ordinance to formalize this authority, which is expected to be before the Town Council in April. Members also discussed the need for a formalized onboarding process for new commissioners, potentially including a summary guide to the charter and relevant documents.

The meeting commenced with technical difficulties related to screen sharing, followed by the approval of minutes from three previous meetings. The main discussion centered on reviewing the pros and cons of the Locust Avenue scheme number one for project development. Key discussion points included unit count (89 units), parking ratios, site control allowing for no land acquisition costs or state agency approval (though noting this phrasing needed refinement to avoid overpromising), and the continuation of commercial frontage along Locust Avenue. Cons identified were the visibility of the parking garage, the massing of the single large building potentially maximizing the site appearance, constrained congestion from a single entry point on Locust, and potential perceived "loom factor" over adjacent properties, including townhouses on Forest Street. The parking situation for Locust Lot was discussed, noting 153 existing spaces serving 410 business permits, and the topic of reserved parking for town employees was raised.

The meeting commenced with the introduction of a new student participant working on a national project involving the implementation of a deli or cafe near local schools, seeking guidance on zoning regulations for a permanent location in a residential zone. The committee agreed to facilitate a meeting with the town planner for guidance. A motion was passed to approve the minutes from the December 3rd meeting. Updates were provided regarding the 250th anniversary celebration planning, including the launch of an event calendar and details about a major parade scheduled for June 27th. A comprehensive update on Downtown New Canaan focused heavily on recent changes to Elm Street parking, which generated significant feedback regarding navigation difficulties for older residents and foreign guests, compounded by the slow completion of a necessary access ramp behind the playhouse. Discussions also covered potential solutions such as utilizing apps, addressing delivery truck parking during peak hours, and plans to resize nearby parking lots.

The meeting served as an interview session for Group Two of the Charter Revision Commission, which is responsible for reviewing the section of the charter pertaining to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Key discussion points included whether appointed positions must be electors, with specific attention given to appointed roles like the Assessor and Tax Collector not explicitly requiring elector status, while noting the ZBA members are required to be electors. The group also discussed the qualifications of appointed members, noting the value of practical experience, legal background, and passion for the town, and the process for filling open alternate positions on the ZBA. Further discussion focused on the term length for appointments, with participants suggesting that the current two-year term is too short and recommending three or four years for greater consistency across commissions and deeper engagement.

The primary discussion centered on revising the commission's structure and scope, specifically addressing the inclusion of preservation as a component or combining the Charter Revision Commission with the Historic Review Committee. Participants explored methods to strengthen the committee's limited authority, which is currently triggered reactively after a demolition permit is granted, resulting in only a 90-day suspension. A proposal was detailed to shift the burden to applicants before the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) commission, requiring an affirmative statement under oath regarding demolition intentions for properties potentially subject to historical review. There was significant discussion regarding the lack of communication between separate silos such as P&Z, the Historic Review Committee, and other review bodies, and the perceived lack of interest in preservation within the town, evidenced by recent demolitions. Attendees debated establishing broader guidelines for properties over 50 years old to be reviewed before P&Z proceedings.