Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

5 o'clock, so we can start the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Oh, that changed it.

The Pledge of Allegiance is to be applied to the United States of America, to the Republic of the United States, and to the United States of America, and to the United States of America.

Great.

We've got some of our regulars, but need to see one person for Howard. Yes, I did you not too long ago, right?

You're up. All right.

So on our agenda, we've got a few bonds to be returned, which let Eric give those descriptions.

Yep. They're all bonds that have been sort of sitting around forever and ever. The first one in the amount of $262.92. We've been hanging on to for, let's see, the original subdivision was June 10th, 1999. So at this point, the last evidence we have on it was that they finished up in 2014 and we've been hanging on to it for 12 years since. And again, it's wobbling 262.92. So at this point, I think it's probably safe to release this back to them. Would I need a motion from the commission to do so?

I'll make the motion to return the bond funds regarding a short hill's drive to the property owners or to the applicant.

To the applicant.

Of dollar amount. 262.92. $200. and $62.92. I second the motion.

It was made and seconded. Any discussion? All right, then. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Okay. The next one is 14 Finnegan Farm Road, Pulte Group.

Formerly known as Beach Farms.

This one actually is a little bit more complicated. The original bond was in the amount of $85,000. You guys voted in 2006, November 22nd, 2006, to release the bond, but it looks like it was only a partial release at that time of $65,000. Reduce the bond. Okay, so we are still holding at this point $21,081.52. There is no new work being done over at Beach Farms. There has not been in quite some time. So at this point, we need to return the funds to the Pulte Group. At this point, again, Craig did a whole bunch of research on this because the original names of all the people on here have all since long died. So we're now sort of one generation down. And Matthew Coppa, has signed on behalf of the Pulte Group requesting the funds back. And again, it's $21,081.52. So I need a motion from the commission to return those funds.

So moved. $21,082. $81.52. $21,081.52. Second. Second.

All right, motion in seconded.

Discussion on this one? I just have a question. Where do we hold the money? Is it interest-bearing?

It is interest-bearing. We're low interest-bearing, but we hold it in our sort of town. There's actually a special account for it, but our auditor gets very upset with us for holding these funds. Because the auditor is like, if they're not being used for anything, they need to be returned. Get them off your books. So the auditor is pressing us to get them back. I'm not sure if you recall, last year we returned about five or six of these. I'm not sure you're going to join the commission. But anyway, recently we passed back about five or six of these. Greg has been doing research to try and clear the rest of them. This is what he's found so far. I expect going forward there may be one or two more that we're going to try and get rid of, just so we can try and again clear our books up as much as possible on these things.

All right. Any other questions? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. Last one is for a common driveway, lots 7 and 8 at Sandpiper Point Road. It was done by the Eklunds. David Eklund now has dementia, apparently, unfortunately. His wife is on his behalf. requested the remaining funds back. She provided their California driver's license. The information is a current address to social security cards. And then again, at this point, this was the construction for the driveways. We took a bond in 5953 in 2010. It is now again, 16 years later, the driveways have been completed and they've asked for their funds back to current funds. with interest are 6,674.27. So that's the, they're asking again for that, those funds to be released back to them.

Move. Yeah, they get $6,674.21.

$6,674.21. Great. I second the motion. Great.

Motion made and seconded. Any discussion?

All those in favor? Aye.

Opposed? All right. Okay, so that's that.

Next item is POCD, so I'm not sure if there's anything to be said of POCD here.

Yeah, if anything, the next discussion might tie into POCD, so probably just...

Okay, well, we can skip ahead to that then.

Okay, as...

Many of you may be aware, last October, the legislature passed what is now commonly known as 25-1, Public Act 25-1. It requires many, many things across many different things. There are two particular changes to the zoning regulation that the statute requires. One of which is it largely abolishes the zoning commission with subdivision regulations from acquiring certain number of parking spaces in your town for any development, residential development. It does allow you to carve out two floating zone special districts where you still can regulate for parking. Each district can be no more than 4% of the land area of the town. Working with IMIG, our consultant who's working with the zoning regs, we have drawn up maps that carve out as much of the town as we can, largely centered on one district being Halls Road, Lime Street, and the area around here, and one being along shore and then up a little bit along the East Line border. So that's one, which is the overlay district for the parking. The other one is, and this is sort of a bizarre fork we were talking about a little before the meeting started, we are required to allow, in all of our commercial zones, one or the other of, you either have to allow two to nine residential units, or you could allow two to nine residential units as part of a mixed-use development. And again, why it is or and not and, or you have to do both, No one is quite sure. It seems to be a quirk of the statute. However, when they tried to amend it this year to change the word from order and that didn't pass, so we're where we are. Given Old Lyme's very limited amount of commercial space, the thought from the consultant I make, confirmed by the zoning commission, is that we should not allow our commercial zone lots to be converted wholesale to residential. The thought was to incorporate residential in conjunction with a mixed use development. Again, we have to do one or the other, but the thought was that by doing it as part of mixed use, that we would retain a commercial feature, I guess, for lack of a better word, of the commercial zone, and we wouldn't just lose it all to residential development. On that basis, I've given you guys a memo that largely sort of discusses why I believe that there are things in the POCD that say this could be consistent. The unfortunate part is, one way or the other, the zoning regulations are going to need to be amended. If we don't do this ourselves, then we can lose the ability to regulate apartments townwide, and we have to basically allow all of our commercial zones to be used for residential two to nine units. The theory is get this in place so that we don't end up sort of worse off for it. I'm happy to take any of your questions about it. And again, I did give you a memo that sort of discussed how this is consistent with the PSED. What are we trying to accomplish tonight with this? Okay. Per statute, if there is a proposal to amend the zoning regulations, There's what's called an 824 referral to the planning commission, and the planning commission gets to decide whether this proposal is consistent with the plan of conservation and development or not. If it is determined not to be consistent with the POCD, it means that the zoning commission can only adopt the regulations on a super majority, four votes out of five, instead of a regular majority, three votes to two. So this became important a couple of years ago with Halls Road. Planning Commission said the original proposal was not consistent. The Zoning Commission voted three to two in favor of adopting the regulation, but that was insufficient because the Planning Commission said it was not consistent with the regulation, with the POCD. So again, your role in all of this is to review the regs and determine consistency with the POCD. Again, unfortunately, in this case, we have to adopt something. So just saying... No is probably not an option here, but you can decide whether this is the better option or whether you prefer something else. Go ahead. Another question.

I think the POCD recognizes that Falls Road is definitely a mixed use. We want to maintain commercial use along Falls Road, that area. Now, the question is, can you change this per zoning? per zone, let's say not all commercial zones, because what I'm thinking is the commercial zone that goes along Route Shore Road, right to where, let's say, where the Gulf Range is today, where Cherrystones were, that might be very difficult for mixed use, for a developer to have to be forced into mixed use if he did multifamily housing, and there was a recent proposal to do something by Cherrystones, be very difficult if we had to put a commercial use or retail on the first floor. This is calling for retail on the first floor. It would probably not be very successful. So what, contrary to that, if on the Halls Road, or where we have the zoning as C30S, right? It's a Pacific zone. And if that applied to that zone, fine. But when I see it as a problem making it for all commercial settlements, especially the longshore road, for it to require retail.

Okay. The short answer is yes, you can differentiate by zone. The somewhat longer answer, I guess, is If we do it as you're proposing, you are risking everything along Shore Road being made multifamily residential and no longer having a commercial component there at all. So do you have concerns that Shore Road would no longer be commercial even though it is zoned commercial? Because that would be the risk of not adopting the regs as drafted.

I understand what you're saying. The ideal solution is to leave it up to the development. Right? So that we don't force it. We don't force it. So if someone comes with multifamily and if someone comes with mixed use for that particular zone, that either one could go forward. So I'm going back to your issue. Can we push back on this either or?

You can, but again, this is not a special permit. This is why basically nearly administrative review, the zoning commission more or less will have to approve it once it comes to that. So I guess the question is, again, if you are okay with every developer along Shore Road wanting to convert all of your commercial use there to residential use, then that's okay. But just be aware that that is certainly a possible outcome of your proposal. That's not really my proposal.

Can we get some other people's opinions on this for a second, just to kind of get the Commission's overall feelings?

I like the idea of the mixed use, especially at Halls Road. And I also think, you know, Hartford Avenue would be good, but then commercial on the bottoms, some residential on top, especially if they're going to get sewers. But, you know, Halls Road's not going to get a service. But, yeah, I'm just saying, I like that part. I mean, if we're forced to do this, I'd rather have that mixed use. So if a developer did...

want to do a purely residential development.

The two to nine is still going to be okay with the way we're moving it. I'm kind of going to miss something.

Well, so did you read the red? So I think the flaw, I actually kind of agree with the concept that mixed use is not a good idea. Because the way it reads right now, they say you can't have any residential on the first floor. In the two to nine unit thing, you're now saying, okay, all of it has to be above. So I'm sorry, but there's just not that need for commercial on some of these areas we're talking about. And it's going to be vacant space. And that seems really pointless to me.

I agree wholeheartedly, but if somebody wanted to not do the commercial space below, that would require a special permit.

Okay, your choices are some combination of this. We have to allow in our commercial zones, all of our commercial zones, two to nine residential units in every space, okay? The only question is, do you want to tie it to a commercial use, or are you willing to allow it to go in without a commercial use? Those are our only choices, essentially. With commercial, without commercial. So again, and we can play with the terms as to what that's gonna look like, but one or the other of those two possible things, or both, you can do it both, must be allowed in every commercial zone at this point in time.

So am I correct, though, in that the way it's written, anything for explore has to be commercial?

Yes. If you want to go back to the zoning commission and say, we don't like that feature of the regulation, that's why it's here. You're allowed to to go back the whole, you're preparing what's called a report. So your report can say exactly what you happen to think about the regulation. It is consistent. It's not consistent. Here are our thoughts about what we like about it, what we don't like about it. So the zoning commission gets the benefit of that for us next week. Okay.

Eric, let's say someone has a proposal just to do residential in a commercial zone. Yes. Could he go to the Board of Appeals and say, oh, sure, you could always go to the ZBA. So he could, or he could just talk to the planning or the zoning commission and say, gee, in this particular situation for this, could they vary? No, no, no. So they can't, but the Board of Appeals could do it.

ZBA can, but it would be a use variance, and there's very little possibility of them getting a use variance. You'd have to demonstrate that there's no other valid use for these sites. So, if you want C30 or C10, which is the only other, those are two commercial zones we have along Shore Road, to have the opportunity for both commercial mixed use and commercial. two to nine units, residential use only, you're certainly able to go back to the zoning commission and make that as your position.

Go ahead. I'm kind of, before, I don't want to mess this up. So if somebody did want to come in with a two to nine unit per lot, the zoning commission would have a very difficult time approving that because would they not, with no commercial, because then it gets into the whole spot zoning thing. That's where I'm going to go on.

At this point, again, Todd, as drafted, yes, you would have to have a commercial component if you were doing multifamily. However, an alternative is to allow both mixed-use commercial and straight residential two to nine units in the commercial zone. By statute, you have to allow two to nine units in every commercial zone you have. It's not spot zoning. It's written right into your regulations.

Okay, that was my concern, is that if an attractive project comes before you, but it doesn't make any sense to have a pizzeria on the bottom front store, and we've already got eight pizzerias down there, so it's would be a difficult business to make successful. I was just looking for a way that you can be happy and it kind of makes sense. And I also understand that we don't want 156 to look like Essex by the, you know, Burger King and Sabre or Essex by the steam train.

I think we have an option here that made clear. Even though this is a commercial zone, so you can still put a commercial building in that zone. Even though we're improving multifamily housing to go into that zone, all right? That's the statute. That's what the state's telling us. You've got to allow multifamily housing. What happened is something got a little mixed up here that I think was a mistake, but the way they put the statute in the state law to us was that you choose one or the other. You actually do multifamily housing and commercial, or you do multifamily housing with commercial.

And you have that commercial...

I think you can do both.

I think you're allowed to do both if you want to. But you don't have to do both. You can pick one or the other if you want to.

But does that blank you?

Yeah, per zone. Except, remember, your C30 is also along Route 1, right? And you've got areas... Basically, by coffee is that area there that is commercially zoned as well. So you can't say that the C30 on Shores Road is treated one way, but the C30 over here is treated differently. All of your C30 has to be the same. The difference on Hall Road is C30S. You can carve that out. But you could make the other C30S as well. Yes, but that would take an entire separate action that isn't going to happen between now and July 1st. But you could go back and do it. Yes, but there would be a gap of some period of time. And again, C30S was designed specifically for Halls Road. So it may not be appropriate for it to be C30S on Boston Post Road. You may want to make it C-30 is something else, but it would take, again, another step by the Zoning Commission to do that. I don't think there's any C-10 there. I think C-10 is pretty much limited to Shore Road, but C-30, there are patches of C-30 elsewhere.

So, Eric, if someone just wants to do commercial… They can still do commercial. They can do as much commercial as they want.

Right.

Yes. Okay.

Yeah.

I like the mixed use. I've just seen a lot of it in 30 years in Greenwich. Their main Greenwich Avenue has mixed use. My ex used to have an apartment above a store. It was a magic store he sold.

So the question, like, when you talk about Falls Road, that zone includes, like, Davis Road west and east, right? Yes. You don't see this sort of layout, though, working on a Davis Road west, you know, if it's tucked away off of Falls Road.

No foot traffic. And really, the retail is there are so many empty units elsewhere. Exactly. O-Line is very lucky that everything is pretty much occupied. Yeah. So even look down on Shore Road. I don't know what the building is that used to have a coffee shop and its offices. Chris, what is that one?

It used to be the Simpson Healthcare there.

Yes. And so that was just strictly commercial. And it seemed like, oh, it's a nice building, great area. There'll be plenty of traffic. And it was vacant for how long?

So it has recently been,

Reaching United, right? A little bit. If anybody wants to look at the zoning map, take a look.

Well, the other thing is that the zoning commission could, this is sort of just get some rules so that we have some control over it, like where the parking focus is, so that we could, in this overlay zone, require parking. Otherwise,

Well, let's break the parking piece of it out. Does anybody disagree with the idea of the parking overlay zones? So that one, I think everyone is on board. We're good with that. So I think we're really just talking about the type of residential multifamily use you want in your commercial zones. And on that one, again, you can go back and forth. At some point, you're going to need to take a vote about which way you would like to recommend the zoning commission

Right. And this can be amended based on experience into the future. We don't know if you're going to be overwhelmed with residential only. I'm worried about if we have such limited commercial. I mean, I'm not going to be here, but in 25 years, you might need that commercial zone. Maybe you don't need it right now, but hopefully, you know, you build a more vibrant community. walkable community on Halls Road and some stuff takes off and it would be nice to not lose that commercial capacity. And if it's not working 10 years down the road, they amend the rule that it has to be in conformance with whatever the state statute says, but it gives us some control now. So I'm not that worried about it. Developers are going to do what works for them.

Exactly.

And they can make proposals, and I think they could go to the – well, I don't know how the Board of Appeals type thing works, but I think there could be a consensus on stuff.

Most people's experiences with Board of Appeals is they're not going to get something unless – There's a real reason for it, and this has to be a hardship.

Use variances are, by your zoning regulations, designed to be almost impossible to get. Because, again, the only way theoretically you're able to get a use variance is if you can demonstrate that there's no other viable use for a particular site. And that's really hard to do because right now your commercial zones say you can put a single-family house on any site in your commercial zone. So I'm not sure if, you know, this, if varying it to put in multifamily is the only possible use for the site. So, you know, I wouldn't count on the ZBA stepping in here. I think that the rules on this are going to be the rules until you change them again. Again, as I say frequently, they're forever until they're not.

I mean- They can be changed in a year.

So, Eric, I think the ideal situation is that you allow either or, okay? Either or. So you could do the multifamily with residential, or you could do it without in the commercial zone. Therefore, the developer would basically do what would make financial sense to them, okay? Failing that, that they won't do either or, we have to choose one or the other, then I think we have maybe a choice to do it by zone. I think we'd all be happy with the sound view as being mixed use and having a commercial first floor. We'd probably be fine with that for Halls Road, okay? Mixed use and having the, you know, that we have to have a commercial element in the Halls Road. But the other ones, I really think it'd be very difficult for someone to put in multifamily housing with a commercial element along Shore Road. Many of the restaurants fail along Shore Road. So it'd be really difficult, and I think it would be prohibitive for someone to say develop the area by cherry stones and have to put in for every lot at least one commercial building, one commercial store.

I don't think it's for us to do the design and to worry about individual properties or anything.

If you start talking about Halls Road, I don't think somebody's going to come in and drop residential units in the middle of the shop and center parking lot. All of a sudden, it just isn't what's going to work. But there really are properties that you would put solely residential units on Halls Road. Except maybe the one between the Davis Road.

The Davis Road sites, I think you could easily, I could easily see all of those sites being converted to multifamily residential. Right. And is that what you want or are willing to risk, I guess? So if you don't think you're that worried about it, go ahead and see what happens here.

And that's the only area that doesn't currently have residential in it. The Route 1, 156, like they all have, they're all residents and commercial working together right now.

Yes, pretty much this point. Paul's Road is the most exclusive.

Can we exclude Davis Road and Huntley Road?

If it's in the C30, you have to go C30S or no C30S. So it's all C30S. I mean, again, if you, I guess the question is, if you want C30S to be one way and you want your C30 regular to be a different way, that's allowed. So again, you know, going back to what we, I've been trying to sort of break this into smaller pieces in the hopes that we can sort of narrow down what we're talking about. So on the C30S, on the Halls Road and Davis Road piece of it, do you think that allowing it to be done residential without the commercial component is a good idea or a bad idea? Try to get a consensus as to where the commission is at at the moment.

I say bad idea. You say bad idea for CS for Halls Road to be multifamily without commercial. Okay.

Anybody else? I mean, just trying to get a sense from the commission as to where we are on this.

Just one more question. Sorry. Just a hypothetical thing. Say, you know, the Hideaway Plaza has been for sale forever. Say someone buys it. Can they put in residential, say, on the second floor where the offices are or build another wing with?

As long as the first floor is commercial, yes, they can have residential books.

the way it is right now.

Not today. I mean, your current regulations would not allow that. Going forward, again, the options are either they can make it straight residential, two to nine units, or they can make it residential with a commercial component on the ground floor. So those are the things you're debating about what you think is the best idea for that location.

The way this is written right now, all of the entire first floor would have to be commercial and the second floor could be residential.

And only two to nine, right? Only two, if it's more than nine, then it doesn't qualify under this reg. So more than nine units is still not allowed in that zone.

That's by statute, right?

That's by statute. You do have multifamily zoning, right? The first apartment building's approved at 77-177-2 Live Street, behind the existing apartments there. You have a property that is over by the industrial zone off exit 71 that is zoned multifamily that's never been built upon, but it is zoned multifamily. So you have a few, but multifamily zones largely by highway exits, but not many. And those are the only places that multifamily is allowed in town. And nothing else will change with any of this? No. Okay. And just to also sort of make something clear on the parking side, New residential development of more than 19 units, you still can regulate parking even under the new statute. You're just not going to see a lot of those here. And again, 19 units on one site, not in a subdivision. Every subdivision, we're done. But if someone proposes multifamily of more than 19 units, then you still can regulate the parking even under the new statute.

Now, Eric, are we just... including that the change is in conformance with the plan of conservation and development? Yes, Michael. And then we can make a recommendation.

I guess the point, you need to give them a quote-unquote report. So in your report, you can go back to them and say, yes, we believe it's consistent with POCD. However, we would prefer that this particular change be made to the text.

And that would be... they'd get that by the January or July one hearing. So it'd be in the records.

The idea is that I will take whatever you give me. I will write it up in a report and give it to the zoning commission. So they will have it in time for their July 1st meeting.

So is everybody in agreement that it's in conformance with the plan of conservation and development? Because if it's going to be two phases, you have to sort of decide that. And then we give our recommendation. We can reach your recommendations And I think I reviewed what you've sent us, Eric, and it seems clear to me that it is in conformance with our plan of conservation and development because it encourages different types of housing. So I think that's, for me, it's an easy decision to conclude, which you kind of summarized.

What do you think about taking conformance with the USD?

I wish there was a way... that they could be decided on a case by case basis. So that some places definitely you could see where the commercial component makes sense, but other places, it seems ridiculous that you couldn't do a two to nine

Todd, that's a valuable option. You can simply take out the requirement that it be one or the other. Absent our adopting a regulation.

So I'm just stepping back, though, because Michael put it properly, but is it consistent with the POCD is really our first question we're asking right now. Do we think it's consistent with the POCD?

Well, we really don't have any choice anyways, because the state's telling us we have to do it. So this whole thing is just chasing our tail.

And then the second step will be whether we think about the mixed use requirement or not. So the first step is just, are we consistent with POCD? I guess we'll get other people's opinions on that.

As written, it would be. We're allowing mixed use. It would be a lot, you know, good work. If we had chosen the other way, that you have to be all multifamily, it would not be consistent with the POCD that says, like, the line area, the Halls Road area is our main commercial district. And if we only allowed multifamily in that district, that would not be consistent. I agree. So it can be consistent with the POCD as they proposed it. They proposed it as mixed use throughout the commercial.

They proposed that it has to be mixed use. They didn't propose that it could be either. It could be mixed use or it could be just all residential. It's just not written that way.

So... I think we're coming to what the recommendation may be. We don't like it that it has to be either or. And that what is commercially zoned today could be used for multifamily or it could be used for mixed use. Why block the usage of one or the other? So we disagree if they should push for that. And then if they can't get that, then I think we have to maybe use the zones to try to get, like, mixed use definitely involves road area. And where we have now 30S, definitely it's mixed use. Where we have commercial 30 and where we have commercial 10, okay, that would have to go multifamily. Because I really, I'll go back to that same argument. I can't see some trying to put in retail along Shore Road. It just would make the project unfeasible.

Davis and Huntley were there both one-way streets. So it seems ridiculous to have to have mixed use there.

Okay, but that's part of the C-30S.

I understand that. I'm just...

we don't seem to be coming to a clear consensus necessarily on this. So I'm trying to understand what I'm reporting back to the Zoning Commission. At some point, someone's going to need to make a motion and we're going to need to just start voting on options here and narrowing it down.

So... Do you want me to take a shot at it? Take a shot at it.

I think we should start with One, do we think it's consistent with the POCD or not? I mean, really, that's a yes, no. And then the recommendation.

Well, it really doesn't matter if it's consistent with POCD. I mean, it's coming here. It's here.

And we can say no, and all that means is that they've got to vote with more people.

I think as it's written today, as it's written, the amendment as written is calling for mixed use. So if we did mixed use in all our commercial zones, that would be consistent with the POC. So you want to make a motion? So as written, the mixed use. However, we do not think that mixed use is appropriate for all commercial zones in old life. Okay. And that includes, to say specifically, that includes the commercial areas along Shore Road. So would we say we would recommend that you do either or?

Let's get back to the original question. Let's get back to the original question. I get motion yes, no, consistent with the POCD. That's what I'm trying to do first. So let's go. Can we- I second that motion. Okay. That consistent with the POC did. Okay. So we've got a motion you're consistent. Yes. Michael is second.

Yes.

Can we take a vote on consistency with POC? At least we can get that out of the way.

And the vote is that yes, it is consistent.

That apparently is a motion as I understand.

Yes.

So. Sorry. Who made the motion and who seconded?

He made the motion.

Okay.

Right. You made the motion as written is consistent with the POC. Okay. Michael seconded that motion.

Right.

Okay. So we take a vote. Is it consistent?

Is it consistent with POCD? Five sitting members. All in favor? You're one of our sitting members. I know. Okay. There we go. Yes.

I'm going to abstain. You're going to abstain. Okay. So 4-0-1 is consistent with the POCD. Okay. Next question. What would you like me to report back to the Zoning Commission? Read the parking side of it, you guys are okay with me reporting back, you're okay on the parking side.

I see, can we take a shot? Can we just have a motion to that effect? You want to combine the two?

Well, I would make a motion that case 26-14, that's the one that outlines this whole misuse thing, as presented by the Zoning Commission,

be accepted, but wait a minute, be adapted to allow either multifamily or mixed use in all zones, in all commercial zones.

So that means someone, whoever is the largest person on Walls Road decides they want to get rid of the commercial activity, put all condos.

Good point. So we should say with the exception.

Well, that's what I think. I don't think we can do exceptions because I think you can specify where mixed use and commercial is appropriate. And I tend to think it's most of our area, commercial areas and just make a different recommendation on your shore road or the post road.

Okay. Sound view, it sounded like from what I heard before, everyone seemed to think that sound view was where you wanted mixed use. Is that true or not true?

Honestly, I think it's actually even more complicated because... isn't some of sound view in a flood zone, you really can't even build on the first floor. It's weird. How does that? By others?

First of all, on St. Halls Road, Hartford Avenue, compared to other streets is less in the flood zone than other streets. So the flood zone doesn't start until pretty much close to the end where the pavilion is. Second, you're not allowed to have residential on the first floor in the flood zone. You can have commercial because it's not putting people in harm's way as habitable space. So theoretically, residential up top and commercial on the bottom would be more consistent with the flood zone regulations than having residential on both, okay? Because again, FEMA doesn't want people living in the flood zone. If your business gets wiped out, less concerning to them. They don't want people living.

So maybe the way to approach it is to where is the proposal adequate? Where do we think it actually works? Like Paul's Road and maybe the Soundview section.

I guess I kind of like the concept of they should allow multifamily anywhere as a first step here. And if suddenly developers are beating down the doors and trying to do it on every lot around, then maybe that is the time to say, all right, let's take a timeout on it in the future, whether that's eight months or 10 months from now. Yeah, it's not going to happen that fast, but is that the way to go about it? Because I do think forcing it to be mixed use is too restrictive, and that just isn't going to work anywhere.

You won't have any developers. I agree.

Okay. How about

I don't think I'm worried about the development. I'm more worried about getting more restaurants in town. I mean, and having more successful businesses in town and that they have a place to have that zone. And Halls Road is, you know, I'd just go back. I just, I would hate to see Halls Road all residential. I agree. So how about this? Having one or the other makes that possible.

Would you agree that we notify them that, we notify the zoning commission that we find their letter acceptable, acceptable, but we would like to see a modification to accept multifamily or mixed use in all zones except C30S, Halls Road, which should have a commercial element.

You want to make that motion?

So.

I'm just not that familiar with this. What's the office complex? What zone is that?

Which office complex?

The ugly blue one. Still the same C.

It's still C30S. Everything along Falls Road and more or less in that vicinity is C30S.

But at the east side of town where we have the other commercial big zone.

Honestly, that's industrial. It's not even commercial at all. Industrial is not affected by this. It only is affected in areas where you allow residential uses. And all of our commercial zones allow residential uses. Industrial zones theoretically don't.

There it is right there.

So if you're asking about that little park there just off of the highway at Exit 71, it's theoretically industrialized.

The C30 is along 156 where it hits like 4 Mile River Road, right?

Yeah, C30 there. There's also C10 in certain spots, but also along Boston Post Road there's some C30 as well. Okay, the bicycle shop where the woman just put in the pediatrician's office on the second floor there, that area there is all zone C30.

Okay, so it's the only C30S, Paul's Road?

Paul's Road is the only C30S in town. Well, including, again, including the area just on the other side of the street there that goes down, the side streets there. Yeah, right. Okay?

Yeah. C30S. Right. I mean, I can...

go along with what he said. Do we want to try a motion then that says... He's got it, I think. Someone actually has to put it in motion.

This is just a recommendation.

Take a report back to the Zoning Commission that we suggest that they allow multifamily without commercial in all zones except C30S. Is that consistent with what your position is? Yeah. Okay. You've made the motion. With the exception of seat 30. Yes.

Okay. Do we have a second for that motion?

Okay. No second means it doesn't go forward.

So. Just thinking. Okay. Don't give up on us yet.

So that's fine. Does somebody want to make that motion? We can talk it through. Well, someone's made it. I mean, make the second. Okay.

She's asked me to repeat the motion again. As I understand it, but again, if you want to make it yourself, that's fine.

So I make a motion that the case... of case 26-14 as presented by the Zoning Commission be modified to accept multifamily or mixed use in all commercial zones with the exception of C30S, which should have a commercial component.

Does anyone want to second that so we can then discuss it? Second. All right. Second.

So what are people's thoughts on it?

I would go with what the consultant recommended to the zoning commission because I just think they've studied it more and I've studied it for decades. an hour or two reading it this afternoon and our discussion here. So I would tend to go with the consultant's recommendation. Now, Eric, you know, has the commission unanimously put this forward? The five members, they haven't voted, so we don't know how they're going to vote even on the...

In general, what we recommend is very seldom... followed or even discussed. So don't think that our decision is going to carry a whole lot of smoke. So the fact that they've hired a consultant, they put more thought in within our hour, what we say, if we vote that it meets the POCD, that's all they're looking for. And if we say no, they just need one more person. So it truly doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot, except it's another way- Well, it does. I think they will take it with- I hope so. And go on record.

Yeah, I mean- Michael, there's one other thing, point of clarification. When they wrote this amendment for the commercial zones always to have a commercial element on the first floor, the mixed use, right? The mixed use. They were under the opinion that the state statute is requiring them to choose one or the other, multifamily or mixed use. Is that correct? That's correct, yes. So the consultant was under that opinion. So the consultant said, well, we have to make a choice. No, that's not quite right.

The consultant said you can choose one or the other, or you can do both. But you are allowed to, by your regulations, limit it to one or the other. That was the difference. You can't allow both.

That's not the way I understood it either.

The point being, though, is again, right now, if you don't put in any regs, you can do both because the statute's out there. If you put in a statute that says you can do both, you can do both. but you're allowed to, by regulation, take one or the other. So that's up to you how you want to do it. If you want both possibilities in every zone except C30S, great. If you want all possibilities in every zone, great. But I need you to give me a report that I can bring back to them with how this is going to work. So if the report is, as the motion's been made and seconded, That's okay. But at some point, you're going to need to let me go back to the commission with something.

I'm basically in favor of the recommendation of the consultant at this time. And we want to do it quickly so that we have that ability to control stuff. And I think through discussions, they're going to have public hearings starting in July. They're going to get a lot of public input and they can modify it then. And if we want to make that suggestion, that's fine. I tend to, just because more time and energy isn't put into it by the folks on the zoning commission, then I have knowledge today based on what I've studied so far.

Michael? Now, I hear you, but do you realize that what you're saying and what the consultant recommended, all commercial zones, that means that those properties or commercial areas along Shore Road, which are all opposite, right, sort of the beach communities, right, all the way down, the whole thing.

I think that's a perfect location.

That would require anybody putting in multifamily to make the first floor.

I understand that. And I would love to see it there. You're worried about trying to predict what's going to happen. Look at Shore Road. We're too old to predict what's going to happen. I'm not going to be here long enough to predict what's going to happen.

I think everyone understands that implication. The question is, do you think that's the way you want it to be or not? And there seems to be a fundamental difference. So I guess the question, again, comes back to this. There's been a motion. There's been a second. At some point, the chair, if he wants to, can call the motion and just decide where you want to go. I'm not sure anyone's going to change their opinions based on what I'm hearing. I think everyone more or less knows their opinions on this. So have we exhausted the discussion on this?

Do I have the vote? Yeah. Okay. Should we vote then?

Call the vote. We'll call the vote. There's been a motion, a second. All in favor of the motion as presented? Right there. Okay, one, two, three. All opposed to the motion as presented? One. All abstaining? Are you abstaining or voting no?

Abstaining.

Okay, so three, one, one. The report back to the Zoning Commission will be that you would like the mixed use to be allowed with or without a commercial component in every zone except C30S. Is that? As I understand it, okay. That's what I will report back. Okay? And thank you for your time on that. And that concludes our referral. Thank you.

All right. Then last item on the agenda is reading and approval of the minutes for the May 14th meeting.

You just made the motion pretty much. Is that your motion?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Second? I'll second it because I was proposed some changes to the minutes. Okay. But it was too late because the draft had already gone out.

If you have changes now, it's time to make them. Yes, I know. Okay, so there we go.

I'm going to do. I don't have a copy of the minutes other than the digital, but I did send my changes to maybe both of you guys. but certainly to Julie. So under old business, we were talking about the plan of conservation and development, POCD, and it starts, the commission discussed the plan of conservation and development may be further reviewed relating to the upcoming changes pertaining to, and then I have the Connecticut housing regulations period. It had housing growth, I think. I just said, you know, the Connecticut housing regs. And then under, let's see, referrals, Howard was commenting on.

You're not actually going to change the name? I know, I know.

Commenting on his recommendation from COG. And in the second sentence, it was noted that there are 175,000, I inserted, people within the region. The largest group are ages 55 through 65. It was unclear as to what he actually said, but that's what I think he said.

And you have these, because I sent them to you, redlined, okay? back on whenever the hell I sent it.

Okay, and then I, a little later on, I'm commenting. Emerilia, and this would be a change, noted that the Office of Policy Management was supposed to, one, issue the initial housing group proposal guidelines by March 1st, 2026. Two, develop land use tools by July 1, 26. And three, conduct wastewater study by July 1, 26. And then Ross out, quoting the deadline in accordance with the guidebook for housing growth plans was enlisted. It just didn't make any sense. So I had three points with the time frames. They didn't meet the March time frame, and I don't know if they're going to meet. They're probably not going to meet the July 1st time frames. Those were the only changes that I'd make. And I made that motion to make those changes. It's one of the few times I actually read the minutes.

You accept the changes to your motion. Who made the original motion, by the way? Just me and Todd making the motion.

I recommend that we accept the minutes as amended.

Okay. Wait a second. Did you?

I second.

Okay, then there we go. Minutes as amended, made and seconded. Can we take a vote of the minutes then?

All those in favor?

Aye. Okay. And I'll get my comments in faster.

Okay.

I don't know. My wife was having operations.

I figured out the header, though. That's all set.

The header is, yes. Not seeing the header on the second page is wonderful. Oh, and just everybody, I was reminded that the old line zoning survey, you can take it if you haven't already taken it. You can take it until the month, the end of the month. I did attend the first workshop on environmental parameters, and it was very good. That lasted about two hours. The consultant is, I thought, very good, a very good consultant.

So you know the next one on this issue?

housing issues is coming up july 29th yes and i would i'm definitely going to be there i would urge you to be there and then there's also what's the third one eric third was on commercial and industrial uses and things like signs and lighting and other things that haven't fit into the earlier categories we had a good crowd and it was it was it was a workshop so that They actually quizzed us. We had a little button to answer some questions, which was spectacular, and saw the results. And then we broke up in two groups and talked about the changes. So it was very effective, and I thought it was very worthwhile attending. But, yeah, do the online. Apparently 300 people did it in the last week or so.

Yeah, we're up to over 500 or so.

Yeah, so the more the merrier. And if some of the questions are too difficult, just skip it and answer the things that you can.

It's not designed to be the SAT.

You're not getting scored. You don't even put your name on it, I don't think.

No, it's anonymous.

And you can access it on the, you know, probably go to the Zoning Commission website.

You just go to the front page of the helmet. It should be there, yeah.

All right.

We have nothing further, I believe. Motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

All right.