Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening, everyone. Welcome to a special meeting of the Online Zoning Commission today, July 1st. We have at the table this evening, we have four of our permanent members. We have Mary Jo Nozel, Denise Savageau, Jane Marsh, myself, Paul Rizzo, and filling in This evening for our vacant position will be Michael Barnes, our alternate. This evening's meeting is a application by the Town of Old Lyme Zoning Commission to amend zoning regulations. And I will turn that over to Madam Secretary for further data.

Madam Secretary has a list of exhibits Since this is a commission-initiated application, we have the application. We have an email from Attorney Matt Willis. We have a response from the SE Southeastern COG. We have a response from the Lower Connecticut River COG. We have proposed affordable housing inclusionary schedule from Michael Foliano, dated June 3, 2016. We have email from Eric Knapp, Re-Planning Commission data that was there, Planning Commission Actions. Exhibit G, Copy of Legal Notice of Meeting in the New London Day. Exhibit H, Suggested Modifications Submitted by SJC Land Consulting and Development. Exhibit I, Shoreline Gateway Committee Submission. Exhibit J, Connecticut River Gateway Commission Response. And Exhibit K, Jeff Hartman Letter. But those are the exhibits as of right now. Okay.

Did you say Shoreline Gateway?

I had Exhibit I was Shoreline Gateway and Exhibit J was Connecticut River Gateway. We got yours.

Should we get the microphone? Yeah.

You mean my booming voice is not sufficient? Is someone there?

I don't think so. You got a key? No, I don't. Let's see if we can find one.

All right, well, if we use those, is that a problem for this?

It shouldn't set a system.

Well, I'm just talking about re-verbal.

Yeah, no, like were you here twice to me? Guess we'll just talk loudly. All right.

We're just going to have to talk loudly. Apologize. We don't have the key for the cabin. Okay. So for a little bit of background, I guess, on this.

All right.

Here it is.

Okay, he should be there.

He won't talk when you need him. Okay. Do we want to have him make an opening comment about this? Or can you take care of that? Or take care of it? But again, Paul and Eric, I'm happy to do so as needed. Okay. Hi, Francisco. Good evening. The meeting is underway. And I'm wondering if, again, we are looking at PA 25-1 this evening in a public hearing. I'm wondering if you can kind of kick us off by giving us an overview of just what this is.

I'm happy to. Thank you. As you stated, these amendments are in response to Public Act 25-1. which became effective today. The Public Act has two components that have implications for our zoning regulations, hence the two separate amendments before you this evening, the mixed-use middle housing amendment and then separately the parking amendment. I'll first briefly talk about the mixed-use middle housing amendment. What the public act requires is that every community in Connecticut through its zoning regulations allow for what is called transit community, middle housing and the public act, which essentially means multifamily development of two to nine units or mixed use development on any lot that is zoned for commercial or mixed use. So essentially what that means is that every community in Connecticut has to allow either two to nine unit multifamily or mixed use development with the same composition of units or both in all of their commercial zones in any zone that is a zone for mixed use development. Excluded from this would be industrial zones and special purpose school district zone, which really doesn't allow commercial. So that's the purpose of this amendment and responds to exactly that. Now, this amendment, I would consider very conservative in nature in that our interest was in assisting the town to become compliant with what the statute as of today is now allowing, and that's section 8.2 of the general statutes. And so our interest was in being compliant ensuring that the town has set regulations that they can apply to any application for development under Public Act 25.1. Lacking these amendments to your zoning regulations, you're really going to be in more of a reactive position and subject to applications that are interpreted in favor of the applicant by their land use attorney and not necessarily in favor of the town. So I would consider this work to be the beginning of a discussion about housing in your commercial zones. This work coincides with a comprehensive update of your zoning regulations, as you're all aware. The first phase of those amendments has been in place for over a month now. We are currently at the beginning of the second phase, and we, in fact, will be soon, about a month from now, be conducting a workshop on the subject of residential zones and housing. And so it's our intention through that zoning work, which is actually independent of this amendment. This amendment has come forward through my work and IMEC's work for and with River Cog on behalf of the River Cog communities. And while it's related to our work, it is somewhat independent. We anticipate having much broader discussions about housing in your commercial zones through that workshop and through our phase two work. And this issue really deserves more attention. It deserves the community to be far more engaged in decision-making, far more than has been afforded by this really aggressive schedule that we've been on in responding to this July 1st deadline. So I see this as being the beginning. I think it's the minimum of what you need to do to ensure that town maintains some measure of control over development in your commercial zones. But I do see further potential. By example, these recommendations focus on mixed-use development for the purpose of of staying consistent with the function, existing function and purpose of your commercial zones, which is to allow for commercial development in the town. So we took that approach because we felt it was most consistent with your existing regulations. And so that's the approach we took. But this amendment will not cast this matter in stone. You as a commission can revisit this issue, make further adjustments. You may consider At a further date, once you've had discussion and debate in the community and with the support of the community, expanding this to allow the residential, the purely residential form of middle housing without the non-residential component. But what we've done here, and I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that it is absolutely consistent with what the amended statute requires under Public Act 25.1. and that it's largely consistent with your zoning regulations as a whole. And so that's what I would say about the middle housing amendment, just as a preface. And I imagine you'll get into the details of that. I'm happy to answer any questions surrounding any of those details. And very briefly, with respect to the parking amendment, the Public Act also removes residential parking minimums for any form of residential development with 16 or fewer units. And so now we're not just talking about middle housing. We're talking about any kind of residential development, whether it's one family, two family, three family, multifamily, townhouse, in any configuration. If that development has 16 or fewer units, you cannot have any minimum parking or off-street parking requirement. With one exception, if you create a conservation traffic mitigation district, which we have recommended. We call it a parking management district. Within that parking management district, you can continue to require parking for any scale of residential development. Now, the state is also setting the limit of what you can require for off-street parking at one space per one bedroom of studio and two spaces per two bedrooms or more per unit. And the state is also requiring that we allow the applicant to do their own parking needs assessment. That assessment shows, if it proves that they need less parking than what we would otherwise require with those ratios I just described, then you have to allow the lesser. The only exception to this is if you can demonstrate that there's a significant adverse effect that might be caused to public health or safety, in which case you could require more off-street parking to be provided. So our amendment has proposed, as I said earlier, has proposed two parking management districts that maximize the extents to which you can adopt a district. The district is created through your zoning regulations as a zoning overlay. And each you can have up to two districts and each district can be no more than 4% of your land area, so our priority in establishing those districts was. To capture the highest dense density areas of town with respect to residential development. And that can be found along the shore and so we've we propose one parking management district they're extending up into your commercial zones. And then also to capture your town center area and other commercial areas to the north of your town center for the purpose of ensuring that if any mixed-use development comes forward through the middle housing component, that that mixed-use development will be required to provide a minimum of off-street parking for its residential uses. So the parking amendment adjusts your parking ratios to what the state requires. It introduces a new parking needs assessment and provides a lot of conditions for that assessment in terms of who's qualified to do it and what it needs to include. And furthermore, it establishes the parking management districts that will enable you to require parking for any scale of residential development. Outside of those parking management districts, any form of residential development with 16 or fewer units, you cannot require any off-street parking to be built. I think we all understand the realities of the market in that people need a place to park their car and developers are going to have a hard time renting or selling units if they don't provide off-street parking. So I think realistically, off-street parking is still going to be provided. But outside of a parking management district, that will not be dictated through your zoning regulations or by the commission. That'll be determined by the applicant, the developer, the property owner. So that's a very brief overview of the two amendments. As stated, the Public Act and the amendments to the statute are effective today. And I encourage you, I urge you as a commission to consider to seriously consider adopting these this evening, if possible. If not, and if you require continuing this public hearing at your next meeting. And not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. We've got a chance to workshop the middle housing regulation over the summer, over the course of our work, phase two zoning work. And I want to encourage you that this is really the beginning of a discussion about housing in your commercial zones. The parking amendments, I think we've done exactly what we need to do with that. I don't expect there's much additional work that needs to be done, but if something comes to light, we'd be happy to address it in the future. So that concludes my introduction to both amendments.

Francisco, I know that in previous discussions that we've had, that the importance of today's date if we don't take action on this, and we know that this is a fluid type amendment that we can, as you said, can work on as we go forward, but there's a drawback if we don't take action tonight.

There is. There is. The downside of you not having anything in your zoning regulations is that you still have to comply with the public act and what is now statute, and you have to allow middle housing or mixed use development in your commercial zones without any regulations on it. By example, we have regulations right now that require a minimum amount of open space to be provided for those units. We provide other requirements for screening of service areas, for location of entrances, for driveways and circulation. All of those standards Well, if they're not in place, you would not be able to apply it. You just have to accept what the applicant gives you, understanding you could probably negotiate a little bit, but because this is not a special permit or exception and there's no public hearing, right? It does go to the commission. It would go to the commission. You could send it to the commission, but you have no requirements in place for the application. And so the applicant could argue that the applicant might even successfully argue that this should be administratively approved. It shouldn't even go to the commission because you don't require anything within your regulations stating that it should be reviewed and approved by the commission only.

Right. So if I may, Francisco, Michael Barnes. So right now, if they don't approve it today or in the next couple of days, even if they did, it's still a time lapse from the time that it's approved to the time it's effective.

I would recommend, if you were to approve this evening, I would recommend you make it effective immediately. It's traditional, but not required, that you make any zoning amendments effective 10 or 15 days later to get past your mandatory appeals period. But there's nothing that can be appealed here. This is required by statute. So there's really not a basis for an appeal. Someone could appeal, but there's no basis for it. So I would recommend that you set an effective date as of tomorrow to minimize that gap.

We can't do that. If I can. Yeah, please. Yeah, just Francisco, Attorney Matthew Willis. We have to set an effective date that is at least one day after when the legal notice is published in the paper. Right. Otherwise... someone can appeal this decision.

Based on the procedure. Yes, you're correct. Yeah, I stand correct.

That's how I was trying to clarify. So I don't know when something could be published. I don't know where you publish, you know.

Yeah, the truth is the earliest I could publish would be Friday the 3rd, which would give us the first effective date essentially as the 18th or 19th of July.

Well, you can make it effective the day after that legal notice is published. Oh, so you can make it basically Friday, Saturday the 4th. Yep. Yep.

Yeah.

It all hinges on when that legal notice gets published. You don't need to wait for the appeal period for the legal notice. Okay. You have to have the legal notice published, and then the next day can be the effective date.

So we can set the effective date for July 4th, or since we're not here, July 6th is the next business day. Yeah.

And thank you. Thank you for correcting me on that issue. I was focused on the appeals period and I glossed over the mandatory noticings. So thank you. Thank you for bringing that.

Yeah, no problem. That was one of the things I wanted to bring up because I've been involved in that kind of appeal. So yes, yes.

So 7626 would be the earliest. Thank you, Francisco. You're welcome. Attorney Willis, do you have any thoughts?

Well, I think this is a good... Draft, I only have a couple of comments on it, but I do want to talk about what's going on. All right, so the legislature is clawing back your powers. That's what's really going on. 8-2 is being eviscerated slowly but surely at this point in time. Now, if that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's a matter of people's opinion. But it's clear that you're going to be having less powers And this gives you some of that back under the guise of what's been adopted. All right. Euclidean zoning is slowly being turned into random zoning. This is just my little two cents. And I don't think it's all good. However, we have to address it. I don't think we can ignore it. And I think Francisco is 100% correct on that. And I know that in some towns there are people knocking on the door waiting to do something. that the town zoning commission may not like. That's just a fact of life. So I think this is a good proposal. I only have a couple of comments that I'd like to make specifically on the regulations, if that's okay? Sure, please. One of which is in the, I guess it's four dash D. Hold on, I apologize. We're not using light here today, so I'm having trouble seeing. 7.15.2, and then it's 4D. It talks about the site development plan requirement is intended to satisfy the summary review requirements of 8-2R. I think we want to cleanly say that summary review requires site development plan approval to meet 8-2R. We're doing more than intending to meet the requirement. We are meeting it. That's what we're saying that approval is. Because Francisco is correct. In some places, people may say, well, we're going to have the CEO approve these things. And I know that's probably not what you folks want to do. So I think that language has to be tweaked to specifically say, summary review means Site development plan approval under 8-2R.

And that's going to specify.

Yeah. So it's just we're doing more than intending to satisfying. We are satisfying.

We're saying the summary review is a site development plan.

Correct. Correct. And I think that's something that needs to be changed. That's all. That's my own opinion. Okay.

Yeah, so there's no way for a developer to argue the summary is not a site plan development?

That's why we're adopting this. Okay, so that's how I'm getting at it.

The law is not going to prevent us from adapting that.

Correct. That's why we're adopting it, to make it clear that is our policy. Because it's not defined in the statute, so no one really knows what it means. But we're going to give it meaning because we can. Yeah, okay. That's good. The second thing is more of a question. It may be for Francisco. I don't know. In a little further higher up on it, 7.15.2H, I have something. It talks about the ratio of uses. Is there any reason why the non-residential use can't be greater than the residential?

Yes. Our concern was there being a loophole that would allow a primarily commercial development. And I'll give you a worst case scenario type example. 20,000 square feet commercial development with two dwelling units. And I realize no one's going to build that, right? But with two dwelling units, would meet our definition of mixed use middle housing, right? It's a non-residential use with two dwelling units. And therefore it could be argued that it should be approved through a site development plan approval with no public hearing and no special permit or exception. Therefore we've provided this as a, as a measure of control on that component, a non-residential to make sure it doesn't exceed the residential.

Okay. No, I just wanted to get some clarification. Yeah.

Yeah.

Otherwise I don't have any, I mean, I think this is a good draft. So I don't have any other comments on that. It may have to be tweaked someday. It's going to be a living, breathing document for all of you. And you're going to see examples of, And you might say, gee, we didn't like that. We like this. But, yeah, things have to get adopted and passed so that it exists.

But at least by the adoption of this, and we know it's a fluid document, but at least by the adoption of this tonight, we can now have zoning regulations around a developer coming in and saying, well, you know, I can do this with just administrative approval. Correct. At least I know. Because our summary review is a special site plan. Right.

Yeah, that's important. That's very important.

But we're going to have to re-look at even our commercial regulations for anything in there that is discretionary. Because we have a lot of language that's discretionary. And when you're doing it on the summary review method, those discretionary things are not allowed anymore. So even though we're adopting it now, and even though perhaps this is focused on housing, it's also the commercial component that we normally have a lot of conditions on. And we word it in the sense that, you know, with the approval of the commission, well, it's just been our habit to do that. And so we're going to have to convert it so that it's very much more based on metrics instead of our discretionary. Because that's all that he will be able to review. He doesn't have that discussion. So do you agree with that, Attorney Willis?

I agree that you're going to have to look at everything, yes. And I also think that this public act is probably going to be modified in the future. And I think which way it goes, I couldn't tell you. I can't really know the future on that. But I think we have to address things as they come about. Because we're in a period of uncertainty.

Because I don't think that they were actually intending to make commercial development unregulated. I think this whole drive was to make housing less regulated. But now they're throwing the baby out with bathwater because commercial development is now being less regulated.

This is all about a push for housing.

Yeah. And so I think it was a thought process that didn't go all the way thought down in Hartford there.

Well, the fact that things aren't defined... The fact that there's a lot of uncertainty, you know, that they're going to feel pushback, I think, at a certain point. At least I hope so. So, you know, I think this was just too much too soon. And I realize housing is important, right? But you don't want to have a situation where all of a sudden you look around and you go, wow, this isn't old lime anymore.

So do you have any idea why they chose commercial zones rather than residential zones for their housing push?

They just want housing, housing, housing, housing, housing.

Why wouldn't they start, at least if they're going to mandate something, start it in the residential zone?

Well, you know, there are things going on with like commercial zones in a different way. For example, in Waterford, the old mall is going to be turned into an electric boat office building. So that's a conversion of something from a dead mall into something that's productive. And so, I mean, that's a positive thing. I think, because otherwise it's a lot of pavement and an empty building.

I think the new hybrid work model, there's so many people, there's so many commercial buildings, office space, there's a whole lot of vacancies. So I think that's why they looked at that, that there's a lot of vacancies. Let's do something.

I can't tell you what the intent truly is other than more housing, more housing. It's all about that.

This is new buildings. This is not retrofitting old buildings, is it?

Yes, this does allow for retrofits, correct.

Francisco, in your experience so far, how many other towns have adapted a model of both mixed use and strictly residential as one?

I'd say it's about half and half in the River Cog region. About half decided just to go ahead and do both because they felt like the legislature was going to go in that direction sooner or later, and they might as well just get it over with now. And the other half have remained exclusively mixed use. And I've worked with 13 communities in the River Cog region and about three or four communities outside of the region as well.

Attorney Willis, with what you're talking about, Can we just change that instead of is intended, that will satisfy? Is that the simple language?

Sure. Anything that says this is what we're doing.

Okay.

We're doing more than intending. We are doing it.

And I guess so we can say that it will or shall or whatever the word is.

Shall be.

But do we need to say specifically also that it will come to us for review because even –

That's right. Site plan comes to us. Okay. Okay. So that's all right. So that term, we know what that term means.

That term means commission approval. So we could just change that to will satisfied or shall satisfied.

So summary review shall mean site plan approval under CGS HF2R. Yep. That's what I wrote down.

Can you say that again?

So summary review shall mean site plan approval under CGS 8-2R for 4D.

What did you say you can't change?

Summary review? Summary review shall mean site plan approval under CGS 8-2R.

So would that be scrapped what's here?

Yeah, scraped for 4D.

Yeah. Okay.

All right.

I don't have any further comments.

Okay.

Any other comments from the commission?

You know, maybe I missed it. You had some water conservation or water. Denise, in May, you had some.

Yeah, we had a list of items that we needed. that needed to be in here. I thought they had gotten added.

I thought Francisco added those as well. I think those were added per your request. I think what you're looking at now is the amended version that he included the new language for.

Yeah, I guess she broke. Do you have that?

I guess what I'm asking.

If you look at the under application materials, the second one we got. Okay, I'll make sure that it's in there before we finish, but I thought we had added it. I'm not seeing it right.

If that's in reference to us qualifying what constitutes an adverse impact to public health or safety, then that can be found in Section 715.2, item N, the last item. on page four in red.

M? I've only come to M. That's good, too. M. N. N. Why don't this version doesn't have any N?

Yeah, this doesn't.

The version that is online doesn't have that in there.

Okay, so a minute version was provided, but obviously it didn't get put online by Craig. So let me see if I can track down.

I saw it, but then when I was looking at it.

It's dated the 19th of May.

Francisco, do you know what M said?

Yeah, I'm happy to read that. It's regarding the public health and safety. And so through this summary review process.

That's M now. That's M here. We have public health and safety, no mixed use, middle housing development shall be approved if found to be substantially impact public health and safety. That's M. Okay.

So M in the updated version, the updated version is dated 5-29-26. I don't have that. Okay.

Yep. There it is.

We have an item M that precedes that that reads as follows. Prior to approval of any mixed-use middle housing development, the applicant shall demonstrate the ability to provide sufficient water supply and a fluent disposal capacity to support the proposed uses and the provision of stormwater management system as required by Section 15.5.

Okay, so that's not in the version. Yeah, so it is online. There's two versions. If you look online, it says meeting materials. One says application materials, and then it says application materials again. The second one has that language.

Would you like me to go print some copies of that off and bring it down? Yeah, I think we're going to need it. Okay, let me go print some copies. I'll be right back, okay?

A question I had while we have Attorney Lewis here is, with the Gateway Conservation Regulations, How do those fit in? Because we obviously have commercial zones that are within. So do they still have to?

They're still there. They still exist.

Yeah.

The difference would be certain things under a special permit, maybe something. But you still have your 100 feet. You can't put in a new structure.

Mm-hmm. So they'd have to satisfy all the requirements, but we couldn't have a public hearing on it like we would, because usually we would have a special permit for Gateway, well, if it's over a certain amount.

So you would treat it- It's still there. It doesn't go away.

So we treat it just as if it was like, you know, we only see it if it's a larger house. If it's a regular house, they just come in.

Does the square footage, Denise, is that if it's over the 4,000? Like, does the commercial apply to the Gateway zone if it's over 4,000? Or is it just residential?

Yeah. Everything applies.

So anything over 4,000 square feet applies to the... So anything...

I guess I was looking at... So at 4,000 square feet, the gateway requires a special permit. But now... And that's anywhere in town. Not just in, obviously, the commercial area. It's everywhere that the gateway boundary is. So I'm looking at which supersedes this regulation, Public Act 25-1, that we're putting in that saying no public hearing, or can we still require that special permit?

It's going to depend on what's filed. The gateway provisions will still apply. But, for example, the more recent one we had was a home that was over $4,000, and that became a special permit. I don't think that's going to get changed by these regs. That's still going to be there. And the Gateway standards, I feel, are just like what they say here are like setbacks and things like that. So I believe they still apply.

Because what Gateway actually wrote to us and asked us if we would be explicit, please, to say that their regulations apply. Because they were concerned that we didn't.

You could say that. Gateway still applies, but it still applies. So how does it still apply if this law is going to supersede it, though?

I think the one thing that...

It doesn't supersede gateway. Gateway is kind of like setbacks, things like that. It supersedes what you've been doing, perhaps, in some of your commercial zones. But it's not... You know, at advisory, though, they're not required. Well, it's... No, so I'm just trying to clarify that. Some things are required. No structures within 100 feet.

Gateway... Regulations apply in the Gateway Conservation Zones. They're there. They're not just advisory.

Okay, I thought they were advisory.

No, so we've actually incorporated them into our regulations. But this always kind of concerns me when you adopt a new regulation. Do you have to recite all the things that are already there to make sure that those still aren't, you know, superseded or ignored? So do you have any comment about that, Francesco?

Yes, and I think you've kind of arrived at how this would work. Middle housing, or in our case, mixed-use middle housing, is like any other use in your zoning regulations. It's subject to all of your zoning regulations. It's just exempted from a public hearing requirement or a special permit requirement. It remains subject to all your standards, height, area, bulk, setbacks, All of the zoning regulations, it remains subject to. So there's not really need to identify that it's subject to the Gateway Commission because we'd have a very long list to list everything that it remains subject to. We'd have to list the flood hazard regulations, your inland wetland regulations, your sign regulations, your parking regulations, because it's subject to everything. And nowhere do we state that it is not subject to those aspects of your regulations. The only thing we've made it clear is that you can require no more than a site plan, site development plan application, and you can't have a public hearing requirement for it. Yeah, go ahead.

If I'm hearing you correctly, I hear what you're saying, but I guess I'm not connecting it because if the gateway zone requires a special permit, you can't require a special permit for these type of applications. Is that anything that happens in the Gateway Zone, the special permit right now?

Yeah, no, not everything.

If it's under $4,000. So that's the only trigger is the $4,000?

That's the trigger. The trigger is the $4,000. I don't think anybody's going to build a $4,000 residential unit. Yeah.

So this is where I think it gets tricky in the commercial zone. They put in commercial, first floor. Now they're putting two to nine units in somewhere. Now are we over 4,000 square feet because they've done that? And that's what I was trying to figure out.

I don't think that Gateway even contemplates multiple units like that.

Yeah.

Never had anything like that. What do you think, Francesco? Do you think if somebody puts in nine units, the total more than 4,000 square feet? Yes.

You can't require a special permit for it. That's what I'm thinking.

Yeah. It's as simple as that. I agree with Francisco. I mean, I think we could still refer to Gateway.

Yeah, but that's what I'm trying to establish here so we're all on the same page. So no matter what, they can't have a special permit in the Gateway zone for this type of residential development.

Yeah. That's correct. That's correct.

Yeah. I mean, but the regulations, but they have to comply. For everybody under 4,000, they have to comply. So just because they don't need a special permit doesn't mean they don't have to comply with them.

We may consider through the course of our phase two zoning work, make some very minor adjustments to your gateway overlay regs to section 13 to make that clear. that mixed-use middle housing projects are exempt from any special permit requirement, much in the same way you exempt a single family under a certain size and that sort of thing. Just to make that exceedingly clear, so for procedural reasons, that's unquestioned. But the Public Act makes it crystal clear, and it's one of the few things that are crystal clear, that you can't require a public hearing or a special permit for middle housing. And so under no condition, even within the gateway zone, even though it's been created by the legislature. It does supersede that. It doesn't supersede the public act requirement.

That's what I was getting at.

Right.

Yeah, it does not.

Other questions, comments, discussion for the board?

So the other question I had was about the comments we got from Shoreline Gateway. And the flip side of the large development is very, very small lots. Because the way that they wrote this law, it's not about acreage, it's about lots. And not even lot size, lots. So, yeah, basically, you know, parcels, land parcels. So, you know, I think Gateway raised some really interesting concerns about when you have very, very small lots. And I guess, you know, so I'm looking at how we handle that, or do we think they would be handled under that, you know, Is there something we could say under that public safety piece about the very small loss? I mean, how do you do this if they can't? I guess I'm looking like, what?

Well, that's a good question, Denise, because health and safety isn't even defined, right? So how do you regulate on health and safety if there's no parameters?

We started doing that, and I was wondering if we needed to put something in for these very small losses.

Yeah, I guess how do you get so explicit, though?

And if we can't figure it out now, like I said, we should keep working on it. But I wasn't sure if there was something we could do, because... All of the rhetoric in Hartford has centered on everybody has large lot zoning. It's all zoned at one acre. So there's this big assumption that the smallest parcel that could ever fall onto these regs in a commercial zone was going to be at least an acre lot. And now we've got, because we already have a commercial mixed use zone in that area, then we end up having this problem with these very, very small lots. So I was just wondering how we, if anybody has any thoughts on how we handle it, because I think, you know, it was one of the ones we kind of talked about a little bit. And it might be handled, but they're not going to be able to, you know, like obviously down there, they're going to have sewers. So sewers isn't, but they still have to have, you know, they still have to have the utility. So is it going to be limited by utilities? Is there something that would limit this?

Because it could be, it could be, it could be.

Yeah, I'm happy to respond to that. There are many limitations. I think the reality and the feasibility of development in the SVDD, given the size of lots, the density development already there, the availability of parking, the infrastructure, even though sewer will be available, I think there are a lot of constraints to development that make it very challenging or will make it very challenging for mixed-use development. You know, there may be a few parcels that are good candidates, but you still have a lot of bulk air and height standards that remain applicable to mixed-use middle housing. You've got a coverage limit of 75%. In total, you've got a max limit, a building coverage limit of only 30%. Your gross floor area can only be 40% of the lot coverage. So you have a lot of constraints on the scale of development already. We've recommended the establishment of a parking management district in that area. So we're going to require off-street parking to be provided. That's an additional constraint on development, given the size of the lots.

He's making more. Now, are most of those lots, I'm sorry, go ahead, I thought you were done.

Yeah, so there are a lot of controls in place, and a mixed-use middle housing does free pass on any of that. It doesn't bypass any of those lot standards at all. Just the public tier? Yeah, and the special permit, correct, yeah.

Yeah, but most of those lots are non-conforming down there as it sits already anyway, so this is not applicable to a non-conforming lot, right, unless they get a variance.

Right. But a non-conforming lot can't be made more non-conforming. You can't intensify or expand the use. And so just because you have a single family house that's non-conforming, it doesn't mean you could tear it down and build a mixed-use middle housing development on the same footprint, right? Any new construction is going to have to conform.

So that gives us a little leverage right there.

All right. So I think it was a good answer, and it was kind of where I was going a little bit. But what I'm doing is making a list of things that we need to really take a hard look at in the near future after we pass these rates because we're not going to be able to get regs in place so that we can protect the town and, you know, what we have at this point. as we know that we're doing that. So I'm trying to figure out which ones we might need to tweak, like what was brought, you know, like what Attorney Willis brought up and what we can fix, you know, over the summer. So that's what I'm looking at.

Another aspect of the beach areas that have sewers, those sewers, though, are all limited in their capacity by how it is that they how it is that they got the sewers in the first place. So they're to serve the existing housing.

Right, their size to what's there.

Yeah, and it's required by the state. Yeah, and we had a letter that I'll keep forever that says nobody gets to expand that because that was a way to solve a problem that we created in the 1930s and 40s. that we needed to solve, but it wasn't necessarily going to solve this idea that you can just keep expanding development, specifically in that area that has all the other issues going on.

Well, if you look under N, and that's why I was wondering what we had put in there under public health and safety, besides what Francisco told us in terms of the standards that they might be able to meet, But we have a lot of stuff in there, pedestrian safety, emergency action, drainage and flooding, fire protection, environmental impacts. When you have that kind of density, you know, there's a lot of stuff that falls under that public health and safety. And I just wasn't sure if there was anything else that we should add there that really gets into this small lot stuff, but maybe it's just already all covered, so.

Francisco, in the nine units, it's no bedroom count in the units specifically, right? It's just nine units. It could be nine three-bedroom, nine two-bedroom, nine one-bedroom. Correct.

That's correct. That's correct.

Is there any mechanism to create it, Bob?

No, I wouldn't advise it because here again, we're in a very gray area with the Public Act because so much is undefined. But the intention seems to be to the intent just seems to allow any form or combination of housing. And I wouldn't recommend restrictions on unit composition.

Okay. I'm going to go now. I think I've answered. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm sure things will come up. So good luck.

thanks so eric should i call this now exhibit a um why do we call that exhibit yes and i gave i printed up eight copies so that each of you could have what i have when i don't know if attorney willis took one as well okay i put it in so that was oh so leave us with an extra copy I put it mine. You want your own one to use? We have an extra one to use. Thank you for doing.

And so can we amend it that 4D that we want to amend?

Yeah, the rule on what you can do, you can do one of three things. Approve, deny, or modify and approve. So if you want to modify it to do that, I don't think that that is in any way necessary. violating the terms of your legal notice because you're not expanding what you can do. You're basically just redefining what you're doing. So I think that's fine.

Okay.

Yeah. So I just have one more question with Francisco. Francisco, did you look at what the affordable housing inclusionary schedule that Mike Fogliano sent to us?

I did.

Yeah, and do you have any problem if we adopted that? Did it make sense to you?

It seems like a reasonable approach. We had recommended what I consider to be a very conservative approach of one unit per four units built at 80%. And his tiered approach, we have taken that approach in some communities to require some units to be affordable at 60% AMI. And I think it's a reasonable standard. I wouldn't recommend that you go any higher than that. I wouldn't want to set a standard that would appear to be a prohibitive of development, significantly diminishing the feasibility of development, might appear instead of being aspiring towards providing affordable housing, It may appear as actually being intentionally prohibitive. So I think what he recommended and suggested, I think it would be perfectly acceptable.

What did he recommend? Yeah, he had sent that to us. It's online also. So, Francisco, on that, again, I'm looking at what we kind of, with the comments that we've received, which ones we kind of say, Let's take these up in phase two. Do you think it would be better for us to really have that larger discussion on that?

I do. Eric just gave you a very good overview of what you can do within a meeting given the materials that were made available to the public. And that kind of goes a little further than I would be comfortable with in terms of amending this proposal. You know, what we just talked through regarding item 4D, you know, that's just adjusting the language to be more clear. But here we're, you know, we're talking about, you know, making the affordable housing component far more robust. And there may be people that would be oppositional to that change. so I would consider taking that up in the future instead of trying to do that this evening, but I have no opposition to it at all. I think it's a perfectly reasonable standard.

Okay. Mike, to your point about I think the 60% is an important thing. From a developing standpoint, it's going to be hard for a developer to get the return and build the 60% housing. It's just the cost of building right now is so drastic that it's a stretch to get that.

That's theoretically why you give them the density, right? The whole idea is if you can get them nine units, then the idea is that the three of them are, you know, you have three affordable out of, trust me, all of them are affordable.

I understand. I'm just thinking that that 60 definitely brings down a percentage of the ability to make a project.

It always does, yeah. The trade off under the statute is theoretically you make it up in the density because you have these other units that are market rate and therefore you're going to afford to carry the affordable units. Whether that works out in practice or not.

Yeah, yeah. At 90, it's maybe not. I'm not sure. But 15, 20 units, I can understand. Yeah. I'm just I'm concerned that you might, to your point, make it towards.

Well, I think Mr. Poliano was saying in May that his desire was to make it closer to 830G. So if it was less than the 30%, it was more a token instead of effective affordable housing. based on the needs of old line. That's what I recall.

Yeah, does the 830G have anything below 80% requirement?

Yeah, 830G says you have to have 30% set aside, of which 15% is 80%, 15% is 60%, and in the event that there's an odd number of units, the extra one always goes to 60%.

Okay, that's good. I think in terms of this discussion, like I said, I'm kind of moving that into phase two. because I think it does require more discussion.

You're saying move those numbers into Phase 2 and just adapt? Well, not for discussion, not to change it. Okay, so adapt it as it's written and then discuss it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I'm thinking of some of this stuff, of the comments we have. So at this point, I don't have any more questions on this. We received more comments than that, but I don't have any more questions per se. I wanted to kind of get the ones that either Attorney Willis or Francisco could answer. before we heard from the public, so.

Okay. Anyone else on the commission have any more comments or before we open this up to anyone who'd like to make a comment about this this evening? Okay. Yeah, it's good. So with that, I will open this up now to hear from the public. If there's anyone here in the audience this evening that would like to comment on this application, please come forward, state your name, your address, and we'll greatly take your comments.

Do I need help? Or can I just... Belt it out from you.

Well, if you can belt it out from there.

I can belt it from back there. Hi, everyone. My name is Sheila Riffle. I live in 57 Colt Lane. And I am here in the capacity of chair of the Affordable Housing Committee. So thank you for that discussion. I'll be brief, but that discussion that you just had regarding the affordable housing component and the proposal that Mike Poliano made for an adjustment to those numbers. and respectfully to the consultant, first of all, thank you for also seeing it as a reasonable, really reasonable request to make that change. And while I understand that through everything with the revisions and the process that is in place, phase two coming up, I understand THE CONSIDERATION OF MOVING THAT INTO PHASE TWO. I WOULD JUST ADVOCATE FOR THE FACT THAT AS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN STATES FOR 2022, OLD LINE AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS AT ABOUT A 1.7 PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT MEETS THE DEFINITIONS UNDER B-30G. SO IN OUR WE JUST HAD OUR ONLY MEETING PRIOR TO THIS HEARING. We have pretty much closed the book on looking at single town owned properties. It just doesn't, it doesn't get us any closer to the 10% that you're likely required to have within the next seven years, I believe. So I would just urge you, even though, you know, I think that Mr. Poliano's proposal is month, is modest, everything can help. And we really do need to focus more on the mixed housing or larger scale housing in general. But I think that we could possibly save more old-line residents with the numbers that Michael proposes because our fastest, growing population that has become homeless is the 60 and above. Don't quote me on that age, but there are many people who I know would love staying online and it's getting harder and harder to do so. So having one in nine at 60% is very reasonable. So I would just ask that you make that a limit now rather than wait for phase two. Either way, I would look for your support for commissions in the same town. We should be working together. So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Hi, Jeff.

We're wrestling online. First of all, thank you for your service. This is a hard job. As a volunteer in town, I know it's difficult As I submitted my letter, I'm asking you to embrace the spirit of 25-1 to allow both transit-oriented housing and mixed-use and not combine your two. I think by combining the two and adding additional retail and mixed-use development, you will impact the ability to develop, to attract capital here. And you also, by adding more retail space, will impact the Retail already exists in town, which is struggling right now. We have retail vacancies at both shopping centers, office vacancies up at the industrial farm. So I'm asking you to reconsider and bifurcated embracing the spirit of 25-1. I do not believe 25-1 or the spirit was to add more mixed use. It was to develop housing as well. There's housing shortages across the country at all levels. The affordability gap to own a home is the highest it's been in 40 years. The difference between renting and owning is $845 more expensive each month to own a home. That's done by Walker-Gonlaw. They studied that recently in their best relations day. So, vast community. For our long-time residents who are looking to stay in town, for our new residents, that new teacher that's going to start in August at Mount Creek, The fireman wants to live in town. The young student, young Julian Miller, who's looking for a place to live and doesn't want to live with his parents any longer at age 26. Let's build some housing. Let's do it the right way. We'll have the setbacks, all the rules that you guys are the experts in, but let's not defer for development. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Michaela Pearson, one Portland Avenue, and I'm co-chair of the Shoreline Gateway Committee. Shoreline Gateway Committee submitted an exhibit with our full comments regarding the SBVD and the C-10 zone specifically. You've addressed some of the things in the SBVD, but I just wanted to bring out that in the C-10, there is no high restriction. So SBVD is high limited. I believe it's 33. I think it's 33.

Is it 33?

Yes. But the C10, which is very small, has absolutely no height restriction. So we could end up with something very large inadvertently. Is that true? I think the 35 will apply in your seat.

Oh, it's 35.

Okay. That's a gateway. I just want to say that because of the very small nonconforming lots in the SPVD, that the SPVD was formed to address some of the issues of those nonconforming lots. So it currently allows for six, six units. And nine would be pretty much impossible on many of those lots. But we addressed, Francisco addressed that the other restrictions would come into play to prevent that. So I think the Charlotte and Haywood community is very happy to hear about that. So thanks for all of your hard work. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Just a question. Because the six are already allowed in that zone, and somebody wants to put the six, would they be required to meet the mixed housing affordability requirement? or would that be not applicable because that's already a permitted use in that zone?

Go ahead, Francisco. Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. So mixed-use development is allowed in the SVDD, and we introduced the middle housing mixed-use development as a new and separate use from your existing mixed-use regulations. So it's specifically called mixed-use middle housing because it's separate from your existing mixed-use that you allow in the SVDD. So, the existing regulations that are currently applicable to mixed-use in the SVDD remain in place, for which there is a special permit requirement. So, if you have the packet in front of you on page 3 in section 715, you can see that We've maintained all of the mixed use in the SBDD zone regulations, and that is now 715.1. And 715.2 is mixed use middle housing, which is a parallel standard. It's a parallel use. So a developer could do one or the other, but if they do development as has been allowed in the SBDD, they have to follow that set of regulations.

Great, thank you. Okay, anyone else in the audience?

Yes, Steve Calcani, Library Lane here in Goldwine. So I submitted some paperwork that would encourage the committee to look at Huntley Road and perhaps the Davis Roads a little differently than Halls Road. from a mixed use standpoint. I think Huntley Road in particular, which there's some C30S land on that road and also on Davis Road, I respect how the commission may want to maintain some commercial development for its tax base, but I'm not sure that it really fits from a land use standpoint on Huntley and also on Davis. So I would encourage you to think about carving out those streets as part of your approval.

We can't do that. If it is zoned commercial now, we can't do that. We'd have to do that in a different act.

I had that discussion with him earlier today. I indicated that as long as it's in the C-30S, it has to follow the C-30S rules. The alternative would be to take those streets and rezone them just as C-30 without the S. In that case, you could carve out that as C30 only allowing residential without commercial as the planning commission recommended, but you can't have two different uses within one zone. You have to make it all.

It's a separate act, but not in connection with this. We'd be getting big trouble if you did that.

Unless it was adapted where you allow both in the zones. No, no, I understand what I'm saying, but if we adapted this with both the zones.

Again, the planning commission has said except for C30S, they are recommending that you not have mixed use, that it simply be allowed to go residential. Again, were that to be the case everywhere, he would be able to do what he's doing. But under your present application, it's all mixed use. You have to do mixed use. You can't do just residential. Unless it's resumed. Well, and you then incorporate the Planning Commission recommendations. Because right now, all of your zones have to be mixed-use.

Well, can't we provide mixed-use and straight not mixed-use? You can make that or not, but that is not what Francisco has drafted for you. Okay, so this right now is drafted to be one or the other. We didn't decide on one.

It has to be mixed-use. It has to be mixed-use. You can't do straight two-to-nine residential. It has to be mixed-use.

Got it, got it, got it.

That is what is on the table right now. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Even my three imaginary friends are quiet.

Okay. So if there is no more public comment, then I will ask for a motion. That we close the public hearing. I have a motion to close by Jane Marsh and a second by Denise Savage. Oh, all in favor. Hi. Right. Disapprove and abstain are zero, right? Yeah. You got a motion 5-0-0. So close the public hearing.

Okay. When we get to the motion to approve, again, you can approve, deny, or modify and approve. Given that we have a minor modification here that's going to be modify and approve, you need to do two things. One of which is set an effective date. Again, July 6th is the first effective date we can pick. Okay. The other thing you need to do is make a determination that's consistent with the POC date. Planning commissions give you a report saying it is consistent with the POCD as drafted.

Right.

So you're going to rely on the planning commission report in your motion to say for the planning commission report is consistent with the POCD for the reasons they give.

Well, we'll start doing some carving. So I will ask if the commission would like to craft out a motion that we would like to craft out a motion.

I'm willing to craft a motion. I feel like I'm under duress because I don't really like it at all.

I really understand where you're coming from, Jane, on that. Absolutely. I guess what makes me feel better is that we can tweak some of this for summer where we can possibly get some more input. I mean, I thank everybody that came tonight and gave us testimony and sent in documentation. Yeah, keep doing it. You guys were under pressure too, so thank you. And so we have really good information with which to tackle some of this this summer too.

Therefore, I would like to make a motion that we approve Exhibit A, as we have, which is the final version with that additional Section N, with the following amendments. TO 4D, INSTEAD OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN 4D, WE'RE GOING TO SAY SUMMARY REVIEW SHALL MEAN SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER CGS 8-2R. I WILL RECOMMEND AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 6TH AND I WILL RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S POCD.

SECOND. Second, second by Mary Jo Nosell. So we can discuss. Yeah, discuss.

So we're allowed to tweak that, but we're not able to tweak the commercial versus residential thing.

Yeah, you can tweak commercial versus residential. But I guess the point being is what you were suggested that Michael Foliano's language. Oh, that. Yeah, that was that was what was said was too much. So again, whether you want to have it be as proposed or as recommended by planning or something else, I think that's within your boundaries of what you can, because it's all per the statute, but the statute is the statute. So you went with one interpretation of the statute. You are free to go with a different interpretation of the statute, but it is still basically what the statute allows.

Got it. So I don't know if the appetite for the commission to take planning recommendations.

yeah so this is you know as i've been making a list and you know and a lot of it is and again thanks to the public that that sent in comments they were invaluable but i looked at them and said this is the discussion we need to have when we're really looking at are rewrite and updating because there's discussions that are going to go back and forth. We can make this better, Public Act 25-1. but we know we're updating our regs and we're having community hearings and we're going to be getting that feedback. So I feel that those discussions, whether we just keep it as a mixed use, whether we do it as multi-use, whether we look at transit, whether we do all of what's the potential use of Public Act 25-1 or other things, I think at this point, we need to have a bigger discussion and more community input. So I want to defer that. So, you know, I'm more comfortable doing what we're doing. I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything that was egregious that we didn't have to address like today. But if there's not, I think it needs a bigger discussion.

To your point, I think this is a good initial firewall. for us from being run over.

Just to put it as clear as possible, if we don't do this, to be honest, as of today, somebody could submit an application for all housing with no regulations, no firewall at all in terms of, and they have to meet the zoning regulations, but There's, you know, all of the summary view. They don't have to come to us with a site plan. All of that goes away.

You would end up having to make a decision.

Yeah, it would basically be, you know, Eric's making a decision. So this is what we want to make sure. And he doesn't want to do that. No, I really don't.

Well, and one thing that's bothered me since our May meeting was the comment that Francisco shared with us that often, not all the time, some of the all-residential developments, the quality issues, of the building is not up to snuff. We would want to have something in our regulations that would require the building of those to be like another development that we respect and we know the quality of, or that had the materials that we approve. I don't know how we would say that. And I think we need more time to get that into our regulations if we go to both options.

I'd like to make the following comment that we pick commercial zones, and they are commercial zones in town, for commercial uses. We pick residential zones in town and pick them carefully and establish them over a long period of time for residential uses. To me, it makes no sense that all of a sudden you make commercial property the place where residential development takes place. If we, as a commission, want to change our commercial zones to residential zones because we think it was a mistake to make them commercial, we've done some of that already, and there are a lot of complaints by the people who own that commercial property. They all showed up. That's a resource. That's a special thing that those people own that they consider as special that they own it. So when you want to wave your hand and say it shall be residential, but remember that It also, it's the character of the property itself, whether in fact it is suitable for people to live on. So why Hartford decided to pick those pieces of property that have been zoned commercial in any town as a place to put this new action to have residential uses is beyond me. It's not land use, it's some other political achievements. I can't even contemplate the idea that it's best to put residential development in our commercial zones. It doesn't make any sense to me. I'm just an old timer, I guess.

Well, as Attorney Willis spoke with me privately, he said the legislature was not thinking of old line when they did this.

No, I know.

Right.

Or maybe they definitely were. Yeah, they were. So it's the pragmatic side of being a land use person. It's like one plus one equals two. Commercial is where you put commercial stuff. Somebody made those decisions long before me. Residential is where you put residential things. Somebody made those decisions long before me. And our town, unfortunately, is mapped out quite a long time ago. And it's really hard to change any of those things. So it's developed that way. That's where commercial uses are. So why pick that place to put residential development? So I respectfully disagree that I think what France Casseau did is exactly in accordance with what I believe is best for old line, because it's preserving at least some idea that those uses are commercial, because that's where it should be.

We should turn the old ones back.

Well, that's a different act. We hadn't even thought about that. And we did try it once, long before you came along, Sunny. And it was quite a lot of interest, we'll say, from the townspeople, especially those who owned the commercial property. So that's my stump speech.

So the one thing that I just want to say is, I think all of the comments that we have received on this application need to now be part of our Phase 2, and they should be listed on our Phase 2 page as comments we're receiving on the Phase 2 rewrite. Doesn't mean people can't submit comments again because it's stuff just on the rewrite you might want to where you just narrowed it in on this. But I think that so that we have these comments, so that they're now moved from one application to that other application. And I want to just make sure everyone knows that we're having a community workshop July 29th from 630 to 830 to hear from the public on housing and the zoning rewrite, not just on Public Act 25-1 and what we need to do tonight, but on housing. anything we might want to do with housing. So I think that's where we need to go. The one I'm a little bit torn on in terms of moving it over is the affordable housing. That said, I know Mike worked so hard on these and we were going back and forth on those on this. But I really would like it, I think, as part of the bigger discussion. And, you know, sooner rather than later on how we do this and if it makes sense. We already took one step in here that I think is to Francisco's comment that will we make it so prohibitive that they can't use the zone for housing because we put affordable housing the affordable housing requirement in here, there's none in the statute. So we already put that in. And then if we start, you know, making it a little, I think we need to talk about is what Mike's proposing a little restrictive? Because we're not sure if we're going to get pushback just on that one thing that we added. Because just to let you know, one thing we added in here, the public is that We said if you're going to do mixed use, there has to be some affordable units. That is not a requirement of the state statute. So we already did that piece. And I think we need to have a bigger discussion on the exact numbers. And I think I'm kind of leaning towards putting that into the bigger discussion as well. So that's kind of where I am.

Or the percentages?

Mike's percentages, his proposed changes. I think it would be good to have a discussion on that.

Yeah, no, I would agree. So you're going to craft a motion in a way that what gets adapted for this?

I don't know. The motion's already done. I'm sorry. I'm saying I would have added that as an amendment. I was going back and forth on it. But I have to say, we could possibly get pushback saying, well, why are you requiring affordable?

No, I have no problem with what you're proposing. I'm just clarifying. So when we close tonight, what component is in this for affordability?

One out of four. Okay, that's what I'm getting at.

That's what I'm getting.

Okay.

Yeah. So can we get your notes kind of cleaned up and we share them with Eric? And can we get them to Francisco? So, you know.

Yeah, well, I think that's kind of get the. Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

comments from the public. So we're about done.

I think if you want to log off, you're free to log off. I don't think we're going to need you any further here. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very, very much, Francisco. Thank you all. I applaud your work in moving this forward.

Thank you.

Good night. Okay.

Is there any further discussion?

I just want to, for the record, we have no concerns about the parking part. We talked about the housing.

We really can't. I'm concerned about it.

Okay. Did his best to cover the cases. He did.

I love his little letterbox.

Yeah, it does look like gerrymandering.

He did some good gerrymandering.

Okay, so do we want to hear that motion again? No, are we good?

No, we're good.

Okay, so all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Okay. Motion is passed 5-0-0. Excellent. And the next thing on our agenda is adjournment. May I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn by Jane Marr, second by Mr. Barnes. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Good night. That was good content today, guys.

Hey, thanks for your help.

Not a problem, Michael, but I am tired. I'm sure you are.

Can I ask you if you've made any recommendations? Are you going to?

I'm not sure.

So until the time, no idea.