[0:00] I'll call the meeting officially
uh starting uh to order at 9:03.
[0:07] Um
attending, we have myself, George
[0:11] Frampton, and Denise Samya. We have
Bonnie Reemsnyder as a guest and First
[0:19] Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker. Um
Yeah, so attendance
[0:26] usually is the
shortest. Today, it might be the longest
[0:31] agenda item, but so
we were just talking about Denise before
[0:36] you came in.
So, right now, we
[0:41] have
um
[0:43] three of us and Todd are the official
uh members of the committee. And so,
[0:50] there's really two openings cuz Jim
Cuoto has resigned, unfortunately, cuz
[0:55] he can't make the meetings. So,
um
[1:01] in order to keep balance
there would you we would be allowed to
[1:06] appoint one more Democrat.
But uh and at right now, Bonnie is
[1:12] interested. She has a
submitted an application.
[1:17] Fred um Fenton from Affordable Housing
is interested. I
[1:23] I just sent him a note yesterday
indicating that if he wanted to apply he
[1:28] should send an application in for the
Board of Selectmen. So, those are the
[1:33] two slots and we were just talking about
Todd has never
[1:38] come or responded to any of our emails.
Now, I looking at the law, too, at some
[1:44] point the Board of Selectmen have the
authority to remove them for poor
[1:49] attendance. At least that's what I saw
in the law.
[1:53] Is that true?
>> I
[1:55] I I'm I'm I'm assuming you're referring
to a Connecticut General Statute.
[1:59] » Yeah.
>> I would have to go back to redo that,
[2:02] but I will tell you this that I believe
Howard, it comes before
[2:08] the chair
the chairs of a committee to send a
[2:12] letter to the Board of Selectmen. So, I
told just said to you, I will let me
[2:18] email Rob because Rob is the chair of
planning to say
[2:22] » you're
you know
[2:24] » Right.
>> And if Howard wants to take his place,
[2:26] that's fine. We can appoint Howard. I
mean, um Harold.
[2:29] » Yeah.
>> But some we need somebody from planning.
[2:32] » Right. Okay.
All right.
[2:34] » Howard and
I uh uh
[2:36] Howard and
And I talked a little bit about
[2:40] the value of trying to get the economic
development
[2:44] commission to participate with one or
two
[2:47] » I can
>> people. Um
[2:49] I mean, I think that ideally that would
That's
[2:52] » I I did
>> speak for, but
[2:55] » Uh
>> Right.
[2:55] » I don't know what the sort of Democrat
Republican composition there is or
[3:00] » That's if you add to if we add more, we
just have to change your chart. We just
[3:04] have to change the original draft of the
mission of the group because we put what
[3:09] the group was going to be made of. We
would have to just revise that, and then
[3:12] we would vote on it, and we and again
um
[3:17] it
there are
[3:21] It always is helpful if I can get a
formal request from the co-chairs, not
[3:26] an informal email, but a formal email
saying, "We would like to request that
[3:31] we add to this committee two members of
EDC." And then
[3:35] and just make it that. Nothing else in
the email.
[3:38] » Okay.
>> And send it to me, and then I can bring
[3:41] that to the Board of Selectmen on Monday
I Tuesday next week if you would like.
[3:45] » Well, we could do that. The question is
what do you think? Do you think this is
[3:48] I'm not
I'm I'm raising it to see whether it's a
[3:51] good idea or not.
>> I I have other thoughts.
[3:54] » I would think the first thing I would do
is consult with Joe Kamin and see if he
[3:59] thinks it's a good idea cuz he's the
chair of the EDC.
[4:02] » Well, I did I did send him a letter. I
think you were copied, too,
[4:07] uh indicating that yeah, we thought it
would be a good idea for them
[4:11] uh to
um
[4:14] get involved to involved and
he sent me I sent it to to see if I
[4:20] brought that with me.
Uh I know that said
[4:24] he had two concerns.
One
[4:28] was they're focused right now on
uh filling vacancies and then secondly
[4:35] he was concerned about the new law
that uh requires allows housing in
[4:41] commercial districts and
they think that would
[4:45] reduce the amount of uh
uh potential
[4:50] commercial district property. So, I
wrote back and I said
[4:55] you're right, but that's exactly the
reason why your voice should be heard
[4:58] because we're deliberate and we want to
make sure those kind of considerations
[5:05] are taken into account. So,
and I also said if you're
[5:10] trying to
um
[5:12] focus on
I know their main one of their other
[5:15] main focuses is to
try to have young people come back to
[5:20] town,
you know, who leave,
[5:23] you know, where are they going to live?
And that's important. And kind of
[5:28] quoted the RiverCOG economic uh
development
[5:33] study that they did and showing that,
you know,
[5:36] shortage of housing is directly related
to
[5:41] uh the
uh economic development in the whole
[5:44] region and that's why
one of the main reasons why it hasn't
[5:48] been growing. So,
you know, it to me to me that
[5:53] they should have a voice and it's
important because everything we do with
[5:57] housing
has involved in economic growth. So,
[6:02] he wrote back and
>> Yeah, so go ahead. Go ahead.
[6:04] » I'll just finish finish He just wrote
back and said he'll put it on his agenda
[6:07] and see who would be interested.
>> So, he had a meeting last night.
[6:11] » Okay.
>> But I don't know
[6:13] » Yeah.
>> if they had it on the agenda. I have to
[6:15] go back and look. I don't have my phone
with me for a second. I'll check it.
[6:17] » Yeah. So,
>> So, I have concerns about it just
[6:21] because of the original charge of the
committee, which is really to focus on
[6:26] uh the the charge isn't to like,
you know, do a housing plan for the town
[6:30] per se. Um the charge is that we've got
the three commissions that are speaking
[6:36] to each other that are really really
engaged with this. Um
[6:42] every time the law changes up in
Hartford,
[6:44] » if we start bringing in a commission
that it could affect, so for example,
[6:48] commercial. Yes, it
impacts economic development. But I know
[6:53] that when they wrote that law on the
TOD, transit-oriented development piece,
[6:59] they didn't want it to go to Wetlands
Commission.
[7:01] I testified and made I didn't just
testify. I worked with the people who
[7:06] were putting in the TOD. At that time it
was called uh Segregate Desegregate
[7:11] Connecticut. Now it's Pro
Pro-Housing, I think, Connecticut or Pro
[7:15] Homes Connecticut. They changed their
name.
[7:17] Um and I said Wetlands has to be in
there. Wetlands has to be in the act, in
[7:23] the TOD thing, which it is. Um but they
wanted to do it. So, then it would be
[7:28] like, "Oh, do we need to have the
Wetland Commission here?" So, I guess
[7:30] I'm looking at what do we really need
this group to do? Are we the ones who
[7:35] like cuz we're the ones who are
communicating with COG and then
[7:38] communicating back to the core
commissions that are working on this.
[7:42] I'm thinking when we need to hear from
economic development, we invite them in.
[7:46] But, do we need everybody at the table
every time cuz it's like we need cuz
[7:50] otherwise we need, you know, the um
aging commission here. We need the, you
[7:57] know, the you know, there's so many
people in housing impacts every area.
[8:02] So, I appreciate that, you know, we had
started talking about economic
[8:05] development because of the plan and we
didn't think it talked about housing
[8:09] quite the right way. But, I guess I'm I
guess I would, you know, kind of
[8:14] question like opening it up just to them
and changing the charge. So, I guess I
[8:19] was looking at
what do we really need to do here cuz we
[8:23] really need to be focused on this
housing growth plan
[8:27] with um
River Cog and I think we're getting in
[8:32] all the feedback, but I don't want, you
know, um
[8:36] and I think that this is the place to do
it, but I guess I So, I don't I have
[8:39] questions.
>> I'm just going to say that you're not
[8:42] sticking to your agenda.
>> [laughter]
[8:44] » And you really need to follow that. You
did attendance and then you went off on
[8:48] this. I think you need to follow
>> Okay.
[8:51] » and then you can get to it when you get
I guess new business and housing.
[8:57] » Well, we were seeking I think it was
still technically under attendance of
[9:01] who who should
>> And you don't have anything on here
[9:05] about adding new members. So, you really
can't just
[9:07] » Well, it's it's where I attendance was
kind of a broad thing of
[9:12] » do that. Attendance is my agenda.
>> All right. So,
[9:15] um
well, can we if we assume for a moment
[9:19] that we're not going to expand
right away to we're going to try to keep
[9:25] this the three commissions,
then what what are the options here for
[9:30] getting a six
or five person group that has the right
[9:35] balance? What what I mean
>> We just talked about We did talk about
[9:38] the fact that we have two applications
well one application and from zoning
[9:44] which is Bonnie and supposedly Fred is
coming in from affordable housing. The
[9:49] problem is is we have a minority
representation problem if the both of
[9:54] those people apply. I still I can't not
appoint both.
[9:58] So
>> Well, I'm saying where where I
[10:00] understand that but hold on so we're
kind of getting off But I would we could
[10:06] do this. You someone could make a motion
to change the agenda to put this
[10:12] to put it
You can't you can't you can't on Oh,
[10:14] that's right. It's a special. Okay. All
right.
[10:18] So let's postpone that for now.
>> So yeah, if we want to talk about then
[10:23] we need to talk about it in
at the October meeting and just put it
[10:27] on the agenda.
>> Okay, let's do that. Yeah, we'll do
[10:30] that. We'll put it on. I I
Okay, well we'll wait till we get to
[10:35] RiverCOG but I'll go on. Okay, approval
of minutes from June 26th.
[10:43] The minute to a motion to accept the
minutes.
[10:46] » I so move.
>> Okay.
[10:48] » Second.
>> Second.
[10:50] Any discussion?
All in favor, I.
[10:54] I.
Any any opposed? No. Any abstentions?
[10:59] No.
Okay, public comment. Anyone?
[11:03] Okay.
Anyone online?
[11:07] Um
Okay, reports from
[11:10] RiverCOG housing and planning.
Um the
[11:15] planning commission did not meet last
week so there's no new update from that.
[11:22] Uh both
the RiverCOG housing did meet and it was
[11:28] in person
and we had Old Lyme had
[11:32] four people there, myself,
George,
[11:37] Fred Friend from affordable housing, and
Eric.
[11:42] And basically, what they did
was
[11:46] go through the
uh
[11:50] the process they're using for
uh assessing need and that formula.
[11:58] And um
I'll give my take on it, and then
[12:02] George, if you want to add what your
take is. But so, the process they have
[12:07] it
what they're trying to do is determine
[12:11] what are the housing needs for each
municipality.
[12:14] And this isn't a RiverCOG process, it's
not a state process, it's one used
[12:22] across the country. So, it's a pretty
standard process that they use.
[12:27] And there's a number of factors I don't
I don't think we should get into weeds
[12:32] with this right now until we we will
later when we actually get the
[12:38] uh report from RiverCOG with the
numbers.
[12:43] But it all it is is a way of saying,
"Gee,
[12:46] you know, how does each municipality
determine what their housing needs are?"
[12:51] So, you need some kind of process to do
that. And this is kind of the standard
[12:56] process.
It is not I can see headlines all over,
[13:00] you know,
"Old Lyme needs 340 houses."
[13:05] It's not a mandate. It's not um
it's not the state telling you this is
[13:13] what you must do.
All it is is
[13:17] help you plan.
And at the end of the day, what what the
[13:22] deliverables will be to the state are
what what are your housing needs, and
[13:27] they want to see a plan. So, again, this
is under
[13:31] P-25-1.
And, you know, as people described it,
[13:37] 8-30G
is kind of the stick. Uh P-25-1
[13:44] is kind of the carrot. So, there's no
penalties like in 8-30G,
[13:49] you know, where you If you don't meet
10%, then developers have the right to
[13:56] bypass some of the zoning laws. So, um
they do use a number of factors.
[14:03] They use, you know, number of
households, age distribution,
[14:08] income, blah blah blah. Like I said, I
don't think we should get in the weeds
[14:13] on this today. Wait till we get it, and
then we'll be talking a lot about it.
[14:18] So,
um
[14:20] that's my take on it. George, do you
have anything to add?
[14:24] » they demonstrated the model that they're
using.
[14:28] And what I think
there were some questions at the end
[14:33] that didn't really get
answered
[14:36] uh by people who said, "Well, okay,
you're assessing, you know, the total
[14:41] number of housing units,
how full they are, how vacant they are,
[14:46] um population increases, decreases,
but where do you Where are you going to
[14:52] factor in the economics of this? In
other words, where How are you going to
[14:57] take all this analysis about the number
of housing units that are available and
[15:01] need to be available 10 years from now
and are likely or not likely to be in
[15:05] that mark,
and put that together, integrate that
[15:09] together with, you know, at what level
affordability
[15:14] does this housing need to be? And I
think there that's going to be
[15:19] that's it's going to be so easy when
they get to it. Or rather, it's they're
[15:24] going to come up with something. But but
the
[15:27] where [clears throat] it comes from, the
clarity of what the basis for it was is
[15:31] going to be a lot of
probably planner planning type judgments
[15:36] about these things. So, I don't know
that in the end
[15:41] we're going to get from them
we're going to get numbers, you know,
[15:45] here's some here so many housing units
in a certain
[15:50] price that you're going to need to have
5 or 10 years from now relative to what
[15:55] you have now.
Um
[15:58] but whether that, you know, really
communicates much in the way of a plan
[16:03] for a community, I I don't know. I don't
I'm I'm
[16:07] I'm
skeptical that it's they're going to
[16:09] give us
something that really is very
[16:14] very useful in terms of specific
planning that communities should do.
[16:19] And if they do, I'm concerned that it's
going to be
[16:22] built on some some judgments or factors
that are somewhat arbitrary
[16:27] that they bring up because it's generic
to everybody in the state or the
[16:31] country.
So, you know, I came away thinking
[16:36] you know, there's going to be quite a an
opportunity for each town to do a plan
[16:42] that is going to look different from
what we're going to get from them or an
[16:47] attempt to say, "Well, okay, we
recognize here the needs that you have
[16:51] described here."
But we have our own idea about how this
[16:55] town can or cannot meet those needs and
how to go about it.
[17:00] I don't know if that's a fair
>> Yeah, but but the but the numbers aren't
[17:03] going to be the same for every town.
>> They'll be different every town. Yeah.
[17:07] Yeah, they'll be different.
And I like I say, I
[17:11] my feeling has look
every town, you know, you have to
[17:15] determine what your housing needs are.
So, how are you going to do that? This
[17:20] is kind of the standard
process that the country all across the
[17:25] country. So, yeah, there are flaws.
There's flaws in every system. But, you
[17:28] know, you know
So,
[17:31] I recognize exactly what you're saying,
and those are the things we have to
[17:34] consider, but I don't I don't see it
more than that. You know, it's a
[17:38] starting point to give
>> Yeah, that's just
[17:41] » And that's all it is. That's all it is.
>> I mean, it this is a template. It's my
[17:45] understanding is that we can use it as a
template to formulate our own plan. So,
[17:50] I think it will have some useful
information that we can use. Right. We
[17:53] have to go out and collect all that
data. But, I certainly think that we
[17:57] need
to see what's best for Allendale in the
[18:01] long run, and that's always going to be
the top priority. Never. Hello, guest.
[18:08] I I just I listened to the meeting at
the state level.
[18:13] And I think that that at that meeting
they recognized that applying overall a
[18:20] rule to the whole state is not good,
which is why they brought in the
[18:24] regions.
And that's better
[18:28] because each region is so very
dynamically different.
[18:33] But, it was my understanding
that the regional
[18:39] directors in general
recognized also that even applying a
[18:45] blanket to a region
is hard, but
[18:50] I think what they were trying to do
is to give towns
[18:56] a reasonable
starting point when they determine what
[19:02] their own individual needs are.
And it's probably more about getting the
[19:07] towns to talk about it and focus on it
than it is Because let's face it,
[19:13] for decades, the towns have ignored the
10% rule.
[19:18] It just it's not in anyone's primary
thought process who's in office. It's
[19:24] just because it's
many times it's not achievable. The ones
[19:29] that really have to struggle with it are
the bigger cities or the bigger the
[19:33] communities. So, this is really
bringing it down to a bite that we can
[19:40] handle more. And I think it's going to
be very, very important to convey when
[19:46] they come down with those numbers, that
wait a minute, you have to understand
[19:51] it's a bigger picture
and now we talk the smaller talk.
[19:56] Once we get that, we can start Maybe
that's a bite our town can start working
[20:02] with. And we have to just keep repeating
that cuz people are going to grab onto a
[20:06] number and they're going to say, "This
is crazy. Look what they're trying to
[20:10] do." And we're going to become the bad
guys.
[20:13] » But I think with the number, this is one
of the things that Mike O'Gliano was
[20:16] really emphasizing with us, was that
they're going to plug in, come to us,
[20:22] but with the numbers before the numbers
are out, they're going to be working
[20:27] with the town and saying, "Okay, let's
say, does this make sense given that
[20:32] we have this much housing, but so much
of it is seasonal, or maybe it's
[20:35] converting from seasonal to not seasonal
anymore." So, those are the types So, we
[20:39] have a unique situation. So, there's the
ability to say, "Here's the numbers that
[20:44] you've given us, but we have this
factor, this factor, this factor in our
[20:47] town, and the numbers can be changed."
>> Exactly.
[20:50] » So, so that's what I'm saying. They're
starting with a template. They're going
[20:54] to be giving it to us. We're going to be
massaging that template with, you know,
[20:58] based on what I You know, those types of
things. Mike was, you know, very And I
[21:02] think one of the things looking at, for
example, the affordable housing plan
[21:06] that we have. Because, you know, they
did a real
[21:11] thorough review of where we could
build, where we can't build, that kind
[21:16] of stuff. They really took took a a hard
look at that. And I don't want to just
[21:21] jump to saying like, "Oh, we have to do
our own plan." We're going to be working
[21:24] with RiverCOG
every step of the way. If
[21:30] something ends up that, you know, we
don't want to go with the plan, but the
[21:35] plan is not They're not developing the
plan and giving it to us. They're
[21:39] They're developing it with the people
who are on the committee. And and and
[21:43] supposedly, and I'm saying thinking,
once the numbers come out, that's where
[21:47] we invite them to this committee and
say, "What do those numbers mean? What
[21:50] do we How do we want to change that?"
You know, are there things And it should
[21:54] not only go to this committee. We should
We should I mean, one of the charges of
[21:57] our committee is bringing it back to the
committees we sit on.
[22:01] And then coming back here and talking.
What does planning What does zoning
[22:03] think about this? What does planning
think about this? What does affordable
[22:05] housing think about this?
>> It it
[22:09] One of the factors they do I mean, it's
a pretty
[22:13] decent process. So, they One of the
factors is seasonal. So, they do take
[22:18] that into account. So, they've taken a
lot of things. And I like I
[22:21] I guess final word on this is it's not
the end point, it's a starting point.
[22:28] You know, I always worry about the
headlines. Old Lyme given a quota to
[22:32] build 350 houses, that's not what this
says.
[22:36] I just want to go ahead.
>> Well, so the the one thing I guess
[22:40] before as we're talking about this, the
one thing that obviously we have a big
[22:43] boy
Are Do we have any of the appointment
[22:47] officially to COG now on the housing? We
needed Is Is Bonnie here?
[22:51] » Bonnie. Okay.
>> Yes, and Howard
[22:53] » I couldn't I couldn't make
>> No, I'm on planning.
[22:56] » My schedule was already in place before
I was appointed to all these
[22:59] » Okay.
>> Now, it the housing and planning
[23:03] » it's important to put that in our notes.
It is It is the housing and planning
[23:08] commissions are open to anyone
attending. So, I have
[23:13] been attending the housing as well as
planning and anyone here or anyone else
[23:19] can attend. Yeah.
>> And Sheila's still there as well.
[23:23] » It does bring up a point which we
mentioned before.
[23:27] We're going to have that Who is actually
going to do the housing plan? I mean,
[23:32] there's options. This committee could do
it.
[23:36] I know Eric is always kind of said
planning if the housing plan planning
[23:41] should do it.
Zoning could potentially do it. So,
[23:45] what's your feeling of who's going to do
it?
[23:50] » I think we need to have
when we get some more information to
[23:54] what it's like.
>> Okay. So, you're it's still open at this
[23:57] point, you're saying. Okay.
>> I do believe that there should be many
[24:01] voices at the table. It's not going to
be thrown to one commission, but it's
[24:05] going to have to be
many voices. Maybe it's the Board of
[24:09] Selectmen with commission chairs. I'm
not sure yet.
[24:12] » Okay.
[24:15] » That's one of the reasons we formed this
committee so that everybody was talking
[24:19] during the same meetings because you're
going back to your individual committees
[24:22] and sharing this information with them.
Um so, that we will get as much feedback
[24:27] as possible. I think that it would be
helpful
[24:32] when you go back to your committees and
you get their feedback, I think you
[24:36] should be coming to this committee and
saying, "This is what planning saying.
[24:40] When I gave my report, these are the
questions they had. When I was at
[24:44] affordable housing, I shared what's
happening. This is what they said. I
[24:48] think this is what zoning says."
You should be bringing back your
[24:53] commission and maybe asking your
commission chairs to put you on the
[24:57] agenda for a monthly update every time
you meet just so that you are sharing
[25:02] what you're hearing.
>> So, there should that's the
[25:04] communication we had
anticipated that you're sharing with
[25:09] them, they're bringing questions and
they're sending questions back with you
[25:12] to this group or that you're asking at
RiverCOG so that they can get the
[25:17] information because not everybody can be
at every meeting.
[25:21] » Yeah, and it's only we've done that. We
have it as a standing item on our agenda
[25:25] now and we're also making sure they get
that everybody on the commission gets a
[25:30] copy of the minutes.
Because that the minutes are really
[25:34] important and and when we first started
um Mike Furliano had gone over
[25:39] everything that was happening at
RiverCOG. So, we actually have some sets
[25:42] of minutes that really have some details
in them that would be really worth
[25:45] sharing if you haven't shared those with
and make sure that you know, it's it's
[25:49] one thing to say like, oh, we have
minutes if you want to look at them. I
[25:52] make sure they get [clears throat]
shared. I I have Yeah, Eric should be
[25:55] sending them out. We have told him that
from the zoning perspective. So,
[26:00] and I'll make sure that that happens. I
I make sure that happens for the zoning
[26:03] commission.
>> Or even if he shares it with me and I'll
[26:06] share it with the commission chairs. I
mean, to say you should be sharing this
[26:10] with your committee.
>> Yeah.
[26:11] » I don't want to email the entire
committee, but I would be more than
[26:14] happy to do it to chairs.
>> Okay.
[26:17] I would say I I I
I think you know, Eric I check I don't
[26:22] know if it was if there's a staff
assigned to affordable housing, but he's
[26:26] assigned to planning and zoning and it
might just planning and to zoning. And
[26:30] for him to get those minutes out to
those two groups should not be a burden.
[26:35] He sends stuff out to the other groups
all the time. So,
[26:40] » Okay.
Uh I think that takes care of both uh
[26:45] RiverCOG, planning and housing if you
don't
[26:47] » I I have one last question. So, they're
working on this model. Did they say when
[26:52] they were going to
get it out to the
[26:56] » It sounded like they were putting the
numbers in and getting them out pretty
[26:59] quickly now.
>> they didn't have they they haven't gone
[27:02] out yet.
>> Yeah.
[27:02] » Are they I know that they had sent some
other stuff out earlier.
[27:07] Um, and I was Was there anything that we
needed to review or was that just kind
[27:12] of an update about where they were? They
had sent out something.
[27:15] Um
>> They sent out some homework.
[27:17] » Yeah. And was that anything we needed to
review? Cuz that's what I'm saying. I'm
[27:21] thinking the riddle card stuff that gets
sent out. Do we need to turn say like
[27:25] did all the homework get done? Are we
Did we provide them with everything that
[27:29] needed? That's one of the things I'd
love to make sure. When they send
[27:31] homework, it's like this committee
should be making sure that it's getting
[27:34] done and and they know that.
>> I did receive a note from um
[27:41] What's her name? Elise.
>> Eliza.
[27:43] » Eliza.
And apparently she said
[27:46] they did send a question
I could have just They They requested
[27:51] something from the town and
if I knew about it and I said I haven't
[27:57] received it. So, I don't know
>> I don't I don't think I received that
[28:00] either.
>> Yeah. So, I don't
[28:01] » They sent it out a couple of days ago.
>> Yeah. So, I don't
[28:04] » I question in my mind. I haven't put it
>> I don't know what she
[28:08] It could be with Eric.
It could it be
[28:12] » They did require some housing numbers,
but that was like a month or six weeks
[28:17] ago.
They did went in and gave those types of
[28:20] things that were through the assessor's
office. They worked together on that
[28:22] information.
>> So, you'll check the
[28:24] » it would be just as good if we knew that
kind of communication that's happening
[28:28] so that we can stay on top of like
and it might be worth
[28:34] that if there's asking the town for
something even if it and Martha, you
[28:39] you're it's so great that you can be
here, but I know that that might not
[28:42] always be the case for you to be in this
room when we meet. Um, it would be good
[28:46] I think, if you know, Howard is chair of
this committee or maybe Howard and
[28:51] Bonnie as the two reps to the um
uh committees um
[28:56] that RiverCOG also get copied in every
any requests of the town, just so that
[29:00] we know what's going on. I mean, we
could ask for that.
[29:03] » Yeah, I think in most cases they'll send
it to their housing the housing um
[29:08] advisors from the towns and reps from
the town and then they send it always to
[29:13] all the selectmen.
>> And we might just follow in a little bit
[29:15] in the hole with my
transition.
[29:18] » Yeah, right. It it
As far as the homework was concerned,
[29:22] there was a video that they requested us
to look at, which I did watch. Um it was
[29:28] like
45 minutes long or something and it was
[29:32] the state meeting with
various people and their discussion
[29:36] about housing.
Um it seemed like
[29:41] a a lot of their discussion and Sam went
over it somewhat when it came to zoning.
[29:48] They were talking in in general terms. I
think I mentioned this to you. In
[29:53] general terms about housing and not so
much about affordable housing. And I
[30:00] think we talked about that that that's
to make it more palatable, but
[30:06] um
but it that was the first time I was
[30:09] watching it, so I'm I'm
you know, listening to it in that vein.
[30:15] » I'm trying to remember cuz I went over
everything that she sent, but it was a
[30:19] month ago.
I think it was in July, actually, that
[30:22] she sent it. So, I I just have to look
at it quickly. I didn't um
[30:28] I but I know I did the homework.
>> law and what seems to be the momentum
[30:33] that's coming from the state through
RiverCOG
[30:37] for us
is is very focused on, you know, middle
[30:42] housing.
>> Yeah.
[30:43] » Trying to get away from strictly
affordable housing.
[30:46] » Yeah.
>> And it's not I don't think it's clear in
[30:49] the law what a single parcel is, so
they've now penetrated you know, all
[30:56] » Right.
>> commercial zoning in the in the state by
[30:59] saying you have to allow up to nine
units in your commercial zones, but
[31:06] whether what the size of the piece of
property is is unclear.
[31:09] » Mhm.
>> So, if I were to buy Cherry Stones
[31:13] and split it up into six different
parcels and sell it to six different
[31:18] LLCs,
could I then build 56 housing units?
[31:24] I don't think that's perfectly clear.
>> Mhm.
[31:27] » So, uh, you know, but the emphasis seems
to be to try to get away from
[31:32] it's really talking about affordability
in a very broader way.
[31:35] » And accessibility.
>> important for the politics of
[31:37] » Well, the yeah.
>> here, I assume.
[31:39] » Yeah, the discussion in Hartford and
what has
[31:45] what leadership is believing because
it's been provided information
[31:50] national information has nothing to do
with Connecticut, national information
[31:55] um, on housing that if you create more
housing in general, it will
[32:00] » Right.
>> you know, you'll have a more affordable
[32:04] housing.
>> Right.
[32:05] » This other studies that disregard
>> talking about that. That
[32:10] » want to have 10% more than you need.
>> Yeah, or 5% or whatever the percentage
[32:14] was.
>> Go higher and that if you have a vacancy
[32:18] rate of this, then everybody cuz that
creates competition and I think that
[32:24] that's a little worrisome to people who
own property.
[32:27] » So, just as so
for those you don't know, I have a
[32:30] degree in environmental economics, so
I look at this,
[32:35] looked up some other studies. There's
studies out there that were very
[32:38] very very specific. One out of
Um well, there was a couple couple
[32:43] places. One was out of Harvard, one was
out of someplace in the Midwest. I can't
[32:47] remember the
which where it was, but they basically
[32:50] said no. Trickle-down economics doesn't
work for housing when you have strong
[32:55] housing markets like we have here in
Connecticut. We have a strong extremely
[32:58] strong housing market. You know, people
complain about real estate and whatever,
[33:01] but
we have an extreme We We haven't had,
[33:05] you know, any real challenges with our
housing market in Connecticut.
[33:09] » Except lack of
>> Well, yeah, that's a whole That's except
[33:13] lack of, but in terms of the
the value and whatever. So, we have such
[33:17] a strong market, that's where it doesn't
it absolutely does it. And what happens
[33:22] is the lowest it raises rents. Market
prices are driven by the high end of the
[33:28] market.
And that's the problem with them
[33:31] thinking just increasing and when you're
increasing supply in Connecticut, it's
[33:35] about people having two houses. You
know, people having a house in Greenwich
[33:39] and people having a house here. People
having houses, you know, someplace else
[33:44] and having a house in the Litchfield
Hills. So, they you know, they
[33:49] do different things and it's
interesting.
[33:52] » You know, people Or people investing to
to land.
[33:55] » investing. Well, they're flipping the
the flip market. They They invest the
[33:59] rent and they put in the flip market is
just incredible. And so, you know,
[34:02] addressing some of those issues really
is where they need to go. That needs to
[34:06] come out loud and clear when we're
talking with River Cog and whatever. Um
[34:11] there are
there are some of us who are working on
[34:14] that. But so, I think, you know, when we
when we talk about this,
[34:20] we need to understand what what what
Hartford at this point believes, but
[34:24] they need some education on that. And
that start and that thing is the
[34:27] legislature as well as in the governor's
office. They don't you know, they're
[34:32] they're looking at studies and studies
have been been provided to them by the
[34:36] Home Builders Association, by the
Realtors Association,
[34:40] but they're all national and it's all
very, very generic stuff.
[34:45] » Of course they want more houses.
They want to make more money.
[34:48] » I would suggest we move on. We're kind
of getting up
[34:51] Okay, we're up to old
>> of the how we're getting this plan
[34:54] solved, so.
>> Yeah, but Okay, old
[34:57] old business. So,
could um so many people kind of
[35:04] bring us up to date where we are with
the zoning rewrite and the whole process
[35:11] now I know you've gone through
having uh
[35:15] input from the public and where does
that all stand and what's happening with
[35:19] the survey and
>> Yeah, so we've left the survey open cuz
[35:22] it seems to be
you know, okay to leave it open. I think
[35:26] at first
um the consultant was looking at having
[35:30] the survey help drive questions at the
workshops we've been having, but kind of
[35:36] they they're almost kind of separate
like, you know, again it's it's some
[35:40] people come to workshops have taken the
survey, but there's a whole lot more
[35:43] people on the survey than are at the
workshop, so.
[35:46] » Can I ask, do you know how many people
have taken the survey?
[35:49] » Um it's over 500 now. I think, so I
don't know the exact number. It will
[35:54] probably get
>> number to me. I think it's a low number
[35:56] considering the number of households in
the town, but I will um
[36:00] you know, push it again in my newsletter
just to
[36:02] » absolutely. Yeah, yeah. I mean I think
you continue to push it. It's still open
[36:05] as far as unless they closed it this
week. As far as I know it's still open.
[36:09] » I'll check on that.
>> If it's closed this week, then it can be
[36:12] it can be I mean I think it's important
not to for that
[36:18] you know, at the um
uh
[36:21] working group that I didn't go to that
uh you did last week, week before last.
[36:29] Um, the consultant sort of suggested
that
[36:32] what the public wanted was reflected by
the clickers at the at the workshop. You
[36:39] know, which is very um, I mean basically
two-thirds of the people there were
[36:43] called out to
you know, take a position. And so I
[36:48] think getting the survey out is going to
be so much better
[36:52] reflects what it may be. I agree it's
better. Be nice to get another couple
[36:57] hundred people to do it. But you're
probably not going to do that over the
[37:00] next couple months and I think getting
that out as the best snapshot for the
[37:06] moment um, is is probably a priority. I
don't know what the zoning
[37:12] » Yeah, yeah, I'm I'm
my Yeah, my concern was the same as
[37:16] George's that you know, cuz they
summarized
[37:20] what happened at the workshop as that's
what the public wanted and we haven't
[37:25] » I didn't see that but I'm going to be
really upset with you guys if that's
[37:28] what the zoning commission said. That's
not what I
[37:30] » So that's what I was
>> Who made that statement?
[37:33] That's what the public wanted, was it?
>> Pardon me?
[37:35] » No, no.
>> It just gave the impression that Yeah.
[37:39] » summarized what happened at the
workshop.
[37:42] » Francis Francisca
>> He didn't say the public in general. He
[37:45] said the people who attended the meeting
said this. He didn't make any, you know,
[37:50] so it's like this. The people who
attended the meeting, this is what they
[37:53] said. This is That's a whole different
discussion than what that's what the
[37:56] public said.
>> Well, what are the plans for the survey?
[37:59] » Uh, well, we'll be once we get those
then we'll you know, he'll be looking at
[38:02] saying like, okay, how do those reflect
you know, they're the same type of
[38:07] questions. So it's like how do you That
said, it doesn't have the like, oh, I
[38:11] like this house or I like this house. I
think people got too tied down into
[38:14] like, you know, deciding the aesthetics
of a house.
[38:17] » They
showed 10 different houses. All of which
[38:20] your average person would say, I don't
like that very much.
[38:23] » I know. Well, it was one of those things
that the aesthetics of the house and
[38:26] he's done that. He goes, "A lot of times
this is about aesthetics."
[38:30] It was and and it wasn't necessarily the
house itself. It was sometimes
[38:34] Yeah, we had that discussion. It was
sometimes about the neighborhood. So,
[38:37] anyway, with the process, we've had two
um you know
[38:41] uh two two forums, community forums.
Uh well, hotel one on 10. We have
[38:47] another one September 15th.
Um and that will will kind of be on the
[38:50] commercial
um as well as a few other little things
[38:54] about I think signage and stuff like
that, but mostly focused on the
[38:57] commercial zone. Um we've had the
follow-up focus groups with the with
[39:02] both of those and gotten some some
feedback and you know, shared the
[39:05] information that we collected at the
community workshop.
[39:09] One of the things that we're want to
make sure is that it's a dialogue back
[39:13] and forth with the commission. So, we
hope that those of who are attending um
[39:18] as appointees to the focus groups are
bringing that back again to their
[39:22] to their full commission and having
discussions on that with their full
[39:26] commissions because it's really
important to do that. Um and um
[39:32] we will be There's a couple of things
that will be focusing on. The flood
[39:37] erosion
Thank you so much.
[39:41] The flood erosion control board will be
um
[39:45] uh presenting at the zoning our next
zoning commission meeting, which
[39:50] it's the It's whatever the second Monday
is.
[39:53] » No, because um
>> It's the third It's the
[39:56] » Yeah, it's It's the 13th, I think. Yeah.
Yeah.
[39:59] » So,
so they'll be pre- because they they had
[40:03] some very very very specific
uh information that came out. They you
[40:09] know, they brought it to the workshop to
both the public workshop as well. But,
[40:14] we wanted to say like, "You have so much
detailed information, we need to
[40:18] we need to have you on our agenda. We've
invited any commission who wants to have
[40:23] a special meeting with the commission
or, you know, work with us on that.
[40:27] That's the way we are we're working.
Um
[40:30] and so I think that I've been actually
thrilled with the process. Francesco's
[40:34] been very, very thoughtful.
So,
[40:38] once we start we're right now in the
gathering phase. So, there's been no
[40:42] discus- decisions or really no
discussions by the commission except for
[40:47] what we've had back and forth with with
folks.
[40:50] » Good.
>> So, it's at this point, um what we're
[40:53] looking at is
um
[40:58] Francesco, after this workshop on the
15th and the follow-up within in
[41:03] he's going to now start, you know, over
the
[41:06] next couple of months
bringing us, like, okay, we heard this.
[41:11] What do you think about putting this in?
There's couple things we know. We did
[41:16] have to change things quickly on the
commercial zone because we had to we had
[41:21] a dead- deadline of July 1st because so
we've explained to people we're on
[41:25] parallel tracks and we really need to
make sure your commissions understand
[41:28] this. We're on parallel tracks with
what's happening, um
[41:33] because of, you know,
the public we're dealing with as well as
[41:39] our zoning.
Um I'm thinking once we get through the
[41:43] commercial, they'll be we'll like, are
there things we need to tweak in that?
[41:48] Um
and then maybe that's something we need
[41:51] to tweak right away, but it may be that,
you know what? It's it's okay, you know,
[41:57] and I don't know. I'm just saying it
could be the other option could be it's
[42:00] okay right now and we're going to wait
for the housing growth plan to be, you
[42:04] know, finished before we
do anything more with this. But if
[42:07] there's something inherently wrong with
it, um we've heard from the commercial
[42:12] folks, for example, that some folks have
said
[42:16] making it so that the commercial has to
be on the bottom and the housing on top
[42:20] or that it has to be in the same
building.
[42:23] We could make it so it's on the same lot
or something. So, is there something we
[42:27] need to tweak language in that to allow
for that? There's some kind of
[42:31] complaints about that or or suggestions
and it's like, okay, how real is this?
[42:35] Is this something we really need to make
it be in the back
[42:37] » back of the building instead of on top.
>> And and it's like and is it already
[42:41] allowed for that? Or was it just just
the interpretation? Do we need clarity?
[42:45] So, those are some of the things we'll
be looking at. Um,
[42:49] that's probably the I I I think that
we'll hear right away from. There's some
[42:53] other stuff that we will be looking at.
I think the accessory dwelling units
[42:59] will be something we're really going to,
you know, we'll probably get some good
[43:03] feedback on on how to tackle that.
Um,
[43:07] the one thing I really want to look at
is the affordable housing plan, as I
[43:11] said, because
um,
[43:15] there was a really good assessment about
what lots could
[43:19] be used differently.
Um, you know, uh, with more either
[43:24] accessory units or,
you know,
[43:28] townhouses or some other kind of what
they consider middle housing.
[43:33] Um, and but can they handle
um,
[43:39] the onsite septic and water. And those
are our challenges.
[43:42] Um, so as well as as well as, you know,
we we are you know, this
[43:49] the big the big cha- and then the big
changes and what we do with that is what
[43:53] the flood flood motion control board is
is proposing cuz they've got big changes
[43:58] um, there. And they're looking, you
know, it's like, do we
[44:05] how do we
make sure that we've got that we're
[44:10] protecting people who are in the flood
zone, not allowing inappropriate
[44:13] development in the flood zone, people
already in the flood zone, what does
[44:16] that mean?
And I'll just give you an example and
[44:20] this actually happened in
uh post Superstorm Sandy in Connecticut
[44:25] where
um folks who lived on the shore
[44:29] um the houses were severely damaged
which meant they met the 50% rule um in
[44:35] terms of
um you know, if the they put in they put
[44:38] Yeah, they
>> into it.
[44:39] » If they're putting money into it, so
they couldn't just
[44:43] fix.
>> Fix. They had to
[44:44] » They had to raise Once you had Once you
fix over 50% then you have to elevate.
[44:49] » Yeah.
>> So
[44:50] » to meet FEMA requirements, whatever that
is.
[44:52] » Yes. And so
um
[44:56] what that led to
post Superstorm Sandy
[45:00] was a real gentrification of
neighborhoods. And by that I mean people
[45:04] who lived there, who may have inherited
houses from family whatever, we would
[45:08] see this you know, in the in our
shoreline area with people who had
[45:12] little summer cottages, now their homes,
full-time homes.
[45:17] If they can't afford to elevate
then they have to sell.
[45:22] Do we allow
someone who, you know, um
[45:26] can uh afford to elevate and and maybe
put in a big monster home. So basically
[45:33] it's gentrification of neighborhoods
overnight.
[45:35] Um and there are ways around that. So
Westbrook took advantage of a federal
[45:41] program that's under USDA.
And USDA has a program that they will
[45:47] buy your house at the value of your
house pre-storm.
[45:51] So pre-storm value
buy your house and restore it to natural
[45:57] flood plain.
>> We had um that situation here when I was
[46:01] in office. There was a home that they
were working on and the um
[46:07] the owner was going to go that route and
at last minute decided not to.
[46:12] » Yeah, they decide and and Westbrook they
didn't at first there was like no no no
[46:16] they didn't and all of a sudden they
realized you know what?
[46:19] And uh about so that the people
>> It's about restoring the shoreline.
[46:23] » It's about restoring the shoreline.
>> minimizing the impact of the flooding.
[46:30] » And and
>> in the future you
[46:32] » And and not letting not letting
gentrification happen because the only
[46:35] people who can afford to live
really in those areas
[46:40] of high velocity and whatever are people
who can self-insure. And so that really
[46:44] gentrifies your shoreline. I mean we are
you already have that anyway cuz
[46:48] shoreline is expensive but you really
people who have inherited houses or
[46:54] generational
>> They can't afford the flood insurance.
[46:56] They can't afford the home insurance.
>> And it's just
[46:59] This is This is a So so we don't know
where we're where we're going with that.
[47:03] » Okay.
>> We're going to have this discussion with
[47:04] Fluppa. That's going to be a huge
discussion and it and so I'm not sure
[47:10] Francisco where where he what he's going
to do but I think we're going to see
[47:13] commercial zone the the housing
commercial zone thing that we've heard
[47:17] about. I think you're going to see ADUs
and I think the floods are Those are
[47:20] going to be the three that
I
[47:23] I hear at this point. We haven't had the
commercial thing anymore but that's I
[47:27] think those are the three where we're
going to hear the most changes to start
[47:31] with and then the other stuff will be
little tweaks.
[47:33] » Okay, I'd like to move on and and let's
Bonnie you have anything else add to
[47:38] what Okay,
I just I was I'm sorry I might have
[47:41] missed this. What
You talked about the survey. Is there is
[47:46] no cutoff date yet?
>> At this point we didn't have a cutoff.
[47:48] » Okay, so then you'll cut it off and that
will get summarized.
[47:52] » Yeah, it will will at the at the next
zoning meeting we'll know.
[47:55] » And I understand why you wouldn't want
to cut it off. You want to get as many
[47:58] people Okay.
>> I think at each each workshop, too, when
[48:01] we talked about the survey, a few more
people go on and so we get a little push
[48:06] right after some public
>> Yeah.
[48:08] » event.
>> Okay. Um moving to new business, um
[48:13] I just wanted to kind of get, you know,
take people's temperature. You know,
[48:18] we've uh
gone through,
[48:21] um you know,
zoning processes in the works, there's
[48:24] committees in the works. We have all
these issues
[48:27] kind of on the town's agenda.
So, given that the makeup of this
[48:33] committee represents these three
commissions, I just wanted to
[48:37] you know, not make any decisions or
recommendations, but just get a sense of
[48:42] where people's
at this point, you know,
[48:46] what are the issues with housing and
commercial districts? Where do we stand?
[48:49] What are we thinking?
Just in a preliminary basis. Anyone
[48:54] could jump in.
Um
[48:56] » Well, as I said, the house the housing
and commercial districts, uh
[49:01] obviously, we've got, you know, it's
allowed right now.
[49:05] So, by state statute.
>> Right.
[49:07] » So, there's not a question about that.
It's about how to do it right.
[49:12] » Right.
>> Um in a town where we have limited
[49:14] amount of
commercial, how do we maintain that? So,
[49:19] that was the what So, that that's the
rationale that the commission made a
[49:23] decision on
was to
[49:26] um
make sure that if you were doing housing
[49:30] um in a commercial area, that it you had
to maintain some of the commercial. You
[49:34] couldn't just do mixed use. It had to be
um you know, multi-use.
[49:39] And then, um
the other piece of that was
[49:45] um and that the zoning commission made
the decision on was to require an
[49:49] affordable housing piece to that, which
is not required by statute, but we did
[49:53] require that. So, that's the that's the
zoning commission's stance at this
[49:57] point.
Um I think generally
[50:01] in commercial districts, I think there's
um
[50:07] you know, I think I think that generally
the commission is looking at that it's
[50:11] okay if we have
multiple use or you know, but but we
[50:16] need to have a very well-defined
the one thing we want to maintain is the
[50:20] integrity of the commercial piece. So,
that's that's I think that's a strong
[50:24] feeling.
>> And like I say
[50:27] I think
EDC does have a a point and I know this
[50:31] came up with RiverCOG, too, about you
know, if you
[50:35] put too much housing in your commercial
area, we don't have a lot of commercial
[50:39] area. So, you're competing, you know,
and how do you balance that? That's
[50:44] where I thought, you know, EDC's input
is is very valuable.
[50:52] I know you you said you know, you and I
perfectly understand RiverCOG
[50:56] recommended that you quickly change your
zoning to allow for the new law,
[51:04] but when you
are there outstanding issues that you
[51:08] think have to go back and now look at?
Or what would they
[51:12] » got a little like I brought up that the
idea of the, you know, like should we
[51:16] require that
>> Yeah, okay.
[51:19] » have to do it. You know, should we clar-
should we clarify that it doesn't have
[51:23] to be bottom
commercial up up top
[51:28] residential. Do we need to clarify that
you could do it different ways or
[51:32] whatever? So, we we need to look at it.
I mean, we did what we needed to do to
[51:36] make sure we main- maintain control of
the zones. Um
[51:42] » As of July
>> As of July 1st, but um you we certainly
[51:47] and we haven't really discussed it
beyond that except for what we're
[51:50] hearing from everybody and we know we
want to look at it more.
[51:53] » Yeah, it seemed to me you know, you
could have sit back for a minute and
[51:56] say, okay, we have a why why did the
state do this?
[52:00] And uh
you know, I'm assuming what's happened
[52:04] is that
you know, they recognized that lots of
[52:09] planners are indicating that if you want
to keep your and especially the small
[52:14] municipalities
your commercial commercial district
[52:18] viable
that given the decline in retail
[52:24] uh
that you need you know housing
[52:28] and that if you put it in you know, your
area where the center of town
[52:33] [clears throat]
that's going to be an impetus to
[52:37] you know,
have a viable future with your
[52:40] commercial district.
>> I wouldn't say it was just about small
[52:43] towns. I think we have large-scale
office buildings
[52:47] everywhere that are vacant. So, I think
across the state they're looking at what
[52:52] to do with you know, with vacancies.
>> seems to me that you know, um Martha
[52:57] didn't want to talk about it was going
to do a plan, but
[53:00] which is you know,
obviously an
[53:03] issue going forward, but
you know, when you think about it, I
[53:07] mean it's pretty obvious that there are
three or four ways to increase
[53:11] affordable
generally affordable housing.
[53:15] » Old Lyme.
>> Right. One is
[53:17] ADUs
and I understand why the town wanted to
[53:21] opt out cuz people at the beach saw that
as a threat.
[53:24] But the fact of the matter is that's the
single best way to increase housing
[53:29] in areas where for people for whom it
will be supported and economically and
[53:34] socially
beneficial, right? So, Mike Bocchino did
[53:39] a whole system and let's take this and
apply it to Old Lyme for the people who
[53:44] want it and can use it and not for the
people to whom it's a threat. That's all
[53:47] been done.
That could be adopted tomorrow. That's
[53:50] number one. That's a zoning issue. Two
is that the state
[53:54] law doesn't really give you much in the
way of
[53:59] potentially doesn't give you much about
commercial areas because it isn't
[54:04] economic for many people to take a
commercial area and build nine units,
[54:08] right? Or eight units.
So, the real question for zoning is
[54:11] going to be how you know, do you want to
open up commercial
[54:15] zones in some systematic way to
encourage housing and control housing
[54:20] and what kind of housing goes in there,
whether it's for Cherrystone's people
[54:24] want to do
60 or 30 or 80 houses or for Hall's Road
[54:28] somebody wants to come and do you know,
15 or 20 houses going to 30 houses. So,
[54:35] you know, it's
targeting commercial zones for the right
[54:39] amount of housing so it's not so dense
that people go crazy about it. That's
[54:44] number two. That's a huge ability to
increase
[54:48] the middle housing and a little bit of
affordable housing.
[54:52] The third is um
Beach and elsewhere
[54:56] lots of buildings that you know, are not
or traditionally not um
[55:01] uh year-round houses. Now, that's not
entirely a zoning issue. It may be
[55:05] partly a zoning issue because but it's
partly a way that is the town or the
[55:09] state or the federal government have
money to help people do that. You say,
[55:14] you know, if you
fix up your house, renovate your house
[55:18] to a year-round house
and rent it out or sell it or you sell
[55:23] it to somebody do that,
what makes that economic
[55:27] to create a year-round
more affordable unit of housing?
[55:32] And that's something that the town needs
to look at in in of what's available
[55:36] from other sources, but also other towns
do incentives for that. I mean, you can
[55:41] say we'll give you a 30% off your the
increase in your taxes for 5 years or
[55:46] something like that.
So, there are all kinds of economic
[55:48] incentives that the town could consider.
Might be rejected.
[55:53] But, those are the three ways, it seems
to me,
[55:56] that you really have an impact on the
housing stock of this community.
[56:01] » And And two of the three Two of the
three are zoning.
[56:03] » Yeah. So, one of the And that's And
that's why
[56:06] um you know, one of the things we really
need to do is look at the affordable
[56:10] housing report. It's an excellent
report.
[56:13] » Yeah.
>> And really say like, "Okay, what are the
[56:16] The work that has been done.
>> Right.
[56:18] » How do we use that when we're working
with the plan at RiverCOG, as well as
[56:23] you know, changes in zoning. So, we are
looking at all of that. And it's really
[56:27] important that we continue to
>> Isn't it correct, I mean,
[56:31] the that re- report and work done by
affordable housing
[56:36] » Yeah.
>> It's a good report. It's a very
[56:38] » approved by the Board of Selectmen.
>> So, isn't that really
[56:41] what what our policy is? I don't know
>> That's why
[56:45] » what the implementation has been, but
>> Well, that's the the thing, you know,
[56:50] and that's why
>> done basically.
[56:52] » Right. The work is done.
>> Yeah, but that That was completed what,
[56:55] 2 years ago, I think?
>> Yeah.
[56:57] » 3 years ago. I mean, so it's new. And we
knew we were going to be doing the We
[57:01] were doing the update of the zoning.
>> Yeah.
[57:03] » So, we're like, we're going to take that
and update it. We you know, cuz if we
[57:07] just
said, "Okay, here's the report." And
[57:09] said, "Well, you know, okay, now we'll
do this guy."
[57:12] » Okay.
>> doing it as part of the update.
[57:16] » All right, let's move on. Uh again, just
kind of just people's uh taking
[57:21] temperature and
ideas about ADUs. It's It's As we talked
[57:27] about, it's probably one of the
main tools that's potential to expand,
[57:33] You know, I know the
state has been toying with legislation
[57:37] to
uh
[57:39] you know,
make it
[57:42] uh easier to
uh have ADUs in communities and trying
[57:48] to eliminate some of the
municipal rules that are preventing it
[57:53] or not preventing it, but containing it
somewhat. So,
[57:59] just you know, what what's taking
people's temperature, where do we see
[58:03] that fitting in this whole thing cuz I
think it's going to be an important
[58:08] tool. Anyone?
>> All right.
[58:10] For my short time being focused on this,
which is a little over a month,
[58:15] it seems to me that that seems to be the
most popular option that people
[58:20] I wouldn't necessarily say popular. I
would say they're open to it. And if
[58:28] there's a change that they would easily
digest, it would be that.
[58:33] Um that primarily. That's just my take
from what I've seen in reactions and
[58:39] comments and stuff, but it's a very
very short time that I've focused on.
[58:45] » Okay.
>> You know, planning just has you know,
[58:49] very broad statements allowing ADUs and
that's all, but they have not planning
[58:56] has not gone further
in detailing and saying, "Hey, it's it
[59:01] work it should fit here, should fit
here." Should that
[59:05] something planning should do?
What do you think?
[59:08] » Um
>> Or leave it to zoning?
[59:11] » Do you
Well, I mean, are you looking like
[59:15] I mean, zoning is who zones. So, if
you're talking about location of zones,
[59:19] I think the planning is
you know, I mean, if there is some area
[59:24] that or something that would be neat
unique from a more planning perspective
[59:27] than a zoning perspective.
But otherwise, I think it's being
[59:30] handled by zoning, but
>> Okay.
[59:33] » I mean, it's very broad.
>> ADUs have always been allowed, but are
[59:38] very restrictive.
>> Right.
[59:40] » And the so
ADUs that where you have a separate unit
[59:45] on the same lot has not been allowed,
but but within a structure, but very
[59:52] restrictive and jumping through a lot of
hoops. That's the impression that I get
[59:56] from people.
>> It's only allowed like in our 80 and 40,
[1:00:00] right?
>> of your space and
[1:00:04] um
you know, it it's I think it's a special
[1:00:07] permit.
>> Well, the state yeah, special permit.
[1:00:10] The state basically
has a rule that would
[1:00:15] allow ADUs is is a pretty good rule for
allowing it for
[1:00:20] fast-tracking ADUs.
Um
[1:00:24] at least half the towns in Connecticut
opted out.
[1:00:28] And we opted out. So, the question is
>> Well, that was grandma. Wasn't that
[1:00:32] grandma
um what they call granny pods?
[1:00:36] » Yeah.
>> Where you could put a structure on your
[1:00:39] property to house a family member
for a short time. It would be something
[1:00:46] that you would remove.
This was
[1:00:49] 10 years ago?
>> No.
[1:00:51] 4 years ago the
>> 4 years ago the state passed
[1:00:55] a law that says
that towns shall adopt
[1:01:00] a process of allowing ADUs of a certain
size and a certain whether attached or
[1:01:05] unattached in your property.
Uh with without a basically
[1:01:11] is required without a hearing to have a
permit to grant a permit.
[1:01:15] But it only passed the state legislature
because in the end there's so many towns
[1:01:20] complained
that it was the it was an opt-out. So,
[1:01:23] most many towns opted out. We opted out
without any discussion at all. It's all
[1:01:28] I think we should opt out. This is the
state, okay.
[1:01:31] Mike is did a zoning ordinance which
says, well, here are the places in town
[1:01:37] this would really benefit people. And
and the and those happen to be areas
[1:01:41] where people should it's it's in their
family interest and their economic
[1:01:45] interest to support it. So, it should be
a no-brainer. That was 2 and 1/2 or 3
[1:01:50] years ago. And it's sitting there. It
could be adopted tomorrow. The analysis
[1:01:55] was
was incredibly good. I mean, it's 45
[1:01:59] minutes of explaining why
certain zoning current locations should
[1:02:04] get this and
not based on the understanding the
[1:02:07] politics of people wouldn't like it for
their property or people would like it
[1:02:11] for their
>> Is zoning considering
[1:02:14] that
>> Well, we don't have you know, unless
[1:02:17] it's if it's in the affordable housing
report, we have it. Yeah, Mike when he
[1:02:21] was on the zoning commission never
brought this to us.
[1:02:24] So, I don't know if he was going to
bring it up or if he thought it needed
[1:02:26] to be tweaked. I don't know. But, if
it's in the affordable housing report,
[1:02:31] then we have it.
>> I sat through an hour presentation
[1:02:33] [clears throat] here by him.
>> But, did but what I'm saying is is that
[1:02:37] in the report is it in the report?
>> I don't know. Hold on.
[1:02:40] » I'll check.
>> So, it would seem to me
[1:02:45] » I mean, if it if if not, then she you
know, affordable housing should bring
[1:02:50] that
>> I'll update update it since it was done
[1:02:52] 2 years ago and bring it to zoning,
right?
[1:02:55] » So, I mean, it should be you you can you
can pass that along and share it as part
[1:02:59] of
>> That's what we're looking for for the
[1:03:01] input.
>> Like, if you have if you have a model
[1:03:04] ordinance you want us to consider,
>> Well, send it both to the planning and
[1:03:08] zoning.
>> Send it to planning and well, you really
[1:03:10] need to send it to Eric
>> Right.
[1:03:12] » so that it's in our record and well, not
Eric's too.
[1:03:18] » Right.
>> Well, we need to get a hold of Mike.
[1:03:21] I really don't know.
>> I I'll do it Jason.
[1:03:26] » Would you ask him if
>> Yeah, I can I can I can email Mike.
[1:03:30] » Is it another country or across the
river over the seas?
[1:03:38] Well, I'm glad what you said that you're
the what you hear is that
[1:03:42] ADUs because they're obviously was some
opposition to There was no discussion
[1:03:48] about whether this was good for Lyme.
>> I think that
[1:03:51] » of Selectmen meeting and then or some
meeting and they said, "Oh, well, we
[1:03:55] were going to get rid of this. We don't
want this."
[1:03:57] » I think a lot of times what happens and
this happened with the granny pods is
[1:04:01] that similar to what you had to deal
with by July 1st
[1:04:07] the the boards want to really analyze
and know what they're doing. So, before
[1:04:13] approving something on very short
notice, they're going to say, "Let's not
[1:04:19] do it. Protect ourselves."
>> I think that's right. It was a three six
[1:04:23] three months to
>> It's
[1:04:24] » You had to opt out in three months or
else
[1:04:27] you're stuck with it.
>> And that's just not enough time for a
[1:04:29] zoning commission to approve rules to
something that's being shoved on them.
[1:04:35] So, um you know, a lot of people will
judge that, but it's probably the best
[1:04:42] the safest option for a commission until
they do just what we're doing now and
[1:04:47] that's really looking at the whole thing
and how some parts affect others and you
[1:04:52] know, that takes a lot of work.
>> Yep. The other thing which uh you know,
[1:04:57] Halls Road reminds you is
Is there any reason at all why Old Lyme
[1:05:03] shouldn't have a design review
requirements?
[1:05:07] » Well, that's well, that's part That's
the discussion. Those are all the
[1:05:11] Those are all the things I'm bringing
held up. So, you know, so one of the
[1:05:13] things is I have all of comments and
will bring them back, but I really think
[1:05:17] if you have these we don't have written
comments from your commissions.
[1:05:22] » Right?
>> Yeah, either of your commissions.
[1:05:24] » Yeah.
>> So, if we I mean, other commissions
[1:05:28] Conservation Commission has submitted us
written comments.
[1:05:31] Um, the
quality of the Open Space Commission has
[1:05:34] submitted written comments. Wetlands
Protection Board has submitted written
[1:05:38] comments. We really could use written
comments from your commissions. And try
[1:05:41] » Yeah, well, what planning decided um
I would do thrills with but anyway was
[1:05:49] it
we brought up I brought up the issue
[1:05:52] should we
you know, the plan of conservation
[1:05:55] development uh
legally has to be updated every 10
[1:06:01] years, but the law says you can update
it anytime. You don't have to wait the
[1:06:06] 10 year.
So, I said is this a good time to do it?
[1:06:10] It seems given
>> But you don't need to do that to provide
[1:06:13] us comments.
>> I know, but so we didn't do that and the
[1:06:18] decision was to look at each issue as it
comes up and then
[1:06:26] then the planning would
would um
[1:06:31] weigh it.
>> But I think but I think the issues that
[1:06:34] are being brought up you better have all
the meetings. So, housing commercial
[1:06:39] districts that's has happened already
because it's by the law. You guys should
[1:06:44] be talking about that and provide what
are your comments about it?
[1:06:46] » Same thing with ADUs.
>> Same thing.
[1:06:48] » Yeah, I agree.
>> If you get back from that that you know,
[1:06:51] that would be really good for you to
bring up at your because we don't have
[1:06:54] those comments from planning.
And I think it would be good for you to
[1:06:59] you know, so that and if there's any
you know
[1:07:03] any part of our staff you know,
understand we're regulatory. So, we have
[1:07:06] regulations for any part of our
regulation that should change. Can we
[1:07:11] just say generally allow ADUs while
okay.
[1:07:15] We know, you know, we we we kind of
heard that that people are open to this.
[1:07:19] But then how do you do it? So if you
have any thoughts from that more
[1:07:23] regulatory perspective. And when I'm
saying you don't have to give us zoning,
[1:07:28] but it could say, you know what? We
think that, you know, on larger lots
[1:07:33] this should happen on smaller lots this
should happen. In the beach community
[1:07:36] this should happen. If you have thoughts
that are very general without saying,
[1:07:40] you know,
that would be fine, too.
[1:07:43] » Okay.
All right. I will if if it first
[1:07:47] » And I think the same thing, you know,
what I said well with with affordable
[1:07:51] housing if there's very specific things
on that. Um
[1:07:55] I think I think that, you know, those
are important. And then, you know, and
[1:07:58] we want to look at those in relationship
to then what we're doing at at River
[1:08:03] Clock. How is this going to help us with
our housing? Does this make sense with
[1:08:07] our housing growth plan and I think
George is like kind of articulating
[1:08:11] like, oh, these are those concepts we
need to go forward with the housing
[1:08:15] growth plan. There may be some things
that
[1:08:19] we wait.
We've heard from people and we know that
[1:08:22] we want to tweak something, but we may
wait for the housing growth plan to be
[1:08:26] completed before we make some rush.
We're expecting some zoning changes to
[1:08:31] happen
by the close of this process, but we
[1:08:34] also think that there'll be some things
that we're just going to say, yeah. You
[1:08:38] know what? What's this housing cuz we
don't want to have to change something
[1:08:42] after that housing growth plan is done.
Just change right away. So
[1:08:46] it's kind of a
>> But how does the timing of the two work?
[1:08:50] How does the timing of the complete
zoning rewrite
[1:08:54] and the housing plan fit together?
>> They don't. So if they So they should
[1:08:59] fit they got to fit together. They don't
because the legis the housing growth
[1:09:02] plan was legislation that came up after
we hired our contractor.
[1:09:06] » Right.
>> So, we have a the We had a
[1:09:09] We had a We hired a contractor who's
with us through March 2027. The housing
[1:09:15] growth plans aren't due until 2028.
That's because the legislation wasn't
[1:09:21] passed.
>> Well, we couldn't extend the zoning
[1:09:23] rewrite, so it Well, it implements that
zoning
[1:09:26] » that there's a cost to extending that
consultant, and that's got to be in the
[1:09:31] budget. And that takes Yeah.
while.
[1:09:35] » But but but let's just back off on that.
We are doing that to a point. What we
[1:09:39] will do is change
stuff that's obvious,
[1:09:44] you know? But if there's things that
need to wait, we will wait. And then if
[1:09:48] we need to either hire a consultant or
work with River Cog on
[1:09:52] the the What we want is the regulations
to be in really good spot that then we
[1:09:57] just need to tweak tweak them to fit the
housing growth plan. But we want it But
[1:10:02] we You know, so there may be certain
things we just don't do
[1:10:06] um in terms of really, you know,
tightening up something. But I'm
[1:10:09] expecting, as I had said, that we will
be talking about commercial districts,
[1:10:13] ADUs,
and um What was the other one?
[1:10:18] Oh, the flood the flood the flood stuff.
That's what I'm expecting we will be
[1:10:24] have a lot of a lot of focus on because
we're already in, you know,
[1:10:29] That That's kind of what we we've been
hearing from the most,
[1:10:32] and what's going to make the most sense
for us in terms of what we need to do.
[1:10:37] » Okay. So, uh before we adjourn, I just
want to mention,
[1:10:41] you know, if you have any ideas for
agenda items going forward, let me know.
[1:10:46] Really, the only one that we've agreed
on to consistently have is reports from
[1:10:53] River Cog and um um, on housing and
planning. it. So,
[1:10:57] you know,
your input is welcome on what our agenda
[1:11:02] item should be. So, let me
>> talk about getting the people who
[1:11:07] uh
claim they have
[1:11:10] uh an option to develop the Cherrystone.
>> That would be good.
[1:11:13] » They had us They came before the zoning
committee to do a
[1:11:17] But, they
>> It's Cherrystone. People who are
[1:11:19] interested in in Cherrystone.
>> The developers.
[1:11:24] » Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
>> I mean, it would be interesting because
[1:11:27] I I'm trying to get a hold of the plan.
They laid out a whole, you know, 150
[1:11:33] units or something. Um
plans for developing Cherrystone.
[1:11:39] » You know
>> think they ever actually
[1:11:42] submitted it to zoning.
>> Right. No, no, they did they just This
[1:11:46] was a I mean, it's
>> It was a discussion.
[1:11:48] » It's a non-existent possibility right
now.
[1:11:51] » And
>> It just came before zoning to
[1:11:52] » I I thought they have a
Can I could
[1:11:56] possi- I'm I don't know for sure, but I
thought they they have a contract that
[1:12:02] says they would purchase the property if
the zoning is changed. Is
[1:12:07] Is that what some of you've heard or
not?
[1:12:08] » I
>> Yeah, they a lot of times they have that
[1:12:11] final
>> I don't know.
[1:12:12] » But, they haven't come to us with
anything formal. They came
[1:12:15] » No, no, they just did
>> No, no, no, they they had a you know,
[1:12:18] discussion.
Um and there was, you know, I think
[1:12:22] there was interesting discussion in
terms of you know,
[1:12:25] where they need to go. I mean, one of
the things we're really be looking at is
[1:12:31] you know,
talk to us about the key issues that we
[1:12:36] have when we're looking from a zoning
perspective.
[1:12:38] » Yeah.
>> And that is on-site septic,
[1:12:41] um storm water management, on-site uh uh
well, you know, water water supply, um
[1:12:47] and then, you know, just the overall
protection of of, you know, the natural
[1:12:51] resources that needs to happen. So,
um because, you know, we want to make
[1:12:58] sure we have an integrity. So, I mean,
but I don't think I think having
[1:13:02] something like that come on our agenda
is like I guess we shouldn't really be
[1:13:06] talking too much about it since it's not
on this agenda.
[1:13:09] But,
but we couldn't
[1:13:11] What do you think about it?
>> you know, I think we I'd love to maybe
[1:13:16] find out. I don't want to bring anything
here that if they're going to submit to
[1:13:21] zoning authority.
>> I understand. That would not be That
[1:13:23] would not be right.
>> Well, that's right. I hadn't thought
[1:13:26] about that. It's
Yeah. We could also potentially invite
[1:13:31] the new owners of
uh properties on Halls Road
[1:13:35] and just see what their
feeling is. So, I just
[1:13:42] I just threw that out.
>> Yeah, I mean, you know, I think that's
[1:13:44] getting into the weeds that we're not
sure I think that's part of our charge.
[1:13:47] I I appreciate that everybody is That's
the charge of the individual
[1:13:51] commissions. I think if planning wanted
to invite them and say what's your plan
[1:13:55] for the then it's a whole different
thing. I think you can I think we need
[1:13:59] to be very careful
um because of what our respective roles
[1:14:03] are and when they might be coming
between our before our commissions.
[1:14:07] » For zoning changes, that's
It's a challenge for us to have that as
[1:14:12] a challenge.
>> I mean, I think I think, you know,
[1:14:16] I I I think that would be more
appropriate for planning to have that a
[1:14:19] bigger discussion with folks if you
wanted to have that. Usually, I will say
[1:14:23] in most municipalities I've worked for,
it's staff that holds those
[1:14:26] conversations.
>> Okay, should we
[1:14:30] » I think that's a good idea.
>> Motion to adjourn, anyone?
[1:14:32] » I'll move to
to adjourn. Do we adjourn?
[1:14:38] » Second.
>> Second.
[1:14:39] » Okay.
All those in favor?
[1:14:41] » I.
>> Okay.
[1:14:43] Good. Thank you.
>> Thank you.