[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.

Housing Strategic Planning Steering Committee Meeting 9/3/26

Transcript