TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Architectural Review Board
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
Telephone (860) 395-3131 FAX (860) 395-1216
MINUTES
Special Meeting
Saturday, January 7, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
Acton Library, 2nd Floor Program Room
60 Old Boston Post Road
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman David Wight called the special meeting to order at 9:20 a.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
David Wight, Chairman Kingman Snow
Elizabeth Swenson, Vice Chairman
Guy Pendleton
Frank Vinciguerra
Jonathan Gibbs (arrived at 9:45 a.m.)
Attendant Staff
Janet Vinciguerra, Recording Clerk
III. WORKSHOP
A. Proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Old Saybrook, Section 7.4, Setbacks and Section 64.5.3, Signs.
Petitioner: Max’s Place, LLC – owner or contract purchaser of lots on Boston Post Road, Spencer Plains Road and Center Road West, Gateway Business B-4 District, which are being merged into a single lot of 17 acres, more or less, for the purpose of grocery store/retail development.
Mr. Wight opened the discussion by stating that while the proposed text purports to implement the Route 1 Corridor Study, it in fact does not for the following reasons:
1. Whereas the Route 1 Corridor Study recommends nodes with connectors in between, the proposed text treats all areas alike.
2. Whereas the Route 1 Corridor Study recommends room for sidewalks, trees, bicycle paths, pedestrian amenities and possible single row of parking in front of buildings, the proposed text would bring the buildings up to ten feet from the street at the sacrifice of all else.
3. Whereas the Route 1 Corridor Study talks about the character of the buildings and making them pedestrian friendly, the proposed text would allow a 35’ high blank back wall 10’ from the street.
4. Whereas the Route 1 Corridor Study deals with Route 1, the proposed text applies to the B-2, B-3, and B-4 zones no matter where they occur.
Ms. Swenson reintroduced the concept of Planned Development Districts, particularly in that the Town of Shelton believes they have achieved a higher quality of design by having these districts in place.
The Board members then discussed the specific proposal of a 10’ setback. They concluded that 18’ to 20’ setback from the curb line is preferable. Both Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Vinciguerra noted that the draft Sidewalk Plan calls for 4 to 8 feet-wide sidewalks in high traffic areas.
Mr. Gibbs suggested decreasing the building setback and increasing the parking setback to 20 feet each. Again, the concept of Planned Development Districts was discussed and suggested that this particular development project would be better served with such a district rather than a town-wide zoning change.
In terms of the proposed text amendment concerning signs, the Board members questioned the need for tall shopping center “directory” signs with multiple store signs listed underneath.
In conclusion, the ARB recommends that the Zoning Commission should reject the entire text amendments proposal for the reasons listed above. If such amendments are to be considered by the Zoning Commission, then the text amendment proposals as rewritten by Attorney Mark Branse are recommended.
(NOTE: Chairman Wight departed the meeting at 10:40 a.m. Ms. Swenson assumed chairmanship for the remainder of the meeting.)
Furthermore, the proposed text amendments are too generally applicable and town-wide to conform with our understanding of the recommendations of the Route 1 Corridor Study or the previous recommendations of the ARB. Our understanding of the Route 1 Corridor Study is that each “node” therein described is worthy of individual consideration for such changes in the regulations.
The ARB strongly recommends for these nodes Planned Development Districts and Planned Village Districts, which offer beneficial alternative density, setback, and parking standard as well as consideration of building massing, history and context, and pedestrian accommodations.
Generally, if the Town favors a streetscape with “liner” buildings, we must understand that as long as building setbacks are more stringent than parking setbacks, parking to the front of the building is likely to be the preferred option for developers.
Additionally, the ARB recommends decreasing the allowable height within the 50-foot front setback of one foot for every two foot reduction of that setback.
In terms of signage in general, the ARB strongly recommends to reduce the wattage of internally illuminated signs, and also reduce the signage area of signs town-wide. The Board generally favors monument-style signs over pylon (“lollypop”) and double post signs. Full directory-style signs with too many listings should not be on state highways. Such signs contribute to unsafe driving conditions.
The ARB does not support any increase in total allowable signage. Provisions for multiple shared entrances could be made without increasing total square footage.
The ARB further recommends density bonuses to any proposed affordable housing development and encourages mixed-use development.
Mr. Vinciguerra suggested that the ARB establish a representative to the Zoning Commission to attend each ZC meeting. It was further suggested that such representation could be rotated and shared among the ARB membership. The ARB members present agreed this would be helpful to convey information to the ZC.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 12:18 p.m. until the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, January 9, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Old Saybrook Town Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 302 Main St.
MOVED by G. Pendleton SECONDED by F. Vinciguerra
IN FAVOR: E. Swenson, J. Gibbs, G. Pendleton, and F. Vinciguerra.
OPPOSED: none. ABSTAINED: none. APPROVED: 4-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janet S. Vinciguerra, Recording Clerk
| 
