TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Architectural Review Board
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
Telephone (860) 395-3131 FAX (860) 395-1216
January 10, 2006
TO: Madeleine B. Fish, Chairman, Old Saybrook Zoning Commission
Chris Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Land Use Department
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
FROM: David H. Wight, Chairman, Old Saybrook Architectural Review Board
RE: Petition for Proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Old Saybrook….. Petitioner: Max’s Place: 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 for 17 acres, more or less, for the purpose of grocery store/retail development.
Agent: David M. Royston, Its Attorney Duly Authorized
The ARB recommends the Zoning Commission reject the entire text amendments proposal 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.
If the text amendment is to be considered by the Zoning Commission, then the text amendment proposals as rewritten by Attorney Mark Branse are recommended.
In addition to Attorney Branse’s recommendations, the ARB feels that the proposed text amendments are too generally applicable 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 either Planned Development Districts or 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.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments,
DHW:jv
Attachments: (1) History in State Preservation Law
(2) Village Districts vs. Historic Districts
(3) The State Bill Approving Village Districts
(4) Middletown Downtown Village District
(5) Plainfield Planned Development District
| 
