REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.
Town Hall – 1st Floor Conference Room
302 Main Street
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Janis Esty called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present
Janis Esty
Cathryn Flanagan
Donald Ranaudo
David Shearer
Michael Urban, Seated for Robert Missel
Kenneth Soudan, arrived at 7:35 p.m.
Members Absent
Robert Missel
Kathleen Sugland
Staff Present
Christina Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Kathleen Noyes, Recording Clerk
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Minutes
MOTION to approve the minutes from December 19, 2012 as presented; MADE by C. Flanagan; SECONDED by M. Urban; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Flanagan, J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, D. Shearer, M. Urban; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
There is no new correspondence.
C. Committee, Representative & Staff Reports
D. Shearer reported that the Route 1 Task Force is still working on their vision for Route 1 East. They have hired an outside firm to bring an economic viewpoint for Route 1 East. The Task Force has developed a template for transportation, economics, landscape, etc. so each specific section of development will get its own focus. When they are ready, the Route 1 Task Force would like to present to the Planning Commission to get their input.
IV. REFERRALS
A. “Hotel Suites in the SP-2 and SP-3 Districts” Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations
Section 53.1 Special Standards for Specific Uses to reduce parking ratio requirement
Petitioner: Saybrook Pt. Marina, LLC & Rosewood, LLC Agent: David M. Royston, Esq.
Attorney David Royston presented for the applicant. Steve Tagliatela, Owner of Saybrook Point Inn, was also present. Attorney Royston explained that Section 53 of the Zoning Regulations was adopted in 2009 and amended in 2010. He described where the SP2 and SP3 Districts are located on Bridge and College Streets.
Attorney Royston said the SP3 District, under the current zoning regulation, allows, by Special Exception, a hotel suite or hotel room as accessory to the hotel within a specified district, The Saybrook Point Inn. Previously, pursuant to that regulation, a Special Exception was granted by the Zoning Commission in 2011 for 21 Bridge Street. They cannot get more bedrooms than the number that were pre-existing on the property.
Section 53 has a list of requirements for the Special Exception including that the number of parking spaces will be 1 ¼ spaces per bedroom. The applicant would like to reduce this to 1 parking space for each hotel room.
This does not increase the yield for the number of bedrooms or suites allowed on the property for 19 Bridge Street. Saybrook Point Marina, LLC is a co-applicant owned by members of the Tagliatela family as is Rosewood, LLC. 19 Bridge Street will have 6 bedrooms. 21 Bridge Street will have 8 bedrooms.
If the modification to the Special Exception were granted, the new parking standard would be applied. The total number of parking spaces would be reduced. Attorney Royston emphasized that the parking spaces between 19 & 21 Bridge Street are not shared spaces.
This Special Exception has been allocated to the SP-3 District only. There is no other SP3 District in Old Saybrook. Therefore, this regulation change will not affect any other areas in town.
MOTION to approve “Hotel Suites in the SP-2 and SP-3 Districts” Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations, Section 53.1 Special Standards for Specific Uses to reduce parking ratio requirement; Petitioner: Saybrook Point Marina, LLC & Rosewood, LLC; Agent: David M. Royston, Esquire in that it is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development under Economic Development Policies, “promotion of coastal resource features and maritime commerce” and the Policy, “to promote the Town’s historical, cultural and natural resources, marketing Old Saybrook as a year-round destination for visitors”; MADE by J. Esty; SECONDED by D. Shearer ; VOTED IN FAVOR: J.
Esty, D. Ranaudo, C. Flanagan, M. Urban, D. Shearer; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0
B. “Signs” Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations
Section 64 Design Standards for Signs, Section 9 Definitions, and Section 11 Prohibitions
Petitioner: Zoning Commission
C. Costa explained that the Zoning Commission would like to clarify the sign regulations making them easier for the public to read and understand. They’d like to reorganize and restructure the sign design standards as well. She summarized and discussed examples of regulating different types of signs around town such as Open House Signs, Park Signs, Window Signs and the reasons these amendments are being proposed.
Every time a change is being made to the Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission must review it in terms of consistency with the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Content, taste, and the color of signs cannot be regulated because those things are protected under freedom of speech. This makes political signs and church signs particularly difficult to regulate.
D. Shearer recommended column headings for the columns on the right side of the pages. He said it would make the regulations more reader friendly. C. Costa explained that there would be an entire introduction of the regulations included. Also, the Zoning Regulations are being sent out to be professionally formatted.
MOTION to approve “Signs” Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations; Section 64 Design Standards for Signs, Section 9 Definitions, and Section 11 Prohibitions Petitioner: Zoning Commission in that it is not inconsistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. MADE by J. Esty; SECONDED by D. Ranaudo; VOTED IN FAVOR: C. Flanagan, J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, D. Shearer, M. Urban; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
C. “Miscellaneous” Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations
5.1 Maps to remove supplemental maps; 9 Definitions to add “person”, to clarify “structure”; 10.5 Casualty to remove and replace; 22.2.4, 23.2.3, 24.2.5, 25.2.3, and 27.2.2 Convalescent Home to update term as Nursing Home; 51.6.4 B (2) Site Development Plans to include NAD83 data; 51.8 Posting a Bond to reflect new changes in State Legislation; 72.7.3 Temporary Certificate to require minimum necessary improvements
Petitioner: Zoning Commission
C. Costa explained each change in more detail and the reasons why the Zoning Commission is requesting the changes.
D. Shearer suggested that the definitions of “mass damage” and “mass destruction” be clarified. Other Commissioners recommended that the language remain as proposed.
M. Urban asked if these proposed changes have been reviewed by an attorney. C. Costa said all of the proposed amendments have been reviewed by Town Attorney Mark Branse.
MOTION to recommend approval of “Miscellaneous” Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations; 5.1 Maps to remove supplemental maps; 9 Definitions to add “person, to clarify, “structure” 10.5 Casualty to remove and replace; 22.2.4, 23.2.3 24.2.5 25.2.3, and 27.2.2 Convalescent Home to update term as Nursing Home; 51.6.4 B (2) Site Development Plans to include NAD 83 data; 51.8 Posting a Bond to reflect new changes in State Legislation; 72.7.3 Temporary Certificate to require minimum necessary improvements; Petitioner: Zoning Commission in that it is consistent with The Plan of Conservation and Development. MADE by D. Ranaudo; SECONDED by C. Flanagan; VOTED IN FAVOR:
C. Flanagan, J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, M. Urban, D. Shearer; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission which will be held on Wednesday, January 16, 2013, at 7:30 P.M., Town Hall, 302 Main Street, 1st Floor Conference Room.; MADE by C. Flanagan; SECONDED by D. Shearer; VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, C. Flanagan, M. Urban, D. Shearer; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Noyes
| 
