To the Editor:
The Old Lyme Zoning Commission needs fixing. Although it should always make decisions in the best interests of the community, sometimes its members promote their personal agendas. For example, on March 27 of this year the commission turned down the town’s application to create the Halls Road Overlay District. This proposal had been developed over a number of years by the Board of Selectmen’s Halls Road Improvements Committee. It would have significantly expanded permissible development opportunities for property owners in the Halls Road neighborhood, and it would have reduced the likelihood that highway-focused gas stations and convenience stores would be built in the area. It would not have imposed any new zoning requirements on anyone.
The Halls Road project enjoyed the approval of the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, and over 80% of the public, according to those responding to a survey conducted for the town in 2020. Nevertheless, on March 27 two alternates on the Zoning Commission, nominally unaffiliated but normally voting as Republicans, nixed the proposal in a 3 to 2 vote that required 4 votes to pass. This was a big loss for Old Lyme.
To ensure better decisions in the future, we must balance the Zoning Commission with thoughtful, talented Democrats. Denise Savageau, an extremely well-qualified Democrat, must be elected. She is an experienced environmental planner, has substantial land-use expertise, and sits on numerous, relevant boards. Incumbent Paul Orzel, unaffiliated but endorsed by the Democratic Town Committee, should also be elected.
Please join me in voting for Denise and Paul on November 7.
Sincerely,
Sandra Y. Rueb,
Old Lyme.
Hi Sandra, I rarely respond to these types of comments but I feel compelled to comment on your letter as it kind of targets me for some reason or another. I am the alternate who voted no. While I appreciate your insight into how you believe my political interests align and somehow were responsible for my no-vote, I must correct you as those are factually incorrect statements. Your comments about how it was something related to a personal agenda are just plain wrong and honestly hurtful. I have spent thousands of hours studying land use over the last 15 years to give myself what I would say is a pretty good understanding of the complex decisions we as volunteers have to make on this board. While you may believe my vote no was to sink the ship, you are seriously misinformed and lack a clear understanding of my reasons for voting no at that time. (You can always review the record and audio tapes) It was not an easy vote to cast as I know many hard-working individuals spent many years working on this. My vote was not a lack of understanding or appreciation for their hard work. I understand the need for improvements on Halls Road but that specific application that was presented to us (in my opinion) was flawed. Whether you believe it or not, I did this town a good deed by voting no, knowing full well the people that were going to come out of the woodwork to criticize my vote and judge me with statements such as your one above. The application was incomplete and it was not as simple as a yes or no vote… This was a “Very complex piece of zoning legislation” as the lawyer presented and in my opinion, would have had significant unintended consequences that a lot of people would not have foreseen unless they were sitting in my position with my knowledge base and understanding from my point of view. I do believe improvements are needed on Halls Road and I will always judge each application on its own merits but there is no need to question my individual motivations or political affiliations. My no vote was because I truly believe that was what needed to be done and that the application that was presented was not the best version it could be. It was not a Democrat or Republican-based vote. It was a fact-based vote.
Please consider making fact-based comments in the future. You can always just contact me personally and I will lay it out for you.
Thank You – Michael Barnes
Michael, stand your ground, this attack on your character is in lock step with those who attempt to relate one’s political affiliation to their stand on the issue at hand.