OLD LYME – The Zoning Commission on Monday evening voted decisively to quash a proposal intended by its proponents to transform Halls Road over time into a livable, walkable, ‘shoppable’ town center.
Members of the commission credited vocal opposition evident in the “No Way Overlay” movement and called for engagement from local land use officials and residents in crafting an alternate future for the short span of road between two highway interchanges.
The vote to deny the application passed 4-1. The lone dissenting vote came from Democrat Mary Jo Nosal.
The proposal hinged on the creation of a voluntary overlay district on Halls Road that would allow apartments and condominiums to be built above, or behind, ground-floor businesses set close to the street. The underlying commercial district that had allowed for construction of strip malls and mostly one- and two-story businesses over the latter half of the last century would have remained intact for property owners who weren’t interested in adding a residential component to their plans for retail shops, restaurants and offices.
The overlay district proposal, created by the Halls Road Improvements Committee, was approved by the Old Lyme Board of Selectmen in a 2-1 vote in November. The application to the Zoning Commission was signed by First Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker.
Shoemaker earlier in the day resisted calls to withdraw the application. She said she would let the zoning process come to its own conclusion.
Zoning Commission member Jane Marsh, in explaining her decision, referenced the final session of a public hearing that concluded last week in front of an audience in the Lyme-Old Lyme High School auditorium that maxed out the room’s 550-person capacity and left upwards of 100 people unable to get in.
A majority of those in attendance at the time held “Vote No” signs. They spoke about the potential for too many apartments and condominiums – anywhere from 200 to 1,200 of them, depending on who was doing the calculation and which variables were considered – in a location with limited septic options and no public sewer system. They called out a lack of information throughout the years-long process and not enough opportunity for residents to get involved.
Marsh said she voted against the proposal, “Primarily because of everybody who came to that public hearing.”
Shoemaker after the vote said the Board of Selectmen will discuss how to move forward on improving Halls Road at a meeting over the next few weeks. She said Halls Road Improvements Committee Chairwoman Edie Twining has already expressed interest in working together to plan the next steps.
Twining on Monday night declined to give her own comment. But she referred to an impassioned speech from Zoning Commission member Denise Savageau, who called on members of the Planning Commission, Zoning Commission and other relevant agencies to work together with input from the public – instead of working in “silos” – to come up with a new plan.
Twining could be seen during the meeting taking notes as Savageau spoke.
“Denise was 100% correct,” she said afterward.
Editor’s Notes: i) This story has been updated with a change in the opening sentence.
ii) Full story coming Tuesday.
iii) A reminder of Our Policy on Comments.
“The Zoning Commission on Monday evening voted decisively to quash a proposal that would have transformed Halls Road over time into a livable, walkable, ‘shoppable’ town center. ”
Seems that Elizabeth Regan can forecast the future. Four out of five Commissioners didn’t think that outcome was so inevitable.
In my opinion the committee needs changes going forward.
As Rita Mae Brown said “Insanity is making the same mistakes over and over and expecting a different result.”
Just my opinion.
“The Zoning Commission on Monday evening voted decisively to quash a proposal that would have transformed Halls Road over time into a livable, walkable, ‘shoppable’ town center. ”
I guess Elizabeth Regan can forecast the future. Four out of Five Commissioners didn’t think that outcome was so inevitable.
Thanks for your comment, Robin. It is a fair criticism but it is my error, not Elizabeth’s. It was very late when I was editing the article and leaving the statement as it was originally written was an oversight. I have now amended it.
Olwen Logan