Groton Open Space Association

Groton City P&Z Unit Hears Zoning Change Plan; Hearings Continued

By Syma A. Ebbin

CITY OF GROTON–The city Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing May 16, 2006, on proposed amendments to the city’s zoning regulations.

With proposed section 2.7, the applicant Bernard Pellegrino, lawyer representing Forestland Groton LLC (owner of the Smith Property on Shennecossett Road), seeks to amend the regulations to allow a high-density residential development “overlay” to existing regulations. With proposed section 2.8, the applicant wants to allow high-density residential development specifically for “active” seniors over 55 years of age.

The City Council chambers were filled to capacity. All seats were taken and residents stood in doorways and hallways to hear the proceedings.

The hearing began with a presentation by Mr. Pellegrino and Gary Sharpe (engineer for the applicant and resident of nearby Bakers Cove subdivision), outlining their proposed language for section 2.7 of the zoning regulations. They said the change would give the Planning and Zoning Commission additional flexibility and the ability to preserve valuable features of the property. They showed some posters of a development built by Forestland in Old Saybrook.

Barbara Goodrich, the city planner, recapped their proposal and displayed a map with properties that would fit some of the criteria for the zoning change (parcel of at least 8 acres in size and located in the R-12 or R-8 zones), including a swath of open space as well as the Municipal Building. The primary targets of this change would be the Smith property and property owned by Betty Giesing on Meridian Street.

One member of the public, Allen Palmer, spoke in favor of the proposal. The remainder of the public testimony (approximately 10 individuals) was against the proposed amendment. Residents were concerned about the impact of the high-density development (twice the currently zoned density) on local property values, as well as traffic congestion, impervious surfaces and runoff. Concern was also expressed that the proposal has no provision for public open space, or specific protections for the natural features or environment. It was also asserted that the proposal constitutes spot zoning (narrowly benefiting only one property owner), rather than an actual zoning overlay. Ms. Goodrich said this was an important issue and requested that the city attorney review the regulations to make a determination.

The commission made no decision and continued the hearing until June 20 at 7:30 p.m. They would also open and extend the hearing for amendment 2.8 at this time as well.