Groton Open Space Association

Zoning Unit Continues Floating Zone Hearing To Aug. 1

GROTON — The Zoning Commission plans to continue its public hearing Aug. 1, 2007, on a proposal to allow mixed-use commercial/residential floating zones in four areas of Groton.

The hearing began June 27, 2007, with a 2¼-hour presentation by L & L Groton LLC, the applicant for a zoning amendment to allow the floating zones. One night previously, the Planning Commission had given a favorable referral to the Zoning Commission on the application but had suggested some refinements.

Led by the applicant’s attorney, Timothy Bates, of Robinson & Cole, the presentation to Zoning put forward the view that floating zones would:

–help address southeastern Connecticut’s “housing crisis by developing workforce housing.”

–encourage “responsible residential & economic development through mixed use village patterns”

–create development that returns to New England’s village roots

–build a “nodal neighborhood while preserving and enhancing Groton’s existing community character”

The floating zones would be allowed in four of eight areas identified as development “nodes” by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development. These designated areas are nodes around: the intersection of Routes 117 and 184, downtown Groton, and Route 12 around the I-95 overpass and, to the north, Route 12 around the Ledyard border.

After receiving feedback from the Office of Planning and Development and the Groton Open Space Association, the applicant earlier had withdrawn proposals to allow floating zones in four other nodes and in the nearly 1,200 acre Industrial Park zones. It’s expected the Industrial Park initiative will return in another form. GOSA had criticized the original Industrial Park proposal for inadequate protection of open space and no safeguards against creation of cheek-by-jowl “village” developments.

GOSA explained at the hearing that it had dropped its opposition to the proposal when its scope was narrowed. However, GOSA did present a letter from its attorney, Eric Knapp of Branse, Willis & Knapp of Glastonbury, asking the commission to consider two procedural alternatives to what is contained in the application.

GOSA asked for increased time for the Planning Commission to consider Zoning Commission referrals on floating zones. As the proposal is written, the Planning Commission effectively has only 25 days to report out a referral unless it gets an extension from the applicant. Though the applicant is bound to grant such an extension, GOSA has argued that the rules should give Planning ample time without any need for an extension.

The application foresees that the decisions both to rezone an area and to adopt a so-called master plan for developing it would be made in one Zoning Commission process. GOSA has suggested that the process be broken into two parts. The first would be to decide whether an area should be rezoned and the second would be to determine what kind of development should be allowed in the zone.

GOSA also questioned whether buildings as tall as six stories ought to be allowed in floating zones, as is proposed.