This image from Google Maps shows the Roosevelt Drive (Route 34) area of Seymour.
NOTE: The Seymour Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to host a public hearing Thursday (March 21) on a number of proposed changes to the town’s “RC‑3” zone.
The hearing starts 7 p.m. downstairs in Seymour Town Hall, 1 First St.
Click here to read the public hearing notice.
Christopher Bowen, an alternate member of the commission, posted a version of this column on his Facebook page to let the public know what’s happening.
Hey! Who wants a verbose and wordy write-up of specific changes being voted on by Seymour’s Planning and Zoning commission this Thursday?
The majority of the changes involve allowing more liberal development in areas where there are no sewer systems, predominantly along Route 34 (Roosevelt Drive).
These changes are very important to those either living, working or trying to develop along the Route 34 corridor, along the Housatonic River.
The full list of changes is here.
Anyone looking for the actual ordinances can look them up here (these are specifically under Appendix A, section 10.1):
A summary of the changes are as follows, with my thoughts and explanations in parenthesis:
- Omitting the requirement under 10.1.3(a)(1) that “Garden apartments” – defined as “town houses and specialized housing for the elderly” under 10.1.1 – be served by a municipal sewer system and a public water system.
(This would allow elderly living centers to be built along the Route 34 corridor, where there are no sewers and the financial environment isn’t really ripe to bring them in. Requiring them was a safety consideration, as septics overflow if not properly maintained)
- Changing the maximum number of habitable stories from two (2) to three (3) under 10.1.3(a)(1.d)
(This would allow a third floor and more density per square foot, meaning, more people living there)
- Changing the minimum width of “interior” roads from 12’ to 10’ under 10.1.3(a)(1.f)
(This would just simply be a change to consider that cars are smaller now than they used to be)
- Changing site requirements for town houses (defined in 4.0 as “A residential building containing individual dwelling units separated by fire walls and each having private direct exterior access.” as follows:
- Remove the sewer requirement.
- Change the requirement for a connection to a public road to be from 24’ pavement width to 20’ pavement width.
- Add that one of the entrances may be a limited emergency accessway
(These are all designed to make it less onerous for people to develop housing in town)
- Remove the section on density and allow the requirements for 10.1.3 to cover.
- Change 10.1.4(d) to allow up to six (6) dwelling units per town house if multiple levels of “architectural relief” of the front of the building is provided, changing from whether the exterior walls of each dwelling unit are offset from those of the adjacent my eyes just glazed over.
(I believe the definition of “architectural relief”, and everything else relevant to this, are specific to the role of the Town Engineer, and not necessarily meant for people not in this field to understand. In short, this is a Nesteriak thing and I’ll just nod my head to what he says)
- Makes changes to the Table of Permitted Uses for RC-3 – Residential and Commercial – zones.
(This list is lengthy and very specific, and I can take some time to go over specifics on an as-requested basis. Basically, previously non-allowed uses are being allowed either 1) contingent on a site plan being approved by P&Z, or 2) requiring a special permit, granted by P&Z. What this means is that these changes aren’t just a call for developers to go hog-wild; they still have to have approval by the elected Commission, so there’s still some oversight).
WHERE I STAND:
Voting “yes” on these items is almost literally the number one motivation I had for joining this commission. If seated, I will gladly vote yes.
For one, Mr. Nesteriak has indicated that he’s in favour of these, going by the minutes of the last meeting (I was unable to attend). So that satisfies my “ask an expert” rule.
But secondly, the requirement for sewers is well intended but overly broad for the requirements.
I grew up in probably the prime example of why that is, and right off this road to boot: my days at Argonne Terrace’s “Lucyland” (named after Luciana Fabiano, the longtime landlord) are instructive.
Lucyland had a nine family dwelling, a couple of two-families, and a five family that sits on 2 Roosevelt. These buildings all date back to the 40s or thereabouts, and are almost surely being grandfathered from a zoning perspective. All of these houses are on septic, and Lucy was very, very good about her septic maintenance.
If Lucyland can manage multiple apartments on a septic for decades, why can’t any other business?
These regulations will allow us to remove the sewer requirement, which is far easier, from a political, financially and logistical standpoint than putting sewers in by the river.
Further, as Mr. Nesteriak notes, the Route 34 corridor is ripe for development. Safety concerns are overridden by decades of success at the end of the town line. It’s a pro-business move with almost no detriments (traffic could be an issue, but Route 34 is a state road).
To me, this is an easy call.