This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
08/02/2021 12:00 AMAn audit and rewrite of Guilford’s zoning regulations that has been ongoing for almost two years got its first exposure to the public this month with initial presentations of a revised draft by the consultant, Planimetrics out of Avon, as what was originally intended to be a more technical, editorial update appears to include other tweaks that could be significant.
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) must eventually vote on whether or not to adopt the revisions, which are wide-ranging and cover nearly every aspect of the town’s 194 pages of zoning code and regulations. Town officials previously promised public hearings ahead of any vote on adopting the revisions.
Many of the changes would fall into the category quality-of-life improvements or honing in on specificity and consistency, while others could have at least somewhat substantive effects on zoning. Consultants are also working on adopting new changes that have been handed down from the state level specifically related to multi-family housing and accessory apartments.
Those changes have a different timeline and may or may not move forward as part of the audit, according to Planimetrics consultant Glenn Chalder.
The town originally contracted with Planimetrics in 2019 for $60,000, with Town Planner George Kral calling the work “a significant effort” with the potential to both identify and adjust statutory issues in the code.
Much of the discussions have revolved around granular, technical questions about very specific situations—the type of permitting needed to approve change of gradients, or inclusion of dormers in certain building height measurements.
One potentially wide-ranging change is how the town defines density, potentially only including developable land instead of all land in determining how many units are allowed, which Kral warned could reduce the “development potential” of many large parcels with significant wetlands or ledge if the town goes forward with that.
“It could have a significant impact, even if it’s not a large number of lots, it could be impacting some very substantial-sized parcels in a very significant way,” he said. “It’s something that we should think about and clarify as we move forward.”
Kral reminded the PZC that the audit was not originally meant to make “dramatic changes” and the town had publicly stated it would not significantly affect underlying zoning. The PZC additionally discussed the reasoning behind Guilford’s significant restrictions on multi-family housing in residential zones, asking Chalder to come back with general recommendations in that regard after consulting with other town officials.
One of the issues coming out of the recent state bill is attached accessory apartments. Chalder proposed allowing one accessory dwelling as of right on single-family lots, though the PZC had a number of questions on that, with Chalder saying they still needed “to get a grip” on the new statute.
Other tweaks, while far from qualifying as sweeping changes, could certainly have an effect on many residents, including things like defining what kind of commercial vehicles can be parked on residentially zoned properties and changing how Guilford treats accessory structures in certain circumstances.
Zoning Enforcement Officer Erin Mannix said the use of commercial vehicles was one of the more common complaints in town, and that making the regulations more clear could make enforcement easier.
“It’s challenging,” she said. “However, it shouldn’t be in residential zones. I like this [proposed] set-up.”
The proposed revision would get much more specifically into what qualified as a commercial vehicle rather than relying on weight.
The revisions also explicitly define day-care facilities as being able to include adult-oriented facilities as well as those serving children, and redefine “family” in the zoning codes, ostensibly to be more common sense.
“Perhaps you’re familiar with the TV show Golden Girls?” asked Chalder. “Golden Girls is a zoning violation.”
The update would remove a requirement that families be people who are related by “blood, adoption, or marriage,” and would only define them as people who are “residing on the premises,” according to Chalder, though he was still working on the specific language there.
A couple PZC members expressed concern that written too loosely, that regulation could give tacit approval to short-term rentals like AirBnb, which has remained a controversial practice along the shoreline.
The revamped code also includes a definition of “short term rental” as “a dwelling occupied as a lodging facility without the owner in residence where the rental occupancy is less than seven days.”
Chalder said delineating between owner-occupied rentals and those where the owner is not living there is important, with the latter more likely to cause issues. He added that he believed an ordinance was a better overall way to address the question of seasonal, short term rentals.
“All towns are working on this issue,” he said. “The tools for zoning regulations are really not that effective.”
Another bill simmering in Hartford would require short-term rental properties to register with the state, according to Chalder, and might better address all these regulatory issues.
The PZC was set to hear another presentation on the audit at its Wednesday, Aug. 4 meeting, which will be held virtually at 7:30 p.m., and will focus on commercial zoning. This will potentially include discussion of new allowances for drive-through restaurants, according to Kral, which the commission has been considering in parallel with the audit.