Old Lyme adopts zoning changes to implement Connecticut’s Public Act 25-1, adds 2–9-unit mixed‑use standard and parking revisions

The Old Lyme Zoning Commission on July 1 adopted a package of zoning amendments to implement Connecticut’s Public Act 25‑1, voting 5‑0 to amend local regulations so commercial and mixed‑use zones must allow 2‑to‑9‑unit mixed‑use or multifamily housing and to revise parking requirements for small residential projects.

The amendments create a new mixed‑use “middle housing” standard for any lot zoned commercial or mixed use (excluding industrial and special‑purpose zones) and add a parking amendment that removes local off‑street parking minimums for residential developments of 16 units or fewer unless those projects fall inside a locally adopted parking management district. The commission set the package’s effective date to follow legal notice publication (staff indicated July 6, 2026, is the earliest feasible date) and amended the draft to clarify that "summary review shall mean site plan approval under CGS 8‑2(r)."

Why it matters: The state law, effective July 1, requires municipalities to allow certain small‑scale multifamily or mixed‑use housing in commercial areas; Old Lyme’s amendments aim to make the town compliant while preserving local standards (setbacks, bulk, parking overlay options and public health safeguards) that staff and the commission said remain enforceable.

City planner Francisco (RiverCOG), who is working with the commission on the draft, described the package as "conservative" and intended to maintain town control over design standards and procedural review while complying with the statute. He told the commission the law requires towns to allow "multifamily development of 2 to 9 units or mixed‑use development on any lot that is zoned for commercial or mixed use," and recommended the town adopt the amendments or risk being forced into a reactive posture when applicants seek approval.

Attorney Matthew Willis, advising the commission, urged tightening the draft’s procedural language. "I think summary review should be stated clearly as site development plan approval under CGS 8‑2(r)," Willis said, arguing the change prevents applicants from claiming informal administrative approval in lieu of a site‑plan review. Willis also warned the legislative changes reduce some local discretion, saying the legislature has been "clawing back your powers" but added that the commission must address the changes rather than ignore them.

On parking, the amendments adopt the state’s baseline ratios and a new mechanism for applicants to submit parking needs assessments to justify fewer spaces when appropriate. Francisco explained the state caps typical requirements for smaller developments and allows applicants to propose lower parking supply if a qualified assessment demonstrates less need; locally adopted parking management districts (the draft allows up to two districts, each up to 4% of town land area) would permit the town to require parking in high‑demand commercial corridors.

The draft also includes a new item (identified in materials as item "M") requiring applicants to demonstrate adequate water supply, wastewater capacity and stormwater controls before mixed‑use middle‑housing approvals. "No mixed‑use middle housing development shall be approved if found to substantially impact public health and safety," the revised language states; commissioners added that such infrastructure and safety limits are an explicit check on approvals.

Affordable housing: The package incorporated an inclusionary schedule prepared by consultant Michael Foliano. Francisco described Foliano’s proposal as a conservative, tiered approach (roughly one affordable unit per four market units at 80% AMI in an early tier) and advised that stricter set‑asides could make some small projects infeasible; commissioners agreed to move a detailed affordability discussion into Phase 2 of the town’s zoning rewrite and community workshop schedule.

Public comment: Several residents urged the commission to adopt stronger affordability provisions and to move quickly. Sheila Riffle, chair of the Newport Housing Committee, said Old Lyme’s share of deed‑restricted affordable housing remains very low and urged the commission to adopt Foliano’s numbers rather than defer them. John Wesley and other residents asked the commission to consider separating transit‑oriented housing from mixed‑use rules to protect existing retail corridors; Mikaela Pearson, co‑chair of the Shoreline Gateway Committee, raised height and lot‑size concerns in some zones and welcomed clarifications that existing SPDD (special‑permit mixed‑use) standards remain an option.

The motion to approve (moved by the staff representative and seconded by Mary Jo Nosell) adopted Exhibit A as the final version with insertion of item N and the amendment to 4(d) making summary review site‑plan approval under CGS 8‑2(r). The commission voted 5‑0 to approve the package. The board scheduled a community workshop on housing and the broader zoning rewrite for July 29 from 6:30–8:30 p.m.

The commission recorded next steps as: publish legal notice, set the ordinance effective the day after publication (staff identified July 6 as the earliest effective date depending on publishing), continue Phase 2 zoning rewrite and hold the scheduled public workshop. The meeting adjourned that evening.

Sources: Statements and motions recorded at the Old Lyme Zoning Commission special meeting, July 1, 2026 (RiverCOG planner Francisco; attorney Matthew Willis; public comments by Sheila Riffle, John Wesley, Mikaela Pearson; inclusionary schedule by Michael Foliano).