Old Lyme sets July 1 public hearing on zoning changes to allow middle housing and limit parking rules

The Old Lyme Zoning Commission voted May 27 to set a public hearing for July 1, 2026, on proposed amendments to town zoning regulations (case 26‑14) that would implement provisions of Public Act 25‑1 (House Bill 802) affecting middle housing and off‑street parking requirements.

The proposal, drafted by consultant Francisco Gomes of MEG and presented at the special meeting, would require Old Lyme to permit either mixed‑use development or so‑called "middle housing"—multifamily buildings of two to nine dwelling units—in designated commercial or mixed‑use zones through a streamlined "summary review" approval that does not require a special permit or a public hearing. "The short version of this is as of July 1st in any of your commercial or mixed‑use zones, you have to allow multifamily or mixed‑use development," Gomes told the commission.

Why it matters: The state law narrows local review options for small multifamily projects and caps parking requirements for most new residential development, which could change how commercial corridors and shoreline areas evolve in Old Lyme. The amendments would also create up to two local overlay districts—called parking management districts—where the town could continue to require off‑street parking for small projects (those with 16 or fewer units). Each district may cover up to roughly 4 percent of town area (combined up to about 8 percent), and the consultant proposed maps focused on the town center, Halls Road and sections of the shoreline and Sound View Village District.

Key provisions and clarifications

- Middle housing and mixed‑use: The consultant described "middle housing" as multifamily development of two to nine units and recommended Old Lyme allow mixed‑use (residential plus ground‑floor nonresidential) in its business zones to help preserve commercial activity at street level. Gomes said municipalities can interpret the statute's use of "or" to allow one form or both by zone; the draft takes a zone‑by‑zone approach.

- Affordability: The draft includes a modest inclusionary approach written as one affordable unit per four units developed (no requirement for developments of three units or fewer; four units = one affordable unit; eight‑nine units = two). Gomes said this produces an effective range of about 20–30 percent in the relevant unit band and cautioned against much higher percentages that could be deemed prohibitory.

- Parking rules: Under the state law as explained at the meeting, towns may not impose off‑street parking minimums for residential developments of 16 or fewer units unless the area is within a locally established parking management district. For projects of 17 units or more (or inside a parking district), the maximum parking a town may require is one space for studios and one‑bedroom units, and two spaces for units with two or more bedrooms. The draft also requires the town to accept a developer's parking needs assessment; the draft specifies that a licensed transportation engineer prepare such studies and references standard industry methodology and third‑party review paid by the applicant if necessary.

- Utilities and stormwater: Commissioners asked that zoning approvals require demonstration that projects can meet water supply, effluent disposal and stormwater management standards. Gomes advised that public health and building approvals ultimately control utility feasibility but agreed to add explicit language to the draft so applicants must demonstrate feasible systems at the zoning review stage.

Commission discussion and next steps

Commissioners debated whether to adopt a narrow approach (allowing mixed‑use in core commercial zones only) or a broader one that permits purely residential middle housing in additional zones. Several members expressed concern that allowing unrestricted residential conversion could reduce the town's limited commercial stock and lead to vacant ground‑floor storefronts; others noted that design standards and targeted zone selection can preserve commercial frontage while meeting housing goals.

Staff advised the commission that a 35‑day referral period to state and regional agencies is required before a hearing. The commission agreed to publish the draft, send referrals and hold a public hearing on July 1, 2026, with the option to take final action that night; the regulations would become effective roughly two weeks after adoption, allowing a short window in which applicants might file before the local rules take effect.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to hold a public hearing on July 1, 2026, with potential decision that night on the proposed parking and housing amendments (case 26‑14): motion made by Commissioner Mary Joe Nosel; seconded by Mr. Poliano; motion passed 4‑0.

What was not decided

The commission did not finalize whether to permit middle housing in purely residential form in the listed zones, did not adopt objective health‑and‑safety criteria for denying summary review approvals (staff and the consultant will draft possible language), and left map boundaries for parking management districts subject to further refinement before the public hearing.

Quote excerpts

"Middle housing... it's multifamily between two and nine units in any form," Francisco Gomes said, summarizing the statutory definition.

On parking, Gomes said, "For any residential development with 16 or fewer dwelling units, you can no longer have an off‑street parking requirement" outside an established parking management district, adding that the town can require less than the state maximum if a credible parking needs assessment shows fewer spaces are needed.

What happens next

Staff will file the amended language with the town clerk, circulate referrals to agencies, publish legal notice and hold the public hearing on July 1. The commission signaled it will collect public comment and may adjust zoning text and district boundaries before any final vote.