KENT, Conn.—Despite the pleas from neighbors to speed up action on an application to change a Lane Street building’s use from commercial to residential, the Planning and Zoning Commission decided recently decided to take a more cautious approach.
The application, which concerns buildings at 13 Lane St., presents complicated issues for the PZC because it could require a new regulation that would affect the entire Village District. The proposal is being presented by John and Diane Degnan, who purchased the property in 2022.
The property consists of an older frame building at the front that has four rental units. At the rear of the property there is a much larger structure that has been used for various commercial and industrial uses. The Degnans want to maintain the four rental units and turn the rear building into their private residence.
The Degnans were represented by attorney Jay Klein, who explained how the uses of the property have evolved over the past 45 years. He said the front building was approved in 1980 for use for short-term transient (tourist) rentals. In that same year, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance for the rear building, which was to be used for commercial and light industrial purposes. A variety of businesses have occupied it, including boat storage, manufacture of soaps and lotions and woodworking.
Klein said that allowing the building to be redesignated as a residential structure would ensure that it cannot be used in the future for commercial purposes inconsistent with a residential neighborhood.
As for the front building, Klein argued that its use as a four-unit apartment building has been well-documented over the decades and is consistent with the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development. He noted that the Architectural Review Board recently voted unanimously to support the design presented by the Degnans and that it has the support of surrounding neighbors.
He further argued that there would be no increase in impervious material for the parking area or in the footprint of the buildings.
“You would just have Mr and Mrs. Degnan living their daily lives,” he concluded.
He contended that approval of the application would be consistent with the goals of the Village Residential Zone, and that denial would be inconsistent.
But the town’s planner, Glenn Chalder, and the PZC attorney, Michael Zizka, didn’t agree. Chalder cautioned that the text amendment would be “a legislative action on the part of the commission” that would apply to the entire Village Residential District and not just to the property in question.
“The key element is to legitimize apartment building, which was never approved by the commission,” Chalder said. “Having approvals from the fire marshal and the building official is not a blessing and doesn’t give it credence. It is still not a permitted use.”
The change of zone for the rear building is “now being used to justify and legitimize the apartment building. This could affect other properties, and the commission should think about that,” Chalder said.
He further cautioned that abandoned uses, i.e. the building’s commercial status, could be resurrected “unless in the applications the owner gives up those pre-existing uses.”
He worried about the actual density that could occur on the site if the owners decided to convert the back building to apartments rather than their personal dwelling. “The math could have worked out to having the potential for seven to nine dwelling units on the site,” he said. “It’s important to get a hand on what is appropriate so it doesn’t change in the future. In terms of short-term rentals, you should think through that per the rear building.”
He added that increasing the number of parking spaces from six to eight would require “compact spaces,” which are not allowed in the town’s zoning regulations.
He also noted that while the rentals charged for the existing units are comparable to affordable rentals, the front building is “not statutorily affordable and it might be good to require that.”
Zizka agreed with Chalder about the proposed text amendment. “They are entitled to file a change application with the amendment, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea,” he said. “This is a fairly complex regulation you’re being asked to handle. There are a lot of tweaks PZC might want to make.”
Referring to the timeframe imposed by a public hearing, he concluded, “It’s probably not the way to make a decision.”
He, too, worried about the potential for residential density. “The commission has to make its decision based on the use of the property,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what kind of people they are, what’s important is what is the proper use of property in the town. Once the regulations are changed, all kinds of things can happen. It’s not just the Degnans that get the benefit, it’s whoever owns the property in the future.”
The town does not currently have short-term rental regulations and if the amendment were to be passed as proposed it would be the only reference in the zoning regulations to this use. “I don’t think this is the way to define short-term rentals,” Zizka warned.
New housing legislation passed by the legislature will “change parking requirements considerably,” he continued. Referring to the part of the proposed amendment that would empower the commission to waive requirements, he said he is “always concerned about regulations that say that for this particular use you can ignore other regulations.”
He suggested that tweaks to the existing language governing multiple dwelling units on a single lot might suffice to allow the Degnans to go ahead with their application.
“There are enough questions and concerns in respect to these regulations that I would suggest you tread very, very carefully,” he concluded.
Neighboring property owners were incensed by the delay. All commended the Degnans as fine neighbors and praised them for the improvements they have made to the property since they purchased it.
“I don’t understand the nitpicking,” said Lili Mason. “When it was a commercial property, it was so dangerous. Now, someone wants to move there as their home. They are already wonderful neighbors. This is starting to get me angry—it is just too much.”
Tamara Potter said the property has been a problem in the past, with an absentee landlord that did not select tenants wisely. “When it was a boat business, it entailed shellacking boats and the smell permeated the whole neighborhood. When it was soap and lotions, there were trucks coming and going, and when it was woodworking, we listened to machinery running non-stop. A commercial building on this residential street just doesn’t fit.
“Of course things can change, but we’re dealing with today,” she continued. “Unless you live on the street, you have no idea what happens. We’ve dealt with rats, with drug dealers and fights on the porch. You don’t understand what happens without a resident owner. It’s important. You can talk about parking, and square footage, but we have to have a little common sense. I think it is a completely reasonable request.”
Acting Chairman Karen Casey said the commission is trying to find a plan that works. “We would be prudent to understand how it will affect the rest of the town,” she said.
Polling the members revealed that none of them opposed having the building’s conversion to a residential use but that they preferred to find a path forward by modifying the existing regulation. Zizka and Chalder were authorized to meet with the Degnans’ attorney to try to work out a solution. The application is scheduled for a Jan. 8 public hearing.
