Seal: Washington, Connecticut; Founded 1779 www.WashingtonCT.org
The Town of Washington, Connecticut

Minutes: Planning Commission, 2002		 Home
Search
Web page last updated: December 31, 2002
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from the Town Clerk. Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.

Jump down to: December 17 • November 19 • November 6 • October 15 • September 3 • August 21 • July 16 • July 2 • June 18 • June 4 • May 20 • May 7

December 17, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Payne

Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Buck. He noted the discussion of the Development section would continue with the topics of the village centers and business development.

Mr. Chalder suggested the Commission consider categorizing different sections within each of the existing business districts to reflect the different uses and development patterns in each.

Washington Depot:

Mr. Chalder described four distinct areas in the Depot Business District: the core, periphery core, gateway, and linear sections. The map on page 27 was reviewed. Mr. Chalder noted the boundaries between districts did not always follow property lines, some properties being divided in unique ways, and thought the Planning and Zoning Commissions might discuss revising the boundaries to follow property lines to avoid problems in the future. Mr. Bender noted currently if a property is located in two districts, the more stringent regulations apply. Mr. Chalder said if the boundaries were not changed, this could still be handled if Zoning revised the Regulations so this would no longer apply in the Depot Business District.

Mr. Charles pointed out the location of the old Andrus farm property, which he thought should be preserved. He said the Town could purchase this property and finance it with condominium development similar to Bee Brook Condos on that part of the property close to Rt. 47 and the Shepaug River. He thought development in this area would help to tie the village center with Hidden Valley. He gave a brief history of the business district and said such development would be in keeping with historic development patterns.

Mrs. Roberts stated the Greenways Committee wanted a footbridge across the Shepaug along the Rt. 47 bridge and thought this would serve to connect the different sections of the Depot Business District.

Mr. Chalder explained the separate business areas in more detail. He described the core as the area promoting business and a pedestrian friendly environment, while housing, offices, and mixed uses would be recommended in the other areas. He noted the linear area was already more vehicle oriented and said revised regulations could reflect that fact.

Mr. Sabin thought this was an interesting approach. He recommended a buffer be maintained between the Bee Brook Condos and the business district so that the higher density development could not be seen from the road. He thought the old Town Garage area and Titus Road should be included in the core area because 1) the two areas are tied historically and 2) the river is a natural boundary. Mr. Bender also questioned why Titus Road and the GW Tavern area had not been included in the core district.

Mr. Charles thought the valley along Canoe Brook to Rt. 109 should be included in the core district and stressed the importance of agriculture, parks and recreation areas, and greenways in the Depot Business District. He urged the Commission to recommend this valley be preserved by the Town as a common Town area.

Mr. Rimsky noted the Rt. 109 and Cook Street areas include traditionally smaller homes for working families and encouraged mixed use within walking distance of the Depot. He thought whatever the Commission could do to bring residential values to the center of Town would strengthen the business district. He also cautioned the Commission should try to protect against the possibility of a developer purchasing adjoining small properties and demolishing the existing houses.

Mr. Charles noted the number of residential units and mixed use properties in Town could be increased if there was a Town sewer system. He urged the Commission to promote a vital village center that would furnish the needs of the residents as it had in the past. He noted there used to be a doctor's office, shoe store, movie theatre (in the Town Hall), and lunch counter in the Depot.

Mr. Bender noted the Commission agreed 1) residential units should be established in the Depot, 2) the business zone boundary line should follow rear property lines, 3) it would be difficult to expand the business district along Calhoun Street due to poor sight lines and traffic concerns.

Mr. Boling suggested regulations be implemented to require "build to" lines rather than setback lines in the business district. Mr. Charles thought "in fill" development would be appropriate for the Depot. As an example, he mentioned a cluster of commercial buildings in Kent, which look like barns and the old blacksmith shop that existed in the Depot before the flood.

It was noted the steep topography surrounding the business district, the location of the flood plain, and the lack of a Town septic system were limiting factors when the Commission considered its vision for the Depot Business District.

Regarding boundary lines for the Depot the following decisions were made. 1) The property at the corner of Rt. 47 and Blackville Road (Shepaug Flower Farm) should remain in the R-1 District to preserve agriculture and the character of the gateway area. 2) The residential character of Calhoun Street should be maintained and the last property in the business district in this area should be the telephone utility property. 3) The entire 108 acre Washington Supply Company property at the corner of Rt. 47 and Calhoun Street would be included in the Depot district for the time being with the recommendation that the Zoning Commission study whether there would be any unintended consequences if the boundary line were drawn through this property so that the current business area could legally continue its commercial use and the remainder of the property revert to the R-1 district. Mr. Martin had warned that the regulation requiring the more stringent rules to apply to parcels located in two districts had helped to preserve the Town in the past and it might be more appropriate to think of a different way to address the Supply Company property than to change the regulations for the entire district for the good of this one parcel.

The linear business district along Rt. 47 north of Rt. 109 was discussed. Mr. Chalder pointed out that the area differs from the rest of the district because it is straighter, the vehicles travel faster, and the traffic is more difficult to manage due to the proliferation of driveways Mr. Rimsky thought the existing residential uses here should be preserved. Mrs. Roberts thought this would be a good location for mixed uses and hoped Planimetrics would come up with some ideas to slow the traffic.. Mr. Martin noted the core district is already developed with many grandfathered uses so it would be helpful from a zoning perspective to treat the linear district differently. Mr. Boling suggested the Commission recommended a residential component be required for all commercial proposals in the district. Mr. Chalder stated he would consider mixed uses, adaptive reuse, access management plans, mandatory two story buildings, and streetscapes when drafting a plan for this district. Mr. Bender thought second story residential uses should be required in the core area as well as the other sections and that the old railroad bed might be used as an internal driveway in the linear section.

Mr. Charles asked why the school property was not included in the village center. Mr. Chalder explained it was separated from the village by the river. Mr. Charles thought it was important to incorporate into the core the properties over which the Town has control, namely the old Town Garage site and the school property. Mr. Sabin questioned whether it was a good policy to locate a school in a business zone. Mr. Charles thought the school fields could possibly be used for a community septic system so that more intense residential development could be permitted in the Depot. Mrs. Roberts asked Mr. Chalder to look into other possible uses for the school property should a new central regional elementary school be built in the future.

New Preston Business District:

Mr. Chalder noted parts of the New Preston Business District do not relate to the current uses and so suggested the current boundaries be modified. In addition to the small existing business area, he suggested the historic portion of New Preston be taken out of the R-1 District and be made a separate N. Preston district. He said this new zone would recognize the existing non conforming uses and would replicate current R-1 uses, but provide fluctuating dimensional standards to reflect the unique character of the area. He noted these possible changes were not intended to create major new development opportunities. Mr. Chalder compared this area of New Preston to the Washington Green Residential District. Mr. Martin said there was some historic basis for Mr. Chalder's proposal, but thought there should be a significant unique situation in the area as a reason to establish a new district rather than merely trying to eliminate non conforming uses and properties. Mr. Chalder thought the area immediately surrounding the New Preston Business District was different than the R-1 district, but was not being treated differently. Mr. Martin countered there are peripheral areas in the Depot, which continue to be in the R-1 district with no zone changes proposed. Mr. Boling suggested the peripheral New Preston area might be more appropriate as a historic district, but added the value of a separate zone would be to preserve the existing traditional dimensional standards of development. Mrs. Payne noted the cultural map in the Natural Resources Inventory recognizes this area as historically significant. Mr. Sabin asked how non conforming the existing properties in the New Preston area are and said he supported a village district with higher density permitted. Mr. Rimsky agreed. Other New Preston issues noted were lack of parking, over abundance of antique stores, and development restrictions due to wetlands and watercourses. The Commissioners did not think they had enough information to decide whether Mr. Chalder should proceed with a draft for an R-4 District. Some thought there would be no value to it, while others thought the entire greater New Preston area should be considered a unique area to be preserved and was deserving of an in depth plan. Mr. Chalder will do more background work and the Commission will discuss this issue again at the next meeting.

Marbledale Business District:

It was noted Marbledale had been discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Chalder reminded the Commissioners the points brought out at that time included 1) traffic should be slowed down and the district made more pedestrian friendly, 2) mixed uses should be encouraged, 3) the commercial base should be reinforced, 4) design guidelines should be strengthened, 5) a special development district could be established, 6) a more village-like pattern should be established around the core area, 7) possible expansion of the district could be in the Wheaton Road/Mygatt Road area.

Mr. Sabin noted in addition to these points that transitional areas are needed in Marbledale.

Mr. Rimsky wanted to make Marbledale a more workable developable gateway area so it could absorb the development pressure as it progresses up Rt. 202.

Mr. Bender asked whether the Quarry Ridge property should have 200 feet along Rt. 202 located in the business district and he also noted the cemetery has commercial acreage. Mr. Martin noted in recent Zoning meetings the Quarry Ridge residents had expressed concerns about too much noise from the commercial zone, excessive lighting, too many cars, and were worried about the Zoning Commission's goal of trying to help small businesses get established in Marbledale.

Mr. Chalder described the three separate sections of the Marbledale Business District: 1) from Findley Road to New Milford on Rt. 202, 2) the Wheaton Road/Mygatt Road area, and 3) the Rt. 202 corridor north of Findley Road. He thought a unified whole could be created from these three sections.

Mr. Charles discussed the area between Wheaton Road and Rt. 202. He said it now contained beautiful fields, which could be transformed into a village common and the present commercial center reoriented to this area. Mr. Rimsky compared this to the commercial section of Kent and said such a design could accommodate internal parking. Mr. Chalder noted the natural resources here would have to be protected. Mr. Sabin agreed future expansion should be in a central area rather than along the corridor. Mr. Chalder said the goal would be to create opportunities for the private sector to realize Marbledale's potential, while working within the constraints of the property lines and natural resources.

Mr. Bender suggested commercial planned unit development be permitted in the areas immediately surrounding the existing Marbledale District.

Woodville Business District:

It was noted the Zoning Commission had significantly downsized this district, turning all but the small area between Rt. 202 and Wilbur Road to R-1. Mr. Chalder proposed no changes at this time.

Washington Green Residential District:

Mr. Chalder noted this district was confined to a very small area, but asked if there would be interest in expanding it since much of its immediate surrounding area has similar characteristics. Mr. Rimsky supported the idea noting the Mayflower property should be included. Mr. Bender thought this district's boundaries should adhere to property lines and that further study on the issue of whether to expand it would be appropriate. Mr. Rimsky stated the Wykeham Road area's rural setting was in jeopardy and suggested further study on this issue, too.

Mr. Martin explained the problem the Zoning Commission has encountered in this district is the need of the existing institutions to expand and develop. This often conflicts with the existing residential uses in the area. He asked that the Plan address whether a zoning concept that would allow intensification of development by providing relief for lot coverage, setbacks, etc. should be implemented. He noted such a policy might affect the residential character of the area. Mr. Rimsky thought the Town should take steps to ensure The Gunnery's health as the loss of this institution would cause many problems. Mr. Bender thought this was a matter for the Zoning Commission to address. Mr. Wood noted it would be helpful if the Plan provided a recommendation. Mr. Bender thought the Plan could recommend this matter be evaluated.

It was generally thought the R-2 District should be expanded per Mr. Chalder's proposed boundaries.

Infrastructure issues will be discussed at the next meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.

Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:10 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

November 19, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Boling, Mr. Field, Atty. Cornell, Mrs. Payne, Press

Mr. Bender called the Special Meeting to order at 4:11 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, and Charles and Alternates Roberts and Sabin for Mr. Buck and Mr. Byerly.

Birch Hill Run Subdivision/Declaration of Expiration

Mr. Bender referred to the 11/19/02 letter from Atty. Cornell, which requested a resolution by the Commission to confirm the validity of the Birch Hill Run subdivision lots served by the Phase I road and to declare that the remaining lots have expired. He said the state statutes require notification on the Land Records of the expiration of a subdivision, noting that although the lots fronting on Phases 2, 3, and 4 of the road had expired some time ago, the Commission had not formally acted to place a notice on the Land Records. Atty. Cornell stated approximately 100 acres would revert to raw land. Mr. Sabin asked if the subdivision conservation easements should be referred to in the motion. It was generally thought such an easement had been placed on some of the Phase I land. The Commissioners took time to review both Atty. Cornell's letter and the draft motion attached. The old subdivision map dated 12/91 was briefly reviewed.

MOTION: Resolved with respect to the Birch Hill Run Subdivision:

  1. That work required for completion of Phase I of the subdivision, as set forth in the Road Construction Agreement, to the satisfaction of the Town within the statutory time period, the following lots served by the Phase I work are hereby declared to be approved building lots: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, and 20.

  2. The work required for the completion of Phases II, III, and IV not having been completed within the statutory time period, no bond having been posted for such work and no lots having been sold which are served by any of the improvements required for such phases, subdivision approval granted by the Commission for such lots has expired, and no such lots or portion of such lots, may be sold until a new plan of subdivision is approved by the Commission. Specifically, such lots are 8 - 18, 21, 22, and 23.

  3. The chairman of the Commission is authorized to execute and file in the Washington Town Clerk's Office a Notice of Expiration as set forth in paragraph 2 of this Resolution. The Chairman of this Commission is further authorized to state the expiration of the subdivision approval on the subdivision plan filed in the Office of the Town Clerk as Map nos. 1173, 1173A, 1173B, and 1173C.

By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mr. Sabin, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Bender noted he would sign the appropriate form of notice after Atty. Cornell and Atty. Miles prepared it.

Plan of Development

The discussion on development issues continued. Mr. Chalder introduced Mr. Wood, who will be working with him on the update of the Plan.

Mr. Bender asked if it would be feasible to amend the Subdivision Regulations so the Planning Commission would have the right to require a developer to sell or provide acreage to the Town for affordable housing. Mr. Chalder referred to the state statutes and noted that although no other town in Connecticut does this, Washington could establish open space/affordable housing set asides and/or fee in lieu of requirements. Mr. Wood recommended the Commission get legal advice on this matter. Mr. Bender asked if it was true that state statutes limit the fee in lieu of open space to 10% of the pre development appraisal of the value of the land. It was. He asked if that limited the Commission's right to require 15% open space and if the Commission could require both 15% open space and a set aside for affordable housing, a fee in lieu of, or a combination of both. It was noted the state's 10% limit on the fee in lieu of had no relationship to the amount of open space the Commission could require. Mr. Wood noted Woodbury had adopted a 20% open space requirement and thought that was as high as it could be without a legal challenge. He noted the open space "exaction clause" must be tailored to meet the needs of the community and should be keyed into the Plan of Development to establish a stronger position should the Town have to defend it in court. Mr. Chalder said Simsbury had prevailed in court for a 20% set aside, but noted Mr. Bender's question about whether the Commission could require a combination of open space and fees was an interesting one. Mrs. Roberts thought the Plan should recommend the Subdivision Regulations increase the percentage of open space required to 20%. Mr. Bender noted, however, that based on the soil types comprising the open space, the amount actually required can easily exceed 15%. Mr. Chalder clarified the Commission might be able to require that some of the open space set aside be used for affordable housing, but it could not require an additional 20% for affordable housing. He thought perhaps the Commission could provide an incentive to a developer for donating land for affordable housing by granting a density bonus. Mr. Bender did not think this would be possible under soil based zoning. Later in the meeting it was noted Washington residents have faith in soil based zoning and the Commission decided to delete any references to density bonuses. Mr. Rimsky thought that since the state mandates the Towns provide 10% affordable housing, the Commission should be able to require the same percentage from developers. Mr. Chalder thought the Commission could make this a requirement, but warned the regulation would have to be clear so a developer would know up front what was required. Mr. Bender suggested the Plan recommend the Zoning Commission revise its Regulations to permit PUD's (planned unit developments.) Mr. Rimsky noted people now donate open space because it increases the value of their adjoining property, but because they don't want houses next to them, it might be difficult to get donations for affordable housing. He thought some kind of incentives would have to considered. He also noted the Town must formulate a mechanism to manage open space donations. Mr. Chalder asked if the Commission favored scattered sites, clusters, or concentration of affordable housing in the village centers. While it was felt in general there was a negative reaction to clusters of affordable housing, the Commissioners thought all three development patterns could be appropriate. Mr. Bender noted the Commission must have the option of refusing affordable housing on a parcel if it is not appropriate. Mr. Rimsky thought in these cases a fee in lieu of should be paid. Mr. Chalder noted the Commission could only suggest, it could not impose a fee in lieu of. Mrs. Roberts questioned how development could be concentrated in the village centers under soil based zoning. Mr. Chalder said this would be discussed again under Infrastructure, noting that it was a problem that would have to be addressed. Mr. Bender noted the Commission had received a letter from Mr. Boling regarding transfer of development rights, but said he was not convinced this would work in the residential districts. Mr. Chalder suggested one possible solution would be a new village residential zone. Mr. Charles asked how the proper density would be determined for a village center. Mr. Chalder responded that these centers are existing and the Commission could find ways to use the existing areas more efficiently or to extend them into the surrounding areas. Mr. Charles pointed out this might involve an increase in coverage from 25% to 50% in the commercial districts. Mr. Chalder asked the Commissioners to consider the appropriateness of larger house sizes on the smaller village lots. It was noted soil type and proximity to the rivers must be considered. Mr. Charles asked if community septic systems should be considered for village centers. Mr. Chalder said all kinds of sewage treatment devices would be discussed later in the update process. Mrs. Roberts feared the residents would resist any radical changes to the village centers because the Town does not like change. Mr. Bender noted the Plan is a guiding document that would make recommendations and that it would be up to the inhabitants to implement changes. Mr. Charles asked whether convalescent homes, congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities, and other uses appropriate for village centers would be discussed. Mr. Chalder said the Plan could make the statement that if these uses are to be provided, they should be located in the village centers, a maximum units per acre should be established, and they should be compatible with the neighborhood in which they are located. It was also noted the architectural scale should fit in with the character of the village. It was noted the Zoning Commission approved the senior housing units because they were affordable units as required per Section 13.15 of the Zoning Regulations. On pages 18 and 19 of the discussion booklet, Mr. Bender pointed out that the illustrations were not appropriate because they showed the open space used to protect wetlands, which would not be the case in Washington as the Inland Wetlands Commission already aggressively protects the wetlands. Mr. Sabin noted that in some cases inclusion of wetlands in open space might be warranted, for example, greenways along waterway corridors. He recommended the Commission keep its options open. Mr. Rimsky noted the Commission would support a more creative approach to development and especially a non sprawl development pattern. Mr. Bender noted, too, on page 19 all the houses were shown at the same setback distance from the road, but the Commission favors staggered structures. Setback requirements and their impact on the village streetscape were discussed. Zoning for water quality protection was discussed. Mr. Chalder suggested the Lake Waramaug Residential district could be extended up to the ridgelines to include the entire watershed area. Mrs. Payne advised Mr. Chalder to consult with the Lake Waramaug Task Force because it had already begun work on a long range strategy to protect a 14 sqaure mile area around the lake. She also noted the towns of Kent, Warren, and Washington would have to work together on this project. Mr. Chalder stated regulations could be revised and/or toughened to protect the water quality of the lake once the district was extended. Mr. Charles questioned why the Commission was not considering watershed protection throughout the Town. Mr. Chalder answered that in the Lake Waramaug watershed added protection was warranted because lakes were more susceptible to long term water quality impacts. Mr. Chalder stated the concept of using zoning to enhance the village areas would tie in with later discussions on possible expansions to or changes in the New Preston and Green districts. Mr. Bender thought special provisions might be made for any development or redevelopment in the village areas where soil based zoning might not be flexible enough. The Green was cited as an example. Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Commission is currently working on this. Mr. Chalder discussed the possibility of relating setback requirements to the size of the lot, size of the structure, and slope of the land. This would provide Zoning with more control over the relative proportions of a streetscape by keeping overly larger houses further from the road. It was the consensus the Planning Commission would support such regulations.

The next Special Meeting to work on the Plan of Conservation and Development will be held on Tuesday, December 17 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. Village and business development will be considered.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Averill.

Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 5:58 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

November 6, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fairbairn, Atty. Kelly, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Uruburu, Press

Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. He seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Rimsky for Mr. Buck.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 10/1/02 Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 10/15/02 Special Meeting Minutes as presented. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Nassar, Urubura, Schneider/121 West Church Hill Road/Request to Modify Subdivision Conservation Easement

Atty. Fairbairn represented the property owners and Atty. Kelly represented the purchasers of Lot #2.

Mrs. Roberts arrived at this point.

Atty. Kelly had previously submitted the 10/30/02 letter requesting a modification of the conservation easement and this had been circulated prior to the meeting. He proposed to add the following wording to paragraph 4 of the easement: "The right of the owner of Lot #2 to cut, trim, top, plant, or otherwise maintain the trees and vegetation in that portion of Conservation Easement Area C which is not closer than one hundred fifty (150') feet from any portion of the property line adjoining West Church Hill Road." This revision, he said would accomplish the goals set by the Commission to preserve the streetscape and the rural character of West Church Hill Road, but would permit the owner to selectively clear for a view to the northwest. He also asked the Commission for relief from the provision requiring the owners to give notice of and get approval for maintenance work within this portion of the easement area. He presented a sketch map showing the area for which he was seeking relief and added that no clear cutting would be permitted there.

Mr. Bender noted he had discussed this matter previously with Atty. Kelly and the proposed language was the result. He said he found nothing objectionable to the request to add this paragraph to item 4, but he thought the Commission might want to discuss the request to waive the notification requirement.

Mrs. Roberts read the section of the 10/1/02 minutes pertaining to the purpose of the conservation easement. She objected to the proposed change because the Commission had purposely reviewed the easement as it was originally written and thought that it was well drafted and would accomplish Planning's goals for open space preservation in this area. She asked what would happen if future owners also wanted revisions and thought if changes to conservation easements were allowed, it would jeopardize Planning's intentions for open space preservation.

Mr. Byerly voiced his concern about maintenance of the easements in the future. He thought minor trimming in this area would be OK, but thought it should be monitored.

Mr. Bender asked the Commissioners to consider how they would have voted if the original proposal was submitted in this form.

Mrs. Roberts stated she would have had a problem with allowing the topping of trees. She noted the Commission's goal in this case was to preserve rural character and to prevent the clearing of the under story to make a "New York forest," which could result in erosion problems on the steep slopes.

Atty. Fairbairn noted no structures would be permitted in this area, the amount of vegetation that could be cut would still be limited, and this area could not be viewed from the road.

Mr. Charles was not sure the proposed language would adequately protect the open space. He particularly objected to elimination of the notice requirement because without it he did not see how the land use standards for open space would be maintained. He was also concerned that future owners might want additional revisions, which he felt would further undermine the Commission's goals.

Atty. Fairbairn thought it was not important who might own the land in the future, but that what was important was what could be done in the easement area, which he said would remain basically unchanged.

Mr. Sabin noted that if seated he would have recused himself as he had been asked by the buyers to look at this property. He thought both the goals of the Commission and the property owners could be met. He said that any work in the area in question would not be seen from the road as there is a rapid 6 to 8 ft. rise off West Church Hill Road, then a stone wall, and then another rise. He thought if trees were selectively cut in this area and the under story left in tact for natural cover there would be no negative impact.

Mr. Charles asked what would happen to the under story when the tree cover was removed. Mr. Sabin said there would be some damage, but it would recover.

Mr. Sabin noted the Planning Commission was inexperienced in administering conservation easements and so their alteration would become necessary at times on a case by case basis. In this case he recommended the boundaries of the easement areas remain as originally approved, but the property owners be permitted to selectively clear for views. He thought it was not realistic to expect that property owners would not want views.

Mr. Rimsky noted the approved conservation easement preserves open space as required by the Subdivision Regulations, but also protects the value of the adjoining lot. He, too, thought the original wording had been well thought out. If a revision were allowed, he said, the Commission should still insist on prior notification and the right to monitor the work done.

Atty. Kelly agreed to withdraw his request that the notification requirement be eliminated.

Mr. Bender also recommended in the second line of paragraph 4.i the words, "and vegetation" be deleted. He explained that doing so would protect the under story growth.

Atty. Kelly read the first paragraph on page 1 of the easement re: its purpose and said the property owner's use of this area had to be consistent with the purpose of the easement.

Mr. Charles noted a property owner's perception of what activities were OK in the easement area might differ from the Commission's intent. He thought over the next month the Commission should study whether the request for modification was reasonable.

Atty. Kelly argued the Commission had no legal right to require a conservation easement; per state statutes it could only require open space where no building could take place.

There was a brief discussion regarding whether Mr. Bader, Tree Warden, or the Conservation Commission should be asked or Steep Rock should be contracted to monitor this conservation easement. Mr. Sabin thought proposals for maintenance work should come back to the Planning Commission because it could check what was proposed against the record and then direct whoever would monitor the work. Atty. Kelly noted the Commission would receive 30 days notice and so would have time to find someone to do the monitoring.

MOTION: That the Washington Planning Commission approve an addition to the conservation easement dated 10/1/02 between Nassar, Uruburu, and Schneider and the Town of Washington of subparagraph h to paragraph 4, which shall read as follows: "The right of the owner of Lot #2 to cut, trim, top, plant, or otherwise maintain but not to clear cut the trees in that portion of Conservation Easement Area C, which is not closer than one hundred fifty (150') feet from any portion of the property line adjoining West Church Hill Road." By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Charles abstained.

It was noted no revision was necessary to keep the original notification and monitoring requirement in place.

Plan of Conservation and Development: The next Special Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. Discussion of booklet #5 on Development will continue and the Zoning Commission is again welcome to attend. Mr. Bender asked whether the Commissioners had any comments about the letters he and Mrs. Luckey had sent to Mr. Chalder expressing their concerns that issues they had raised had not been brought up for discussion. Mr. Sabin agreed a study of the old Town Garage site was needed and noted it had been included in the early negotiations with Mr. Chalder. Mr. Rimsky also thought this matter should be taken up now as there were many parties interested in using this property. Mr. Charles noted the discussion on village centers had begun at the last meeting, but asked since the Commission was now falling behind schedule, if it should consider taking up the consideration of village centers in greater detail after the Plan has been adopted. Mr. Rimsky expressed his disappointment that there had not been more public discussion. Mr. Bender noted the public session on Conservation had been delayed until more of the issues brought up in that chapter have been resolved. Although he understood the reason, Mr. Rimsky thought the result was that the public had no sense of the progress the Commission was making. Mrs. Roberts noted the other Land Use Commissions had been involved and that had provided constructive input. Mr. Boling's 10/22/02 letter regarding transfer of development rights was discussed. Mr. Sabin asked since the Town's density is based on the capacity of the soil to handle on site sewerage, if a higher density is approved, is this contrary to or does it undermine the Town's soil based zoning regulations. Mr. Charles thought it was not contrary to soil based zoning if the overall density of the entire Town was considered and any plans proposed were approved by the Health Department. He said transfer of development rights would be a useful tool to allow greater density in the village centers. It was the consensus it would be helpful if Mr. Boling supplied the Commission with more information on transfer of development rights such as examples of smaller towns where it has been used successfully.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

October 15, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Payne

Mr. Bender called the Special Meeting to order at 4:25 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, and Charles and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Byerly. Mr. Chalder apologized for arriving late.

Mr. Chalder hoped to briefly cover all the conceptual issues in Book 5 and then return to discuss them in greater detail at a later date. Community structure, residential development, and village business development were the topics to be discussed.

Community Structure: Mr. Chalder described this as the overall defining element of the Plan. He asked the Commissioners to review the map on page 3 to make sure he had included/located all the relevant areas. It was the consensus he had done so. The following issues were addressed in the discussion of this topic:

Housing and Residential Development: Mr. Chalder noted 97% of the existing housing in Washington is single family dwellings and said the Town has excellent regulations in place to deal with the relationship of development and natural resources. He also noted from his conversations with residents that Washington has a sincere desire for population diversity. The following topics were discussed:

Housing Diversity:

At the next meeting discussion will continue from page 10 of Booklet #5. In the meantime, Mr. Bender asked the Commissioners to write down their thoughts on development issues and to send them to Mr. Chalder.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.

Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 6:18 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

September 3, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Schneider, Ms. Uruburu

REGULAR MEETING

Regular Business

Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, and Charles and Alternates Roberts and Sabin for Mr. Buck and Mr. Byerly.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 8/6/02 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 2 in the third line from the bottom "inspected" should be "inspection."

MOTION: To accept the 8/6/02 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Bender abstained because he had not attended.

MOTION: To accept the 8/9/02 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Bender abstained because he had not attended.

The 8/21/02 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. At the bottom of page 3 the correct spelling is Deewee's Island, South Carolina.

MOTION: To accept the 8/21/02 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Sabin, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Sabin, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Nasar-Uruburu-Schneider/121 West Church Hill Road/Subdivision

The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/20/02 was reviewed and Mrs. Hill circulated a copy of the Assessor's Map to show the location of the property. Mr. Rimsky and Mrs. Roberts thought the open space along the front of the proposed lot was appropriate and would preserve the view from the road. Mr. Rimsky said the conservation easement would also preserve the old trees, which otherwise might be cleared for a view. The second proposed open space area, a buffer between the two lots, was discussed. Mr. Bender thought this triangular area added nothing to the rural character of Town and so suggested the applicants consider locating open space in the area between the subdivision line and the wooden gate on the original lot. Ms. Schneider thought Mr. Neff was concerned about the location of the reserve septic system in this area, but Mr. Bender said the right to install a reserve system could be specified in the conservation easement. He also suggested an open space area in the heavily wooded area on the sharp corner above the driveway to provide additional protection along the road frontage. Ms. Schneider said she had no objections to Mr. Bender's recommendations. It was noted Mr. Neff had completed density calculations for each lot and the results had been OK. It was noted the following required information/documentation was missing: 1) Record Subdivision Map, 2) Health Department approval, 3) Inland Wetlands Commission report, 4) passive solar energy information, 4) Selectmen's approval of proposed driveway cuts and any drainage requirements the Selectmen's Office deemed necessary, 5) revised location of open space, 6) conservation easement language, and 7) entity that will accept the open space. Mrs. Hill reported the application had not yet been referred to the Conservation Commission (it will be researched whether this is still required under the revised Regulations) and had been referred to New Milford and affected councils of governments who have thirty-five days in which to respond. Ms. Schneider asked if the Commission could approve the application prior to the next meeting, but it was noted there was a lot of information outstanding. Also, the next Commission meeting was on October 1, but the councils of government had until October 2 to respond.

Other Business

Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/First Draft - Section 14

Mr. Bender thought the first draft needed polishing and that reconciliation with the Subdivision Regulations was needed. He cited the following examples where work was needed: 1) page 60: Where referring to the character of development, it is unclear whether this means a residential or commercial user, 2) Section 14.7.6 says it will address hours of operation but doesn't, 3) 14.7.10 limits where outside storage is not permitted, but omits regulated wetlands areas, 4) either the term, "street" or "road," should be used consistently throughout. Mrs. Roberts was glad to see provisions addressing lighting. Mr. Charles suggested more specifics about lighting be added and Mr. Bender thought an abatement for existing uplighting should be included if the lighting could be seen from the road or from an adjoining property. Mr. Rimsky noted cutting of the understory increases runoff and often causes erosion problems and asked if the Zoning Commission could address that. Mr. Sabin noted vegetation will dissipate much of the flow and so said it was a good practice to preserve the understory. It was noted the management of stormwater runoff has become a townwide concern and that it was good for the Town and in keeping with the ongoing discussion of the update of the Plan that it was being addressed by Zoning. Mr. Sabin pointed out on page 62 that the peak flow rate could not be increased and that the use of innovative stormwater infiltration techniques that had often been discussed by the Planning Commission such as porous pavements, geoblocks, and grass lined swales would be encouraged although not required.

Scheduling of Public Meeting to Discuss Conservation Matters: Mr. Bender reported there would be a public meeting lead by Mr. Chalder at 7:30 p.m. on September 20 if the Commissioners had no objections. (Note: This meeting date was subsequently cancelled. Also, the Special Meeting regularly held on the third Tuesday from 4:00 - 6:00 will not be held in September.) He said he would try to schedule a meeting with Mrs. Payne and Mr. Jackson of Steep Rock before then. Mr. Rimsky said at the 8/21 Special Meeting he sensed the Conservation Commission thought it was being asked to do a great deal of work, but was not prepared to handle the increased workload. He thought if the Conservation Commission was to named the organization to receive open space, the Town would have to make sure it was prepared for this responsibility and said it should be included in the dialogue leading up to this decision. Mr. Bender noted the state statutes specify the Conservation Commission may be the entity to receive open space, but that the deed would run to the Town and the Commission would have the duty to manage and oversee. In reviewing Mr. Bender's brief position paper, which he would use for the basis of his discussion with Steep Rock, Mr. Charles thought the subject of limited equity parcels to be used for affordable housing should be included. He said it was important that the organization not only be used to accept and monitor open space and farmland, but that it also work to construct affordable housing on some of the parcels. Mr. Charles noted the public does not generally know how Steep Rock operates because it is a private organization and he asked if the Commission could obtain a copy of its charter. He was concerned that if Steep Rock took all of the Town's open space parcels and then went out of business in the future, the Town would lose control of that land. Other concerns brought up in a lengthy discussion regarding what entity should receive the open space included; Steep Rock is perceived differently by different segments of the community and the Planning Commission must be mindful of this, if Steep Rock agrees to serve as the organization it is important that it take small parcels and parcels that are not contiguous to other Steep Rock land, the focus of Steep Rock and the Conservation Commission may change as their membership changes, and the issue of public access should be addressed.

Article Concerning Affordable Housing in Nantucket: Mr. Bender summarized the article, which detailed pending Massachusetts' legislation. In an attempt to provide affordable housing units in Nantucket, a homeowner could subdivide his property and sell the second house on the lot to a moderate income buyer as long as an affordable housing covenant was placed on the property. This could be done even if the original property did not meet the minimum lot size requirements. The Commissioners discussed whether a similar regulation should be considered for Washington. Although it was thought there would not be many residences where the property owner would want to sell his existing detached apartment, the Commissioners thought this possibility should be discussed later in the process of updating the Plan. It was noted Health approvals would have to be granted and the ordinance carefully worded. The article and these minutes will be forwarded to Mr. Chalder.

Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 12.14, 17, and 18.1.3: The proposed revisions are attached.

Section 12.14: Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment. Mr. Sabin did not like the language in 12.14.3 and did not think the entire regulation addressed the issue of noise. He thought it would be more effective if the Zoning Commission listed appropriate types of equipment and specified permitted decibel levels. He also thought the requirement of earthen berms would be helpful. Mr. Rimsky noted, too, buffering would cut down on the noise level. Mrs. Hill noted ZBA had recommended these changes and the Zoning Commission thought it would be difficult to administer regulations based on decibel levels.

Section 17: It was noted editing is needed to check for consistency of terms. For example, in some cases the term, "land," is used and in others, "premises." Also in Section 17.6 there is a sentence fragment. Mr. Bender thought there should be some legal mechanism to terminate a non conforming use after a specific period of time and the rest of the Commissioners agreed even after Mrs. Hill explained that if a non conforming use is changed to another use, the first use is no longer grandfathered.

Section 18.1.3: The proposed language states that no use variances may be granted. Mrs. Hill explained this has been Town policy for many years and the Commissioners had no objections.

Correspondence

A four page document from Ms. Doran re: housing related issues was circulated. Mrs. Hill was asked to make sure Mr. Chalder had gotten a copy.

Mr. Charles circulated the 7/17/02 letter from eleven attorney generals to President Bush telling him he must address global warming. He noted that good health and a healthy economy are dependent on the state of the environment. He asked everyone to read the letter so it could be discussed at the next meeting.

Plan of Development: 1) Mr. Charles voiced his concern that "something was lacking" in the update process. He thought often the Commission did not have enough information on the topics discussed and that the Members were not educated enough to make the necessary decisions regarding Town matters. 2) Mr. Sabin reviewed the Conservation Commission's working open space map, which showed areas already preserved as open space and those considered for future preservation. He noted Conservation had used a list of criteria for ranking the parcels over 25 acres in size. He pointed out potential open space corridors, which were drawn based on the overlap of natural resources, aquifers, prominence areas, soils of concern, wildlife habitat, views, etc. He also noted that each parcel was reviewed for appropriateness for affordable housing. Mr. Rimsky thought the Town should aggressively pursue the proposed open space parcels before they become unavailable. It was noted if the Town was going to pursue open space, it would first have to establish an entity to receive the land and also establish funding for purchase and maintenance of property. As indicated earlier in the meeting, Steep Rock will be consulted regarding whether it would agree to become the entity to receive Town open space.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.

Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

August 21, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles

ALTERNATES PRESENT:Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mr. Gillis, Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey

INVITEES PRESENT: Conservation Commission: Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Markert, Mrs. Payne
Inland Wetlands Commission: Mrs. D. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. Purnell
Historic Distric Commission: Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot
Zoning Commission: Mr. Martin
Steep Rock: Atty. Fairbairn
Weantinogue: Mr. McGowan

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Ms. Doran, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Phillips, Press

Mr. Bender called the workshop meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Buck. He noted those invited had been sent discussion booklets 4 and 4a and asked that written comments be submitted to Mrs. Hill prior to August 28.

Mr. Chalder, consultant, moderated the meeting. He explained the following topics would be discussed: natural resources, open space, historic resources, community character, and community spirit. For each of these topics the following three questions would be considered: 1. Vision: Does Washington have an appropriate goal or vision for this topic, is it clearly articulated, and can the goal or vision be implemented? 2. Organizations: Does Washington have appropriate organizations and/or staffing to accomplish the vision, are the appropriate organizations identified, and what should be the lead organization(s)? 3. Tools: Does Washington have the appropriate tools to accomplish the vision and what other tools might be desirable?

Natural Resources

Vision Statement: Based on the discussion with the Planning Commission to date the proposed vision statement was, "Continue to protect natural resources in order to maintain environmental function, maintain ecological balance, enhance community character, and enhance the overall quality of life." Mr. Philips thought the statement was meaningless because it contained no measurable objectives, while Mr. Martin thought it was a good statement the general public would support. Mr. Chalder presented the map, "Conservation Priorities Map," which showed the lands to be preserved such as wetlands, watercourses, and floodplain, lands for conservation such as steep slopes and watersheds, and lands to be protected such as wildlife corridors. Mr. Smith asked if aquifers were included. They were and their locations noted on the map. Mr. Chalder noted these lands covered approximately 50% of Town. Ms. Doran suggested setting a specific quantifiable goal for the percentage of natural resources to be included in the overall 30% open space to be preserved. Atty. Fairbairn suggested prioritizing the natural resources to be preserved, for example, making aquifers the number one priority.

Organizations: Mr. Chalder noted currently the Conservation Commission has the charge for natural resource protection with support from the other land use commissions, and other conservation organizations such as Steep Rock and Weantinogue. He asked if the Conservation Commission was the right entity for this job. Mrs. Payne noted it is the Conservation Commission's job according to statutory definition. Mr. Smith pointed out the Zoning Commission also serves an important role in protecting natural resources by preventing over building and Mr. Chalder noted the Health Dept. is also important. Mr. Martin stated zoning controlled density and lot coverage and was working on an update of Section 14 of the Zoning Regs. regarding site plan requirements, which included new design standards for drainage and runoff. He said he was comfortable with the Conservation Commission as the lead commission in protecting natural resources. Mr. Chalder noted Conservation may promote conservation topics and coordinate efforts, but has no regulatory role. Mrs. Roberts noted the poor communication between the land use commissions and urged the Conservation Commission to alert the other commissions about the issues it is taking up so they can be included in the discussions.

Tools: Mr. Chalder said Washington has excellent land use regulations in place to protect natural resources, but additional land disturbance controls such as zero increase in peak storm water runoff and guidelines for blasting might be desirable. Mr. Charles expressed his concern that the Town regulations weren't adequate to handle an application under the affordable housing appeals process, but Mr. Chalder said this could be overridden if there were valid environmental concerns. Mr. Bender asked that the Subdivision Regulations be added to the list of tools.

Open Space

Vision Statement: Mr. Chalder said he had a sense the community goal for preservation of open space was 30% by 2015, but he was not sure if there was a consensus for what lands should be preserved. He noted that if the existing and visual open space and the natural resources were all considered, it would total 80 to 90 percent of Washington. In order to prepare the open space plan that was geographically specific, he said, the questions, how much open space, where, and why would have to be addressed. Mrs. Payne said the 30% goal had been recommended by the Open Space Steering Committee, but had not yet been discussed in a public forum. Atty. Fairbairn thought the percentage to be preserved would be dependent upon how much cost the Town would support. It was also noted that much of the lands in Washington, which are perceived to be permanent open space, are actually in 490, which is only temporary protection. The map, "Desirable Open Space Corridors," was reviewed. Mr. Sabin noted the intent of this map was to show strategic desirable areas and did not necessarily mean the entire corridor should be open space. Mr. Chalder tried to get a sense of whether the Town envisioned many unconnected parcels of open space throughout Town or whether it would take a corridor approach. Mr. Gitterman thought this map would be more meaningful if the parcels were prioritized. Mr. Markert thought an opportunistic approach should be taken; that open space lands should be taken when offered instead of setting goals to acquire what is not available. Mr. Martin agreed, but added criteria would be needed to establish a priority for spending Town funds. Atty. Fairbairn thought that to implement anything other than an opportunistic plan, the Town would have to make a financial commitment. Mr. Chalder noted that once a plan with accompanying map had been agreed upon, it could be used to gain community support, and once that has been established, the state statutes allow the Town to reserve up to 2 mils for an open space fund. Mr. Talbot noted Nantucket charges 2% to the buyer at the time of a sale, those funds being set aside for open space. Mr. Chalder said a similar proposal had failed in the Ct. legislature. Mr. Charles thought it was important to create a situation where smaller property owners could participate in open space preservation and suggested higher development standards be set like the 10% maximum development on lots in Dewey's Island. Mr. Chalder did not think that idea was applicable to Washington because the Island was a resort community where property owners knew the restrictions before they purchased the property.

Organizations: Mr. Chalder asked what organization should be the acting land trust for Washington and why. Discussing the choices, he said Steep Rock has the ability to take property and donations, but will not always accept parcels, Weantinogue serves all of Litchfield County, the Conservation Commission can acquire property in the Town's name with the consent of the Board of Selectmen, and another option would be the establishment of a Town of Washington Land Trust. The responses included:

Mr. Chalder noted there would also be a public meeting to discuss conservation issues.

Historic Resources

Vision Statement: Mr. Chalder read the proposed vision statement, "Continue to encourage the preservation of historically significant buildings, properties, and places in order to enhance community character." There was general agreement with this statement.

Organization: Mr. Chalder asked who should be the primary organization to carry out the vision to identify historic resources and coordinate efforts to preserve them. Mr. Rimsky suggested the Historic District Commission continue to do the good job that it has, but Mrs. Hill pointed out that the HDC has very limited jurisdiction and that it is difficult to establish new historic districts. Mr. Smith, HDC Chairman, agreed the Commission is very limited in what it can do, but did note the state has statutes governing procedures for delaying the demolition of historic structures. He thought it would be a good idea for the HDC to increase this power, but added it has no control over demolition by neglect. He also noted the HDC has no funds to help with historic preservation. Mrs. Roberts then suggested the establishment of a townwide historic society. Mr. Smith thought such an organization should have an educational function, possibly be connected with the museum, and would need professional expertise to make it happen. Mr. Chalder asked if the Town was doing a good enough job already so that an additional organization would not be needed. Mr. Smith thought more education for the public was needed. Mr. Chalder asked if education could fall under the duties of the Conservation Commission. Mrs. Payne said it would fall under historic resources, but that it would take an increase in budget and staff to do. Mr. Boling suggested Village Districts be established under the control of the Zoning Commission or that the whole Town be considered a Village District so that all buildings with historical merit could be preserved. Ms. Doran agreed with Mr. Boling. Ms. Purnell cautioned using the Natural Resource Inventory Report as the sole source of historic homes as it included only those houses that could be seen from the road. Mr. Smith also noted that as time passes, the houses we now consider modern will become part of the historical record. Mr. Gitterman worried that there were not enough volunteers in Town to staff another organization. It was recommended the Gunn Museum be added to the list of historic organizations in Town and that all the houses on the National Register be included in the report.

Community Character/Community Spirit

Vision Statement: Continue to seek and use every possible device that will enable Washington to identify, protect, and enhance community character. Mr. Chalder explained the character was the physical attributes of the Town, whereas the spirit was the feeling residents had about where they live; the pride of place and love for the Town. Mr. Gitterman said the vision statement must include the word, rural. Mr. Smith pointed out that adding "rural" would not address the problem of those who move here for the rural character, but then complain about operating farms. A discussion about farming followed. Ms. Doran thought weekenders and newcomers must understand that the Town's goal is to preserve farmland and that the Zoning Commission should find ways to support agriculture. She also thought there should be pamphlets at the real estate offices to educate newcomers. Mr. Chalder said the Plan of Conservation and Development could be used for community education as well as the Town website. Mrs. Payne noted the Conservation Commission has already identified education as a real need. Mr. Charles said in addition to educating people about the goal of preserving farmland, the general public needs to understand that there are limits to what can be done on a property and that the regulations are there to protect them. It was the consensus that community character and spirit was the main chapter heading and that it included the topics of conservation, natural and historic resources, and open space. Mr. Gitterman expressed his concern about human resources. He feared Washington would be 30% open space and the remainder a gated community as there is little affordable housing and long time residents are taxed out of Town. He said community diversity must be addressed in the Plan because it is an essential part of rural character. Mr. Martin noted the many public and private schools in Town and said they are lead organizations for community spirit.

Organization: Mr. Gitterman thought that if all the commissions functioned properly and worked together all the vision statements would be accomplished. Ms. Purnell agreed it was everyone's responsibility. Mr. Philps said specific responsibilities should be assigned to the various groups or nothing would be accomplished.

Mr. McGowan from the Lake Waramaug Task Force apologized for arriving late and made the following points regarding preservation of natural resources. 1. He was concerned about the suggestion that alternate septic systems be investigated. He thought sewers would be counter productive around Lake Waramaug and asked for a strong sewer avoidance policy around the lake. 2. He asked Zoning to increase the building setback around the lake to 75 feet and 100 feet for major structures. He also noted the importance of maintaining natural vegetation around the shoreline. 3. He maintained the 10% impervious coverage cap was essential and asked the Zoning Commission to restore it around the lake. 4. He believed the preservation of small open space parcels around the lake was essential. 5. Regarding education and enforcement, he said micromanagement around Lake Waramaug was needed and recommended a deputy enforcement officer be hired for lake duty only.

Mr. Talbot asked for a definition of impervious surface.

Mr. Chalder reminded those present that written comments were due by August 28.

Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

July 16, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mr. Gillis, Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey

ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Doran, Mr. Field

Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, and Byerly and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Charles, who had not yet arrived.

It was decided that the Conservation Commission would be invited to attend next month's Special Meeting on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 from 4:00 to 6:00. The day was changed from the regular third Tuesday due to the vacation schedules of some of the Members. It was noted, however, that if the time was inconvenient for the Conservation Commission, it could be changed. Mr. Bender said this was a change in the original work schedule as this formal discussion with Conservation would be held prior to, rather than after, the first draft was written. Input from the Historic District Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission was encouraged, but it was noted the formal invitation would be sent only to Conservation and Steep Rock at this point.

Mr. Rimsky and Mr. Sabin arrived at this point.

The following comments were made/questions raised concerning the end of Chapter 4.

Page 30:

1. Mr. Bender asked that archeological and historical resources be separated into two sections.

2. Bottom of the page: Archeological sites should be more clearly defined so that an investigation can be required if development is proposed within the boundaries.

3. The Commission asked to review sample regulations, which would accomplish the strategies listed.

Page 31:

1. Mr. Bender again asked for a more specific description of the archeological sites.

Page 32:

1. First paragraph: Mr. Bender asked that the party who completed the survey be identified.

2. Mr. Chalder was asked to consult with the state archeologist for definitions/differences between the terms, archeological and historical.

3. #1 at bottom of page: Mr. Bender thought protection of the archeological sites should be turned over to the Historic District Commission, but Mrs. Hill said these were not under its jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Bender asked for more specific recommendations on how the strategies would be accomplished.

5. It was suggested that perhaps preservation of historic buildings could be encouraged by not increasing their assessments when repairs are made.

6. Mr. Sabin noted small but critical open space acquisitions could greatly help to preserve the character of historic areas.

7. Under "State Register Places:" Mr. Bender asked for street addresses.

Page 34:

1. Mr. Bender asked for a more "intuitive" system for describing the local protection programs. Mr. Rimsky suggested empty boxes before those programs not implemented in Town.

2. Regulatory Demolition Delay: Mr. Bender thought temporary delays would be highly subject to violation and so asked that penalties be considered.

3. Mr. Chalder was asked to supply sample regulations that address the recommendations made. Mr. Byerly asked also if they could be evaluated to indicate which would be the most effective.

4. Sensitive Ownership: Mr. Rimsky noted there are property owners in Town who "improve" their properties beyond recognition and negatively impact the historic nature of the buildings they work on. He asked if the Town could implement regulations to prevent this. Mr. Chalder noted that the state and national registries of historic places were not protection, said the best protection was by a local historic district commission, but pointed out even a local historic district comm. has no jurisdiction over interior renovations.

5. Expansion of historic districts: Mr. Bender asked if the historic districts could be made contiguous with the Town boundaries so all historic structures could be under that commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Chalder said this could be done only if two thirds of the Town residents and the Board of Selectmen approved it. Mr. Chalder thought a Historic Properties Commission might be more appropriate and Mr. Bender asked if the Historic District Commission could serve as both. Mr. Chalder will research this matter and consult with the State Historic Commission.

Page 35:

1. First line: It was noted responsible ownership and sensitive ownership were the same category.

2. Strategy #2 at bottom of page: Mr. Chalder suggested that clusters of historic properties be identified as potential additional historic districts, but noted this is a sensitive issue with many property owners. He recommended Planning meet with the Historic District Commission regarding historic issues.

3. Second paragraph: Mr. Sabin recommended that the older southern section of Marbledale also be designated as a village district (in addition to New Preston and the Depot).

Page 36:

1. Mr. Bender objected to the use of the term, "dedicated" for permanently preserved open space.

2. Construction/reconstruction of stonewalls was discussed. Mr. Rimsky asked if there was some way to preserve the old fashioned New England stone walls and to make sure new walls were not "counter to the history of New England." He suggested possibly lower assessments on those that were traditional New England walls. Mr. Bender asked Mr. Chalder what recommendations he had regarding design controls for new and reconstructed stone walls. Mr. Chalder said he had not encountered this problem in any of the other towns he has worked for, noted controlling aesthetics was difficult, and said he would investigate.

3. Noting establishment of historic districts and village districts was a way to attempt to have more control over aesthetics and the preservation of the unique character of Town, the idea of making the entire town a village district was considered. Mr. Chalder noted this had never been done on a townwide basis before and will research the enabling legislation.

Page 37:

1. First paragraph: Mr. Bender asked for a better definition of "structure."

2. First paragraph under Promote Development Patterns with Character: Mr. Bender noted this should refer to strip type commercial development. Mr. Chalder did not agree as residential uses could be included and said he would address this in a side bar.

3. Bottom of page: Recommendations #2 and #5 seemed to be duplications.

4. Re: #4, Mrs. Roberts noted older communities have houses close to the roads and suggested Washington preserve a mix of setbacks rather than increase the setback from the road across the board.

5. Mr. Chalder discussed the possibility of larger frontage requirements coupled with smaller roads to access houses in the rear for new development on major roads as a means of preserving rural character.

Page 38:

1. Chart: Mr. Bender asked that the list of scenic views be checked again and any missed added to the list.

2. Chart: Mr. Bender asked that a statement be added that the list of scenic views was based on the list in the NRIR, but is not limited to only those views noted in the Report.

3. Middle of page, 1st bullet: Mrs. Roberts asked that lighting be added. It was agreed to add it here although it would be discussed later in the development section.

4. 2nd bullet: Mr. Chalder said the Zoning Commission would be the board to adopt a special application review process to consider the siting of houses, walls, and fences in sensitive areas should the Planning Commission decide to recommend this be done.

5. Bottom of page, #1 and #2: It was agreed these should be made recommendations. Mr. Chalder noted that if called a prominence rather than a ridge line, the definition of ridge line in the statutes can be avoided and a different set of protection guidelines established.

Page 40:

1. Chart: Duplicate listings will be deleted.

2. Bottom of page, #1: When it was suggested a scenic road ordinance be adopted and the specific roads to be included be determined afterwards, Mrs. Luckey explained the scenic roads committee would most likely designate the Planning Commission to determine which roads should be considered scenic roads.

3. Mrs. Roberts suggested the state be contacted to designate more state roads in Town as scenic roads.

Page 42:

1. Under strategies, #5: Mr. Bender asked that best management practices be defined.

Mr. Charles arrived at this point.

2. Mr. Bender asked what happens if an agricultural easement is granted, and then for some reason the land is not farmed. Mr. Chalder stated the land would still be permanently protected.

3. The question was also raised whether development rights could be resold. Mr. Chalder said he did not know whether the sale of development rights was permanent protection and that he would research this matter.

4. Mr. Charles noted he hoped the Plan would reflect the evolution of farming in the area.

Page 43:

1. Middle of page, #3: Mr. Bender asked that this be expanded to include how to control this. Mr. Chalder stated a tree warden may be designated to meet with CL&P representatives on a regular basis.

2. #8: Add to this a recommendation that a Town tree farm to raise stock to be used to beautify Town be established, possibly at Meeker Swamp.

3. Mr. Charles questioned whether the Plan should support the concept of "zero landscaping." He noted there are many properties in Town that pump 60 gallons of water per minute to water 7 to 10 acre lawns. Mr. Sabin agreed this was a potential problem as this amount of pumping can lower the water table for more than a 75 foot radius. Mr. Bender asked Mr. Chalder to address the protection of water resources in Chapter 4.

Page 44:

1. Mr. Bender asked if architecture could be restricted for single family homes visible from public roads. Again, Mr. Chalder thought historic district commissions and village districts were the most appropriate ways to implement architectural review and noted there are not many towns in the country that do so for single family homes. Mr. Charles noted it was not only the style, but also the scale and size of some houses that detract from the Town's character. He thought, too, the huge amount of traffic generated from the construction and upkeep of a large house on a back road was "offensive." Possible solutions to this problem were a requirement that a building permit must be executed within one year and a limitation on the square footage of houses. Mr. Bender suggested a zoning regulation to increase the required setbacks for houses over a certain size. It was the consensus that Mr. Chalder put together information on floor area ratio regulations and vertical height in relation to front yard setback regulations for the Commission's review in the development section.

Page 45:

1. Bottom of page, under strategies: Mr. Bender asked that a #4 be added; Try to convert 490 lands to conservation easements. Mr. Chalder suggested the Commission meet with the Assessor at a future meeting.

Page 46:

1. Chart: The reference to Pinehurst will be deleted.

Page 47:

1. Under Communications: It was noted the Town already has a website and this section should be revised to reflect this.

Mr. Chalder asked for the Commission's vision of the open space plan for Washington, noting that if all the open space discussed by the Commission were actually set aside, 90% of Washington would be dedicated open space. He said priorities were needed. Mr. Bender suggested Mr. Sabin, who had chaired the committee that wrote the Natural Resources Inventory Report, work with Mr. Chalder to help him prioritize. Mr. Sabin advised Mr. Chalder to use the map and ranking of properties the Conservation Commission had drafted, but Mr. Chalder said he had not received either. The Planning Commissioners agreed they should all have copies to review prior to the next meeting.

Mr. Bender asked if the Town can legislate the right to cross and recross by eminent domain, for example, to cross the old Shepaug railroad bed. Mr. Chalder said it did for public purpose and benefit.

Open space terminology was again discussed. Mr. Chalder noted PA 490 lands are not protected.

Mr. Chalder asked the Commissioners to keep thinking about open space priorities and what the core values of open space should be. Mr. Field complained Planning was trying to redo what the Conservation Commission had already completed and that it was using different terminology than had been adopted by Conservation. He recommended Mr. Chalder meet with the Conservation Commission before the next Planning meeting. Mr. Charles did not think Mr. Chalder should meet alone with Conservation. He suggested the entire Planning Commission, the Open Space Steering Committee, and the Ad Hoc Conservation Committee meet with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Chalder said he did not want to be the conduit between the two commissions.

Mr. Charles asked Mr. Field if he thought the Open Space Steering Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee would be comfortable with the conclusions in the Conservation Commission's Interim Report. Mr. Field responded they all agreed with the goal of 30% open space, but the strategies each supported to get there differed.

Mr. Bender said he preferred Mr. Chalder not attend the next Conservation Commission meeting as he had been hired by Planning as its consultant. It was agreed Conservation would be invited to the next Special Meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. A public meeting will be scheduled in September to discuss conservation issues.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Buck.

Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 5:02 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

July 2, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Sabin

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Cook, Mrs. Philips

Regular Business

Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, Byerly, and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Charles.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 5/7/02 Special Joint Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Buck abstained because he did not attend the meeting.

Mr. Charles arrived and was seated.

MOTION: To accept the 5/7/02 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 6/4/02 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Buck abstained because he had not attended the meeting.

Several points in the 6/4/02 Minutes were discussed. Mrs. Averill asked whether Atty. Byrne had been consulted about whether a small non conforming parcel could be legally conveyed. Mrs. Hill said he had confirmed this could be done, but added he was now working with the Zoning Commission on revisions to the Zoning Regulations, which would prevent this type of conveyance from being used to circumvent the Regulations in the future. Regarding the Plan of Conservation and Development, Mrs. Averill asked that Mr. Chalder be made aware of the First Selectman's request that the Plan address the problem of where to store Town equipment.

The 6/18/02 Special Meeting Minutes were accepted as corrected. Mrs. Payne's name was added to the list of those in attendance.

MOTION: To accept the 6/18/02 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.

The 6/18/02 Minutes were briefly discussed. Mr. Charles explained his idea to finance the purchase of parcels by selling the tax credits and/or development rights to interested parties.

Mr. Rimsky arrived at 7:58 p.m.

MOTION: To accept subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Discussion of "Addition to Minutes - 7/2/02"

Copies of this document were circulated and Mr. Bender asked the Commissioners to read it before proceeding with the discussion. (Copy attached) It noted his disappointment that the Commission had received criticisms from boards and ad hoc groups concerning their alleged inability to participate in the process to update the Plan. In fact, he thought they had had many opportunities to participate and had listed them in the document. Mrs. Roberts agreed that the criticisms were not only unwarranted, but also were destructive to the process. She stressed the need for cooperation between all Town groups. It was the consensus of the Members that this paper should be included with the minutes and circulated to all Town boards and committees. Mr. Bender said the next Special Meeting to discuss the Plan would be advertised on the Town website as well as posted in the Town Clerk's Office as usual.

Plan of Conservation and Development

Mr. Bender noted the Commission had had a rewarding discussion on Chapter 4 at the last Special Meeting, would continue with the topic of historic resources, and hopefully complete this chapter at the July 16 meeting. Mr. Rimsky noted much of this chapter had been generated from the Natural Resources Inventory Report and Recommendations. Mr. Bender was concerned that although Mr. Chalder had agreed to pay special attention to this report and those of the other ad hoc committees when drafting the Plan, he maintained he needed freedom to rearrange and even modify some of the reports as some of their recommendations may not be workable or may conflict with Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Bender thought Planning should be very careful about this as the various groups had done a lot of work on their reports and the Commission expected to follow their recommendations. Mr. Rimsky thought it would be extremely helpful if Mr. Chalder pointed out all potential conflicts so that the Commission could deal with them. He thought there could be problems with the other committees if major elements from their reports were omitted from the Plan. Mr. Bender said he would bring this matter to Mr. Chalder's attention and ask that it be discussed more thoroughly at the next meeting.

Public Comment

Park and Rec Commission/Old Town Garage Site/Titus Road/ Preliminary Discussion

Mr. Cook represented the Park and Rec Commission. He stated that Commission was interested in using the old Town Garage property for ball fields, both soccer and baseball, and presented a rough sketch of the area showing a possible layout. He said he had paced off the property and there would be plenty of room for the fields, parking, and a greenway trail. He said he understood the Town was still using this property for storage, but said Park and Rec wanted it on the record that it was interested in this site. A very lengthy discussion followed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commissioners that they had no problem with the temporary installation of ball fields on this property, but until a study has been completed to determine what the most appropriate use for it would be, they were very reluctant to make a permanent commitment to Park and Rec. It was noted this property is the prime contiguous piece to the existing Depot business district and would be the logical place for affordable housing, expansion of the business district, or other activities, which would ensure the future vitality of the village center. Mr. Cook thought there were more than enough properties available for commercial use, and that the Town's recreational needs had been put off and under funded for too long. Mr. Charles suggested the Primary School property could be laid out to make more efficient use of that site. Mrs. Roberts suggested use of a parcel along Rt. 202 near the state garage that was supposed to be used for ball fields. Mr. Cook said that property was not level and had several other problems that would take years to resolve. Mr. Cook noted the old Town Garage property is a beautiful piece more suited for a park than for commercial use. Mr. Cook also noted Park and Rec would have a difficult time raising the money to install the fields if donors knew that use of the property was only temporary. It was also suggested that Park and Rec might be successful if it tried to get someone to donate some land for playing fields. Mr. Cook thought this was the Town's responsibility and thanked the Commission for listening to his proposal.

Philips/Wykeham Road and Scenic Roads

Mrs. Philips asked what Town entity she should address concerning the problem of maintaining the rural character of the town roads, speed limits, traffic volume, etc. Mr. Bender advised her that these topics would be addressed in the update of the Plan of Conservation and Development. She was invited to attend the Special Meetings on the third Tuesday of each month. She was also urged to put her views in writing and to get them to Mrs. Hill so they can be forwarded to Mr. Chalder. Mr. Rimsky also advised her there is now a scenic road ordinance committee that she could contact. Mrs. Phillips complained about the current work on Wykeham Road, saying that because it had been widened its rural character had been ruined and the quality of the lives of the nearby residents adversely impacted. She also complained that since it was more level and the local police were reluctant to give tickets, it would become a race course. She recommended that other neighborhoods in Town not allow these kinds of improvements to their roads. Mr. Rimsky wondered if the road really had been widened contrary to promises from the Selectmen's Office, if Planning could insist on a walking or bike path. Mr. Bender advised her to contact the Selectmen's Office.

Correspondence

Mr. Bender noted the following had been received:

1. Letter from the Conservation Commission adding 2 pages to the Open Space Plan.

2. 5/13/02 letter from Ms. Hyll asking the Commission to consider restoring some or part of the old Woodville Business District.

3. Letter from Mr. Boling asking for consideration of village district legislation or establishment of a historic district for New Preston.

This letters will all be forwarded to Mr. Chalder.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Buck.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

June 18, 2002

 Special Meeting
June 18, 2002
4:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, and Mr. Charles
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mr. Gillis, Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Ms. Doran, Mrs. Friedman, Ms. Purnell

Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. He seated Members Averill and Bender and Alternates Rimsky and Roberts for Mr. Buck and Mr. Byerly.

Copies of Mrs. Payne's 6/12/02 comments on Section 4 and Mr. Field's memo dated 6/10/02 were circulated.

Discussion continued on Section 4 - Conservation.

P. 24: Mr. Bender commented that 1) Mrs. Payne had said the Greenways Committee was working on establishing a greenways trail over the old railroad bed and 2) the boundary of the Hidden Valley Preserve would have to be verified.

P.26: 1. First bullet under Regulatory Strategies: Add "minimum" to read, "A mandatory minimum 15% "

2. Mr. Chalder will add a bullet re: setting up a fund for fees in lieu of open space.

3. Mr. Bender questioned why Mr. Chalder thought public use and access should be encouraged on conservation easements because he thought that over emphasis on public access would decrease public donations. Mr. Chalder stated the Commission would have to discuss different preservation strategies and the benefit to the community when open space is used as well as preserved. This discussion ensued throughout the meeting. Mrs. Roberts agreed with Mr. Bender that most people who donate open space do not want public access, while Mr. Rimsky stated where public funds are used to acquire open space, there should be public access. Mr. Sabin and Mr. Charles arrived at this point. Mr. Bender asked if the Commission would recommend an assessment reduction for open space. Mr. Rimsky thought this should be based on whether or not there would be public access. It was noted that in all cases, if open space were accessible to the public, that access would be limited, and the limits should be clearly specified. Mr. Charles noted he had encountered resentment in Town about the purchase of Meeker Swamp for open space because it did not include housing and had limited access. He suggested the Town actively pursue the acquisition of open space, sell the tax credits, and use a portion of each property for affordable housing. Mr. Rimsky agreed the Town's land acquisition policy should be balanced with affordable housing efforts and said that since many residents do not understand the value of open space for its own sake, they would want to see both housing and access components in open space areas. Mr. Chalder acknowledged there is an important housing issue to be addressed in the Plan and that it is linked to open space, but said it would be discussed at a later date. He stated that most towns opt for open space with public access because it provides protection plus additional benefits and pointed out that Washington must define its open space strategy. He noted the Town has relied greatly on Steep Rock and private easements in the past, and asked if the Town could or should do more. Mrs. Roberts thought the Town should acquire more of its own open space. Mr. Bender said this could be done by establishing a land acquisition fund. He thought Steep Rock had been successful to date in obtaining open space, but asked if there would be strategies available to the Town that are not available to a private land trust. It was the consensus the Plan should not state a preference for the way in which open space should be preserved, that the Town should encourage all methods of preservation, which method used in each case to be at the discretion of the owner, and that each parcel acquired by the Town should be analyzed for its appropriateness for affordable housing.

4. Mr. Chalder will work on a revision to the definition of open space.

P. 26: Mr. Chalder noted there are some fiscal strategies such as bonding, which would be available to the Town, but not to a land trust.

P.27: 1. State and federal programs for open space acquisition will be listed in the appendix.

2. The possibility of the Town taking a first refusal option by eminent domain was discussed. Mr. Rimsky suggested a tax incentive similar to that for 490 lands be established for properties where the Town has a first refusal option. Mr. Bender noted such a program would have to be worked out with the Assessor's Office.

3. The possibility of the Town purchasing properties for open space using a reverse mortgage technique was considered.

4. It was noted a good Plan of Conservation and Development helps a Town to get state funding for open space.

5. It was noted Roxbury has been focussing on the preservation of farms, while Steep Rock has focussed on river corridors. Mr. Chalder asked if Washington would continue to focus on these corridors. Mrs. Payne noted the Conservation Commission interim report includes recommendations for open space acquisition and a map, which has not yet been circulated.

6. Mr. Chalder asked who the Commission would rely on to implement the open space plan. Mr. Bender noted the state statutes don't say this must be the Planning Commission and asked if the Conservation Commission would have jurisdiction. Mrs. Payne said she would consult with the Conservation Commission at its next meeting.

P.28 1. Mr. Chalder noted the great job Steep Rock has done to date, but asked the Commissioners to consider whether it was time to establish a Washington land trust. Mr. Bender thought this should be considered because Steep Rock was not a government agency and so was not bound by the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development. Another option, he said, would be to bring Steep Rock into the functional position of Washington Land Trust. Mr. Chalder said that competing land trusts might result in neither being successful. It was suggested two land trusts might divide the Town, one working to preserve stream corridors and the other farmland, for example. Mrs. Payne, chairman of Steep Rock's preservation committee, stated Steep Rock's policy is to collaborate with the Town in all ways possible. Mr. Charles pointed out, however, that Steep Rock has turned down land the Town has wanted it to preserve.

2. Mrs. Roberts suggested the Town work in conjunction with other towns and land trusts to increase its capacity to monitor open space. Mr. Bender requested this recommendation be included in the Plan. Mr. Sabin pointed out this might seem difficult to accomplish, but that Washington has often shared resources; its building official, health official, and regional school district, for example.

3. Mr. Bender said the Assessor presently gives no credit for lands under conservation easements and asked if the Commission should suggest this be done. Mr. Chalder noted the land covered by the easement might be worth less, but the surrounding land is worth more.

P. 29 1. Second paragraph: It was agreed the word, "key," should be deleted.

2. #2 at bottom: This will be modified to specify constraints for public use.

It was agreed the Commission would complete discussion of Section 4 at the July 16 Special Meeting and meet with the Conservation Commission when a first draft of the Conservation section is ready. After receiving Conservation's input, the Commission will meet with representatives from Steep Rock to begin a dialogue regarding open space strategies, the role of Steep Rock in the future, whether there should be a separate Washington Land Trust, etc. A public meeting on the topic of conservation will be held in September.

Regarding the reports from the Open Space Steering Committee, Housing Steering Committee, and Conservation Commission, Mr. Bender stated these would all be incorporated as part of the Plan. Mr. Charles asked if they were to be reviewed first to make sure they were consistent with the other sections of the Plan. Mr. Chalder said he had no problem accepting the terminology used in these reports and that they were good working guidelines, but he did not want any restrictions on how he puts the whole Plan together. For example, he said he had not included all of the recommendations from the Natural Resources Inventory Report because some would be very difficult to implement and others were contrary to points already agreed upon by the Commission. Mr. Bender strongly urged that none of the work of these committees and commissions be overlooked.

Agricultural open space easements were discussed. The questions were raised, what happens to an agricultural easement if there are no farmers left to use the land, why are agricultural conservation easements important to Washington, and should farming be subsidized? The purchase of development rights was cited as a means to preserve farmland.

Historic and community character will be discussed at the July 16 meeting.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.

June 4, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Sabin

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Andrews

Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternates Rimsky and Roberts for Mr. Buck and Mr. Sabin.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 5/7/02 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

It was noted the 5/7/02 Joint Commission Meeting minutes had not been mailed out and so would be considered at the next meeting.

MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Shepaug Valley Regional High School/159 South Street/Referral: CGS Section 8-24/New Track

Mrs. Hill said the school had called to ask to be taken off the agenda as the track had been defeated a second time.

Mr. Charles arrived at 7:39 p.m. and was seated for Mr. Rimsky.

Communications

Mr. Bender circulated the 5/17/02 letter he had received from Mr. Talbot regarding the unbuildable parcel, coverage, and right of way issues at 14 Old North Road. The accompanying unsigned map, "Composite Sketch," dated 5/16/02 was reviewed. It was noted a .3225 acre parcel with a paved driveway had been conveyed to a third party to decrease the coverage on the remaining 3+ acre lot at 14 Old North Road. A zoning permit for an accessory structure was subsequently issued for the 3+ acre lot. Mrs. Hill reported she had discussed this matter with both Atty. Miles and Atty. Byrne who said it had been legal to convey the smaller parcel.

Most of the Commissioners were very concerned that a nonconforming parcel had been created because it was smaller than the lots permitted under soil based zoning and it had more than 10% coverage. Mr. Bender, who is an attorney, advised them it is legal to convey small parcels, but most considered it an unacceptable loophole whether legal or not. After a brief review of the state statutes it was agreed this was not a Planning matter. However, Mrs. Hill was asked to 1) check again with Atty. Byrne to specifically ask whether a small parcel could be conveyed even though it is non conforming and 2) advise the Zoning Commission of the Planning Commission's serious concerns about this situation.

Plan of Development

Mrs. Roberts said Mr. Field had given her a copy of the interim open space plan, which she thought was very helpful and recommended all Commission Members read. Mrs. Hill will obtain copies for the Members who do not already have a copy. It was noted final reports by the Conservation Commission and Housing Steering Commission would soon be available.

Mrs. Luckey suggested the Plan address the question of where to store Town equipment.

There was a general concern raised that so many of the questions raised in Mr. Chalder's discussion booklets were not being fully addressed due to lack of time. Mr. Charles noted the Conservation Commission feels frustrated and that it does not have more input in the process. It was pointed out, however, that Mr. Sabin is a member of both commissions and that Mr. Chalder used the Inventory Report when drafting the conservation discussion document, so there has been at least some Conservation input. Mr. Bender said the Conservation Commission would be invited to provide input when the first draft of the conservation section has been prepared. Mrs. Roberts said she had suggested to several Conservation Commission members that prior to the receipt of the first draft they provide written input that would be forwarded to Mr. Chalder. Mrs. Luckey noted the Housing Steering Committee is also concerned that it has had little input in the process. Mrs. Roberts thought there might be a misunderstanding and that these groups might think Planning is farther along in the process than it actually is. It was stressed that the reports from both groups would be discussed.

Old Town Garage Property/Titus Road

Mrs. Roberts advised the Commission that the Park and Rec Commission was interested in putting in ball fields on this property. It was noted the Planning Commission had once before denied a use of this property as it thought a study of the most appropriate uses was needed before any decision could be made. Recommendations for the best use of the property will be addressed with Mr. Chalder later in the process of updating the Plan. Several Members thought it would be OK to let Park and Rec use it for a single season or until a plan is decided upon for the area. Mrs. Luckey stated there might be some legal issues regarding using the property at this point because the DEP order is still in effect.

Housing Steering Committee and Report

Findings of the Housing Steering Committee were briefly discussed. The draft report had been circulated and it was noted final comments were due by June 14. The Housing Committee thought the primary factor standing in the way of affordable housing in Washington is the cost of land. Mr. Charles and Mr. Rimsky discussed the possibility of preserving open space with an affordable housing component, stressing that in order to make this concept work, the Town would have to become proactive. It was thought there would be more community support for the preservation of open space if in doing so, housing diversity would also be provided. Mrs. Roberts said that as the Town acquires more open space, enforcement officers to monitor it would be required.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Averill.

Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

May 20, 2002

 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Rimsky
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Luckey, Mrs. Payne, Ms. Purnell
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mr. Gillis, Mrs. Hill,

Mr. Bender called the Special Meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and noted the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the conservation section of the Plan of Conservation and Development. Members Averill, Bender, Buck, and Byerly and Alternates Roberts and Sabin were seated.

The Commissioners conducted a page by page review of Section 4, making both editorial and conceptual comments.

Page 2:

All italicized sentences in the margins should end with periods.

When referring to the Natural Resources Inventory Report, resources should be pluralized.

Page 4:

Under "Steep Slopes" Mr. Sabin asked that the potential for erosion problems be stressed.

In the third paragraph Mr. Sabin asked that a statement be added that development on steep slopes was not prohibited, but that the design of structures within these areas should clearly reflect a desire to minimize disturbance.

Page 5:

Mr. Sabin suggested a note be added to the map that this map is based on USGS contour intervals and that additional areas in excess of 25% exist and may require a site specific topographic survey.

Mrs. Roberts thought the Plan should state the Commission anticipates that stricter regulations will be required as more land is developed due to increased population pressures.

Page 6:

The recommendation for blasting guidelines was discussed. Mr. Chalder noted this had been taken from the Natural Resources Inventory Report, (NRIR), and said pre blast documentation and a contingency plan for addressing impacts due to blasting could be required and that all applications for blasting permits should be thoroughly reviewed by the fire marshal. Mr. Sabin thought the regulations should differentiate between significant blasting projects and blasting for additions, swimming pools, etc. Mrs. Roberts agreed. Mr. Bender noted "significant" was not an exact term. Mr. Sabin said the NRIR had specified approximately 300 cubic yards as significant.

Page 7:

Mr. Bender asked why there was so little "developed" land on the map. Mr. Chalder explained this was "made" land.

Mr. Chalder will check on the spelling of sewage/sewerage.

Page 8:

In the last paragraph in the side bar, "a" should be inserted to read, "in a major flood."

Mr. Bender asked if flood plain was defined. Mr. Chalder said the definition had been added to the Zoning Regulations.

Mr. Chalder said he was not comfortable with the terms, "soil water" and "groundwater" as used in the table at the top of page 8. He said what was really being referred to were surface groundwater and deep groundwater.

Page 9:

Mr. Bender asked whether the bedrock aquifer along Rt. 202 was correctly labeled on the map. Mr. Sabin noted it was as there could be calcareous wetlands over bedrock aquifers. He also noted there are bedrock aquifers throughout Town, but state records indicate this one is a high yield aquifer.

Mr. Chalder explained the important public policy issue was that areas of higher water availability for land use purposes or public water supply should be recognized so that if the Town wants to take protective measures, it knows where to do so.

Page 10:

Re: the second bullet in the third paragraph - that the Town require information on septic tank pumping be reported, Mr. Sabin asked if there any other towns in the state that mandated septic systems be pumped. Mr. Chalder responded yes, and some were as strict as requiring by local ordinance that all tanks be pumped every three years. Mr. Chalder said the Commission would have to decide whether it supports such a concept to protect the public water supply and if it does, whether it will be encouraged or required. Mr. Bender recommended Mr. Chalder draft a suggestion for encouraging septic pumping. Ms. Payne thought educating the public about this issue might be a job for the Conservation Commission.

Mr. Bender asked that in all instances as in the third paragraph in the side bar, when an abbreviation is first used, the entire word or phrase should be written out and thereafter the shorter form used.

Page 11:

Regarding the strategy #2, Mrs. Hill pointed out there were conflicting opinions in town about whether wetlands and watercourses should be protected as open space since they were considered to be protected already. Mr. Bender agreed this was on ongoing issue. Mrs. Roberts pointed out the revised Subdivision Regulations require the subdivider to put some good land into open space. Mr. Chalder did not think #2 interfered with this Subdivision Regulations requirement and said he would add language about the protection of water resources to make this clear. Mr. Bender noted that enforcement of both the Inland Wetlands Regulations and of conservation easements and open space areas was the key to wetlands protection. Mr. Chalder felt the greatest benefits to the public from open space come from public access and public use. He said in Washington conservation easements had been used historically to preserve open areas and the character of Town, but had not provided for public access. He advised the Commission it would have to decide what type of open space strategy it wanted. "Is it enough to see it, but not touch it?" he asked. Mr. Bender thought water recharge areas should be targeted for protection in conservation easement areas. Mr. Chalder said this matter would be discussed again under the open space section of the Plan. Mrs. Payne noted the Conservation Commission had previously sent a letter to the Planning Commission to advise it that it did not think regulated areas should qualify for open space set asides. She, too, thought the issue was how to strengthen and enforce the Inland Wetlands Regulations. Mr. Bender said the Commission agreed with her, noting however, to say that wetlands shall not qualify for the open space set aside was too strong a statement as a circumstance may occur where inclusion of wetlands was merited. It was the consensus that wetlands would not be a priority for inclusion in open space, but that the option would remain to include unique wetlands areas.

#6: Mr. Bender noted "flood prone" was subjective and asked if it was defined. Mr. Chalder said this term would be changed to "flood plain," which is defined and that the main purpose for identifying flood plain areas on the map was to inform the general public, who might not know the FEMA maps should be consulted to obtain this information. He recommendedd a note that larger floods can and do occur also be added to the zoning map. Mr. Bender did not think the zoning map should not be burdened with anything other than zoning and instead suggested flood plain maps should be filed on the Land Records so that title searchers would come across this information. Chalder said FEMA maps were not recorded on the Land Records, but were on file in all Town Clerks' offices in Ct. He said Washington did not have flood plain zones like some other towns, but recommended they be shown on the zoning map as areas with potential for flooding with a note of where additional information can be found. Mr. Bender said he would favor any mechanism that would bring flood plains to the attention of title searchers. Mrs. Hill questioned whether the Town could be held liable if the general flood plains were included on the zoning map. Ms. Purnell asked for improvements in representing the 100 year flood plain and the stratified drift aquifer on the map on page 9.

#7: Mr. Chalder will review the Subdivision Regulations to determine whether this provision is already included. Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Commission is currently working to incorporate a standard in its Regulations for zero increase in post development runoff.

Also under this category, Mr. Sabin suggested the addition of a requirement for native plant buffers along waterways in lieu of maintained lawns.

#8: Mr. Bender asked what activities were designed to protect water quality. It was the noted the 1993 Plan of Development recommended the Conservation Commission conduct water quality testing and the Environmental Council was now considering doing this. Mr. Buck suggested regulations requiring pervious surfaces for driveways would help to protect water quality.

#12: Mr. Bender thought an across the board requirement that 20 year old underground fuel storage tanks be replaced was arbitrary. He asked if a more appropriate requirement would be for biennial or every five years pressure tests. Mr. Sabin thought anything that could be done to remove tanks that aren't alarmed and vaulted should be done. Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Commission is considering whether to prohibit the installation of new underground fuel tanks. Mr. Chalder noted #11 and #12 say "consider." He suggested this be discussed at the next public meeting. #11 may be modified to say, prohibit underground fuel tanks "unless they are alarmed and vaulted" or "that aren't in conformance with state requirements."

#13: Mrs. Averill asked what the alternatives for the disposal of wastewater in the Lake Waramaug and Depot areas were. Mr. Chalder said there were a wide range of options such as treatment plants, sewering the lake, community septic systems, innovative septic designs, etc. Mr. Sabin noted there are also wetlands type septic systems for use in cases when expensive equipment is not an option. Mr. Bender noted there have been many comments received urging the Commission to be very careful to explain how its recommendations should be implemented. In other words, he said, it's not enough to suggest what should be done, methods of implementation must be noted. Mr. Chalder agreed, and said the recommendations listed in the first draft would go into much more detail.

#19: Mr. Sabin suggested adding that for larger development projects bonding would be required and regular monitoring and reporting by a qualified individual. He thought "periodic" was not specific enough.

Page 12:

Mr. Bender asked for a unified system of numbering and lettering rather than using bullets so that page sections could be easily identified. Mr. Chalder thought bullets were friendlier to the casual reader.

Mrs. Roberts supported #1 and #2 and suggested #5 be added to prohibit disturbance of habitat by extraneous light sources. Mr. Chalder thought lighting was more of a community character issue than a natural resource issue and would be dealt with later on in the Plan. Mrs. Roberts thought it should be addressed in both sections as it can affect habitat and is an environmental issue. It was agreed to consider illumination under community character.

Page 14:

The distinction between conservation, preservation, and protection was discussed. Mr. Chalder said preservation means you should do everything you can to preserve it as it currently exists, conservation means there can be a little more flexibility in these areas provided the functions of the areas can be conserved, and protection means there are important things going on in an area, which we need to be cognizant of.

Mr. Sabin stressed the idea of the preservation of major undeveloped, uninterrupted wildlife and habitat corridors.

Mr. Sabin asked if there was a way that prime agricultural soils could be highlighted on the map. Mr. Chalder said this had been covered in the character section of the Plan as it is a soil type that promotes a desirable community activity. Mr. Chalder suggested one strategy might be to get all prime agricultural lands into public open space so that farmers could lease them for a low cost per year, the land would continue to be used for agriculture, and Washington's character would be preserved.

The 4th bullet under Resources for Conservation: Mr. Bender asked if the 150 ft. buffer included intermittent watercourses. Mr. Chalder pointed out that the standards in the