The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Planning Commission, 2003
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning Commission, 2003 |
|
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 theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Planning Commission
December 2 •November 5 •October 29 •October 7 •September 24 •September 2 •August 5 •July 25 •July 15 •July 1 •May 20 •May 6 •April 15 •March 18 •March 4 •February 18 •January 21 •Meetings in 2002
December 2, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Trevenen, Mr. Shayne, Mr. Sunshine, Mr. Williams, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Taylor, Mrs. Payne, Mr. and Mrs. Krajnak, Mr. Papsin, Ms. Stevens, Residents, PressPUBLIC HEARING
Application for Designation of Turner Road as a Scenic Road
Mr. Bender called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, and Byerly and Alternates Roberts and Rimsky for Mr. Buck and Mr. Charles. Mr. Bender read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/19 and 11/26/03. He explained the purpose of the hearing was to consider the designation of the entire length of Turner Road as a scenic road. He read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Bender asked the Commissioners if they had any questions or comments. There were none.
Mr. Bender stated that having reviewed Washington's Scenic Road Ordinance and the state statutes and knowing that a nominated road has to meet only one of several possible criteria, he thought Turner Road was an excellent candidate to be named a scenic road as it met several of the criteria. The Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Charles entered at this point and was seated for Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Luckey thought Turner Road was a good choice to be designated a scenic road as it met so many of the qualifications listed in the Ordinance.
There were no other questions or comments from the public.
Mr. Bender closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Regular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Buck.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 11/5/03 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/8/03 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Application for Designation of Turner Road as a Scenic Road
MOTION: To designate the entire length of Turner Road a scenic road under the Town ordinance and state statutes. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision/Preliminary Discussion
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the property owner and presented the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated October 2003. It showed the existing 17.8 acre parcel divided into two lots consisting of 7.6 and 10.2 acres.
The potential problems/questions/concerns raised were:
1) Mr. Bender asked that alphabetical designation of the proposed corners of the lots be indicated on the subdivision map.
2) It was noted one of the lots would have accessory buildings, but no primary structure, which is not permitted under Section 12.5.1 of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Neff offered to have the buildings taken down or suggested the Commission could make that a condition of approval. Mrs. Hill noted one of the Town's goals is to preserve rural character and thought the owner could try to obtain a variance. It was not known whether a variance could be granted for a lot that did not yet exist.
3) Mr. Bender asked that the amounts of each soil type and calculations be submitted to prove the proposed open space is at least the minimum required.
4) Mr. Rimsky noted the Commission has in the past used the open space requirement to keep the streetscape looking rural. In this case 4.1 acres of open space were proposed along the full length of the eastern boundary. Mr. Charles said he would have to inspect the property before giving an opinion on the appropriateness of the proposed open space. Mr. Bender asked the Commissioners to drive by the site before the January meeting.
5) Mr. Neff noted the 1" = 40' scale required for the maps would mean the subdivision map would require two pages. Most of the Commissioners preferred a 1" = 50' scale on one sheet to facilitate review of the plans, and Mr. Bender advised Mr. Neff he could apply in writing to the Commission for a waiver of the 1" = 40'scale requirement. Mr. Charles favored using the 1" = 40' scale.
Plan of Conservation and Development
Mr. Wood, consultant, was present.
Mr. Bender noted the bound draft dated December 2003 with the following corrected pages: 1-6, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-10,3-13, 3-17, 3-20, 6-4, 6-6, 7-5, 7-9, and 7-10, together made up the complete draft, which would be considered by the Commission tonight.
Final corrections were discussed.
1) p. 3-6 in the 4th box at the bottom: "Establish" will be deleted in the heading and 1st bullet: "Establish" will be revised to: "Accumulate funds in the."
2) p. 3-13, 3rd bullet, last line: "Land Acquisition" will be deleted.
3) pp. 7-6, 7-8,7-10: All headings should begin at the left margin. Mr. Wood said this was a formatting issue and he would try to correct it.
4) p. 5-4, last sentence of the 2nd paragraph: This will be changed to: "This will help prevent situations where buildings exceed reasonable standards for where they are located."
5) p. 7-9, last recommendation: The primary responsibility will be changed to the Board of Selectmen, with "All" inserted under Others.
6) p.6-4, revised language re: schools: After consideration of revised language by Mr. Rimsky it was decided the only change to this paragraph would be that "revealed" will be changed to "shared with."
MOTION: To adopt the December 2003 draft of the Plan of Conservation and Development for the Town of Washington with the circulated revisions to pages 1-6, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-10, 3-13, 3-17, 3-20, 6-4, 6-6, 7-5, 7-9, and 7-10 and the revisions discussed at the 12/2/03 meeting to pages 3-6, 3-13, 7-10, 5-4, 7-9, and 6-4; to become effective upon publishing of the legal notice. By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Luckey thanked the Commission for all its work on the Plan during the past two years.
2004 Calendar
MOTION: To adopt the 2004 Calendar as presented. by Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Privilege of the Floor
Several residents expressed their concern about the now adopted Plan's suggestion that the Zoning Commission study the possibility of creating a new transitional zone in Marbledale. Mr. Bender advised them the Commission had worked on the Plan for over two years and had conducted many meetings and two public hearings where the public had an opportunity to comment. He noted, too, the Commission had considered the comments made at the 10/29 public hearing and had in response, made some revisions to this section.
Mr. Williams, Quarry Ridge Condos, stated the transition zone would surround Quarry Ridge residents with a business atmosphere and would adversely affect both their quality of life and property values.
Mrs. Roberts said while everyone in Town wants things to stay the same, it is the Commission's responsibility to look ahead and plan for possible future changes. Mr. Charles noted it was not too long ago that Marbledale residents were worried the proposed Quarry Ridge Condominiums would have an adverse impact on Marbledale. He explained the Commission was trying to ensure Marbledale will not become a "strip mall" and hoped to provide for the possibility of a future village green. He did not envision that the fields in the area would be destroyed and used Kent as an example of a town center that allows new development with a rural character. Mr. Rimsky stressed the Commission was trying to protect Marbledale as both a village and a residential area from future development pressures. He noted that if specific regulations for a transition zone were adopted, the Town would have additional tools to protect the intrinsic quality and character of the area.
A resident asked if Planning was recommending the entire area between Rt. 202, Mygatt Road, and Scofield Hill be rezoned. Mr. Bender read the paragraph on p. 4-6 regarding this matter.
Mrs. Krajnak asked if establishment of a transitional zone would mean there would be more condos built in the commercial district. Mr. Bender noted the Planning Commission thought there was a need for more condo units in Washington, but it would be up to the Zoning Commission to decide. Mrs. Krajnak then asked what was proposed for the lot at the corner of Mygatt and Scofield Hill Roads. The Planning Commissioners did not know if the property had been sold or what would be proposed there. Mrs. Krajnak asked about the possibility of the expansion of the Marbledale Business District up to the cemetery. Mr. Bender noted this section of Rt. 202 was already commercially zoned. Mr. Rimsky explained there are already some commercial and institutional uses allowed in the R-1 District by Special Permit such as some home owned businesses and schools.
Mr. Bender explained the Plan of Conservation and Development is not an enforceable document, but provides guidance to the Town and recommendations for addressing future growth.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Byerly.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
November 5, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender. Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. DiMaria, Mr. LyonRegular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, Byerly, and Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 10/7/03 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
The 10/29/03 Public Hearing minutes were accepted as corrected. In the 10th line on page 2, Mr. Bender pointed out that 1100 should be 11,000.
MOTION: To accept the 10/29/03 Public Hearing minutes as amended. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Erbs/51 Sunset Lane/4 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Charles recused himself and left the table. Alternate Rimsky was seated.
Mr. Bender noted the letter dated 10/29/03 from Mr. McMorrow of Berkshire Engineering, requesting a waiver of Section 4.4.11; the requirement that state plane coordinates be shown at points on the subdivision perimeter on the A-2 survey map. Mr. DiMaria stated state plane coordinates were not often used and thought his survey department did not find monumentation to work from within the radius of the subdivision. He offered to submit an autocad file by email or diskette as other towns require and said the use of autocad would make it easier to align the subdivision on the Town's geographic information system. Mr. Bender reviewed Section 3.5 of the Subdivision Regulations and determined the requirements for the granting of a waiver were satisfied.
MOTION: To waive the requirements of Section 4.4.11 of the Subdivision Regulations for the following application: Erbs/ 51 Sunset Lane/4 Lot Subdivision. By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts entered the meeting at this point.
Mrs. Hill noted the Health Department had approved the application and Mr. Lyon, Fire Chief, who was present to answer questions, had submitted a letter dated 10/26/03. Mr. Bender had prepared three possible conditions of approval and asked Mr. Lyon to review #3 to see if it satisfied the requirements of the Fire Department. As Mr. Lyon's 10/26 letter requested the driveway be paved, Mr. Charles pointed out the Zoning Commission had recently discussed the possibility of requiring all driveways to have permeable surfaces. Mr. Lyon stated paved driveways did not have as many maintenance problems. He also stated that a 14 ft. wide driveway was the minimum recommended by the Fire Dept. Mr. Charles pointed out that with the installation of a proper base, which included stabilization fabric, a permeable surfaced driveway would be maintainable.
Mr. DiMaria thought a condition regarding who the lots may be transferred to was not needed because he had added a notation to the subdivision map. Mr. Bender noted that by also making this a condition of approval it would be brought to the attention of a researcher whether he was searching the minutes or the map.
Mr. DiMaria noted the location of specimen trees had been added to the map and said two of the trees were in danger of being damaged by the construction of the driveway and the installation of the septic system on Lot #3. He said the Commission had asked him to move the driveway to allow for a buffer along the northern boundary and this would require the tree be cut down. Mr. Bender reviewed Section 5.9.2 of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the protection of specimen trees during construction. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that it was a reasonable request to ask that the driveway curve slightly to avoid the tree. Mr. DiMaria agreed it would be possible to move the driveway at least 10 feet from the tree.
Mr. Bender's proposed condition #2 that no specimen tree could be removed without the prior written approval of the Commission was discussed. Mrs. Hill did not think this would be enforceable. She suggested that in the case of the tree near the septic area on Lot #3, the site development map be amended to indicate protection for the tree or a limit of disturbance line. Mr. Bender asked that the following notation be added to the mylar map: that the specimen tree in the vicinity of the proposed septic field on Lot #3 shall, during any construction, be protected in accordance with Section 5.9.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. DiMaria stated a Declaration of Restrictions had been submitted. Mr. Bender noted the Commission could not impose open space restrictions in this case and so the Declaration was voluntary on the part of the owners. Mr. DiMaria said the restrictions would apply to the conservation areas, would run with the lots and would be filed on the Town Land Records.
Mr. Bender noted a Driveway Maintenance Agreement had been submitted and contained some of the changes and wording he had recommended.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Erbs for a 4 lot subdivision at 51 Sunset Lane subject to the following conditions:
By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
- 1. Lots #2, #3, and #4 may be transferred only to one or more of the subdividers' relatives named in Section 5.8.4.A of the Subdivision Regulations for no considerations.
- 2. The driveway agreement submitted to the Commission on 11/5/03 shall be promptly recorded on the Town Land Records.
- 3. No trees or underbrush within the 50' driveway right of way along the north edge of the property shall be disturbed except to construct and maintain a driveway no wider than required by the Fire Department. The subdividers and their successors shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the second paragraph of the Fire Department's letter of October 26, 2003 to the Planning Commission, a copy of which has been delivered to the subdividers.
- 4. All lots require engineered septic systems pursuant to the 10/30/03 Health Department report.
- 5. A notation shall be placed on the mylar map that the specimen tree in the vicinity of the proposed septic fields on lot #3 shall, during any construction, be protected in accordance with Section 5.9.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
New Application
Application for Scenic Road Designation/Turner Road
Mr. Trevenen, circulator of the application and Turner Road resident, was present. He stated most Turner Road residents supported the application for scenic road designation for the entire length of the road, which, he said, meets all the criteria listed in the Ordinance except that it has no water crossing. He submitted color photos of the road.
Mr. Bender asked for figures to show the owners of a majority of the frontage support the application. Mrs. Hill presented her calculations on total frontage vs. total frontage of the applicants, which showed this requirement had been satisfied.
Mrs. Hill noted proof had been submitted that the statements in support of approval of the scenic road that accompanied the application had been filed with the Town Clerk as required by the Ordinance.
Mr. Bender noted the Ordinance required the Commission to conduct a public hearing to consider the application. The hearing was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Mrs. Hill asked whether the application should be referred to the Board of Selectmen and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Bender asked that they be notified of the application and hearing.
Mr. Trevenen was advised he is required to notify all property owners along Turner Road of the hearing by certified mail. Mr. Charles suggested they not only be notified, but also be asked to join in the application.
Mr. Charles hoped to use the application process to educate and inform the public. While he voiced his support for the preservation of dirt roads, he thought the Commission should walk the road with the Town road foreman to discuss maintenance and safety issues. Mr. Trevenen said he already consulted with Mr. Canavaro who did not anticipate any road maintenance problems. He also stated the residents along the road would attend the hearing to support the preservation of its beauty and culture. Mr. Charles thought the application should be reviewed in a methodical fashion to address concerns such as those raised over the recent "improvements" to Wykeham Road. Mr. Charles also thought information on the road boundary lines should be submitted.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, November 8, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. Members will meet at the Sabbaday Road end of Turner Road.
Other Business
Plan of Conservation and Development
Mr. Bender said the comments made at the public hearing and Mr. McGuiness's letter would be considered when the final edit was done. Mr. Charles and Mr. Rimsky agreed with the comment by Mr. Chute that there should be a reference to the importance of the existing schools in Washington as they are an integral part of the community, both providing jobs and contributing to the Town's character. Mrs. Roberts also hoped the Plan would urge continued cooperation between the Town and school communities. Mr. Bender said he would take additional written comments from the Commissioners any time prior to his editing meeting with Mr. Wood, which he hoped would be scheduled early the following week. He also hoped one other Commissioner would be able to attend.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Byerly.
There being no further business, Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
October 29, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Sabin
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mrs. Roberts
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Solley, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. R. Wyant, Mrs. Payne, Mr. Tagley, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Wyshinski, Mr. Bedini, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr./Mrs. Weydig, Mr. Field, Mr. Millington, Mr. Sears, Mr./Mrs. Carey, Mr. Owen, Mr. Kleinberg, Mr./Mrs. LaMuniere, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Adams, Mr. Shapiro, Ms. Stevens, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mr. Treadway, Mr./Mrs. Williams, Mr. DePecol, Mr. Carew, Mr. Lyon, Mr. M. Picton, Mr./Mrs. Markert, Mrs. Peckerman, Mrs. Materne, Mrs. Dyer, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Cornett, Mr. Mustich, Mr. Canal, Mrs. Middlebrook, Mr./Mrs. Farmer, Mr. Bent, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF THE 2003 PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Mr. Bender called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Rimsky. He noted the purpose of the hearing was to receive comments from the community on the final draft of the Plan of Conservation and Development. He read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/15 and 10/22/03 and the 9/4/03 review from Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. Council of Governments, which included comments on scenic roads, Washington's economy, preservation of historic resources and rural character, the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals legislation, and Village District regulations. He then gave a brief review of the two year process to update the Plan.
Mr. Wood and Mr. Chalder, consulting planners from Planimetrics, were introduced.
Mr. Wood presented an overview of the Plan. He explained the four community objectives in the proposed Plan were 1) to preserve Washington's rural character, 2) to enhance the community village centers, 3) to guide and manage housing development, and 4) to address other community issues. He noted the Town has soil based zoning, which permits development according to the capabilities of the land. Based on soil based zoning, he said the Town has the potential for 4400 additional homes, which could result in an eventual population increase to 9000 - 1100 residents. He also noted the difference between perceived and protected open space. Mr. Wood reviewed the strategies for achieving each of the above listed objectives and highlighted the major recommendations. These included a goal of 30% open space, establishment of an open space action plan, funding mechanisms and an permanent open space committee, division of the Washington Depot and Marbledale Business Districts into gateway and core districts, expansion of The Green Residential District, promotion of housing diversity, and road maintenance compatible with the preservation of scenic roads.
Questions and comments were taken from the public.
Ms. Moriority-Wesson voiced her concern about the recommendation that the Zoning Commission consider a transition zone in the Mygatt Road - Wheaton Road section of Marbledale. Mr. Finker, Wheaton Road, objected to the transition zone because he wanted to maintain the rural residential and agricultural nature of the area. He thought no consideration had been given to the impact such a zone would have on the pristine river running through it. He also thought traffic should be restricted in the area. He did not want the area to become a "dumping ground" for institutional uses. Mr. Bender, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Charles, and Mr. Sabin all explained the Commission's reasons for recommending the Zoning Commission consider establishing the transition zone. These included that it was an attempt to avoid strip development along Rt. 202, it was a plan to address developmental pressures that would be moving up Rt. 202 from New Milford, it was an attempt to slow down traffic through Marbledale to make it a more viable commercial district, and it was an area for expansion to provide room for a possible green or community area so Marbledale would have more of a village quality.
Mr. Bender explained the hearing was not a forum for debate. He noted the recommendations in the Plan were for studies by other governing bodies who would decide what, if anything, would be done to address the issues raised.
Mr. Farmer said the Plan omitted references to recreational facilities. He thought the two non conforming country clubs and the need for athletic fields should have been addressed. Mr. Boyer noted the Housing Study Committee had voiced its opposition to architectural review boards outside the current historic districts and asked why the Commission had recommended this be considered. Mr. Bender noted the review boards would be advisory only and would try to persuade developers to design structures in keeping with the existing architectural appearance of Washington. Mrs. Friedman raised several specific questions: 1) On page 1-11 she pointed out the per capita expenditures did not match the total funds coming in. She noted the Town was not operating a deficit and asked that the figures be corrected.
2) On page 5-6 she noted state law requires flexibility for affordable housing projects and asked that the wording be changed to reflect this.
3) On page 6-2 she noted should a consolidated school be needed, it would not be due to Washington's enrollment, which has declined by 40% over the last several years, but would be because of district wide population increases. Mr. Chalder pointed out this section had been so worded because Washington's school enrollment ratio is very low and is unique in the state and so is a factor that is expected to change. Also, Mr. Wood pointed out this section was based on discussions with the superintendent of schools, who perhaps had a conservative approach to planning.
4) She was concerned about the language on page 6-3, which she did not think voiced strong enough support for the preservation of dirt roads. She said the Plan should reflect the fact that Washington citizens understand dirt roads are more costly to maintain, but consider this an acceptable price for preserving rural character. (After the hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Weydig came up to the table to agree that dirt roads should be preserved as a part of Washington's rural character.)
Mr. Canal said he was concerned about 1) the Marbledale transition zone, 2) the proposed gateway business districts, 3) allowing multistory mixed use buildings because multistory buildings could destroy the Town's rural character, 4) the omission of open space tax abatement programs on page 7-5 and 5) the inaccuracy of the section on education in light of recent newspaper articles about the great expenditures that are needed to repair and maintain the existing school structures. Mr. Schoon referred to page 2-5 and said he thought the Town had more of an interest in recreational facilities than was evidenced in the Plan. Mr. Finker asked again about the Marbledale transition zone and wanted to know what institutional uses would be permitted. Mr. Bender again explained this was a recommendation to other governing bodies who would make this decision. Mr. Wood noted "institutional uses" is a routine planning category that would include such uses as schools, churches. police stations, municipal facilities, etc. Ms. Morriority-Wesson expressed her concern that sewers were recommended. Mr. Wood said that was not correct; that the Plan recommended septic treatment options be considered. Mr. Chute agreed with Mr. Farmer's remarks that the Plan should address the recreational needs of the community. He also thought it was a serious omission that the Plan did not recognize the importance of the schools to Washington's economy as the 1993 Plan did. There being no further questions or comments, Mr. Bender thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the hearing at 9:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
October 7, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. DiMaria, Mr. Erbs, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Etherington, Mr. Wilbur, ResidentsRegular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, Byerly, and Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 9/2/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
The 9/24/03 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. The first bulleted paragraph was corrected to state, "He questioned whether it was a majority of the owners or the owners of a majority of lot frontage." In the fifth line from the end of the same paragraph, wording was changed to, "... refer to the owners of a majority of the lot frontage."
MOTION: To accept the 9/24/03 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Erbs/51 Sunset Lane/4 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Charles recused himself. Alternate Roberts was seated.
Mr. DiMaria, engineer, Mr. McCabe, and Mr. Erbs were present.
Mr. DiMaria submitted revised septic, coverage, and lot density calculations, based on the revised proposed lot sizes. He also submitted calculations for the size of the driveway culvert and the size of the rip rap at the outlet.
The following issues were discussed:
Ownership of the shared driveway: Lot #4 is now the owner. Transfer of the lots: Open space is not required if the owner transfers the lots to certain relatives as specified in the state statutes. Mr. DiMaria added a note to the Subdivision Map that the owner intended to transfer the lots to such relatives for no consideration. Mr. Bender was not satisfied with this language and requested it be changed to "will be transferred only to...." Driveway maintenance agreement: Mr. DiMaria submitted the draft agreement for review. Driveway location: Within the 50 ft. accessway, the driveway had been shifted closer to Lot #2 and grading was proposed to decrease the potential impact to the adjoining property. Location of house on Lot #3: The proposed house location was also moved further from the adjoining property. 100 ft. setback on Lot #2: Mr. DiMaria stated its purpose was to keep the building area away from the street and to preserve the trees in that area, but Mr. Bender noted without an accompanying easement or deed restriction, simply adding this line to the map would not accomplish this goal. Preservation of trees: Mr. Bender noted the Commission had the authority to discuss this under Section 5.9.1 of the Subdivision Regulations. 1) The Commission did not want the entire 50 ft. driveway easement area to be clear cut and asked the applicant if he would object to a condition of approval that only cutting necessary for the construction of the driveway be permitted. Mr. Erbs thought there could be different interpretations of what cutting was necessary or reasonable. Mr. Bender asked him to submit language for the Commission to consider. 2) No area to be cleared was indicated on the map as required per Section 4.7.2.D. Mr. Bender asked if the owner would be willing to preserve the existing foliage within 50 feet of the north and west boundary lines. Mr. Erbs agreed. 3) Mr. Bender asked if specimen trees had been located on the property. Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had seen some large maples while inspecting the site. Mr. DiMaria was not sure, but said the property was principally wooded. Septic System: Mr. Bender noted the Health Department had not approved the septic plans and this meant the Commission could not approve the application. Encroaching driveway at the north end of the property: Mr. Bender asked if there was a permit for this driveway. Mr. Etherington, adjacent property owner, was not aware of any permit and agreed to stop using this driveway if it was on the Erbs property. Review by Land Use Coordinator: Mr. Bender noted Mrs. Hill had reviewed the application to ensure all requirements had been met and asked Mr. DiMaria to review the report before the next meeting. Mr. Erbs submitted a written request for a 65 day extension of the time in which the Commission has to act on the application.
Mrs. Roberts asked if the owner would be willing to preserve the vegetation within 100 feet of Sunset Lane in order to preserve the character of the area. Mr. Bender noted the Commission has no right in this case to require deeded open space, but does have the right to require the preservation of natural features to the extent feasible. Mr. DiMaria said he would try to draft appropriate language.
Discussion will continue at the next meeting.
Mr. Charles was reseated.
Other Business
Plan of Conservation and Development
October 29 th Public Hearing: Mr. Wood, consultant, was present. He circulated copies of a shortened Power Point presentation for the October 29th public hearing. The Commissioners thought this was very good and offered advice/suggestions for the presentation. 1) It was noted traffic in the Depot is an issue that will probably be brought up. 2) Also, the need for an in-depth study of the Depot and of appropriate uses for the old Town Garage site will most likely be raised. 3) Mr. Charles thought it would be worthwhile to educate the public on the difference between the Town's protected open space and what is generally perceived as open space. 4) It was decided to keep it simple and not provide handouts of the implementation section to the public at the hearing.
Press Release: Revised copies of a press release were circulated. It was agreed it was satisfactory and would be sent to Voices, The Waterbury Republican, The Spectrum, The New Milford Times, and The Litchfield County Times. Mr. Wood and Mr. Rimsky will work on drafting a professional looking document. The wording of the cover letter was also OK'd and will be sent with the press release. The Commission noted it was important the release be addressed to either the editor or a specific reporter at each paper and not just sent by general fax
Letter to Town Organizations: Mrs. Hill and Mr. Rimsky will decide which organizations will be notified and Mrs. Hill will be responsible for the mailing.
Town Hall Sandwich Board Sign: Mrs. Hill said she had reserved the sign for 10/20 through 10/29. The Commissioners discussed and agreed upon the wording of the sign.
Posters: Posters had been prepared by Mr. Wood. These will be posted throughout Town. Several Commissioners offered to hang them up in prominent places.
Study of the Depot: Mr. Charles was concerned the next administration may not be as supportive as the current one and so asked about the procedure for appropriating funds for the study. He suggested the study be done by a committee made up of members of both the Planning Commission and other Town commissions and that it begin as soon as possible. Mr. Wood briefly advised the Commissioners on how to define the study and contact potential consultants.
Mr. Bender thanked Mr. Wood for his help and attendance at the meeting.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 6, 6.5, 6.6, 21, 17.5, and Revision of Boundary Line and Written Description of Lake Waramaug Residential District: Mr. Bender noted the Commission had not received as much notice as it usually gets for this type of referral. He suggested a subcommittee review the proposed revisions and report back to the full Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting. As the next meeting would be after the date on which the Zoning Commission will begin the hearing, a letter will be sent to the Zoning Commission to ask that the hearing be continued in order that the Planning Commission may undertake a thorough review of the proposed revisions. Mr. Charles briefly stated several reservations he had about some of the proposed revisions such as maximum dock size, lack of specifics regarding storm water management and landscaping requirements, and not including cantilevered sections of buildings in the coverage calculations. Mr. Charles and Mr. Byerly agreed to serve as the subcommittee.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
September 24, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Charles
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Byerly
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimksy, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. LuckeyMr. Bender called the Special Meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, and Buck and Alternates Roberts and Sabin. He noted the two items on the agenda were 1) review of the proposed scenic road ordinance and 2) publicity for the Plan of Conservation and Development public hearing on October 29, 2003.
Proposed Scenic Road Ordinance: Mr. Rimsky thought the subcommittee had done a thorough and thoughtful job on the draft. Mr. Sabin raised the following points.
He questioned whether it was a majority of the owners along the portion of road or the majority of the owners of lot frontage along a road that was required for the submission of a petition. Several Commissioners thought the proposed wording should be clarified because it was not clear. It was pointed out, however, that the wording used was taken from the state statutes and did refer to the majority owners of the lot frontage. It was noted one or more large frontage owners could outweigh the opinion of the majority of the property owners along a road, but the language of the state statutes was not debated. Mr. Charles arrived at this point.
Mr. Sabin noted the draft required only one of the listed criteria to be eligible for scenic road status, which would mean virtually every road in Town could qualify. He suggested perhaps a higher standard should be set so a road would truly have to be scenic to qualify. It was noted Rt. 84 would qualify under the proposed text. Again, it was pointed out the language was statutory. Several of the Commissioners thought this wide latitude would provide all property owners the opportunity to preserve and protect the character of their roads and that this would be in keeping with the Commission's goal of preserving rural character. Application procedure was discussed. Mr. Sabin noted the proposed procedure did not provide for extensions. Mr. Bender noted in general, the proposed language did not match Sections 8-26d and 8-26f of the state statutes; for example, date of receipt differed and notification to adjoining towns when the proposal was within 500 feet of the Town boundary was not required. He preferred that the document state a public hearing would be held in accordance with Section 8-26d of the CGS or that the language match that of the statutes. Mr. Sabin suggested the term, "emergency repair," be defined in more detail. Mrs. Hill will draft a letter, which expresses the above concerns, to the Conservation Commission and Mr. Bender will review it before it is forwarded to the appropriate people.
Publicity for 10/29 Public Hearing: Mr. Rimsky suggested several ways to publicize the hearing.
1) press release
2) publicity release with more detail than the usual press release
3) generic letter to newspaper reporters and/or editors describing process, asking for expanded coverage, and listing contacts
4) letter to Town civic organizations urging membership to attend
5) posters throughout Town approx. 3 weeks prior to the event
6) copies of the Plan to be available
7) sandwich board sign in front of Town HallMrs. Roberts noted how difficult it is to obtain the information at the library as it is "hidden away" instead of being conveniently placed for public review. She said she would speak to Mrs. Chapin, librarian, about this.
Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Hill will be in charge of the sandwich board sign.
It was agreed Mr. Bender and Mr. Rimsky would meet with Mr. Wood to discuss publicity in detail on Monday, 9/29 or soon after.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 5:12 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
September 2, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. DiMaria, Mr. BolingMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Buck.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 8/5/03 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Averill abstained because she had not attended the meeting.
MOTION: To accept the 8/19/03 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Charles, 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.
Pending Application
Erbs/51 Sunset Lane/4 Lot Subdivision
Mr. McCabe and Mr. DiMaria, engineer, were present.
Mr. Bender noted Section 5.8.4.A of the Subdivision Regulations exempts subdivisions, which are less than 5 lots and are being conveyed to certain close relatives listed in the state statutes for no cost, from the subdivision open space requirement and he read the corresponding language in Section 8-25(a) of the CGS. He asked Mr. McCabe if it was the owners' intent to give each of the proposed lots to their daughters. Mr. McCabe said it was. Mr. DiMaria stated the applicant would prefer then not to deal with the open space requirement because that would allow more flexibility in the layout of the lots. Mr. Bender advised Mr. DiMaria the subdivision map would have to include a notation that the lots must be conveyed at no cost to relatives.
Mr. Bender also advised the applicant the Commission would review the driveway maintenance agreement language. Mr. DiMaria said the agreement had not yet been drafted. The driveway, as shown on the revised site development plan presented at the meeting, was discussed. (This plan was subsequently taken back by the applicant.) The driveway had been moved away from the boundary line with the adjoining property and grading was proposed to ensure there would be no increase in off site drainage. Mr. Bender noted the Commission would require there be no increase in runoff off site post development as a condition of approval and encouraged the applicant to review Section 4 of the Subdivision Regulations to make sure all the requirements had been met.
Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Charles noted Mrs. Erbs' concern about the preservation of the property across the street from her house and thought this would be an opportunity for her to set an example by preserving open space and the rural streetscape on her own property even though it was not required that she do so. When Mr. DiMaria pointed out the setback from the road would be maintained, they responded that adhering to the zoning setback is not the same as preserving open space, which would protect the land in its natural state.
Mr. Charles asked about the status of the neighbor's driveway located on the Erbs' property. Mr. DiMaria said the property owners would resolve this problem and that he would check with the Selectman's Office to see whether a driveway permit had been issued for the cut.
Mr. DiMaria stated in light of all the above discussion, a new subdivision map with a new lot configuration would be submitted early enough so that it could be reviewed prior to the next meeting.
Other Business
Referral from Road Discontinuance Committee: Mr. Boling, Chairman of the Committee was present. Mr. Rimsky and Mr. Byerly had studied the Committee's 6/27/03 letter with corresponding Assessor's maps, inspected many of the sites, and consulted with informed neighbors. Mr. Rimsky stated most of the roads recommended for discontinuance posed no direct or obvious problems for the Town, but that he and Mr. Byerly were concerned about Potash Road and Tinker Hill Road, where it appeared land locked lots would be created if the proposed sections were discontinued. Mr. Boling noted there are state laws that prevent lots from becoming landlocked under these circumstances and said the Town could not prevent owners from traveling over the discontinued sections of road to reach their lots. Once discontinued, however, the Town would not have to pay for road maintenance. Mr. Boling also stated the Town did not propose to terminate the public right of ways in their entirety, but only to vehicular traffic. These roads, he said, would still be open to pedestrians and horses and per state statute the Town would be protected from all liability. Mr. Rimsky asked if a property owner installed a driveway in the old road right of way, would that end the public's right to use that right of way. Mr. Boling said the public would retain the right to use it and doing so would not be considered trespass. Mr. Rimsky noted when roads are discontinued half the right of way is conveyed to each of the property owners along the road. He asked then what would stop one of these owners from preventing the other owner from installing a driveway. Mr. Boling said state law would prevent it. Mr. Rimsky expressed his concern that fire access to Mr. Bushnell State Park might be jeopardized if sections of Tinker Hill Road were discontinued and he also asked that the roads be discontinued in such a way that an adequate number of parking spaces and a turn around area be provided for those who may want to hike the right of way or visit the park. It was the consensus the Planning Commission had no objections to the proposed discontinuance of the sections of road listed in the 6/27/03 letter (see attached list) and would recommend the Town retain the right to use these right of ways for pedestrian and equine access. Mr. Bender asked Mr. Boling to submit a copy of the draft resolution for the Town Meeting so that he could review it prior to writing a formal response to the Board of Selectmen.
MOTION: Having received the subcommittee report, the Planning Commission has no objections to the recommended course of action proposed by the Town Road Discontinuance Committee in its letter dated 6/27/03. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Scenic Road Ordinance: Mr. Rimsky and Mr. Sabin had been appointed to review the proposed ordinance and to report their findings to the Commission. Mr. Rimsky had found nothing in the proposed ordinance that was objectionable from a planning point of view, but had not yet discussed the matter with Mr. Sabin. Discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
STEAP Grant: There was no new information from the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Bender asked for details about what was proposed, where it was proposed, how it would benefit the ambiance of the Town, etc. Discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Plan of Conservation and Development: Mr. Bender noted the draft for the public hearing had been prepared, but was disappointed he continued to find items that require corrections. A lengthy discussion on the Plan followed and included these points:
The overlay map was confusing. Possibly making the hatch marks more dominant would help. Mr. Bender thought the desirable open space should include Whitehead's farm. Mr. Charles would like to see a map showing only 490 lands added. It was questioned whether the open space shown on the map on page 3-9 correctly corresponded with that on the overlay map. There is an error in the Table of Contents; third line under #5; should be "diverse" community. Under Open Space Tax Abatement, the Commissioners did not think it was written clearly enough so it was known whether a reduction in taxes or of the assessment was being discussed. Publicity for the upcoming public hearing was discussed. Mr. Rimsky and Mr. Charles thought budget restraints had reduced public involvement in the process and the number of public meetings held. Mr. Rimsky thought in depth newspaper articles should be done in addition to press releases and that posters should be put out a month in advance. He also thought civic organizations should be sent letters so officers could urge their members to attend. He thought it was important to aggressively engage the public in the process so that no one in Town could say he was not aware of the work on the Plan and so there would be a town wide consensus to support it. Mr. Bender named himself, Mr. Rimsky, and Mrs. Hill to a publicity committee and said he would meet with Mr. Wood and Mr. Chalder regarding publicity. Mrs. Luckey, First Selectman, said she was disturbed that her two main concerns; traffic and parking in the Depot and determining the most appropriate use of the old Town Garage property had not been addressed in the Plan as was originally intended. It was noted both these issues would be taken up in the comprehensive study of the Washington Depot Business District, which would be done in the near future. It was decided there was no reason to hold a Special Meeting on the Plan of Conservation and Development in September. It was noted Mr. McGuinness, Director of the COG had recommended changing the public hearing date so that the notice requirements in the state statutes would be met. MOTION: That the Washington Planning Commission change the date set for the public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comments regarding the adoption of the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development to Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
There being no further business, Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
August 5, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Buck
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mr. DiMaria, Residents, PressREGULAR MEETING
Regular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the July 1, 2003 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the July 15, 2003 Special Meeting minutes as present. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 4-0.
New Application
Erbs/51 Sunset Lane/4 Lot Subdivision
Mr. DiMaria from Berkshire Engineering represented the property owner. He briefly reviewed the application for three additional lots and a 2.44 acre area of open space on the 16.3 acre parcel with existing dwelling. Access to the three new lots and the open space would be from a 50 foot accessway off Sunset Lane. Lot sizes varied from 4.99 acres for the lot with the existing dwelling to 2.86 acres. Mr. DiMaria said there would be no runoff onto the street and the proposed development would have no effect on the present drainage patterns throughout the property.
Mrs. Roberts arrived at 8:42 p.m. and was seated.
Mr. Bender asked if the proposed lot sizes were based on the amount of each soil type on the property. Mr. DiMaria said they were and noted calculations by Mr. Temple, soil scientist, had been included on the density determination forms submitted with the application. All but .06 acres of the 16+ acre parcel were Class A soils. He also noted each of the proposed lots would require an engineered septic system. Mr. Charles asked if there was a high water table. Mr. DiMaria said it was generally below 24 inches. Mr. Bender asked if the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application. Mr. DiMaria stated Mr. Temple had found no wetlands on the property. It was noted Lot #1 was 4.99 acres to address the 10% maximum coverage requirement.
The proposed open space was discussed. Mr. Bender asked if it would be possible to move back the house site on Lot #2 so a conservation easement could be placed along Sunset Lane to protect the view from the road. He also asked if there was dedicated open space on any of the adjoining properties. Mr. Charles noted he wanted to inspect the property before deciding where the open space should be, but said the 2.44 acre interior parcel proposed as open space would be difficult to manage. Other possible layouts, which would allow more of the open space to be located out by the road were discussed. It was noted the proposed pedestrian access to the open space was only 10 feet wide and would not accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. DiMaria was advised to consult with the Fire Department regarding minimum requirements for access to open space. Mr. Bender asked if the property owners had considered paying a fee in lieu of open space. Mr. DiMaria said they did not want to do so. Mrs. Hill noted the Commission requires the proposed language for the right of ways, conservation easements, and open space be submitted for review prior to action on the application.
The driveway plan was discussed. Mr. Rimsky noted the contours of the site and asked if the driveway would be gravel. Mrs. Roberts remarked she did not think the proposed layout was creative as the garage doors would be the first part of each house visible as you progressed down the drive. Mrs. Hill also noted the natural slope of the land toward the adjoining property and how close the proposed driveway was to the boundary line and asked if there were provisions for handling the driveway runoff on site.
Mr. Bender noted the application would be referred to both the Fire Department and the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Rimsky noted the total length of the accessway to the interior lots was part of Lot #2. Mr. Bender said the burden of driveway maintenance would then fall entirely to Lot #2. The Commissioners were skeptical that this was a workable arrangement and asked the applicant to consider other options such as Lot #4 owning the driveway with Lots #2 and #3 having a right of way over it. Mr. Bender advised the applicant that any driveway agreement to be reviewed by the Commission should include 1) who owns the driveway land, 2) who is responsible for doing any work on the driveway, 3) if the responsible party fails to do this work who will do it, 4) who pays to have the work done, and 5) what will be done if the party who should pay for the work does not pay.
Mrs. Hill noted a public hearing was optional and asked the Commission if it would conduct one. It was the consensus a hearing would be held. Mr. Bender advised the applicant the final map and proposed language for the conservation easement would be needed prior to the hearing. He also encouraged Mr. DiMaria to study the Subdivision Regulations to make certain he had addressed all the requirements.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, August 9, 2003 at 9:30 a.m.
Mrs. Hill noted approval of the proposed driveway cut by the Board of Selectmen was required.
Mr. DiMaria noted a neighbor's driveway encroaches on his client's property. Mr. Bender thought this was a potential legal problem.
Mr. Charles questioned whether the application had been submitted before the deadline for including it on the agenda. Mrs. Hill said it had come in on July 30th, 6 days prior to the meeting as required by the Subdivision Regulations.
Other Business
Referral from the Town Road Discontinuance Committee: Mr. Bender noted the 7/30/03 letter from Mr. Boling with attached copies of the tax maps that each Commissioner had received. He said the location of the roads had not been drawn in on the maps, but Mr. Boling said they were referenced by Assessor's Map and Lot numbers in the original letter. Mr. Bender asked for a subcommittee to study the proposal and report back to the Commission at its next Regular Meeting on whether Planning should concur with these recommendations for discontinuance. Mr. Byerly and Mr. Rimsky volunteered. Mr. Byerly asked if there were roads in addition to those listed in the letter, which were also under consideration for discontinuance. Mr. Boling said there were, but that the present list had been selected initially because they are a cross section and because there could be potential problems with them. Mr. Rimsky suggested the subcommittee deal with all the potential road abandonments at once so that it would have the full picture of the impact on the Town. Mr. Boling responded the full list was not ready at this time and his committee had hoped to go to a Town Meeting with the first list in September. This matter will be discussed again at the September 2nd meeting.
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/10 Blackville Road/Lot Line Revision: The map by Mr. Alex, "Site Analysis Plan," dated July 2003 was reviewed. Mrs. Luckey, First Selectman, explained the proposed exchange of .078 acre parcels between the new Town garage property at 10 Blackville Road and the adjoining Realco LLC property. She noted it was necessary in order to complete drainage work so the upper portion of the Town garage property could be accessed. Mrs. Roberts noted this had been discussed with the Commission several years ago when it had inspected the property. It was the consensus of the Commission to support the proposed lot line revision.
2002-2003 Annual Report: Copies of the draft report by Mrs. Hill were circulated and read.
MOTION: To approve the 2002-2003 Annual Report as presented. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Plan of Conservation and Development: Mrs. Hill passed out copies of the Conservation Commission's revised Open Space Report dated 8/6/03. Mr. Bender suggested he meet with Mr. Wood to review the revised report, a letter from Mrs. Friedman, his notes, and any other information received since the last meeting and make corresponding revisions if necessary so that Mr. Wood could have draft #6 ready for the 8/19 meeting. Regarding the revised 8/6/03 Report, Mr. Charles asked if Mr. Field and Mrs. Payne expected input from Planning or whether they expected it to be adopted as is. Mr. Bender noted the Conservation Commission and Open Space Steering Committee were the experts on open space and if they had come up with an agreed upon plan, the Planning Commission should adopt it. Mr. Charles noted the revised report was also being sent to the Open Space Steering Committee members for approval. He briefly reviewed some of the differences between the Steering Committee's and Conservation Commission's open space reports including tax abatements and methods for funding the purchase of open space. Mr. Rimsky stressed the Planning Commission should receive the final report, not a version that is still under debate. Mr. Charles thought the Conservation Commission would approve the revised 8/6/03 report at its next meeting, but he did not know what the Steering Committee members would do. Mr. Rimsky noted the Planning Commission has the right to include recommendations in the Plan of Conservation and Development to clarify and improve the Open Space Report if this is determined to be necessary. Mr. Bender asked that Mr. Charles notify him about whether the Steering Committee OK'd the Open Space Report by 8/8. If so, he asked that Mrs. Hill prepare copies with the revisions highlighted for his meeting with Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood reviewed the process and schedule for the remaining work on the update of the Plan. Hopefully on 8/19 the Commission will be comfortable with draft #6 so that it can be formally referred to the NW Ct. COG and to the Board of Selectmen who will have to decide whether to hold a Town Meeting to consider it. The Planning Commission must hold its own public hearing, but can not schedule it until 65 days after it is referred to the Board of Selectmen. If the Selectmen determine the Plan should go before a Town Meeting, that body may vote on all of it or sections of it. If voted down at a Town Meeting, the Planning Commission may still adopt the Plan by a super majority. Mr. Wood explained that once the Planning Commission adopts the Plan, it can be formally adopted by the Town, but that this is not necessary or required.
Steap Grant: Mrs. Luckey noted per state statute the improvements the Town hoped to make with Steap Grant funds had to be referred to the Planning Commission. To date, the Town had only a general description of the proposed projects and Mr. Bender had advised her what additional information/ specifications the Commission would require for its review. Mr. Bender asked for two volunteers to review the information from the Board of Selectmen and report back to the Commission at its next meeting about whether or not the proposed work is appropriate from a planning point of view. Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Sabin were appointed to do the review.
Scenic Road Ordinance: Draft #11 of the proposed Scenic Road Ordinance had been mailed to the Commissioners. Mr. Sabin and Mr. Rimsky will review the draft and report on it to Mrs. Hill prior to the next meeting.
Correspondence
Mr. Bender noted the Commission had received a letter dated 7/24/03 from Mrs. Klein regarding the ongoing work on the Cantor property on Tinker Hill Road. It was the consensus of the Commission that this was not a planning matter.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
July 25, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Sabin
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mrs. Roberts
TOWN STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mrs. J. Hill, Mr. Wood, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Owen, Mr. LaMuniere, Mr. Markert, Mr. Field, Mrs. D. Hill, Ms. Page, Mr. Smith, Mr. Solley, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Bedini
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Cornett, Mr. Mustich, Mrs. Bedini, Mrs. Materne, Mrs. McDonald, Ms. King, Mrs. Hardee, Mrs. E. Charles, Mrs. Addicks, Mrs. Duus, Mr. and Mrs. Klein, Atty. and Mrs. Fairbairn, Mr. Sears, Mr. Millington, Mrs. Talbot, Mr. Brigham, Mr. and Mrs. Minor, Mr. Hubblebank, Mr. and Mrs. A. Chapin, Other Residents, PressMr. Bender called the Special Meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and briefly described the process to update the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Wood, consultant from Planimetrics, gave a slide presentation on the draft Plan. This included the four main objectives of the plan, to preserve rural character, to enhance the village centers, to guide and manage housing development, and other issues such as town roads, community facilities and community spirit and the key strategies to achieve them. The outline of the presentation is attached.
Questions and comments from the public were taken.
A man noted the Plan focused on Washington and asked to what degree it addressed incursions from adjoining towns that have fundamentally different characters from our own. Mr. Bender noted Washington regulations apply only within our own boundaries, but noted towns such as New Milford had been making strides to improve their land use regulations.
Another resident noted the Board of Education had hired a consultant to study the feasibility of consolidating the primary schools and asked what the impact on Town would be if the primary school was no longer located in the Depot. Mr. Bender noted the Plan recommends the school property be placed in the Depot Business District and pointed out Zoning would have control over potential uses of the building. The resident saw the potential for derelict buildings and so thought the property's proposed inclusion in the business district was appropriate.
Atty. Fairbairn, member of the Open Space Steering Committee, asked that before the Commission adopts the Conservation Commission's Open Space Plan, it give the Open Space Steering Committee the opportunity to find out why that report differs so dramatically from the Open Space Steering Committee's Report or that it adopt the original Steering Committee's Report into the Plan as well. Mr. Bender said the differences in the two reports should be resolved by the Steering Committee and Conservation Commission and that only one report would be adopted by the Planning Commission for inclusion in the Plan. A lengthy exchange followed between Atty. Fairbairn and Mr. Field, author of the Conservation Commission's Open Space Report. Atty. Fairbairn argued the Steering Committee had been broad based and so it was not right that the Conservation Commission had ignored its recommendations. Mr. Field responded it had not been ignored and that he was confident the differences could be resolved. Mr. Martin, Zoning Commission Chairman, agreed with Atty. Fairbairn that there are legitimate issues to be resolved and said because the Planning Commission would incorporate one of the documents into the Plan, this was a planning issue. He thought it would be helpful if the Planning Commission would schedule a meeting with all interested parties to iron out the differences between the reports. Mr. Bender again stated Planning would not incorporate two open space reports with conflicting provisions and that it recommended the Steering Committee and Conservation Commission work out their differences on their own. Mr. Sabin agreed with Mr. Field that Conservation's Open Space Plan could accommodate the views of all the concerned parties. Mr. Bender noted the Commission would discuss this issue at its next meeting. Mr. Field stated again, it had been his intention to follow the intent of both the Natural Resources Inventory Report and the Open Space Steering Committee Report.
Mr. Bender thanked everyone for coming and adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, LU Coordinator
July 15, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr. Field, Mr. Canal, Press
Board of Finance: Ms. Adams
Conservation Commission: Mrs. Frank, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Markert, Mrs. Payne
Inland Wetlands Commission: Mrs. Gray, Mrs. Hill, Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. Purnell, Mrs. Korzenko
Historic District Commission: Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Chute, Mrs. Rives, Mr. Talbot
Park and Recreation Commission: Ms. Gauthey, Mr. Reich
Zoning Board of Appeals: Mrs. Leab, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. White
Zoning Commission: Mr. Brinton, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. MartinMr. Bender called the Special Meeting to order at 4:06 and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alterate Roberts. He welcomed all in attendance, introduced Mr. Wood, planning consultant from Planimetrics, and noted the purpose of the meeting was to present on overview of the draft Plan of Conservation and Development and to receive input from those present.
Mr. Wood reviewed the main points of the draft Plan. The summary of his presentation is attached.
The following questions, comments, and concerns were raised during and after the presentation.
Mr. Owens asked if it was the Commission's intent to intensify commercial development in the business districts and if Planning had considered whether this was desirable. Mr. Wood said there had been no discussion that this was the Commission's intent, but by implication if a recommendation is made for a district, support for development at an appropriate scale there is implied. Mr. Bender reminded those present the Plan of Conservation and Development is not regulations and is not enforceable. It is, he said, recommendations to the Commissions who do have the enforcement powers. Mr. White asked if the Plan was promoting the conversion of residential properties to commercial uses. Mr. Wood noted most of the proposed Bee Brook Gateway District is already commercially zoned, that New Preston was proposed to be enlarged only by expanding it to existing property lines, and in Marbledale a new transition zone was proposed. Mr. White said he was concerned about intensifying uses in these areas as they have already experienced septic failures and are along rivers. Mrs. Leab noted the presentation was a general one and asked when copies of the complete draft would be available. After a lengthy discussion the Commission decided it would post the latest draft on the Town web site and would have several copies available in the Land Use Office for residents to borrow and read before the July 25th Special Meeting. Mrs. Frank noted the Town has a substantial number of acres in PA 490, that this was a tax loss, and asked if Mr. Wood viewed 490 as a "good thing to do." Mr. Wood commented it was a valuable tool for management because it slowed down development and gave the Town time to come up with a permanent protection plan if the parcel met previously agreed upon criteria. He said it was not a permanent solution and that is why an aggressive open space plan was needed. Mr. White asked if large properties that would never be developed were discounted when the build out figures had been calculated. Mr. Bender said the build out addressed this in passing by stating Washington tends to have large estate type development. Mr. Talbot asked if there was the potential for village centers with higher density. Mr. Wood said the total build out was of the residential districts with limited development potential in the village core areas. Mr. Charles pointed out development in the village centers would take pressure off the outlying open space areas and these centers would be the logical location for senior and affordable housing. Mr. Talbot was concerned about water pollution and septic failures in the villages if higher density was permitted. Mr. Wood said mixed use development would be encouraged rather than strictly residential development. He added, in this way the intent of the village centers would continue and with residential units located there, there would be an incentive for maintenance. Mr. Field said the Open Space Steering Committee had asked the Conservation Commission to study whether open space should be accepted under PA 490. This has not been done in Washington, although in other towns it has. He said the Conservation Commission concluded tax incentives for temporary preservation were counter productive, but were a powerful incentive for permanent preservation. Mr. Charles noted there is a one time IRS deduction for permanently preserved open space and asked Mr. Field why he did not think this was enough incentive. Mr. Field said that once a property has restrictions placed on it, it is not as valuable, but currently the value stays high for the Assessor's purposes. Mr. Charles noted the Open Space Steering Committee had recommended a half mil set aside for open space purchases, but the Conservation Commission chose not to recommend this in its Open Space Plan. Mr. Field said purchases could be made with a combination of state and federal funds and private donations. Mr. Charles said that would take too long and what was needed was a fund on hand so that properties could be purchased quickly if necessary. Mr. Canal agreed and said there should be a million dollars on hand. Mr. Bender noted that was why the Planning Commission had recommended in the draft Plan that both a land acquisition fund and an open space committee be established. Mr. Martin asked if Planning had recommended a mil rate be set aside to fund this fund. Mr. Wood said the recommendation was half a mil. Ms. Purnell asked if there were any plans to incorporate regional goals. She cited Roxbury's recently updated Plan as an example and said when trying to preserve natural resources artificial boundaries were not effective. Mr. Bender responded within the Plan are mechanisms to try to establish contiguous open space and wildlife corridors. Mr. Martin asked what other documents were incorporated in the Plan. Mr. Bender said the Housing Steering Committee Report and the Natural Resources Inventory Report had been incorporated. Mr. Martin asked if the Open Space Steering Committee Report would be incorporated. Mr. Bender said no. Mr. Martin complained a lot of time and effort had been put into the Open Space Steering Committee Report by a broad cross section of Town commissions and said it differed from the Conservation Commission's Open Space Plan. Mr. Field said Conservation's Open Space Plan incorporated the Open Space Steering Committee's Report. Mr. White asked when the Plan would be completed. Mr. Bender said Planning would hold a public meeting on July 25th , would make revisions according to the comments received tonight and on the 25th, and then would conduct a public hearing and make the required referrals before adopting the Plan, and so it was not yet known exactly what the end date would be. There was a second brief discussion regarding getting the draft document on the Town web site and getting copies made for distribution. Mr. Wood said he would try to get the draft Plan posted on the web site and provide Mrs. Hill with a single sided copy by Friday, July 18th.
There were no other questions or comments.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 5:59 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
July 1, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade, Mrs. Luckey
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. BolingMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:31PM. He seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, Byerly and Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/3/03 Regular Meeting minutes as amended:
Pg.2, Par.4, Line 2; add a comma between recommendation and that.....
Pg.2, Par.4, Line 3; add a comma between evaluated and will.....
By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Charles and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Plan of Conservation and Development
Mr. Bender informed the members about a printing error on the poster advertising the public meeting. The poster advertises the date as Tuesday, July 18 (July 18 is a Friday). Mr. Bender said he would like to suggest a change in the date of the public meeting because he is concerned about the short period of time between July 15th and 18th.
Members of all other town commissions have been invited to the special meeting on July 15th to hear a presentation by Chris Wood and review Draft #5 of the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Bender said it is not known what issues may come up at the special meeting and it may be necessary to make substantial changes in the draft as it exists. Mr. Bender commented that he had been through the plan and feels there are many changes yet to be made. He asked the members how they felt about changing the date. All agreed July 25th at 7:30PM was acceptable.
MOTION: To determine that the public meeting for the presentation and discussion of the draft of the new Plan of Conservation and Development will be held at 7:30PM on Friday July 25, 2003. By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mr. Charles and passed 5-0.
Mr. Chalder will print new posters. Mr. Rimsky asked if there will be any publicity other than the posters. Mr. Bender replied that Mr. Chalder has a release prepared for the Litchfield County Times. Mr. Rimsky suggested the release also be sent to other papers in order to reach as many people as possible. After a brief discussion, it was decided to include the New Milford Times, the Waterbury Republican, Spectrum and Voices.
Mr. Bender said he has four pages of notes; corrections to the draft. He will discuss these notes with Mr. Wood. Mr. Bender reminded the commissioners to please put in writing any comments, changes, addition or deletions to draft #5 and submit them to Mrs. Hill. He asked if there were any other comments on the present state of the draft plan.
Mr. Charles asked if his copy of the Open Space Plan, revised 6/10/03, was the final plan. Mr. Bender said he did not know whether the Conservation Commission had formally adopted it, but he believes it to be the final plan. Mrs. Luckey observed that Mr. Boling is on that Commission - maybe he knows. Mr. Boling stated that plan has been adopted and he does not think any significant changes will be made to the report. Mr. Charles said he had taken time to read the Open Space Plan thoroughly and has tried to match up the Conservation Commission Report, the Open Space Steering Committee Report and the Plan of Conservation and Development and he thinks there are significant discrepancies. Mr. Bender stated in the Plan of Conservation and Development, the members adopted the Open Space Report and somewhere in the draft it states - if there are variances, this plan as adopted will prevail. Mr. Charles said he could no longer support that. Mr. Bender suggested he put his thoughts on paper.
A letter to the Commission from Kelly Boling was added to the agenda. The letter concerned discontinuing certain roads in town. Each member was given a copy of his letter, a list of questions and answers about public highway discontinuance and a draft response to the letter by Mr. Bender. Mr. Bender gave the members a few minutes to look over the letter and draft.
Mr. Bender said he is not familiar with all of the roads recommended for discontinuance and would like to see a map to understand exactly what is at stake. Mrs. Averill said she could find the roads but a map would be helpful. Mr. Bender asked the other members how they felt - would they rather have a map or make a trip to the Assessor's Office to look up each road. Mrs. Roberts said she would like a map. All agreed. Mr. Bender said he would send his letter to Mr. Boling and the Highway Discontinuance Committee requesting a map.
The members briefly discussed how living on a discontinued road would affect existing property owners, developing new dwellings, road maintenance, etc. Discontinued roads could be used for passive recreation such as walking, riding bikes and horses. Mr. Boling said the State Statutes would protect the town and abutting homeowners against liability. Mrs. Luckey stated discontinuing any roads would have to be voted on at a town meeting.
Mr. Bender asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Buck.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 8:00PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Secretary
May 20, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Field, Mrs. Luckey, Mrs. PayneMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, and Byerly and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Charles.
Mr. Bender noted the 2nd draft of the Plan of Conservation and Development was the result of a meeting he and Mr. Rimsky had with Mr. Wood. He thought this draft was an improvement, but was still cumbersome and was not reader friendly. An undated memo with his recommendations for improving the order of presentation was circulated and discussed. A copy is attached.
Mr. Bender asked if there was an official final open space report from the Conservation Commission, noting the Interim Report by Mr. Field was referenced in the Plan. Mrs. Payne stated the Interim Report was Conservation's official report subject to future public discussion. She said the Open Space Steering Committee's report had not been integrated with the Interim Report. Mr. Bender was concerned the Open Space Steering Committee's report, which had been officially incorporated into the Plan, and the Interim Report, which had not yet been incorporated, might have conflicting parts. Mr. Field did not think this was a problem because he said the Interim Report had been derived from the strategic direction of the Open Space Steering Committee's report and used the same cost criteria. Mr. Bender said the Planning Commission preferred to incorporate by reference one open space report in the Plan. Mr. Field said the Open Space Steering Committee's report could be incorporated as part of the Open Space Interim Report.
Mr. Charles arrived and was seated at 4:16 p.m.
Mr. Bender said he did not like the term, "desirable" open space used in draft #2. Mr. Chalder noted the Conservation Commission is working on prioritizing parcels to be preserved as open space and these would be included on the Conservation map in the Plan. Mrs. Payne said Conservation would identify only broad corridors, not specific parcels. In general, she said the Conservation Commission thought there was no parcel that was not worth preserving. Mrs. Roberts pointed out the general public incorrectly perceives 70% to 80% protected open space presently exists in Washington. She thought the challenge for the Commission would be to actually protect as much of this perceived open space as possible.
Mr. Bender expressed concern about mixing terminology in Section 7 of the Plan, particularly, zoning "use" vs. zoning "district." Mr. Chalder offered to insert an explanatory paragraph and suggested the matter could be referred to the Zoning Commission to find out whether it thought the use of these terms would be a problem. Mr. Wood noted the chart in Section 7, "Descriptions of Future Land Use Categories," was meant to accompany the land use map. He also noted Mr. Sabin had recommended the Plan be summarized in one map and said this was the intent of this section. Mr. Bender asked how the chart integrated with the recommendations in the blue pages. Mr. Wood said it did not because the chart was future categories on the land use map and the blue pages summarized recommendations and strategies. Mr. Charles voiced support for including Section 7 because he thought it clearly showed what Planning's job was and would generate communication between the Planning and Zoning commissions. Mr. Bender was concerned about the flow of the document and thought the Commission should consider a) not including the land use map, b) providing an improved description of the map, c) using the map to summarize specific recommendations so that it would become more action oriented and not an end in itself, and/or d) having two maps; one for existing land use and a second for recommended future land use.
Mr. Buck arrived at 4:32 p.m. and was seated.
A broad conversation followed, which included the following points:
Mr. Rimsky thought it was important the Plan show both the results the Planning Commission hopes to achieve and the process to be used to achieve them. Building on Mrs. Roberts' comments that what the public perceives as open space is not correct, he said the Plan should point this out and then show what action needs to be taken to ensure the perceived open space becomes protected open space. He thought the Plan should educate the public about how to protect and manage open space. Mr. Charles expressed concern that newcomers were bringing to Town different values, which could change its character if left unchecked. Clearing the understory was an example. Mr. Chalder said the land ethic, what we value and how we want the land to be treated, would be explained in the Plan. Mr. Rimsky agreed the Town should take a more active role in education about the community's value system. Mr. Chalder did not recommend doing a townwide build out, but thought an exercise that took one section of town and compared what could happen under the current regulations vs. what would be possible if the updated Plan were implemented would help the public understand what was being proposed. Mr. Bender asked Mr. Wood to use the suggestions in his memo to write draft #3 and asked if it could be ready for the June 3rd meeting. Mr. Wood said he would try to have it ready prior to the meeting. Mr. Charles thought this would be an appropriate time for the Commissioners to comment on substantive matters in the Plan so these comments could be reflected in draft #3.
Mr. Rimsky thought the Plan's priority was preservation of open space, which did not reflect the priority of the townspeople, which was affordable housing. He said the affordable housing section should be strengthened so their treatment would be equal with the open space sections.
Mr. Charles asked if recommendations for a light industrial zone or for the establishment of an economic development commission would be included. Mr. Bender noted light manufacturing/campus type industry had been considered as part of the Marbledale transition zone.
Mrs. Roberts thought the Plan should include possible uses for the present elementary school should a new regional elementary school be built in the future. She also thought the school property should be included in the Depot Business District. Mr. Charles agreed that a larger area than the current Depot Business District should be included when the in depth study of this district is done. He thought the Shepaug Flower Farm and school, for example, were integral parts of the district. Mr. Rimsky agreed, and also thought properties adjacent to the school property should be included.
Mr. Charles submitted a letter dated 5/20/03 with additional issues he thought should be addressed. This is attached to these minutes.
Mr. Wood said he would work on a power point presentation for a public informational meeting and would set it up to generate thought and feedback from the public. He thought a possible date would be the Commission's next Special Meeting date, June 17.
Organization of the Plan was again discussed. Mr. Bender did not think the summary should be inserted at the beginning of the document. Mr. Wood noted the summary had been narrowed to four definite categories so it would be easier to understand and said these were covered in detail in separate sections. Mr. Chalder thought perhaps the summaries could be inserted in the implementation section and be followed by the future land use plan. It was noted planning jargon should be avoided as much as possible throughout the text.
The state enabling legislation for land acquisition funds was discussed. This statute clearly states such a fund may be used to purchase land for open space or for affordable housing. Mr. Chalder advised the Commission it would be up to the Town to establish how the fund would be used and to set it up accordingly. Mr. Charles thought further studies were needed to determine how much land should be set aside for affordable housing (the Open Space Steering Committee report had addressed only land for open space), how much money should be on hand in the fund so that it could be used most effectively, what other sources of funding there might be, etc. Some on the Commission thought the Washington Community Housing Trust should take the lead for acquiring land for affordable housing, but Mr. Charles stressed this is the Town's responsibility. Mr. Bender asked if the Conservation Commission could accept land for affordable housing as well as for open space. This matter will be investigated as the current state statutes seem to be conflicting.
Regarding the Bee Brook Gateway District concept, Mr. Wood asked whether this district should extend along Bee Brook Road to the Shepaug River. It was the consensus this area was appropriate for a mixed use district.
Mrs. Luckey noted plans were well underway for the installation of an elevator in the Town Hall and so the language in the text should be changed to reflect this.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Averill.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 5:59 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 6, 2003
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, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. MillingtonRegular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, and Byerly and Alternates Rimsky and Roberts for Mr. Buck and Mr. Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/03 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mrs. Averill, and passed 5-0.
The 4/15/03 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as amended. Mrs. Roberts pointed out two places on page 3 where it was stated a commissioner had "complained." In the fourth bullet this was changed to "regretted" and further down the page in the paragraph following the bullets, this was changed to "suggested."
MOTION: To accept the 4/15/03 Special Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mrs. Averill, 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
Plan of Conservation and Development
Mr. Wood, consultant, distributed a 6 page memo dated 5/6/03, which included a redraft of Section 1 based on the discussion that took place at the last meeting. Mr. Wood stressed this was not an attempt to solve all issues or an entire rewrite, but addressed some of the major points raised at the last meeting. The Commissioners took a few minutes to read the memo.
Mr. Charles was seated for Mr. Rimsky at 7:42 p.m.
Mr. Bender said he had consulted with Mr. Wood concerning the difficult process of reviewing the draft Plan. He suggested that instead of Planimetrics writing the next draft based on discussions that have taken place at the Commission meetings, he meet with Mr. Wood, Mrs. Hill, and one other Planning Commissioner, all who are more familiar with Planning's ideas and feelings, to decide what should be said and how it should be written. Mr. Bender noted comments from Mr. Martin, Zoning Chairman and Mrs. Payne, Conservation Chairman, had to be taken into consideration and said he had a substantial number of modifications to make in the language, emphasis, presentation, and specificity of the draft. In general, the Commissioners agreed with Mr. Bender's suggestion, although Mr. Charles thought it would be more effective if the entire Commission first went through the draft once with Mr. Wood and then turned it over to the proposed subcommittee.
Mr. Wood thought some basic decisions should be made to facilitate the work of the subcommittee. These were 1) how the draft would be organized and 2) which categories should be presented in their own chapters. He said work to redraft the Plan could continue while Planimetrics prepared an outline for a public presentation. The purpose of this presentation would be to generate discussion and solicit ideas from the public and would most likely be scheduled for June. Planimetrics would then continue to meet with the Commission during the summer to further refine the Plan and a public hearing would be scheduled for September.
Mr. Wood discussed the reorganization of the Plan. Based on comments made by the Commission at the last meeting, he said he would consolidate the sections on history, trends, and facts and refocus the first chapters. Once the Commission had agreed on which goals it would prioritize, he said each category would have a separate section, which would include the reasons the issue was being addressed, strategies, tables, and specific conclusions. Mr. Wood asked if he should continue with the work he had begun in his memo, but Mr. Bender thought there should be a work session with the subcommittee before he invested more time in a rewrite.
Incorporating the Natural Resource Inventory Report and the Open Space Steering Committee Report was discussed. It was noted these had been adopted by the Commission in motions approved at its 12/4/01 meeting. Mr. Wood did not recommend that these reports be printed in their entirety, but said they should be referenced in the Plan and included in the appendix so that it was clear they were taken seriously and applied throughout. Mr. Bender instructed Mr. Wood to word the final formal resolution re: adoption of the Plan of Conservation and Development by the Planning Commission so that it would be clear to the public that it incorporates these documents. Mr. Charles noted the Open Space Interim Report had not been adopted by the Planning Commission and so did not share the same status as the NRIR and OPSCR referenced above. Mr. Bender said a precise list of external documents to be incorporated in the Plan would be decided at a future meeting.
Mr. Rimsky agreed to serve with Mr. Bender on the subcommittee. A meeting was scheduled for Friday, May 9 at 10:00 a.m.
The blue strategy pages were discussed. Mr. Bender thought they should be included in the appendix. Mr. Wood said strategies relevant to each section would be listed at the end of each and a full list would be included in the appendix. He suggested the list in the appendix could be tear out sheets that could be used by the Town boards for the implementation phase of the Plan. He also said he had reviewed the recommendations from the 1993 Plan to determine which had not yet been implemented. Mr. Charles thought the strategy pages would be a helpful tool to use when the next update is done in 2013. Mr. Wood said their inclusion would help to ensure the Plan is implemented after its adoption.
It was agreed the four major categories of the Plan, preservation of rural character, enhancement of village centers, guidance for residential development, and other issues were appropriate.
Establishing and funding an open space acquisition fund was discussed. Mr. Wood recommended consideration of a half mil assessment and of low interest bonding as possible means of raising money for the open space fund. The goal would be to have enough money set aside so that valuable parcels could be acquired as they become available. It was noted the half mil proposal would be included in the Plan. Mr. Wood noted as soon as the Town has funds available there will be people lobbying for the purchase of various parcels. He said that is the reason an open space acquistion plan, which clearly lists criteria and priorities is important. He also recommended a committee be established to identify parcels the Town should acquire, to begin negotiations to acquire them, and to seek the necessary funding from the Town and/or various partnerships. Mr. Bender recommended the Plan include a recommendation for the establishment of such a committee.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Millington said he admired the Commission's work on its difficult task of updating the Plan. He thought a goal of 30% open space in Town was a good one. Regarding housing, he said he had noticed a lot of attention given to elderly housing, but no provisions for limited equity housing for young adults. Mr. Rimsky also thought the housing issue had not been adequately addressed.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
April 15, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Charles
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. PayneMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. and seated Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, and Mr. Charles and Alternate Roberts. He noted the purpose of the meeting was to begin discussion of the first draft of the updated Plan of Conservation and Development. He said the draft was the result of the collection of ideas and comments from a variety of sources over the past year. In general, he thought it could be improved by making it more concise.
Mr. Rimsky arrived at 4:10 p.m. and was seated.
Mr. Wood gave a brief summary of how the draft was organized. He said the focus of today's discussion would be on sections #3, #4, and #5, issues, objectives, priorities, and implementation, and noted the preliminary outline, which included strategies, was shown on the blue pages. He asked the Commissioners to carefully review this outline before the next meeting and to rank the issues listed in order of their importance. At the next meeting these rankings will be discussed and the Commission will reach an agreement regarding which issues are the most important. Also at the next meeting details, additions, and deletions will be addressed.
Mr. Sabin arrived at 4:20 p.m.
There was a lengthy discussion and the following suggestions and comments were made:
Mr. Sabin thought a statement explaining why the Commission thinks the zoning for village centers should be changed should be added. Regarding future boundary lines for Marbledale, he said he had hoped there would be a more aggregate area proposed so the district would be less of a linear corridor. Mrs. Hill pointed out on the Marbledale map on p. 7-9, the boundary between the village district zone and the gateway zone should be revised to include in the village district the four small properties to the north of the Wheaton Road-Rt. 202 intersection because their location and characteristics link them with the village, not the gateway area. Mr. Sabin thought the issue of coverage should be addressed for higher density areas such as The Green and New Preston. Although he understood the reason for maximum coverage limitations was to protect water quality, he thought the need for a variance to construct a walkway was illogical for these areas. Mr. Wood noted Woodbury provides flexibility by use of Special Permits. Mr. Bender asked that a key be included to explain all the abbreviations used throughout the document. Mrs. Hill asked how recommendations that had not been implemented from the 1993 Plan would be addressed. Would they remain recommendations if they were not specifically referred to in the new Plan or would they be dropped? Mr. Wood suggested a list of recommendations not yet implemented be submitted to Mr. Chalder for his review. Mr. Bender noted his suggestion that subdivisions be taken out of the R-1 District and there be new residential regulations written to govern them was not included in the draft. The main issue he hoped to address was farming in residential districts. Mrs. Hill thought the R-1 District was uniquely Washington and should be preserved as is, that such a change was suburban and so would undermine the preservation of rural character, and that there were so many subdivisions in Town it would be difficult to oversee. Mrs. Roberts agreed. Mr. Bender noted residents cherish the ambience of their communities and commercial farming did not belong in residential areas. Mr. Rimsky thought separate subdivision district regulations might impact residents operating other types of businesses from their homes. He was concerned the social character of Town could change if the Zoning Regulations made it difficult for persons to make a living. Mr. Charles noted such a change in the R-1 District would be dramatic for Washington and said he thought organic farm operations, for example, should be permitted throughout Town. He thought farms could be effectively run on smaller parcels and cautioned against any actions that would limit the promotion of farming in Washington. Mr. Rimsky noted it would be difficult to draft residential regulations as it was not only businesses that could disrupt residential neighborhoods, but also inconsiderate individuals who make too much noise, clear cut, etc. Mrs. Payne noted there was a recommendation to support local agriculture in the Natural Resource Inventory. Mr. Wood noted in general towns that retain land for agricultural purposes will be better off in the future. Mrs. Roberts noted 1993 recommendations regarding outdoor lighting in residential areas had not been addressed. Mr. Bender thought the sections were awkwardly arranged. He said as the reader progresses through the document he would expect the recommendations to be at the end of each section. Mr. Bender thought the blue page recommendations were overwhelming because they included too much and duplicated material already in gray boxes throughout the text. Mrs. Roberts, on the other hand, thought these pages were very helpful because they spelled out who would be responsible for implementing each recommendation and the gray boxes were a good way to highlight pertinent points for those who would not read the entire text. Mr. Bender suggested that if the gray boxes were used at all, they should be placed at the end of each section. Mrs. Roberts complained a recommendation for a footbridge over the Shepaug River in the Depot had not been included. Mr. Sabin hoped the draft would include support for trails and a greenway network throughout Town as was recommended in the draft open space plan. The layout, design, and language of the draft were considered. Mr. Rimsky complained the overview in Section #11 needed more emphatic language and should have a more engaging quality and inspirational edge. He thought the language in the introductions was important and could be improved to draw the reader's attention and motivate him to read further. Regarding the layout and design, he thought the use of images was good, the use of sidebars, screening, and highlighting helped to keep the reader's interest, and the pages were not too crowded. He said the design should be dynamic, should resonate that the Plan makes sense, and should catch the public's attention. He thought the draft did a good job in accomplishing these ends. Mr. Bender agreed active, not passive, language should be used throughout the text and planning jargon should be avoided whenever possible. Mr. Sabin recommended the conclusions be relevant to Washington and not general in nature. There was a brief discussion about whether the use of sidebars was distracting or contributed to the understanding of the text. It was the consensus to keep them.
The following specific comments were made.
Mr. Bender asked that unified terminology be used for indicating actions and strategies - example: p. 5-4. Mrs. Hill noted the term "planning period" is confusing because it is used in different ways throughout the text. The term "natural resources" was discussed. While it was agreed water, air, soils, forests, etc. are natural resources, some were not comfortable including aesthetics such as scenic resources in this category. Mr. Charles thought it was important to include aesthetics to give a value to intangible qualities. Mr. Rimsky agreed, saying that the quality of life was what was being "mined," and that scenery could be consumed as though it was being strip mined. The Historic District Commission, Park and Rec Commission, and Washington Environmental Council will be added to the list of acknowledgements. Mr. Bender noted throughout the text it states various boards "will" do various tasks and asked this be changed to "should be considered" as the Plan is advisory and makes recommendations. Mr. Wood thought some issues were so firm that "will" should be used, but Mr. Sabin agreed with Mr. Bender, noting the Planning Commission has no enforcement abilities. Mr. Bender pointed out the term "ambience" must have a qualifier. It was generally thought a different word should be used whenever possible. The recommendations on the blue pages were discussed.
Page 5-5:
Mr. Bender noted #1 and #3 had already been done and Mrs. Hill noted the 12/4/01 Minutes confirm this. Therefore, he thought it might not be necessary to include #1 through #5 in this list if they were noted in the appendix. Mr. Bender suggested the Plan include sources of grant money. It was noted #8 and #15 should be combined. Page 5-6:
Mr. Bender thought "sensitive" natural resources should be defined. Mr. Wood agreed to either substitute another descriptive word or to better define "sensitive." Mrs. Payne and Mrs. Hill noted the Conservation Commission has no enforcement authority for protecting natural resources. Mrs. Payne noted the Natural Resource Inventory recommended the upland review area be increased for Inland Wetlands Comm. applications. Mrs. Payne thought the use of the word "improvements" was misleading in #26. Development or project will be substituted. Mr. Bender asked if #26 meant an additional permit would be required, and Mr. Wood said it did. Mrs. Payne recommended #29 be eliminated. Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Commission was on record against the state signs associated with scenic roads. Mr. Sabin and Mrs. Roberts pointed out the state scenic road ordinance could be used to preserve rural character by preventing state roads from being widened and straightened, although the accompanying signs are the downside. Mrs. Roberts left at 6:45 p.m. and Mr. Sabin was seated.
Page 5-7:
Mr. Bender objected to the term "use assessment" in #31 and requested this be called the PA 490 program. He noted the Town currently has farm and forest land tax reductions and thought the Plan should include a recommendation for an open space tax reduction. Mr. Sabin was concerned that if open space were allowed to satisfy the PA 490 requirement, there would be no incentive to maintain agricultural areas or to submit management plans for forests. He said all open space would grow into forest. Mr. Wood noted page 6-14 covered the details of the assessment program. Mrs. Hill asked why #36 was under the Board of Selectmen rather than the Building Department or Zoning Commission. Mr. Wood said this is because it would be require a Town ordinance. Mr. Sabin explained #40 was state legislation that enables towns to enact ordinances to protect farmers against nuisance complaints. Some Commissioners thought Washington should consider enacting such an ordinance. As the end of the meeting was near, Mr. Wood again asked the Commissioners to review the blue pages and to rank the recommendations in order of priority. He said the top three or four priorities from each section when all the "votes" were tallied would definitely be included in the Plan and would be described in detail in the text.
It was thought at least two more meetings would be needed to discuss the first draft. These will be the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, May 6 and the next Special Meeting on Tuesday, May 20 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The first draft is still not available to the public.
There was also a brief discussion about the best time to hold the next public informational meeting. This will be scheduled for June or September.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, L.U. Coordinator
March 18, 2003
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, Mrs. LuckeyMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. and seated all Regular Members. He noted it was being held at the request of Mr. Charles and so turned the meeting over to him.
Mr. Charles said he was concerned that a number of topics that require additional discussion beyond the scope of the update of the Plan of Conservation and Development such as village centers keep coming up. Mr. Bender agreed there is a vast difference between the general update of the Plan and a detailed study and plans for improvements in one specific area. He noted detailed studies were beyond the scope of the current contract.
Specific topics to be addressed in greater detail after the completion of the update of the Plan were noted. These were 1) the Depot, including traffic patterns and most appropriate use of the old Town Garage property, 2) housing, (an in depth report had been recommended by the Housing Steering Committee), and 3) village centers, including New Preston and Marbledale. Mr. Bender noted it had been already decided one recommendation in the updated Plan would be that a specific study of the Depot be made. Mrs. Luckey said she had asked that the Plan address two issues, neither which had been covered to date; the best use for the old Town Garage property and traffic problems in the Depot Mr. Bender said these would be considered in the in depth study of the Depot because they were beyond the scope of the current contract.
Mr. Rimsky thought it was very important that the revised Plan strongly recommend these three in depth studies, perhaps by using language to elevate their importance and to clearly indicate the Commission thinks they are imperative. He thought the Plan's graphic design should highlight these as priorities rather than submerge them in with the rest of the Plan.
Mr. Charles suggested the Commission set a specific time frame and budget for completion of these studies. Mr. Bender did not think a budget could be established until the Commission had gone through the interview process with interested consultants. Mr. Charles noted problems with organizing the Housing Steering Committee even though the Open Space Steering Committee had recommended it and asked if the Planning Commission was in a position to mandate these in depth studies. Mr. Bender said the Commission could make recommendations, but could not control the political process.
Mr. Buck asked if the New Preston and Marbledale districts could be merged. Several Commissioners thought this would be controversial as they have separate identities. Mrs. Roberts pointed out unified regulations for the two districts had been discussed and rejected at the last meeting.
Mrs. Roberts noted the 1993 Plan had its priorities and although it had taken over ten years, a substantial number of them had been addressed. She hoped the updated Plan would shift its focus to housing, preventing sprawl, preserving the quality of the Town's "hamlets," etc. She thought study of the village centers would be a good way to combine housing issues, preservation of Town character, and ideas for reinforcing commercial activities. She thought the Town already had such a strong open space policy that this would not have to be emphasized in the new Plan. She stressed the updated Plan should progress from 1993 issues to current issues
Regarding affordable housing, Mrs. Roberts thought the Commission should not loose sight of the peoples' dream to own their own piece of land with their own house. She said the Town needs a fund to help with the purchase of land or smaller houses as they are put up for sale to help keep this kind of ownership affordable. She also thought the Town had to work to end the "not in my backyard" attitude that many people have about affordable housing and that mixed uses (commercial on the first story with residential above) should be encouraged in the village centers. Rimsky agreed a sense of ownership and overcoming the NIMBY attitude were important.
Mr. Rimsky thought the Town should work harder to educate residents that land donations can be made for affordable housing as well as for open space. He did not think the Town was successfully getting the word out that donations for affordable housing were as important and valuable as those for open space. He noted the Conservation Commission would soon be able to accept open space on behalf of the Town, but there was no mechanism in place to accept parcels for affordable housing. He thought a detailed study of the village centers should include an evaluation of how to manage population growth within them.
Mr. Charles thought the Plan should be committed to maintaining a diverse community. He said the Town should strive to provide affordable housing for those who work here.
Mr. Charles said, too, that transfer of development rights used as a tool to allow denser development in the village centers should be investigated.
Economic development was another issue the Commissioners were not sure would be adequately addressed in the Plan. Mr. Bender noted he had asked several meetings ago whether Planning should recommend the establishment of an industrial zone. It was thought that if an industrial zone were established, somewhere near Rt. 202 would be the logical location, but Mrs. Hill pointed out there are many wetlands areas along that highway. Mr. Bender noted Bridgewater has several small plants off Rt. 67, which are hardly noticeable from the road. Mrs. Roberts, however, did not think the community would support an industrial zone in Town. Mr. Rimsky thought bringing various types of commerce into Town would be beneficial, thought additional agricultural uses should be generated, and thought computer related uses in a campus-like setting could be encouraged without the need for an industrial zone. It was noted schools and real estate are the two main employers in Town. Mr. Charles and Mr. Rimsky thought that schools no longer employ long term Town residents. Mr. Rimsky said teachers used to be Town residents, but that most now live out of Town or in private school campus housing. He thought the Town had reserved large areas of open space to preserve the rural character and although this did benefit the community, it was at the expense of affordable housing. He hoped the Plan would come up with a way to offset this.
Mr. Bender left the meeting at this point. Mr. Charles presided and seated Mr. Rimsky.
Mr. Charles thought the Commission should send Mr. Chalder a list of concerns that should be emphasized in the updated Plan. Mrs. Hill thought it was too late for a list to make the first draft and that Mr. Chalder already knew the Commission's priorities. She thought it would be more productive to have this discussion after review of the first draft.
Mr. Rimsky expressed his concern about the schedule and asked when would the draft be done and when would there be a public meeting. He was concerned there had not been as much public input as he had expected. Mrs. Hill noted this was partly because of the problems encountered when working on the Conservation section and the long delay waiting for Steep Rock to inform Planning whether it would accept all open space on behalf of the Town. Instead of having a separate Conservation informational meeting, this would now be included in the first draft discussion. Mr. Rimsky felt consensus building and public participation was important so the community would feel involved and think better of the Plan. He also thought Planning needed the support of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Charles suggested putting the first draft on the Town website. Mrs. Hill responded Mr. Bender had said previously he did not think this should be done until the Commission had first reviewed and revised it. Mrs. Hill said Planimetrics planned to hold a public meeting upon completion of the first draft and also noted she and Mr. Bender were working on a brief article for the Town Times.
Mr. Charles asked those Commissioners who had not yet done so to list their concerns.
- Mrs. Averill: Traffic-traffic patterns, whether to have a stop light at the intersection of Rt. 47 and 109, whether River Road should be realigned with Titus Road
- Mr. Buck: Housing-the whole spectrum, not just affordable. The Commissioners thought the Town should stop using the term, "affordable," since there was prejudice against affordable housing.
- Mr. Byerly: Thought the major concerns had been addressed.
- Mr. Charles: In addition to concerns previously stated: Town sewer systems, limited equity parcels
Mrs. Hill said she was concerned the preservation of rural character may not be adequately covered. She thought conservation of open space and rural character were separate issues; that a Town could have open space and still not remain rural. She circulated papers she had previously written to Planimetrics on this subject.
It was noted these minutes would be forwarded to Mr. Chalder to advise him of the Commissioners' concerns.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Buck.
Mr. Charles adjourned the meeting at 5:28 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
March 4, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Charles
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. HillRegular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Buck, and Byerly and Alternate Rimsky for Mr. Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/4/03 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Averill, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Bender asked Mrs. Hill to include the budget information for the last five years when she mails out the next agenda.
MOTION: To accept the 2/18/03 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Buck, seconded by Mrs. Averill, 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
Plan of Conservation and Development
Copies of Mr. Jackson's 2/13/03 letter to Mr. Bender and Mr. Bender's 2/14/03 memo to Mrs. Luckey were circulated. Mr. Jackson advised Mr. Bender that Steep Rock would not be the uncritical recipient of open space on behalf of the Town. In response, Mr. Bender, wrote to First Selectman Luckey to advise her that according to the Ct. General Statutes, with the approval of the Town's legislative body, the Conservation Commission may accept land and easements on behalf of the Town. He asked her to put this matter on the agenda for the next Town Meeting. He noted the Planning Commission had had previous discussions on this issue, and so felt it likely this would be included as a recommendation in the updated Plan. He asked the Commission to affirm his request to the First Selectman. Mr. Rimsky asked if the Conservation Commission was in a position to manage such a responsibility. Mr. Bender said it was very willing to serve the Town in this way. Mr. Rimsky noted this would require an increase in administrative expenses, but said it would be up to the Board of Finance to budget for it.
Mr. Rimsky asked if the Conservation Commission could also accept land to be used for affordable housing or to designate parts of open space parcels for affordable housing. Mr. Bender thought the statutes governed open space only, although he thought land for affordable housing might be addressed in the future. Mr. Rimsky felt strongly the Town should develop a policy to advertise and encourage the donation of land for affordable housing as it does now for open space. Mr. Bender noted the Housing Trust can accept such lands as it had from Atty. Fairbairn for the senior housing project. He also did not know whether the Conservation Commission would have the right to decide a portion of parcel dedicated for open space could be used for affordable housing. He asked Mrs. Hill to contact the Conservation Commission to recommend it obtain a legal opinion and to forward a copy of these minutes to Mr. Chalder and ask for his opinion.
MOTION: To ratify Mr. Bender's 2/14/03 memo to Mrs. Luckey re: naming the Conservation Commission the entity to accept open space on behalf of the Town. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 4-0-1.
Mr. Bender abstained because it was his letter.
Mr. Bender noted Mr. Chalder is working on the first draft of the Plan, which Mr. Chalder said he hoped to have ready by March 11th. If it is, indeed, ready by 3/11, a Special Meeting will be held on 3/18 to discuss it. Mr. Bender noted the first draft would be Mr. Chalder's and the Commission would be obligated to carefully review and revise it to make it the Commission's document.
Planning Commission Fees: Mr. Bender said Commission fees had been discussed at a recent meeting of the land use chairmen. He reviewed the fees, which had been set in 1989, and asked if the Commissioners were comfortable with them. Mrs. Hill noted that since 1989 the Town ordinance to permit commissions to charge applicants for consulting and legal fees had been adopted. Mr. Bender asked if commissions were credited with the income they generate. Mrs. Hill was not sure, but thought income went to the general fund. Mr. Rimsky asked Mrs. Hill whether there was a need for an increase. Mrs. Hill made the following points: 1) applicants can be charged for consulting and legal fees under the Town ordinance, 2) there are also consulting and legal fees in the Commission's annual budget, 3) she is on salary so does not get paid any more for complicated applications than for ordinary business, and 4) the Commission might want to consider some kind of subdivision fee for open space to pass along to the Conservation Commission for the cost of the base study and monitoring of open space parcels. Mr. Bender noted the $1000 limit to be charged to the applicant for consulting fees per the 1989 fee schedule should be amended to match the current Town ordinance. He requested a copy of the ordinance, which resulted from the Commission's action to approve the 1989 schedule.
Highway Discontinuance Committee: Mr. Boling's 2/20/03 letter was discussed. Although the Commissioners had no particular comments at this time, they said they would be interested in reviewing the inventory list of roads to be considered for discontinuance and would be willing to consult with the committee in the future. Mr. Bender will send a response to Mr. Boling. Mr. Rimsky complained that property owners had installed a fence across the old road, which went from the Green to Holiday House and the milk station, off Ferry Bridge Road. He said this road had been used by the community as the southern access road to valley floor for three hundred years and so asked 1) how had it disappeared from the Town road list and 2) how could adjoining property owners block it off? He noted, too, there had been recent talk about closing Tunnel Road, and said he was wholeheartedly against this.
Communications
A letter to the editor from the 2/9/03 Danbury News Times about legislation to allow towns to assess impact fees on developers was reviewed. It was generally thought this was a good idea.
Mrs. Hill advised the Commission she had received an update from Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. COG regarding proposed planning related legislation in the 2003 Legislative Session. This included a list and brief description of the pending land use bills. Mr. Bender asked Mrs. Hill to monitor the progress of these bills.
Mrs. Hill announced Mr. Byerly would soon receive the Length of Service Award from the Ct. Federation of Planning and Zoning Commission for his years of service on both the Zoning and Planning Commissions. Mr. White from the ZBA is the Town's other recipient.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Byerly.
There being no further business, Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
February 18, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Averill, Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Buck
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Sabin
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Wood
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mr. Field, Mrs. Payne, PressMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Bender, Byerly, and Charles and Alternate Roberts for Mr. Buck.
Mr. Chalder noted he would begin working on a first draft of the Plan, hopefully having it ready by 3/11 so that it could be distributed to Members for review prior to the 3/18 Special Meeting. If the necessary work is completed within that time frame, a townwide informational meeting would be held in April or early May. Mr. Charles asked if the draft could be posted on the Town website. Mr. Chalder said this could be done, but the Commission must discuss it first.
Mr. Wood explained discussion booklet #5a, Business Zoning and Village Development, was based on discussions at previous meetings and contained ideas for consideration, not recommendations for implementation. He circulated a corrected copy of the map on page 5. Mr. Chalder explained the importance of the property located behind Washington Supply. He noted it sits up high, is very visible, and is taken for granted. He advised the Commission it would be risky to leave it unprotected because any development here could dramatically change the character of the Depot.
Mr. Wood suggested the Commission consider functional rather than geographic zoning business districts. The village business districts