The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Planning Commission, 2004
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning Commission, 2004 |
|
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 7 •November 3 •October 5 •September 7 •August 10 •August 3 •July 6 •June 1 •May 25 •May 20 •May 4 •April 6 •March 5 •March 2 •February 10 •January 6 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
December 7, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, PressMrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for the vacant seat.
Mrs. Roberts remembered Mr. Bender and all he contributed to the Commission. She thanked Mr. Rimsky for his words on behalf of the Planning Commission at Mr. Bender's memorial service. The Commissioners had a moment of silence.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 11/4/04 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Fairbairn, and passed 5-0.
2005 Calendar: The 2005 Calendar was approved as submitted.
MOTION: To approve the 2005 Calendar as submitted. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Application for Scenic Road Designation for West Morris Road
Mrs. Roberts read the undated letter from Mrs. Friedman, listing the scenic road criteria, which West Morris Road meets. The Assessor's maps showing the road, the property owners, and the frontage of each property along the road were reviewed. It was noted that owners of over 50% of the frontage had signed statements in support of the application.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. Members will meet at the Rumsey Hall School parking lot at the corner of Sabbaday Lane and Romford Road.
Pending Applications
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill and West Shore Roads/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mrs. Roberts noted the following documents had been submitted since the last meeting: 1) "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated June 2004, 2) "Proposed Site Development Plan," (with 2 ft. contours for the development site), by Mr. Neff, dated 10/7/04, copies of the existing conservation easements on adjoining properties owned by the applicants, and the 12/6/04 letter from Mr. Neff requesting that these easements be accepted as the open space requirement for this application and requesting a waiver of the landscaping plan requirement. Mrs. Roberts read the letter.
Mr. Fairbairn said he had reviewed the conservation easements and thought there was no reason to require additional open space. He also supported the request to waive the landscaping plan.
Mr. Neff noted the Inland Wetlands Commission is currently considering the application and said he would soon be meeting with the state DOT for approval of the driveway cut.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, December 11, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Members will meet on West Shore Road.
It was noted a public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 4, 2005.
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision
It was noted there had been no new information received and a public hearing had been scheduled for Tuesday, January 4, 2005.
Other Business
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/Discontinuance of a Portion of West Mountain Road: The information from the Selectmen's Office; memo dated 11/17/04, minutes of the 10/21/04 Board of Selectmen meeting, letter from Atty. Miles dated 1/27/04, and OLR Research Report, "Local Road Abandonment and Abutting Property Owners," dated 12/24/03, was reviewed. Mr. Sears presented a portion of an Assessor's map with the portion proposed for discontinuance colored in and a written description in the 10/12/04 letter to Mr. Kessler, "...between the western boundary line of parcel 2-2/8 and the western boundary line of parcel 2-2/7 as designated on the Town Assessor's map." In response to several questions raised by Mr. Charles concerning rights of abutting property owners, rights of the public to continue to use the road for passive recreation, interference with the rights of the public to pass, ownership of the bridge, private driveway sign posted at the end of the road, etc., Mrs. Roberts read Atty. Miles' letter. It was noted the public would have the right to use the road for passive recreation. Mr. Charles said it was important to retain this right to ensure that a greenway could be established in the future. While several of the Commissioners thought there should be a sign to indicate to the public that use by pedestrians and bicycles was permitted, Mr. Fairbairn explained this concern and any complaint that might arise concerning interference with the right to pass or any of the other issues raised should be brought to the Board of Selectmen. He noted the only issue to be voted on by the Planning Commission was whether or not to support the Selectmen's proposal to discontinue the portion of the road. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to support the proposal to discontinue this portion of West Mountain Road.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of Section 12.14 Concerning Noise Generating Equipment: Mrs. Hill, Land Use Coordinator, explained the exact language of the proposed revision would be ready for the Commission's review at the next meeting. The purpose of this revision would be to grant ZBA the authority to approve by Special Exception locations for noise generating equipment farther than 25 ft. from the structure served or 50 feet from the pool served if it was determined that doing so would have a lesser noise and visual impact on adjoining properties.
Washington Depot Business District Study: It was noted that each Commissioner had received copies of the seven proposals submitted to review prior to the meeting. Mr. Charles suggested the Commission begin by considering how to prepare for the interview process and what the time frame for setting up the interviews would be. Mrs. Roberts suggested getting preliminary opinions from each Commissioner to see if there were any firms that could be eliminated from the start. Most thought one of the firms had submitted a proposal that was too general and one had experience mainly with cities and so these could be eliminated. There was a lengthy discussion in which the Commissioners compared the proposals and brought up issues that should be included in the interviews. Significant issues included:
Community and/or Town staff participation: How much is required and at what point in the process should it begin? Role of the Planning Commission: Some of the proposals called for working mainly with an advisory group. What would the role of the Commission be and how much control would it have over the process? Advisory Group or Ad Hoc Committee: It seemed likely a group would be established. How many members should it have? Who should be included? Implementation: What, if any, strategies are proposed by each firm? Are draft regulations included in the cost estimate? Timetable: Many of the firms call for walking tours of the Depot to begin the study process. Would this be feasible during the winter? Models: The Commission thought the ability of each firm to create models to help educate the public was important, but none of the firms said these would be supplied. Response to the RFP: Did each firm adequately address the eight key issues? Is the Commission sure it will be getting what it asked for? Comparison of Proposals: It was noted it would be difficult to compare proposals, costs, and services offered. Additional issues: Can any of the firms offer advice about concepts the Commission overlooked that should have been included in the RFP? Focus: What issue(s) does each firm focus on? Does the Commission agree with this focus? It was decided each Commissioner would review the proposals again and write down what he thinks are the best ideas presented in each and what topics should be covered in the interviews. These will be submitted to Mrs. Hill by 12/20 so she can compile them and get copies out to everyone to study before the January 4th meeting. It is possible that at this meeting, the firms to be interviewed will be determined.
Regarding the interview process, it was decided the interviews would be held on two consecutive days, probably in February. After the January 4th meeting, letters will be sent to the firms to be interviewed regarding what issues they should address in their presentations and to inform them when the interviews will be held.
Public Comment
Mrs. Roberts read the 12/7/04 letter from Mr. Sears thanking the Commission for its efforts during the past year.
Mrs. Roberts briefly reported on an aquifer protection seminar she had attended in Goshen last month.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fairbairn.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
November 3, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bender
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Moore, Mr. Gitterman, Mrs. Johnson, PressPUBLIC HEARING
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Walker Brook Road
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank for Mr. Bender. She then read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/20/04 and 10/27/04.
Mrs. Roberts read the list of documents in the file and noted the only information missing was the percentage of frontage owners who signed statements of support for the application. Mr. Gitterman stated 58% of the frontage owners were in support of the application.
Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had inspected the road on October 12, 2004.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
Mr. Frank stated in his opinion Walker Brook Road is, indeed, a scenic road meeting all the criteria listed in the ordinance. Mr. Fairbairn agreed.
Mrs. Roberts 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
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts, and Alternate Frank for Mr. Bender.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 10/5/04 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 10/12/04 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Application to Designate Walker Brook Road as a Scenic Road
It was the consensus that Walker Brook Road met the criteria listed in the Town's Scenic Road Ordinance.
MOTION: To approve scenic road designation for Walker Brook Road. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/ Resubdivision
The approximately 72 acre parcel is proposed to be resubdivided into two lots: 59.34 acres with the existing dwelling accessed from Tinker Hill Road and 12.87 acres accessed from West Shore Road.
Mrs. Roberts noted Mrs. Hill had reviewed the application for completeness and found quite a few of the required items were missing. She also noted a referral had been sent to the Conservation Commission and applications submitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission and Health Department.
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there were already conservation easements on the property and asked if the owners could submit a letter to request that the existing easements be counted towards the open space requirement. He was advised the owners should document what has already been preserved and request a waiver.
The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 10/7/04 was reviewed. He explained the septic system would be pumped to an area above the house where there are better soils. He also pointed out the proposed tree line/limit of disturbance and said a minimum number of trees would be cut.
Mrs. Roberts reviewed some of the missing information. Mr. Neff stated there were no aquifer discharge areas on the property and that all existing structures would remain. When he reported there would be no landscaping plan, he was advised to request a waiver for that requirement. Mr. Neff stated the underground utilities would run along the driveway up to the house and that the driveway grade would be 2-5%. A revised map with 2 ft. contours will be submitted. Also, Mr. Neff said he would consult with the state DOT regarding the proposed driveway cut and noted there were no specimen trees on site.
The Residential Density Form calculations by Mr. Neff were also reviewed.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, November 13, 2004 at 10:00 a.m.
The public hearing was scheduled for the January meeting.
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/Resubdivision
Mrs. Roberts noted a complete review had not yet been done, but said the application was incomplete as it did not yet have Inland Wetlands approval, for example. She noted, too, that it required a public hearing, which was set for the January meeting.
Mr. Charles asked that information about the wetlands violation on the adjoining Greenfield property be brought to the next meeting.
Other Business
Depot Business District Study: No proposals have been received. The deadline is 11/19/04.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Fairbairn will work on recommendations to be discussed at the next meeting.
Public Comment
Mr. Gitterman said the Plan of Conservation and Development lists 70 roads in Town as scenic roads and suggested the Town adopt them all at once as scenic roads rather than one by one as the residents of each road submit applications. He noted the New Milford Town Council had done it this way, but said he was not sure under an ordinance such as Washington's that it would be legal under the state statutes. He explained designation for all roads at one time would speed up the process, cost less, and reduce the work required by staff and the Commission. He noted, too, that there is a procedure in the ordinance to rescind a scenic road designation if property owners along a road do not support the designation. Mr. Fairbairn offered to research the state statutes to determine whether a blanket approval would be legal. He will also research whether a Town can refuse to upgrade a road once it is designated scenic. Mrs. Roberts noted the current ordinance had been specifically written to ensure a slower process with inherent protection for property owners. Several Commissioners voiced their concern about a change in the process that would put the burden on property owners to do away with scenic road designations.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
October 5, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bender
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Pinover, PressPUBLIC HEARING
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Senff Road
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank for Mr. Bender and Mr. Charles.
Mrs. Roberts circulated the photos submitted with the application and reviewed the documents in the file, which included the 7/12/04 letter from Mr. and Mrs. Pinover to Mrs. Johnson re: the statements of approval, the statements of approval, the legal notice published in THE Waterbury Republican on 9/22 and 9/29/04, the 8/20/04 memo from Mrs. Hill to the Board of Selectmen, Road Foreman, and Tree Warden, the August and September meeting minutes, and the 8/14/04 Special Meeting minutes. She noted more than 51% of the road frontage owners had signed the statements of support and that the Commission had confirmed on its site inspection that the road met one or more of the criteria to be designated a scenic road. Mr. Rimsky stated he had not attended the site inspection, but had driven the road on his own and concurred.
Mr. Charles arrived at 7:39 p.m.
Mr. Sears stated Senff Road was a good candidate for scenic road designation.
Mr. Pinover thanked the Commission for its efforts.
Mr. Fairbairn noted all the information needed to make the decision was in the record.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application to designate Senff Road as a scenic road. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:43 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
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:44 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Bender.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/7/04 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. Mr. Frank noted under Consideration of the Minutes, the previous month's correction had not been made. In the August minutes, on page 4 in the sixth line under Shinar Mountain Road, "regarding" should be "regrading."
MOTION: To accept the 9/7/04 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
It was noted the Commissioners would now receive their minutes electronically.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Senff Road
Mr. Fairbairn thought the application should be approved because the criteria had been met. Mr. Charles noted, however, that there had been no input from the Highway Department and he thought it might be a difficult road to maintain. Mr. Fairbairn said the Scenic Road Ordinance allows road repairs to be done and also protects the public's interest. Mr. Rimsky pointed out the Town had been notified of the hearing and did not necessarily have to respond.
Mr. Charles noted for the record that the Scenic Road Ordinance does not protect trees, stone walls, vistas, etc. that are along the road, but are not in the Town right of way. He said that work property owners do on their own properties can greatly impact the look of a scenic road. He thought many property owners think the Ordinance provides them with greater protection than it actually does.
MOTION: To approve the application for scenic road designation for Senff Road because it meets the required criteria. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Scenic Road Designation for Walker Brook Road
Mr. Nichols spoke on behalf of the application and informed the Commission an application was also submitted to New Milford. He explained scenic road designation was being sought for the entire length of Walker Brook Road on both sides of Rt. 109.
Mrs. Roberts thought the Commission might expedite the application by holding the public hearing prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, but Mr. Fairbairn thought it was important to review the application thoughtfully and objectively and not quickly react.
A site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.
The public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Other Business
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/Discontinuance of a Portion of West Mountain Road: Mrs. Roberts read the motion approved at the 9/9/04 Board of Selectmen's meeting to discontinue an additional section of West Mountain Road beyond what had previously been discontinued on 11/12/03. It was noted this section of road would be closed to vehicular traffic, but would be open to pedestrians as a greenway. Mr. Sears asked if the Commission would be willing to hold a public hearing on this matter to make sure the public was informed about the proposal. After a discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that it should not consider the referral until the Board of Selectmen has notified all adjoining property owners and has discussed the matter with them. If after this has been done, the Selectmen still want to close an additional section of the road, they should resubmit the referral to the Planning Commission. The referral was returned to the Board.
Depot Business District Study: Mr. Charles circulated a list of consultants who would be sent the RFP letter. The RFP will also be posted on the websites of the Ct. chapters of the APA and AIA. Mr. Charles will contact Mr. Plattus for more recommendations. Mrs. Hill will ask Mrs. Gollow if the Town is required to publish a legal notice in a newspaper. It was agreed the deadline for proposals would be Friday, November 19. This would give the Commission the opportunity to review them before the December meeting.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Fairbairn said he would include the open space issue raised in Mr. Boling's 8/11/04 in his list of recommendations for revisions to the Subdivision Regulations.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.7.3.1, 12.5.2, and 21.1.4: It was noted the proposed revisions would allow accessory structures to be taller than the primary structure on the same lot under circumstances where the accessory building would remain subordinate in ground floor area, scale, and volume. For example, this could enable an older style barn not used for agricultural purposes to be constructed on a lot with a house that was not as tall as the barn. It was thought this could contribute to the preservation of rural character.
MOTION: To send a letter to the Zoning Commission that the Planning Commission has no objections to the proposed revisions to sections 11.7.3, 12.5.2, and 21.1.4 of the Washington Zoning Regulations. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
September 7, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bender
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. KellyRegular Business
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank for Mr. Bender.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 8/3/04 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. Mr. Frank noted on page 4, in the sixth line under Shinar Mountain Road, that "regarding" should be "regarding."
MOTION: To accept the 8/3/04 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/10/04 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/14/04 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Senff Road
The Commissioners who had attended the August 14th site inspection agreed Senff Road was truly scenic and worthy of preservation. A public hearing was scheduled for the October meeting.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider the application to designate Senff Road a scenic road at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision
The map, "Property Survey," by Brautigam Land Surveyors, dated 2/4/04 was studied. The Commissioners had previously reviewed Mrs. Hill's 9/1/04 memo, which had concluded some of the required documentation was missing from the application. It was noted much of what was missing was minor and that it could easily be provided by the applicant or possibly waived by the Commission if petitioned by the applicant. However, the public hearing had been closed and so no new information could be received at this point in the deliberations. It was noted several major requirements had not been addressed. 1) It appeared the density calculations on the Brautigam map were inaccurate. 2) The class A, B, and C soils had not been certified by a soil scientist as required in Section 11.1.2 of the Zoning Regulations. 3) A formal conservation easement to address the open space had not been submitted. While it was generally thought Mr. Beck most likely met the soil based zoning requirements, the Commissioners thought the application had not been carefully prepared. For example, the maps submitted did not contain all of the information required in Section 4.3 of the Subdivision Regulations and the Brautigam map was not drawn to the required scale. It was noted applicants must be careful to completely fill out application forms and to provide all the information required by the Regulations. It was also thought it would be helpful if the Conservation Commission could draft a standard conservation easement form that could be used by applicants.
MOTION: To deny the application submitted by Mr. Beck for a 2 Lot Resubdivision at 129 Calhoun Street without prejudice because the application is incomplete. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Conto Petition to Change the Boundary of the Depot Business District to Include 17 River Road
Mrs. Roberts noted a copy of the 7/29/04 referral letter plus the 7/21/04 petition letter and attached maps from Atty. Kelly had been mailed to the Commissioners for their review.
Atty. Fairbairn stated he thought it would be premature to rezone 17 River Road at this time because it would be spot zoning and it would compromise the Depot study the Commission plans to conduct.
The history of the B-2 District and of this property was reviewed. It was noted the current dentist office is "grandfathered" and other commercial uses as listed under the Home Occupation section of the Zoning Regulations were permitted by Special Permit even though 17 River Road is located in the Farming-Residential District.
Atty. Kelly agreed the question of spot zoning was problematic. He explained the Contos petitioned to change the District boundary line to what they had always thought it was. He noted prior to the date they had purchased the property, the district boundary had been moved from Cook Street to Canoe Brook, which made all three properties between Cook Street and the brook non conforming. He said that the Plan of Conservation and Development recommended the boundary be moved back to Cook Street and that Planning had led him to believe it would support the petition when he had discussed it previously with the Commission. Atty. Kelly said he offered to purchase the property and had plans to move his business there next May. He asked the Commission to table its discussion for a month until he found out if his financing would be approved.
Mr. Charles noted under the current Regulations Atty. Kelly would have to reside on the property in order to have an office there and he was doubtful the study would be completed by May. Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Charles thought it would be wise to wait to advise the Zoning Commission about the petitioned change to the District boundary until after the study is completed. Mr. Frank pointed out the Commission had, indeed, advised Atty. Kelly in broad terms when he first discussed this matter, that including this parcel in the Depot Business District was consistent with the 2003 POCD. Atty. Kelly suggested if he were to purchase the property he could ask the owners of the other two properties between Cook St. and the brook to join in the petition.
Mr. Fairbairn noted under the state statutes the Planning Commission must respond to the Zoning Commission's referral within a specified time period, and so he was not in favor of tabling discussion to the next meeting.
Mr. Kelly withdrew his petition for the record and said he would submit the withdrawal in writing to the Land Use Office on Wednesday.
Depot District Study: The draft letter, which had been mailed to the Commissioners for review, was discussed. Several grammatical corrections were made and it was decided to use Mr. Rimsky's vision statement as a separate cover letter. More significant changes to the letter included the addition of social and recreational use issues to those already listed in the first paragraph under Description of the Project and to add Smart Growth as an issue to consider in the second paragraph of that section. It was decided the deadline for proposals would be October 29, 2004. Mr. Charles will compile a list of consultants to whom the RFP will be sent.
October Study Groups: Mrs. Roberts noted Mr. Sears had notified her of the dates for the townwide discussions of current issues such as housing diversity and the Depot Study. Mr. Charles and Mr. Fairbairn questioned how the Depot Study discussion could take place without participation by the Planning Commission who will be conducting the study and also what the purpose of the discussion group was. It was generally thought any recommendations by the town discussion group would be premature because the study has not yet been completed and that the Planning Commissioners should attend the discussion. Mrs. Roberts will advise Mr. Sears that he should keep the Commission "in the loop" and that the discussion group should be careful not to come to any conclusions before the study is completed.
Communications
The Commissioners circulated a get well card for Mr. Bender.
Mrs. Roberts read Mr. Buck's 8/10/04 letter of resignation from the Commission. She said she had written him on behalf of the Commission to thank him for his service. There was a brief discussion regarding the appointment of a new alternate. Most of the Commissioners thought it was more important that the new alternate have a sense of the community rather than a knowledge of planning law and issues. Mr. Fairbairn said he would convey this opinion to Mr. Brinton, Chairman of the Republican Town Committee.
A copy of the article Mrs. Roberts had submitted to the Washington Town Times had been mailed to the Members for their review and it was the consensus that it was acceptable.
Mr. Sears arrived and the October discussion group was briefly discussed again. It was agreed the Commission should be drawn into the discussion process and that the Commissioners should attend the October meeting.
Mrs. Roberts read Mr. Boling's 8/11/04 letter, which suggested the Commission amend the Subdivision Regulations to exempt a subdivision from the open space requirement if 1) open space was previously preserved by the owner of the subject property in an amount that exceeds the acreage that would be required per the Regulations, and 2) the location and configuration of that open space on the subject parcel is consistent with the Town's resource preservation goals. Mr. Fairbairn said he had been waiting for Mr. Bender's return before resuming work on recommendations for revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. He will compile his and Mr. Bender's notes and have a list ready for the next meeting. It was generally thought Mr. Boling's suggestion had merit.
Copies of the Draft 2003-2004 Annual Report were circulated.
MOTION: To approve the annual report for 2003-2004. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Referral from the N. Milford Zoning Commission: The New Milford Zoning Commission scheduled a public hearing on 9/28/04 to consider a zone change on property adjoining Walker Brook Road that would enable an application for an 80 lot cluster-open space subdivision. The map, "Preliminary Layout Under Cluster Conservation Subdivision District, Walker Brook Farm," dated 6/7/04, by L. Edwards Associates was reviewed. The 9/3/04 letter from the Conservation Comm. to New Milford Zoning was reviewed and it was agreed this was a thorough response. Mr. Sears noted Walker Brook is a one lane dirt road and said the Board of Selectmen would write against the proposal. It was the consensus the Planning Commission should also send a letter to New Milford regarding planning issues. Mr. Fairbairn noted the subdivision would be located closer to Washington Depot than it would be to New Milford center and that Washington did not have the infrastructure to handle it. It was also thought the proposal was contrary to the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development. Mrs. Roberts will contact Atty. Byrne to ask that he help the Commission draw up a complete list of planning concerns and draft a response to New Milford.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
August 10, 2004
Special MeetingMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. SearsMrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 5:12 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank for Mr. Bender and Mr. Buck.
Mr. Charles noted the purpose of the meeting was to finish drafting the RFP letter for the Depot Business District Study. He suggested the Commissioners first review the draft RFP line by line and then work on a descriptive introduction, which would include points raised in the vision statements submitted since the last meeting. He circulated a chart, "Depot Study," that showed key patterns and consistencies between the vision statements.
Long term versus short term goals were discussed. Mr. Fairbairn thought that due to inadequate septic capabilities and water system shortcomings in the Depot, the focus should be on the short term plan because it could be defined using the current state health code and existing facilities. Mr. Charles disagreed, stating the Commission must know the long term goal in order to draft a meaningful short term goal.
Mr. Fairbairn thought the issues listed under the description of the project in the RFP were adequate and could be used as is to begin townwide discussions that would begin the process of working towards a community consensus about the future of the Depot. Mr. Charles wanted to expand the list and be more specific. He thought the work done on village centers in the 2003 Plan was incomplete and inadequate and the draft RFP, which was based on the Plan, was, therefore, also incomplete. He said it was the Commission's responsibility to address all the important issues, both short and long term. He also questioned whether the Commission would receive comparable bids if the project description was not more specific and did not provide complete details of all issues to be addressed.
Mr. Frank suggested the Commission deal with specifics during the interview process.
The draft RFP was reviewed and revised; the revised draft is attached. It was the consensus to include Mr. Rimsky's vision statement in the introduction.
Other significant points raised during the meeting included:
It is extremely important to involve the public in the process - generating discussion, getting ideas from residents, educating them about the consequences of their decisions, etc. and for the Commission to listen to their responses. Visual tools will be needed to help the Commission effectively communication with the public. The Commissioners were concerned about the possibility that the scope of the study would be dictated by the available funds rather than by the needs of the community. The issue of the vitality of the commercial sector will be an important consideration of the study. The Commission will consider as part of the study whether to recommend village district regulations be implemented. Mrs. Hill was asked to order the video on village districts from CCM. The Commission will draft a uniform set of specific questions to be used for all interviews. In addition to involving the public, it will be important to work together with the Zoning Commission. Mr. Charles will ask Mr. Westa and Mr. Plattus for recommendations regarding whom to send the RFP letter to and the letter will be posted on the Ct. Planning Assoc. website and a legal notice published in area newspapers. Mrs. Hill will make the necessary revisions to the RFP and will mail it to the Commissioners to review before the next meeting. MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
August 3, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Bender
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Beck, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Gitterman, Ms. Yurchak, Residents, PressPUBLIC HEARINGS
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Shinar Mountain Road
Mr. Charles called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. Mrs. Roberts recused herself and left the room. Seated were Members Byerly, Charles, and Rimsky and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank. Mr. Charles read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/21 and 7/28/04.
Mr. Charles noted the documents in the file (see attached list) and read Mr. Gitterman's 8/3/04 letter with attached map to the Commission. Mr. Gitterman said he had nothing else to add.
No one from the public spoke against the application, although it was noted for the record that Mrs. Woodruff had written a letter dated 5/6/04 against the application.
Ms. Yurchak, a resident on Shinar Mt. Road voiced her support for the application.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application to designate Shinar Mountain Road as a scenic road. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Charles closed the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mrs. Roberts returned and was seated.
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision/Continuation
Mr. Charles reconvened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank for Mr. Bender.
Mr. Charles noted the documents that had been submitted since the last meeting, which included the map, "Property Survey," by Mr. Brautigam, revised to 7/15/04. He read the 7/22/04 letter from Atty. Zizka, which responded to the issues raised by Atty. Kelly at the last session of the hearing. This letter is attached.
There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Atty. Kelly stated Atty. Zizka's letter was his opinion only and not a point of law. He objected to the application for many reasons including: 1) Section 11.3 of the Zoning Regs states an interior lot must be a minimum of three acres excluding the area of the accessway, 2) lines 5, 6, 8, 10, and 13 on the application form were not filled out, 3) "subdivision" was checked off on the application form, not "resubdivision," 4) the information required for the density calculations was incorrect and incomplete, 5) the application had not been signed by both property owners and there was no letter of authorization for Mr. Beck to act on behalf of Mrs. Beck, and 6) a soil scientist had not certified the soils per Section 11.1.2 of the Zoning Regs. Also, he found that Section 1.4 of the Subdivision Regulations had not been met because he said the application did not comply with the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Charles noted per 11.1.1, the USDA map was presumed to show the correct soil classifications, but Atty. Kelly responded Section 11.1.2 is an exception since the proposed yield exceeds 40% of the theoretical maximum number of lots permitted. Atty. Kelly stated the Brautigam map did not properly apply the format for calculating residential density because it subtracted the proposed conservation easement area before it was approved, which when correctly calculated could possibly raise the density permitted for the Beck property. He also believed the wetlands had been incorrectly calculated on the Brautigam map. Other concerns he noted were: 1) Section 4.2.1-map scale on the Brautigam map did not comply, 2) 4.3.1.0-boundaries of all the regulated areas were not shown due to the location of intermittent streams off the Beck property, 3) building setback lines were not shown on the Brautigam map, 4) Section 4.4.14-there was no note on the map regarding whether the lot could be further subdivided according to the density regulations, 5) Mr. Beck had stated in the 1997 minutes that this property would not be further resubdivided in the future, 6) the contour lines were provided only for a portion of lot #3, not for the entire lot as required, 7) Sect. 4.5.11-the boundaries for all wooded areas were not shown on the Brautigam map, 8) Sect. 4.5.1.3-the location of existing and proposed landscaping was not shown, 9) Sect. 4.7.1-a site specific narrative was not submitted, and 10) Sect. 3.4.3-the sign advertising the hearing did not stay up for the entire length of the hearing. Atty. Kelly asked the Commission to deny the application for all the above reasons and he submitted a letter dated 8/3/04 listing all of his objections.
Mr. Beck said he was not able to respond at this time to all the points raised because he would have to consult with his engineer and surveyor. Since the hearing could not be continued, Mr. Fairbairn advised him he could either withdraw the application, work to address the points raised, and resubmit or the Commission would make a decision based on the information now in the file. Mr. Beck said he would proceed with the application.
There were no other questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mr. Beck for a two lot resubdivision at 129 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Charles closed the hearing at 8:28 p.m.
These public hearings were 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. Charles called the Meeting to order at 8:29 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Bender.
Consideration of the Minutes.
The 7/6/04 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 1 under Taylor, it should be stated that Mr. Charles recused himself and Mrs. Roberts chaired that portion of the meeting. In first the motion on page 2, Mr. Fairbairn seconded the motion, not Mr. Frank, who was not seated. The motion at the bottom of page 3 was made by Mr. Fairbairn and seconded by Mr. Byerly. The motions on pages 3 and 4 for both the installation of the sidewalk and the discontinuance of sections of Old Bee Brook Road and West Mountain Road should state the Commission had no objection to the proposals and not that it approved each one. In the third paragraph on page 5, second sentence, "they" should be changed to "the Commissioners."
MOTION: To accept the 7/6/04 Regular Meeting Minutes as corrected. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Shinar Mountain Road
Mrs. Roberts recused herself and Mr. Frank was seated.
Mr. Solley, Selectman, noted he had not been present for the hearing, but had comments to make as a member of the Town staff. He stated parts of the road were close to impassible and the Board of Selectmen reserved the right to maintain it for public safety and would, in fact, begin regarding work within a few weeks. He said the Board was not opposed to the scenic road designation, but was concerned that it be able to do its job to maintain it. Mr. Charles noted the process for completing Town work was described in the Ordinance and recommended the Board contact all Shinar Mt. Road residents prior to beginning the work in order to avoid misunderstandings.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that Shinar Mountain Road met the criteria for scenic roads and that designating it as a scenic road would help to protect this sensitive area.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Gitterman to designate Shinar Mountain Road as a scenic road. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts was reseated.
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Charles seated Members Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank because they had attended all sessions of the public hearing. It was the consensus the Commission should wait to act on the application until it had reviewed Atty. Kelly's letter. It was noted it had 65 days in which to act once the hearing was closed.
Mr. Byerly was reseated.
New Application
Application to Designate Senff Road as a Scenic Road
A site inspection was scheduled on Saturday, August 14, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Members will meet at the intersection of Shearer and Senff Roads. Mrs. Hill will refer the application to the Board of Selectmen.
Other Business
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Conto/Petition to Amend the Zoning Map
Mr. Charles read the 7/29/04 referral letter from the Zoning Commission. Copies of the petition and attachments will be sent to all Members to review prior to discussion at the next meeting.
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/Installation of Sidewalk on Town Owned Property/Green Hill Road
Mrs. Hill noted the motion made at the last meeting referenced the wrong documents and a correction was required for the grant application.
MOTION: To inform the Board of Selectmen that the Planning Commission has no objections to the installation of a sidewalk on Town owned property on Green Hill Road per the 6/18/04 letter and attached map from Mr. Sears. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Discussion of this matter was postponed until Mr. Bender is present.
Washington Depot Business District Study
Mr. Rimsky circulated copies of his vision statement. A Special Meeting to discuss the RFP letter was scheduled for Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. Mr. Charles asked the Commissioners to review Mr. Wood's model letter and to consider ideas for a short preamble/vision statement to accompany the letter.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Sears passed out copies of the Lake Waramaug Agreement and invited the Commissioners to learn more about it at a meeting on 8/12/04 at 7:30 p.m. with Senator Roraback. There will also be a Town Meeting on 9/2/04 to empower the First Selectman to sign the document on behalf of the Town. Mr. Sears said details about future work necessary at the Town Beach were not included and that the Town would formally apply for land use permits at a later date.
Communications
The 7/10/04 letter from Mr. Bender, which stated he would resign as chairman, but continue to serve on the Commission, had been mailed to all Members. It was the consensus that he was irreplaceable due to the high standard he set as chairman because of his legal background, knowledge of Planning matters and procedures, and most of all, because of his sense of fairness. There was a lengthy discussion regarding who should be selected to serve as the next chairman. It was the consensus that Mrs. Roberts would be Commission chairman and Mr. Charles would serve as the chairman of the Depot Study subcommittee.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fairbairn.
Mr. Charles adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
July 6, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bender
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Maria Taylor, Residents, PressREGULAR MEETING
Mr. Charles called the meeting to order at 7:35PM. He seated the members and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Bender.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/1/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky and passed 5-0.
The 5/25/04 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. Pg. 1; Mr. Rimsky stated he was not present at the meeting.
MOTION: To accept the 5/25/04 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Byerly and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Taylor /38 New Preston Hill Road /2 Lot Resubdivision
The Commissioners looked over the Proposed Site Development Plan by Brian Neff, revised 7/3/04, for Maria Taylor's 2 lot resubdivision. After a brief discussion, the members agreed they had considered this application fully and everything appeared to be in order.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Maria Taylor, 38 New Preston Hill Road, for a 2 lot resubdivision. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank and passed 5-0.
Subsequent to the discussion and motion on the Taylor resubdivision, Mrs. Roberts read a note from Land Use Coordinator, Mrs. Hill, which stated: "If the Commission decides to approve the application, it should condition that the mylar to be filed in the Town Clerk's Office must include a note that Lot#2 requires an engineered septic system". The members will discuss whether to amend the motion at the next meeting.
At 7:44PM, Mr. Charles continued the meeting until after the Public Hearing.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
Beck /129 Calhoun Street /2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Charles reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:46PM. He seated the members and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Bender.
Mr. Charles read a letter from Mr. Beck, dated 7/1/04, requesting a continuation of the Public Hearing until August as he will be out of town.
He also read a letter from Atty. Kelly dated 6/4/04, in which he stated he represents the Smiths, 135 Calhoun Street and the Greenfields, 12 Ives Road, all of whom have objections. Mr. Charles said the Planning Commission would like to give Mr. Beck an opportunity to respond.
Atty. Miles advised the Planning Commission that since he has represented Mr. Beck on previous occasions, he felt he should recuse himself from commenting on this project. The Planning Commission is in the process of finding another attorney.
MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing at the request of Mr. Beck, 129 Calhoun Street, to consider his application for a 2 lot resubdivision until the next meeting on 8/3/04. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Byerly and passed 5-0.
Mr. Charles continued the Public Hearing at 7:55PM. This Public Hearing was recorded on tape, which is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Charles reopened the Regular Meeting at 7:57PM and seated the members and seated Alternate Fairbairn.
Pending Applications
Scenic Road Designation for Shinar Mountain Road
The Commission did not discuss the scenic road application since a Public Hearing had previously been set for the August 3rd meeting.
Other Business
Referral from Board of Selectmen /Green Hill Road /Parking Lot Property /Installation of Sidewalk
Mr. Sears, First Selectman, began by referring to the letter and drawing which was sent on 5/11/04 to the Planning Commission. He stated the Board of Selectmen had voted in favor of placing a new sidewalk on Town property and hopes the Commission will give their approval. The sidewalk will be removed from the property of Mr. Houldin and Mr. Read and placed on Town property. Mrs. Roberts said that makes eminent sense. She also urged the use of more pervious materials rather than cement. After additional consideration, the members all agreed they had no objections.
MOTION: To approve the referral from the Board of Selectmen as proposed in the letter and drawing submitted by Mr. Sears, First Selectman, dated 5/11/04 for acquisition of property with sidewalk at 4 Green Hill Road. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Frank and passed 5-0.
Referral from Board of Selectmen /Discontinuance of Section of Old Bee Brook Road and Section of West Mountain Road
Mr. Sears asked the Commission to omit the discontinuance of the section of West Mountain Road.
Mr. Sears presented a drawing to the Commission marked "Drawing A", received 7/6/04 and said adjacent homeowners were notified of this meeting. He noted that this section of Old Bee Brook Road, if discontinued, could be used as a nature walk, etc. If the Commission approves this tonight, he will call a Special Town Meeting.
A discussion ensued regarding the difference between "discontinuance" and "abandonment". Mr. Sears said he would check on the proper legal term. Mr. Boling suggested framing the motion to state there was no objection to discontinuing or abandoning.
MOTION: To approve the request from the Board of Selectmen to discontinue and abandon that portion of Old Bee Brook Road as set forth in Drawing A (received 7/6/04). By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Rimsky and passed 5-0.
Review of Subdivision Regulations /Subcommittee Report
The Commission agreed they should wait to review the Subdivision Regulations when Mr. Bender comes back.
Depot Business District Study
The members discussed their ideas for requesting proposals from various firms regarding the Depot.
Mr. Charles asked the members to express their ideas. He hopes that after a final study of the RFP's, the Town will find the right firm with a good price.
Mr. Rimsky said he is concerned about a delay in time. He does not want to see this run into the holiday season. He suggested sending out requests to several firms. At the front of the RFP the Commission should stress the points they want the firms to present and ask what it will cost. The best firm should be selected and asked for two or three quick scenarios, and then ask them make a presentation to the community. The firm selected must have the capacity to bring visual information, such as models or renderings for a public meeting and also bring information on economic trends that may impact on the Depot.
Mr. Byerly commented that he also thought the presentation to the public would be best done with models. Then everyone could have a look and ask questions. All agreed.
Mr. Frank said he agreed with the statement in the 6/1/04 minutes - "Mr. Plattus recommended either an architectural firm or a firm with strong engineering ties for drafting specific implementation strategies". The RFP should reflect a vision for the Town, economic factors, and deliverables (what product is the Town getting and how is the plan to be implemented).
Mr. Sears discussed with the members the vision for the Town; ways to address issues such as community development, housing for young couples, empty nesters, more affordable commercial rentals, etc. They all thought developers should be given guidelines for developing property in the private sector. The growth of the Depot will be administered by the Town. They discussed the need for in-town residences and the importance of people being able to walk around the center of Town. The commissioners concluded this issue crosses all economic lines.
Mr. Charles asked each of the members to put together a list of issues that address their vision for the Town and specific suggestions regarding the RFP and give that list to Mrs. Hill, Land Use Coordinator, by Monday the 19th. All agreed.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mr. Charles adjourned the meeting at 9:05PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Secretary
June 1, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Byerly
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Frank
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Fairbairn
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Beck, Mr. and Mrs. Conto, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Mr. Markert, Mr. Alex, Ms. Canning, PressPUBLIC HEARING
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Bender called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts, and Alternate Frank. He read the legal notice published in Voices on May 19 and May 26, 2004. He then read the list of documents in the file. Mrs. Hill noted the 6/1/04 review by the Land Use Coordinator should be added to that list. Mr. Bender read her 6/1/04 review for the record.
There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Atty. Kelly represented the Smiths and Mr. Greenfield, adjoining property owners. The map, "Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/5/04 was reviewed. Atty. Kelly stated Mr. Beck had said at a previous public hearing for a subdivision of the same property, that he would not resubdivide and noted a deed restriction had been filed on the Land Records that no structures could be erected on the part of the property at 129 Calhoun Street labeled "hay field" on a previous map. He submitted the 11/5/97 public hearing minutes, a copy of the Smith's deed with the restriction, and a copy of Map #1375 filed on the Land Records showing the location of the hay field. He noted the hay field covers almost all of proposed Lot #3 and said the current site development plan was insufficient because it did not show the location of the field. He noted Section 11.3 of the Zoning Regulations requires a minimum lot size of three acres for interior lots, and said per the definition of "lot," proposed Lot #3 did not meet the minimum lot size requirement because due to the deed restriction, it did not have three acres which were "capable" of being occupied by structures. He also referred to Section 11.2 and said he thought possibly a deed restriction was the same as a conservation easement and so the deed restricted area should not be included in the calculations to determine the allowable residential density. He stated there was a utility easement for the Smiths on the driveway right of way and so argued this area should also be excluded from the density calculations. Finally, he pointed out there were potentially four lots that could use the driveway right of way for access when only two interior lots and a third if it has frontage are permitted. Mr. Charles pointed out that two of the lots front on Calhoun Street and are accessed from that road.
Mr. Bender asked Atty. Kelly to put his position in writing and to give copies to the Commission and to Mr. Beck so that Mr. Beck would have an opportunity to respond and the Commission could get a legal opinion. Atty. Kelly agreed to do so.
Mr. Beck stated he had no intention of building in the hay field. He said he would have Mr. Neff amend the map to show specifically which lots would be entitled to use the driveway right of way for access. He noted the two frontage lots have hundreds of feet of frontage and so do not need to use the driveway right of way. He said he had reviewed the setback requirements and had enough room to construct a house outside the hay field. He said he had offered the proposed lot to the adjoining property owners, and had the right to develop it if they were not interested in buying it.
Mr. Charles noted at a previous meeting Mrs. Beck had stated there would be no conservation easement placed on the hay field as that would restrict any future owners. Mr. Beck stated the Smiths have a deed restriction, but Mr. Greenfield does not.
Mr. Smith stated the deed restriction had been placed on the hay field as an inducement for him to purchase his lot, which he thought in effect, meant he had already paid to protect it.
Ms. Canning, 119 Calhoun Street, spoke of the historic character of the district and of the importance in preserving the continuity of the Calhoun Street homestead area. Mr. Bender noted plans for any structures on Lot #3 would be under the jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission. Mr. Beck stated that Commission had jurisdiction only if the structure would be visible from a public way. Mr. Bender responded that would be up to the Historic District Commission to determine.
Mr. Bender said a continuation of the hearing was warranted so the Commission could obtain legal opinions regarding the questions raised by Atty. Kelly.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Beck for a 2 lot resubdivision at 129 Calhoun Street to 7:30 p.m. on July 6, 2004 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
At 8:11 p.m. Mr. Bender continued the hearing to July 6th.
This public hearing was recorded on tape, which is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 5/4/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 5/20/04 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Bender read the 6/1/04 memo from the Land Use Coordinator and noted the 6/1/04 request from the applicant for an extension of the time in which the Commission must act on the application. Discussion was tabled to the July meeting.
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision
It was noted the public hearing had been continued and the Commission's attorney would review Atty. Kelly's letter when it is received. Mr. Bender noted an interpretation of the Zoning Regulations would have to be made.
New Application
Designation of Shinar Mountain Road as a Scenic Road
Mrs. Roberts recused herself because she lives on Shinar Mountain Road.
Mr. Bender asked Mr. Gitterman to clarify in his letter of application that scenic road designation was being applied for the entire length of the road.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, June 5, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. Members were asked to meet at the intersection of Shinar Mountain and Fenn Hill Roads.
The public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Other Business
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/4 Green Hill Road/ Acquisition of Property with Sidewalk
Mr. Bender read the 6/1/04 memo from the Land Use Coordinator, which pointed out variances for lot size and lot coverage, approval by the Health Department, approval by the DOT, and possibly a zoning permit for a lot line revision would be required before any transfer of property could take place.
Mr. Sears, First Selectman, stated the property owners would like the Town to acquire the section of the property with the sidewalk, which needs repair. He thought it would make sense for the Town to own this area as it is directly across from the parks and the crosswalk and is a frequently used public convenience. He thought it would be good planning for the Town to retain this public access and said there was also an opportunity for a long term lease.
The Commissioners asked whether the Town was concerned about liability and if it should accept "damaged goods." Mr. Sears said the Town would install and maintain a new sidewalk.
Mr. Bender reviewed Section 8-24 of the state statutes and explained the Commission was being asked whether it has any objections to the transfer. He read the 5/11/04 letter from the First Selectman.
Mr. Charles said he trusted the Board of Selectmen would deal with the necessary procedural issues. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the Planning Commission has no objection to the transfer of this property to the Town. A letter will be sent to the First Selectman.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: This matter will be discussed when Mr. Fairbairn is present.
Depot Business District Study: Mr. Bender noted the Commission had conducted two special meetings with consultants to discuss ideas on how to organize the study. He asked the Commissioners for their ideas on how to proceed.
Mrs. Roberts favored the two step approach outlined by Mr. Westa. She thought after a preliminary study was completed the Commission would know exactly what issues should be included in the RFP. She had been impressed with what Uconn had accomplished for Morris for a small charge and thought the preliminary study could be used for community outreach. She favored seeking public input early in the process. Mr. Frank wanted input regarding what the community thinks are the problems/issues that should be addressed in the Depot prior to drafting the RFP. Mr. Charles supported a process where three or four meetings would be conducted with the public to give the Commission a clearer understanding of the community vision for the Depot. The meetings could also be used as an educational tool. He thought this would help the Commission to provide a list specifically describing a broad range of issues and to get more precise proposals and prices from bidders. He favored Mr. Plattus' suggestion that Planimetrics be asked to help draft the RFP using the Depot pages in the POCD and additional public input. Mr. Rimsky feared public input at the beginning of the process would reflect special interests and would detract the Commission from what it already knew to be the core issues. He thought it was critical to get the process started, thought the public debate should be controlled, and said the Commission would have to study all the overarching issues such as economic pressure, demographics, water, septic, sidewalks, parking, traffic, and the best use of the Town Garage property even if the public doesn't agree with this list. Mr. Bender thought there had already been public input for the POCD and so further input was not necessary in order to draft the RFP. He agreed Planimetrics should be asked to write the first draft. He also thought the RFP should include only vital issues to keep down the cost of the study. The RFP was discussed. Mr. Charles worried the list of issues included in the POCD was not comprehensive. He recommended the Commission meet with both Planimetrics and with the public to supplement the Plan's list. Mr. Sears urged the Commission to ask for a description of the study process and desired goals and for a specific implementation plan to accomplish the recommendations resulting from the study. Mr. Charles noted Mr. Plattus had recommended either an architectural firm or a firm with strong engineering ties for drafting specific implementation strategies. It was the consensus of the Commission that it should hire Planimetrics to write a simple RFP as a supplement to its work on the Plan. Mr. Charles again urged several meetings with the public be held so the issues listed in the RFP would be more complete. He asked who would advise the Commission on how to refine the draft RFP as he thought the Commission did not have the experience to do so.
Mr. Rimsky noted the firm hired must be able to visualize the concepts to be presented to the public. This would be necessary, he thought, to help educate the community as well as to gain its support for the funding required to do an adequate study.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Sears advised the Commission that significant conversations about the Town values raised in the POCD had begun and would continue in the upcoming months. The issues to be discussed by the community included open space, housing diversity, village centers, municipal land, recreation, and capital expenditures for the schools. He noted a subcommittee of the Conservation Commission was studying open space, a Housing Diversity Committee had been established to discuss that issue, and there would be future discussions concerning the Depot. He hoped the Commission would have the first phase of the Depot study ready to be discussed at a public forum in the fall.
Atty. Kelly said he was looking for advice from the Commission regarding the Conto property at 17 River Road. He noted Dr. Conto has had his office in his dwelling for forty years, but that because it is located in the R-1 District, it is a pre existing non conforming use. The Contos are considering selling their property and realize it would have greater value if business uses were permitted there. As the POCD recommended the Depot Business District be expanded to include this property, Atty. Kelly asked 1) Did the Commission have a sense for how long it would take to implement this recommendation? and 2) Was there an inherent unwillingness to consider a petition to change the boundary of the Depot Business District before the Depot study is completed and the recommendation implemented? Mr. Bender noted the Planning Commission had made its recommendation for expansion of the District and had forwarded that recommendation to the Zoning Commission. Atty. Kelly said he understood the procedure and knew that if the Contos petitioned the Zoning Commission for a zone change, the matter would be referred to the Planning Commission. He said he wanted to make sure Planning would have no problem with it. Mr. Bender thought the Planning Commission would be sympathetic to such a petition. Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Commission had decided not to consider the Plan's recommendations concerning the Depot Business District until the study had been completed.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 25, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Frank
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Fairbairn
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. PlattusMr. Bender called the Special Meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, Charles, and Roberts and Alternate Frank for Mr. Rimsky.
Mr. Charles introduced Mr. Plattus from the Yale School of Architecture.
Mr. Plattus noted the School of Architecture focuses on urban planning and half the projects taken on by its Community Design Center are for smaller towns. He stressed the school does not compete with planning professionals, but works closely with them, is eager to collaborate, and will provide continuity. He said most of the work by students is done during the summer.
The Community Design Center undertakes studies on parking, traffic, village district guidelines, housing, streetscape improvements, commercial corridors, etc. As architects, he noted they can visualize what the implications of a plan shown on a map will be in twenty years. He stated the Center was wary of projects where there was no broad based public input.
Mr. Bender advised Mr. Plattus that conducting the Depot Business District study was a major recommendation of the recently completed Plan of Conservation and Development. He asked if the Commission should try to draft the RFP letter itself or seek professional help. He noted there are may correlating issues to be considered and he did not know how much detail to get into in the letter so that they would not be missed in the study.
Mr. Plattus explained there were first two questions the Commission should answer. 1) Are there any salient issues or opinions driving the process? He said different types of studies result from landscape architects, architects, planners, etc. because they all work in different ways. The combination of issues to be considered would determine what kind of consultant to hire. 2) How far into the future will the study project? He said there should be long term action items and goals included if the study is worth doing. He noted landscape architects are good at looking at long term considerations.
Mr. Sears asked when in the process would the Commission specify the values it wants included in its vision. He thought this should be addressed early on. He also thought the study would be incomplete if it did not include a specific process for implementing the study recommendations. Mr. Plattus explained when the Commission has reasonable confidence it has identified the core values, it would be ready to draft the RFP, but if it could not yet articulate them, it was not ready. He noted the values should be articulated as concisely as possible. He also said the RFP should specify whether the study will include a draft regulatory system such as village district regulations.
The concept of village centers was discussed. Mrs. Roberts noted the Town supports open space to preserve rural character, but the Commission thinks strong village centers are needed to stop sprawl and to protect Rt. 202. Mr. Charles said people no longer understand how a village works because they have evolved into automobile oriented, regulated suburban areas. Mr. Plattus agreed towns are rediscovering the values implicit in village centers; being more compact and pedestrian oriented and having a degree of "socialability" and attractiveness. When arriving in the Depot, he said he was struck by the physical environment, which frames the village center, and the amount of asphalt. He noted, too, in Connecticut there is an economic market for smaller residential units in or within walking distance of village centers and advised the Commission to address this issue.
Mr. Bender asked how much of the local unprofessional vision should be incorporated in the RFP as it could restrict the successful bidder from offering additional ideas. He also asked if the Commission should ask the bidders to determine what the vision of the Town is. Mr. Plattus said the consultant would help to put the vision into words and regulations, the RFP should provide a general vision, the bidder would offer ideas about that vision, and his presentation should include his opinion of what direction the study should take. Mrs. Roberts asked if the RFP should list all the problems in the district. Mr. Plattus said it should. He then advised the Commission to request an explicit description of the "deliverables" to be provided such as village district regulations, overlay zoning district, and specific methods to control use and design. He said it was better to err on the side of greater specificity as that would result in better feedback.
Mr. Sears noted his concerns about implementing the plan. Mr. Plattus responded the way to get the plan realized is to create the framework to encourage private investment. Mr. Sears asked when the private section would be asked for input. Mr. Plattus said this could either be early on so they would be educated about the process or after the Commission has decided what type of development it wants and where. He recommended workshops for focus groups such as local developers and realtors to find out what they know about the local market.
Mr. Charles described the limited Town government staff. Mr. Plattus said the Town might want to consider hiring a design consultant on a part time basis to review applications and to mediate between developers and the Zoning Commission.
Mr. Charles thought it was important to obtain public input very early on in the study process. He thought community support might help the Commission obtain additional funding from the Board of Finance if it is found that the $35,000 approved is not adequate.
Mr. Plattus said he was impressed with the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development because it was more specific than most. He thought this document supplemented with a few public meetings or a public survey could be used as the basis for the RFP. He recommended Planimetrics for converting the Depot Business District pages of the POCD to a first draft of the RFP. Mr. Bender asked if Planimetrics were to draft the RFP based on these pages, would it ethically impact on that firm's right to be the ultimate bidder. Mr. Plattus did not think this would be a problem.
Mrs. Roberts noted the negativity expressed by the public when the Commission presented the concept of a transition zone in Marbledale as one way to enhance the village center. She attributed this to a deficiency in the education process. Mr. Plattus noted the public is generally not visual and so has difficulty understanding abstract concepts. Therefore, he recommended a consultant who is design oriented and can present a clear visual picture to the public. He said firms should be asked how they will help the Town to visualize concepts as part of the interview process.
Mr. Plattus advised the Commission to be ambitious about whom it interviews for the job. He thought that due to the character and reputation of the Town, "top people" would be interested in conducting the study. He also advised the Commission to judge the applicants on what other experts they can involve in the study. He offered to provide a list of recommendations, noting there were many qualified firms in New England and some farther away with local collaborators.
Mr. Charles asked how, at the end of the process, the study would be turned into regulations. Mr. Plattus said the consultant hired should be able to accomplish this as part of the study.
Mr. Byerly asked how far into the future the study should aim. Mr. Plattus said it should address the immediate future (2 to 5 years) with short term guidance as well as include a long term vision of at least 20 to 25 years.
Regarding the RFP, Mr. Plattus stated the Commission should make it clear its resources are limited and ask each bidder to clearly list all the components of the budget proposal. The Commission must be sure it understands whether attendance at meetings, cost of additional consultants, printing, etc. are included in the budget or would cost extra.
Mr. Plattus said he would be available to answer any future questions the Commission might have and offered to help evaluate the responses to the RFP.
Mr. Bender thanked him for his input.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 20, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Westa, Ms. Purnell, Mr. AdamsMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, Charles, and Roberts and Mr. Buck for Mr. Rimsky.
Mr. Charles noted the Commission had decided to meet with several professionals to discuss how best to go about conducting the upcoming study of the Depot, which was recommended in the Plan of Conservation and Development. Some of the questions already raised were: 1) At what point should there be public input? 2) What were the major issues to be addressed? and 3) What should be included in the request for proposal letter? Mr. Charles introduced Mr. Westa from the Landscape Architecture department at UConn.
Mr. Rimsky entered at 4:05 p.m. and was seated.
Mr. Westa noted UConn's Landscape Architecture dept. addresses land planning, site planning, and community planning. He presented a report done for the Town of Morris, Ct. as an example of the type of work he and his undergraduate students could accomplish. He described the process used to draft the report, which included design studios, consideration of natural and social aspects of the area, use of GIS, on site tours, photos, conversations with residents and Town officials, design workshops, schematic design and layout alternatives, and written descriptions of alternatives. The final report included inventory analysis, survey of the community, consultation with the Commission to determine what it thought was most important, consideration of the character of the community, graphics, and funding sources. Mr. Westa noted his department does not compete with planning consultants, but can provide a concise, professional report, which will detail several viable options.
The request for proposal letter was discussed. Mr. Charles thought the Commission should first go through a "vision process" to educate itself on the issues that must be addressed. He did not think the letter should be written until the Commission knew all the questions it had to ask. Mr. Bender thought the letter could begin with a request for an outline for such a study. Mr. Westa suggested the Commission contact COG to obtain examples of RFP letters by other towns. Mr. Charles said he had contacted COG and Mr. McGuinness recommended he call Mr. Westa and Mr. Plattus from Yale. Mr. Westa noted what he looks for in an RFP letter: specificity of the request, types of uses to be considered, and agreement on the issues to be addressed. He said the clearer the scope of the work is defined, the better, and that if there is no consensus on the work to be covered, the process would be much longer and more expensive.
The Commissioners disagreed about whether there was already a consensus about the issues that should be addressed. Some thought there was not and the public should be involved at a very early stage, while others thought the Commission had just spent two years working on the Plan, which included obtaining public input. Mr. Rimsky pointed out how a group with a specific agenda can attend a public meeting and skew an issue. He thought in the end the Commission should trust its instincts.
Funding for the study was briefly discussed. Mr. Charles noted the Commission had requested $100,000, but the Board of Finance had approved only $35,000. Mr. Westa noted the study UConn had done for Morris cost $5000 and suggested a two step process. First a similar study could be completed for Washington and this could be the basis for the RFP letter. He said the initial study would include research in trends such as sustainable development practices, the Village District legislation, current state Plan of Conservation and Development, economic trends, etc.
The RFP letter was discussed further. Mr. Westa advised the Commission to clearly describe in common language the problems to be addressed. The use of buzz words could be confusing. Mr. Westa also noted that by deciding on a specific list of issues before drafting the letter, the Commission could determine what professionals it would require as part of the study team. For example, if there were septic issues to be addressed, the Commission might require a sanitary engineer to be involved in the study. He noted as issues are added to the list the work involved in the study increases exponentially.
Issues that were noted throughout the discussion included:
- pressure for economic development along the state routes
- how to incorporate economic trends into the report
- commercial rents that are too high for viable enterprises
- statewide or regional issues the Commission might not be aware of that could impact the Depot
- possible future need for Town sewage treatment system
- not enough parking
- traffic circulation/should River Road be realigned with Titus Road
- how to deal with flood plain concerns in the Depot
- how to encourage mixed housing
- how to encourage the economic vitality of the village center
- education of the public
- most appropriate use for the Town Garage property on Titus Road
- how to get cooperation of DOT
It was the consensus it had been helpful to learn how UConn could help the Commission carry out the first stage of a two stage approach to the Depot study. Mr. Westa said he and his students could begin work during the fall semester if the Commission elected to conduct the study in this manner.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use CoordinatorNote: This Special Meeting was taped. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot.
May 4, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Talbot, Residents, PressMr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank for Mr. Charles and Mr. Rimsky.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/6/04 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 2, line 28, "over rule" was changed to "be involved in."
MOTION: To accept the 4/6/04 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Fairbairn, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Charles arrived and was seated for Mr. Frank.
MOTION: To accept the 4/9/04 Special Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Rimsky entered at this point and was seated.
Pending Applications
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Bender read the 5/4/04 review by the Land Use Coordinator. It was noted the Record Subdivision Map had not yet been completed. The Commissioners agreed to table further discussion until the final map is submitted.
MOTION: To table further discussion of Taylor/ 38 New Preston Hill Road.2 Lot Resubdivision until the June 1, 2004 meeting. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 4-0-1. Mr. Charles abstained.
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Bender read the 5/4/04 report from the Land Use Coordinator. It was the consensus to schedule a public hearing to consider this application on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Bender read the 5/4/04 report from the Land Use Coordinator. It was the consensus the application was complete and that the two possible conditions mentioned in the above referenced memo should be included in the motion of approval.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Talbot Realty Trust for a 2 Lot Subdivision at 44 Bell Hill Road subject to the following conditions:
1. a note is to be placed on the mylar to be filed on the Town Land Records that both lots require engineered septic systems, and
2. a note is to be placed on the mylar that Lots #1 and #2 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 consideration.
By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Review of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Bender noted he had reviewed the Regulations for possible revisions that are needed. He circulated a sheet, "Checklist for Consideration of Possible Revisions of our Subdivision Regulations." Mr. Fairbairn said he was working on a detailed report, but responded briefly to Mr. Bender's list: 1) Section 5.8.1.A - Mr. Fairbairn said his research to date had shown that the Commission could not refuse to take wetlands as open space. 2) Section 5.8 - State statutes do not set a limit on the percentage of open space that may be required by the Commission, but do establish maximum fees that can be collected for fees in lieu of open space, which is 10% of the value of the property prior to subdivision. Section 5.8 - Regarding the question of whether the Commission should emphasize obtaining large parcels of open space or fees in lieu of rather than scattered smaller parcel throughout Town, Mr. Fairbairn agreed this issue should be discussed and thought the matter should be thoughtfully considered on a case by case basis depending on the potential open space to be acquired. A brief discussion followed. Mr. Charles was reluctant to emphasize fees in lieu of since these would be low because they would be based on the predevelopment value of the property. He also thought there was a value to having smaller parcels of open space throughout Town as they contribute to the character of an area and could be used to connect with other open space parcels in the future. Mr. Fairbairn suggested that accepting a fee in lieu of would help the Commission to avoid situations like the Taylor application where there was a request to waive the open space requirement. Mr. Rimsky agreed with Mr. Charles that smaller parcels have a cumulative effect of softening the landscape, but noted how difficult they were to police. Mr. Bender said the Open Space Steering Committee's report advised that smaller parcels should be avoided, but Mr. Rimsky said there was beginning to be a general opinion that a patchwork of smaller parcels throughout Town would be valuable. When Mr. Fairbairn completes his report, these and other possible revisions to the Regulations will be discussed in greater detail.
Depot Business District Study: The following Special Meetings were scheduled: 1) Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. with Mark Westa of UConn and 2) Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. with Alan Plattus of the Yale School of Urban Design. Prior to each meeting, Mr. Charles will tour the Depot with each planner. The purpose of the meetings will be to provide the Commissioners the opportunity to discuss broad ideas on how to proceed with the study, to consider the possible benefits of conducting a charrette, to educate itself on how to write the proper proposal for bids, etc. Mr. Rimsky also suggested the Commission contact Mr. Dodson who comes highly recommended due to his ability to visualize how a Town can best utilize its space. It was noted Mr. Charles had offered to pay each planner's expenses, up to $200, and this would be taken out of the consulting budget. Mr. Bender thanked Mr. Charles for his research and efforts to schedule each planner. Mr. Fairbairn asked what the Board of Finance had appropriated for the Depot Study. Mr. Bender noted the Commission had requested $100,000, but the Board of Finance had cut it to $35,000. He said the Commission might have to go back to the Board for more money once the bids are received.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
April 6, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Cannavaro, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears, Mr. Solley, Mr. Wyant
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Weydig, Mrs. Averill, Mr. Carron, Mrs. Taylor, Mr. Boling, Mr./Mrs. Lyon, Mr. Gitterman, Ms. Morrill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Neff, Atty. McDermott, Residents, PressPUBLIC HEARINGS
Application for Scenic Road Designation/.9 Mile Gunn Hill Road
Mr. Bender called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, Charles, and Roberts and Alternate Frank for Mr. Rimsky. He then read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 3/24/04 and 3/31/04. Mr. Rimsky entered at this point and was seated.
For the record, Mr. Bender listed the documents in the file and asked for comments from the public. Statements from the public included the following:
Mr. Sears, First Selectman, spoke on behalf of the Board of Selectmen and submitted a statement dated 4/6/04 (attached). In short, he said the Scenic Road Ordinance allows adequate provision for addressing road safety and maintenance issues that may arise in the future and requested the Planning Commission notify the Board of Selectmen when future scenic road applications are submitted. Mrs. Averill, 10 New Preston Hill Road, spoke on behalf of the First Ecclesiastical Society in favor of the application. Mr. Carron, 58 Gunn Hill Road, listed many reasons the application should be approved, including 1) it met all but one of the scenic road criteria, 2) all the resident property owners signed statements of support, which totaled 75+% of the frontage property owners, 3) routine maintenance was permitted under the Ordinance and there were procedures outlined for correcting future problems as they may arise, and 4) it would be possible to modify the Ordinance in the future if needed. Mark Lyon, Fire Chief, represented the Fire Department. He noted the difficult access to Gunn Hill and Tinker Hill Roads and the ongoing winter maintenance problems. He said the Department was concerned not only with emergency access to the properties on these two roads, but also about the safety of Town volunteers. He said emergency access was difficult in this case because Gunn Hill was not a year round through road. Atty. McDermott represented Ms. Morrill, owner of two properties at the north end of the .9 mile section under consideration. He stated she generally favored the application, but shared the Fire Department's concern about emergency access because the road is currently in poor condition. He asked for a guarantee that approval as a scenic road would not prevent Gunn Hill Road from being maintained and improved so that emergency vehicles would have access over it all year long. Mr. Bender responded the First Selectman had stated scenic road designation would not prevent the Town from maintaining the road. Atty. McDermott said he understood, but was putting this concern on record for the future. He said when the mid section of the road is closed in the winter, emergency vehicles must travel 2.5 miles further around the lake to access these properties and he did not want to trade a scenic road designation for a dangerous situation. Mr. Bender stated future road maintenance and improvements would be between the property owners and Board of Selectmen; the Planning Commission would not over rule any decision by the Selectmen. Mr. Gambino, New Milford resident who owns property on Gunn Hill Road, stated he, too, was concerned about safety and access by emergency vehicles, but agreed there were adequate provisions in the Ordinance to provide for future repairs and maintenance. He supported efforts to preserve the scenic and rural character of this section of Town. Mr. Anderson said he was committed to preserving the road as it is in order to preserve the unique and rural character of this section of Washington. Mr. Cannavaro, Road Foreman, strongly recommended that in the future, when a scenic road application is submitted, the Town be given an opportunity to inspect the road in question and bring it up to acceptable standards before the application is approved. He said this process would be similar to that followed when the Town adopts a Town road. He knew of no long or short term plans for significant changes to Gunn Hill Road, but said the Highway Dept. did not want to have to fight for changes that might be needed in the future. Mr. Bender said the Commission would notify the Selectmen's Office at least 30 days prior to acting on any scenic road application. Mr. Cannavaro stated this would not be enough notice to do any work, if needed. Mr. Rimsky asked if Gunn Hill could be made a year round road in its present state. Mr. Cannavaro said it could not without costly engineering and major work. He detailed some of the current drainage problems on the road and the work that would be necessary to correct these situations. There were no other questions or comments. Mr. Bender closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Bender called the public hearing to order at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Charles recused himself. Mr. Bender seated Members Bender, Byerly, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Charles. Mr. Bender read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 3/24/04 and 3/31/04.
Mr. Bender reviewed the documents in the file for the record.
Mr. Boling of Open Space Equity said that independent of the current application, the applicant was pursuing an open space preservation plan that would preserve more open space than required under the Subdivision Regulations. He said he would request a waiver of Sections 5.8.2 and 3.5.1 He presented a colored map based on the map presented at the previous meeting, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 1/29/04, which showed 4.12 acres would be preserved under the provisions of the Regulations compared to the 6 acres that would be preserved voluntarily. He pointed out the possible areas to be protected included property adjacent to the Judea Water Company well, the viewshed, and wetlands. Mr. Boling stated Weantinogue Land Trust was interested in the open space and would likely decide whether it would be accepted within 30 days. For the record, Mr. Boling submitted the draft conservation easement to be considered by Weantinogue.
The public had the following questions and comments:
Mr. Ralph Averill voiced his support for open space near the Judea well so that septic fields would not affect the water quality. Mr. Avery, New Preston Hill Road, was concerned runoff from the Taylor property would affect his well. Mrs. Taylor pointed out a conservation easement was proposed for the land adjoining his property and Mr. Neff, engineer, explained the drainage does not flow towards the Avery property and the proposed septic fields were an acceptable distance from both the Judea and Avery wells. Mr. Fleet, New Preston Hill Road, thought the entire area proposed for development was wetlands and was concerned activity there would cause drainage and runoff problems on his downhill property. Mr. Bender noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application. Mr. Neff stated a soil scientist had flagged all the wetlands soils on the property and they were shown on the map. Mrs. Taylor pointed out the wetlands, possible conservation easement areas, and proposed building area on the map.
Mr. Bender closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Bender called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:34 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/2/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 2/14/04 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. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Application for Scenic Road Designation/.9 Mile Gunn Hill Road
The portion of the road under application was pointed out on the Assessor's Map and Mr. Bender noted it was from the intersection of New Preston Hill and Gunn Hill Roads to the intersection with Camp Road.
Mr. Frank noted the Scenic Road Ordinance does not have a provision to allow the Board of Selectmen to revoke it and asked what would happen if there were dangerous conditions present that had to be corrected. Mr. Fairbairn said the Board of Selectmen had the option to recommend discontinuance of the road. Mr. Gitterman responded that if conditions on a scenic road change, the Selectmen can make improvements to ensure it remains safe. Mr. Bender advised the Commissioners that the Planning Commission has limited authority; it can designate or not designate a scenic road, but may not get into quality or maintenance issues. Mr. Fairbairn stated the Town is responsible for maintaining Town roads in a safe condition.
MOTION: To approve the designation of .9 mile of Gunn Hill Road as a scenic road per the application submitted by Mr. Carron under the pertinent Town Ordinance. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Charles recused himself. Alternate Fairbairn was seated for Mr. Charles.
Mr. Fairbairn was in favor of granting the request for a waiver of the open space requirement. He thought more open space would be protected in the end than what the Commission could legally exact. He noted, too, that if the Commission conditioned the resubdivision approval upon donation of the open space, the property owner would lose any tax exemption he might otherwise realize. He added he would not contemplate granting such a waiver for a large subdivision.
Mr. Boling stated wetlands and regulated areas comprise more than 15% of the property and these could not be developed. He requested a waiver of the open space requirement in Sections 5.8.2 and 3.5.1 of the Subdivision Regulations due to the physical characteristics of the property and submitted the written request and a letter of authorization both dated 4/6/04.
Mr. Bender opposed the granting of the waiver for the following reasons: 1) he thought approval would start a trend for all subdividers who want great personal financial gain, 2) the Subdivision Regulations require 15% open space, 3) the Planning Commission would be waiving the requirement for the financial benefit of the applicant who could then get a tax deduction, and 4) the Commission would be waiving its right to ask for open space on behalf of the Town.
Mr. Rimsky noted that according to the Regulations, applicants are entitled to request waivers. He also thought approval of this request would benefit the community because it would ultimately lead to an open space donation of more than 15%. He thought each case could be judged on its own merits and so an approval now would not set a precedent.
Mr. Fairbairn said he was not concerned about the benefits for the applicant and pointed out approval of the waiver would enable more open space to be protected than the Commission could legally exact. He suggested the Subdivision Regulations be amended to encourage this type of proposal.
Mr. Boling said he hoped the approval of the waiver would encourage future applicants to preserve more than the required 15% prior to submitting their subdivision applications because they would know when they did so, the Commission would waive the 15% requirement upon submission of the application. Mr. Bender asked why the applicant did not want to also donate open space to the Town. Mr. Boling stated when there is no financial incentive for them to do so, applicants tend to donate less open space and so there is less benefit to the Town.
Mrs. Roberts thought the waiver could be used to encourage applicants to donate more open space than is required.
Mr. Frank asked how, aside from the possibility of getting more than 15% open space, did this proposal differ from most of the applications considered by the Commission. Mr. Bender responded in this case the Commission was being asked to give up its right to require 15% open space for the Town.
Mr. Bender read the request for the waiver.
MOTION: To approve the request by Mrs. Taylor for a waiver of the open space requirement for the Taylor 2 lot resubdivision application for 38 New Preston Hill Road. By Mr. Bender, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 4-1. Mr. Bender voted No for the following reasons: 1) The Subdivision Regulations require the open space set aside. 2) He did not think the Commission should waive its right to ask for open space. 3) Such a waiver would be for the financial benefit of the applicant. 4) Granting of the waiver might cause future applicants also to request a waiver of the open space requirement for their financial gain.
Mr. Bender stated the Commission would not act on the application until the final Record Subdivision Map is submitted. The applicant did not leave the colored map used for the discussion for the file.
New Applications
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant.
Mr. Bender noted the application was incomplete because the following had not been submitted: 1) Health Department approval, 2) Conservation Commission report, 3) Inland Wetlands Commission approval, 4) site development plan, and 5) draft language for conservation easement. He noted the property was located in the historic district, but said it was not necessary to refer the application to that Commission. Mr. Bender also noted driveway approval by the Selectmen was not necessary because access would be over an existing driveway.
Mr. Neff submitted the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 4/5/04. A 5.95 acre lot with the existing house and an interior 5.02 acre lot were proposed. Mr. Neff pointed out the proposed open space along Ives Road and the southern boundary. He also stated the proposed house site was set back 500 feet from the road and most likely would not be visible from Calhoun Street.
It was noted the Commission had 65 days in which to commence the public hearing. Mrs. Hill will refer the application to the Conservation Commission.
Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Talbot was present.
Mr. Bender noted the following items had not yet been received: 1) Health Department approval, 2) sign off from the Inland Wetlands Commission, 3) verbal approval for the location of the proposed driveway to Lot #2, and 4) application fee. It was noted the application fee would be for two lots. Mrs. Hill will check the new Town ordinance to find out whether the fee per lot is $300 or $350.
Mr. Bender noted Mr. Talbot had indicated at the last meeting that he would request a waiver of the open space requirement because the property would be transferred to him from the family trust for no cost. Mr. Bender had advised him to consult his attorney about whether he would fall under this exemption in the state statutes as the property was owned by a trust, not an individual. He read the 2/24/04 letter to the Planning Commission from Atty. Federer, which stated the transfer did qualify for an exemption under the state statutes.
Mr. Talbot also submitted a written request dated 4/1/04 for a waiver of Section 4.5.4, which requires the site development plan to show 2 foot contours for the entire parcel. Mr. Talbot indicated the 2 foot contours had been surveyed for the house and septic sites and 10 foot contours had been taken from the USGS maps for the rest of the site.
MOTION: To waive the requirement for 2 foot contours for the entire parcel for the 2 Lot Subdivision application for 44 Bell Hill Road submitted by Talbot Realty Trust. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
A site inspection was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on Friday, April 9, 2004.
Mrs. Hill will refer the application to the Board of Selectmen, but not to the Conservation Commission because there is no open space required. The application has been submitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission for review because although there are no activities proposed within the regulated area, there are wetlands on the property.
Other Business
Review-Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Fairbairn reported Section 8-25 of the CGS authorizes the Planning Commission to require open space set asides, a fee in lieu of the set aside, or a combination of open space and a fee in lieu. The ten percent maximum, he said, pertains only to the determination of the fee in lieu, which could not exceed 10% of the presubdivision value of the parcel. The statutes do not reference ten percent in terms of the maximum open space exaction the Commission can require. Mr. Fairbairn thought the Commission should reconsider its regulation that previously donated conservation easements don't count towards fulfilling the open space requirement. Mrs. Hill noted Atty. Zizka strongly advised land use commissions not to require signs be posted on properties under application. She also reported the Zoning Commission has begun work on regulations to protect scenic resources and that it thinks this effort should be coordinated between the Planning and Zoning Commissions.
Washington Depot Business District Study: Mr. Charles contacted Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. Council of Gov'ts, Mr. Platus from Yale, and Mr. Weston from UConn regarding the possibility of conducting a charrette to broaden the Commission's knowledge of what issues should be considered, what kind of studies are available, etc. Mr. Charles informed the Commissioners the Board of Finance had cut the funds for this study from the $100,000 requested to $35,000. It was noted Planning would not know the exact cost of the study until bids were received from interested consultants, but it was the consensus the Selectmen and Board of Finance had been "shortsighted" in cutting the budget request.
Sheinfeld/110, 112 Lower Church Hill Road/Signing of Revised Mylar: The map, "Site Analysis Plan, Conservation Easement Map," by Mr. Alex, revised to 3/4/04 was briefly reviewed. Mr. Bender will sign it so it may be filed on the Town Land Records.
Referral from Board of Selectmen/CGS 8-24/Municipal Improvements: Mr. Bender read the 3/15/04 letter from the First Selectman describing proposed improvements to Bryan Memorial Town Hall. These included installation of an elevator, upgrading of restrooms, and improvements for handicapped access. It was noted all the work proposed would be within the existing building. There were no objections to the proposal.
MOTION: To send the Board of Selectmen a letter stating the Planning Commission has no objection to the plans, which include installation of an elevator, updating of the rest rooms and improvements in access at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to meet ADA requirements. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Communications
Mr. Bender gave Mrs. Roberts a letter to review from the State Office of Policy and Management regarding the State Plan of Conservation and Development and advised her to respond in whatever way she deemed appropriate.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
March 5, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky (late)
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank, Mr. Buck
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Sparks, Waterbury RepublicanApplication to Designate .9 Miles of Gunn Hill Road as a Scenic Road
The Commission met at the corner of New Preston Hill and Gunn Hill Roads and proceeded to drive along Gunn Hill Road. The purpose of the meeting was a site inspection to confirm the criteria for the designation of a scenic road were present. The meeting took place approximately from 11:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
March 2, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, Mrs. Pasch, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Taylor, PressPUBLIC HEARING
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Buffum Road
Mr. Bender called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, Charles, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Rimsky. He then read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 2/20/04 and the list of documents included in the file for the hearing.
Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had conducted a site inspection of the road on 2/14/04 and had determined that it met more than one of the criteria for scenic roads listed in the Ordinance. She had no objection to the designation. Mr. Byerly agreed.
Mr. Bender asked for comments from the public. Mr. Gitterman complimented the Commission on its due diligence.
No one spoke in opposition to the application.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mrs. Dyer for scenic road designation for Buffum Road. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Bender closed the public hearing at 7:37 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
Mr. Bender called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, Charles, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Rimsky.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/10/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 2/14/04 Special Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Rimsky arrived at 7:38 p.m. and was seated.
MOTION: To accept subsequent business not already listed on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Buffum Road
MOTION: To designate Buffum Road a scenic road as it more than meets the scenic road criteria and there were no objections from the public. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles
There was no discussion. The motion was approved 5-0.
Mrs. Dyer submitted photos of the existing conditions along Buffum Road. Mr. Bender noted these should have been submitted at the public hearing, but accepted them to serve as documentation of the base line conditions at the time of the road's designation.
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
This application was deferred until later in the meeting because Mrs. Taylor was not present.
NEW APPLICATION
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Gunn Hill Road
Mrs. Hill noted two items were missing from the application: 1) fee and 2) proof the statements of support were filed in the Town Clerk's Office.
Mr. Gitterman said he thought the road was beautiful and more than qualified for scenic road status.
It was noted only the .9 mile portion of the road between New Preston Hill Road and Camp Road was applied for. Mr. Rimsky asked why the section from Camp Road to Golf Links Road had not been included. Mr. Gitterman said it was due to the convenience of those involved and that he thought there would be a second application in the future.
A site inspection was scheduled on Friday, March 5, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. Members will meet at the intersection with New Preston Hill Road. Those who were not able to attend this meeting were asked to inspect the road on their own prior to the next meeting,
A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Charles recused himself and Alternate Fairbairn was seated.
Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Neff, engineer, were present. The site development plan presented at the last meeting and the Record Subdivision Map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated 10/03 and revised to 2/20/04 were reviewed. Mr. Neff reported the residential density form had been corrected and showed both lots were above the minimum requirements and this information had been included on the Record Subdivision Map. He said Lot #1 could accommodate 3.05 dwelling units and Lot #2 2.49 units.
It was noted the indoor riding ring discussed at the last meeting had been demolished and the disturbed area would be reseeded.
Mrs. Roberts asked if the existing driveway cut could be used. Mr. Neff said the driveway plans had been approved by the Selectmen's Office and a copy of the approval had been submitted for the file.
It was also noted the Health Department had approved the septic plans. Mrs. Hill confirmed a copy of the Health Department approval was in the file.
Mr. Bender asked how the open space would be protected and noted the Commission had not received approval from Steep Rock. Mrs. Taylor said she had applied to Steep Rock, but that it required a baseline study, which had not yet been completed, before it could make a determination about whether it would accept the open space. She said she hoped to have a decision from Steep Rock by the next meeting. Mr. Bender noted the applicant had been negotiating with Open Space Equity and asked whether there was a chance the size or location of the proposed open space would change. Mrs. Taylor said she was not sure, but if a change were made it would be to enlarge the proposed open space.
A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 2004 immediately following the Gunn Hill Road/Scenic Road Designation hearing. Mrs. Hill reminded the applicant a final map would be needed at the time the hearing legal notice is published.
Mr. Bender asked the clerk to remind the Conservation Commission that written comments would be due by the April 6th hearing.
Mr. Bender asked if calculations had been done to show the proposed open space exceeds the minimum required. Mr. Neff stated it was well above the minimum, but said he would ask the surveyor to provide the calculations for the public hearing.
Other Business
Mr. Charles was reseated.
Report from the Subcommittee Reviewing the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Bender read the memo from Mr. Fairbairn, which listed possible revisions the Commission might consider including adoption of scenic resource protection regulations jointly with the Zoning Commission, incentives and guidelines for conservation designed subdivisions, affordable housing set aside provisions, requirements for archeological studies on parcels proposed for subdivision, etc. Mr. Bender asked if Mr. Fairbairn could report on whether the Town's current 15% open space requirement is inconsistent with state statutes. Mr. Fairbairn said this is a complicated issue and he would have a report for the next meeting.
Depot Business District Study: Mr. Bender noted the 3/2/04 memo from Mr. Charles regarding the process for hiring a consultant. (See attached.) He explained that it outlined three options on how to proceed and asked the Commissioners to study it and come prepared for a discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Bender said the memo had persuaded him the Commission should educate itself on how to conduct the study and asked Mr. Charles whom he would recommend to advise the Commission. Mr. Charles said Mr. Platus of Yale and Mr. Westa of UConn had been highly recommended. He will continue to investigate possible consultants for this first step of the study and also the cost of such an endeavor. It was noted the educational process would include advice on how to draft the request for proposal letter so that it would be specific enough to include all the work to be accomplished, but loose enough to allow for imaginative and creative responses from the potential consultants. Mr. Charles recommended the Commission start in April to hold two meetings a month, the second to be devoted to the Depot study. Mr. Sears noted the Board of Selectmen is working on next year's budget and asked the Commission to submit a more accurate estimate for the cost of the Depot study as soon as possible. Mr. Charles responded that the Commission is sensitive to keeping the cost down and realistic, but not to the extent that it would make the consultant's job more difficult as had happened during the work on the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Election of Officers
MOTION: To accept the report of the nominating committee and to cast a single vote for the nominated slate: Chairman- Mr. Bender, Vice Chairman-Mr. Charles, and Secretary-Mrs. Roberts. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Draft Article for The Washington Town Times: A draft article had been circulated with the agenda. Mr. Bender asked for comments and suggestions. It was the consensus to approve the article with one grammatical revision.
Volunteer for Conservation Commission Open Space Subcommittee: Mr. Bender said Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission Chairman, had called him to ask for a volunteer to serve on this committee. Mr. Rimsky volunteered as long as his work schedule did not become more intense. The Commission thanked Mr. Rimsky for his interest and Mr. Bender appointed him as the Commission's representative.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, L.U. Coordinator
February 10, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Buck, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Dyer, Mrs. Pasch, Mrs. Taylor, Mr. Neff, Mr. Talbot, PressRegular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Bender, Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts. He noted the meeting had been postponed from 2/3/04 due to inclement weather.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the January 6, 2004 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Application to Designate Buffum Road as a Scenic Road
Mr. Bender reviewed Mrs. Hill's 2/11/04 memo, which asked for clarification regarding whether the entire length of Buffum Road was proposed as a scenic road and for photographs to document the existing conditions along the road. Mr. Bender asked Mrs. Dyer to submit for the record a series of photographs showing the attributes of Buffum Road.
Mrs. Dyer noted the travel portion of the road was no wider than 15 feet in most places.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, February 14, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. Members will meet in front of Mrs. Dyer's house on Buffum Road.
The public hearing procedure was briefly explained and the hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, March 2, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Taylor/38 New Preston Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/28/04 was studied. Mr. Neff reviewed the proposal to divide the parcel into two lots; a 7.6 acre lot with the existing house and a 10.23 acre lot with a 4.12 acre conservation easement area. The proposed easement was on the east side of the property in a mostly open agricultural field bounded by stone walls. He said it did not connect to other open space, but did abut the property where the Judea Water Company well is located. Mrs. Hill noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the plan dated 12/3/03. Mr. Neff stated the revision on the new map was the addition of proposed contours in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling, but noted this was not within 100 feet of wetlands. Mr. Neff said existing curb cuts would be used for the new driveway.
Mr. Neff noted the Commission had previously approved his request to use a larger size paper so the required 1" = 40' scale map would fit on one sheet.
Mrs. Hill said the application had already been referred to the Conservation Commission.
Mrs. Taylor hoped the riding ring would be demolished by March 15th. Mr. Bender noted if this had not been accomplished by the time the Commission was ready to act on the application, it could be made a condition of approval.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, February 14, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. Members will meet in the field below the house.
Mrs. Taylor reported her attorney was working on language for the conservation easement.
Mr. Bender reviewed Mrs. Hill's 2/10/04 report. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that a limit of disturbance line would not be required on the map. Mrs. Hill voiced her concerns about the Residential Density Determination forms. These had not been signed by a professional engineer or surveyor and some of the figures did not add up. Mr. Neff said he would recheck the calculations.
Mr. Bender advised the applicant the public hearing would most likely be scheduled in April.
Other Business
Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/Preliminary Discussion/Subdivision
The map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated January 2004 was reviewed. Mr. Talbot proposed to create one 5 acre lot from the 35+ acre parcel.
Mr. Bender asked what portion of the property would be designated as open space. Mr. Neff said the property was owned by a family owned trust and the lot would be given to a family member so no open space was required. Mr. Bender advised Mr. Talbot to consult his attorney about whether the exemption would apply in this case as the property is owned by a trust, not a family member. He asked that the language in the state statutes be reconciled with the fact the land is held by a trust.
Mr. Neff stated he would prepare a feasibility plan to show the remaining land would be a buildable lot.
Mr. Neff pointed out the land was relatively level in the areas to be developed and so asked for a waiver of the 2 ft. contour requirement. Mr. Bender advised him to submit a written request with the application and said the Commission would consider it.
Mr. Neff stated both feasible building sites were at least 100 feet from wetlands and noted the application would be submitted to both the Health Department and the Inland Wetlands Commission for their review.
The history of the property was reviewed and it was determined the application would be for a subdivision, not a resubdivision.
Brodie/292 Bee Brook Road/Preliminary Discussion/4 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Neff presented his map, "Site Analysis Plan," revised to 10/8/98, which had been drawn up for the 1998 subdivision application submitted by Mr. Dibble. He noted Mr. Dibble had received DOT, Inland Wetlands Commission and Health Department approvals prior to withdrawing the application.
Mr. Bender noted the original application had been made prior to the revision of the Subdivision Regulations and the adoption of the revised density regulations. Mr. Neff said his preliminary calculations showed the property would support four lots under the new requirements.
The possibility of preserving open space along Bee Brook or abutting the Seymour farm was discussed.
Mr. Neff said a double wide bridge was proposed over Bee Brook to access all four proposed lots; two driveways would be constructed side by side on the bridge with the boundary line running between them. Mr. Neff said the reason was that only two interior lots and one frontage lot could be served by a single accessway under the Zoning Regulations. He said there would have to be a maintenance agreement between the property owners. He also noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved an identical plan several years ago. It was recommended he consult with the Zoning Commission about whether the bridge and driveways would comply with the Zoning Regulations.
Other Business
Subcommittee Reports
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Bender noted Mr. Fairbairn had been away and he would wait until his return to report to the Commission.
Study of the Depot Business District/Consultants and Letter for Proposals: Mr. Charles gave a preliminary report. He had consulted Mr. McGuinness at COG and Ms. Parquet (formerly Cardini) about possible sources of information and consultants. Among these were the Yale School of Urban Design who had conducted on site preliminary reviews in the form of charettes to raise relevant issues for other towns, Mr. Gibbons from NEMO, the Ct. Main Street Center, Mr. Hare, a traffic consultant, UCONN, and Mr. Morely from the State OPM. Mr. Charles recommended the Commission spend some time to educate itself on the issues so that it could better define what it wants from a consultant. Mr. Bender was not sure this was the most appropriate course of action and asked if Mr. Charles had contacted the Ct. Chapter of the American Planning Assoc. for the names of consultants. Mr. Charles said he planned to do so.
State Draft Plan of Conservation and Development: Mr. Byerly said the final Plan was due 3/15/04 and so he was doubtful there was time for any comments or criticisms to be incorporated in the document. He also thought the maps required a lot of work to make them meaningful and the treatment of rural and undeveloped lands was not clearly defined. Mrs. Roberts also cited problems with the draft. She said the scale used for the maps was too small, the document lacked a timeline for funding, and it did not have guidelines for implementation. Mr. Bender asked if there was any part of the State Plan that would take precedence over local regulations. Mrs. Roberts said there was not, but cautioned the Plan left sensitive rural areas unprotected from adjoining development.
Report on January Meeting Selectmen and Commission Chairmen: Mr. Charles noted each chairman had reported on the work his commission had accomplished during the past year. Implementation of the Plan of Development was discussed. Mr. Charles stated he had informed those present the Planning Commission would soon conduct a study of the Depot Business District as recommended in the Plan.
Update on Proposed "Smart Growth" Legislation: Mrs. Roberts had attended a public hearing conducted by the Blue Ribbon Legislative Committee to get feedback from the public on "Smart Growth" and tax reform. She reported Mr. Martin, Zoning Chairman, had spoken out against specific mandates in the proposed legislation because they would unfairly affect smaller Ct. towns. She noted officials from other small towns had also been against the proposal to require town plans to conform to the State Plan within two years of its approval and most felt the proposal was punitive to the towns that have so far done a good job with drafting and implementing their plans of development. She said the State Legislature seems to be headed in a "one size fits all" direction, which is not appropriate for smaller towns, each with its own pressures and concerns. Mr. Bender asked if the danger to small towns could be described in a precise paragraph. Mrs. Roberts thought Mr. Martin had done this and said she would contact him.
2004-05 Budget and Capital Expense Request: Mr. Bender reviewed the budget sheets prepared by the Selectmen's Office. It was the consensus there was no reason to propose any change from the 2004-04 budget.
MOTION: To approve the 2004-05 Budget request to the Board of Finance with no increase in operating funds over the previous year's figures. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Bender briefly discussed his draft letter to the Board of Finance for an additional $75,000 for the Depot study. He said he had originally planned to ask for $100,000, but had been advised this was too high. Every one of the Commissioners thought this figure was too low. They cited the complex issues to be addressed, the need to educate and communicate with the public about the process, the fact that this study could be used as a basis for improvements to the other business districts, that the Depot was still suffering from bad decisions made after the '55 Flood, and that this study would affect the character, health, growth, tax base, and vibrancy of the Depot in the future. They thought such a significant study should not be taken lightly. The issues to be addressed included parking and traffic, storage for Town equipment, and the most appropriate use for the old Town Garage property. Mr. Bender was directed to revise his letter to the Board of Finance to request $100,000 for the upcoming study.
Election of Officers/Review of By Laws: Mr. Bender appointed Mr. Charles and Mrs. Roberts as the nominating committee. They will recommend a slate of officers at the next meeting.
Public Comment
Mr. Sears asked the Commissioners what they thought about his idea to hold town wide forums on important issues prior to making decisions about them. Housing, educational costs, and open space were examples given. It was the consensus that initiatives to promote public discourse and open dialogue would benefit the Town and Mr. Sears was encouraged to go ahead with organizing the forums. Mr. Rimsky noted such forums would be in keeping with the 2003 Plan's recommendation in the Community Spirit section to explore ways of disseminating information on important Town issues.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPOROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
January 6, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bender, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Rimsky
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Buck
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears]
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Beck, Mr. NeffRegular Business
Mr. Bender called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. He noted with regret the passing of Jean Averill, Planning Commissioner, Commission Secretary, and friend. Members Bender, Charles, and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank were seated. Mr. Bender congratulated Mrs. Roberts on her appointment as a Regular Member and welcomed Mr. Fairbairn and Mr. Frank, the newly appointed Alternates.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the December 2, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Beck/129 Calhoun Street/Resubdivision/Preliminary Discussion
Mrs. Beck and Mr. Neff presented the map, "Subdivision Map Prepared for Julian Beck, Pamela Beck," by Mr. Alex, revised to 10/3/97 with the proposed 5 acre lot and open space sketched in. The following issues were discussed.
1) Open Space: Mrs. Beck proposed to preserve a portion of the existing meadow on the new lot and a strip along the south side of the property. She said she did not want the house on the proposed lot to be constructed in the meadow. Because the entire meadow was not proposed as open space, Mrs. Hill pointed out the only way to ensure a house would not be built there would be to propose a building envelope elsewhere on the property. Mr. Fairbairn suggested Mrs. Beck check for conservation easements on surrounding properties so the required open space could be connected to other existing open space. Mr. Charles preferred the entire meadow and the wetlands be preserved as open space. Mr. Bender thought it was important to protect the field at the corner of Calhoun Street and Ives Road. Mrs. Beck feared a large conservation easement would discourage buyers. This lead to a lengthy discussion regarding the purpose of such easements, their impact on property values, uses that may be permitted within a conservation easement, etc. Mr. Bender noted that now that the Town can accept open space, the Commission would no longer favor deed restrictions.
2) Residential Density Form/Conservation Easements: Mr. Neff noted the proposed easement area could not be counted towards permitted density under the current Zoning Regulations. Mr. Fairbairn said this was correct and noted as a result, the size of the conservation easement might have to be limited to enable the creation of the proposed lot. Mr. Bender voiced his concern that the Regulations may have created the situation where land could be preserved by deed restriction, but not by conservation easement. He thought this was a matter for future discussion.
3) Inland Wetlands: Mr. Neff stated the wetlands soils found on site were not consistent with the soils map. He noted wetlands soils were present, but there was no watercourse. It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission would have to approve the application.
4) Driveway: The access/driveway to the proposed lot would be over the existing right of way shared with the adjoining Smith property.
5) House Site: Mrs. Beck said the house site had been selected after careful consideration so it would not be in the meadow and the house would not be visible from the road.
6) Topographic requirements: Mr. Neff noted the proposed lot had a very gradual slope and asked if the 10 ft. contours from the USGS map could be submitted in lieu of the 2 ft. contours required by the Subdivision Regulations. It was the consensus that because the slope was slight, the driveway was already installed, and the house site would be close to the driveway, 10 ft. contours would be OK. Mr. Bender advised the applicant to submit a written request for a waiver of this requirement when the application is submitted.
7) Historic District: The property is located within the Calhoun-Ives Historic District, but Mr. Neff said the house would not be visible from either road.
8) Final Subdivision Map: Mr. Bender asked that the corners of the proposed lot be lettered to facilitate its reference in any motion of approval.
9) Resubdivision: It was noted the proposed lot would be a resubdivision and would require a public hearing.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5: Special Exceptions
Mr. Fairbairn explained the proposed new section and spoke in favor of it. Mr. Charles was concerned that if the Special Exception section to enable an increase in coverage without proof of a hardship was approved and pervious driveways were taken out of the coverage calculations as had been discussed at a previous Zoning meeting, it would adversely impact the Town's rural character, especially in areas with smaller existing lot sizes. It was noted a change in the definition of coverage was not proposed at this time. It was the consensus to send the Zoning Commission a letter that Planning has no objections to the proposed revision.
Plan of Conservation and Development
Review of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Bender and Mr. Fairbairn will serve on a subcommittee to determine whether any general revisions to the Regulations are needed and whether revisions should be made to implement specific recommendations in the newly adopted Plan. It was noted several Conservation Commission members had met with Mr. Bender to discuss revisions they thought were necessary and Mr. Bender had received a memo addressing several issues including fees in lieu of open space, from Mr. Markert, Conservation Commissioner. Mr. Bender thought the Commission should get a good legal review regarding exactly how fee in lieu of open space works. Study of the Depot Business District: Mr. Bender appointed Mr. Charles and Mr. Frank to the subcommittee to compile a list of professionals who will be invited to make a proposal and to draft the letter, which will be sent out to them detailing the scope of the study. State Plan of Conservation and Development: Mr. Bender appointed Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Byerly to study the updated State Plan and map and to report back to the Commission on what the local impacts will be.
Mr. Bender read his 1/5/04 memo to Mr. Sears, which reported the Commission had completed the update of the Plan of Conservation and Development on time and under budget.
Public Input
Mr. Sears invited the Commission to attend the presentation of the Democracy Cup on Friday, January 9, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town Hall lobby.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
Mr. Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Meetings in 2003