www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning Commission, 2005

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

---

General information about the Planning Commission

Jump down to: December 6 • October 4 • September 6 • August 23 • August 2 • July 5 • June 7 • May 3 • May 2 • April 18 • April 5 • March 29 • March 22 • March 1 • February 22 • February 15 • February 3 • February 2 • February 1 • January 6 • Meetings in 2004 • Meetings in 2003 • Meetings in 2002

---

December 6, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Brighan, Mr. Gruson, Mr. Szymanski

Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Charles.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 10/4/05 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Fowlkes, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda; New Application: Upper Church Hill, LLC./72 Upper Church Hill Road/3 Lot Subdivision. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Referral from Zoning/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.3: Effective Date: The Commissioners briefly reviewed the technical changes proposed by the Zoning Commission to update Section 13.3 in the 11/10/05 referral memo to the Town Clerk, councils of government, and the Planning Commission from Mrs. Hill and the 11/15/05 memo from Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. Council of Governments to Mrs. Hill. The Planning Commissioners had no objections to the proposed amendment.

Request by Mr. Gruson for the Discontinuance of a Portion of Frisbee Road: Mrs. Roberts read a portion of the 9/29/05 letter from Mr. Gruson to the Board of Selectmen asking the Town to officially discontinue the southern section of Frisbee Road. Mr. Fairbairn asked if the Town would retain the right to use the right of way for passive recreation. Mrs. Hill explained that Mr. Boling, a member of the Road Discontinuance Committee, said that usually the Town does retain this right, but in this case, the Town of Roxbury had discontinued its portion of the road, which limited the potential of using the right of way in a greenway trail system. He did point out, however, that the property was not too far from the regional school property where in the future there might be some trails to link up to. There was a lengthy discussion regarding whether the right for passive recreation should be reserved; Mr. Gruson arguing against it. Mr. Rimsky noted the road had not been used for at least 50 years and Mrs. Roberts thought passive recreation would not be suited on a right of way so close to an existing house. Mr. Fairbairn stressed the Town had established a precedent by always requiring that this right be reserved and Mr. Fowlkes pointed out there were other houses in Town that were located as close or closer to right of ways used for passive recreation. Mr. Fairbairn also did not want to foreclose future options for the Town and said it was the Commission's responsibility to act in the best interests of the Town. Mr. Frank agreed. The map, "Map Prepared for William F. Sommerfeld, Jr. and Susan A. Smith," by Mr. Osborne, dated 8/26/98 was studied. It was noted there was no indication on the map of the point at which the road would be discontinued. Mr. Gruson stated there would be room to construct a turnaround at pole #443, said at this point only his property would be affected, and informed the Commission that Mr. Cannavaro, road foreman, had asked for written permission for the Town to continue to use the existing turnaround until Mr. Gruson constructed a new one to standards that would accommodate the Town's road equipment and emergency vehicles. (Note: This is what was said at the meeting. However, it was later learned that Mr. Gruson did not own both sides of the road in the vicinity of pole #443 and instead should have referenced pole #444.) Ms. Gager asked who carries the liability for right of ways used for passive recreation. Mr. Folkes said it was the Town. Ms. Gager did not think Frisbee Road was conducive to parking, but Mr. Fairbairn thought this made no difference and the right for passive recreation should be preserved. The Commissioners unanimously agreed to support the discontinuance of the southern section of Frisbee Road with the Town reserving the right to use the right of way for passive recreation.

Depot Study Update: Mrs. Roberts noted how the Commission has been struggling to get the public to understand the purpose of the study since so much misinformation has been circulated. She stated it was a conceptual plan for the next 50 years and beyond, which may or may not be implemented in part or in whole. Mr. Rimsky agreed there had been blatant misrepresentation regarding the study, but thought the Commission should proceed with public dialogue and informational meetings as it had always intended. With these informational sessions, he said, at least the public would understand the Commission is not pushing development in the Depot. Mr. Fairbairn suggested the Commission select those parts of the study about which there is general public agreement such as solving the traffic and parking problems, making a greenway trail around the village center, and using the old Town garage site for passive recreation, and deal with those first. Mr. Fowlkes agreed the Commission should focus on one or two such projects. He also remarked that during the study process it had been brought up that under the Town's current Zoning Regulations a retail store such as a CVS was permitted, and if this were true, he thought the Commission should do something about it. Mr. Rimsky noted that the first step was to complete the study as recommended by the Plan of Conservation and Development, but he did not know if other Town boards were legally bound by it. Mr. Fairbairn noted there were two critical elements for implementing the Plan; 1) feasibility studies on septic and flood plain concerns in the Depot for which there was currently no funding available and 2) revisions to the local regulations to make the concepts in the study possible. Ms. Gager thought the final draft should be sent to the Town boards for review and comments and suggested perhaps the Depot could be made a separate district where innovative development would be allowed. She noted revision of regulations is a lengthy process and the longer the Town waits to do so, the more vulnerable it would be. Mr. Rimsky pointed out that the Supply and Vinnie's gas station properties were very vulnerable at this point. The Commission agreed on the following: 1) Mrs. Roberts would discuss the Depot study and how the Commission would proceed at the Chairmen's meeting to be held on 12/12. 2) A copy of the study with a cover letter to be drafted by Mr. Fowlkes would be given to each chairman at that time. 3) The Town boards would be asked to comment on the study within a specific time frame. The Commission will use these comments to help it decide on how exactly to proceed. 4) Collaboration and cooperation between all Town boards will be encouraged. Mrs. Roberts noted the commissions could work together to secure grants for those projects the Town agrees on. 5) Mrs. Roberts will order more copies of the study so that each board will have three to circulate and review. Mr. Rimsky noted that when the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development had been completed, George Bender had stated that the Plan should not sit on the shelf, and it would be fiscally irresponsible if some of its ideas were not implemented. The Commissioners agreed with Mr. Bender and with Mr. Fowlkes' statement that it was Planning's responsibility to guide the implementation process.

Public Comment

Mr. Brigham thought the Planning Commission should conduct a series of public meetings to obtain input about the Depot study. He thought the Commission had made a major mistake when it used the Town Times to provide such detailed information about the study because it had given the public the impression it was much further along than it actually was. He thought it was a good idea to begin work on the projects where there was general agreement and recommended some of the more controversial concepts such as relocating the intersetion of Green Hill Roadand River Road be deleted to help gain public support.

Upper Church Hill, LLC./72 Upper Church Hill Road/3 Lot Subdivision/ Preliminary Discussion: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, represented the applicant. The set of maps, 10 pages, by Arthur Howland, dated 10/28/05 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski said the 30 acre parcel would be subdivided into three building lots, two accessed from Upper Church Hill Road and one from Popple Swamp Road. He noted he had met with Mr. Cannavaro, road foreman, who asked that the swales along the Town roads be widened and deepened to better handle runoff. 15.2% of equivalent acres or 30% of the entire parcel would be placed in a conservation easement. He noted specific language had not yet been drafted and that this area might be increased to include more wetlands. He said the main purpose of the eased areas was to provide a buffer between the lots. Mr. Szymanski asked if a barn in keeping with the Town's rural character could be built in the easement area. Mrs. Roberts was not sure the Inland Wetlands Commission would permit a barn in a wetlands restricted area. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the erosion control measures, which were proposed downhill of all disturbed areas and around each well site. The Commissioners voiced their concern that future owners might want to install lawns instead of maintaining the hayfield and the natural growth along the boundaries of adjoining properties. They recommended an easement along the Whitehead boundary to preserve the natural growth, which would provide privacy for the existing Whitehead dwelling. The application will be accepted at the next meeting. Mrs. Hill will review it for completeness before then and the Commission will schedule a site inspection when it is formally accepted.

Communications

MOTION: To approve the 2006 Calendar as submitted. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Rimsky noted the Planning Commission is still short one member. The Commissioners were asked to think of good candidates to fill the vacant alternate seat.

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

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

October 4, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Gager, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbarin, Mr. Fowlkes
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Brodie, Ms. Weston, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. Brinton

PUBLIC HEARING

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Wheaton Road/Con't.

Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. She read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/21 and 9/28/05. She seated Members Gager and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn for Mr. Charles and Fowlkes for Mr. Rimsky.

Mrs. Roberts reviewed the 10/4/05 report by Mrs. Hill and noted the application was now complete. The names of the property owners along Wheaton Road had been added to the map and proof that all the property owners had been notified by certified mail of the hearing had been submitted. The 9/28/05 letter from Mr. Weiting against the application was read.

Mrs. Roberts briefly explained the Ordinance pertains only to the road and the Town right of way and if approved, would not protect the properties along the road. She noted maintenance of the road and improvements for public safety by the Town would be permitted. She advised the property owners that if they wished to protect the scenic qualities of their properties along Wheaton Road they should get together to discuss their goals.

Mr. Etherington stated that although Mr. Weiting owns property on Wheaton Road, he lives in New Milford.

Mrs. Roberts noted she had a copy of the Scenic Road Ordinance if there were any questions about it and also stated the Commission had inspected Wheaton Road to confirm it met the required criteria.

There were no other comments from the public or from the Commission.

Mrs. Roberts closed the hearing at 7:50 p.m.

This 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 7:50 p.m. and seated Members Gager and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn for Mr. Charles and Fowlkes for Mr. Rimsky.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 9/6/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 4 under Wheaton Road, Ms. Gager noted the correct dated was October 4, 2005.

MOTION: To accept the 9/6/05 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 4-0.

Pending Application

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Wheaton Road: Mr. Fairbairn stated that the highway department is permitted to maintain the road in a safe condition and so the Ordinance does not necessarily prevent changes from occurring. Mrs. Roberts also said the Ordinance does not control the view from the road. It was noted this was the first scenic road application for a road so close to, and in fact, partly in, a commercial district and more densely populated area. Mr. Fairbairn noted there could be possible future development in the Marbledale Business District that could impact Wheaton Road. Mrs. Roberts stated Wheaton Road met the broad criteria listed in the Ordinance. She was satisfied with the residents' desire to designate it a scenic road and to keep the area as natural as possible, but thought the possibility of future development along the road should be mentioned for the record.

MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Ms. Weston and Mr. Brodie for scenic Road designation for Wheaton Road. By Mr. Fowlkes, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 4-0.

Other Business

Open Space Tax Relief Ordinance: Mr. Fairbairn suggested a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Conservation Commission's Open Space subcommittee to discuss the subcommittee's proposed open space tax relief ordinance. It was noted there had not been much progress made in the discussion with Mr. Sherr at the last meeting because none of the Planning Commissioners had seen the draft ordinance at that time. Several of the Commissioners thought the subcommittee should have consulted the Planning Commission earlier in the process of drafting the ordinance. It was the consensus that the Planning Commission would not transfer authority for the review and recommendation of open space tax benefits to the Open Space subcommittee. While the Commissioners agreed that some kind of preservation/tax relief policies were needed to help preserve open space, they also thought any proposed ordinance should reflect a fairer application of PA 490 for the general public.

Public Comment

Regarding the open space acquisition fund, Mrs. Andersen suggested in the future it would be better to have the Planning and Conservation Commission chairs work closely with the First Selectman to identify appropriate parcels to preserve. She was concerned about the $6000 that could be spent to study the appropriateness of each parcel prior to purchase, saying it would be a large responsibility for the Open Space subcommittee. She thought Planning should have more opportunity at the beginning of the process to decide whether there were more suitable uses for proposed open space parcels. Mr. Fairbairn responded it is the Conservation Commission's function to investigate the acquisition of parcels and the Planning Commission's responsibility to review its recommendations to make certain they are consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. He said the Planning Commission sets an overall Plan for the Town, but does not get involved with particular parcels. It was noted there was a general map of desirable open space areas in the Plan and Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had already invested a great deal of time in it. Mrs. Andersen brought up the Town's Housing Committee, which she said was very constrained and could do no more than conduct studies. Mr. Fairbairn noted this was a new committee whose members had not yet been appointed and said he thought its responsibilities would evolve over time. Regarding the Depot study, Mrs. Andersen asked what the time line was for the final draft and getting it approved by the townspeople. Mrs. Roberts said the Commission would take its time and would focus on education during the upcoming months. She spoke of the misconception that the study is a final plan and explained the "final" draft is only Phase I of the study process. Phase I, she said, was the beginning of the process and its purpose was to generate discussion on the possibilities for the Depot. Once those possibilities had been aired, the DOT had agreed to cooperate in the process, and potential issues and problems identified, Phase II could begin. Phase II would include in depth studies such as the septic capabilities of the area and flood plain issues, dialogues with the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance, and work with the Zoning Commission to consider possible revisions to the Zoning Regulations to enable implementation of the study. Mrs. Andersen agreed Zoning was a crucial element in the process and asked again what the timeline would be for implementation. Ms. Gager pointed out that it would not be possible to set a time line because other agencies involved in the process such as the state DOT and the Zoning Commission were not under the Commission's control. Mrs. Roberts said she hoped by spring the Commission would have a sense of priorities and potential financing for any projects for which there was townwide consensus and would begin talking with the Zoning Commission on how they might be accomplished. As an example of a project that might begin prior to the completion of Phase II, Mrs. Roberts said there seemed to be a consensus that the proposed walking trail along the river and on the old Town Garage property was a good idea. Mrs. Andersen thought it was important to keep the old Town Garage property "banked" for future Town use. Mr. Fairbairn noted the study would be thoughtfully completed before any commitments were made regarding future projects and stressed that the study was a plan for the future and did not impose anything on individual property owners. Mrs. Andersen stated the Depot study had become a political issue due to the participation of the First Selectman. Mrs. Roberts responded that the Planning Commission had begun the study process, not the First Selectman, and had involved him when it had asked for his support and for his help in circulating information. Ms. Gager said the Washington Times had been used to disseminate information as a cost saving measure; Wilbur Smith had offered to do a similar newsletter for an additional price. The Commissioners again noted that there are no elements in the Depot study that are set in stone and that the purpose of the study was to draft a plan so the Town would be prepared for the changes that will inevitably come in the future. Hopefully, with a plan in place the Town will be able to manage gradual change and future development in a way that preserves the character of the Depot.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Gager.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

September 6, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky,

Mrs. Roberts

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Byerly

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. E. Johnson, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. Sears,

Mr. Brinton, Mr. Sherr

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Wheaton Road

Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at

7:30 p.m. and seated Members Gager, Rimsky and Roberts and Alternate Frank. She explained the Commission would recess the hearing to allow Members to attend the Town Meeting, which was being held in the Main Hall. The hearing would resume immediately upon completion of the Town Meeting.

MOTION: To recess the public hearing to consider

the application for scenic road designation

for Wheaton Road until the Town Meeting is

over. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky,

and passed 4-0.

Mrs. Roberts called a recess at 7:33 p.m.

Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/3 Lot Subdivision

Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at

7:33 p.m. and seated Members Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts, and Alternate Frank. She explained the hearing would be recessed to allow Members to attend the Town Meeting, which had been scheduled for the same time. The hearing would be reconvened immediately upon the completion of the Wheaton Road public hearing.

MOTION: To recess the public hearing to consider

the application submitted by Mr. Johnson

for a 3 lot subdivision at 30 West

Mountain Road until the Town Meeting and

Wheaton Road public hearing have been

completed. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr.

Rimsky, and passed 4-0.

Mrs. Roberts recessed the hearing at 7:35 p.m. and the Commissioners attended the Town Meeting.

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Wheaton Road

Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank. She noted the hearing would be continued because the certified mailing to adjoining property owners to notify them of the hearing had not been done by the applicant as required.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider

the application for scenic road designation

for Wheaton Road to Tuesday, October 4,

2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting

Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr.

Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.

At 8:16 p.m. Mrs. Roberts continued the hearing to 10/4/05.

Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/3 Lot Subdivision

Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank. Mrs. Roberts read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 8/24 and 9/1/05.

The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/30/05 was studied.

Mrs. Hill circulated copies of her final report dated 9/6/05 and reviewed how each of the outstanding issues at the 8/2/05 meeting had since been addressed.

It was noted a neighbor to the west had reviewed the proposed subdivision and had noted her concern about preserving her privacy. In her report, Mrs. Hill had asked whether the Commission wanted to consider a condition to preserve a buffer between the two properties. Mr. Johnson noted the existing wire fence was the boundary line and that trees and brush grow on the neighbor's side of the fence, while he has mostly meadow on his side. It was thought under these circumstances the preservation of privacy would be under the neighbor's control and a condition was not necessary.

Mr. Charles noted proposed Lot #3 was more than 6 acres and consisted of 2.5 density units and asked why the applicant chose to make it so large. Mr. Johnson explained the lot had been configured using the natural features such as existing stone walls and the tree line.

Mrs. Hill's 9/6/05 report was reviewed. It was agreed appropriate conditions of approval would include 1) requiring a note to be placed on the mylar to be filed in the Town Clerk's Office that engineer designed septic systems were required for Lots #2 and #3, 2) that the standard condition regarding transfer of the lots to only close relatives per Section 5.8.4.A be cited, and 3) that the mylar be revised to correctly label the 50 ft. right of way to Lot #3 as, "right of way in favor of Lot #3."

Mr. Fairbairn arrived at 8:27 p.m.

Mrs. Roberts asked if the applicant had considered passive solar design techniques. Mr. Johnson stated specific plans had not been designed because there were no house plans for either lot yet, but that the houses shown on the feasibility plan were oriented for solar gain as drawn.

Storm water management was briefly discussed. Mr. Johnson stated this had been an issue considered by the Inland Wetlands Commission, who had reviewed the plans and had been satisfied. Mr. Charles noted there was an erosion control plan included in the file. Mr. Johnson reviewed the drainage details for the driveway to Lot #3, which included construction of a swale, installation of three culverts under the driveway, and maintenance of the natural vegetation in the runoff area.

There were no questions or comments from the public.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider

the application submitted by Mr. Johnson

for a 3 lot subdivision at 30 West

Mountain Road. By Mr. Charles, seconded

By Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m.

These hearings were 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 Regular Meeting to order at

8:32 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Frank.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 8/2/05 Regular Meeting

minutes as written. By Mr. Charles,

seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 8/23/05 Special Meeting

minutes as presented. By Ms. Gager,

seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.

Mrs. Roberts noted there had not been a quorum present for the Wheaton Road site inspection and so there were no minutes. She suggested the Commissioners travel along Wheaton Road on their own prior to the continuation of the public hearing on 10/4/05.

MOTION: To include subsequent business not already

posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles,

seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Application for Designation of Wheaton Road as a Scenic Road

Mrs. Roberts noted the public hearing had been continued to 10/4/03 at 7:30 p.m.

Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/3 Lot Subdivision

Mr. Rimsky noted the application met the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.

Conditions of approval were again discussed. No open space was proposed because the lots would go to family members. Therefore, the following condition was agreed upon; Lots #2 and #3 may be transferred only to one or more of the subdivider's relatives named in Section 5.8.4.A of the Subdivision Regulations for no considerations. Ms. Gager pointed out the Regs should specify a time period in which the lots must remain with the family. She noted Woodbury had revised its Regulations to include such a time frame. If a property is sold before the time period expires, which is 2 years in Woodbury, the subdivider must either provide open space or pay a fee to the town's open space fund, which could be up to $12,000 per lot. It was the consensus the Commission should implement a similar revision. Mr. Fairbairn said he would add this concern to the list of revisions he is working on and would further discuss the matter with Ms. Gager. Mr. Charles suggested that an open space plan be required when applicants apply under Section 5.8.4.A. so that if the time period requirement is not met, there would be an appropriate plan in the file. He preferred to get open space rather than funds because he thought the amount of money the state would allow the Town to collect was too minimal to be used purposefully.

Other conditions of approval agreed upon were that the mylar must be revised to state the 50 foot right of way is in favor of Lot #3, the $30 state tax must be paid, and a note must be added to the mylar that Lots #2 and #3 require engineer designed septic systems.

It was noted there was no report from the Conservation Commission, but it was thought there was no need for one because no open space was proposed.

MOTION: To waive the open space requirement per

Section 5.8.4.A for the Johnson/3 lot

subdivision at 30 West Mountain Road.

By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager,

and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To waive the 2 ft. contour requirement in

Section 5.8.2 for the Johnson/3 lot

subdivision at 30 West Mountain Road. By

Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank.

Ms. Gager asked what standards the Commission

used to determine whether to grant this type of waiver request. She noted specific standards would enable the Commission to act consistently and avoid any appearance of favoritism. Mr. Fairbairn thought it was an unfair burden to require 2 ft. contours for a subdivision of this size. Mrs. Hill noted there were no roads proposed. Mr. Charles stated the Commission based its decision on common sense, knowledge of the land, and the fact that the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the engineering plan. Mrs. Roberts said the Commission had conducted a site inspection and had not found any potential problems. Mr. Charles noted the Commission had included the 2 ft. contour requirement in the Regulations because it was aware of the discrepancies that sometimes occur with site development plans versus the USGS maps.

Vote: 5-0.

MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr.

Johnson for a 3 lot subdivision at 30 West

Mountain Road with the following conditions:

1. The $30 state tax must be paid.

2. Lots #2 and #3 may be transferred only to

one or more of the subdivider's relatives

named in Section 5.8.4.A of the Sub-

division Regulations for no considerations.

3. A note must be placed on the mylar to be

filed on the Land Records that Lots #2 and

#3 require engineer designed septic systems.

4. The mylar map must be revised to state the

50 ft. right of way is in favor of Lot #3.

By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and

passed 5-0.

It was noted there were no new applications.

Other Business

Proposed Open Space Tax Relief Ordinance: The Commissioners discussed the 8/21/05 memo sent by Mr. Sherr, which requested the Planning Commission's help to implement the proposed ordinance. Regarding the specific request that Planning pass a resolution to transfer authority to the Open Space Committee to enable it to confirm that an applicant's property is, indeed, open space as defined by the Plan of Conservation and Development, it was unanimously agreed that Planning should not and could not delegate its authority granted per state statute. The second request to revise the Plan to refer specifically to "passive recreation" and to restrict recreational uses to those that are 'non-motorized" was noted. It was thought the Plan already referenced passive recreation. Mr. Fairbairn explained how PA 490 works and noted if implemented by the Town, it could designate areas appropriate for open space and if a property was located in that area, the owner could apply for a tax exemption no matter what the size of the parcel. He opposed the proposed ordinance, however, because it would offer local tax exemptions only for properties placed under permanent conservation easements (as opposed to PA 490 farm and forest land where parcels are signed up for 10 year periods with penalties for early withdrawal.) He thought this was discriminatory as it would benefit wealthier property owners at the expense of average citizens. He recommended that a study on the financial ramifications to the Town be completed prior to any decision on whether to approve the ordinance. Mr. Sherr responded the cost to the Town over the next five years had been calculated by the Board of Finance and he would be able to get those figures, which were low, to the Commission. Mr. Fairbairn thought if the Town was going to adopt an open space tax relief ordinance, it should be done exactly as the state statutes are written. Mr. Charles and Mrs. Roberts voiced their concern that under the proposed ordinance there would be less incentive to continue farming the agricultural parcels under PA 490. Mr. Charles stressed the importance of preserving farmland. Mr. Sherr explained the proposed ordinance was one way the Open Space Committee was trying to achieve the goal of 30% open space by 2015, which had been agreed upon by the Open Space Steering Committee. He added the Committee thought there would be an increased likelihood of obtaining permanent easements if local tax benefits were offered. He said the Committee had taken its direction from the Plan of Conservation and Development, which, it understood, recommended a tax abatement program for the permanent protection of open space by conservation easements and deed restrictions. However, he said the Committee would not be comfortable taking the ordinance to the community for a vote if the Planning Commission did not support the concept. Mr. Rimsky questioned why PA 490 had to be coupled with a permanent open space requirement. He suggested permanent conservation easements be granted tax abatements, while 490 set asides be managed separately. Mr. Sherr pointed out there was no enabling legislation to allow it to be handled this way. Mr. Sherr noted the two main issues to be resolved were: 1) Is the spirit of PA 490 open space fairly represented if the Town requires a permanent easement in order to qualify for it? He noted Greenwich and Washington were the first two Ct. towns working on such an ordinance. 2) Is the intent of the Planning Commission regarding open space fairly represented in the 2003 Plan of Development? If not, he said that issue should be worked through. Ms. Gager asked the following questions and Mr. Sherr responded. 1) What was the minimum lot size that would be considered for the open space tax abatement? There was no specific minimum size set by the ordinance; whatever size would be accepted by the land trust would qualify. 2) What costs would be incurred by the Town to administer the process and to manage the 30% open space? It was thought the expense would be low as currently a volunteer team from the Conservation Commission audits the open space parcels. Mr. Charles also suggested that a cash endowment could be required from each person donating land. 3) Noting the current penalties established for early termination of farm land and forest open space under 490, was a similar concept ever considered for open space under 490? Mr. Sherr said it had not, since only permanent open space had been considered. Mr. Sherr asked whether there was general support for the proposed ordinance, but the Commissioners were reluctant to state an opinion as they had not received a copy of the proposal to review. Ms. Gager thought the general concept was a good one, but questioned how it could be made fair to all. Mrs. Roberts noted it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to plan for the entire Town, not just for conservation issues, and to ensure the equitable treatment if its citizens.

Mr. Fairbairn suggested the Commission should first officially designate areas to be preserved as open space. He asked the Open Space Committee for its recommendations, adding that once the open space areas have been designated, the Open Space Committee can go to the Town Meeting to propose an ordinance. Mr. Sherr again stated he did not plan to do so unless he had the support of the Planning Commission. He urged the Commission to explain the intent of the Plan of Development to the Committee so that it would know how to proceed. He said he would email the ordinance to the Land Use Office for distribution. Mrs. Roberts stated discussion would continue at the next meeting after the Commissioners had read the proposed ordinance.

Public Comment

Mr. Sears thanked the Commission for its hard work and briefly showed a sample of the Town newsletter, which would be mailed out in about two weeks.

Washington Depot Business District Study: Mrs. Roberts noted discussion would continue next month after the final report has been received and that at the last meeting it had been decided to focus on public outreach before progressing to Phase II.

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

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

August 23, 2005

Special Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Byerly

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRESENT: Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Sherr

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Donovan, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears

Mrs. Roberts called the Planning Commission - Advisory Committee to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Byerly. She explained the purpose of the meeting was 1) to discuss an article for the next issue of The Washington Times and 2) to discuss the latest draft report for the Washington Depot Village Area study.

Mrs. Roberts reminded the Commissioners a draft article for the newsletter had been emailed to them all and any edits; suggestions, comments, and/or corrections, should be sent to Mr. Sears before the 8/25 deadline. Mr. Donovan said he would supply graphics.

Several central questions were raised to begin the discussion regarding the Depot study report. What was the current status of the report? What would the Commission decide were the priorities for the Depot? What would Phase II encompass and how would Phase II be carried out?

Mr. Donovan, consultant from Wilbur Smith Assoc., said the draft report was currently undergoing revisions in response to input he had received. It was noted some residents objected to the Plan for the Depot because they did not want the Depot to change. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that while the Plan did not promote change, it was realistic because it recognized that the Depot is not static; it will inevitably change over time. The Commissioners agreed, however, that as change eventually occurs, the Town should be ready to direct it rather than react to it and that was the purpose of the Plan. Mr. Donovan asked the Commissioners two questions: 1) Did the draft Plan effectively get this point across and 2) Could someone who does not want the Depot to change accept this as a viable Plan?

Revisions made since the last Advisory Committee meeting were outlined by Mr. Donovan. These included a correction to separate the Brinton property from the Town Garage property, changes to the Bryan Plaza traffic plan, decrease in the number and change in the orientation of the potential senior housing units in the vicinity of Town Hall, addition of road grade details, addition of more details for both on and off street parking, and consolidation of potential buildings on the Town Garage property and area between Titus and Bee Brook Roads. The Commission asked that the method of indicating landscaping be altered so that parking spaces would be more clearly visible on the map.

Mr. Donovan reported on his discussions with the state DOT. In short; the maintenance department was not encouraging, but the other DOT Depts. reacted in a positive manner. The idea of using Titus Road as a bike route was accepted, while the rural design concept for the two Rt. 47 bridges was not. Also, it was determined there was not enough room for the parking proposed in the vicinity of the pond above Town Hall. In general, the idea of narrowing the travel lanes of the highway as a traffic slowing measure was supported. However, DOT cautioned that it would require more detailed plans and that there would be no opportunity for improvements for at least 5 years. Several Commissioners asked if it would be possible to install a road surface that that would have a slight "bump" or would have a different sound when driven over, which would alert drivers they were approaching the center of Town and should slow down. Mr. Donovan said there are towns that have done this and that it could be considered in future discussions with the DOT.

Other topics discussed included:

Mr. Donovan noted the report would recommend, as the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development had suggested, that the current Depot Business District be divided into two sections; the village and the Bee Brook section. These areas would have different standards due to their geographical and logistic differences.

Parking: It was noted the Plan would propose no changes for the parking area in front of the Hickory Stick. A median down the center of Bryan Plaza would be proposed. Mr. Charles wanted a count of the proposed parking spaces so the public would be assured the total number throughout the Depot would not decrease. Mr. Rimsky worried about losing parking spaces behind the Town Hall, but Mr. Donovan said there was room to add more. Mr. Fairbairn thought that once additional parking had been created both on the Town lot by The Pantry and in the Bryan Plaza area and appropriate landscaping installed, the public would see that some problems could be addressed with relatively minor changes that would not greatly impact the way the Depot looks.

It was noted plans for Phase II had to be based on actual conditions. Mr. Donovan recommended studies regarding septic capabilities, flood plain, water availability, and zoning be done and also that a map be drafted that would be more accurate than the current one, which is based on aerial surveys.

The Commission looked forward to involving both the Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission in the process. Mr. Donovan stated revisions to the Zoning Regs regarding dimensional standards such as coverage, setbacks, and frontage would be needed to implement some aspects of the Plan. Another possibility, he said, would be to create a new zoning map for the village core with defined building areas, envelopes, and design guidelines.

Mr. Donovan stressed the mix of affordable and market value dwelling units in the Depot was an important component of the Plan. He showed a 50/50 ratio. Mr. Charles noted that what were being termed, "affordable" units, were actually moderate priced units.

It was noted the Commission hoped to obtain broad based public support for the Plan. Two levels of authority for the final Plan were reviewed. The first was a guide with no official weight that would aid in discussions with landowners about future uses on privately held parcels. The second was a document adopted by the Planning Commission as an appendix to the Plan of Conservation and Development. This was a more official status. Such a document could be used by future administrations and could prompt revisions to the Zoning Regulations.

The Commissioners voiced their concern regarding the misinformation about the study and resulting Plan that was being circulated by individuals who had not been involved in the process. They thought it was important to inform the community and continue the dialogue begun in May-July by means of meetings with the Town boards, neighborhood meetings with residents, meetings with Town organizations, press releases, use of the Town newsletter, information posted on the Town website, etc. It was the consensus that at this point continued public discussion and outreach was a greater priority than progressing to Phase II. Therefore, work on Phase II was put on hold for an indefinite period. Although once the final report is completed, Wilbur Smith and Associates will have fulfilled its contract obligations, Mr. Donovan offered to advice the Commission on its outreach efforts.

Priorities of the Plan were discussed. It was noted some aspects of the Plan were long term possibilities that might or might not be accomplished, while others were short term that could be implemented with relative ease in the near future. It was the consensus of the Commission that the draft report did not make this distinction clear. Mr. Donovan was asked to address this in the introductory section as well as in Section III. It was thought there was general support for the small scale improvements proposed. Priority recommendations will be revised to include (in no particular order) enhancement of the Shepaug streambanks with pedestrian access, implementation of angled parking and later a median in Bryan Plaza, addition of pedestrian facilities in the commercial core, construction of a pedestrian bridge across the Shepaug River west of Green Hill Road, revision of the interior Town parking lot near The Pantry to expand its green landscaped area, the development of a pedestrian trail surrounding the village core, and the addition of parallel parking along state roads in the village center. The remainder of the recommendations will be listed as long term. It was noted the Town newsletter article should also be edited to reflect these priorities.

Mrs. Roberts thanked Mr. Donovan and expressed her appreciation for all the work done by Wilbur Smith Associates. The Commission agreed the consulting team had led a professional and energetic study.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

August 2, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Bent, Mrs. Mullen, Mr. Brody, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARING

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Hinkle Road

Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.

Mrs. Roberts reviewed the application. She noted at the last meeting the following documentation had been missing, but had since been submitted: 1) 6/30/05 letter from the applicant outlining the application, 2) proof that the statements of support had been filed with the Town Clerk as required, 3) $150 application fee, and 5) proof of certified mailings of notification of the hearing to Hinkle Road property owners. It was noted of the thirteen certified mailings, twelve green proof of receipt cards had been received. Mr. Bent had also submitted photos of the length of Hinkle Road. Mrs. Roberts read Mr. Bent's 6/22/05 letter, which listed the scenic road criteria present on Hinkle Road. It was noted the Commission had conducted a site inspection of the road on 6/25/05.

Mrs. Mullen spoke in favor of the application, saying she was happy the road was not paved.

Mr. Charles explained that the very things that make a road scenic are not protected under the Ordinance. He advised the applicant that stone walls, old trees, buildings, scenic views, etc. on private properties along the road must be preserved by conservation easements, deed restrictions, mutual agreements between neighbors, etc. and urged the Hinkle Road residents to work together toward this end. Mr. Rimsky suggested that the current Hinkle Road residents inform any new property owners of their intent to preserve the character of the area.

There being no further comments, Mrs. Roberts closed the hearing at 7:40 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 Regular Meeting to order at 7:41 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 7/5/05 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 Mr. Charles,

seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Hinkle Road: It was noted Hinkle Road met the criteria for scenic road designation.

MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr.

Bent to designate Hinkle Road as a scenic

road. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Byerly,

and passed 5-0.

Johnson/36 West Mountain Road/3 Lot Subdivision: Mrs. Hill had done a review of the application to determine whether it was complete and whether there were issues that should be raised. She found several outstanding items including: 1) the $600 application fee had not been submitted, 2) there was no Record Subdivision Map, and 3) the Health Department had not approved the application. Mrs. Hill will forward a copy of her review to Mr. Johnson. A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, September 6, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

New Appplication

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Wheaton Road

The comprehensive application was briefly reviewed. It was noted the names of the property owners were not written on the Assessor's Map as required.

Noting the detailed information on views, historic structures, family histories, wildlife, etc. Mr. Charles advised the applicants that the Scenic Road Ordinance has jurisdiction only over the road in the Town right of way; it would not preserve scenery or architecture along the road. He added that road safety is paramount and other factors such as preservation of stone walls, trees, and views are secondary. He explained the Ordinance has no control over work done on private properties along the right of way. He therefore urged the Wheaton Road residents to work on a mutual agreement to preserve the scenic characteristics of their properties.

MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider the

application submitted by Ms. Weston and Mr.

Brodie to designate Wheaton Road as a

scenic road on Tuesday, September 6, 2005

in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial

Town Hall; this is the second hearing on

the agenda; hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. By

Mr. Byerly, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and

passed 5-0.

Other Business

Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.1/Wetlands and Watercourse Setbacks: The 7/1/05 referral had been mailed to the Commissioners for their review. Mr. Fairbairn noted most of the changes proposed were required for construction of the new boat ramp. Mr. Frank agreed the ramp would not be permitted under the current Regulations. It was the consensus that the Planning Commission had no objections to the proposed amendments.

Depot Business District Study: The 7/6/05 draft report by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) had been mailed to the Commissioners for review. It was noted space had been allotted in the Town's September newsletter for the Planning Commission to report on the progress of the Depot study, but the Commissioners wanted an opportunity to study the final report before preparing the newsletter article. Mrs. Roberts did not know when the final report would be completed and there was concern expressed about meeting the Washington Times deadline. Mr. Charles thought the article should also include information on Phase II of the Depot study process and suggested a Special Meeting be scheduled to discuss this with Mr. Donovan of WSA. Mrs. Roberts briefly reviewed some of the preliminary recommendations in the draft report and noted the Commission would have to 1) set priorities and 2) coordinate the efforts of all Town boards to implement them. She also noted additional studies on matters such as septic feasibility in the Depot and the accuracy of the current FEMA flood zone would have to be conducted. Procedure was discussed. Mrs. Roberts said she understood the final report would be sent to the Board of Selectmen for its input, but it would be the Planning Commission that would decide whether to adopt the Plan; there would not be a vote at a Town Meeting. However, she pointed out the Commission had opted to include the public as much as possible in the study to date and would continue to do so in the future. Mr. Frank thought there should be a significant opportunity for public discussion once the final report is received and Mr. Fairbairn thought it was critical to get a public consensus before proceeding. Various means of promoting continued public participation such as posting the report on the Town website, attending meetings of local organizations to talk about the Plan, scheduling special meetings of the Planning Commission, etc. were considered. It was agreed the Commission should consult with WSA about the most effective ways to engage the public and correct the misinformation that has been circulated. It was noted this will not be a fixed plan. Depending on the priorities set, what additional studies are done, how fast the Town grows, etc. the Plan will change to meet the needs of the Town. The cost of Phase II was briefly discussed. It was noted that if the Town has to pay for a study of the flood zone, this could significantly raise the estimated cost. Mr. Fowlkes suggested that rather than working on the entire Plan from the start, the Commission first work to establish its goals for the next ten years and then focus on implementing them. Successful implemention of a small part of the Plan, he said, would help with the implementation of the remainder in the future. Mr. Rimsky agreed. He thought it was important that the Commission decide on its priorities prior to writing the article for the newsletter and that the priorities be clearly defined, viable, and "immediately" obtainable. Mr. Fowlkes also suggested that a letter to the Board of Selectmen accompany the final report to explain to them the Commission's focus. Mrs. Roberts will contact Mr. Donovan to urge the quick completion of the final report for Phase I and to schedule a Special Meeting.

Letter to the Editor: The Commission briefly discussed its response to the first campaign speech by Mrs. Anderson, candidate for First Selectman. They thought she had belittled the efforts of the Town's volunteers who work together for the good of the Town and had criticized the Planning Commission's and Advisory Committee's work on the Depot study without having fully involved herself in the process. It was the unanimous decision that all the Commissioners, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, sign the letter so that it would be clear that their response was nonpartisan. The letter will be sent to Voices, The Litchfield County Times, and The Waterbury Republican.

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

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

July 5, 2005

Members Present: Adelaide Roberts, Chris Charles, Dimitri Rimsky, Sarah Gager

Alternates Present: Paul Frank, Winston Fowlkes

Guests: Jack Johnson, Elliot Johnson, Dick Sears, First Selectman, Press

Regular Business

Ms. Roberts, Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. She seated regular members Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, herself and alternate members Paul Frank and Winston Fowlkes.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: to accept the minutes from the 6/7/2005 Regular Meeting as submitted was made by Mr. Frank seconded by Mr. Charles and approved unanimously.

Motion: to accept the minutes from the 6/25/2005 Special Meeting as submitted was made by Mr. Fowlkes seconded by Ms. Gager and approved unanimously.

MOTON: to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda was made by Mr. Charles seconded by Mr. Frank and approved unanimously.

Regular members Dimitri Rimsky arrived at 7:35pm, alternate member Winston Fowlkes was unseated at this time.

Pending Applications

A. Scenic Road Designation for Hinkle Road

Ted Bent's Scenic Road Application for Hinkle Road appears to be in order except no photographs were submitted. In the past photos have been put on file for future comparison. Pamela Osborne, Acting Secretary will call Mr. Bent about submitting photographs. Members did a site walk on 6/25/2005. A Public Hearing was set for 8/2/2005 at 7:30pm.

New Applications

A. Johnson/30 West Mountain Road/ 3 Lot Subdivision

Jack Johnson and Elliot Johnson were present to represent this application. Jack Johnson submitted a map entitled Proposed Site Development Plan by Brian E. Neff Engineer dated 6/15/05, revised 6/30/05, an information packet for the Washington Health Department dated 6/25/2005 by Brian E. Neff, P.E. and a Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan dated 7/1/2005 by Brian E. Neff, Engineer. Jack Johnson hopes to create 2 additional lots on his 38.58+ acre lot. The property is being subdivided for transfer to family members so they are exempt from the Open Space Set-a-Side Requirements. Elliot Johnson stated that they are working their way through the Inland/Wetlands Commission; they did a site visit on 6/29/2005. The Health Department is reviewing this proposal and Roger Cannavaro, Road Foreman has OK'd the proposed driveway placement. Members agreed on a site inspection for 7/30/2005 at 9:00am. and set a Public Hearing for 9/6/2005 at 7:30pm.

Other Business

A. Depot Business District Study

Ms. Roberts reminded members of the Special Meeting on 7/11/2005 with the Advisory Committee and Wilbur Smith Assoc. Dick Sears the First Selectman, Hank Martin Chairman of the Zoning Commission and Wilbur Smith Assoc. will meet an hour prior to the 7/11 meeting. Mr. Charles had a disc from Wilbur Smith with the "Charrette Summary". Members discussed what might transpire at the 7/11 meeting and the need for continued community outreach. Members questioned getting Department of Transportation (DOT) input. Ms. Roberts was on the Charrette walk through the Depot and felt that the DOT was on board, Wilbur Smith Assoc. representatives felt that the DOT wants to help small towns. Members reviewed three preliminary options for the Depot and discussion ensued regarding the Old Firehouse Building, the Town Hall grounds, roads, parking, the Greenway and septic. Mr. Rimsky felt the first issue to address would be the Bryan Plaza and the traffic flow. Ms. Roberts will contact Wilbur Smith Assoc. to find out what the process going forward will be. The implementation of the Depot Plan may warrant Zoning Regulation changes. Mr. Charles felt that the 7/11 meting would be a reality check, there is a broad range of people on the Advisory Committee. Mr. Rimsky would like to see a plan with overlays that would create a time line a 5, 10, 20 year plan. Mr. Sears noted the end decision will be made with lots of public scrutiny: "What is Best for Washington?' Ms. Roberts sees the end result as a guide for the future. Ms. Roberts went on to state that this has been a terrific and exhausting process. Mr. Sears told members that there would be a September town newsletter it should include the information/ results from the Depot Study.

B. B. Advisory Meeting minutes

Janet Hill, Land Use Coordinator requested minutes from the 6/15 and 6/18 Advisory Committee meetings and asked if previous minutes filed with the Town Clerk. Ms. Roberts is looking into this.

Public Comment

Ms. Roberts asked for public comment.

Communications

none

MOTION: to adjourn was made at 8:45pm by Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky and passed unanimously.

Submitted subject to approval,

Pamela L. Osborne, Acting Secretary

---

June 7, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Fairbairn (late)

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Bent, Press

Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 5/2/05 Special Meeting

Minutes as presented. By Ms. Gager,

seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 5/3/05 Regular Meeting

Minutes as written. By Ms. Gager,

seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

The 5/18/05 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. In the next to the last line on page 1, add "and" after "study."

MOTION: To accept the 5/18/05 Special Meeting

Minutes as corrected. By Ms. Gager,

seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To add subsequent business not already

posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles,

seconded by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Scenic Road Designation for Hinkle Road

Mrs. Roberts noted the application was not yet complete and a list of missing items had been given to Mr. Bent, applicant. A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. Members will meet at the intersection of Hinkle Road and Sunny Ridge Road

Other Business

Depot Business District Study: Mrs. Roberts reminded those who had not yet written a "wish list" for the Depot to do so. She briefly reported on the 5/27/05 Advisory Committee meeting and on preparations for the upcoming charrette. There will be a banner and tent in front of the Town Hall. Press releases will go out to all the local papers. Mrs. Roberts noted there had already been an excellent article in Voices. Mr. Rimsky had obtained enlargements of pre flood aerial photos and these are on display in the Town Hall entrance. A "sample" letter by Mr. Moorehouse to Mr. Trotta of the Ct. DOT was reviewed and will be signed and sent by Mr. Sears as soon as possible. The Commissioners worried that WSA had not yet personally contacted the DOT and asked Mrs. Hill to remind Mr. Donovan that he had said he would do so. Mrs. Roberts will phone Mr. Donovan to get a list of needed equipment for the charrette. Mr. Sears and WSA and Robert Orr Assoc. will meet for coffee and discussions with the business community on Thursday a.m. On Friday evening the consultants will attend and briefly speak at the Village Improvement Society picnic at the Firehouse. Logistics were discussed. Because the Main Hall has been rented out for Saturday, the charrette will be held in the Main Hall on Thursday, but will be moved to the third floor on Friday evening and Saturday. Posters will go up around Town by the end of the week and Mrs. Roberts noted a special edition of the Town newsletter would soon be mailed, too. She thanked all the Commissioners for their work and also Mr. Sears, Mr. Rimsky for the aerial photos, and Mrs. Korzenko for editing the newsletter.

Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.7.1 and 11.7.2: It was noted the proposed amendments concerned the method for measuring the maximum vertical height and mean height of buildings and structures. The draft language proposed that measurements would be taken from the average pre existing grade in most cases, not the average finished grade as is done currently. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commissioners that they had no objection to the proposed revisions.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Gager.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted, Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

May 3, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Orsini, Mr. Mustich, Mr. Thomson,

Mrs. Middlebrook, Mr. Schoellkopt, Press

PUBLIC HEARING

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Nettleton Hollow Road

Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, and Roberts and Alternate Frank for Mr. Rimsky.

Mrs. Roberts reviewed the scenic road criteria met by Nettleton Hollow Road and the documents and information submitted with the application. She noted the application was thorough and well done.

Mr. Rimsky arrived and was seated.

The certified mailing receipts were submitted. Mrs. Roberts noted there was no proof submitted with the application that all the statements of support were filed as required with the Town Clerk. She said this could be made a condition of approval.

Mrs. Roberts explained that even on scenic roads, the Town has the right to do maintenance and safety work. She noted the Ordinance does not control what property owners may do on their own properties, and so urged the applicants to persuade those with frontage on Nettleton Hollow Road to preserve their own properties. Mr. Charles stated the Town has jurisdiction only in the Town right of way. The preservation of stone walls, old trees, scenic vistas, etc. along Nettleton Hollow Road on private property is not protected under the Ordinance. When asked why the Town does not do more to protect the scenic aspects on private properties, Mr. Charles explained the Scenic Road Ordinance is authorized per state statute and the Town may not exceed the powers it is granted by the state.

Mrs. Hill referred to the April 5th minutes, which stated the First Selectman had informed the Commission the Town would continue repaving Nettleton Hollow Road and would soon be doing bridge repair work. He had noted he would try to install scenic guard rails on the bridge. Mr. Charles suggested the applicants talk to Mr. Cannavaro to voice any concerns they might have about the upcoming road work.

Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:53 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 7:54 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.

Consideration of the Minutes

The April 5, 2005 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.

Page 1: Mr. Fowlkes was not present.

Page 2: Last line: Insert a period after "property owners." And insert the following sentence, "He also noted that property boundary lines and their proximity to the road vary throughout Town."

Throughout: Change "complained" to "voiced concern."

MOTION: To accept the April 5, 2005 Regular Meeting

minutes as amended. By Mr. Charles, seconded

By Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

The April 18, 2005 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.

Page 1: 5th line under Contract: Change "was" to "that."

MOTION: To accept the April 18, 2005 Special Meeting

minutes as amended. By Ms. Gager, seconded

by Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept subsequent business not already

posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles,

seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Pending Application

Scenic Road Designation for Nettleton Hollow Road

Mr. Orsini took the statements of support to file in the Town Clerk's Office as required by the Ordinance.

MOTION: To approve the application to designate

Nettleton Hollow Road as a scenic road

with the condition that proof be

submitted to the Land Use Office that

the statements of support were filed in

the Town Clerk's Office as required by

the Ordinance. By Ms. Gager, seconded by

Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Depot Business District Study: Mrs. Roberts noted the first meeting with Wilbur Smith/Robert Orr Associates (WSA) had been held the day before and that the study was off to a good start. She thanked everyone for their cooperation. The Advisory Committee was discussed.

Members: Most of the people recommended to serve on this committee had been contacted and agreed to participate. Mrs. Roberts will contact the few who have not yet given definite answers and ask others to serve if necessary. A letter will be sent to each committee member to confirm his appointment and to notify him of the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. with WSA. Mr. Rimsky asked if the Advisory Committee (AC) members who serve on a Commission will represent that Commission. Mrs. Roberts said they would not. She added the Committee is only advisory and would not be voting on any policies. Mrs. Roberts noted that WSA recommended two Planning commissioners serve on the AC and that they had not yet been officially designated. Mr. Charles said he would like to serve on the committee, but noted there was nothing to prevent any Planning member from attending all the AC meetings. Mr. Rimsky said he planned to attend all of the meetings. Mrs. Roberts asked if Mr. Roraback, state senator, should be notified that the study is beginning. It was the consensus that this would be a good idea as he may want to attend some of the meetings.

Organization: Mr. Rimsky voiced serious concerns that the Advisory Committee members would not have time to congeal into a functioning body prior to the charrette process. He said WSA had not satisfactorily explained how the AC members would deliver a defined point of view to the charrette. He was very concerned that in streamlining the process, the AC had lost a meeting; that meeting being the one where the information gathered would be processed. He wanted the AC to have the opportunity to bring substantive input to the charrette, but did not see how this would be possible given the time constraints. He thought the Planning Commission would have to help this group to ensure its success, but worried Planning did not yet understand how this group would function. He thought this was a crucial point where the process could fail. Mr. Rimsky was concerned the AC members would not have enough background information or knowledge of the process to answer questions from the public when asked. Mr. Charles agreed and noted the Commission would have to keep a close watch over the AC process. Mrs. Roberts asked Mr. Rimsky to write down his concerns so they could be faxed to Mr. Donovan. Also, Mrs. Hill will forward the minutes to WSA so it will be aware of the Commission's concerns.

Discussion of the Depot Study continued.

Publicity: It was noted press releases will be one of the ways to increase the public's awareness of the Depot study. Mrs. Roberts will work on the first release, which will run the week of May 9th.

Flood Plain: It was noted this issue had been brought up during the Depot tour and that WSA would follow up on it. Mr. Rimsky said the flood plain would affect everything in the Depot and so suggested that if the Commission had concerns, it could hire its own expert to advise it on this matter.

Set Up/Organization: Mr. Rimsky noted the mechanics of the charrette had to be planned in advance, but the Commission had no idea at this point what it would be expected to supply. Mrs. Roberts said WSA was making a list of its requirements and would get it to the Commission as soon as possible.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Gager.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

May 2, 2005

Special Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mr. Fairbairn - bus tour only

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Donovan, Mr. Moorehouse, Mr. Orr, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears

I. The Planning Commissioners, Mr. Sears, Mr. Donovan, Mr. Moorehouse, and Mr. Orr took a tour of the Washington Depot Business District.

II. At 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Roberts called the discussion portion of the meeting to order.

Mr. Dononvan presented the chart, "Phase I Task Schedule and Due Dates," which, he said, would serve as the discussion outline. The following topics were considered:

Vision: The Commissioners had several specific questions; how far into the future should they look, should a maximum build- out of the Town be done first, etc. Mr. Orr, however, urged the Commissioners to look at the big picture, the "whole dream," and to envision what the ideal community would be if there were no barriers. Good ideas would be more important than technical constraints in Phase I. Mr. Orr stated the Commission could not get bogged down in limiting factors for Phase I to be effective.

Advisory Committee: Mr. Donovan noted the first meeting with the Advisory Committee would be held in Week #3. Mrs. Roberts advised him most of the committee members had already been selected. Mr. Charles pointed out there was no architect on the committee because it was thought there should be a subcommittee of local architects. He voiced his concern that there were only two months to "shape, control, and push the process." Mr. Rimsky, on the other hand, was concerned that subcommittees might "fracture the focus." Mr. Donovan said an important function of the AC would be to gather information and to act as a conduit for public opinion, but not to disseminate information to the public. He said questions should be directed to WSA and the public should be urged to attend the charrette to get the answers to questions first hand. Mr. Rimsky asked if at its first meeting on 5/16 the AC would be given a task list. Mr. Orr asked the Planning Commissioners to write up their visions for the Depot. He thought this would help the AC members understand the process and be more productive. Mrs. Roberts asked how to explain to the AC what its role will be. Mr. Orr said WSA would prefer to handle that itself. He again urged the Commissioners to write up their dreams for the Depot for the AC to review and discuss.

Preparation for Charrette: Mr. Donovan noted how important a big build up and a lot of publicity would be in order to obtain full townwide participation in the charrette. He said WSA would prepare material the Commission could use for publicity. He thought the idea of putting a display tent outside the Town Hall would be an effective way to generate interest in the process. Mr. Rimsky thought the tent should contain maps, suggestion sheets, sample work, agenda for the charrette, etc. Mrs. Roberts suggested the publicity should begin soon. She was already concerned that erroneous rumors were circulating around Town. Mr. Donovan said by 5/19 he would have the charette schedule prepared so the Commission could use that information in its press releases, which he recommended should begin as soon as possible.

Charrette: The charrette was scheduled for June 16-18.

Staff Requirements: Mr. Donovan will send a sheet with specific requirements as soon as possible.

Study Area: There was disagreement about whether the study should include the entire Depot Business District or just the village center area. WSA favored working on only the village area to start because the larger the study area, the weaker the vision would be. Mr. Rimsky did not want to leave the development of the section of the district along Bee Brook Road to chance and suggested the study include a discussion of appropriate uses along Bee Brook Road. Mr. Orr suggested that during this study the Commission would establish a new way to look at issues and come up with solutions that could be used in the future along Bee Brook Road and in other parts of Town. Mrs. Roberts also thought that by studying the village center, the focus would be inward with thoughts of how to improve what exists, rather than outward and of expansion. Mr. Orr thought it best if the Commission concentrate on the village and on gaining the public's trust and in learning what can be accomplished with everyone in Town working together.

DOT Concerns: Mr. Moorehouse asked why the Town was concerned with improving the roadway. Mr. Charles responded that Rt. 47 bisects the Town and discourages people from walking. Speeding traffic and unsafe parking were other problems noted. Mr. Moorehouse hoped he could get a sympathetic DOT official who would focus on pedestrian safety to serve on the AC. It was hoped the DOT could be present for at least some of the charrette.

Study Details: Mr. Donovan said he would send the Commission a progress report every two weeks and it was agreed communication would be through Mrs. Hill in the Land Use Office. It was suggested some subcommittee responsibilities could be to get census data organized, to assemble previous Town reports and plans, and to obtain environmental data. Mr. Charles asked for information about the Depot prior to the flood and Mr. Rimsky suggested the aerial photo taken six months before the flood be found. Mr. Donovan stated probably either WSA or area businesses would conduct traffic counts in the Depot. At the first AC meeting the information needed for the study will be discussed and it will be determined whether AC members can supply it or WSA staff will have to work on it. Mr. Donovan will check with FEMA concerning flood plain issues.

Work Order: WSA asked the Commissioners to do the following:

1) Finalize the make up of the Advisory Committee

2) Come up with a list of what you like/don't like about the Depot and your dream for the future.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

April 18, 2005

Special Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr.Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears

Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.

Mrs. Roberts read the 4/11/05 letter she had written to the Board of Finance requesting funds for Phase II of the Depot study and offering to attend a Finance meeting to provide additional information.

The upcoming Depot Business District study was discussed.

Contract: Mrs. Roberts explained there would be separate contracts for Phase I and Phase II due to budget constraints and the budget process. Mr. Frank said he had many contract questions, many which would be answered upon receipt of Schedule A. He suggested was the terms of termination be changed. He noted under the proposed contract, the Town and Wilbur Smith Associates mutually or Wilbur Smith alone could terminate the contract. Mr. Frank noted the Planning Commission should also be allowed to terminate it or it should only be allowed to be terminated by mutual agreement. He also questioned the provisions of the arbitration clause. Mr. Sears explained the contract process. The draft contract would be sent to the Town Attorney for review, upon his approval the Board of Selectmen would approve it, and finally the First Selectman would sign the document. He asked Mrs. Roberts for a letter from the Planning Commission asking the Board of Selectmen to enter into contract with Wilbur Smith Assoc.

Work Space: Commissioners speculated about whether Wilbur Smith Associates and Robert Orr (WSA) would want to work from a tent pitched on the front lawn of the Town Hall. A tent would have to be large enough to accommodate staff, equipment, and the public and would require sides in case of bad weather. While it was thought that a tent would draw public attention and be a great location for the charrette, it was pointed out that it would not be secure and that it would be inconvenient for staff to have to set up equipment each day. The ongoing construction in the Town Hall was noted. It was not known exactly where in the Town Hall space would be available for staff, but it was noted it would have to be visible and easily accessible to the public. The Commission will ask Wilbur Smith what services it will require and how much space will be needed.

Publicity: Although a tent would provide more publicity, if the work space was in the Town Hall, it was thought a banner hung over the front steps would be effective. A visual presence, the appearance of a festive event at Town Hall, would draw the public in. It was agreed signs have to be posted around Town well in advance of the charrette. The local churches will be asked to put notices in their bulletins. If the charrette can not actually take place outside in a tent, it was thought a smaller tent with displays could be pitched outside to get the public's attention. It was noted the Commission had planned to make the signing of the contract a publicity event, but that there would not be enough time to do so at this point.

Schedule/Logistics: Mr. Charles thought the Commission would have to be well prepared to carry out such an aggressive schedule as the one drawn up by WSA. He suggested the schedule be reviewed week by week so it would be understood what the Commission was responsible for. If after such a review it was thought all the required work could be accomplished in such a short time, he said then the Commission could decide to go ahead. Other Commissioners stated the Commission had already committed to begin the study. Mr. Charles voiced his concern that public interest in the school budget and proposed school renovations would detract from the public attention the Depot study deserves. He noted the Commission would have a great deal of work to do in weeks 2-3 to collect the data required for the charrette. Mrs. Roberts responded that would be the responsibility of WSA. Mr. Frank urged the Commission to request document A, which will state who will be responsible for what.

Special Meeting, May 2nd: Mrs. Roberts said she had reserved a bus for the "walk" around the Depot, which would start at 4:00 p.m. It was noted the Primary School, Cook Street, and the Bee Brook "gateway" area should be inspected, but that Steep Rock should not be included. Mr. Charles thought WSA should also inspect the New Preston and Marbledale business districts so they would understand the nature of those village centers. He said that each of the centers did not have to be all things for the Town. Mrs. Roberts noted the Depot study would serve as a basis for future work in the other commercial districts, but said there was too much on the 5/2 agenda to include additional inspections. It was thought that WSA could visit Marbledale and New Preston on its own. Mr. Charles thought all advisory committee members should attend this meeting, but other Commissioners understood this meeting was to be the start-up/work session meeting with the Planning Commission only.

Goals: It was noted WSA had asked the Commission to define its specific goals as these would determine in part what work had to be done in Phase I. Mrs. Roberts stated two of the goals were 1) enabling a greater diversity of housing options in the Depot and 2) establishing a walkable community.

Events After the Charrette: The Commission was unclear whether the charrette summary in week 8 would be for the Commission only or for the general public. It was thought public feedback would be important.

Specific Questions/Requests for WSA: 1) When will the final contract be sent? 2) When will Exhibit A be sent? 3) When will an updated work schedule be prepared. The Commission would like these as soon as possible.

Advisory Committee: Mrs. Roberts noted she had a list from WSA of recommended people to serve on this committee. It was the consensus, however, that some of them, representatives from COG and the Board of Education and the Town Planner, for example, were inappropriate for Washington and that the Commission could come up with a more representative committee. Mr. Charles thought there should also be subcommittees set up for specific tasks with members of the advisory committee chairing each. Some commissioners thought this would be too much work to expect of advisory committee members, while others thought it would be a good way to involve more of the community in the process. The Planning Commissioners thought it was important to include a Zoning Commissioner on the advisory committee, but Mrs. Roberts cautioned that Mr. Martin, Zoning chairman, felt any Zoning Commissioner who participated in Phase I would have to disqualify himself concerning any zoning matters addressed in the implementation phase. Mr. Sears, the Planning Commissioners, and attorneys present did not agree that this was a legal concern. A lengthy discussion followed concerning who should be asked to participate on the advisory committee. The following people will be asked:

1) Andy Shapiro (Zoning, Lions Club)

2) Joanne Caldera (Real estate, Garden Club)

3) Kathy Gollow (Town employee, church liason)

4) Susie Payne (Conservation Commission, Steep Rock, Greenways)

5) Joan Gauthey (Park and Rec)

6) Dan Sherr (Conservation, Depot resident, Greenways)

7) Jim Brinton (Zoning, Business community, Depot resident, Fire Dept.)

8) John Allen (Businessman, Building and Properties Committee)

9) Pam Collins (Town employee, Depot resident, Senior Center)

10) Fran Keilty (Business community - retail)

11) Peter Houldin (Business community, young adult, Depot resident)

Also, the following will serve on the committee: two Planning Commission members, the First Selectman, and a DOT representative.

Mr. Sears reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming Zoning Commission informational meeting on housing diversity on Monday. April 25.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

April 5, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky,

Mrs. Roberts

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Byerly

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Treadway, Mr. Sears

PUBLIC HEARING

Scenic Road Designation for Sunny Ridge Road

Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank for Mr. Byerly and Mr. Charles. She then read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/23 and 3/30/05.

Mrs. Roberts noted for the record all of the documents in the file. (See attached list.) The photos, which the Commissioners had studied at the last meeting, were circulated.

Mr. Charles arrived at 7:36 p.m. and was seated.

Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had conducted a site inspection in March.

Mr. Treadway stated all of the frontage owners along the road except one had signed statements in support of the scenic road designation.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the

application for scenic road designation

for Sunny Ridge Road. By Mr. Charles,

seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:39 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 Regular Meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Byerly.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 3/1/05 Regular Meeting

minutes as presented. By Ms. Gager,

seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 3/22/05 Special Meeting

minutes as written. By Mr. Fairbairn,

seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To add subsequent business not already

posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles,

seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Scenic Road Designation for Sunny Ridge Road: It was noted Sunny Ridge Road has several of the criteria necessary for scenic roads as specified in the Ordinance. Mr. Charles noted scenic road designation controls what the Town can do to the road, but it does not control what the property owners can do on their lands along the Town right of way. He said most property owners do not realize that the Ordinance does not prohibit them from altering the old trees, stone walls, scenic vistas, etc. which contribute to the scenic character of Sunny Ridge Road. He suggested the frontage owners get together to make a commitment to protect the scenic aspects of their properties with deed restrictions. Mr. Treadway noted Sunny Ridge Road is in an historic district, so there would be some control over what activities are permitted within the view from the public way. Mr. Charles asked if the state would erect scenic road signs for tourists. Mrs. Hill and Mr. Frank stated the Ordinance states there will be no scenic road signs.

MOTION: To designate Sunny Ridge Road as a scenic

road. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Ms.

Gager, and passed 5-0.

Scenic Road Designation for Nettleton Hollow Road: Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had made a site inspection. She reviewed the documents in the file. Mr. Charles again voiced his concern that the scenic aspects along the road were actually out of the Town's control and subject to the whims of property owners who often do not realize they do not own up to the road pavement. Mrs. Roberts stated, on the other hand, that Washington residents resist being told what they may and may not do on their own properties. It was noted the Ordinance had been adopted as authorized by state statute. Mr. Sears, First Selectman, said the Town has been paving Nettleton Hollow Road over the past three years, would be doing bridge repair work this summer, and would try to install a scenic guard rail. There was a lengthy discussion regarding whether it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to notify/educate property owners about the shortcomings of the Scenic Road Ordinance. Mr. Fairbairn pointed out how difficult this would be to do, noting the Town's right of ways are not uniform throughout Town, and the only way to determine exactly where the front boundary lines are located, would be by surveying them, a process over which the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction. It was the consensus to continue at Planning Commission meetings to note for those present the limitations of the Ordinance.

MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider

the application for designation of

Nettleton Hollow Road as a scenic road

at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 in

the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial

Town Hall. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by

Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Town of Washington/Referral/Section 8-24/New Building and Outside Storage at Town Garage/10-12 Blackville Road: Mr. Sears was present. The map, "Alternate "A" Public Works Garage Expansion Prepared for the Town of Washington," by Mr. Howland, dated 10/04, marked "preliminary" was reviewed. The Town proposes to construct an unheated, open garage and outdoor storage area on the upper portion of the site. Mr. Sears noted the driveway to the proposed area of development had already been installed. Mrs. Roberts said she would like the existing tree line to remain as a buffer. Mr. Sears pointed out the trees that would remain for screening. Mrs. Roberts also suggested the new building be a natural color so it could not stand out. Mr. Fairbairn agreed with Mrs. Roberts, noted how visible the existing buildings are from higher elevations, and urged Mr. Sears to install landscaping and buffering to set a good example. Mr. Charles also recommended architectural changes to improve the appearance of the facility. Mr. Charles complained the new Town Garage property had not been efficiently planned to handle both the garage and storage needs of the Town. He recommended Mr. Sears consult with Mr. Underwood, who had been a member of the original site selection committee, about the optimal use of the property. Mr. Sears said he would do so. Mr. Sears noted he would like Planning approval as soon as possible so the project could go out to bid and the work be done this season. Mr. Charles thought the Commission should wait to vote until more information on the storage needed was received and final plans were ready, but the rest of the Commission thought final site plan features would be under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission when the Special Permit was applied for.

MOTION: Per Section 8-24, the Washington Planning

Commission approves plans by the Town of

Washington for outside storage and an

unheated, open garage at the Town Garage

facility at 10-12 Blackville Road with

recommendations that 1) buffering and land-

scaping be considered and extended, 2) the

new building be a neutral color, and 3)

the work done be consistent with the

criteria listed in the Special Permit

section of the Washington Zoning Regulations.

By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky,

and passed 5-0.

Mr. Rimsky asked if there was any room for outside storage at the firehouse. Mrs. Roberts said this could not be used for that purpose due to the existing agreement with Steep Rock and the proximity to the Shepaug River. She suggested the Town property next to the state garage on Rt. 202 be used for storage.

Town of Washington/School Street/Pavilion Bathrooms: Mr. Charles noted the pavilion was currently under construction. He complained that the Town of Washington and the regional school's building committee are not aware of each other's plans and said the building committee was concerned that the installation of the septic system for the Town pavilion would limit the school's future options. He thought it was unfair that the building committee had been told it could not expand the Primary School beyond its existing footprint due to the location of the flood plain, but the Town had approved the pavilion and septic in the same flood plain. Mrs. Hill noted the plans had been approved by both the Health Department and the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Charles thought both the school renovation and the construction of the pavilion bathrooms should have waited until after the completion of the Depot study. Mr. Sears recommended that various scenarios for the Primary School property be considered as part of this study.

Depot Business District Study: Mrs. Roberts asked the Commissioners to begin thinking about who should be asked to serve on the advisory committee. She stressed that the committee members must be available for all meetings in order for the process to be successfully completed. Mr. Charles hoped the Planning commissioners would attend all advisory committee meetings to keep themselves up to date so they could, in turn, advise the subcommittees of all progress. He also hoped all subcommittee members would be permitted to listen in on all advisory committee meetings. Mr. Charles and Mr. Rimsky said they were uncomfortable with the agreed upon schedule that would have Phase I completed by mid July because they thought the process would be rushed. A Special Meeting to discuss the advisory committee was scheduled for Monday, April 18, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. It was also noted a Special Meeting had been scheduled for Monday, May 2, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. with Wilbur Smith Associates to walk the Depot and begin work on Phase I. Mrs. Hill reminded the commissioners that Wilbur Smith had asked them to define their specific goals for the study for discussion at the May 2 meeting.

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

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

March 29, 2005

Special Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Donovan, Mr. Morehouse, Mr. Orr

Mr. Charles called the subcommittee meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. and noted the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the contract for the Depot Business District study with representatives from Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA). It was noted Mrs. Hill had provided Mr. Donovan with the questions and issues raised at the 3/22/05 subcommittee meeting.

Mr. Donovan submitted the sheet, "Phase I Task Schedule and Due Dates." The ensuing discussion basically followed the outline of this document, which is attached. He thought this schedule was a practical way to get the greatest results from the funds budgeted.

Topics discussed included:

Advisory committee: Mr. Donovan noted from the discussion during WSA's interview and the issues raised at the last meeting, he was not sure whether the Planning Commission wanted to use an advisory committee, but the schedule had been set up to include one. He envisioned a committee of 10 to 15 members consisting of representatives from the DOT, local businesses, residents, Planning Commission members, Board of Selectmen, etc. Mr. Orr explained the committee members would have a responsibility to keep in touch with their constituency, so they should be respected citizens and good communicators. He recommended the Commission ask good candidates to serve rather than waiting to see who might show up, noting the Commission would steer the process by who it asks to participate. Mr. Morehouse cautioned that advisory committee members would be expected to attend all meetings so the work could progress on schedule. The committee meetings will be conducted by WSA who will be responsible for supplying informational materials to the committee members prior to each meeting. Mr. Moorehouse said before the May start up meeting, WSA would give the Commission a list of typical groups that should be represented on the committee. The first advisory committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for the week of May 17th.

Subcommittees: Mr. Charles suggested that the use of subcommittees would involve more members of the community in the process. WSA thought there would be a lot of overlapping of responsibilities with the advisory committee, but thought since there was adequate time in the schedule during weeks 3-5, it would be OK to try this process. He recommended the subcommittees be short lived, each chaired by a member of the advisory committee. Mr. Orr thought it would be appropriate for one of the subgroups to collect information on the pre flood Depot. Mr. Charles suggested subcommittees covering land use, transportation, economics, life style, and visual images.

DOT representative: Mr. Orr said WSA would contact a DOT rep. who would support the concept of a pedestrian oriented town. Mr. Morehouse explained in recent years the DOT has committed itself to context sensitive solutions, which it will support as long as they do not impede safety.

Duration of Phase I: It was noted Phase I as scheduled would last 12 weeks. Mr. Charles questioned whether this was possible considering the Commission is used to operating on a monthly basis. He thought perhaps base maps could be drafted and the Commission could have several meetings in preparation of Phase I prior to week #1. He also thought WSA should review the RFP before week #1 to advise the Commission about issues that it should have included. Mr. Donovan pointed out this was included in the week #1 schedule in the start up meeting with the Commission. It was thought it would be helpful if the Commission was clear on its goals before the week #1 start up meeting as the goals it specifies will guide what work will be done.

Site inspection of the Depot: It was noted WSA would walk the Depot with the Planning Commission at the beginning of the process and probably several other times, too.

Publicity for charrette: Mr. Donovan stated there would be many newspaper articles and the charrette schedule would be posted well in advance of the event. He said there would also be advance meetings and public work sessions to draw in the public before the charrette. Mr. Orr suggested a newsletter might be sent to all households.

Charrette: Mr. Donovan explained this would be a 4 to 5 day activity scheduled for week #7. It will be held over several days, including the weekend, and at various times, including evenings, in an attempt to involve as many from the public as possible. There will also be four advisory committee meetings during this time frame. Mr. Donovan explained the process is intense and quick in order to keep the public's interest and that the WSA staff usually stays in Town while it is in progress. The charrette concludes with a presentation for the public.

After the charrette: One final work session is scheduled after the charrette. Mr. Donovan noted the process will be completed within 3 weeks of the charrette. He said the follow up process could be condensed to help address budget constraints.

Schedule: It was debated when the best time to conduct Phase I would be. All agreed to eliminate the summer months because too many people are away. Some wanted to begin right away so the work could be completed by July 4th, while others suggested the Commission would be better prepared if Phase I began in the fall. It was the consensus to begin at the beginning of May, which would mean the charrette would probably be conducted the week of June 16th.

Staff: Mrs. Roberts said she had consulted with the First Selectman regarding hiring temporary staff for Phase I. Mr. Donovan said it would not be necessary for Mrs. Hill to attend the advisory committee meetings because WSA takes its own notes. Mrs. Hill pointed out, however, that several Planning Commissioners had expressed interest in attending these meetings, and if more than two commissioners were present, official minutes would have to be filed. Mr. Charles said the Commission would prefer that Mrs. Hill continue with Commission business, while the temporary staff helps the WSA staff.

Phase II: Phase II would tentatively begin in September.

Budget: Mr. Donovan noted the $29,900 listed in the proposal was a guideline figure. He said he would refine the budget based on this afternoon's discussion and send the revised draft to the Commission in a few days. Mr. Frank asked that the budget be broken down to show the cost of each segment of Phase I.

Start up meeting: The Commission will meet with WSA staff to begin Phase I on Monday, May 2, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will include a tour of the Depot Business District and an educational process that will include consideration of the history and geography of the Depot.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

March 22, 2005

Special Meeting

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

MEMBER PRESENT: Mrs. Roberts

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

Mr. Charles called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. and noted the purpose of the Special Meeting was to review issues pertaining to the upcoming contract negotiations with Wilbur Smith Associates on March 29th. The following questions and issues were raised:

12 Person Advisory Group

What is this group's role?

How is it structured?

Will it work for our constituency?

How many meetings does Wilbur Smith plan to have with it?

Principal Liason

What is this person/representative from the Planning Commission in charge of?

What is his role?

How does this work?

Town Staff

What exactly will Wilbur Smith do vs. what does it expect the Town staff to do? This must be detailed exactly. It looks like a lot will be expected from staff, and this is a concern.

If the Town does not have the staff to handle the workload, how much will Wilbur Smith charge for doing it?

Robert Orr

What is his role?

What is the nature of his contribution?

How available will he be vs. the project manager?

General Questions/Issues

How much would a map of the Depot (as it was prior to the flood) cost?

It was stressed during the interview that an early relationship with the DOT is crucial. What decisions has Wilbur Smith made regarding who the DOT contact will be?

The Subcommittee wants the Planning Commission to be educated by Wilbur Smith and the DOT at the beginning of the process about the "realm of possibilities" for the Depot. It is very important that both the Commission and the 12 person advisory committee have a sense of what is possible from the onset of the study.

The Subcommittee also thinks it is crucial that the Planning Commission meet with the 12 person advisory committee several times at the beginning of the process. This kind of meeting does not appear to be included in the contract estimate. Is it included? If not, how much extra would each meeting cost?

Reminder for all: The Town Garage property on Titus Road must be a crucial element of the study.

The Subcommittee wants more than the two public sessions outlined by Wilbur Smith. How much will each additional session cost?

What is the best order in which to get the project done?

Main Issue-Public Outreach

The Subcommittee thought Wilbur Smith was weak on public outreach and also did not know who on the firm's staff would be assigned to handle it. Therefore, it spent the majority of time addressing this matter. It was assumed the Planning Commission would have to conduct additional public outreach and research beyond what was the responsibility of Wilbur Smith and that Wilbur Smith would come up with the "final package" based on this outreach and research. Mr. Charles said he would consult with Mr. Sherr, Conservation Commission, regarding the methods and timetable for public outreach and would compare his suggestions to those made by Wilbur Smith at the upcoming 3/29 meeting.

There was a lengthy discussion concerning who should be appointed to the 12 person advisory committee. It was decided there should also be subcommittees made up of specific groups including weekenders, local architects, social groups such as the Art Association, Garden Club, Steep Rock, Senior Center, Lions Club, etc., and an infrastructure subcommittee, which would include Mr. Cannavaro, road foreman. Subcommittee members suggested the following be represented on the advisory board: 1) Planning Commissioners should be able to participate, 2) business owners, 3) Fire Dept. and Emergency Services members, 4) DOT representative, 5) Charles LaMuniere from the Inland Wetlands Commission, 6) Ruth Alex (representing local residents), 7) Conservation Commission, 8) Zoning Commission, 9) Board of Finance - perhaps Ms. Adams because she has a real estate background, 10) Park and Rec Commission, 11) Town government - perhaps Mr. Allen from the Building and Properties Committee. Other possible participants, either on the advisory committee or in other subcommittees, were 1) church community, 2) real estate community, and 3) Depot residents. There was no decision regarding whether Marbledale and New Preston residents should be included so they could gain experience they could use when studies are done on their districts in the future. It was thought the school community would be represented by Park and Rec.

The opportunity for a major announcement/event to kick off the study, educate the public, and involve the public was discussed. Ideas included another Town picnic, using the annual September Steep Rock picnic as a kick off event, having quarterly pot luck suppers, writing an informational article for the Washington Times, making the contract signing an event, and holding a Friday afternoon townwide reception similar to the one held annually to honor Town volunteers. Whatever event is planned, it was stressed that it must include all segments of the community.

Mrs. Hill was instructed to contact Wilbur Smith Assoc. to ask for six copies of the draft contract as soon as possible so that it could be reviewed before the negotiation meeting and for a calendar/time line of the proposed process.

The next Special Meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. The Subcommittee will meet with representatives from Wilbur Smith to negotiate the contract for the Depot study.

Mr. Charles adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

March 1, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

PUBLIC HEARING

Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Roads/2 Lot Resubdivision

Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Mr. Byerly. She read the 3/1/05 letter of withdrawal from Mr. Neff, authorized agent. It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had denied this application without prejudice.

MOTION: To accept Mr. Neff's 3/1/05 letter of

withdrawal for the Stiteler-Giddins

application for a two lot resubdivision

at 198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore

Road. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr.

Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING

Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 2/1/05 Regular Meeting minutes

as written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr.

Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 2/2/05, 2/3/05, 2/15/05,

and 2/22/05 Special Meeting minutes as

written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by

Mr. Byerly, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To include subsequent business not already

posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles,

seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Scenic Road Designation for Nettleton Hollow Road: It was noted an application had been submitted. It was briefly reviewed and the accompanying Assessor's Map showing the property owners in support of the designation was noted. A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, March 5, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. The Commissioners will meet at the intersection of Sunny Ridge and Nettleton Hollow Roads.

Pending Application

Scenic Road Designation for Sunny Ridge Road: It was noted a site inspection had been conducted. A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.

Other Business

Depot Business District Study: Mrs. Roberts noted that although second interviews for some of the firms had been completed, the Commission could consider any of the applicants; none had been eliminated at this point. There was a lengthy discussion in which each Commissioner listed what he perceived as the strong points and weak points of his three top choices for consultant. When a poll was taken, Wilbur Smith Associates was the unanimous first choice. There were several concerns about that firm's proposal, however. It was decided a subcommittee would meet with representatives from Wilbur Smith to negotiate a contract and make sure the following issues/concerns/questions were addressed:

Public outreach: It was thought this process should be tailored more to Washington's unique needs. Several Commissioners were concerned about a "garden club" scenario, where the public would be hostile to new ideas if not brought into the process at the very beginning.

Advisory group: The firm had not provided enough details on the organization of this group. The Commission wanted to be able to fully participate in this group and also thought as much of the public as possible should be involved so that the Town feels it owns the process.

Vision: Some worried that Mr. Orr has such a strong sense of vision that he would impose his own on the Town rather than draw out the public's vision.

Project phases: It was agreed the contract should include a two step process.

Availability: The Commission wanted to be certain Mr. Orr will be accessible and "set up shop" in Town.

Development: Talk of bringing developers in was not well received. Wilbur Smith must see Washington as it is and plan for changes to evolve from within.

Budget: It was thought the proposed budget might have to be adjusted to include more advisory group meetings and more public outreach meetings.

MOTION: To enter into contract negotiations with

Wilbur Smith Associates for the Depot

Business District study. By Mr. Rimsky,

seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.

The budget request to the Board of Finance for the Depot study was discussed. It was noted last year Mr. Bender had requested $75,000, a figure, it turns out, very close to the budgets proposed this year by the firms responding to the RFP.

It was agreed a subcommittee consisting of Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Charles, and Mr. Frank would meet to negotiate the contract with Wilbur Smith Assoc. They tentatively scheduled a meeting for March 15 to prepare for the negotiations. It was hoped a contract would be ready to present to the full Commission for approval at the next meeting on April 5th.

Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: It was decided this matter would be tabled until after the completion of the Depot study.

Communications

Mr. Sears' GIS Update memo was briefly discussed. Mr. Blake will attend a meeting with interested land use officials on March 9, 2005 to talk about the Town's mapping capabilities. It was thought both Mrs. Osborne and Mrs. Hill should attend.

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

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted, Janet M. Hill

---

February 22, 2005

Special Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager,

Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears

ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Barrett, Ms. Gould, Mr. Donovan, Mr. Orr, Mr. Kalluri

The purpose of this Special Meeting was to conduct second interviews for the Depot Business District study with Fitzgerald and Halliday, Inc. and Wilbur Smith Associates.

Mrs. Roberts called the Fitzgerald and Halliday, Inc. interview to order at 2:45 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fairbairn for Ms. Gager. She noted Mr. Fairbairn would be seated until Ms. Gager arrived. She stated the firm had been sent a list of questions to help it prepare for the interview.

Ms. Gould and Ms. Barrett addressed many of the questions.

Communications: Mrs. Roberts noted the Town staff was spread thin and asked how much it would be relied on for communications. Ms. Gould said it normally relied on the Town staff, but could take on that responsibility if the Commission would be comfortable doing so.

Land use and planning skills: Ms. Gould noted the Commission had been concerned that her firm was geared too much towards transportation issues. She described its land use planning skills and experience and cited several towns for which it had successfully completed this kind of project. Land use information sheets were circulated.

Advisory group: Ms. Gould said this could be a subcommittee of the Planning Commission or the Commission itself. Either way, it would be important to bring in as many stockholders as possible. Ms. Barrett said the optimal size would be however many people were needed; that it was less an issue of how many than it was how do you get the people to the table. She recommended someone from the DOT and Litchfield Hills Bureau of Tourism be included in the group. Ms. Barrett suggested there could be at large members to help keep the size of the group from becoming unwieldy. She stated the advisory group members would receive materials to review prior to each meeting, the meetings would be two hours long, and would start on time. Advisory group members would be expected to report back to the organizations they represent.

Outreach: Ms. Barrett stated the Commission would first identify individuals to include on the advisory committee and then would (or the consultant would if the Commission preferred) call them individually to invite them to participate. Concerning town wide meetings for public outreach, Ms. Gould said two or three were built into the cost of the project; additional meetings would cost extra. It was noted the website, Town newsletter, press, and display boards would also be used. Drawing in the business community was noted as a special concern. Business stakeholders would be invited to attend special early morning or evening meetings where they could communicate what they perceive to be the needs of the business community. Ms. Barrett stated the firm would be responsible for public outreach.

Visioning Process: Mr. Sears stated how important it would be to build a strong consensus and not let any one interest group control the process. Ms. Barrett said they would work to learn what values Town residents have and what they like and don't like about the Depot before developing a vision. Residents would be encouraged to walk around the Depot. Once the vision is formulated, specific proposals to address it would be presented and the residents would vote their preference. Ms. Barrett noted the Depot would be considered as a unit and would be planned for as a unit.

Total budget: Mr. Charles asked if at a certain point in the process the whole contract should be reconsidered and services found to be necessary added at that point. Ms. Gould noted any market or build out analysis would cost extra.

Implementation: Ms. Gould said her firm would not rewrite the Zoning Regulations, but would prioritize the issues to be addressed, identify who would be responsible for working on each, and advise the Commission where it could get funding. She said it would be possible to send the Commission examples of applicable zoning regulations from other towns.

Team: It was noted Ms. VanBenschoten has experience and an ongoing relationship with the DOT.

Physical Models: Mr. Charles asked if a physical model showing maximum build out of the Depot would help to show the public the practical potential of the Depot. Ms. Gould thought photo simulations along with the land use map and Zoning Regulations would show the potential. Ms. Barrett noted pictures show a willingness for flexibility that models do not.

DOT: Possible road realignment, traffic calming techniques, on street parking, etc. to recreate the village center feeling that existed in the Depot prior to the 1955 flood were discussed. Ms. Gould noted the DOT has vehicle safety as its priority, but in recent years has considered context sensitive design.

The interview ended at 3:35 p.m.

Mrs. Roberts called the Wilbur Smith Associates interview to order at 4:02 p.m. and noted the firm had been sent a list of questions to help it prepare for the meeting.

Mr. Donovan, Mr. Orr, and Mr. Kalluri addressed many of the questions raised.

Team: Mr. Donovan would be the project manager and said he would work closely with the rest of the team. He said his expertise is in land use and transportation. Mr. Morehouse and Mr. Kalluri would work on transportation issues such as analyzing the existing conditions, considering the rerouting of highways, and looking at the larger picture of how the highways relate to the development of the Depot. Mr. Kalluri detailed his experience working with the state traffic commission and the DOT, saying he had many contacts in each department and had worked on both design and road realignment. Mr. Orr would be an integral part of the staff, working on land use issues and leading the public involvement process. Mr. Donovan stated the firm's staff is large and includes an economist, a civil engineer, a zoning specialist, and a septic specialist. The extent of the participation of each would depend on the direction the project takes.

Total budget: Mr. Orr said the firm understood the Town was trying to accomplish a lot with limited resources. He noted the in house expertise would help keep costs down, but said once the Commission has decided on the most important issues to address, it will have to prioritize in order to "get the biggest bang for the buck."

DOT: Mrs. Roberts asked if the DOT should be brought into the process early on. Mr. Kalluri said it should, recommended the Commission work with the DOT liaison for this region, and offered to tailor the process to maximize DOT participation if that was what the Commission wanted. He noted the difficulty of working with the DOT since it has a long range plan process, but said he had experience working with the office of project planning and that it would consider context sensible solutions that include a neighborhood concept. He said it would be sensible to include the DOT liaison on the advisory committee. Mr. Orr noted DOT's standard is "mobility," whereas, the Commission's standard should be "walkability." He recommended the term, "walkability," be incorporated into local legislation as it is a standard understood by the DOT.

Advisory committee: Mr. Orr agreed a DOT representative should serve on this committee, but recommended no one be asked until it had been determined who in DOT was most sympathetic to the Commission's goals. Mr. Donovan said he would welcome local legislators, other land use commissioners, members of the business community, etc. to serve on the committee, but said groups of more than twelve could be unwieldy. Both Mr. Orr and Mr. Donovan thought the advisory group would be more successful if the Commission chose its members. The committee would meet at least five or six times, Mr. Donovan explaining that the more the committee members become involved, the more they buy into the process.

Total budget: Mr. Rimsky said the Commission did not know at this point if it would need some of the budget items, work on waste management systems for example, and asked if the budget figures were flexible. Mr. Donovan said they were, especially in Phase II. To clarify, Mr. Fowlkes asked if the Commission could renegotiate after Phase I when it knew better what its priorities were and Mr. Donovan said it could.

Charrette process: Mr. Orr explained this process has three purposes; the most important one being to educate the public. It also solicits public input and shows what the vision will look like based on input and education. Mr. Donovan said the charrette would be created as a unique event, advertised a month prior to taking place, and would draw a lot of public participation.

Outreach: Mr. Donovan noted business people don't often attend public work sessions so his firm either meets with them on a one on one basis or with small focus groups. Mr. Orr said public outreach is normally done on weekends, but that they would vary this according to the Commission's wishes to include as many people as possible.

Working with Planimetrics: Mr. Charles noted the Town's long relationship with Planimetrics and asked if Wilbur Smith could envision a situation where Planimetrics would handle community outreach and revision of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Donovan said public relations would have to be handled by Wilbur Smith, but that once the vision was clear, the Commission could work with someone else to implement it. Mr. Sears said he expected the consultant hired would carry the Commission through the entire process.

Implementation: Mr. Orr thought any discussion about revision of the Zoning Regulations was premature as the vision probably would not fit into the standard zoning regulations. He said form based rather than use based zoning would most likely be proposed. Mr. Donovan noted the uses currently permitted in the Depot Business District, for the most part, already fit in with the village center concept. It was noted the vision would be based on common sense. Mr. Donovan circulated an example of a matrix chart for implementation, which showed what the recommendations were, who would be responsible for each, what the time frame should be, etc. Mr. Orr stressed that whatever regulation changes were needed would be drafted in language that everyone could understand.

Visioning process: Mr. Donovan stated a combination of sketches, historic photos, pictures of what exists elsewhere, and photos of what exists here now would be used to illustrate possibilities for the public. He said the development of the vision would have as its base both what is here now and what was here in the past and would get the community thinking about its future. Mr. Donovan said the Town would not be told where it should go; the firm would help it to decide and give it the tools to get there. Phase I would end with an overall plan that would be put in the physical form of a vision and the steps to get there would be identified. Focusing in on the two or three most important aspects of the vision would come under Phase II.

Planning and Design: Ideas about planning and design for the village center were discussed throughout the interview. These included the physical limiting factors of the Depot area, the possibility of a beautiful and densely populated center, how mixed uses would contribute to the vitality of the District, the importance of pedestrian focused design, the improvements in septic design that could enable higher density development, the rural, village feel of the pre flood Depot, use of density to create a sense of community, how the traditional use of architecture would contribute to the plan and sense of community, etc. Mr. Donovan ended the interview saying that as part of the public education process the community would understand that change is happening and the Town can let it happen or can direct it to respond to its needs.

The interview ended at 5:18 p.m.

Mrs. Roberts directed the Commissioners to reflect on all the information presented during all the interviews conducted this month and to be prepared to discuss all proposals and possibly select a firm at the Regular Meeting on March 1. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

February 15, 2005

Special Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Byerly

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Flinker, Dodson Associates, Ltd.

Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and noted the purpose of the meeting was to conduct a second interview with Mr. Flinker from Dodson Associates. She said he had been sent a list of the Commission's questions and concerns.

Mr. Flinker stated he understood the Commission liked Dodson's small town approach to design, his method of illustration and visual presentation, and method for consensus building, but had questions about the team that would be working on the project and implementation.

Team: Mr. Flicker said a conceptual study would be done first and then the additional studies needed for the later project phases would be identified. If needed, BETA Group, Inc. would be used for engineering. That firm does traffic planning, has Ct. DOT experience, has worked with Dodson Assoc. on several master plans, and understands how the concepts and plans fit together.

Implementation: Atty. Zizka will draft suggested zoning revisions and possibly work on establishing Village District regulations if such measures are called for in the final report and estimated this work would cost $4000 to $5000.

Economics: Because there had been interest raised during the first interview about economic issues in the Depot, Mr. Flicker said, if needed, he would work with RKG Associates, Inc., a company that is sensitive to the needs of small towns and has done other economic development studies in Ct. He noted a full economic study would add an estimated $20,000 to $25,000 to the total cost of the project and RKG's involvement in a community charrette would be about $5000. Mr. Fairbairn asked if this firm could do a study of how the development in surrounding towns is impacting the Depot. Mr. Flinker said it could and would be knowledgable about existing studies it could draw upon. Economic issues/questions/concerns raised by the Commissioners included the following: high rents by absentee landlord, lack of retail space, how to protect the retail businesses already in the Depot, how to expand to include diversified and "support" businesses, how to encourage more residences in the Depot, how to achieve a pedestrian focus, making the Town attractive to investors, possibility of changing/realigning the existing state highways through the center of Town, and how to slow traffic.

Other topics that were addressed included:

Flood plain: Mr. Rimsky pointed out much of the Depot Business District is located in the flood plain. He did not think the current boundaries were realistic because many of the causes of the 1955 flood no longer exist. He suggested the Town work with FEMA to get the flood plain boundaries revised.

Visioning process: Mr. Flinker said illustrations would be used to garner community support. He said design standards would be linked to the vision. He noted although a base map and computer analysis would be used in producing the illustrations, he found computer design results less useful for dealing with the public than his illustrations.

Physical models: Physical models can cost from $10,000 to $60,000 when done by a professional model firm. Mr. Flinker said Dodson Assoc. could produce models using railroad model materials from $5000 up, but asked what the purpose would be. He said more alternatives could be explored using drawings.

Budget: Mr. Rimsky was concerned about add-ons to the total cost of the project. He noted the problem the Commission has in trying to budget for the project when it won't be known until after the conceptual study is completed what additional studies/consultants will be needed and how much each will cost. It was again noted an ecomonic study would be an extra $20,000 to $25,000 and Atty. Zizka would charge $4000 to $5000 for draft language for revisions to the Zoning Regulations.

Advisory committee: Mrs. Roberts said she thought the Planning Commission would be the core of this group. Mr. Flinker said it was difficult at this stage to say how large the advisory group should be, but said it was difficult to work with larger groups. He thought 10 to 12 members would be the most effective size.

Outreach: Mr. Flinker stated going out to meet with business owners on a one on one basis would be the most effective way to get their input, but would be time consuming and costly and was not included in the budget. He recommended that the Commissioners invite them to a meeting. He presented examples of outreach materials; surveys, computerized brochures, etc.

Charrette process: Mr. Frank asked if a two day charrette was the usual procedure. Mr. Flinker said the participants would be involved interactively to generate ideas and it would be difficult to come to a conclusion in one afternoon. Day I would include: tour of the Depot, drawing of concepts, presentation of concepts, and revision of concepts, which would result in two or three alternative possibilities to be presented at an evening meeting. He said this process would draw out concerns and ideas from the public. He thought the most efficient way to publicize the charrette was for the Town to call reporters, do press releases, mail a survey notice, use the website, etc. He noted better results would be obtained from an intense process involving many people.

Total budget: Mr. Charles asked how including the topics discussed would affect the total budget. He also voiced his concern the Commission hadn't supplied enough information in the RFP so the total cost of the study could be calculated. Mr. Flinker stated his firm could do a thorough job for the $35,000 stated in Dodson's proposal, but it was too early in the process to know if additional work would be needed. Mr. Rimsky noted with the firms who submitted large budget figures the Commission might be purchasing services it will not need, but with Dodson's method of starting the planning process before assessing what other services might be needed, the Commission would not be able to plan ahead. Mr. Flinker said his firm is experienced in stormwater management, traffic calming, etc. and so would not need much assistance from outside firms. Mrs. Roberts asked him to submit typical cost quotes from the engineering and economic firms he would be working with so the Commission would have comparable figures to compare with the figures submitted from other consultants.

Natural and cultural resource corridors: Mr. Flinker noted his experience in the preservation of historic cultural and landscape features, study of how they relate to the area, and how much needs to be protected to preserve the history of the area.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

February 3, 2005

Special Meeting

12:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears

Mrs. Roberts called the Special Meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts. She noted Alternates Fairbairn, Fowlkes, and Frank were present. It was noted the purpose of the meeting was to interview firms for the position of consultant for the Depot Business District study. Each firm was asked to make a 15 to 20 minute presentation, which would be followed by questions from the Commissioners.

1. Dodson Associates, Ltd.

1:00 - 2:00 p.m.

Present: Mr. Flinker, Ms. La Cour

Follow-up Commission Remarks/Issues:

Mr. Rimsky: Pro: Knowledge of small towns.

Mr. Sears: Pro: Team understands a lot of background work already done so won't waste time and money redoing it.

Mr. Frank: Small town operation is refreshing.

Ms. Gager: Experience in historic preservation.

2. Planimetrics in association with Ferrero Hixon Associates, LLC.

2:30 - 3:30 p.m.

Present: Mr. Chalder, Mr. Ferrero, Ms. Howe

Follow-up Commission Remarks/Issues: The interview was not discussed immediately afterwards.

3. Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. in association with RGR Landscape Architecture & Architecture PLLC. And Peter Talbot, AIA Architect

4:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Present: Mr. Buckhurst, Mr. Talbot

Follow-up Commission Remarks/Issues: The interview was not discussed immediately afterwards.

Following the last interview a general discussion about the applicants took place. The following remarks about the firms were made, but were not necessarily agreed upon by all.

Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.:

Pro: Con:

Early involvement of DOT Advisory group approach

Experience with DOT Uninspiring graphics

Strong on implementation

TPA Design Group:

Pro: Con:

Energy of leader Disorganized

Concept of public event re: Style-approach difficult to work with

50 years after the Flood

Economic component integral

Greater sense of energy than

other teams

Economic highest and best use

Addressed: flood, grants for

funding, ecotourism,

citizen planners

Wilbur Smith Associates:

Pro: Con:

Researched Washington-felt

resulting Plan would be

uniquely Washington

Passion, energy

Sense of place

Has own sense of vision-------Which it might try to push on us

Orr's oblique drawings Orr's oblique drawings

Orr is landscape architect

as Plattus recommended

would be good to include

on team

Idea of intense development

of center

Thought Town potential for

award winning Plan

Dodson Associates, Ltd.:

Pro: Con:

Stakeholder interview ideas No DOT element

Early involvement of DOT No implementation element

Good drawings

Experience with small towns

Environmental balance

Understanding of small towns

Get core stakeholder consensus

prior to first public

meeting

Planimetrics - Ferrero Hixon:

Pro: Con:

Team assembled as needed Unappealing technology

Smaller, closer to us Not specific - too general

Studied Washington-felt Chris Wood no longer w/firm

resulting Plan would be

uniquely Washington

Passion, energy

Sense of place

Has own sense of vision-------Which it might try to push on us

Thought Town potential for

award winning Plan

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc.:

Pro: Con:

Only firm that mentioned

Village District

Value Talbot's opinions

Other general remarks included:

Necessary to compare intimacy of smaller firms with contacts of larger firms

Larger firms appear to have set agendas

Resulting Plan must be acceptable to the people who pay the taxes

Need to make sure implementation included in final price

Must bring all stakeholders into process

Need good drawings/models/illustrations for public education

Firm needs strong relationship with DOT

Good to include architect and/or landscape architect on team because they have a better sense of "how things come together

Compare firms with vision vs. firms strong in implementation

Need to involve DOT at beginning of process so we know if what we want is possible

It was decided to call back three firms for further questions: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Dodson Associates, and Wilbur Smith. The person who would be in charge of the team will be asked to attend. A list of questions will be sent in advance to each. Mrs. Hill will try to schedule the interviews on the afternoon of February 15.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:30 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

February 2, 2005

Special Meeting

12:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn (left early), Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears

Mrs. Roberts called the Special Meeting to order at 12:55 p.m. and seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts. She noted Alternates Fairbairn, Fowlkes, and Frank were present. It was noted the purpose of this meeting was to interview firms for the position of consultant for the Depot Business District study. Each firm was asked to make a 15 to 20 minute presentation, which would be followed by questions from the Commissioners.

1. Fitzgerald and Halliday, Inc. in association with Milone and MacBroom, Inc.

1:00 - 2:10 p.m.

Present: Ms. Vanbenschoten, Ms. Gould, Ms. Barrett, Mr. McDermott - Milone and MacBroom

Follow-up Commission Remarks/Issues:

Mr. Rimsky: Pro: DOT depth. Local approach. Con: Concerned about public outreach and makeup of advisory committee. Awkward mechanism. More experienced in urban issues.

Mr. Fairbairn: Advisory committee is critical component of their approach. Need to focus on implementation. Need to get business people involved.

Mr. Frank: Concerned about emphasis on traffic issues.

Mr. Charles: It is up to Commission to come up with vision, but need consultant to make us aware of all the possibilities so the vision is not limited.

2. TPA Design Group

2:30 - 3:35 p.m.

Present: Ms. Ferro, Ms. Heslin, Mr. Kenney - AMS Advisory Services, Mr. DeSantos -Fuss & O'Neill

Follow-up Commission Remarks/Comments:

Mr. Rimsky: Pro: Economist on the team.

Mrs. Roberts: Con: Presentation unorganized. Style of project manager unsuitable.

Mr. Charles: Pro: Good idea to have educational event about "rebuilding" 50 years after the flood.

3. Wilbur Smith Associates

4:00 - 5:15 p.m.

Present: Mr. Donovan, Mr. Kalluri, Ms. Rauche, Mr. Orr

Follow-up Commission Remarks/Comments:

Mr. Rimsky: Pro: Good focus on creating sense of place. Encouragement about creating public space is engaging. Con: Did not get sense of clarity. Three day charette not workable.

Ms. Gager: Pro: Mr. Orr's contribution if he is involved in team and is hands on. Con: Work model, wwork process was loose.

Mr. Sears: Pro: Emphasis on people friendly places and public places for interaction. They studied Washington.

Mrs. Roberts: Pro: Very focused. Pointed out wasted space in Town. Con: Orr's oblique drawings.

Mr. Charles: Pro: Mr. Plattus had advised the Commission hiring a landscape architect was the way to go.

Mrs. Hill: Pro: They studied history of Washington. Felt whatever plan they come up with will be uniquely Washington.

Mrs. Roberts reminded the Commissioners to meet again at 12:30 in the Land Use Meeting Room on February 3. She adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

February 1, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Byerly, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Frank

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr./Mrs. Korzenko, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Mustich, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Adams, Mr. DuBois, Mr. Kleinberg, Mr. Wellings, Mrs. VonHoorn

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/2 Lot Resubdivision/Con't.

Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Charles read the legal notice published in Voices on January 19 and January 26, 2005. Seated were Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts. Mrs. Roberts recognized that all the Alternates were present.

Mrs. Roberts asked Mr. Neff, engineer, if a sign had been posted on the property at least ten days prior to the hearing as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Neff said it had.

Mrs. Roberts reviewed the list of documents/information still missing from the application. Mr. Neff noted he had submitted his map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 1/20/05, which addressed some of these items. He also submitted the green certified mailing receipt cards, a survey map by Mr. Alex revised to 2/1/05 and a letter dated 2/1/05 requesting a waiver of the requirement that state plane coordinates be shown on this map. Mrs. Roberts noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet approved the application and advised Mr. Neff that if he wanted the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing to wait for Wetlands approval, a written request for a 35 day extension would be required. Mr. Neff stated he would submit a request for an extension.

It was noted in addition to a request for a waiver of the state plane coordinate requirement, requests for waivers of the open space requirement and landscaping plan had been previously submitted. Mr. Neff said a landscaping plan was not needed because only a minimum number of trees would be cut and no trees would be cut adjacent to the road because the accessway already exists.

Mrs. Roberts asked for public comment.

Mr. Kleinberg said he would be in a better position to comment after the Inland Wetlands Commission had raised its concerns.

Mr. Frank asked about the status of the application before the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Neff stated it was pending.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider

the application submitted by Stiteler-

Giddins for a 2 lot resubdivision at 198

Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road to

March 1, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use

Meeting Room. By Mr. Charles, seconded by

Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.

At 7:42 p.m. Mrs. Roberts continued the public hearing to Tuesday, March 1, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.

Application for Scenic Road Designation for West Morris Road

Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:43 p.m. Mr. Charles read the legal notice published in Voices on January 19 and January 26, 2005. Mrs. Roberts seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.

Mrs. Roberts briefly reviewed the conditions found along West Morris Road that meet the criteria requirements for designation as a scenic road under the Scenic Road Ordinance and noted the application was complete. Photos of the existing road conditions were circulated.

Mrs. Roberts noted a site inspection had been conducted and she, Mr. Frank, and Mrs. Friedman had attended.

Mrs. Korzenko noted she and her husband have lived on West Morris Road since 1981, said it was a beautiful road frequented by horseback riders, and thought it should remain in its current condition. She said she would not like to see it improved so that it becomes a shortcut.

It was noted that most of the full time residents on the road were in support of the application and that over 50 percent of the frontage owners had signed statements in support as required.

Mr. Fairbairn began a discussion about the proper procedure for filing statements of support on the Town Land Records and Mrs. Hill was asked to check this matter out with the Town Attorney.

Mrs. Friedman noted the requirement to send a notice by certified mail to all frontage owners was very costly and recommended an amendment to the Ordinance that in the future the certified notice be required only for those owners who had not already signed statements of support. Mrs. Roberts said Mr. Gitterman of the Conservation Commission had already discussed this matter with the Commission, but the Commission had felt that even though this was burdensome for the applicant, it provided all property owners the opportunity to voice their concerns. She also noted the Planning Commission could not revise the Scenic Road Ordinance; this would have to be done at a Town Meeting.

It was noted no concerns had been raised by the Selectmen's Office or road crew.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the

application for scenic road designation for

West Morris Road. By Mr. Charles, seconded

by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

At 7:59 p.m. Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing.

These public hearings were recorded on tape and are on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.

REGULAR MEETING

Mrs. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. She seated Members Byerly, Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and noted Alternates Fairbairn, Fowlkes, and Frank were present.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 1/4/05 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.

Page 1: Meeting date should be January 4, 2005.

9th line from bottom: Change bee to been.

Page 3: 3rd motion: Correct spelling is Fairbairn.

MOTION: To accept the 1/4/05 Regular Meeting minutes

as corrected. By Mr. Charles, seconded by

Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To accept the 1/22/05 Site Inspection minutes

as written. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr.

Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To include subsequent business not already

posted on the agenda; 1) Application for

scenic road designation for Sunny Ridge

Road and 2) 2005-2006 Budget. By Mr. Charles

seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/2 Lot Resubdivision: It was noted the public hearing had been continued. Mrs. Hill advised the Commission the deadline for action by the Inland Wetlands Commission is 2/20/05. Mr. Charles thought Mrs. Weeks' 1/27/05 letter should be read into the record at the 3/1/05 session of the hearing.

Application for Scenic Road Designation for West Morris Road: It was noted West Morris Road was a perfect example of a scenic road and that it met many of the scenic road criteria listed in the Ordinance.

MOTION: To approve scenic road designation for West

Morris Road. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr.

Byerly, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Charles noted the scenic road designation only prevents the Town from making unnecessary road improvements; it does not protect the scenic qualities on the private properties along the road. He suggested to Mrs. Friedman that she educate the property owners about protecting the rural character of their parcels.

New Application

Application for Scenic Road Designation for Sunny Ridge Road

The application had been submitted earlier in the day and had not been reviewed for completeness.

A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, February 12, 2005 at 9:15 a.m. The Commissioners will meet at the intersection of Sunny Ridge and Nettleton Hollow Roads.

Other Business

Appointment of New Commissioners: Mrs. Roberts announced that Ms. Gager had been appointed a full Member and Mr. Fowlkes had been appointed an Alternate. She welcomed them both to the Commission.

Referral from the Board of Selectmen/Installation of Cistern at Nick Platt Field/Church Street, New Preston: Mrs. Roberts reviewed the 10/7/04 Board of Selectmen minutes, which contained the motion of approval by the Selectmen for installation of the cistern at Nick Platt Field and their 9/23/04 minutes, which noted the Board would refer the matter to the Planning Commission per Section 8-24 of the state statutes. These minutes indicated the Selectmen had approved installation of a 20,000 gallon cistern with the assumption the WCHT would pay for it. Mr. Charles stated this was an error; that in fact, the WCHT had agreed to contribute the money it would have cost to install a 10,000 gallon cistern on its own property, and the remainder of the cost would have to be paid by the Town. He was not sure how the Commission should respond to the referral since there had been an error in the Selectmen's motion. Mr. Fairbairn thought the issue of who would pay for the installation was not relevant to the Planning Commission's considerations. Mr. Charles stated it was a good idea to put the cistern on municipal property so it could be accessed to protect all the homes in the area, not just 16 Church Street. Mrs. Roberts voiced her concern that the installation of the cistern would preclude the use of the field for future development. Mr. Charles responded that the field was originally wetlands, so he was not sure what its potential development could be and that the cistern would be installed at the front of the property under the existing parking area and so would have no impact on the use of the field. Mr. Fairbairn agreed and said because it was filled wetlands, the field could probably never be used for the installation of a septic system. It was the consensus the Planning Commission had no objection to the proposed installation of the cistern at Nick Platt Field.

Depot Business District Study: Mrs. Roberts noted interviews of consultants would be held on 2/2 and 2/3/05. Mrs. Hill said she had asked that the teams who would actually work together on the project attend the interviews. Mrs. Roberts recommended each Commissioner prepare questions to ask those to be interviewed. Mr. Rimsky thought these questions should include information on construction and use of a 3D model, realistic economic projections, working in cooperation with the Zoning Commission, involvement of the public in the process, and what they thought would be the biggest obstacles they would encounter. The history of the Depot was discussed. Mr. Fairbairn said he had found a 1934 map of the Depot, which would be useful. Mrs. Roberts noted that when the public is educated about the makeup of the Depot prior to the 1955 Flood, it would understand that the vision the Commission now has for pedestrian emphasis in a more defined village center is not a radical one. It was agreed reference materials like the 1934 map and Mr. Bader's photos would help the public understand the best of the past and compare it to what was proposed for the future of the Depot. The Depot as a business center and the need to encourage mixed throughout it and to attract practical businesses to it was discussed. Mr. Charles pointed out that Section 8-23 of the state statutes states the Town Plan of Conservation and Development shall be a statement of policy goals and standards for the Town including economic goals, which had not been adequately addressed in previous Plans. Mrs. Roberts noted changes in the existing Depot Business District boundaries would be considered. She passed out a sheet that included topics discussed on the Commission's tour of the Depot. Mr. Rimsky thought people would come to the town center if there was a reason for them to do so. He said how to provide them with a reason to do so while improving accessibility and preserving the rural, small town, local feel was the problem the Commission had to work on solving. It was decided the Commission would continue to meet after the final interview on 2/3 to hopefully select a consulting firm or to narrow the choices and decide who would be called back to be reinterviewed.

Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Fairbairn said he would have a list of issues for the Commission to discuss at the next meeting.

2005-2006 Budget: Mrs. Roberts noted the budget is due by 2/15/05. She said the First Selectman had asked if the $4000 in consulting fees from this year's budget could be put toward GIS mapping costs. Her initial reaction, however, had been that the Commission was not sure how much additional funding it would get for the Depot study and so it should keep the $4000 to put towards that. The rest of the Commission agreed. It was decided to wait until after the completion of the interviews to determine how much to request for consulting fees, although it was anticipated the cost would be high in order to make sure there was adequate public participation and models/illustrations for public education.

Land Use Seminar: Mrs. Hill again recommended that Commissioners attend the Land Use seminar on 3/5/05.

Lighting: Mr. Papsin of Mygatt Road asked whether the Commission would address the issue of excessive lighting in Town. He gave examples of properties in Town that glow at night. Mrs. Roberts advised him this is a zoning issue and said the Planning Commission had already written to the Zoning Commission in support of its plan to draft regulations to regulate lighting because it is essential that it be controlled to preserve rural character. She read the 1/21/05 letter she had written to the Zoning Commission. Mrs. Hill said she had heard WEC was working to bring a lighting expert and member of Dark Skies International to Washington to speak on this matter. Mr. Rimsky assured Mr. Papsin the Planning Commission would investigate whether it would be possible to make the lighting in the Depot less obtrusive when it conducts the Depot study.

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

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

January 6, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Byerly
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Frank
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mrs. Weeks, Mr. Klein, Mr. Kleinberg, Press

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/2 Lot Resubdivision

Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank. Mr. Charles read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/22/04 and 12/29/04.

Mrs. Roberts noted for the record all the documents in the file. (See attached list.)

Mrs. Roberts said the adjacent property owners had not yet been notified of the hearing as requlred, and so the hearing would have to be continued.

Mr. Neff stated he had met with an official from the state DOT who checked the sight lines and approved the driveway location. Written approval is expected soon.

Mrs. Roberts briefly reviewed Mrs. Hill's review of the application, noting in particular, the following deficiencies: 1) the $30 state tax had not been submitted, 2) there was no written approval from the DOT, 3) adjoining property owners had not been notified of the hearing, 4) a list of the names and addresses of the adjoining property owners had not bee submitted, 5) a sign advertising the hearing had not been posted on the property for 10 consecutive days prior to the hearing, and 6) the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet approved the application. She also noted the applicants had requested waivers of two sections of the Regulations and said the Commission would have to act on each request.

Mr. Kleinberg said he would comment at the next session of the hearing, but asked why the Commission would waive section 5.8.2.B of the Subdivision Regulations, which states land presently under a conservation easement may not be counted toward the open space requirement. Mr. Neff said there was a precedent for granting such a waiver and cited the Taylor subdivision application as an example. Mr. Fairbairn said the existing conservation easements met the purpose and intent of the Regulations and thought property owners who had previously donated open space should not be penalized. Mr. Frank asked if the proposed lot would be conveyed to a family member because open space is not required for subdivisions where the lots will be conveyed to certain family members as listed in the state statutes. Mr. Neff said the current property owner would retain ownership.

Mrs. Weeks, adjoining property owner, stated she did not oppose the resubdivision of the property, but did oppose the specific site plan and access proposed.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Stiteler- Giddins for a 2 lot resubdivision at 198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road to 7:30 p.m. on 2/1/05 in the Land Use Meeting Room. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

At 7:45 p.m. Mrs. Roberts continued the public hearing to 7:30 p.m. on February 1, 2005.

Beck/129 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Resubdivision

Mrs. Roberts called the hearing to order at 7:46 p.m. and read the 12/27/04 letter of withdrawal from Mr. Beck.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mr. Beck for a 2 lot resubdivision at 129 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:47 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

Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:48 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Fairbairn and Frank.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 12/7/04 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Fairbairn, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda; letter to Zoning Commission re: lighting. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Stiteler-Giddins/198 Tinker Hill Road and West Shore Road/2 Lot Resubdivision: It was noted the public hearing had been continued to February 1, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.

Application for Scenic Road Designation for West Morris Road: A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, February 1, 2005 immediately following the Stiteler-Giddins hearing.

MOTION: To schedule the public hearing to consider the application for scenic road designation for West Morris Road immediately following the Stiteler-Giddins hearing on 2/1/05 in the Land Use Meeting Room. By Mr. Faribairn, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

There were no new applications.

Other Business

Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 12.14 and 18.1: Copies of the proposed amendments were circulated and it was noted they pertained to the placement of noise generating equipment and clarification of the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant Special Exceptions. Mr. Fairbairn noted it is often difficult to prove a hardship when requesting permission to place noise generating equipment further than 25 feet from the principal structure served and so thought the proposed amendments were an improvement because they provided flexibility for applicants. It was the consensus to send the Zoning Commission a letter that Planning has no objections to these amendments.

Depot Business District Study: It was noted Mrs. Roberts' and Mr. Frank's reviews of the proposals had been mailed to all Commissioners. At the last meeting the number of firms to be interviewed had been cut to five, but after further discussion this evening, it was decided to interview six. The interviews will be conducted on February 2 and 3. Each will be one hour long with a 15 to 20 minute presentation and the remainder of the hour for questions from the Commissioners. It was the consensus that the Commissioners should be familiar with each firm's strong and weak points prior to the interviews and that the interviews would be comprehensive without the Commission drafting a set of base questions. Mrs. Roberts suggested the Commission inspect the Depot prior to meeting with the applicants. This inspection was scheduled for Saturday, January 22, 2005. Members will meet at My Chef at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Sears noted the Commission had put a lot of work into refining the RFP and so recommended that each firm be assessed using its responses to the RFP as the standard for comparison. Mr. Charles thought each firm should also be asked what additional issues should be included in the study. Mr. Frank suggested the Commission make an outline of what it is looking for and then judge how each applicant measures up to it. Mrs. Roberts noted in May that Mr. Plattus had asked the Commissioners for their vision for the Depot and thought a comparison of how each firm would help to achieve that vision would be important in determining which firm should be hired. Mr. Charles suggested two firms might be called back for second interviews with the final candidate to be chosen by March 15th. The budget was briefly discussed. Mrs. Roberts voiced her concern about negotiating the contract once a firm had been chosen. Mrs. Hill will notify by letter the firm not chosen for an interview. Mr. Charles thought it might be useful in educating the public to reconstruct a model of the Depot prior to the 1955 flood to show the wisdom of how the Town had developed before that time.

Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. Fairbairn is continuing with the work he and Mr. Bender began.

Lighting: Mrs. Roberts noted much of the new lighting throughout Town is not in keeping with surrounding neighborhoods and is undermining the preservation of rural character. She said the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development recommended regulations to control lighting. She said Zoning would soon address this issue and asked for the Commission's authorization to send that Commission a letter of encouragement and support. She cited the Tolland Zoning Regulations as a good example of lighting regs and noted WEC would soon have a speaker from Dark Skies International. Mr. Charles noted any lighting regulations should be based on minimizing disruption to the ecology and preserving rural character rather than on aesthetics.

MOTION: To authorize Mrs. Roberts to write to the Zoning Commission to express Planning's support of that Commission's decision to consider lighting regulations because the regulation of lighting will help to preserve Washington's rural character. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.

Public Comment

Town Strategic Planning Process: Mr. Sears spoke about the Town's strategic planning process. Strengths and weaknesses of the survey mailed out by the Selectmen's Office were discussed. Mr. Sears pointed out the survey was only one gage of public opinion; the Plan of Development and final reports of the Housing and Open Space Steering Committees were examples of others. Mr. Charles applauded the efforts made to reach out for community input, but worried the same segment of the community always responded. Mr. Rimsky agreed a "huge element" of the population was not yet engaged. Mr. Fairbairn hoped the Town would now take the initiative for open space and housing diversity rather than leaving these to private organizations such as Steep Rock and the Housing Trust. Mr. Rimsky noted a broad based, well informed public coalition would be needed to bring this about.

Land Use Law Seminar: Mrs. Hill noted a planning and zoning seminar sponsored by the Ct. Bar Assoc., entitled, "Connecticut Land Use Law for Municipal Land Use Agencies, Boards, and Commissions," would be held on Saturday, March 5. She said she had attended in the past and recommended it to interested Commissioners.

Commission Membership: It was noted there are currently two Republican openings on the Planning Commission, one of them open since July. The Commissioners spoke of the importance of filling these vacancies as soon as possible so there would be a full commission to work on the Depot study. Mr. Sears was asked to consider appointing new members on his own rather than waiting for recommendations from the Republican Town Committee since it was taking so long.

Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

---

Meetings in 2004