The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Planning Commission, 2006
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning Commission, 2006 |
|
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Planning Commission
December 5 •December •November 8 •October 17 •October 3 •September 12 •August 19 •August 1 •July 5 •June 6 •May 2 •April 4 •March 7 •February 7 •January 10 •Meetings in 2005 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
Posted: January 17, 2007 December 5, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Gager
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Brigham, Mr. Aragi, Ms. Dupuis, Mr. Sears, Press
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Ms. Gager.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 11/8/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/15/06 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: 1) the approval of the 2007 calendar and 2) Town of Washington plans for the municipal boat ramp at 59 East Shore Road. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Couch Road
Mrs. Hill noted the application had been submitted that afternoon and so there had been no time to review it.
Mrs. Roberts read the 12/4/06 letter from Mrs. Sherman, which stated 70% of the frontage owners support the application and that the road meets every standard for scenic road designation. It was noted the fee had been paid and photos were submitted. The portion of the Assessor's Map showing the road was reviewed.
A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, December 9, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. The Commissioners will meet at the corner of Couch Road and Rt. 202. Mrs. Hill was asked to invite Mrs. Sherman and any other interested Couch Road residents to attend.
Other Business
Aragi/9 Wilbur Road/Preliminary Discussion/8 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Aragi presented a rough preliminary map showing 8 lots, 7 acres of open space, and a Town road on the 34+ acre parcel. He asked the Commission for input before he drafted final plans.
Open Space: Because the configuration of the proposed open space looked like a basic buffer, Mr. Charles asked if Mr. Aragi had defined the valuable features on site or read the Natural Resources Inventory Report before he had delineated the open space. Mr. Aragi said he had spoken with the Inland Wetlands Commission who asked for more open space surrounding the wetlands to act as a buffer. He said he proposed open space around the perimeter of the property so that if open space were proposed on adjoining properties in the future, these areas could be linked. He said he would next be going to the Conservation Commission for input. Mr. Charles made the following points: 1) The Commission would have to conduct a site inspection before it could understand the site and offer appropriate comments. 2) The open space proposed in the loop at the end of the road was "ludicrous." 3) An ecological baseline study should be done to define what is worth preserving on the property. 4) The proposed subdivision layout looked very suburban. 5) Smaller lots could be approved if more land was committed to open space. Mrs. Roberts thought the 35 ft. wide buffer along Birch Hill Run was useless because it was not wide enough to be meaningful.
Density Units: Mr. Aragi calculated there were 11.5 density units as there was mostly A and B soils. The smallest proposed lot size was 2.77 acres and most of the lots were over 3 acres.
Wetlands: Mr. Aragi said there was only a small amount of wetlands on the property and that 25% to 30% of the proposed open space was wetlands. He noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had voiced its concern about development on the steep slopes above the wetlands.
Proposed Road: The proposed road was a dead end road off Wilbur Road. Mr. Aragi noted the cut was not proposed off Birch Hill Run because that is a private road.
Mrs. Hill questioned why Birch Hill Run was not yet a Town road. She noted that private roads are not permitted under the Zoning Regulations, that the Planning Commission had approved the Birch Hill Run subdivision with a Town road as its access, and the current proposal for two side by side road cuts onto Wilbur Road so close to the Wilbur Road/Rt. 202 intersection was poor planning. Mr. Sears and Mrs. Hill will research this matter.
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/Potter Farm Proposal: Mr. Charles recused himself. Mr. Sears had submitted the letter to the Commission dated 12/5/06 with the following attachments: 1) real estate contract, 2) restrictions and covenants for the affordable lots, 3) conservation restrictions, and 4) property/boundary survey. Mrs. Roberts suggested since the information had just come in, that a subcommittee study it, discuss it with the Town Attorney, and report back to the Commission at its next meeting. She appointed Mr. Frank and Ms. Gager as the subcommittee. Mr. Carey asked if the real estate contract had been executed. Mr. Sears said, no, the contract was not negotiable, but was contingent upon approval at a Town Meeting.
Mr. Charles was reseated.
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/Town of Washington/59 East Street/Boat Ramp and Parking: Mrs. Roberts appointed Mr. Carey and Mr. Rimsky to a subcommittee to review this proposal and report to the Commission at its January meeting.
Town Road Abandonment Policy: Mrs. Roberts suggested the Commission discuss its role in the Town's road abandonment policy in order to prevent future miscommunications between the Commission and the Board of Selectmen. A lengthy discussion followed. It was noted that the Commission had always recommended in the past that the Town retain rights for public access when formally abandoning a Town road and that both the Plan of Conservation and Development and the Natural Resource Inventory recommended this policy. The rights for public access would include pedestrian access and passive recreational uses. Reasons in support of retaining these rights included maintaining the history of the Town, the community's ability to walk the countryside, the Town's ability to monitor properties, and the potential to establish a greenway trail system throughout Town and the region. Mr. Sears detailed the current road abandonment process: 1) The Road Discontinuance Committee studies the roads and makes recommendations, 2) the Board of Selectmen invites affected property owners to a Board of Selectmen's meeting to discuss the possibility of abandoning the road, 3) the Selectmen refer the matter to the Planning Commission, and 4) if the Planning Commission concurs, the Board of Selectmen recommends a vote to discontinue at a Town Meeting. Mr. Charles noted the problem with Frisbie Road was that the Planning Commission approved the proposed discontinuance with the condition that the right to public access be maintained, but was not notified when the Selectmen decided to proceed without reserving that right. Mr. Sears offered to contact Planning earlier in the process if the Commission thought that would improve communications between the two boards.
Depot Study Update: Mrs. Roberts said there was nothing new to report. Mr. Sears noted how a minor point discussed at the Commission's November 15th Special Meeting became the focus of a recent newspaper article. He stated for the record that the Town has no plans for a traffic circle at this time.
Public Comment
Mr. Brigham asked for the Planning Commission's opinion about the Potter Farm proposal. He asked who would have the liability for the reclamation of the barns and other buildings. Mr. Sears stated the Potters would retain that liability. He then questioned the concept of floating envelopes and asked if either the Planning or the Zoning Commission could restrict them to certain areas. Mrs. Roberts advised him that because the Planning Commission would most likely have to consider a subdivision application for this parcel in the future, she did not think the Commission should make definitive comments or prejudge the application. Mr. Rimsky noted a subcommittee to study this matter had been set up and would report back to the Commission at its next meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding whether lot line revisions, a single first cut, or a subdivision application would be required for the main Potter parcel. It was noted the Potters would be and/or had been entitled to a first cut on each of their separate parcels; each parcel separated by Town or state roads. Mr. Carey recommended title searches be done by the owners to establish whether each parcel qualifies for a first cut. Further discussion was tabled until the subcommittee report is received.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted, Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 16, 2006 November 8, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mr. Szymanski, Press
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Braverman for Ms. Gager.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 10/3/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mrs. Braverman, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 10/17/03 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gager arrived and was seated.
Other Business
Referral from the Conservation Commission/Proposed Rural Roadscape District
Mr. Frank noted the Commission had requested that a representative from the Conservation Commission attend the next Planning Commission meeting to explain the draft Rural Roadscape Zone regulations. Mr. Boling stated the proposed regulations were an attempt to prevent clearing and regrading like that which had occurred along Fenn Hill Road from happening in the future along other roads in Town. He thought these regs were needed because the Scenic Road Ordinance applies only to actions by the Town, not to the actions of property owners along a road. He said he had discussed the technical aspects with Mrs. Hill since the last Planning meeting. A lengthy discussion ensued and included the following topics:
District Boundaries: Originally 25 feet on either side of the centerline of the road had been proposed, but since the widths of Town road right of ways vary, Mr. Boling suggested this be changed to 50 ft. He noted this did not mean all roads should be 50 ft. wide, but only that 50 ft. on each side of the centerline of a road should be regulated. He said he would consult with an attorney regarding whether this district could be legally established.
Relation to the Scenic Road Ordinance: The draft regulations would not take the place of the scenic road ordinance. Mr. Charles pointed out the state enabling statutes for scenic road ordinances are specific regarding their jurisdiction and they may not regulate activities on private property. Mr. Rimsky agreed additional regulations were necessary to protect the roadscape not already protected under the Scenic Road Ordinance. Mr. Boling thought the only legal way for the Town to provide this additional protection would be through the Zoning Regulations, but Mrs. Hill noted an alternate approach would be by Town ordinance.
Application Process: Mr. Boling explained if they were adopted, a new zoning district would be established and the proposed regulations would govern activities in that district. Mrs. Roberts asked if this would interfere with the Selectmen's process for approving driveway cuts. Mr. Boling said the proposal was an "overlay requirement," and driveway cut approval would still be needed from the Selectmen.
Utilities: It was asked whether CL&P would have to get a zoning permit for tree work within the rural roadscape district and whether the proposed regs could be used to prevent the utility company's "massacre" of the trees along Town roads. Mr. Boling said he would have to find out what rights the utility companys have and recommended, if adopted, that CL&P be notified. He also recommended that underground utilities be encouraged and above ground utility lines should require zoning permits. Ms. Gager questioned whether it would be CL&P or the property owner who would have to apply and pay for the permit. She pointed out that if the Commission denied a permit for the proposed work, CL&P would hold the property owner responsible for any resulting damage.
Legality: Mr. Frank asked if there were state enabling statutes for establishing this type of district. Mr. Boling said the Town attorney would have to review the legality of creating a separate district consisting of the land adjacent to the roads.
Design Standards: Mr. Frank voiced his concerns that 1) the Zoning Commission has in the past avoided specific design standards and 2) the standard of "traditional New England character" referred to in the proposed language was too vague.
Administration: Mr. Rimsky noted if the regulations were enacted there would be a significant increase in the number of zoning applications. Mr. Boling said most of them could be handled administratively.
Recommendations for Additional Input/Documentation/Provisions: Mrs. Roberts recommended that clear guidelines be established for work by the Town road crew. Mr. Frank suggested the proposal be referred to Mr. McGuinness while it is still in draft stage in order to obtain his input about what is allowed/how this problem is handled in other towns.
Referral Per Section 8-24 CGS/Installation of Generator at Town Hall: Mrs. Roberts read the 10/19/06 letter from Mr. Sears in which he provided answers to the questions raised at the last meeting. The commissioners studied the attached flood insurance rate map, revised 9/30/92, and saw the Town Hall property was not located in the flood plain. Mr. Charles questioned why the Commission had not received a more detailed design to review and why it had not been consulted at the beginning of the process. He did not think the Town should buy a generator without a warranty. Mrs. Roberts noted the proposed generator would not interfere with any future plans for a driveway around the Town Hall. It was noted that all of the questions raised at the last meeting had been answered, the Commission was satisfied with the responses, and the Commission had acted favorably on October 17.
Depot Study: The meeting with Mr. Orr was rescheduled for Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 1:00 p.m.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations
Sections 4.4.17, 6.6, 6.6.10, 6.4.6, and 21.1.28: It was noted the proposed revisions had been mailed out so that the commissioners would have time to review them prior to the meeting. Mr. Frank said he had attended Zoning's public hearings on 10/23, noted they had been continued to 11/27, and provided a brief explanation of each proposed revision. Basically, a new Section 4.4.17 was proposed to allow accessory structures necessary to the operation and/or maintenance of a golf course in the R-1 District by Special Permit, various minor changes regarding docks and fences were proposed to the comprehensive Lake Waramaug District regulations adopted in 2003, and an update of the definition of "fence" was proposed. It was the consensus the Commission had no objections to any of the proposals.
MOTION: The Planning Commission believes that the proposed revisions to the Zoning Regulations affecting docks and fences on Lake Waramaug, as modified by the Zoning Commission at its meeting on October 23, 2006, further the interests of the Town, consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development, in protecting and preserving Lake Waramaug as a significant recreational asset. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Approval of Conservation Easement for Upper Church Hill, LLC.: Mrs. Roberts read the 11/8/06 memo from Mrs. Hill, in which she reported Atty. Miles' comments about the final draft of the conservation easement language. His recommendations were: 1) Section 3.6: that a phrase be added to state the agricultural structures referred to must be for a use in connection with the permitted uses on the property and 2) Section 4.5.6: that the 30 days in which the Town has to act should be increased to 60 days, given the slow workings of municipal government. Mr. Boling and several Planning Commissioners objected to the above recommended change to Section 3.6 because in order to preserve the agricultural use of some open space, often the land is leased to a farmer who then farms the property. It was noted the preservation of agricultural land was one goal of the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Szymanski suggested Atty. Miles meant this phrase should be added to the Upper Church Hill, LLC. easement only and not to all open space easements in general. Mr. Boling, a member of the Conservation Commission, said he had never seen language like Atty. Miles proposed. Mrs. Braverman thought if this change were approved, it would set a dangerous precedent. It was the consensus of the commissioners to make the recommended change to Section 4.5.6 only; not to Section 3.6.
MOTION: To approve the document, "Proposed Conservation Restriction," received 10/24/06 for Upper Church Hill, LLC. with the following revision: in Section 4.5.6, 30 days shall be changed to 60 days. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Charles noted that in the future the Commission should consider requiring a $2500 fee from the applicant to help defray the future cost of monitoring the open space.
Sharon Association: Mrs. Roberts noted that she, Mr. Charles, and Mr. Frank had attended the last meeting of the Sharon Assoc. and had found it to be an interesting discussion of area towns' land use problems. The Association will meet four times a year; the next meeting scheduled for February. The commissioners were urged to attend.
Public Comment
Strawman, LLC./135 Juniper Meadow Road/Preliminary Discussion/ Affordable Housing Project: Mr. Charles recused himself because he is a partner in Open Space Equity. Mr. Boling of Open Space Equity circulated a map of the 13 acre hillside property behind Bee Brook Condos. He said he was working on a small scale cluster of 10 to 15 units in the southwest corner of the property with 75% of the parcel preserved as open space, which hopefully would be linked to open space on the adjoining Stuart farm. He noted the only access to the property was a right of way through the Bee Brook Condos. Ms. Gager recommended that Mr. Boling check whether there are any restrictions on the use of the right of way. Mr. Boling said another option would be a cluster of village scale houses on 5000 sq. ft. lots, which would be possible under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act. He urged the Commission to begin thinking about this option. Mrs. Roberts asked what the visual impact of the project would be. She did not think the Town wanted to see a suburban type development on a cul de sac or a large concentration of housing. Mrs. Hill pointed out the housing on The Green is concentrated, but that most people consider that area to be a beautiful section of Town. Mr. Boling did not think it would be seen from the Bee Brook Condos or from Rt. 47, but thought it would be seen from Stuart's farm and other adjoining properties. Mrs. Hill suggested that if it could be seen from Stuart's farm, he should also attend a Historic District Commission meeting for a preliminary discussion. Mr. Boling said he hoped to have a high quality design for the project and that the Zoning Commission would determine the units would not have to be identical. The Commissioners agreed the units should not be identical. Mr. Frank asked if there were any wetlands issues. Mr. Boling responded an access bridge would have to be constructed to enter the property.
Other Business
At the last meeting Mr. Carey had offered to research the Washington Supply Company property. He reported that it was stipulated in the title that there could be no residential use of the property. Mrs. Hill thought this was disappointing in light of the Depot study's recommendation of mixed use; commercial below with residential above, in the Depot Business District. Mr. Carey, however, pointed out the Planning Commission should be relieved that the Depot would not be over built, causing huge septic problems. Mr. Frank noted the deed restriction runs in perpetuity.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
October 17, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Press
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Referral Under CGS 8-24/Installation of Generator at Town Hall
Mrs. Roberts read the 10/6/06 letter from Mr. Sears to the Commission, which provided information that had been requested by the Commission at its 10/3/06 meeting about the proposed generator.
Mr. Charles asked if a Honda generator system that would be installed inside the building and generate heat and electricity had been considered. He said such a system would explore federal energy generation/distribution mandates and set a townwide precedent for quiet and efficient technology. Mr. Sears responded that while that was a good idea, such a system would be very expensive. He said the Town would be reusing a fully functional generator that it would be getting for a very low price to serve both the Town Hall and old firehouse. He said at this time the Town had no long range plans for improvements to the heating system. He also noted the installation of the generator on the north side of the Town Hall would replace the existing generator so that space in the old firehouse could be used to house police vehicles.
The Commissioners raised several questions: 1) Had noise been addressed? Mr. Sears said the generator would be housed in a sound deadening metal enclosure. Ms. Gager suggested the weekly test run should not be conducted during Town Hall business hours as the noise would be annoying. 2) Were the installation of the generator and the required trenching proposed in the floodplain? It was the general opinion that the floodplain did not extend to the Town Hall, but Mr. Sears said he would find out. 3) Who designed the system? Mr. Sears said it was done by a certified electrician. 4) How old was the generator and did it have a guarantee? Mr. Sears will find out. 5) How large was the propane tank and exactly where would it be placed? Mr. Sears pointed out a general area on the site plan, but said at this time he did not know the exact location. 6) Who would be responsible for its maintenance? The building and grounds manager would be the person responsible. 7) Did the generator include nozzles? Mr. Sears will find out. 8) Would the installation of either the generator or the propane tank interfere with any potential future plans for senior housing, extension of the driveway, or parking? Mr. Sears said they would not. 9) Since the generator would enable the Town Hall to be used as an emergency shelter, would the Town qualify for a grant from the Department of Homeland Security? Mr. Sears said he would look into this.
Mr. Charles said he had no confidence in the design proposed because a comprehensive study to address future needs had not been conducted. The other commissioners were generally in favor of the installation. Ms. Gager recommended the concrete pad be made large enough to accommodate a larger generator if needed in the future and the entire area be screened, not just the generator.
MOTION: To approve the installation of a generator on the north side of Bryan Memorial Town Hall per Mr. Sears' 10/6/06 letter subject to the receipt of satisfactory responses to the questions raised at the 10/17/06 Special Meeting. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-1.
Mr. Charles voted No because he thought a comprehensive study should be completed by the Town before energy needs are addressed on a current need basis.
Depot Study
Mrs. Roberts noted the Selectmen had requested a list of priorities for the Depot. After a lengthy discussion, the following list was agreed upon.
1. River Loop Property Walking Trail.
The Town should move forward to prepare this site for passive recreation as soon as possible.
It can put in the trail before the clean up of the entire property is completed.
This is the item the public listed as a top priority and the item that can be accomplished in the least amount of time with the least amount of funds.
2. Engineering Study and Plan for Bryan Plaza and Surrounding Area.
The Phase I plan by Wilbur Smith is a good starting point.
In addition to the study, feedback should be obtained from the other land use commissions.
Maintaining the flow of traffic around and through the Plaza should be included in the study.
A continuous driveway around Town Hall should be considered.
The traffic problems at the entrances/exits intersecting with the Plaza must be addressed.
Pedestrian access must be preserved.
The pedestrian crosswalks may have to be relocated. There should be a crosswalk going straight across from the Plaza to the Supply.
The study should include a survey of the thoroughfares, buildings, parking areas, and sidewalks and a report on how they all relate.
Parking needs must be addressed in context with the rest of the Depot.
3. Implementation of Traffic Calming Measures for Routes 47 and 109.
The consulting firm will draft a plan possibly including surfaced crosswalks, village entrance signs, trees, parallel parking, and other measures and then take the plan to the DOT for consideration.
The Selectmen would contact our state representative at this point to help with the DOT negotiations.
Railings (at the very least) should be installed along the outside of the walkways over the two Shepaug bridges to visually narrow the highway and slow the traffic entering the Depot.
4. Pedestrian Bridge Across the Shepaug River to River Road.
The more we orient the Town to people and to the river, the more we can get away from the focus on cars.
Finding out the cost of a bridge is a priority so the Town will know if it is, indeed, feasible.
In addition to listing the above priorities, the Commission made the following points:
The above priorities need not be done sequentially; there is no reason they can't be undertaken simultaneously. The Commission favors retaining Wilbur Smith Associates as the consulting firm. The Planning Commission is not responsible for the implementation of the plan, but it needs to be part of the implementation process, working with both Wilbur Smith and the Board of Selectmen to provide direction. Although there are additional goals, the Commission decided not to prioritize them at this point. It wanted a manageable list to begin the implementation process. Field work will be needed in the future to determine whether there are areas for viable septic systems in the Depot. The River Loop Property, Primary School property, and Town Hall lawn areas are examples of the sites that could be considered. The septic field work would be part of the larger comprehensive plan for the Depot.
Rural Roadscape Zone/Referral from the Conservation Commission
Mrs. Roberts read Section 1; Purpose, of the 7/5/06 draft. It was noted Mrs. Hill had circulated a preliminary critique at the last meeting. The Commissioners asked:
Is it possible to define traditional New England character? In addition, it was noted Rossiter architecture is not a typical New England style, but is an important part of Washington's character. Should the district be defined as the area within 25 ft. of the center of all public roads? Since the width of right of ways differ and the roads were not all placed in the middle of each right of way, it was thought some other standard measure was needed. Can a rural roadscape zone be legally established? The Commissioners asked if the Town Attorney had reviewed the proposal. Is the purpose of the proposed zone to take the place of the Scenic Road Ordinance, to supplement it, or what? Mr. Frank suggested the Conservation Commission be asked to make a presentation at the next Planning Commission meeting and it was agreed this was a good idea. Mr. Carey asked that Mrs. Hill's 10/3/06 review be forwarded to the Conservation Commission.
Procedure for Approval of Conservation Easement for Upper Church Hill, LLC.
Mrs. Hill explained when the Commission had acted on this subdivision last spring, it had conditioned approval upon Town approval of the conservation easement, not realizing that Town Ordinance #730 gave the Planning Commission the authority to approve the easement itself. Therefore, once the final language is received, the easement will be sent to the Town Attorney for review, and the Commission will vote to accept it or accept it with revisions at a subsequent meeting.
Mrs. Roberts noted no other business could be discussed because it had not been listed on the agenda for the Special Meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
October 3, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Frank
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr. and Mrs. Hannibal, Mr. Fairbairn
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mr. Frank.
MOTION: To go into executive session at 6:38 p.m. to discuss a pending real estate transaction. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end the executive session at 7:15 p.m. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 9/5/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 9/12/06 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Potter/253 Old Litchfield Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Fairbairn submitted the 10/3/06 letter withdrawing the application.
Hannibal/80 Sunset Lane/2 Lot Subdivision: Mrs. Hill noted her final review of the application found only two unresolved issues: 1) the placement of monuments as required per Section 6.10 of the Subdivision Regulations was not shown on the Record Subdivision Map and 2) the Commission had not yet determined whether it would require any fire protection measures. It was noted the Commission had inspected the property and it was the consensus that no fire protection measures were necessary.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Hannibal for a two lot subdivision at 80 Sunset Lane subject to the following condition: that a note be added to the mylar map that boundary markers/monuments shall be placed at all block corners, angle points, etc. as required per Section 6.10 of the Subdivision Regulations. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Discontinuance of Frisbee Road: Mr. Charles advised the Commission that the discontinuance of Frisbee Road was on the 10/3 Town Meeting agenda. He pointed out the agreement did not provide for public access as the Commission had unanimously voted to retain at its 12/6/05 meeting. He also noted maintaining public access was consistent with the Planning Commission's policy for all Town road discontinuances. He questioned why the Board of Selectmen would have ignored the Planning Commission's advice and why it was not acting consistently with past Town policy. It was the unanimous opinion of the Commission that it would raise these issues at the Town Meeting and would request that the motion be amended to allow for continued public access.
Referral Per Section 8-24 CGS/Installation of Generator at Town Hall: Mrs. Roberts read the 9/29/06 referral letter from Mr. Sears. It was the consensus that it did not provide adequate information so that a recommendation could be made. The questions and issues raised included: 1) would the installation of the generator interfere with possible future uses of the property such as senior housing behind the Town Hall or completion of a circular driveway around the building, 2) how large is the generator, 3) exactly where is the proposed location, 4) how have fuel, noise, rust, protection of the equipment, and screening from public view been addressed, and 5) have energy alternatives such as a gas powered generator that can be used to supplement the heating system been considered?
Scheduling of Special Meeting: A Special Meeting was scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room to consider the following topics: 1) Depot Study priorities, 2) Referral from the Conservation Commission Re: Rural Roadscape Zone, and 3) referral from Selectmen re: generator.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Charles.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
September 12, 2006
Special Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman (late), Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Brigham, Mr. Sears
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts. It was noted the purpose of the meeting was to consider all the remarks made at the public forums and to set priorities for short term improvements in the Depot Business District.
The Commissioners read Mrs. Braverman's 9/11/06 letter in which she discussed what she thought were the priority issues. Mr. Fowlkes and Mrs. Roberts read their priority lists. (These three are attached.) Mr. Frank noted his priorities focused on the short term: 1) walking trail on the River Front property, 2) community gateway signs, 3) small radar speed signs, 4) a design for Bryan Plaza parking and traffic, 5) measures for traffic calming on Rt. 47, 6) steps to make the Depot more pedestrian friendly, 7) benches along the river, and 8) municipal parking signs. Ms. Gager listed these priorities: 1) River Front loop path, 2) low key lighting for the Titus Road municipal parking area, 3) welcome signs as you enter the Depot, 4) footbridge over the Shepaug, 5) municipal parking signs including provisions for where over sized vehicles and all day parking are permitted, 6) improvements to the parking on River Road. Mr. Rimsky discussed several priorities including 1) redesign of Bryan Plaza, 2) signage for parking distribution, 3) the River Front path, and 4) the footbridge. Mr. Charles noted he thought a priority should be narrowing of Rt. 47 through the Depot by installing parallel parking. Mr. Fowlkes noted from a review of the comments made at the public forums and of the priorities listed by the commissioners it was evident there were four to six items that almost everyone agreed should be priorities.
Mr. Charles recommended the Commission make an inspection of the Depot and list the specific problems that must be addressed at each location before coming up with a definitive list of priority recommendations. Once this complete list was compiled, he advised the Commission to separate those issues it had the skill to deal with now and those that would require professional help to address later.
Mr. Carey thought there were some suggestions that should be immediately vetoed by the Commission such as a traffic light at the intersection of Rts. 109 and 47 and light pollution from little league fields.
Mr. Sears said what the Board of Selectmen needed was for the Commissioners to agree on what they heard from the public, to come up with four to six priorities, and then to decide what it would take to address those specific issues. Mr. Rimsky noted once the Selectmen had received the priority recommendations, they could move forward as they see fit. For example, to address traffic calming the Board of Selectmen could send the Commission's concerns and suggestions directly to the DOT for review or could establish a task force with a Planning Commissioner as one of its members.
Mr. Brigham from the Housing Commission addressed the Commission. He noted his concern about the Depot study being done in stages because, he said, all of the issues to be addressed were interconnected. He said the Housing Commission would soon be polling the Town to find out opinions regarding housing. He noted since additional housing in the Depot had been discussed as part of the study, a major issue that should be addressed soon is waste management. He did not want any of the short term ideas now being discussed to compromise the Depot's septic capabilities, which might be needed in the future. What happens in five years if the Town wants additional retail space with apartments above, he asked. He urged the Commission to set short, intermediate, and long range plans, to set limits, and to decide quickly on things that will not be done such as realigning River Road with Titus Road or lighting little league fields. Mr. Frank pointed out the implementation table by Wilbur Smith included studies of the flood plain, septic capabilities, zoning, and water supply in the Depot. Mr. Rimsky agreed that there are major issues still to be addressed, but said that the Commission had always planned to do the study in three stages.
Mrs. Roberts noted that at first the community had been unable to grasp the timing element of the plan, but she hoped that it was now more comfortable with the concepts discussed and would be ready to allocate funding when necessary.
The short term issues, possibilities to be considered, priorities, and recommendations were discussed by topic and the following points and ideas were raised. The order of priority was not indicated at this time.
Traffic Calming
Signs along the approach to the village to alert motorists of the upcoming village center and pedestrian crossings could help slow traffic. Textured crosswalks would help make the crossings more visible and slow motorists. Textured pavement as you enter the village might make motorists more aware they were entering a more congested area. The state highways should be narrowed to help slow traffic by 1) planting trees, 2) installing bump outs, 3) installing parallel parking, 4) installing railings along both bridge sidewalks. Installation of smaller radar speed signs would alert motorists about how fast they are driving. The Board of Selectmen should retain a consultant and open a dialogue with the DOT to learn what traffic calming measures it would recommend and how traffic hazards could be alleviated. Find out whether DOT would ban larger trucks from Rt. 109. Find out whether the DOT would install "rumble strips" across the highways to alert drivers they have entered the village.
Parking-Plaza Design
Install one hour parking limit signs in front of the Market and Post Office buildings to keep these spaces open for customers. Enforcement measures might be needed. The Board of Selectmen should hire an engineer to redesign the Plaza for its long term, safer, and more efficient use. One possibility would be not to permit parking along Canoe Brook. The redesign should include recommendations for both the end of the Plaza and its intersection with River Road. Research how to improve the parking along River Road and include consideration of the following: 1) widening the road, 2) eliminating employee parking congestion and improving safety behind the post office building, 3) working out an agreement with the Market that only smaller sized delivery trucks will make deliveries, 4) enforcing the parking ban along this road. Investigate whether the side parking area at the Legion Hall may be used for public parking. Install low key signs to direct the public to the municipal parking lots. Put in a lighted pathway between the lot behind Town Hall and the Plaza. Extend the driveway around the handicapped entrance side of Town Hall and install additional parking there. It was noted this might improve traffic circulation and might be needed if housing were ever to be built behind the Town Hall. It was suggested grass pavers could be used for the parking surface. Designate some of the Primary School parking lot for public long term parking. Find and designate a parking area for larger vehicles and/or trailers.
Pedestrian Accessibility
Install low key lighting along walkways and in parking lots. Construct a footbridge to connect River Road and the Primary School area. Determine whether more sidewalks are needed, especially along Rt. 47 and Titus Road. If so, find a way to work with both the property owners and the DOT. Also, determine whether gravel walks could be installed instead. The Commission may recommend that the Board of Selectmen adopt a sidewalk ordinance regarding liability and maintenance. Ask DOT if it would be possible to install a bike path along Rt. 47. Study how to connect existing and proposed walkways. Place benches along the walkways. Ask DOT to install a pedestrian walkway on the Bee Brook Road bridge similar to the one on the Green Hill Road bridge. Work with Steep Rock to put in a trail to access the land and the view behind the Supply.
River Front Property
Install a pervious surface walking trail along the river's edge. Look into the possibility of putting in a bandstand (at least for the short term) and picnic tables and benches. Sponsor a community event to help get some of the clean up work done.
It was the consensus to recommend Wilbur Smith Associates be hired as theconsultant because it had worked on the Depot study and was familiar with Washington.
The Commissioners will review the minutes and at the next meeting decide on priorities. When finalized, a report will be sent to the Board of Selectmen.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
August 19, 2006
Special Meeting
Saturday, August 19, 2006
10:00 a.m. Bryan Memorial Town HallMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Morehouse
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Sears, Mr. Lyon, Press, Residents - see attached list
Mr. Werkhoven called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and noted its purpose was to solicit public opinion about three aspects of the Depot study; parking, pedestrian access, and the river front loop property - both the idea of a greenway along the river and temporary use of the remainder of the property.
River Front Loop Property
Washington Depot is so named because once a train ran through it, before that if was called Factory Hollow. All that has past away but the one enduring constant that has shaped and defined the town more than any of this is the river that encircles it, The Shepaug. The Shepaug has been the source of life in this valley for as long as human occupation, which dates, back centuries before us and hopefully will continue centuries after us. It is also a powerful reminder that nature is a force to be respected and reckoned with, a force still scaring our living memories. Perhaps this is why over the years the river has been largely ignored, only noticed when it rises high in heavy rains, and only recently did we see the threat of the drying, sluggish stream it was reduced to. In either state it is important to note the human responsibility. The great devastation of the '55 flood was largely caused by badly designed human obstructions, and the near death of the river, similarly the effect of human intervention. These things too have passed and now it is time to celebrate this beautiful natural resource that embraces us. The River loop around the old town garage site offers an incredible opportunity for the town to re-claim its river heritage. What the town may want to do with this entire property in the future must be carefully considered as time passes, but in the near future it could serve the community in many ways.
Firstly, the greenways could be extended along the river to create a river walk. This part of the river is perhaps largely unknown to many, but it has truly magnificent scenery. A walking path with some picnic tables could be easily created above the riverbank without altering the natural beauty or effecting the river in any way. This path could then connect to the existing greenway completing it from Steep Rock to Bee Brook. The value of reclaiming this natural resource for the townspeople to enjoy cannot be overestimated.
Secondly, the main acreage of the site has many interim possibilities. The site will have to be cleared of debris and the disposition of remaining materials must still be determined but this is not beyond the scope of the town's capabilities. Once the area is prepared it could offer many recreational or environmental opportunities, such as playgrounds, community gardens, walking paths or simple open space meadows.
Some auxiliary parking areas already exist and these could easily be expanded and improved as part of the town parking system and for access to the area. Whatever long-term plans that this valuable property offers the town would not be impeded by this type of use and in the meantime the community could benefit from the practical and attractive uses the property affords.
The Planning Commission sees this as a sensible and immediate use for the property and looks forward to your thoughts and suggestions about these proposals.
Mr. Werkhoven read an introductory statement by the Planning Commission (right). Public comments included the following:
Mr. Flood, Kinney Hill Road, thought the ideas presented to date were attractive and sensible. He asked what the unmarked areas on the Depot site plan indicated. Mr. Sears noted the white sections had no significance; there were no plans for these areas at this time. Mr. Sherr, Cook Street, noted affordable housing had been proposed as an appropriate use for the white areas on the site plan and asked how the Commission would balance this use and the other uses suggested in the opening statement. Mr. Werkhoven noted the agenda was to discuss only short term plans for this property. Mr. Rimsky explained any short term uses agreed upon would be flexible and would not impact any future long term uses. He noted there was a regulated wetlands setback area along the river where some long term uses such as affordable housing would most likely not be appropriate and so installation of a passive walkway along the river's edge would not impact them. Mrs. Brinton, Titus Road, asked if the property was in the flood zone, saying if it were, there could be no housing there. Mr. Rimsky said it was in the flood plain as is most of the Depot. Mr. Charles noted 1) you can build in the flood zone according to the flood code and 2) the flood plain boundaries would be reevaluated in the future. Mrs. Smith noted that in the past there were many more housing units in the Depot, and thought that if in the future housing density would be increased, the river walk and other pocket parks would be vital to maintain the quality of life in the Depot. She thought the river walk was a great idea. Ms. Davidson, Woodbury Road, asked if the Town had a design for a municipal sewer system to accommodate an increase in density in the Depot. Mr. Charles said the Commission was aware this matter would have to be studied, but was not yet at that point. Mr. Lyon, Selectman, noted the Town still has a lot of bulk materials on the property and must find alternate locations for them before any short term uses of the property can be implemented. Mrs. Andersen, Blackville Road, asked why only temporary uses were being considered and whether the river walk would be temporary. She also asked when there would be a Town Meeting to approve both the Plan of Conservation and Development and the Depot study. Mr. Rimsky stated the trail would not affect future permanent development on the site and might be altered in the future, although it was being considered as a permanent greenway. He noted any work on municipal property would require approval at a Town Meeting. Mrs. Hill responded that the Commission had already held the required public hearing on the 2003 POCD, the Commission had already adopted it, and approval at a Town Meeting for either the Plan or the study was not required under the state statutes. Mrs. Boyer, Nichols Hill Road, said the undeveloped land downtown was an asset and should be cleaned up and kept green. Ms. Doran, River Road, complimented the Commission on its judicious and conservative approach. Pedestrian Access
A second topic we would like to cover today [tonight] is the question of improved pedestrian accessibility in the Depot. At present, there are few formal sidewalks or pedestrian paths in the center of the Depot, making it difficult to walk around town. Should there be more; where? Should those that have deteriorated or become overgrown be restored? Should benches be placed along the sides of some of the sidewalks?
Today there are four pedestrian crosswalks marked with white stripes on Route 47 and one on River Road. Should there be more crosswalks? Should the crosswalks be better delineated, by using a different paving surface for example?
Should there be a pedestrian bridge over the river, between the downtown area and the school grounds?
What other thoughts do you have to make the Depot more pedestrian friendly?
Mr. Werkhoven read the Commission's statement regarding pedestrian access (right).
Ms. Stevens thought crossing Rt. 47 was scary and asked if a traffic light could be installed. There was a general groan from the audience. She then asked if there could be a light just for the pedestrian crossing. Ms. Weeks did not think the installation of a sidewalk along Bee Brook Road or a traffic light on Rt. 47 were good ideas. She recommended traffic signs along Rt. 47 before entering the Depot from both directions to remind drivers to slow down. She thought the Depot should be kept the way it is. Mr. Morehouse, consultant from Wilbur Smith Associates, commented on the possibility of a traffic light in the Depot on Rt. 47. He noted the installation of traffic lights was state controlled based on vehicular and pedestrian volumes and said the Town would have to prove it met the threshold requirements to obtain one. Mr. Cornett, Nettleton Hollow Road, suggested a stop sign by the major crosswalk on Rt. 47. Mr. Morehouse stated it was less difficult to get the state to approve stop signs. He noted historically the state has given little consideration to the towns state roads pass through. He also noted that stop signs are usually not used to calm traffic. Mrs. Andersen suggested the following measures be considered to slow the traffic through the Depot; 1) introductory signs like the one telling motorists they are entering the village of New Preston and 2) smaller, quasi permanent speed signs that show how fast you are driving. She urged the Planning Commission to look at the speed sign near Weller's Bridge Road in Roxbury. Mrs. Wilber, Slaughterhouse Road, noted the traffic on Rt. 47 does not stop for the crosswalks, creating a dangerous situation. She urged flashing lights or some other measure to warn motorists. She also thought it was not necessary to have three crosswalks on Rt. 47 and that if more sidewalks were to be installed, they had to be maintained during the winter; the existing sidewalks aren't shoveled. Mr. Millington, Lower Church Hill Road, complained the parking situations in front of the Washington Supply and behind the Post Office when vehicles are trying to pull out onto River Road are accidents waiting to happen. He suggested the two Supply parking spaces at the corner of Rts. 47 and 109 be eliminated and that postal workers be required to park so that they don't block the sight lines. Mrs. Santoleri noted nothing about the Depot is currently pedestrian oriented, nothing says or gives you the feeling that you're here, and nothing is connected. She said the streets should be narrowed, street trees planted, and possibly street bumps installed to both slow the traffic and contribute to the visual sense of the town center. She suggested the goal should be to give the center a comfortable feel like a college campus. Mr. Hileman, River Road, agreed traffic should be slowed down. He supported the idea of a footbridge or bridges to connect River Road to the school property to make it safer for children to walk to school. He liked all of the ideas voiced so far. Ms. Doran said she agreed with Mrs. Santoleri's statement and the idea of a campus like set up. Mrs. Boyer was concerned that it would be very difficult to make the Depot pedestrian friendly because the roads involved were state highways. She suggested if good parking areas were available, people would be more likely to walk to rather than drive between their destinations. Mrs. Ward thought that ugly speed signs were needed at both ends of town to attract motorists' attention and get them to slow down. She thought the Depot was already pedestrian friendly and did not think a traffic light or and footbridge was needed. She recommended the Town deal with what it has rather than make changes. Mr. Davidson noted one problem cited was that the Depot was not unified because it is divided by Rt. 47. He suggested a tastefully designed footbridge to span Rt. 47. Ms. Yurchak thought the campus idea was exciting. She said there was no place to walk with a carriage in the Depot and so a walkway with benches would add a needed community feeling.
Mr. Arturi, Shearer Road, said that in Greenwich there are always policemen at the busy intersections. He thought the Town should consider assigning constables to the crosswalk areas in the summer and on weekends. Mr. Rimsky noted that in North Hampton, Mass. traffic automatically stops at crosswalks, noted the difference in civic attitude, and said motorists must be educated. Parking
Throughout our public discussions and meetings with various Town boards and commissions the topic of parking in the Bryan Plaza and Titus Road areas was often brought up in many forms. While some viewpoints focused on a shortage of parking, others highlighted the flow of traffic through the Plaza area and safety concerns within the current parking area when either walking through or parking. Turning to the Town residents, we pose the following questions:
1. Is there enough parking in the Depot area (specifically Bryan Plaza and the Titus Road shopping locations)? Is there a shortage at certain times of the day? Is the parking clearly identified?
2. Is there a concern with the flow of traffic through these areas? If so, what are some of these concerns? What could be done to address these concerns?
3. Could something be done to improve the safety of these parking areas? What are some suggestions?
Mr. Werhoven read the Planning Commission's statement regarding parking in the Depot Business District (right). He noted there had already been comments made about the dangerous parking at the Post Office and Washington Supply.
Mrs. Wilber said she worked in the Depot and was complying with the request to park at the river loop property rather than in the municipal spaces. She pointed out the spaces behind the Town Hall are under utilized. She said commuters had to be informed they may not tie up municipal spaces all day. She suggested the problem behind the Post Office could be solved if concrete stops were placed so employees could not park within two to three feet of the road blocking the sight lines. Mr. Sears said he would check this out. She also noted the Primary School has a large lot that is usually only half full. She thought signs should be posted that long term parking is available at the school. Mr. Millington said people park too long in front of the stores and agreed the spaces behind the Town Hall should be used more. Mrs. Friedman, West Morris Road, suggested time limits be placed on the more "valuable" parking spaces and noted Litchfield strictly enforces its parking time limits. Ms. Doran suggested signs to direct motorists to the municipal parking spaces. Mrs. Andersen thought timed parking was a good idea, but said a Town ordinance would be required to implement it. She urged the Town to put in diagonal parking in the Plaza to improve sight lines. She again stated she thought the Planning Commission was just redoing what it had decided on five years ago. A discussion regarding parking improvements in Bryan Plaza ensued. It was noted that by increasing the width of Bryan Plaza by ten feet, diagonal parking could be put in with a one way traffic loop. This would increase the number of available spaces and improve safety. Mr. Sears noted the business association had supported these improvements and if the public did, also, the Town could proceed with obtaining the $25,000 it would cost for an engineered design for the Plaza improvements. Overwhelming support was voiced by those present.
Mr. Brinton, South Street, asked if the one way traffic lanes would be wide enough for emergency vehicles. Mr. Sears said they would. Mrs. Andersen asked why the engineered plan was required. She thought diagonals should be painted on one side as soon as possible. She said the plan discussed was too complicated and maybe her simpler suggestion would be all that was necessary. Mr. Charles said the Planning Commission would research the matter based on the public response received. Mrs. Manning urged the Town to make the parking improvements as aesthetically pleasing as possible and not just put in a sea of blacktop. She suggested trees be planted in a center median. Mr. Arturi asked why a short term solution of diagonal parking on both sides and one way traffic through the Plaza could not be immediately considered. Mrs. Boyer thought that was a good idea, but asked how many spaces would be lost in the winter due to piles of snow. Mr. Sears said the snow could be taken elsewhere. An unidentified man remarked the above comments were examples of why the Town should hire a traffic engineer to make the plan work. Mr. Cornett, Nettleton Hollow Road, said the proposal was logical and the first steps being discussed now were positive solutions. Mr. Frank responded to Mrs. Andersen's earlier comments that the Commission was reinventing the wheel. He said process was important and that the Commission had promised there would be an opportunity for public input at each step of the process. Mrs. Andersen said she was concerned that the Commission had plans, but was not implementing them. She thought the parking situation was dangerous and required immediate attention. Mr. Rimsky noted the purpose of this meeting was to deal with those activities that the Town could reasonably expect to accomplish in the near future with enough foresight so they would not have to be redone when long term solutions were eventually selected. Mr. Millington noted his appreciation for the work the Planning Commission has done on the Town's behalf. He said he was appalled at last summer's reaction to the Depot study because it was the kind of long term thinking that was in the best interests of the Town and was what was needed for the Depot. There was a round of applause. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
August 1, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Hart, Mr. Sears, Press
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 7/5/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Potter/253 Old Litchfield Road/2 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Charles recused himself. Alternate Fowlkes was seated. Representing the applicants, Mr. Fairbairn informed the Commission the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet acted on the application. He elected to table further discussion until Wetlands approval was received. He submitted a request for a 65 day extension. Mrs. Hill gave him a copy of her 8/1/06 review, which detailed the items still missing from the application.
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Rabbit Hill Road
Mr. Hart, Rabbit Hill Road resident, was present.
It was noted the entire length of the Washington portion of Rabbit Hill Road was included in the application. Supporting documents; photos, Assessor's map, and the list of supporting property owners were circulated. To answer a question raised at the last meeting, Mrs. Hill said there was no requirement to refer the application to the Town of Warren.
Mr. Charles noted 300 feet of road frontage was not accounted for in the list of property owners submitted. He asked Mr. Hart to indicate on the map, which of the property owners were in support of the application.
A site inspection was scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Monday, August 21, 2006. The commissioners will meet at the intersection of Rabbit Hill Road and Rt. 202.
A public hearing was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Other Business
Depot Study
Ms. Gager reported Mr. Werkhoven had agreed to moderate the two public informational meetings in August. The subcommittee had met with him once and would meet with him again to strategize the format of the meetings.
The moderator's job and purpose of the meetings were briefly discussed. Mr. Werkhoven would make it clear the Commission would consider all comments, but would generally not respond during the meetings unless there were very pointed questions. It was hoped he would be able to elicit public comments pertaining only to the three topics listed on the agenda: parking, pedestrian access, and the proposed greenway. Mr. Fowlkes noted Mr. Werkhoven would not be expected to answer any questions, but could ask the commissioners if they cared to comment, so there would be some response even if not an immediate, direct response to questions raised.
Mr. Charles noted Mr. Morehouse, the traffic engineer from Wilbur Smith, agreed to attend both meetings. Ms. Gager will brief him on the topics to be covered and get his feedback prior to the meetings.
Mrs. Roberts said she would urge the Zoning commissioners to attend the meetings because they have been considering parking regulations and this would help to coordinate efforts.
It was noted at least 20 minutes would be spent per topic with an additional time period for general comments at the end. Mr. Sears suggested that visual aids be used, for example, to show where parking is available. He and Ms. Gager volunteered to assemble some maps, which could be projected while the various topics were under consideration. Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Braverman volunteered to map the current parking spaces so they can be compared with any new proposal. Mr. Sears said he was also working on a scale plan of the Danbury Mall so that the distance from its parking lots to its stores could be compared to distances in the Depot.
Publicity was discussed. Press releases will be sent to the local newspapers. Mr. Sears suggested that the local businesses, the Washington Art Association, those residents who have already expressed their concern, etc. be personally invited. Mrs. Roberts noted she had personally invited all of the businesses to attend the charrette and said she would contact them all again about the meetings. Mr. Sears also suggested an announcement be put on the Town website and that an effort be made to reach weekenders. Ms. Gager volunteered to call residents from a list of names to be provided by Mr. Sears.
First Cuts for Affordable Housing: Mr. Sears noted the state had enacted legislation, which would allow towns to pass an ordinance that would allow property owners a free first cut if it were to be used for affordable housing. He thought there should be a corresponding revision in the town land use regulations and said he was working on an ordinance to be voted on at the October Town Meeting. It was generally thought that first cuts were under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission. Mr. Sears will consult with the Zoning Commission.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Setback and Coverage in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts: Mr. Sears reported that the Zoning Commission had approved the proposed revisions at its last meeting. Mr. Charles noted Mr. Donovan from Wilbur Smith had reviewed the draft, had been supportive, and had recommended some constructive changes in the language, which were subsequently adopted.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Gager.
There being no further business, Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
July 5, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky and Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey and Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. SearsREGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the regular meeting to order at 7:32PM and seated the members. She acknowledged the three alternates who were present and welcomed Mrs. Braverman and Mr. Carey as new alternates on the commission.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/6/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/19/06 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Frank and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already included on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Ms. Gager and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Potter /253 Old Litchfield Road /2 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Charles recused himself from this discussion as he is involved with Potter Farm.
Mr. Fairbairn told the commission that he did not have any new drawings to submit because Brian Neff had been out of town. He said he expected to have all his information together for the meeting next month.
The members briefly discussed this application. They had walked the property in June. Mrs. Roberts commented it would be helpful for the new members to go have a look at the property before the next meeting.
New Application
Scenic Road Designation for Rabbit Hill Road
The commission looked over the pictures of Rabbit Hill Road received 7/5/06. Mr. Charles read the Review for completeness by Janet Hill, Land Use Coordinator, dated 6/26/06.
Mrs. Roberts thought the members should schedule a time to go look at Rabbit Hill Road. Mr. Charles suggested waiting until the application is complete. Mrs. Roberts said she would call Ms. Condon and request that the file be complete by the August meeting so the members would be ready to take a vote in September.
Mr. Carey asked if there was a mandatory referral to the town of Warren. Mrs. Roberts said they did not do that with Nettleton Hollow or West Morris Roads, but she would call Dan McGuinness and ask him.
Other Business
Depot Study
Mr. Sears was invited to join the members at the table.
Mrs. Roberts read a letter from Mrs. Joan Talbot suggesting that the center plantings be left out of the diagonal parking plan for the Depot. She felt the plantings would be difficult for people to negotiate with a market cart. Mr. Rimsky commented this is nothing compared to distances for most supermarket parking areas. Mrs. Braverman said there would probably be cut-through areas for pedestrians. Mrs. Roberts said it's hard for people to visualize. Since the amount of blacktop is being extended, having a narrow row of trees softens the whole area. Mr. Fowlkes agreed; the trees also will provide shade.
Mr. Charles noted that business owners in the Depot are working together to help solve the parking problem. Mr. Rimsky commented on how dangerous it is to pull out onto River Road because the cars parked behind the post office and market stick out so far. He said businesses could ask their staff to park someplace else. He also cited the bank and the food market as problem areas, but said people could go past the Art Association to park. After some discussion, Mr. Sears asked how these problems could be solved. He wondered if a special blue ribbon commission should be formed to implement a plan. Mr. Charles suggested Wilbur Smith should be involved.
Mr. Rimsky thought Mr. Charles had a good point. Someone from Wilbur Smith should be at the special meetings in August to answer questions from the public. They are already invested in this project. Mrs. Roberts said she thought the Zoning Commission was going to ask Wilbur Smith to review the parking problem in the Depot. She will contact David Owen.
Mr. Sears said he would like to have a new name for the Old Town Garage. Mr. Charles thought they should find out who the original owners were and perhaps use their name. After some discussion, it was decided to call it Riverfront Property.
The commission discussed how to handle the special August meetings. Mr. Sears said they should choose a moderator who could keep the meetings on track; a good process person. It was decided that it might be viewed as a conflict of interest to have a selectman or member of a commission to act as moderator. Several nominations were put forward, but the choice was narrowed down to three; Bill Bixby, Dan Sherr and Dave Werkhoven. Mrs. Roberts said it would not be necessary for Planning Commission members to get involved in any discussions at the meetings, but they might be needed for clarification.
Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. Gager and Mr. Rimsky were appointed to a subcommittee. They will hold a special meeting on Friday, July 7, 2006, at 10:15AM in the Land Use Meeting Room to select a moderator and determine a procedure for the special meetings on August 19 and August 25. A special meeting memo will be posted with the Town Clerk.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:55PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Secretary
June 6, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Charles
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Sears, Press
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 5/2/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Fowlkes, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already included on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Potter/253 Old Litchfield Road/2 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Fairbairn presented the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/31/06 and noted the site development plan was not yet completed. He showed on the Assessor's Map where the property was located and also pointed out the parcel on an aerial map. Mr. Fairbairn noted the property was almost 7 acres with an existing dwelling and it was proposed to subdivide it in to lots of 4.05 and 2.89 acres. He said the property was level and that he would request a waiver of the requirement that 2 ft. contours be shown on the site development map. Access to the new lot would be off Shearer Road at the existing bar way. The open space requirement was discussed in detail. Mr. Fairbairn explained the 15% requirement would mean 1 acre would have to be preserved as open space. He proposed to set aside the acre on other land owned by the Potters on the other side of Shearer Road. Mrs. Roberts asked whether that would affect the future use of the other property. Mr. Fairbairn said it would not. Mrs. Hill did not know whether the current Subdivision Regulations would permit the open space requirement to be fulfilled using a parcel other than the one to be subdivided, but said she would research it before the next meeting. Ms. Gager thought it would be a bad precedent to use off site land to meet the open space requirement. Mr. Rimsky supported the idea of preserving the streetscape at the corner of Shearer Road and Rt. 109 if it were possible. Mr. Fairbairn noted another option would be to submit a fee in lieu of open space. The property had not been assessed, so he did not know how much that fee would be. It was noted there were wetlands on the property and Mrs. Hill asked if an application had been submitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Fairbairn said this had been done. A site inspection was scheduled for Monday, June 19, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. as it was expected the site development plan would be ready by that date.
Other Business
Depot Study: It was noted the Commission had previously established two priorities based on their obtainability in the near future: 1) establishment of a greenway and 2) parking. It had been agreed other issues to be addressed included; 1) traffic - both in terms of vehicle circulation and pedestrian walkability, 2) Bryan Plaza, 3) recreation, and 4) housing.
Regarding housing, Mr. Sears reported the Housing Commission was studying the need for housing in Town and was drafting a questionnaire for residents. He noted the Depot study had suggested there was room for senior housing behind the Town Hall, but said the Housing Commission wanted to first determine that more senior housing was actually needed. The different types of senior housing; owned vs. rental units, congregate, and assisted living units were discussed. It was also noted that it was not known whether any future housing development would be private or public/ profit or non profit sponsored. Mr. Rimsky noted the baby boomers were now reaching retirement age and if they had to move out of Town, an important part of the community would be lost. It was the consensus the Housing Committee should continue its study and lead future discussions regarding housing needs.
Mr. Sears then again summarized the discussions that had taken place regarding parking. He believed the problem was parking availability vs. utilization and that a solution should be actively pursued. He noted the business community was concerned and said the Town should take the responsibility of identifying the available parking and developing a town wide parking plan. Mrs. Roberts noted the local businessmen had been encouraging their employees to park on the Titus garage property to free up the spaces in front of their businesses for customers, but Mr. Rimsky did not think this had been uniformly achieved.
Work to improve Bryan Plaza was discussed. Mr. Rimsky was concerned that the school renovations might use up funds that could be spent for Plaza improvements. He also noted any work done to the Plaza would have to tie into future development plans for the land in back of the Town Hall.
Mr. Sears noted the public had not yet had a chance to discuss the issues generated from Phase I of the Depot study. He thought a public forum would help the Commission set priorities. It was noted the Planning Commission had intended to receive public comment once input had been received from the land use commissions. It was decided the major issues that would be covered at the upcoming public meeting were: Bryan Plaza, parking, vehicle traffic flow, pedestrian walkability, the greenway, and housing. Ms. Gager and Mr. Rimsky volunteered to draft an agenda for the public meeting and a letter that would be sent to all residents to publicize the event. Two dates were selected so that as many residents and weekenders as possible could attend. (After the meeting, these dates were changed to: Saturday morning, August 19 and Friday evening, August 25).
Commission Vacancies: Mr. Sears said the Selectmen had received the names of four candidates to fill the two vacant alternate positions and would interview each before deciding who to appoint.
PA 06-97: Mr. Sears suggested the Planning Commission should amend the Subdivision Regulations to reflect PA 06-97, which enables a Town to pass an ordinance to exempt from the Subdivision Regulations for the first subdivision of land provided the lot created is for affordable housing. He said the intent was not to penalize someone who wants to donate land for affordable housing.
Walker Brook Subdivision II: Ms. Gager noted the final public hearing had been closed on May 18th and the vote had not yet been taken. She said Ms. Purnell had done an excellent job writing the letter from the Planning Commission, which pointed out how the application did not comply with the New Milford Plan of Conservation and Development and Subdivision Regulations.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, LU Coordinator
May 2, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Owen, Mr. Sears, Mr. White, Ms. Purnell
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 4/4/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 1st paragraph: Mr. Fowlkes was seated until Mr. Rimsky arrived.
Page 3: Line 4: Change "committee" to commission.
MOTION: To accept the 4/4/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Charles, 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.
Other Business
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 15: Parking and Setbacks and Coverage in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts: Mr. Owen, Zoning Commission chairman, explained the reasons for the proposed revisions. The question the Zoning Commission was trying to address, he said, was, How can we make Washington more like it already is? He observed that most people love the two business districts the way they are, but that neither could be rebuilt to their existing conditions under the current Zoning Regulations. He said to date this has not been an issue because there has not been much new construction in either district, but if the Town was to implement any of the good ideas in the Depot study, the Zoning Regulations would have to be amended. He noted that this was not a problem unique to Washington; that most towns across the country have automobile oriented zoning regulations, which require sprawl. He explained townspeople have become comfortable thinking the Zoning Regulations protect them, when, in fact, they do not protect the sections of Town that are truly unique to Washington such as The Green. He compared the New Milford green, which could not be rebuilt under that town's current zoning to the development along Rt. 7, which is the type of development required under its regs. Another example he cited was parking. Current parking regulations in Town and throughout the country are calculated for maxiumum use/worst case scenario situations rather than average daily use. He noted the two world trade center buildings would have had to have had six additional towers for parking under Washington's current Zoning Regulations.
Mrs. Roberts noted she had been disappointed that local business owners were more concerned with parking in front of their businesses than they were about the walkability of Town. Mr. Owen stated walkability was key to both the New Preston and Depot business districts. He noted walking was the number one mode of transportation in Manhattan and compared how far people are willing to walk in a mall vs. how far they are willing to walk in the Depot. He suggested there was no continuity in Town from a pedestrian viewpoint like there was for automobiles and said a major problem was how to get people comfortable walking around the Depot. Mr. Owen added Washington's proposed Zoning regs do not discourage sidewalk access and said he would recommend an endorsement of sidewalks when the revisions are considered at the May 22nd public hearing.
The Depot's perceived parking problem was discussed. Mr. Owen pointed out that residents complain there are no parking spaces when the 6 immediately in front of the Food Market are full, when, in fact, there are many empty spaces throughout Town. He thought there were inexpensive ways the Town could help the situation, such as expanding the available parking area in the rear of the Town Hall by installing permeable pavers and improving the parking at the old Town Garage site. He noted the proposed revisions were not major, but would give the Commission flexibility so it would not be bound by a 1 space per 100 sq. ft. requirement and he referred to the minimum/maximum table in the model parking regs.
Mr. Charles was concerned that the Zoning Commission had drafted the revised regulations on its own rather than first consulting with the public. He also questioned whether Zoning would be able to take on the added responsibilities of administering them. Mr. Owen did not foresee a great increase in development whether the regs were revised or not because both of these districts have little property left to be developed. He also noted the revisions had undergone several drafts, including one implementing the Special Permit process. Atty. Zizka had reviewed this draft and had raised several concerns. He noted the draft regs had been referred to both Mr. McGuinness at the NW Ct. COG and to Planning as required by statute.
Mr. Fairbairn said he was in favor of the flexibility the proposed regulations would add. He asked from an administration standpoint whether these types of applications in the business districts should be handled as proposed by the Zoning Commission or by Special Exception by the ZBA. Mr. Owen responded the Zoning Commission was comfortable with the standards proposed because they had been generally established after considering what already exists in these two districts. He explained the proposed regs would permit new development to "maintain the feel" of what now exists, which is not possible under the current regulations. He noted the proposed flexible regs were similar to those already adopted for the Marbledale Business District, although he did not think Marbledale would ever be pedestrian oriented due to its configuration. Mrs. Hill noted, too, that if the revisions were adopted, decreases to setbacks and increases in coverage would be permitted under the regs, meaning variances or Special Exceptions from the ZBA would not be necessary.
Mr. Charles pointed out the proposed revisions would take authority from the ZEO. Mrs. Hill stated that the process proposed would be similar to the Special Permit process already used by the Commission, noting the Commission has discretion when granting Special Permits.
Mr. Charles asked where the idea for the revisions had come from and whether a build-out for the Depot had been done. Mr. Owen said the Depot study to date had been valuable, but noted it was not possible for the Zoning Commission to make a blueprint for the entire Depot. He said Zoning would work on the problem one step at a time. He also noted that part of the charm of New Preston was that it was not planned and pointed out that development in both districts had been driven in large part by the needs of the community. Mr. Owen stated the proposed regulations suggest to applicants that if they want to alter the business districts, they should do so in ways that are more in keeping with what is already there. He stressed that the revisions were not a radical rethinking of the New Preston and Depot business districts, but were amendments that would provide the Commission with the tools to make possible development that was in character with what already exists in each.
Mr. Charles asked if the septic capabilities of the Depot had been analyzed. He was concerned that with the increase in lot coverage that would be permitted, there would not be enough room for on site septic systems. Mr. Owen said Zoning did not propose to relax the current septic requirements. Mr. Fairbairn said this would not be a problem because properties like the Hickory Stick with 100% coverage have their septic systems under the existing parking lots.
Ms. Gager commended the Zoning Commission for being proactive and adding flexibility to the Regulations to help direct the future development of the business districts.
Mr. Frank pointed out there should be a proposed Section 8.6.8 to correspond with proposed Section 7.6.8 regarding minimum setbacks. Mr. Owen agreed, adding another possible change that would be discussed at the hearing would be to Section 15.3.1. He thought the reference to parking spaces within 1500 ft. of the proposed use was too great a distance and should be decreased to 500 ft.
Mr. White, ZBA chairman, expressed his concern that the overall scope of the proposed revisions was too great. He did not want to start at 100% coverage and have to try to negotiate applicants down. He suggested the enhancement of older buildings should be addressed by Special Exception or Special Permit on a case by case basis, processes, he said, that work well now. He thought the proposed revisions to the business district regs would be too inviting to developers and the flexibility permitted should be the exception rather than the rule. He also questioned the concept of shared off site parking, stating there was no space for it. Mr. Owen responded there was nothing in the proposed regs that did not require adequate parking; the change was that the Commission was giving itself the flexibility to determine what would be adequate. He noted no business in the Depot meets the current parking requirements, pointing out that the Food Market building for example, would be required to have 25 spaces for the store plus one space for each bedroom in the second story apartments and that these spaces would have to be on its own property. In fact, the Market has no spaces on its own property, but shares the available parking on municipal land. He noted much of the Depot parking is actually on Town owned property.
Mr. Charles reminded Mr. Sears that he had suggested a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commissions, Board of Selectmen, and Business Assoc. to discuss traffic and parking and asked that this be conducted before the Zoning Commission adopts the proposed revisions. He complained Zoning did not know the implications of what it proposed.
Mr. Fairbairn noted both the Zoning Commission and the ZBA had historically approved new businesses without the required parking spaces regardless of the Regulations. He did not see any major changes then, with the adoption of the revisions. He noted there was a brief window of opportunity for the Town to help direct the redevelopment of the gas station property, which is located in the middle of the Depot and so important to the character of the village. Mr. Owen noted the revisions to the Zoning Regulations were needed whether or not the gas station property would be developed.
Mr. White again asked that the Special Exception/Special Permit process be retained because it provides both Zoning and ZBA the ability to "negotiate within reason." Mr. Owen answered that the Zoning Commission could accomplish that under the regs as proposed. He noted the Commission's attorney questioned the current Zoning Regulations because they were counter to the Commission's goals and required applicants to obtain variances in order to develop in a manner consistent with the existing character of Town. He had advised the Commission that if the Regulations were the problem, it should not try to solve that problem by varying them. Mr. White said he had consulted with the same attorney who had stated he was concerned the proposed regs would be difficult to enforce. Mr. White suggested the Zoning Commission first try revisions with tougher standards so there would be a reasonable point from which to negotiate.
Mr. Charles again stressed the need for a build-out and a meeting of all involved parties regarding parking. Mr. Owen noted the revisions to the parking regs had been based on the thorough study by the NW Ct. COG and Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials. He said there would be further study prior to future revisions about permeable parking surfaces. He stated the parking regulations as they now exist, may not be applied without consequences the Commission does not want.
Mr. Rimsky thought Zoning's approach was sensible. He said with well considered judgment, the Commission could apply the proposed flexible standards and pointed out it was in that Commission's power to say no to unreasonable requests.
Mrs. Hill noted it was a misconception that all properties would be permitted 100% coverage under the revised regs and read part of proposed Section 8.5.1, which listed the circumstances under which this might occur. Mr. Owen noted many of the properties in the business districts are already at 100% coverage and the revised regs would not change this.
Mr. White asked if the proposed revisions were standard in other towns. Mr. Owen responded the typical zoning regulations were what we now have and said Rt. 7 in New Milford was the build-out of the current Washington Zoning Regulations. Mr. White said he agreed with what the Zoning Commission was trying to do, but said the scope was too large.
Mr. Charles asked for a review by a professional who would determine whether the proposed regulations would work. Mr. Owen said the Planning Commission could hire its own consultant if it thought it necessary, but noted in the past consultants had offered plans that did not address the uniqueness of Washington. He said in addition to the model parking regulations cited above, both the Sierra Club and the National Green Building Council found typical local zoning regulations are a problem.
Mr. Fairbairn said it was common sense that the current Zoning Regs did not work and thought the proposed revisions created a workable flexibility.
Mrs. Roberts thought the proposed Zoning regs were looking ahead with vision.
Mr. Owen thought adoption of the proposed regs would not put either business district at risk since new development happens slowly and there are so few applications. Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Regulations are continually evolving and could be again revised to address additional issues.
Mr. Rimsky noted that fear of what might or might not happen does not necessarily make for good planning. He trusted that Zoning and the ZBA would work together with sensibility to administer revised regulations that would permit new development both consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and the village centers.
Mr. Charles objected to the proposed regulations because they did not consider limiting factors such as the Health Code and the Inland Wetlands Regulations and he thought they were too open to interpretation. Mr. Owen, on the other hand, thought in reality their scope was limited and read Section 7.5 to illustrate his point.
Mr. Fairbairn and Mr. Frank agreed there would have to be flexibility and subjectivity written into the Regulations to allow the creation of village type instead of strip mall development.
The revised parking regulations as they would specifically relate to the gas station (Ficalora) property were discussed. Mr. Owen noted no matter what zoning regs were in place when an application was received for this property, it would have more parking spaces per sq. ft. of building than any of the other existing area businesses. Mr. Sears asked if under the revised regs, the Ficalora property could have some of its required parking spaces off site. Mr. Owen said it would be possible. Mr. Sears then noted "someone" would have to keep track of the overall district-wide picture in terms of off site parking. Mr. Fairbairn noted Washington Supply, for example, requires its employees to park in the rear of the Town Hall and said if more businesses required their employees to park in municipal lots, the problem would be solved. Mr. Owen noted that type of solution was up to business owners, not the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen noted there was a good turnover of parking spaces in the Depot and he had always found available parking.
Mrs. Hill asked where the Town stood on implementation of improvements to Bryan Plaza that would result in improved traffic flow and an increase in the number of parking spaces. Mr. Sears said he thought the business owners liked the idea of diagonal parking. He offered to invite Mr. Donovan from Wilbur Smith and Assoc. to talk about the parking-traffic plan. Mr. Owen noted that the Zoning Commission has nothing to do with how parking is or will be configured in any of the business districts. Changes in parking configuration, he said, do not require Zoning approval. Mrs. Roberts noted the Planning Commission hoped to get feedback from the other land use commissions and from the public regarding which changes to the Depot would be priorities. It was not known at this time whether changes to Bryan Plaza would be the top priority.
Mr. Owen noted the existing businesses currently do not pay for the parking spaces they use on Town owned property. He suggested the Town could charge a fee and use the income to make improvements to the Town owned parking areas.
Mr. Owen noted Zoning would appreciate any recommendations from the Planning Commission for modifications to the proposed language. He explained that if Planning recommends that the revisions be denied, Zoning then would require more votes to approve them, but that it intended to proceed. He said Zoning had been through several drafts and had the approval of its counsel. He added that the proposed revisions were specifically designed to be the minimum changes necessary to work against Rt. 7 type development standards in the Depot and New Preston.
The Planning Commission discussed the proposal.
Mr. Charles did not think it was well thought out and noted Mr. White said Atty. Zizka was concerned about enforcement. He feared the language that had been drafted was to avoid the charge of spot zoning. He recommended a motion that supported the direction and intent of the revisions, but not the proposed language. Mr. Rimsky thought the proposed revisions were a pragmatic approach to preserve the existing character of the Depot. He thought it was between the Zoning Commission and the ZBA to decide who would be in charge of administration. Mr. Fairbairn said he had faith that whichever board would act as administrator, it would use subjectivity consistent with the regs as written. He thought the proposed parking regs would legalize the way both Zoning and the ZBA have always addressed parking in the business districts. Mrs. Roberts thought the proposed revisions were a step in the right direction. Mr. Frank noted that Planning's approval at this point would not preclude objections at the public hearing. Ms. Gager said that she supported the direction and intent of the revisions and that she thought it was important for the Planning Commission to approve them. She reminded the members that the Zoning Commission has more knowledge and experience in drafting zoning regulations than the Planning Commission. MOTION: To support the proposed revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations regarding parking and setbacks and coverage in the New Preston and Washington Depot business districts. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 4-1. Mr. Charles voted No for the reasons listed above.
Walker Brook Subdivision II, New Milford: Ms. Purnell, Inland Wetlands commissioner, reported the N. Milford Inland Wetlands Comm. had approved the application with 39 conditions and the N. Milford Health Dept. had sent a letter voicing serious concerns about 38 of the 78 proposed lots. She circulated copies of the first letter sent to the N. Milford Planning Commission concerning this application. It focused on state and regional concerns. She proposed a second letter to the Planning Commission to point out how the application is inconsistent with the New Milford Subdivision Regulations and Plan of Development. She passed out a partial analysis for the commissioners to review and asked if the Planning Commission thought there would be merit in sending a second letter. Ms. Purnell noted many of the proposed lots were in the Washington watershed and would impact Walker Brook. She thought the subdivision plan could be revised so it would cause less impacts, but still allow some development on the property. After a brief discussion it was decided Planning would submit two documents at the hearing; a detailed letter to point out how the application is inconsistent with their own regs and a summary sheet to be read into the record. Ms. Purnell said she would email the final draft to the commissioners for comments. Ms. Gager agreed to attend the 5/4/96 hearing with Ms. Purnell. The commissioners thanked Ms. Purnell for her efforts.
MOTION: To authorize Ms. Purnell to write a second letter to the New Milford Planning Commission to show how the current Walker Brook Subdivision application is inconsistent with New Milford's Plan of Development and Subdivision Regulations and to authorize Ms. Gager to present it to the New Milford Planning Commission at its 5/4 hearing. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles, and passed 5-0.
Activities in the Town Right of Ways: It was noted Mr. Greenstein had complained about clear cutting in the Town right of way on South Fenn Hill Road, the Planning Commission had discussed the matter, and it had been referred to the Conservation Commission for recommendations. To date there has been no response from Conservation. Ms. Roberts said she had spoken with the First Selectman and had asked for a Town policy to clarify what activities are and are not allowed in Town right of ways. She noted the Commission often requires open space set asides along the frontage of subdivision lots to preserve the rural streetscape. However, when clear cutting is allowed in the right of way between the road and the open space it works against the Commission's efforts to preserve rural character. Mr. Fairbairn said one problem with attempting to regulate this area is that no one knows the exact boundaries of the right of ways and an extensive survey would be very expensive. It was thought residents should have to get permission from the Selectmen's Office prior to clearing the right of ways. It was also suggested the Town website and newsletter be used to educate residents about the preservation of rural character and the need to get permission before cutting and clearing. It was agreed to table further discussion until a report is received from Conservation.
Commission Vacancies: It was noted the Commission has been short one member since Mr. Byerly's resignation. Mr. Fairbairn announced he, too, would be resigning due to conflicts encountered in the real estate business. He will submit a written resignation upon completion of draft revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. The Commission expressed its regret that he would be leaving.
Mrs. Roberts noted a 4/15/06 letter from Mr. Hare regarding a Cornwall Planning and Zoning seminar on June 25th. Mrs. Roberts said she would refer it to the Conservation Commission. Ms. Gager and Mr. Fairbairn said they would attend the seminar.
Mr. Sears reported the school budget passed and the budget for the renovation projects was briefly discussed.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted, Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
April 4, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Fowlkes
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fairbairn
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Press
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Rimsky.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/7/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Fowlkes, 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.
Other Business
Depot Study: Mr. Rimsky reported that he and Mr. Sears had attended a recent meeting of the Washington Business Association. He thought the Assoc. was generally supportive of the study. Parking was the critical issue discussed. The idea for improvements to Bryan Plaza (diagonal parking, median down the middle, and more parking spaces on the west side) was considered an intelligent approach to improve traffic flow and increase parking capacity. Problems with parking over at the municipal lot near The Pantry were noted. Mr. Ackerman, owner of The Pantry, complained employee parking for surrounding businesses was using all of the spaces on his private property so there were none left for his customers. Mr. Sears had suggested the Town make improvements to the lot on the old Town Garage property for employee parking. This idea was well received, but it was stressed that lot would have to be better maintained and well lit so the employees would feel safe using it.
Mr. Rimsky also noted the Assoc. had voiced its support for the improvements proposed to the Texaco station property.
Mrs. Roberts asked whether making the Depot more pedestrian friendly had been discussed. Mr. Sears said, no, that basically the business owners wanted people to be able to drive to them and find convenient parking.
Mr. Sears noted he had walked the Depot and had counted 210 existing parking spaces. He had observed the municipal lot by The Pantry and found all 19 spaces were filled by employees before 8:45 a.m. even though The Pantry employees were already using the old Town Garage lot. He said he would send the business owners awareness letters to point out to them that the Old Town Garage lot will be reserved for employees so the spaces closer to their businesses can be freed up for customers. He said he would work on keeping it clean, removing the snow, and getting lights. It was suggested small signs be posted to direct vehicles to the municipal parking lots at the old Town Garage and behind Town Hall. It was also suggested the spaces at the old Town Garage lot could be marked as reserved parking for the various businesses.
On street parking was briefly discussed. While this was not considered an immediate priority and was considered by the Commission to be a "last solution," it was thought that there was nothing inherently wrong with it if it was done correctly. Mr. Sears noted it would provide additional spaces and would also calm traffic. Widening Titus Road to accommodate parking along one side was another possibility that could be considered in the future if the parking problem worsens.
Mr. Sears read a letter he had written to the Planning and Zoning Commissions in which he urged them to consider short term parking needs in the Depot a priority issue and ideas such as the transfer of parking rights and payment in lieu of on site parking. He asked that they take into account the larger picture of parking in the Depot when considering the requirements for each lot. He then read a portion of the letter he received from the Washington Business Assoc., which contained a unanimous resolution passed as a statement of support for plans to improve parking in Town.
Mrs. Roberts advised Mr. Sears that any new lights should be appropriate to preserve the character of the village. She urged him to review material on lighting in the Land Use Office prior to making any purchases.
Mr. Rimsky noted this was the first time the Commission had received a strong positive response from the community regarding a specific area of the Depot study. The Commission hoped to use this experience to move forward with other achievable projects such as installing a walking path along the river and around the Depot and making the Depot more pedestrian friendly.
Mrs. Roberts reported that some of the members of the Housing Committee supported the idea of housing behind the Town Hall. She suggested the driveway be extended to circle the Town Hall.
Mr. Sears said there was public support and so he wanted to move ahead with plans for parking improvements. Because he did not want a disjointed approach and since the Planning Commission has a comprehensive view of the Depot, he asked if Planning would be the entity to head up the project. Mr. Charles did not think the Commission was ready to do so because it had not yet developed a complete plan. He suggested the Planning and Zoning Commissions and Board of Selectmen hold a public meeting to bring in Wilbur Smith to discuss additional ideas. Mr. Rimsky agreed that Zoning should be included in all discussions and that a comprehensive approach was needed. He also agreed with Mr. Charles that the public should be brought into the process so it would feel it had contributed to the solution. Mr. Fowlkes thought it made sense for Planning to begin implementation of the Depot study with improvements to parking because in assessing the public reaction to the study it was evident a major concern of many residents was parking. He recommended the Commission try to make the improvements to Bryan Plaza that could be done under the existing authority and nothing beyond that at this point. Mr. Rimsky thought the Commission should also work on the walking path and improvements to the parking at the old Town Garage property because they were two immediate goals that could be accomplished.
Discussion followed on how to draw the public into the process. It was the consensus the Board of Selectmen should schedule a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commissions and invite the business community. It was not decided whether to hold an evening or weekend meeting. Mr. Charles thought Wilbur Smith should be included, but the rest of the commissioners thought that would be more appropriate at a later meeting.
Mr. Sears briefly spoke about the progress being made in cleaning up the old Town Garage property. He expected the area within 100 feet of the river would be cleared of debris, materials, and equipment by fall. Ms. Gager asked if there was access to the old Town Garage property from GW's, and suggested if there was, GW employees could also use the old Town Garage parking lot.
Walker Brook Farms Subdivision II/Rt. 109, New Milford: Ms. Gager reported the public hearing was continued to 4/6. She thought the Commission should continue to show its interest and concern by attending. She asked if Mr. Sears had written to the New Milford Planning Commission regarding Washington's concerns about emergency services and Walker Brook Road, noting that he should do so before the close of the hearing. Mrs. Roberts said she would discuss this matter with him the next morning. The Commission raised several questions including 1) Would Washington EMTs receive payment for services in New Milford? 2) How much would it cost the Washington Vol. Fire Dept. to respond to a call in this N. Milford subdivision? 3) How does the mutual aid agreement between towns work? It was also noted the state Plan of Conservation and Development states the area of the proposed subdivision is not recommended for development. Regarding Walker Brook Road, it was noted the Washington portion was approved as a scenic road, it can't currently handle large equipment, and Washington does not want to make improvements to it. Mr. Charles also stated it is not adequate to serve as an emergency route for the 78 houses proposed. Ms. Gager said she would get a copy of the minutes of the last session of the public hearing so that Mrs. Hill could circulate copies to interested Members.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Coverage, Setbacks, and Parking in the Depot and New Preston Business Districts: Copies of the proposed revisions were circulated and Mrs. Roberts asked the commissioners to write down their comments for discussion at the next meeting. Mrs. Hill noted Zoning's public hearing was not scheduled until the end of May.
Correspondence
Complaint from Mr. Greenstein Re: Activities in the Town Right of Ways: It was noted Mr. Greenstein's complaint had been discussed at the last meeting and the commissioners had been asked to think of ways to address the problem. Mrs. Roberts said she had studied the responsibilities of the Tree Warden and thought he should be more involved with decisions about tree cutting in the right of way. It was noted, however, the Tree Warden would not be aware of the location of open space set aside by the Planning Commission to preserve the streetscape. Mrs. Hill questioned whether it was his responsibility to protect the rural character or just to deal with diseased trees. Mr. Rimsky recommended a future article in the Town newsletter inform the public that it should contact the Town for permission before conducting activities such as rebuilding stone walls and cutting trees in the Town right of way. He also suggested that municipal employees be given guidance about the importance of maintaining the trees along town roads. Mr. Frank suggested the Conservation Commission address this issue when it updates its land use pamphlet. Mrs. Hill suggested information also be posted on the Town website. Mr. Charles recommended a class for realtors. He also thought the Town should develop specific guidelines regarding what is and is not permitted in the Town right of ways and then implement appropriate regulations to govern these activities. It was thought a Town Ordinance would be more effective than a zoning regulation as property owners would not be able to apply for activities on property they do not own. Mrs. Hill noted she had already referred this matter to the Conservation Commission as she had been asked to do at the last meeting. Mr. Charles thought this problem was probably not peculiar to Washington and suggested Mr. McGuinness at the Council of Governments be contacted for input. Mr. Rimsky asked if a notice could be included in the next tax mailing. It was the consensus the Commission would wait for input from the Conservation Commission before advising the Selectmen on possible solutions.
Commission Vacancy: A replacement has not been appointed for Mr. Byerly. Mrs. Roberts will discuss this with Mr. Sears.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
March 7, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles (late), Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Sears, Mr. Haber, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Upper Church Hill, LLC./72 Upper Church Hill Road/3 Lot Subdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Gager, Frank, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Charles.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented maps by Arthur H. Howland, PE, revised to 2/28/06, 12 pp. He described the revisions that were made based on the discussion at the last meeting. 1) The conservation easement area had been reconfigured to include the western portion of the wetlands on the east side of Lot #2. 2) Monuments were proposed at the corners of all property and easement boundaries. 3) Additional plantings to provide a screen for the adjoining property were added along the driveway to Lot #3 as recommended by the Conservation Commission.
Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission wanted as much as possible of the vegetation along the boundary lines to remain in its natural state. Mr. Szymanski said there would be no disturbance within 15 feet of the property lines except for the removal of a section of stone wall for the driveway to Lot #3. Mr. Haber, adjoining property owner, asked for confirmation that all activities would be at least 15 feet from the stone walls. Mr. Szymanski said this was correct and noted the stone walls were under the conservation easement and could not be removed. Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission's goal was to keep the easement area looking like farmland to preserve the rural character. Mr. Szymanski pointed out the conservation easement on the west side of the property at the intersection of Upper Church Hill and Popple Swamp Roads would also preserve the rural character of the area.
Mr. Szymanski stated ideally the parcel would be sold as one piece, said there was a third feasibility layout with four lots for tax deduction purposes, and noted if sold as three lots there was a note on the subdivision map that the lots would not be further resubdivided.
Atty. Kelly asked if Lot #3 was configured as a frontage lot. Mr. Szymanski said he had conservatively considered it an interior lot and it conformed to all the zoning requirements for interior lots. Atty. Kelly asked if plans were provided for the proposed structures. Mr. Szymanski said, no, the site development plans were for feasibility purposes only. Atty. Kelly asked if the Commission had waived this requirement. Mr. Szymanski said there was no requirement for specific plans at this time. Atty. Kelly asked what were the sizes of the septic systems shown. Mr. Szymanski said they were six bedroom designs except for Lot #1, which has an existing three bedroom house and a reserve system for five bedrooms. He explained the actual detailed septic plans would be approved by the Health Department when Building and Zoning permits were applied for and the actual house size and location was known. Atty. Kelly asked if the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application. Mr. Szymanski said both the Wetlands permit and driveway permit had been approved.
The open space/conservation easement was discussed. Atty. Kelly asked who would hold the conservation easement. Mrs. Roberts said the Conservation Commission would. Atty. Kelly noted more than half of the easement area was wetlands and asked if the Commission had considered requiring a fee in lieu of open space. Mr. Szymanski noted he had revised the easement boundaries to include more of the wetlands at the request of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Hill stated the application had been referred to the Conservation Commission who had not recommended a fee in lieu of the open space requirement. Atty. Kelly asked if a fee in lieu of open space had ever been considered by the Commission. Mrs. Hill said it had not, probably because there had been so few subdivision applications since this option was permitted under state law. Atty. Kelly suggested the Commission leave the wetlands out of the easement area and take a mix, a smaller conservation easement area and a partial fee in lieu.
Mrs. Hill asked whether the Commission had determined whether any fire protection measures would be required. Mr. Szymanski said he had tried to contact Mr. Woodruff of the Fire Dept., but had not been successful.
Mr. Szymanski submitted revised residential density calculations to reflect the changes made to the conservation easement area and informed the Commission the proposed subdivision still met the residential density requirements.
Mrs. Hill noted all five adjoining property owners had received their certified mailings notifying them of the hearing.
There were no other questions from the commissioners or from the public.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:58 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 7:59 p.m. and seated Members Gager, Frank, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/7/06 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Upper Church Hill, LLC./72 Upper Church Hill Road/3 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Rimsky stated the applicant had been responsive to the Commission's requests. Mr. Frank noted it had not yet been decided whether fire protection measures would be required. It was the consensus this was a small subdivision and so this was not necessary. Mrs. Hill asked if the applicant had received confirmation from the Town that it would accept the open space. Mr. Szymanski confirmed this was so. Mr. Frank noted the conservation easement language had to be reviewed as it contained errors. Mr. Szymanski noted the Conservation Commission had already reviewed it. Mr. Frank listed the following sections that either contained errors or incorrect references: 3.7, 4.5, and 4.5.b, and asked if it had been referred to the Town Attorney for review. Mrs. Hill said the Commission had not requested a legal review. Ms. Gager asked if the applicant had addressed the solar energy techniques per Section 8.3 of the Subdivision Regulations. Mrs. Hill said this had been done.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Upper Church Hill LLC. for a 3 lot subdivision at 72 Upper Church Hill Road per the maps and plans revised to 2/28/06 subject to the following conditions: 1) the conservation easement language be reviewed and approved by the Town of Washington and 2) the landscaping be installed prior to the signing of the mylar map. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Rimsky noted the validity of the points raised by Atty. Kelly when he suggested the Commission consider a fee in lieu of open space. He thought the Planning and Conservation Commissions should establish a stronger dialogue and work more closely together on the subdivision open space requirement. It was noted the state sets the fee in lieu of open space at 10% of the appraised value prior to development, so in this case, the fee would have been approximately $50,000. Mrs. Roberts agreed the two commissions should work more closely and said she would discuss this matter with Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission chair.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/16/06 site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Fowlkes, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Depot Study: Mrs. Roberts noted she has continued to discuss the study with the community and has found that many residents are receptive at least in part to the plan. Widening the Plaza so there is room for a median and additional parking and the idea of constructing housing behind Bryan Hall were two of the ideas for which she found support. She said the Selectmen had asked how the Commission was progressing with establishing priorities. Mr. Rimsky noted the walking trail encircling the Depot should be on the short list of priorities as it could be accomplished relatively quickly and without much funding. There was a brief discussion regarding the work that would have to be done to install a narrow, natural trail along the river. It was noted, too, Inland Wetlands Commission approval would be required. Mrs. Roberts said she had discussed the possibility of a temporary playing field on the old Town Garage property. She said although the study had tagged this property for housing, it could be ten, twenty, or more years before that was built, so in the meantime the Park and Rec Commission might want to consider the installation of a "temporary" field. Mrs. Roberts stated the First Selectman would apply for grants once the priorities have been established. There was a brief discussion about printing additional copies of the Depot Study. It was the consensus that copies were so expensive; approximately $500 for twenty bound color copies, that the public should be directed to read the document on the Town web site. Mr. Rimsky will make two copies of the CD so that it can be loaned out to the public.
Mr. Sears and Mr. Charles entered the meeting at this point.
Mr. Sears noted the possibility of housing behind the Town Hall would be discussed at the next Housing Committee meeting.
Improvements to Bryan Plaza were discussed. Mrs. Roberts stated the Commission thought this was a priority and suggested the Board of Selectmen could start to work on it. Mr. Sears said this could be done if advocated by the citizens, but Mr. Rimsky thought direction would come from the Planning Commission, not the public. Mrs. Roberts noted she has found the public receptive to the idea of improvements to Bryan Plaza, said such improvements would be for the public good, and thought therefore, the Board of Selectmen could operate in the public interest. Mr. Sears thought it was important to first get input from the stakeholders and support from the public. Mr. Frank noted the Commission had always planned to hold public informational meetings to discuss the priorities for the Depot. Mr. Rimsky said improvements should also be made to the parking area by The Pantry. Mr. Sears noted he and Mrs. Roberts would attend the next meeting of the Washington Business Association to discuss parking. Mr. Charles said any changes made to the Depot parking now should be designed to leave options open for future needs. Mr. Fowlkes suggested the old Town Garage property be used temporarily for employee parking. Mr. Sears said there had already been 10-12 spaces installed there, but these could be expanded if lighting and snow removal concerns were addressed.
Mr. Sears warned the commissioners that the school vote would shift the Town's focus on spending priorities.
Walker Brook Subdivision II/New Milford: Ms. Gager and Mr. Charles attended the New Milford public hearing and submitted the letter from the Commission, which had been written by Ms. Purnell after consultation with several Planning Commissioners. It was noted the subdivision would be closer to the Washington fire department than to the New Milford firehouse and the impact on Washington's volunteer emergency services was unknown. Mrs. Roberts suggested the Board of Selectmen write a follow up letter to the New Milford Planning Commission to voice its concerns. Ms. Gager noted wetlands, health, road improvements, and sight line issues remain to be addressed by n. Milford. Mr. Charles advised the Commission that the CBIA, which is comprised of both government and business entities, is pushing to reduce sprawl throughout Ct. and that the current New Milford application would do just the opposite.
Ficalora/Green Hill Road: Mrs. Hill briefly reported on the preliminary discussion, which had taken place at the 2/27/06 Zoning Commission meeting, regarding the redevelopment of the Ficalora property. She explained the property owner had been asked by Zoning to draft plans that were more in keeping with the goals of the Depot Study and that would work to preserve the rural and community character. In turn, the Zoning Commission would work to adopt revised Zoning Regulations for the business districts that would allow increased coverage, decreased setbacks, changes to nonconforming buildings, decreases in the parking requirements, etc. under certain circumstances to enable development that is similar to what already exists in the Depot. Mr. Charles felt strongly that the Zoning Commission should not approve any amendments to the Zoning Regs until it had consulted with experienced planners such as Wilbur Smith or Planimetrics. Mrs. Hill advised him that at this point Zoning was considering allowing flexibility by Special Permit on a site specific basis. Mrs. Roberts thought it was wonderful that Zoning was trying to follow the broad precepts of the Depot Study. Mr. Rimsky also applauded Zoning's efforts, but agreed with Mr. Charles that the Zoning Commission should be encouraged to refer the draft revisions to either Wilbur Smith or Planimetrics.
Communications
Mrs. Hill discussed the 3/6/06 letter from Mr. Greenstein, which complained about the trees cut by the Private Mortgage Fund, LLC. in the Town right of way on South Fenn Hill Road. She pointed out that the Planning Commission has often required open space that preserves the rural streetscape and that clearcutting in the Town of right of ways is counter productive to that goal. It was suggested the Planning and Conservation Commissions could work together with the Highway Department to control unnecessary disturbances in the Town right of ways. Mr. Sears asked the Planning Commission to get back to him with ideas on how to regulate the area between the edge of town roads and property lines. Mrs. Hill will refer the matter to the Conservation Commission as well.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
February 7, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Purnell, Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Schrier, Press
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, and Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
On page 1 it was noted Mr. Gager should be changed to Ms. Gager.
MOTION: To accept the 1/10/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Rimsky arrived and was seated.
Pending Application
Upper Church Hill, LLC./72 Upper Church Hill Road/3 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, responded to Mrs. Hill's 2/7/06 updated application review and Mrs. Payne's letter to the Commission received 2/7/06. Regarding Mrs. Payne's letter he stated the following: 1) He offered to include the side yard setback area on the NE side of lot #2 in the conservation easement to connect the easement areas, 2) He agreed to the recommended language regarding the preservation of stone walls on the property except for the driveway openings. 3) He proposed iron pipes at all points where the boundary lines change location and offered to add more at the discretion of the Commission. 4) He noted the buffer between the lot #3 driveway and the Whitehead property had been revised since the last meeting and a mix of native vegetation such as pin oak, ash, maple, and cedar was proposed. He then addressed the summary points on page 4 of Mrs. Hill's review. 1) He submitted the draft document, "Proposed Conservation Restriction." He noted it was based on the language for the Myfield conservation easement and said that the Conservation Commission had approved it with the above mentioned recommendation to add protection for the stone walls. 2) He agreed to get the Road Foreman's written approval for the location of the driveway cuts. 3) He was advised to go to the Conservation Commission to find out whether the Town would accept the easement and to submit a copy of the written agreement. 4) He explained the reason why the applicant had requested a waiver of the requirement that the state plane coordinates be shown on the map, noting the closest monument was located on Rt. 109 quite a distance from the property. 5) He noted it was up to the Commission to decide whether it would request fire protection measures, but said it was only a three lot subdivision and the Town had no specific requirements. 6) He noted iron pins would be visible but not outwardly apparent and asked if they were acceptable to the Commission. 7) It was noted the Commission still had to decide whether it would conduct a public hearing. 8) It was noted the conservation issues raised in Mrs. Payne's letter had already been addressed.
The procedure for filing the conservation easement was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski stated the easement would have to be filed on the Town Land Records before the mylar was signed for filing.
Mr. Charles objected to the terms of the conservation easement, saying since these areas could be converted to lawn, it was really a buffer and did not provide much protection. Mr. Szymanksi said much of it is hayed four times a year and some is already lawn. Mr. Charles thought the proposed configuration of the lots and the easement was a suburban style use of the land and thought a better plan would be to cluster the houses so the farmland could be preserved. Mr. Szymanski noted that until the conservation easement is filed, the possibility would remain that the property could be sold as one piece with four lots donated for open space for tax deductions.
Mrs. Roberts advised Mr. Szymanski that the state has a program to provide native vegetation for screening and also stated the Conservation Commission would soon provide Planning with a list of invasive species that should not be used for landscaping or in buffers.
There was another brief discussion regarding the state plane coordinates.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.4.11 of the Subdivision Regulations so that in its current application for a 3 lot subdivision at 72 Upper Church Hill Road, Upper Church Hill, LLC. will not have to show the state plane coordinates on the Subdivision Map. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Regarding fire protection measures, Mr. Szymanski was advised to contact Mr. Woodruff of the Fire Dept. to review the application. It was noted the Commission has the jurisdiction to request fire protection measures, but that it would be unusual for it to do so in this case.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed use of iron pins to mark the boundaries of the conservation easement. While the Conservation Commission favored the pins over more visible markers, Mr. Charles thought the monuments should stick out of the ground so they would be clearly visible and it would be evident to both future owners and Town officials who would monitor the easement area. Mr. Szymanski noted it would cost $150 more for each concrete marker and argued the boundaries were evident when observing the natural features of the property. He suggested monuments be installed only at the major corners with iron pins elsewhere and circled potential monument locations on the site plan. It was the consensus this was how it would be handled and that in the future the Commission should work out a standard policy about easement markers with the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Charles preferred that all the wetlands on the east side of the property be included in the conservation easement. Mr. Szymanski offered remove the conservation easement along the driveway and northern boundary of lot #2 and in exchange, add the wetlands on the east side of the lot. He said he was well over the 15% open space required and so would have no problem with the open space computation. Mrs. Roberts agreed this was a good idea since future property owners would probably want to mow along the driveway.
Ms. Gager advised the applicant to check the language in sections 3.6.3 and 2.6 of the conservation easement to make sure it does not conflict.
Mr. Charles thought in the future the Town should charge applicants $2500 to set up an endowment to pay for monitoring of conservation easements.
Driveway construction was briefly discussed. Mr. Szymanski noted no curbs were proposed and that due to the level land, the Wetlands Commission had approved the application without a condition that the driveways remain unpaved. Mrs. Roberts noted the Planning Commission favors unpaved driveways to preserve rural character.
It was noted that based on the residential density requirements, once the conservation easement is filed the proposed lots could not be resubdivided and a note to this effect had been added to the Record Subdivision Map.
A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
A site inspection was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 16, 2006. The commissioners will meet at the farmhouse.
Other Business
Depot Study: Mrs. Roberts noted several Town commissioners had submitted questions and comments about the study and several of these were discussed.
Mr. Snook: Mrs. Roberts feared he had misunderstood there would be one way traffic through Bryan Plaza, and she stated this was not the case; the traffic would continue to flow as it always has, but there would be a row of trees installed down the middle to separate the lanes. She also noted there would be adequate room for diagonal parking for both lanes. Regarding his point that the report is too optimistic as the Town can barely support the businesses that are here now, Mr. Rimsky noted the study projects possible uses in the Depot, it is not an actual plan. Mr. Charles pointed out the possibility of more residences in the Depot, especially units over commercial spaces, would help support the businesses already here and would make it more economically feasible for people to live and work in Town. It was noted the Commission was not projecting population figures, but was being prudent by being prepared for an increase if it does, indeed, occur. Also in response to Mr. Snook, it was noted the plan contains more parking spaces than there are now in the Depot by making more efficient use of the space available. Mr. Charles suggested Mr. Donovan of Wilbur Smith Assoc. be asked to attend a joint Planning-Zoning meeting to discuss parking issues. It was noted whatever decision was made about the future of the Primary School, it would affect the Depot. No matter what the outcome, a flood plain study will have to be conducted for the school property. Mr. Rimsky noted that page 29 of the report addresses the school issue. Regarding routing truck traffic through the Supply property, Mr. Rimsky thought this would be unsafe due to the ongoing business operations in the lumber yard. Flood Plain Study: Mrs. Roberts stated this would be one of the top priorities of Phase II since there were reports that the FEMA data is not accurate and that the river and flood plain have changed since the flood plain was first established. Mr. Sedito: This memo to the Commission had been reviewed at the last meeting and Mrs. Hill's response to Mr. Sedito was found to be satisfactory. Mrs. Leab: Mrs. Leab voiced her concern about preserving water quality and Mrs. Roberts agreed that would be a high priority. The Commissioners did not necessarily think that all activities had to be kept away from the river in order to accomplish this. Several members cited examples of towns where with the use of their river corridors by the public for recreational and conservation purposes, the general population became more aware and protective of the environment. It was also noted the Commission was not recommending development exactly as it existed years ago in Town. Any new development would have to meet current regulations. Stormwater management was discussed. Mrs. Roberts noted several years ago the Town installed a basin in the Plaza that empties directly into the Shepaug. Ms. Purnell noted this allows pollutants such as heavy metals, gas, oil, asbestos, etc. to reach the river. Mrs. Roberts said NEMO information would be reviewed for ideas on controlling stormwater runoff. Ms. Purnell recommended proposed landscaping features such as the trees in the middle of the Plaza be used as biofiltration basins to protect the river. She also cautioned that the existing drainage systems must be routinely maintained to reduce the flow of sand and sediment to the river and that the state might consider this sediment under the category of special waste. She offered to provide the Commission with schematics and drawings of sample biofiltration systems. Inland Wetlands Commission: Mrs. Roberts stated she would attend an upcoming Wetlands meeting to explain that the Planning Commission is fully aware of that Commission's jurisdiction and is concerned about protecting the wetlands. It was agreed it would be very helpful to have the Depot's wetlands and watercourses delineated. Mrs. Roberts suggested the Town apply for a grant for funding to conduct the wetlands and flood plain studies as well as other studies determined to be priorities. Mr. Charles said a community septic system study should be done as well. The Wetlands Commission also raised several special concerns. It did not favor a realignment to create a River Road/Titus Road intersection because this would decrease the buffer between the road and the river. Mr. Rimsky again noted this was only an idea at this time and also that if done, the road realignment would be in the vicinity of the present drug store parking lot so there would still be a buffer between River Road and the river. Mr. Charles reiterated his belief that bringing the public closer to the river would result in increased public commitment to protect it. Mrs. Roberts noted Wetlands' concern about the installation of septic systems and the preservation of riparian buffers if dwelling units are constructed on the old Town garage property and behind Town Hall. Mr. Charles suggested the Planning Commission work closely with the Inland Wetlands Commission in the future. Mr. Rimsky noted aspects of the study such as reestablishing the main street appearance along River Road or constructing houses on the old Town garage property may or may not ever happen, but if they do, there would be prudent evaluations by all the Town land use commissions. Mrs. Roberts noted one part of the study that most people agree on is the idea for a hiking trail along the river. She asked Ms. Purnell whether the Inland Wetlands Commission would be receptive to plans for clearing along the riverbank in order to put in a trail. Speaking for herself, Ms. Purnell thought a low impact path with selective vista pruning would be OK as long as the topography and root systems were not disturbed. Regarding the location of affordable housing units, Mrs. Roberts stated that if housing units were constructed in the Depot they would be within walking distance of stores and other services, so this matter was addressed in the study. Mrs. Leab's request that plans for Wykeham Rise be considered was not addressed because that property is out of the study area. In response to Mrs. Leab's request to put the study on the website, Mr. Rimsky noted this had already been done. He said, however, that is was a PDF document, which might not be readily available to all website users, so recommended the Commission continue to pursue printing copies for the public to purchase. Ms. Gager recommended the Commission check the Freedom of Information Act before setting a price for the study. Mrs. Schrier thought the Commission should advertise when there are copies available and sell them at local stores and in front of the Food Market. Mr. Charles thought the Commission should give the public time to read the study before scheduling any community meetings. Mrs. Roberts said there would be a meeting with the business community and she and Mrs. Schrier of the Washington Business Assoc. will work out a mutually agreeable date. It was noted the Commission appreciated the responses received and would continue to discuss them at the next meeting. They regretted they did not have time to respond personally to each individual, but noted the discussions would be covered in the minutes.
Walker Brook Farm Subdivision II: Ms. Purnell circulated her 2/7/06 memo on planning related issues. She briefly described the area in which the New Milford subdivision is proposed, the pristine character of Walker Brook, and the application process to date. Currently the subdivision application has been resubmitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission and submitted to the Planning Commission without addressing the many concerns raised by the Washington Inland Wetlands Comm. at past public hearings held to consider the previous applications. She asked if the Planning Commission would draft a letter to the New Milford Planning Comm. to advise it of Washington planning issues such as the scenic road status of Walker Brook Road, density, preservation of farmland, goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development, etc. It was the consensus that a development of such density on the Washington border would adversely impact the preservation of farmland in the area, would encourage sprawl, would not be in keeping with the existing rural character, and would change the character of the community. It was noted the 78 houses proposed would be much closer to Washington Depot than they would to New Milford and that this would impact our volunteer emergency services. Mr. Charles offered to work with Ms. Purnell to expand upon the letter against the proposed zone change, which was sent to the New Milford Zoning Commission in 2004. Once a draft is prepared, he will email it to the commissioners for comments. This was necessary because the New Milford public hearing is scheduled before the next Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
January 10, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Mr. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Peckerman, Ms. Doran, Mr. Cornett, Mr. Mustich, Mr. and Mrs. Paris, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Van Zanten, Residents, PressRegular Business
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Ms. Gager. She then announced this was not a Special Meeting concerning the Depot study as had been reported in the Litchfield County Times, but said that matter would be taken up later in the meeting and comments from the public would be welcome at that time. She added the study would continually be discussed at upcoming meetings through the spring and perhaps through the summer.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 12/6/05 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, 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. Frank, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Upper Church Hill, LLC/72 Upper Church Hill Road/3 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Van Zanten, agent, submitted maps and plans, 12 pp, revised to 1/10/06 and the "Stormwater Management Report," by Mr. Szymanski and Mr. Van Zanten, dated 1/9/06.
Ms. Gager entered at this point.
Mr. Van Zanten briefly reviewed the plans for the three lot subdivision. Lot #1 contained the existing house and barns, Lot #2 would be accessed from Upper Church Hill Road and Lot #3 from Popple Swamp Road. Each lot would have its own well and septic system and processed gravel driveway. He noted an erosion control plan, which mainly called for the use of staked hay bales, had been submitted. The driveway entrances would cross over roadside swales and so a 15 inch pipe to handle a 100 year storm was proposed for each. He pointed out the location of wetlands and of the proposed conservation easement area, which was comprised of approximately 20% wetlands.
Mrs. Roberts noted the applicant had submitted a letter dated 1/9/06 to address each of the issues raised by Mrs. Hill in her 12/30/05 review.
Mr. Van Zanten noted the conservation easement language was not yet ready, but said it would be given to the Town. When asked if the Conservation Commission had accepted it, he said that the applicant had received a review from the Commission Commission and would have a written response prepared for the next meeting.
Mrs. Roberts noted that at the preliminary discussion the Commissioners had asked for a vegetative buffer along the driveway to Lot #3 to screen it from the existing house on the adjoining property. Mr. Van Zanten said white pines were proposed at the entrance to shield headlights as they turned into the drive. Mrs. Roberts suggested the driveway be moved farther from the property line, but Mr. Van Zanten said the applicant was trying to keep it as far from the wetlands as possible. Mrs. Roberts remarked how flat and open the land was and asked for additional screening along the length of the driveway. Mr. Fairbairn noted the Conservation Commission had recommended the easement be extended into the southeast corner of the property, which is visually important due to the view from the road. Mr. Van Zanten said he would look into it. Mr. Fairbairn and Mrs. Roberts asked for plantings in addition to white pines, noting they grow quickly and would not shield headlights for long and were not typical vegetation found at the edge of farmland. Mrs. Peckerman added that white pines were too brittle for such a windy, open area.
A site inspection was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 21, 2006.
Other Business
Depot Study
Mrs. Roberts again stated the Depot study would continue to be on the agenda during the upcoming months as the Commission continues the slow process of gathering information. She noted the study had been circulated among the Town boards and comments were beginning to come in. She said when a disc was received, it would be available on the Town website and copies would be printed for the public to purchase. She read an introductory paragraph she had written to accompany the document when it is put on the website and she noted that although it contains a list of priorities, the Commission would continue to assess the needs of the Town and establish its own priorities after considering further input.
There was a brief discussion with Mr. Owen, Chairman of the Zoning Commission, regarding Zoning's role. Mr. Owen noted many of the ideas presented in the study would require revisions to the Zoning Regulations, but thought Zoning should follow rather than lead in the process. The Planning Commissioners, however, advised Mr. Owen they thought it was very important for the Zoning Commission to give Planning its insights early on. Mr. Rimsky recalled the joint Planning-Zoning meeting, which was held to define issues and concerns in the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development, noting it had been a productive approach. Mrs. Roberts noted many other towns have combined planning-zoning commissions making it easier to address issues cooperatively. She said Planning plans and then Zoning codifies, so it is important that they work together and communicate openly. Mr. Owen offered to serve as a liason between the two commissions. He also agreed the Zoning Commission would submit comments on the study once each Zoning Commissioner had received a copy.
Mr. Cornett found the study disturbing because he thought it promoted development in the Depot, did not contain traffic studies to justify the corrective traffic and parking measures it suggested, and would result in changes that the townspeople did not want. He also stated building dwelling units in the Depot would add to the traffic and that affordable housing should be located in some other area of Town, not the Depot. He thought a traffic light should be installed on Rt. 47 to make it safer for pedestrians to cross. Mrs. Roberts responded that economic concerns were an important aspect of the study, noting that additional dwelling units and a walkable village center would be good for the existing businesses struggling there. She added one of the ideas raised in the study was the possibility of restoring some of the economic viability found in the Depot prior to the 1955 flood. Mr. Rimsky explained that planning for development differs from promoting it. He said if the Town does not draft a plan to ensure that future development is done according to its wishes, that development could change the character of the Town center. He said the goal was to be proactive by drafting a plan that would enable the Town to preserve what it now values and to develop in a way that consolidates the community and protects the existing character. Mr. Cornett argued that the village center is already vital and does not need additional houses or businesses.
Mrs. Andersen did not think the Planning Commission had opened up the study process soon enough to the public. She recommended the Commission follow the same procedure now being used by the School Board to reach out to the public. She stated public meetings to listen to the people should be scheduled, the process was taking too long, and that important work such as revisions to the Zoning Regulations was being held up because the study was not progressing fast enough. Mrs. Roberts said again that the study would be a lengthy process, that the process had been slowed by the misinformation circulated in the fall election, and that financial constraints also slowed it down. She explained the charrette had been conducted to get the whole Town involved in the study. Mr. Charles agreed the Commission had continually reached out to the public for input. Mr. Rimsky noted comments from the Town boards would be evaluated, the study would be put on the website as soon as possible, copies were available in Town Hall for review, but that as soon as more copies could be printed they would be made available for the public to purchase, and that the entire process had been described in the Commission's minutes, which were on line for public review.
Mr. Paris thought it was good that Planning and Zoning were separate commissions because it provided the Town with protection. He said the charrette had not been successful because the consultants were adversarial and it had not been adequately publicized. He thought the Depot businesses were viable and the Town would survive with what currently exists. He stated that many in Town are worried about the future of the Washington Supply and Texaco properties, but they need not be because nothing is going to happen on either. He said the current division in Town is due to a lack of communication and recommended a meeting in the upstairs hall for all townspeople to attend. He also noted that the traffic problem might be solved by a simple traffic cop or stop sign instead of unnecessary large scale projects.
Mrs. Paris noted that while the Planning Commission is looking ten or more years ahead, Zoning is not making the revisions to its Regulations needed to protect the Town. Mr. Owen stated the Zoning Regulations were strict, but Mrs. Paris worried about loopholes and thought tightening them would be an inexpensive way to address many of the concerns raised in the study. Mrs. Andersen also thought the Zoning Regulations should be tightened to address the immediate problems the Depot is facing. Mr. Owen stated it was difficult for the Zoning Commission to deal in the abstract and it would work on revisions to its Regulations only after the problems to be solved were clearly defined.
Mrs. Roberts noted the Planning Commission has learned much during the process and that its volunteers had put forth their best effort and were comfortable with the progress to date. She said the next task would be to define priorities the Town could agree upon and reminded those present the Planning Commission must endeavor to see the whole picture and could not dwell on only one viewpoint. She thanked everyone for coming and invited them to attend the next meeting.
2006 Budget: Mrs. Roberts noted the 2006 budget included $35,000 for Phase II of the Depot study. The Commission authorized Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Hill to work on a budget based on the 2005 figures.
Depot Study: Several concerns were raised about the above Depot study discussion.
Although the members of the public present claimed the study had not been well advertised and there was inadequate communication, the commissioners noted the following steps had been taken to notify and involve the public: press releases, newspaper articles (example: front page article in Voices), banner on Town Hall, tent outside Town Hall, posters, minutes and agendas on the website, Advisory Committee selected from broad cross section of town, and newsletter delivered to every household. It was noted the process had been and would continue to be an open one. It was noted there had been incorrect information printed in the Litchfield County Times and that the two members of the press in attendance were new and did not know the history of the study. Mrs. Hill was asked to contact them to let them know the Commission would be happy to answer any questions. The need for continued communication was stressed. It was noted that misinformation from the fall campaign was still circulating. Mr. Fowlkes asked whether under the current Zoning Regulations a CVS, large warehouse, or other similar business with parking on all sides, open 24-7 would be possible on the Supply property. Mrs. Hill said it would be possible. In that case, he said, it was, indeed, a possibility that should be addressed. Although the current owner has no plans to demolish what's on site and construct something new, a future owner could do so. He noted development from New Milford is coming closer to Washington and that businesses such as Home Depot build with future development pressures in mind. Mr. Fairbairn noted that seven years ago there were 17,000 people living within 5 miles of the Washington Green. Mr. Charles noted the owner of the Texaco property is working on plans to tear down that structure and build a bank. It was generally thought the more banks located in Town, the greater the development pressures would be. The commissioners discussed how to proceed with the study. They agreed they would first review all the comments solicited from the Town boards and would continue to listen to comments from the public at upcoming meetings. As soon as the disc is received the study will go on the website. The commissioners agreed that they should establish their priorities prior to any large public meeting so that meeting would have a sense of direction and the agenda would be manageable. It was the consensus public discussion should be encouraged in order to build a consensus.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Meetings in 2005