The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Planning Commission, 2007
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning Commission, 2007 |
|
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 4 •November 7 •October 2 •September 4 •August 7 •July 10 •June 5 •May 1 •April 3 •March 6 •February 6 •March 6 •January 2 •Meetings in 2006 •Meetings in 2005 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
Posted: December 15, 2007 December 4, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. and Mrs. Klein, Mr. Neff, Mr. Cannizzaro, Mr. Owen, Press
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Frank announced that Mrs. Roberts had been named Washington's Volunteer of the Year. Seated were Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mr. Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
The November 7, 2007 Minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 4, line 17: delete: "of," and on page 5, under Fences and Walls: insert a hyphen between semi and open.
MOTION: To accept the 11/7/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Mrs. Roberts read Mrs. Hill's 12/4/07 review, which listed many incomplete items. She asked if the density calculations were correct and Mrs. Hill responded that she had no way of knowing this. It was noted that Mr. Neff, engineer, was not present and would be able to facilitate the discussion upon his arrival.
MOTION: To table further discussion of the Klein- Cannizzaro subdivision application until later in the meeting when Mr. Neff arrives. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher noted he had received Mrs. Hill's 12/4/08 review of the items missing in the application. He submitted the application fee, a request for a waiver of the 2 ft. contour line map requirement, and the 6/21/07 letter of authorization from Mr. Bowles. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 11/1/07 was reviewed. Atty. Fisher noted the proposed boundary line followed the existing stonewall and that the property was fairly level. Mrs. Hill pointed out the locations where monuments were required. She also advised the commissioners that the open space acreage had been computed incorrectly and so a larger area than that shown on the map would be required. Mrs. Gager asked if there was any connecting open space on adjoining properties. Mrs. Hill said there was open space on the Davenport property, but she did not know if it was adjacent to the Bowles property. Mrs. Roberts noted that the Commission often prefers open space along the road to preserve the rural character of the streetscape. A site inspection was scheduled for Sat., December 15, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.
Other Business
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Whittlesey Road: Mrs. Roberts read the 11/14/07 application letter from Ms. Feldman and the list of incomplete documentation by Mrs. Hill. It was noted the application was for the entire length of the road. Mr. Rimsky mentioned that this was one of the roads listed as scenic in the Natural Resources Inventory Report. A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, December 15, 2007 immediately following the Bowles site inspection.
Revision of the Regulations: Ms. Gager said she had received comments from Mrs. Hill and would add them to her list for review at the January meeting.
Implementation of the 2003 Plan of Development and Depot Study: Mrs. Roberts noted that a letter had been sent to all Land Use boards and commissions and to the Board of Selectmen asking for a status report and information about whether they had encountered any problems or could use the Planning Commission's help. She said that few responses had been received. She read the letter from Mr. Chute of the HDC, notes from Mr. Picton, chairman of the IWC, and the brief paragraph in the 11/14/07 IWC minutes, and noted she had had a conversation with and an email from Mr. Owen, chairman of the Zoning Commission. She said she would submit the email for the file. Since there had been no response from the Selectmen's Office, Mrs. Hill was asked to submit the letter a second time. Mr. Owen suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commissions hold a Special Meeting on Monday, January 2, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room to discuss relevant issues. It was the consensus that a joint meeting would be productive. Mr. Owen will work on an agenda. Although Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission was not bound by law to implement the Plan of Conservation and Development, the commissioners noted that the recent adoption of regulations governing outdoor residential lighting and for providing flexible development options in the Depot and the New Preston Business Districts were in keeping with the Depot Study and Plan. Mr. Owen said he had attended the last WCHT meeting and noted that the Town groups concerned about housing did not appear to have the same priorities. The Planning Commission was recommending housing in the village centers, the Housing Commission was working on senior housing, and the WCHT did not view either of these as a priority at this point. He said it was important for all of the groups involved to keep the lines of communication open. Mr. Owen thought the issue of housing involved much more than just the Zoning Regulations. Housing needs in Washington, the possibility for housing on Town properties, the need for educating residents about housing issues, the question of whether more senior housing is needed at this time, how population relates to rural character, how housing units should be allocated, and the connection between housing and sprawl were among the topics briefly discussed. Mr. Owen noted that housing and development pressures can significantly impact a town's character. He noted that New Milford did not set out to become the New Milford we know today, but that it got that way inadvertently by following its regulations. He said that Route 7 reflects New Milford's regulations and pointed out that many of Washington's current regs are similar to New Milford's. In the case of the new Depot and New Preston Business District regulations, which allow flexibility and attempt to keep sprawl in check, he noted that a Depot property owner had found it would be too expensive to develop his site in this way. He continued, then, that just because we make it possible to develop in a way that is more in keeping with Washington's character, doesn't guarantee that it will happen.
Procedures for Conservation Easements: Mr. Boling and Mrs. Payne from the Conservation Commission will work with Mr. Frank and Ms. Gager to draft a standard conservation easement form.
100 Year Flood Plain: Mr. Carey will correct his letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting accurate mapping of the flood plain in the Depot, and once this is completed, Mrs. Hill will forward it to the Selectmen. The area of greatest concern extends from the Rt. 47/Rt. 109 intersection on Bee Brook Road to just south of the Primary School property.
Pending Application
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision: The list of incomplete documentation was briefly reviewed. It included DOT approval of the feasibility of the driveway cut on the state road, Inland Wetlands approval, and Health Dept. approval. Mrs. Klein asked if the Commission had any flexibility in addressing this long list. Mr. Carey explained that the Commission must follow its Regulations and would not want to set a precedent in acting on an incomplete application. Mr. Neff, engineer, arrived at this point. He assured the Commission that he and Mr. Alex would address the information missing on the survey map and site development plan. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 11/12/07 was reviewed. It was noted the property has frontage on West Shore, Tinker Hill, and Ash Swamp Roads and a right of way to Gunn Hill Road. Mr. Neff said that he would request a waiver of the 2 ft. contours for the entire site, would add a monument to the site plan, and that the house site was correctly oriented on the site plan for the implementation of passive solar techniques. Mr. Frank recommended that a public hearing be conducted to consider the application because this is a significant property on Lake Waramaug and there is considerable public interest in its potential development. Ms. Gager agreed. Mrs. Hill did not think there was a reason to hold a public hearing on every subdivision, especially this one with oversized lots proposed and no open space requirement. Mr. Cannizzaro and the Kleins objected to a public hearing because they said they have no plans to develop the proposed lot, a hearing might make neighbors suspect "there is more going on than there is," and a hearing would delay action on the application. Mr. Carey noted that this was an environmentally precious piece of property and a public hearing would give residents the opportunity to see that a family division of the parcel is proposed and that it meets all of the regulations. He also noted the scheduling of a hearing would require neighbors to be notified by certified mail, which he thought was a good idea. Mr. Rimsky also thought the property was a significant piece and that a hearing would give the owners the opportunity to tell neighbors that they have no immediate plans to develop it. Mrs. Roberts explained to the applicants that while the Commission takes comments from the public, it acts only on what has been applied for and acts according to its Regulations. A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. and a public hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
Other Business
Mr. Rimsky noted that Mr. Owen had observed differences in the priorities of the Housing Commission and WCHT and suggested that the Planning Commission begin dialogues with these groups as well as the Zoning Commission. He thought it would be helpful to correct any misinformation the public has so that implementation of the Plan and the Depot Study doesn't get stuck. He also thought that Planning would benefit by keeping up with the issues raised by the public. Mrs. Roberts thought the Board of Selectmen should call for and moderate such a meeting. She also said she thought it was a good idea for the Planning and Zoning Commissions to work cooperatively.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: November 26, 2007 November 7, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski
PUBLIC HEARING
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision/Con't.
Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, addressed the few issues remaining to be resolved: 1) consideration of passive solar techniques: Mr. Szymanski stated these had been discussed at the meeting on September 4th. 2) approval of the curb cut onto Scofield Hill Road: The 10/25/07 written approval for the feasibility of the driveway cut from Mr. Smith of the Highway Dept. was submitted for the file. 3) revision of the conservation easement language: The revised wording had been reviewed and approved with several minor modifications by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Szymanski submitted the 11/7/07 memo from Mrs. Payne, Conservation Comm. chairman, to the Planning Comm. detailing the four requested revisions in sections 2.4, 3.7, 3.9, and 4.5.b. Mr. Frank also noted corrections were needed on the signature page. It was agreed that Mr. Szymanski would produce the final draft, which would be forwarded to Atty. Zizka for a final legal review. Mr. Szymanski advised the Commission that there had been no changes to the subdivision map since the last meeting. No one from the public was present to speak for or against the application and there were no other questions or comments from the Commission.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
The 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 7:38 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 10/2/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Frank reviewed the 10/10/07 email from Atty. Taylor, an associate of Atty. Zizka, and asked whether the Conservation Commission had considered the proposed reserved rights in the conservation easement. It was thought that it had because one of the requested revisions by the Conservation Commission was in section 3.7 regarding reserved rights. Mr. Carey said he would like more explicit wording to prohibit the planting of white pines and the planting of trees in rows. Mrs. Roberts pointed out, however, that the language to encourage the planting of native conifers was introduced by the Conservation Commission and that the language approved by Conservation also referred to planting trees in rows. Mr. Charles noted that in Steep Rock conservation easements planting may not be done without a review by the Land Trust. It was noted that Mr. Boling of the Conservation Commission had volunteered to work with Planning to draft standard language for conservation easements and that such a provision could be included. Mr. Frank and Ms. Gager will work with Mr. Boling. It was again stated that Atty. Zizka would review the final revised document once it is received by the Commission.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road with the condition that the final conservation easement language be reviewed and approved by the Commission's attorney. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision: The map, "Property-Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated October 2007 was briefly reviewed. Mrs. Hill presented a brief memo dated 11/5/07, which stated the application was very incomplete, so incomplete that she had not done a thorough review. Mrs. Roberts read the memo. It was noted that the missing documentation included: 1) the application form was not completely filled out, 2) an incorrect application fee was submitted, 3) there was no approval from the state DOT for the driveway cut feasibility, 4) there was no Health Dept. approval, 5) no site development plans had been submitted, 6) there was no approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission (if needed - without a site development plan this could not be determined), and 7) the residential density determination forms had not been submitted. It was also noted that the property would be divided between two sisters for no consideration so open space would not be required.
Other Business
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Charles recused himself. Mr. Frank reported that he and Mrs. Roberts had met with Atty. Miles to discuss the conservation easement language. Since that meeting Atty. Miles had tried to contact Mr. Mack's attorney, but to date he had not responded. It was noted that Mr. Mack had complained about the time it was taking to resolve this matter, but the commissioners said they had tried to guide Mr. Mack and that the Planning Commission was not responsible for the delays.
Mr. Charles was reseated.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Accessory Apartments, Fences and Walls, and Non Conforming Docks: Copies of the proposed amendments had been passed out at the last meeting and each proposal was discussed.
Accessory Apartments: The proposed revision would allow only one accessory apartment per property, whereas two, one attached and one detached, are currently permitted by Special Permit. Mr. Rimsky and Mr. Charles did not support the proposed revision and Mrs. Roberts reported that the Housing Commission was concerned about it because it would decrease housing options in Town. Mr. Charles made the following points: 1) The two accessory apartments must be accessed by the driveway serving the main dwelling on the property. 2) Limiting the number of apartments per property would hurt both low and high income property owners. 3) Approval of the proposed language would probably result in more subdivisions as a way for property owners to get the two apartments they need for children and older parents or for guest houses and caretakers and that once subdivided, larger dwelling units would be built in excess of the current 1200 sq. ft. maximum for accessory apartments. 4) Other nearby towns allow more than two dwelling units per property. Kent, for example, allows one two family dwelling and an accessory apartment per lot. 5) Those with modestly sized houses would be discriminated against because it would be possible that a large dwelling with many bedrooms would have greater lot coverage than a smaller home with two accessory apartments. Also, if the Health Department would approve an 8 bedroom house, for example, why should a small 3 bedroom house with two one bedroom accessory apartments be denied. Mr. Rimsky thought the proposal was contrary to the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development, which, he said, supports the creation of alternate living environments. Mr. Charles agreed. Mrs. Roberts said that Mr. Owen, Zoning chairman, had agreed to a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commissions after Christmas to discuss this matter and that she was opposed to any revisions regarding accessory apartments until after that meeting. Mr. Charles noted that the Zoning Commission had proposed revisions to the accessory apartment regulations in 2000, but after seven months of deliberation, had backed down and had made only minor changes. Mr. Carey thought the proposed revisions would discriminate against larger, more historic complex properties and that care should be taken by the Zoning Commission not to take too simplistic of an approach to this issue. Ms. Gager noted that the Zoning Commission had not tied in lot size with the number of apartments permitted. Mrs. Hill thought that doing so would discriminate against smaller property owners. Mr. Charles thought this was not needed because lot coverage and the Health regulations would control the number of apartments permitted per property. Mr. Carey said he had attended the last Zoning meeting and he noted that the Zoning commissioners agreed that the one accessory apartment to be permitted per property must be clearly subordinate in footprint and square footage to the main dwelling. However, a recent Zoning application involving a smaller house and a proposed accessory apartment with porches had concerned the Commission, and had resulted in the proposed revision, which he did not think adequately addressed this complicated issue. Mr. Carey agreed with Mrs. Roberts that there should be a thoughtful and productive dialogue between the Zoning and Planning Commissions before Planning responds to the referral. Mr. Rimsky said the proposed revision was not considerate of the human condition, was not a thoughtful approach, and would encourage subdivisions. It was the consensus that Mrs. Hill and Mrs. Roberts would write a letter to the Zoning Commission detailing the comments above and that Mrs. Braverman and Ms. Gager would attend the Zoning public hearing on November 26th to read the letter into the record.
Fences and Walls: It was noted these proposals would provide non binding guidelines for fences and walls, update and clarify the definitions of "building," "structure," "fence," and "wall," distinguish between open, semi open, and closed fences and walls, specify the method for measuring the height of a fence or wall and to change the setback requirements for fences and walls depending on whether they are open, semi open, or closed. Mrs. Hill explained that the Zoning Commission was attempting to preserve rural character by preventing the construction of fences and stonewalls along roads in Town like those recently built on Rt. 199 by Red Jacket Farm and nearby property owners. There was a brief discussion regarding how the Bourne wall at The Gunnery was in keeping with the Town's character and the new walls along Rt. 199 were not. It was suggested that the revised regulations should permit more flexibility in the village centers. Mr. Frank read the proposed non binding guidelines. Mrs. Roberts noted that while she was not against the guidelines, she cautioned that Zoning should watch out for unintended consequences. She stated that the variety of architecture in Town contributes to its character. It was the consensus of the commissioners to support each of the proposed revisions regarding walls and fences.
Non conforming docks: Mr. Frank explained that there are many non conforming docks around the lake that don't meet the current definition of "dock," which requires that water flow underneath them and that the proposed revisions were an attempt to integrate these concrete docks into the existing Regulations. Mr. Charles referred to proposed Section 6.6.14 and asked during what time of year it is determined whether the dock is 3 ft. above the water level. Several issues related to docks were briefly discussed; whether they were permitted anywhere other than Lake Waramaug, how the new Town dock would fit in with the regulations, and whether Kent, Warren, and Washington had made any attempts to coordinate regulations around the lake. The Commission had no objections to the proposed revisions.
2008 Calendar
MOTION: To approve the 2008 Calendar as presented. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Flood Plain Issues: Mr. Charles noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that studies of the flood plain and the septic capabilities of the soils in the Depot be undertaken, but that neither had been done due to the high cost. He said that as a result, important decisions about the Primary School and the Depot would be made without knowing the exact location of the flood plain. Mr. Carey summarized the research he had done on this matter and how FEMA had established the flood plain after the 1955 flood using the gaging station at Weller's Bridge in Roxbury without making a visit to Washington, and said the study needed would cost at least $70,000. It was noted that the inaccurate flood plain data established at that time had already been corrected in more densely developed areas of the state. Mrs. Roberts suggested the possibility of doing only a partial study covering the section of the river from the Primary School to Hidden Valley. Mr. Carey reported that Mr. Szymanski, engineer, had provided the Town with an overlay of the elevations of the Primary School floors in relation to the flood plain, but that although this information was useful, it was inadequate. It was noted that corrected flood plain data would be valuable not only for the Primary School property, but to determine the most appropriate use for the River Loop property and for future planning for the Depot as well. It was the consensus of the commissioners that the Planning Commission would write to the Board of Selectmen to advise it that a flood plain study is urgently needed because it is impossible to plan for the Depot without it. The commissioners felt this was an increasingly important issue that could not be put off any longer. Mr. Carey and Mr. Rimsky will draft the letter.
Mr. Frank briefly reviewed the Washington Country Club's application to the DEP for the renewal of its water diversion permit. He explained that ten years ago the permit had been issued to allow the Club to draw 150,000 gallons of water per day from Lake Waramaug to operate the Club's irrigation system. He said he had asked Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force to review the matter. Mr. Charles suggested the Club could reduce its water requirements by planting a different kind of grass.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
There being no further business, Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:12.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: October 5, 2007 October 2, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Mack, Mr. Boling
PUBLIC HEARING
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision/Con't.
Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Braverman for Mr. Charles.
Mrs. Hill explained that Atty. Zizka had not yet reviewed the proposed language for the conservation easement and driveway maintenance agreement and so since there was nothing new to discuss, Mr. Szymanski, engineer, would not be attending the meeting.
It was noted a letter to request a continuance of the hearing had been expected, but had not yet been received.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road unless a letter requesting an extension is submitted by Thursday afternoon, 10/4/07. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts concluded this session of the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 9/4/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision: The public hearing will be continued to Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall if a letter requesting a continuance is received by the end of the day on October 4, 2007.
New Applications
No new applications were received.
Other Business
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision/Conservation Easement: Prior to the meeting Mrs. Hill had sent the commissioners an email to inform them that 1) when he had reviewed the final draft of the conservation easement, Atty. Miles had found ten changes from the original document; not the two that the approval motion had specified, 2) 2.3 and 2.4 had not been revised as had been required, and 3) Atty. Miles had objected that the language in Section 10 that would have given the Town the right to collect court costs, restoration fees, etc. if violations occurred in the open space had been deleted. Mr. Mack explained there had been confusion about which draft was the final draft. He said he had deleted the above referenced language in Section 10 because the open space land was former agricultural land where trees had regrown and it would be necessary for him to cut some and take care of the land without oversight from the Town and the fear that the Town would come after him. He feared over zealous enforcement in the future and said he required the property to be under his control and management. He brought a revised draft to the table in which he said he had restored Sections 2.3 and 2.4 and the language from Section 10, but he did not circulate it. Mr. Rimsky asked whether the language in Section 10 was common and noted that no other applicants had objected to it. Mrs. Hill said she thought so because Atty. Miles had objected so strongly to taking it out. Mr. Frank noted the Town must have a way to enforce the open space provisions and pointed out the easement gave Mr. Mack the right to cut diseased trees. Mrs. Roberts agreed, saying the Town needed recourse against damaging acts such clear cutting. Mr. Mack objected to the Commission's approved version (received 8/15/07) of the easement because he said it was written to protect a nature preserve rather than to protect farmland. Mr. Frank pointed out that the applicant's representatives had drafted the document, that Mr. Mack had been present at the public hearing when it was discussed, and that the final draft sent to Atty. Miles for review was completely different from the one approved by the Commission. Mr. Mack apologized again for the mix up, but said although he had understood that nothing could be constructed in the open space, he had thought that landscaping there would remain under his control. He noted that other parties would have to agree to the easement language and asked if they would not agree to it and he decided to pay a fee in lieu of open space, would another application be required. He said the fee would be $37,000. Mrs. Hill noted the state statutes governing these fees would have to be followed and Mrs. Roberts read the relevant part of section 8-23. It was noted that since the fee was based on the fair market value of the property prior to the subdivision, it would most likely be higher than $37,000. Mr. Boling, Conservation commissioner, noted the conservation easement language had been based on one of his own drafts, which had not specifically referenced previous agricultural property, and asked whether the approval could be amended to include language typically found in Steep Rock agricultural conservation easements. Mr. Frank noted the public hearing had been held and such an amendment would change the terms of what had been presented at that time. He also noted that the Commission had not had an opportunity to review Mr. Mack's revised draft and so would be unwilling to comment on it tonight. Mr. Frank briefly reviewed Atty. Mile's comments. It was the consensus to send Mr. Mack's revised document (after it had been revised further to include a provision that herbicides may be used to eradicate invasive species) to both the Conservation Commission and to Atty. Miles for review and that this review would be acceptable under the current conditions of the approval of the application. Mr. Frank asked for a copy of the revised document for each commissioner. He advised Mr. Mack that the Commission must know the document is acceptable to all who are involved before the Commission accepts it. He noted that if the current property owners do not sign it, then it would not be approved and that they may then withdraw.
Procedures for Conservation Easements: Mrs. Roberts noted it has been difficult to find conservation easement language to fit all circumstances and suggested several templates should be drafted; one for agricultural land, one for the preservation of natural land, etc. Mr. Boling agreed that the use of models would help the Commission avoid the type of situation just discussed with Mr. Mack. He thought the model language should be handed out with the subdivision application forms. Mrs. Hill suggested that the Commission no longer accept emails of these documents and only review those that have been stamped approved by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Boling offered to draft conservation easement models for the Commission to review at its next meeting.
Implementation of the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development: Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Carey, and Mrs. Roberts noted all of the effort that had been put into the 2003 Plan, but said they were disappointed that the Plan had been "basically shelved" and that "no initiatives" had been taken. Mr. Rimsky noted it would soon be time to start work on the next Plan. Mr. Carey thought the proposals for the River Loop property would not come to pass because they had not been based on fact; septic studies had not been done and the soil stockpiles had not been tested for contaminants, for example. He suggested that the Commission focus now on efforts that would immediately impact Washington residents such as improving traffic safety on Calhoun Street and Green Hill Road. He briefly described the traffic slowing sign/strobe light used by Roxbury on Weller's Bridge Road and said there might be grants available to pay for several in Washington. It was the consensus that this could be an effective traffic calming device and the Board of Selectmen will be asked to investigate the use of this type of sign. Ms. Gager noted the Commission had drafted a list of priorities for implementation of the Plan and that this list had been forwarded to the Board of Selectmen. She asked if there had been a response. Mrs. Hill was directed to send them the list again and to ask for a progress report. Mr. Rimsky noted the Town's inability to act to manage pressure makes it more vulnerable in the face of progress. He suggested that all of the Commissions be sent letters asking them to report on their progress. Mrs. Hill pointed out the accomplishments to date, noting that there had been more progress in implementing this Plan than there had been for previous Plans. She said these included: 1) the example the Planning Commission set by conducting Phase I of the Depot Study as it had recommended, 2) establishment of the Housing Commission, 3) improvements in parking in the Depot jointly worked on by the Selectmen and local businesses, and 4) the Zoning Commission's actions to amend the Zoning Regulations to control outdoor residential lighting and to permit flexibility in setbacks, coverage, and parking in the New Preston and Depot Business Districts so that the type of development encouraged by the Planning Commission would be possible. Mrs. Roberts thought it was now time to move ahead with improvements to Bryan Plaza because the public was now accustomed to the absence of the shad trees. She also voiced her disappointment that the Texaco Station property would not be developed innovatively as had originally been proposed to the Zoning Commission and that the new owner would relocate neither the parking nor the building. The commissioners agreed that any parking on this property should be located behind the building to screen it from the highways. It was the consensus that the letters to go out to the Board of Selectmen and various commissions should state Planning's appreciation for the progress made so far. Mr. Carey stated that there is a finite amount of land in the Depot and that the public had been misled into believing that the River Loop property could support housing. He said housing in Marbledale and the Depot looked good on paper, but was not realistic. He urged the Planning Commission to begin working on an update of the Master Plan as soon as possible by building on the charrettes and engaging in creative thinking rather than hiring an expensive consultant. It was noted an updated Plan was not due for five and a half years.
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/Discontinuance of Portion of Old River Road: Ms. Gager pointed out that the residents using this road to access their property were mainly responsible for its poor condition because clear cutting on the hillside above resulted in an increase and an acceleration of the runoff onto the road, but the Town was paying for the repairs. Mr. Carey said he had inspected the road. He did not want the Town to be liable for this section of road and recommended it be discontinued as soon as possible. He noted if the Town reserved the right for public use and passive recreation, it would also retain liability. After a brief discussion the commissioners agreed that the necessary repairs should be made to the road, all of the rights should be surrendered, and the road conveyed to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Carey was careful to point out that this recommendation was for this section of road only; the Commission would probably want to retain rights for public use on other discontinued roads throughout Town.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revisions to the Zoning Regulations/Accessory Apartments, Fences and Walls, and Non Conforming Docks: The referral was circulated and will be discussed at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 12, 2007 September 4, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Charles
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Mack, Mr. Sears, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Hileman, Mrs. Suddaby, Press, Residents
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mr. Charles.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, said that since the last meeting he had received confirmation from the Conservation Commission that the proposed open space, the entire roadside corridor, was acceptable. He submitted a sheet with the breakdown of the amount of each soil type in the proposed open space and the calculations to show how it was determined that 2.76 acres of open space was required.
Mrs. Hill explained that the current application was identical to the application approved in May 2007 except for the proposed open space, which was now required because the proposed lot would be sold rather than given to a close relative for no compensation.
Mr. Frank noted that the Conservation Commission had comments about the proposed conservation easement language. Mrs. Payne had recommended the right to use herbicides in the open space be retained because sometimes that is the only way to eradicate invasives. Atty. Miles had cautioned that if the open space was wooded, the easement included language, which would give the grantor the right to clear the land for agricultural purposes. Mr. Szymanski noted the Conservation Commission had been concerned about the preservation of a mature stand of trees and so said he would work on appropriate revised language with Atty. Miles. Mrs. Roberts recommended that a condition of approval be that the proposed language be sent to Atty. Miles his final review and approval. Mr. Szymanski said there was no intent to clear the forest; that the future owner wanted the right to cut diseased and hazardous trees only.
The map, "Two Lot Resubdivision Map," by Mr. Natale, dated 7/10/2007 was reviewed. Mr. Szymanski explained that Parcel "A", which had been shown on the map studied at the last meeting, had now been incorporated into the parcel. Mrs. Hill stated this addressed the concern she had raised in her 9/4/07 review.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application submitted by Brown-Carroll for a 2 lot resubdivision at 41 Buffum Road. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision/Con't.
Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mr. Charles.
The map, "Record Subdivision Map," by Mr. Natale, revised to 8/9/07 was reviewed.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, reviewed Mrs. Hill's 9/4/07 report point by point. 1) He noted the Abellas had already planted white pines on the west side of the driveway and asked if the Commission would require landscaping or buffering. Mr. Rimsky did not think additional buffering would be required for the proposed interior lots. 2) Mrs. Roberts asked if Mr. Szymanski had checked with the Fire Dept. to see if it recommended any fire protection measures. Mr. Szymanski responded that similar to other small subdivisions, the cost would be prohibitive. Mrs. Hill noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission had recently approved a dry hydrant at the corner of Popple Swamp and Scofield Hill Roads. 3) Mr. Szymanski pointed out the entire 50 ft. right of way to the interior lots. Mr. Carey asked if it would be possible to continue the driveway to access future additional lots. Mr. Szymanski said this would not be possible because only two interior lots may be served by one driveway. 4) Mr. Szymanski noted the applicant was requesting a waiver of the requirement that the state plane coordinates be shown on the subdivision map. 5) He asked if the proposed open space was acceptable to the Planning Commission, noting a buffer had been added along the entire north and west boundary and along part of the east boundary of Lot #3. He said these would be recharge areas for runoff in addition to the infiltration system each house would have for roof runoff. 5) Mr. Carey asked if another intermittent watercourse had been found on the adjacent Kimball property. Mr. Szymanski said a second site inspection had found that there were no wetlands within 100 feet of the boundary line; the original mapping had been correct. 6) Mr. Szymanski said there would be a cleared area to the south of each of the proposed houses for passive solar energy, although he thought the land disturbance should be minimized. He also said it would be possible to loop the driveways to serve the houses from the north so that there could be more windows on the south sides of the buildings. 7) It was noted that the Selectmen's Office had not yet approved the proposed curb cut, but that Mr. Cannavaro would soon review the application. 8) Mr. Szymanski said he had incorporated comments from the Inland Wetlands Commission into the conservation easement and driveway maintenance agreement language, but had not yet received comments from Atty. Miles.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
Mr. Szymanski submitted a letter dated 9/4/07 requesting an extension of the public hearing to the October meeting. At 8:54 p.m. Mrs. Roberts continued the public hearing to Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
These hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:54 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mr. Charles.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 8/7/07 Public Hearing - 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 Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision: The public hearing was continued to October 2, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. There were no further comments at this time.
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Brown- Carroll for a 2 lot resubdivision at 41 Buffum Road with the following conditions: 1. that Atty. Miles reviews the final draft of the conservation easement and determines it is acceptable and 2. that Mrs. Payne's recommendations regarding retaining the right to use herbicides to remove invasives in the open space be incorporated in the conservation easement language. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Referral from Board of Selectmen/Discontinuance of Old River Road
Mr. Sears first reviewed the Town's process for approving the discontinuance of Town roads. He noted that the Highway Discontinuance Committee had recommended the discontinuance of the portion of Old River Road from its intersection with Cook Street and River Road to where it rejoins River Road at Lot 14 on Assessor's Map #9-4 and that the Board of Selectmen had contacted adjoining property owners. He read his memo to the Commission dated 9/4/07. Mr. Sears stated the property owners now using that portion of the road for their driveway support the proposal and he detailed the repairs that the Town would do before discontinuing the road. Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Rimsky urged the Town to retain the right to use the road for passive recreation; both for safety reasons as walking that section of River Road can be hazardous and because it would be a good precedent. Mr. Sears noted the Town's liability would continue for the uses it retains as of right. Mr. Sears asked the Commission to review the map and file and to discuss the discontinuance at its next meeting. Mrs. Roberts asked the commissioners to inspect the road on their own and said it would be decided at the next meeting whether a subcommittee to study the issue would be needed.
Communications
2007 Report from League of Conservation Voters: Mrs. Hill copied a section of the report for each commissioner at the request of Mr. Carey who thought the Commission should keep up to date with new state legislation. Of concern was HB 7040, which changed the permitting process so that it is no longer required to submit to Inland Wetlands before submitting to the other land use commissions. Mrs. Hill did not think this would have too much of an impact as Planning and Zoning Commissions are still required to wait for the final report of the Inland Wetlands Commission before acting on zoning and subdivision applications.
Water Diversion Application/Lake Waramaug Country Club: The state DEP sent the Commission a copy of the Country Club's application for the renewal of its water diversion permit to pump water from Lake Waramaug for maintenance of the golf course. Mr. Frank will review the application.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Ms. Gager reported that she had met with Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission, to receive her recommendations. She will soon refer her report to Mr. McGuinness of the NWCTCOG for review.
2007 Vermont ASLA Awards: Mrs. Roberts announced that Mr. Donovan had received this award for his work on the Depot Study and that she would attend the awards ceremony on 9/7/07 in Vermont.
2006 Senior Housing Report from the Housing Commission: Mr. Hileman, chairman of the Housing Commission, gave an executive summary of the report. He noted the Commission had been hoping to get a broad view of Town opinion, but said that 82% of the respondents to the survey were over age 50. The three major findings were: 1) There is strong support for more senior housing options in Town; for rental units, owned units, and congregate housing, with the strongest support for rental and congregate options. 2) There is significant support for affordable units in any senior housing project. 3) There is a demand for more senior housing options in the near future. The two conclusions of the Housing Commission were: 1) No direct public funding is necessary for senior housing initiatives in Washington. 2) The Town needs to reexamine the Plan of Conservation and Development and its land use regulations with the goal of allowing senior housing. Mr. Hileman noted the only way to develop senior housing in Town now is under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act and he urged the land use commissions to be more pro active and to create a plan to allow senior housing in the village centers. He asked the commissioners to read the full report. Mrs. Roberts noted that the Plan of Conservation and Development and the Depot Study recommend concentrating housing in the village centers. Ms. Gager pointed out, however, that issues such as water supply, septic systems, sidewalks, parking, and traffic must be studied in depth when considering senior housing. Mr. Rimsky advised Mr. Hileman that a public-private partnership might be necessary to bring about a senior housing initiative. He pointed out that the Planning Commission was aware that the village centers need people to be viable, young families as well as seniors. He pointed out that the Depot had 30% more people living in it prior to the 1955 flood than it does now. Mr. Rimsky suggested there should be tax breaks for affordable housing lots as there are for open space. Mrs. Roberts advised the Housing Commission to go to the state legislature to let it know this is needed. Mr. Hileman said this had been attempted in the last legislative session, but had failed. Mrs. Braverman asked if senior housing could be limited to Washington residents. Mr. Hileman said there was no way to restrict it if it was market rate housing and state or federal funding was used. Mr. Rimsky noted the community wants its long term residents to benefit from senior housing and not to allow new housing at the expense of those people with an investment in the community. He asked how this could be accomplished without being discriminatory. Mr. Hileman was not sure, but pointed out that currently 75% of the affordable housing in Washington is occupied by Washington people. Mr. Frank advised Mr. Hileman that not only is housing in the village centers consistent with the 2003 Plan, but it is a concept already included in it. Mr. Hileman asked Planning to implement the Plan. Mrs. Roberts responded that the Planning Commission drafts the plan, but is not responsible for its implementation. She urged the Housing Commission to continue to educate and persuade the public to bring about townwide support for revisions to the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Frank thought the Housing Report was an excellent way to get the public dialogue started.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Carey.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 1, 2008 August 7, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Gager, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Clark, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Lorenti, Mr. Flatt
Mr. Charles called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, and Rimsky and Alternates Carey and Fowlkes for Mrs. Roberts and Ms. Gager. He announced that the Commission would delay the opening of the public hearing to consider the application submitted for Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision until later in the evening because the engineer authorized to represent the applicant had not yet arrived.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the July 10, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Charles noted the public hearing would commence later in the evening.
Aragi/9 Wilbur Road/8 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Clark, engineer, represented the applicant. He noted he had received Mrs. Hill's 8/2/07 preliminary review of the application and had discussed it with his client.
Mr. Charles noted that a preliminary discussion had been held with Mr. Aragi several months ago, but it did not appear that many of the Commission's recommendations had been incorporated in the subdivision plan. He noted, too, that the extensive list of shortcomings noted in Mrs. Hill's review had not been addressed. He recommended that the applicant withdraw the application or that the Commission deny it without prejudice because so much of the required information was missing.
Mr. Carey pointed out that the Inland Wetlands Commission's public hearing on the application would not begin until mid September and so he thought that any review by the Planning Commission would be conjectural at this point. Mr. Clark noted state law allows both reviews to run concurrently. Mrs. Hill said that was true, but explained Planning was concerned because if it were to schedule a public hearing, it would have to begin it before the start of the Inland Wetlands hearing and the Inland Wetlands Commission could subsequently require many revisions to the plans. Mr. Clark noted Inland Wetlands had already recommended the conventional proposal be changed to a cluster subdivision.
Mr. Charles suggested if the application were withdrawn tonight, Mr. Clark could then discuss alternate plans such as a cluster subdivision later under Privilege of the Floor. Mr. Clark said he was not authorized to withdraw the application.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the application was incomplete and should be denied without prejudice.
MOTION: To deny without prejudice the application submitted by Mr. Aragi for an 8 lot subdivision at 9 Wilbur Road because it is incomplete and to waive the fee when the application is resubmitted. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0. (Motion approved, Application denied)
New Application
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
(Although it was not discussed at this meeting, it should be noted that the public hearing tentatively scheduled to consider open space for the previously approved 2 lot resubdivision was not scheduled on advice of the Commission's counsel. Instead, the mylar of the previously approved subdivision was not filed and a new application, which includes the proposed open space, was submitted.)
Mrs. Hill reported that a revised map showing the proposed open space had been submitted, although the draft language for the conservation easement had not been submitted. She noted that because this was a resubdivision, a public hearing was required.
Mr. Charles read the minutes of the July 11, 2007 Conservation Commission meeting, which included approval of a motion to accept the proposed open space. The Commissioners reviewed the map, "Record Map," by Mr. Howland, dated 5/29/07, revised to 6/20/07 to learn the location of the open space.
It was the consensus a second site inspection was not necessary.
A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Communications
The Commission will discuss recent land use legislation at the next meeting.
At 7:51 p.m. the Regular Meeting was suspended to conduct the Abella public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Charles called the public hearing to order at 7:51 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, and Rimsky and Alternates Carey and Fowlkes. He read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 7/26/07 and 8/2/07 and the list of documents in the file. He also noted that new correspondence and revised maps had been submitted late in the afternoon and so had not yet been reviewed.
No one was present to represent the applicant.
Mr. Papin, Mygatt Road, said that Mr. Szymanski, engineer, had done a great job both in addressing the concerns of adjoining property owners and responding to Inland Wetlands Commission issues. He also noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission wants a driveway maintenance program by the homeowners' association to be made a condition of approval.
The map, "Record Subdivision Map," by Mr. Natale, dated 2/27/07 and revised to 5/7/07 was reviewed both by the Commission and by adjoining property owners Mr. Lorenti and Mr. Flatt.
It was the consensus to continue the hearing to September 4, 2007; the second hearing on the agenda; hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. Mrs.Hill noted that in addition to approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission, approval for the driveway cut by the Selectmen, Health Department approval, and the conservation easement language were still outstanding.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot subdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road to September 4, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room Bryan Memorial Town Hall to reconvene immediately after the first hearing, which will begin at 7:30 p.m. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Fowlkes, and passed 5-0.
At 8:02 p.m. Mr. Charles continued the hearing to 9/4/07.
At 8:02 p.m. the Regular Meeting was reconvenend.
Privilege of the Floor
Aragi/9 Wilbur Road: Mr. Clark, engineer, presented a conventional 8 lot subdivision plan entitled, "Woodridge Estates," the same plan that had been denied without prejudice earlier in the evening. Mr. Charles noted the open space layout had been only slightly improved since the preliminary discussion and the plan was very suburban. Mr. Rimsky noted his concern about the proposed road cut onto Wilbur Road. Mr. Charles explained to Mr. Clark that because the proposed lots were under 5 acres, field verification for both the soil types and amount of each soil type was required. Mr. Clark said this had been done, but the documentation had not been submitted to Planning. Mrs. Hill noted that the density units for each of the proposed lots was either 1 or 1.1, and so recommended since they were all at the absolute minimum allowed, that they be referred to the Commission's consultant for review. Mr. Clark said the property did not lend itself to a cluster subdivision because the more desirable land was located in the rear and would require a dead end road more than 1000 ft. long to reach it. Pushing the development to the front, he said, would locate it in a narrower section much closer to wetlands. Mr. Clark suggested that if the new road could come in off Birch Hill Run then a shorter road would be required to reach the rear of the site. He noted, however, there had been no progress by the Town in making Birch Hill Run a town road so that the new road cut could be located there. Mrs. Hill gave a brief review of the status of Birch Hill Run noting that it had been constructed according to town road specifications and that the Planning Commission could not have legally approved the Birch Hill Run subdivision if a town road had not been included in the proposal Mr. Carey said it was poor planning to have two town road cuts within 50 ft. and thought the Town should do everything within reason to accept Birch Hill Run as a public road. Mr. Charles asked if a road cut off Birch Hill Run was possible, if all seven (one lot with frontage on Wilbur Road already exists) lots could be served by the proposed cul de sac. He suggested that the lot sizes be reduced and more of the land preserved as open space. Mr. Clark thought that five or six of the lots could be accessed by the cul de sac. The Commission advised the applicant to consult with the Washington Fire Dept. about whether a fire pond or cistern should be provided for fire protection. Mr. Clark asked if any flexibility was allowed in the cul de sac grade. Mr. Charles advised him to consult with the Selectmen's Office and Highway Dept. to see what they recommend. Mr. Clark noted that landscaping and street trees were two issues that would have to be discussed at a later date. Mrs. Hill asked whether the open space proposed on the parcel across the street was needed to meet the 15% open space requirement. If so, she pointed out that the Commission had never before allowed the open space requirement to be met off site. Mr. Clark noted the Commission encourages the property along roadsides to be left undisturbed and asked if this meant the developer was to leave it natural or if future property owners were also required to do so. Mr. Charles said the Commission had often required a conservation easement along the roadside in order to preserve the rural character and to provide buffering. Mr. Clark said he would try to incorporate this in future plans. Mr. Carey objected to the proposed subdivision name, Woodridge Estates.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mr. Charles adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: July 17, 2007 July 10, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Kimball, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Sears
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30PM and seated members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky and Roberts. She noted that all the alternates were present.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/5/07 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Ms. Gager and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/9/07 Site Inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mrs. Roberts 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.
New Application
Abella /44 Scofield Hill Road /3 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Paul Szymanski, Engineer, represented the applicant. Mr. Szymanski stated that since he was last before the Commission, he withdrew the application so they would not have any time constraints. Recently he received comments from the Conservation Commission and would be going before them tomorrow night for further discussion. Also, he received comments from Land-Tech who reviewed the application on behalf of Inland-Wetlands. He said Land-Tech requested minimal revisions which could be easily made.
Mr. Szymanski requested a Public Hearing for the next meeting. Mrs. Roberts noted that would be on August 7 and asked the members if that would be satisfactory. All agreed. A Public Hearing was set for August 7, 2007.
Ms. Gager asked Mr. Szymanski if there were any changes that would require another public walk. Mr. Szymanski replied everything was exactly the same.
Mr. Eben Kimball was present and asked if he could make some comments regarding this application. Mrs. Roberts suggested his comments be saved for the Public Hearing.
Other Business
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Ms. Gager said she has gone through Section 4.4 and is hoping to have more by September. One change, so far, that Mr. McGuinness agrees with is that on subdivision maps the percentage of wetlands (to be added as open space) should be included so the members don't have to ask every time.
Brown-Carroll Subdivision /41 Buffum Road /Modification of Approved Plan: Mr. Paul Szymanski, Engineer, represented the applicant. Mr. Szymanski stated there were two conditions which have been met: 1)that a Zoning permit be issued for a lot line revision, and 2)file the Mylar on the Land Records by days end today.
Mr. Szymanski explained that Mr. Mack's family has decided it would be difficult for them to 'give' the land to him. Instead, he will be receiving the subdivision 'for consideration'(for estate tax planning purposes). So, they are requesting a modification of the subdivision to allow for open space to be proposed along the Buffum Road corridor. The proposed open space area would be 200 to 400 feet in and include the majority of the white pine grove.
Mrs. Roberts commented that she is very sensitive to someone applying through a family member to do something and then making a change after it has been approved. It may be ok in this instance, but there may be cases where it would not be fine.
Mr. Frank observed that he is not so sure it is fine in this case. He said this is a resubdivision, there has been a Public Hearing and one thing considered in a Public Hearing is where open space is going to be and the public has not had an opportunity to comment on this change.
Mrs. Roberts said she is concerned about the Commission setting a precedent.
Mr. Frank agreed, but said he is more concerned that there has already been a Public Hearing and does not know if the members have a right to make what is a substantial change.
The members continued their discussion about modifying an approved application. Mr. Szymanski asked if they could have another Public Hearing. He said it is allowed in the State Statutes, but is not sure about the Town Subdivision Regs. Mr. Rimsky thought they should review the State Statutes. Mr. Charles said they need to find out what the proper protocol should be. Mrs. Roberts agreed and suggested they ask David Miles.
The Commission agreed that they should tentatively set a Public Hearing for the August meeting and at the same time ask for advice from David Miles. Mr. Frank said it is important that the public have an opportunity to be heard. Mrs. Roberts added that open space is enormously important to people in this community.
MOTION: To tentatively set a Public Hearing for the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 7, 2007, for the proposed modification of the Brown-Carroll Subdivision, 41 Buffum Road, subject to advice of counsel. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky and passed 5-0.
Other Business
6/20/07 e-mail from Mr. Boling re: Discontinuance of Old River Road: In his e-mail, Mr. Boling stated, if the Planning Commission ends up supporting the discontinuance of Old River Road to motor vehicles, he hopes it will be with the proviso that the public's right to passive recreation is retained.
Mr. Charles commented that it is necessary to allow vehicular access by the Town and the Land Use Commissions so they can monitor activities and the health of the open space.
Mr. Fowlkes noted that this ordinance was passed when Elaine Luckey was First Selectperson and suggested the Commission could look it over and perhaps improve upon it. Mrs. Roberts said they need to think about measures that could be taken to make the ordinance much clearer.
The Commission concluded that this discontinuance is too vague to comment on at present. They agreed they would like to see a map and need more information.
Other Business
Referral from Board of Selectmen/8-24:
MOTION: To go into executive session at 8:10PM to discuss Municipal Improvement. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To end the executive session at 8:51PM. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Charles and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:53PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade
Land Use Secretary
Posted: June 14, 2007 June 5, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Frank
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Mills, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Dyer, Mr. Sears, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Johnson, Mr./Mrs. Smith, Ms. Canning, Mr. Malkin, Ms. Phillips, Mr. Shayne, Mr. DiBenedetto, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Residents
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Braverman for Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts read the 6/5/07 letter of withdrawal from Mr. Szymanski. Mrs. Hill noted that the application could not be immediately resubmitted as Mr. Szymanski requested because the application to the Inland Wetlands Commission had to be resubmitted first.
MOTION: To accept the 6/5/07 letter of withdrawal for the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abella for a 3 lot resubdivision at 44 Scofield Hill Road. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts closed the hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision/ Con't.
Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Mr. Charles recused himself. Members Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Braverman and Carey were seated.
Mrs. Roberts read the list of documents submitted to the file since the May 1st session of the hearing. She then read the two unsigned documents submitted this evening; an email from Ms. Shepard dated 6/5/07 in support of the application and an email from Mr. Connolly stating he agreed to the southern boundary line location in the middle of the existing stone wall and parts of Mrs. Hill's final review of the application dated 6/5/07.
Mr. Shapiro said he had held positive meetings with neighborhood property owners since the last meeting and noted Ms. Shepard's letter was in response to attacks about his credibility.
Mr. DiBenedetto stated the neighbors had met with Mr. Shapiro regarding the long and short term objective of preserving the property and would be financially supportive in helping to reach that goal.
Mr. Shaw asked who had raised the concern about the possibility of planting an orchard in the conservation easement area. Mrs. Hill said the Conservation Commission had noted its concern in the memo it had sent to Planning. Mr. Shaw said the previous owner had pointed out to him where her father's orchard had been and that he wanted the right to clear the hill so he could put in an orchard. He said he wanted to keep the property as a farm. He added that he had met with representatives of the Historic District Commission and told them that he planned to restore the house and bring back the flavor of the farm, but not change anything.
Mr. Carey referred to the "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 5/16/07, noted it listed Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. as the property owner, and asked wasn't it true that Lawrence Arthur, LLC. was now an owner. Mr. Shaw said the plan was that if the subdivision were approved, Lot #C would be transferred to Lawrence Arthur, LLC, Mr. Shapiro being the sole member. Mr. Carey advised the applicant that the legend should be correct and Mr. Shapiro agreed.
Mr. Carey noted that Mr. Neff had submitted a formal request for a waiver of Section 4.5.4, the requirement for 2 ft. contours, and that although the Commission had agreed to do so, a formal motion was required.
Mr. Carey noted that at a previous session of the hearing Mr. Shaw had stated that he would preserve the historical condition of the property, not enlarge or add on to the house, and that the Historic District Commission had asked the Planning Commission to consider requiring the applicant to establish building envelopes so there would be more control over future changes. He asked Mr. Shaw if he would consider adding building envelopes to the plan. Mr. Shapiro explained this would not be possible because once Mr. Shaw promised not to build outside the envelopes, it would make that land "worthless" and he would loose the benefit of intended development rights
There were no other questions or comments from the public or from the commissioners.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. for a two lot subdivision at 110 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Braverman for Mr. Frank.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 5/1/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mrs. Braverman, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Charles recused himself. Mrs. Roberts noted there were several issues listed in Mrs. Hill's final review, which the Commission might want to make conditions of approval. The concerns of the Conservation Commission were briefly discussed. Mr. Rimsky noted the application met the Subdivision Regulations although it might not meet the Conservation Commission's criteria and stated there should be no work in the wetlands swale other than what would be necessary to keep it functioning as a swale. He asked if there was any language in the proposed easement that would prevent the planting of an orchard and said he did not understand the Conservation Commission's concern that an orchard might be planted. Mrs. Roberts thought perhaps there was a concern that chemical sprays would be used. Mrs. Hill said agricultural uses were permitted in the proposed easement. The 5/16/07 site development plan was reviewed and it was noted the only change to the configuration of the originally proposed conservation easement area was the addition of the buffer area along the northern most part of the property along Calhoun Street. Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had hoped for a different open space proposal, but asked if what was proposed was acceptable to the Commission. She also asked if monuments, posts, or pins should be required on site at the corners and angles of the open space so its boundary would be clearly visible when on the property. She noted the Commission made this a requirement for other applications in the past. Mr. Rimsky thought this was a good idea so that future owners would be aware of the boundary and added that the Commission should be consistent. Mr. Shapiro was concerned that the installation of monuments or pins could endanger animals should the open fields ever be used as pasture. Mrs. Roberts suggested, then, that they be installed where the open space and property boundaries intersect. Mrs. Roberts asked if the Commission would waive the requirement that the site development plan provide 2 ft. contours for the entire property. Mr. Carey noted that at the last meeting Mr. Neff had advised the Commission that 2 ft. contours had been provided for all of the disturbed areas and it had been decided then that they were not necessary for the entire site.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.4, the requirement for 2 ft. contours for the Site Development Map for the application submitted by Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. for a 2 lot subdivision at 110 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Carey noted this waiver did not set a precedent. Mrs. Roberts asked if the Commission would require any buffering or screening. It was the consensus that the openness of the landscape was beautiful and that the applicant should strive to maintain the current look of the property. Regarding the configuration of the proposed open space, Mr. Rimsky said the Commission should have been more specific describing what it wanted in the initial stages of the application process and that perhaps it should revise the Regulations to clarify the authority it has regarding open space. The commissioners agreed they were prepared to vote this evening rather than wait until the July meeting.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. for a 2 lot subdivision at 110 Calhoun Street subject to the following conditions: 1. the wording of #B7 in the grant of conservation restriction shall be revised to: The right to selectively cut and remove trees and other forest vegetation, 2. the information required per sections 4.4.3, 4.4.4, and 4.4.11 now shown on the "Site Analysis Plan" shall be included on the "Record Subdivision Map" mylar before it is signed by the Commission chairman and filed on the Town Land Records, 3. the only clean up of the wetlands swale permitted shall be in order to preserve the wetlands rather than to disrupt them, and 4. monuments or pins shall be placed on site at all corners of the conservation easement area boundaries where they connect a) with adjoining properties, b) with the shared boundary line between Lots #A and #C, and c) along Calhoun Street. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Rimsky said this application had raised several issues that the Commission should consider and suggested a joint meeting with the Conservation Commission at some point to discuss open space objectives. Mrs. Hill noted the Inland Wetlands and Historic District Commissions also have viewpoints regarding open space preservation.
Other Business
Town of Washington/16 Titus Road/Clean Up and Installation of Walking Path: Mr. Sears presented the map, "Existing Conditions Map," by Mr. Szymanski, dated 2/1/07 and the landscaping plan, "Preliminary Concept," by Mr. Sabin, dated 5/18/07 for the 4.4 acre property. He said the immediate plan for the property was to make a meadow that would be mowed once a year and to install the walking path to open it up for passive recreation by the public. He stressed that this plan would not impact any future use of the property. Mrs. Roberts and Mr. Rimsky thought the path was located too far from the river; that the point of the trail was for walking along the streambank. Mr. Carey asked if he had a conflict of interest because he was Planning's representative on the committee set up to consider the future use of the property. Mr. Sears said he did not because the presentation was to get feedback only; approval from the Commission was not being sought. A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, June 9, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Sears noted the Inland Wetlands Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider the proposal on June 13th. He then briefly reviewed the progress on implementing plans for this site, which began several years ago during Mr. Chapin's term.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Ms. Gager reported that she had been reviewing subdivision regulations from other towns and hoped to have comments to Mr. McGuinness and Mrs. Hill by next week.
Correspondence
It was noted the hearing for the Verizon cell tower application would be held in the main hall on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. It was noted a cell tower had recently been approved on Rt. 202 in Northville near the Volkswagen dealer, but it was not known whether this would eliminate the need for the proposed tower in Marbledale.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Gager.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 9, 2007 May 1, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Frank
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Arturi, Mr./Mrs. Markert, Ms. Phillips, Mrs. Canning, Mrs. Carey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Boling, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Sonder, Mrs. Pasch, Mr. Neff, Mr. Mack, Mrs. Hardee, Mr. Connolly, Ms. Dupuis, Mr. George, Mr. Meyer, Residents
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Frank. She then read the legal notice published in Voices on 4/18 and 4/25/07 and the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, said he had received a copy of Mrs. Hill's updated review of the application, dated 5/1/07. He responded that the property owner did not want to proceed with a lot line revision unless the application was approved and so asked for an approval with the condition specified in Mrs. Hill's review. He also reiterated that he had submitted a written request for two waivers of the Subdivision Regulations; Section 4.4.11, the state plane coordinate requirement, and Section 4.7.2, map scale, and noted both Health and Inland Wetlands Commission approval had been received.
Mrs. Roberts read the 4/21/07 site inspection minutes.
Mrs. Roberts asked for questions and comments from the Commission. Ms. Gager said the application was clear and straightforward.
Mr. Szymanski briefly reviewed the residential density calculations and noted family members of the property owners were present.
Mrs. Pasch, adjoining property owner, said she approved of the proposal.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Mr. Brown and Ms. Carroll for a 2 lot resubdivision at 41 Buffum Road. By Mr. Charles, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 8:46 p.m.
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision/ Continuation
Mrs. Roberts reconvened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Charles recused himself. She then seated Members Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Carey and Fowlkes for Mr. Charles and Mr. Frank.
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant.
Mrs. Roberts read the list of documents that had been submitted since the last meeting, including a letter from Mr. Shapiro dated 5/1/07.
Mrs. Braverman arrived at 7:51 p.m.
Mrs. Roberts read the following documents into the record:
1) letter from Atty. Miles to Mrs. Hill, dated 4/24/07 regarding the review of the proposed language for the conservation restriction,
2) email from Mr. and Mrs. Greenfield to Ms. Roberts, dated 4/29/07 expressing concern about over development of this historic area,
3) letter from Mr. and Mrs. Pepler, undated, strongly opposing the application because they felt it would undermine the historic district and would be environmentally disadvantageous to the community,
4) letter from Mr. DiBenedetto to Mrs. Hill, dated 5/1/07 in support of the application, but expressing concern about the issues raised by Atty. Miles, and
5) letter from Atty. Litwin to Atty. Miles, dated 5/1/07, responding to Atty. Miles' 4/24/07 letter.
Mr. Shapiro, part owner of the property, said his attorney had not been able to reach Atty. Miles to work on the conservation restriction language, but thought the two could work it out, and asked for a conditional approval.
Mrs. Roberts offered the public the opportunity to review the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 4/3/07.
Mr. Arturi, Historic District Commission Chairman, read a statement voicing that Commission's concerns about the preservation of the streetscape in the Calhoun-Ives Historic District. He also noted much of the proposed open space was located in wetlands, which are already unbuildable. He asked the Planning Commission to require the applicant to preserve open space that was more suitable and to consider requiring building envelopes located so than any new structures built would not adversely impact the streetscape.
Mrs. Roberts advised the public that the hearing was for information gathering and not for debating. Mr. Meyer asked how the public could question the veracity of statements made or correct erroneous comments. Mrs. Roberts responded that questions and concerns should be addressed to the chairman, and said the Commission would consider them during its deliberations.
Mr. Shapiro noted that not all of the proposed open space is wetlands. Mr. Neff said 30% was wetlands.
Mr. Shapiro said he did not think the minutes of the last meeting were accurate and he felt the application process was a disheartening experience. He continued with a very lengthy statement, in which he said the following:
- He and Mr. Shaw were working to preserve the fields so they can continue to be hayed. However, should the Commission require they be preserved as open space, it would be a tremendous penalty to the owners who could lose millions of dollars in possible tax deductions. He noted, too, that he proposed to donate more acres of open space than was required.
- The property owners in the neighborhood have voiced their concerns about his proposed open space, but most have not preserved any of their properties.
- He had tried to sell the property to the Town and to Steep Rock, but neither had the funds to purchase it. He had also invited the "neighborhood group" to make him an offer, but it failed to do so.
- He cited his experience in land preservation and his participation in the Litchfield Land Trust.
- He urged the Commission to revise the Subdivision Regulations so there would be an automotive waiver of the subdivision open space requirement for previous open space donations. He said as they are now written, property owners do not get credit for previous open space donations.
- He could not risk donating open space first and then applying for the subdivision with a request for a waiver of the open space requirement. Although he noted the Commission had granted such a waiver once before for the Taylor subdivision, it was not economically feasible for the applicant to do it in this case.
- The Subdivision Regulations allow for the donation of wetlands as open space, although they count only one fifth as much as Class I soils. He said the Commission was an administrative group and it would be arbitrary, capricious, and immoral for it to require open space in a location that would protect the streetscape.
- The Planning Commission can not consider possible future applications; it must deal with the current application. However, for those who were concerned about the future resubdivision of the property, he said if additional lots were planned, it would make sense to apply for them now because an additional 15% open space would be required in a later application. He said if wanted to he could propose 8 lots now to obtain the maximum profit with the current application without having to increase the size of his proposed open space donation.
- He said he trusted his partner Marc Shaw when he said he did not intend to resubdivide because building additional houses would lower the value of the existing properties.
Regarding the boundary line issue, Mr. Shapiro said he had spoken with Mr. Connolly, adjoining property owner. Mr. Connolly had CCA survey and draw an A-2 survey map for his property. The northern line on this map coincided with one of the two southern boundary lines shown on the Alex map. Mr. Shapiro said his attorney recommended that a reasonable condition of approval would be that the two property owners resolve this issue.
Regarding the draft conservation restriction language, Mr. Shapiro reported that his attorney thought Atty. Miles had misunderstood some of the provisions, but he had not had an opportunity to discuss them with him prior to the meeting. He recommended that the application be approved with the condition that the two attorneys work out the details of the conservation restriction language.
Mr. Shaw said he did not intend to develop the property. He said he restored old houses, was sensitive to the historic values of Washington, and would not do anything that was not in character with the area. He agreed with Mr. Shapiro that if he had plans to eventually get more lots, it would make sense to do it now so that he would not have to donate additional open space. He said his intention was to sell the lot with the existing house and barn as one "building site."
To correct the record, Mr. Smith, Calhoun Street, stated he did not own any frontage on Calhoun Street. He hoped the applicant would preserve the look of the area within the Town's regulations. He thought the proposal was better than some of the possible alternatives, and so he supported the application in what he described as "a round about way."
Mr. Shapiro asked if the missing items listed in Mrs. Hill's 5/1/07 review were reasons to deny the application. Mrs. Roberts advised him that if he needed more time to comply with all of the requirements, he could request an extension of the public hearing. Mr. Shapiro again stated his attorney told him the application could be approved with conditions. Ms. Gager explained there were five outstanding issues and if the public hearing were closed tonight, he would not have an opportunity to address them. Mr. Shapiro noted some changes to the map were required such as providing acreage to three decimal places and adding the limit of disturbance line. Ms. Gager explained a revised map could be submitted while the hearing was open, but not once it was closed. At 8:50 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to give Mr. Shapiro an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Shaw and Mr. Neff whether he should request an extension of the hearing.
Mrs. Roberts reconvened the hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Shapiro submitted a written request, dated 5/1/07 to extend the hearing to the June 5th meeting.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. for a two lot subdivision at 110 Calhoun Street to Tuesday, June 5, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
At 9:01 p.m. Mrs. Roberts continued the public hearing.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 9:06 p.m. and seated Members Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternates Carey and Braverman for Members Charles and Frank.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 4/3/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes with one correction: to add Mrs. Roberts name to the Members present. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/21/07 Brown-Carroll site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/21/07 Abella site inspection minutes as written. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision: It was noted the public hearing had been continued to June 5, 2007.
Brown-Carroll/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision: Mrs. Roberts noted the public hearing had been closed and the application was in order. The condition of approval recommended by Mrs. Hill was briefly discussed. It was the consensus that the time limit for securing a zoning permit for the required lot line revision and for filing the mylar showing the lot line revision on the Town Land Records would be July 10, 2007.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Brown and Ms. Carroll for a 2 lot resubdivision at 41 Buffum Road noting that the motion of approval includes granting of waivers for the following requirements: Section 4.4.11: state plane coordinates and Section 4.7.2: map scale, and subject to the following condition: that the approved resubdivision mylar map shall not be signed by the Chairman, nor shall it be filed on the Town Land Records until the Planning Commission has received proof that 1) a zoning permit has been issued for the required lot line revision (transfer of Parcel A to Tax Map 4-10, Parcel 4) and 2) that the resulting map has been filed on the Land Records; failure to do so by the Planning Commission's July 10th meeting shall render this approval null and void. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision: It was noted a public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.
Other Business
Preliminary Discussion/Washington Partners, 108 New Milford Turnpike: Mr. George, engineer, represented the property owner. The map, "Overall Site Plan," by CCA, dated 5/1/07 was reviewed. Eight lots were proposed on the 30.37 acre parcel. The location of wetlands, the 100 year flood plain, CL and P power lines, and entrance for the proposed 1000 ft. long road were pointed out. Mr. George noted the density calculations totaled 8.3. The configuration of the open space was briefly discussed. When advised that the open space was comprised of 69% wetlands, the Commission asked for open space that was not so focused on the wetlands because they are already protected under the Inland Wetlands regulations. Mrs. Hill noted that unless this application would be proposed under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act, some of the lots did not meet the minimum requirements under soil based zoning. Mr. Charles explained Section 11 of the Zoning Regulations to Mr. George. Mrs. Hill noted a residential density calculation sheet was required for each lot proposed. Mr. Charles recommended the applicant also have preliminary discussions with the Inland Wetlands and Conservation Commissions.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Ms. Gager said she had contacted Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. COG and would report to the Commission at the next meeting.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 2.3.2.g: Prohibition of Drive Through Eating and Drinking Establishments: Mrs. Roberts read the proposed regulation. Mr. Rimsky asked what this would mean for the Coffee Express in Marbledale. Mrs. Hill said it would not be affected; it would be considered a pre existing non conforming business and would be grandfathered in. It was the consensus of the commissioners to endorse this proposed revision to the Zoning Regulations.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: April 13, 2007 April 3, 2007
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. McGuinness, Mr. Shapiro, Mrs. Connolly, Mr. Treadway, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Beck, Mr./Mrs. Greenfield, Ms. Canning, Mr. Sears, Atty. Litwin, Mr. Copen, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Mack, Mr. Adams, Mr. Mills, Mr. Lufkin, Ms. Rowe, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Charles recused himself. Mrs. Roberts seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Gager and Alternate Carey for Mr. Charles. Mr. Frank read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 3/22 and 3/29/07 and the list of documents included in the file.
The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 3/30/07 was reviewed.
Mr. Frank read the 3/21/07 memo from the Conservation Commission, which recommended that the proposed open space be reduced in size since much of it is composed of wetlands already regulated by the Inland Wetlands Commission and in its place open space be set aside along Calhoun Street to protect "the rural character and streetscape of the property in the Historic District." He then read the 3/29/07 memo from the Historic District Commission, which strongly recommended that proposed Parcel A be placed under a conservation easement to "preserve the rural historic character of the Stuart Farm and the entire south end of the Calhoun Ives Historic District." He then read the 4/3/07 email from Mr. Mustich and Mr. Cornet, which urged the Commission to require more open space along Calhoun Street to be preserved.
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Revised Site Analysis Plan, revised to 4/3/07, which proposed an additional approximately 120 ft. wide strip of open space along the western-most portion of Parcel A. He reviewed the application to subdivide the 39+ acre parcel into two lots of 14.39 and 24.83 acres. The 14+ acre lot would contain the existing house and barn, which, he said, would be renovated, but not changed. He pointed out the proposed feasible house site on a high point on the larger lot and the driveway access to it over the narrowest part of the wetlands. Including the addition of .83 acres of open space along the west side of Parcel 2, he stated that 31% of the total property was proposed as open space and that the open space was composed of 30% wetlands/70% non wetlands.
Mr. Carey noted that all of the additional perc test locations were outside the proposed open space area.
Mr. Frank asked if there were any provisions to prevent the property from being subject to future resubdivision applications. Mr. Neff said there was not. He added, however, that there was also the potential for the owners to donate additional open space for future tax deductions.
Ms. Gager said she thought it was more important to protect more of proposed Parcel A than the wetlands, where she suggested the amount of open space could be decreased.
Mr. Carey asked if nine potential lots had been calculated for the parcel under the density regulations. Mr. Neff said this was so. Mr. Carey then asked if the donation of the additional .83 acres on the west side of Parcel A would affect the total possible lot count. Mr. Neff it would reduce it to eight. He added that the owners wanted to leave potential sites on Parcel A for future tax deductions and to eliminate this possibility would decrease the value of the property.
Mrs. Roberts asked for questions and comments from the public.
Ms. Rowe asked if anything could be built in the proposed conservation easement area. Mrs. Roberts said, No.
Mrs. Greenfield asked how many lots were proposed along Calhoun Street. Mrs. Roberts said two lots were proposed. She noted although eight were possible, the Commission could only consider the current application. Mrs. Greenfield stated the natural historic character of Calhoun Street was already changing and she lamented the loss of character of the historic district, "which we believe in."
Another resident voiced an objection to the construction of any mac mansions on Calhoun Street. Mrs. Roberts noted the Planning Commission can not comment on style; that would be under the jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission.
Mrs. Greenfield asked if the Historic District Commission meant anything. Mrs. Roberts responded that the Commission does its best to protect the district.
Ms. Rowe asked where the eight potential lots were located. Mrs. Hill explained there were eight theoretical lots possible based on soil type, but that since they were not proposed at this time, there had been no plan drafted, which would take into consideration setback requirements, access, health department requirements, etc. for specific lot locations.
Mr. Shapiro, one of the property owners, stated that should the owners decide to resubdivide, they would be penalized by having to donate another 15% open space. So, he said, if they ever intended to create eight lots, it would be smarter to apply now for them all. He said the present owners did not intend to resubdivide, but agreed a future owner would have the ability to do so.
Mr. Copen, another of property owners, also said he did not intend to apply for eight lots. He said he had invested in this property because it should be preserved in its current state. He reiterated Mr. Shapiro's earlier statement that no changes were proposed for Parcel A other than to fix up the existing buildings and to put as much of the property as possible into open space.
Mr. Smith asked how wide a strip along Calhoun Street was now proposed to be protected. Mr. Neff said it was approx. 120 ft. wide on the west end of Parcel A and 600 to 700 ft. along the southwest end of the property. Mr. Smith noted that even so, a house could be constructed only 50 ft. back from Calhoun Street in the future on Parcel A. He also noted he endorsed all of the points raised in the earlier read Mustich/Cornet email and said the open space should extend along the length of Calhoun Street. Mrs. Roberts noted that in historical New England houses were built close to the roads.
Mr. Carey asked if the well at the toe of the slope on Parcel A was viable and was it anticipated it would be used for a future building site. He also asked if the well had been tested. Mr. Neff said it had not been tested and that it was not necessary to use it to supply the Stuart house.
Mr. Adams asked where the driveway would be located for the second lot. Mrs. Roberts pointed it out on the map. Mr. Neff said it would use the existing opening in the stone wall.
Mr. Mills asked where the open space was proposed. Ms. Gager pointed out the green hatched area along the wetlands corridor and along the western side of Parcel A.
Mr. Lufkin asked if it was the owners' intent to dedicate land that they were not building on to Steep Rock or to other conservation organization. Mr. Copen said they intended to preserve the land, but could not promise to do so or accept this as a condition of approval. Mr. Lufkin asked if they intended to restrict that land in some form so that it could not be developed in the future. Mr. Copen said they did. He added that the house and barn would be renovated, but would never look different and that this must be taken on faith. Mr. Shapiro stated he became involved because he wanted to preserve the open fields. Mr. Lufkin asked Mr. Shapiro if that was his intent. Mr. Shapiro stated it was. Mr. Shapiro said he had selected the feasible building site for Parcel C because it was not very visible from the road, but said as long as he owned the property, he would not build there. He said he wanted to donate the development rights on the two big fields that could be seen from the road.
Mrs. Connolly pointed out, however, that the proposed building site on Parcel C is visible from Calhoun Street. Mr. Shapiro agreed it was, but said it was less visible there than in the two large fields he wanted to preserve.
Ms. Canning noted the "full time" neighbors had negotiated to purchase the property and if they had been successful, the entire farm would have been "saved." She noted farms in Ct. and throughout the country are under siege and so thought it was important that the record show the neighboring property owners had worked, although unsuccessfully, to preserve this farm.. She urged others to do the same in their neighborhoods.
Ms. Phillips agreed this should be noted for the record to help people figure out how to avoid development in the future. She pointed out that the present owners were not guaranteeing the property would not be developed in the future as they were using terms such as "currently," "not necessarily," and "no other plans for now." She said while the owners might consider no development for 10 or 20 years to be "the long haul," the neighbors wanted to secure the property forever, not just for as long as it was feasible. Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission's goal is to preserve the rural character while working within the existing regulations. She agreed with Ms. Canning and Ms. Phillips that residents should make every effort to preserve what they consider to be valuable.
Mr. Frank said the only issue for the Planning Commission is whether the application complies with the Subdivision Regulations. Mrs. Greenfield asked if it did. The Commissioners said they would review the application and then make that determination.
Mrs. Roberts noted the Planning Commission can not address potential; it must address the specific application. Mr. McDonnaugh disagreed, saying that the Planning Commission should have a plan that looks forward as the Zoning Commission deals only with the present. He said Planning should consider potentials. Mr. Rimsky noted the Commission does not know what will happen in the future, can only deal with the reality of the present, has already defined what it wants to preserve in Town, and has established guidelines for doing so. Ms. Phillips stated the current owners admitted there is the potential for the future development of the property and have set up their proposal to leave it open for that possibility. She urged the Commission to take this into consideration.
Mrs. Greenfield noted the property is in the historic district. Mr. Rimsky said that was another value system also in place and that all the Town commissions try to work cooperatively.
Mr. Greenfield asked if those who were not satisfied with the current regulations could try to change them.
Mrs. Greenfield asked if the Town's historic district was a nationally regulated district. Mrs. Hill responded that the Calhoun-Ives District had been established by those who were property owners there at the time. She noted there was a state historic district commission, but she did not think the local district fell under its jurisdiction.
Mr. Carey directed those present to the Washington Subdivision Regulations and Mike Zizka's book, What's Legally Required, as documents that would spell out the Commission's jurisdiction. In response to Mr. Greenfield's questions, he thought the Commission should have been more emphatic in its regulations regarding requiring only net useable land to qualify to meet the subdivision open space requirement. He explained the regulations could be revised any time, but amendments could not be applied to pending applications. He also noted the Planning Commission is mandated by state law to draft a Plan of Conservation and Development and to update it every ten years, which it has done.
Mr. Carey noted that at the last meeting the Commission had asked Atty. Miles to respond to two issues: 1) to review the proposed language for the conservation easement and 2) to answer questions about the ambiguity of the A-2 survey and recommend how this should be resolved. He stated that until these matters were addressed, the Commission could not make a decision. Mr. Shapiro stated an outdated draft of the proposed easement language had been referred to the Conservation Commission, but once the latest draft was obtained, that Commission had reviewed it and its comments had been incorporated. Mrs. Hill noted the latest draft had been sent to Atty. Miles.
Mrs. Greenfield asked if the Planning Commission had the same rules as New Milford. Mrs. Roberts said it did not.
Mr. Frank noted the Subdivision Regulations state that the amount, location, ownership, etc. of the proposed open space must be acceptable to the Commission. He asked for comments from the public about whether it was satisfied or dissatisfied with the current open space proposal.
Mr. Smith said he would prefer the open space to be located along all the length of Calhoun Street. Ms. Canning and Mrs. Greenfield agreed.
Ms. Rowe said the preservation of open space should also consider wildlife habitats and recommended the open space be linked to other adjoining open space parcels to form wildlife corridors.
Mrs. Roberts noted that in the past the Planning Commission has requested the open space requirement be used to preserve the streetscape and to link with other preserved areas.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. for a 3 lot subdivision at 110 Calhoun Street to 7:30 p.m. on May 1, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
As there were no other questions or comments at this time, at 8:45 p.m. Mrs. Roberts continued the hearing to May 1, 2007.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:55 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mr. Charles. It was noted Mr. Charles was present.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the March 6, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Discussion Re: Possible Revision of Subdivision Regulations: Section 5.8.5: Exemption from Open Space Requirements: Mr. Boling circulated a draft proposal dated 4/3/07 and asked that this matter be discussed at this point in the meeting so that the Commission could consider whether such revisions would be merited as it discussed the pending applications later in the meeting. Mr. Carey asked if consideration of revisions to the Regulations now would affect the current applications. Mrs. Hill said it would not. Mr. Charles recused himself. Mr. Boling said it was good that the current Regulations include open space requirements, but said as written, they encourage development minded people to preserve the land with the least conservation value, and actually serve as a disincentive to preserve the more valuable land. He thought the current regs also create a disincentive for those who consider voluntary conservation easements for tax incentives as they offer no assurance that these voluntary easements will be counted towards meeting the open space requirement should a property owner later decide to subdivide his property. He noted this issue had been previously considered by the Commission in regards to the Taylor resubdivision on New Preston Hill Road. In that case it had granted the applicant a waiver of the open space requirement because the applicant had recently set aside lands under conservation easement prior to submitting his application. He recommended language to assure property owners that if they donate open space now, they will not be penalized with a requirement for an additional set aside should they decide to subdivide in the future. The standards he proposed were briefly reviewed. Mrs. Hill objected that the waiver would be mandatory, but as proposed, the Commission would not be assured that the land donated as open space would be the land containing the qualities the Commission thought were the most important to preserve. Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. COG, agreed stating that as written, developers would donate only what they wanted to and the Commission would have no choice but to accept it. Mr. McGuinness also pointed out that the Regulations already contain a waiver provision and so thought this revision was not necessary. Mr. McGuinness went on to say that property owners were creating the conservation easement for tax purposes and finances were not dealt with by the Commission. He thought Planning would be abrogating its responsibilities if it let developers select which lands would be preserved as open space. The commissioners, however, understood what Mr. Boling was trying to accomplish and suggested he attempt a second draft after consulting further with Mr. McGuinness.
Pending Application
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Rimsky did not think the proposal adequately protected the streetscape in terms of the preservation of this historic area and the traditional appearance along the road. He did not think the additional .83 acres set aside on the west end of Parcel A contributed much to this objective as a major portion of the land along Calhoun Street was still unprotected. He noted that even if all the land along the road were protected, the property could still be subdivided and "tax write offs" could be obtained elsewhere on the site. Ms. Gager recommended that the wetlands be taken out of the open space and more of the property along Calhoun Street, both at the west end of Parcel A and to the south of the barn, be placed under the conservation easement. She said that the recommendations of both the Conservation Commission and the Historic District Commission should be heeded. Mr. Frank noted the land along Calhoun Street was important to the historic district and that the Plan of Conservation and Development encourages the preservation of the Town's historic resources. Mr. Rimsky thought that the Commission could have been clearer and firmer about what values on this property it wants to use the conservation easement to protect. Mrs. Roberts and Ms. Gager agreed. Mr. Carey said, however, that the Subdivision Regulations don't require the applicant to donate only net useable land as open space. Mrs. Hill thought this was a good example of why preliminary discussions are valuable in the application process. She noted the applicant should have come in to discuss the open space requirement with the Commission prior to finalizing the site development plan. Mr. Frank noted the Regulations encourage applicants to do so.
New Applications
Brown-Carroll (Mack)/41 Buffum Road/2 Lot Resubdivision: Mrs. Hill noted she had reviewed this application for completeness and Mr. Szymanski, engineer, had already responded to most of the points raised. Mr. Szymanski briefly reviewed the application to subdivide the 15.6 acre property into two lots. The residential density calculations showed that 4 units were possible. He noted no open space was proposed as the lot to be created would be given to the owners' grandson for no consideration. The lot coverage for each of the proposed lots would be under 10% and the new lot would share the existing driveway cut. Mrs. Hill said that Health Dept. approval and approval of a related lot line revision were required before Planning could approve the application, but were expected by the next meeting. A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. (The continuation of the Young Elliot's Farm application will take place immediately afterwards.) A site inspection was scheduled for Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted he had only recently received Mrs. Hill's review for completeness and had not yet had time to respond. He briefly reviewed the application and described the site conditions on the property located on the north side of Scofield Hill Road. He pointed out two wetlands areas; a corridor running through the southern portion of the property and a pocket on the northwest side as well as a watercourse on the north side. The two proposed interior lots would share a common driveway, which would cross the wetlands in two locations with a bridge and a box culvert. It was noted residents along Mygatt Road had in the past experienced an increase in runoff probably due to development on Scofield Hill. Mr. Szymanski said he had considered this when drafting his plans, would fully address the issue of stormwater management, and the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on downhill properties. The residential density calculations were reviewed and it was noted "almost" six units would be possible. He asked the Commission what land it thought should be preserved as open space. This will be discussed after the Commission conducts a site inspection, which was scheduled for Sat., April 21, 2007 immediately following the Brown-Carroll site inspection.
Other Business
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mr. McGuinness was present to discuss whether a general update of the November 2000 Regulations was needed. At a previous meeting the Commission had discussed whether it should specify how the length of a cul de sac should be measured. Mr. Charles asked if limiting the length of a cul de sac or the number of lots allowed on one was considered a method for limiting interior development. Mr. McGuinness said it was not; that traffic and safety issues were the main reasons that the limitations were imposed. He said the length is usually based on the length of fire hose available and is usually between 1000 and 1500 ft. long. Mr. Rimsky was concerned that not permitting longer roads to interior parcels could be considered a taking. Mrs. Hill responded that since such an interior parcel could still be subdivided, although maybe not yielding as many lots, it would not be a taking. Noting that the Commission does not want wide blacktopped roads, Mrs. Roberts suggested the Regulations should be amended to require that some portion of the road surface use a construction technique that doesn't "look like a road." She thought perhaps if wider roads with these alternative shoulder surfaces were used, the length of a cul de sac could be increased to 1500 feet. Mrs. Hill pointed out that road construction standards were governed by the Town Road Specifications Ordinance. The commissioners noted the 3/20/07 letter from Mr. Sonder concerning cul de sacs and agreed a clear, concise definition was needed. Mrs. Hill will look into the Ct. court case, which explains why it is important to specify how a cul de sac is measured. Ms. Gager will work with Mr. McGuinness to review the Regs to determine whether other revisions are needed.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations Regarding Restaurants: Mrs. Hill noted the proposal had recently been revised and she did not yet have the latest draft available. She said she would mail it out to the commissioners so it could be discussed at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: April 17, 2007 March 6, 2007
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. Neff, Mr. Shapiro, Ms. Dupuis, Mrs. Dyer, Mr. Davis, Mr./Mrs. Smith, Mr. DiBenedetto, Ms. Canning, Mr. Sonders, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Greenfield, Residents
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m. and seated Members Charles, Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts. She noted Alternate Carey was also present.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/6/07 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 2/24/07 Young Elliot's Farm site inspection minutes as corrected. By Ms. Gager, 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. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision: Mr. Charles recused himself and Alternate Carey was seated. Mr. Neff, engineer, was present and briefly summarized the application, which had been presented at the February meeting. Proposed was Parcel A; 14.39 acres with the existing house and barns and Parcel C; 24.8 acres. It was noted Parcel B had already been conveyed to Steep Rock by the previous owners. The proposed open space was 11.41 acres, 16.9% of the total property, located along the wetland corridor. Mr. Neff noted since the last meeting the Health Department had signed off and the Selectmen had approved the feasibility of the proposed driveway cut for the new lot. Mrs. Roberts noted the Commission had inspected the property and was concerned that so much of the open space was wetlands. Mr. Neff stated the Subdivision Regulations do not disallow wetlands to be set aside as open space. Mr. Neff reviewed the residential density calculations noting a total of nine dwelling units was possible and a more dense subdivision could be proposed. He said the existing house and barn would be rebuilt and the look along Calhoun Street would be preserved per the Historic District Regulations. He said the application had validity in terms of the proposed open space because it would protect habitat values. Mrs. Hill noted the application had been referred to the Historic District Commission, which would meet next on 3/19. Mrs. Roberts said the referral was appropriate since that Commission also has jurisdiction over the property. Mr. Rimsky asked whether the proposed open space exceeded the regulated wetland area. Mr. Neff said it did in some places and pointed out such an area at the southeast corned of the property along Calhoun Street. Mr. Neff briefly discussed the proposed 1500 ft. long driveway, noting the route selected would not be obtrusive as seen from Calhoun Street. He said the existing farm road and wetlands crossing would be used. He noted the proposed house site would be seen from Calhoun Street during the winter when there were no leaves on the trees. Mr. Neff stated the property owners were anxious to have the application approved and asked the Commission to consider a conditional approval tonight. Mrs. Roberts stated the Commission was not inclined to hurry the application process and said she wanted to wait for the reports from the Conservation and Historic District Commissions before acting. Mr. Rimskey agreed. He asked why so little of the proposed open space was proposed along Calhoun Street. Mr. Shapiro, one of the property owners, noted his attorney had consulted with Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission chairman, who had commented on the proposed conservation easement language. He said some of her comments had been incorporated in the proposed document. Mr. Frank noted the Conservation Commission had not yet reviewed the application. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that a set aside of only 6 acres would have met the open space requirement if it had been a flat 15%, but due to the soil based nature of the open space requirement, approximately 11 of the 40 acres had to be donated since 5 of them were wetlands. In terms of a flat percentage, the open space totaled approximately 25% in actual acres, he said, which he thought was a major open space set aside. He noted if the owners wanted to resubdivide later, an additional 15% open space would be required. Mrs. Roberts noted she wanted Atty. Miles as well as the Conservation Commission to review the proposed conservation easement language. Mr. Frank said there appeared to be substantial public interest and so proposed that a public hearing be held. It was the consensus that while a public hearing was not required, it would be a good idea to conduct one to receive public comment.
MOTION: To send the proposed conservation easement for Young Elliot's Farm, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/2 Lot Subdivision to Atty. Miles for review. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To conduct a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application submitted by Young Elliot's Farm, LLC. for a 2 lot subdivision at 110 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
The Commissioners reviewed portions of Mrs. Hill's 2/6/07 report with 3/6/07 update, which raised several issues about the application and pointed out where it was incomplete.
1) Mr. Carey asked how the survey map submitted could be an A-2 map when it showed a boundary line discrepancy. Mrs. Hill asked in her report whether the Commission could legally act on a subdivision, which included a probable boundary line. She also asked how this matter should be resolved; whether it should be referred to the Town attorney, sent to a third surveyor for review, or was there some other way to resolve the problem. Mr. Carey did not want to set the precedent that this type of discrepancy would be acceptable to the Commission. It was the consensus of the commissioners to refer the matter to Atty. Miles.
2) Would any fire protection measures per Section 10 be required? It was the consensus that the water supply for fire fighting at the end of the proposed driveway would be the responsibility of the property owner and the application would not be referred to the Fire Dept. Chief.
3) Although the commissioners again expressed their concern about the preservation of the streetscape, it was the consensus that no landscaping per Section 5.7 would be required.
4) The Commission decided it would require that the conservation easement boundaries be marked in the field. Specifications concerning the markers would be addressed in the motion of approval.
Mr. Shapiro said he had learned of the possibility of affordable housing units on adjoining property and asked if he would be permitted to relocate the house site on proposed Lot #C. Mrs. Hill explained the house site shown on the site development map was for feasibility purposes only and could be changed with approvals from the Health Department, and Zoning and Historic District Commissions. Mr. Rimsky noted that he understood the present owners had no plans to resubdivide, but said it was the Commission's duty to protect the attributes of the property it thinks are the most valuable. Mr. Shapiro pressed the Commission to begin the public hearing prior to April 3 as time was of the essence for the completion of his real estate deal. The commissioners urged the public to send in written questions prior to the hearing so the applicant could be prepared to address them on April 3. Mr. Neff asked if the Commission would waive the 2 ft. contour requirement and reviewed his 2/20/07 letter, which detailed why he did no