The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Planning Commission
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning Commission |
|
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Planning Commission
December 2 •November 5 •October 7 •September 2 •August 5 •July 1 •June 5 •May 6 •April 1 •March 4 •February 5 •January 2 •Previous years: 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 12, 2008 December 2, 2008
Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Clark, Mr. Carusillo, Mr. Neff, Residents
REGULAR MEETING:
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts.Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/5/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: Under Also Present: Change “open” to “Oakwood.”
Page 2: Under Reger: Line #1: Change: “open” to “Oakwood.” Change: “Polly” to “Holly.”
Page 3 and throughout: 2nd motion: Change: “USVS” to “USGS.”
Page 8: 3rd full paragraph: Last line: Change: “10000” to “1000.”
Page 9: 2nd full paragraph: 3rd line: Change: “selectmen” to “First Selectman.”
Page 12: last paragraph: end of 3rd line: Should be: “…but the last Plan of Conservation and Development didn’t mention it….”MOTION: To accept the 11/5/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 10/28/08 Reger site inspection minutes as presented. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mrs. Jahnke, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 11/20/08 BEC Holdings, LLC. site inspection minutes as written. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Other Business: F. Draft Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. By Ms. Gager, seconded Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mr. Clark, engineer, advised the Commission that the property owner had changed her plans and would provide open space instead of a fee in lieu of as originally proposed. The map, “Site Development Plan,” by Oakwood Environmental Assoc., revised to 11/4/08 was reviewed. Mr. Carey noted that the Conservation Commission had indicated it would like to preserve the portion of the property at the top of the hill. Mr. Clark asked the Commission’s opinion about the appropriateness of various possible locations for the required open space, including 1) at the NE corner and along the scenic road, 2) a 60,000 sq. ft. area in the center of the proposed lot to ensure the preservation of the trees on the steepest slopes, and 3) land along boundary lines to provide buffers from neighboring properties. He said the applicant did not want to include the hilltop as open space because that is the best building site. Several problems with the suggested open space areas were noted, including that wetlands did not necessarily need to be located in open space because it is already protected and access to the interior open space for monitoring purposes could be an issue. Mrs. Hill recommended that the applicant discuss both the open space location and configuration and the proposed conservation easement language with the Conservation Commission at its next meeting. Mr. Clark noted that once open space has been set aside here, the property will no longer be resubdividable. Mrs. Roberts noted that runoff had been discussed at the last meeting. She said that a lot of water was observed on the site inspection and suggested there might be a better location for the proposed dwelling. Mr. Clark noted that the proposed catch basin did not empty toward the road. Mr. Smith’s 10/31/08 memo from the Highway Dept. regarding the feasibility of the driveway cut was read. A Public Hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. It was noted that Mrs. Hill had notified both adjoining councils of government about the application.BEC Holdings. LLC./204 Wykeham Road/2 Lot Subdivision:
The map, “Site Development Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 11/21/08 was reviewed. It was noted that the Conservation Commission had recommended a change in the open space configuration, but Mr. Carusillo said he wanted to keep his original proposal. Ms. Gager asked for the percentage of wetlands in the proposed open space. Mr. Neff responded that it was 10%. Mr. Carusillo noted that without including the wetlands, the area of open space was greater than the 4 acres required. Mrs. Roberts read the 11/26/08 letter from the First Selectman concerning improvements and maintenance of Clark Road. Mr. Carey expressed his concern about the use of Clark Road as a driveway by future additional owners of interior lots. Mrs. Hill said she had discussed this matter with Mr. Lyon. She explained that the Zoning Regulations are clear; only two interior lots may be served by a driveway and so if a third was proposed, the road would have to be improved by the Town. Ms. Gager thought the Town should specify that it would not be responsible for plowing the driveway. Ms. Gager recommended that a Public Hearing to consider the application be scheduled and Mrs. Roberts agreed. Mr. Carusillo objected, saying he wanted approval this year so that the adjoining property owner could purchase the lot before the end of the year. Ms. Gager noted the Commission has consistently held public hearings to consider subdivision applications, adding that in this particular case because the Commission had not dealt with this kind of road improvement/ maintenance issue in the past she thought a hearing was warranted. She thought that making an exception for this application would not be in the best interests of the Town and pointed out that delays with the review of the application due to its incompleteness had been caused by the applicant, not the Commission. Town policy regarding abandoned and discontinued roads was briefly discussed. A Special Meeting to conduct a Public Hearing was scheduled for Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. Mrs. Hill recommended that Mr. Carusillo attend the next Conservation Commission meeting to get approval of the proposed conservation easement language so that his application would be complete on 12/18. Mr. Frank noted the Commission still had to consider the waiver requests submitted.
Other Business
Conservation Easement Language Template:
There is no final language approved by the Conservation Commission yet, but in the meantime, Mrs. Hill said she had been advising applicants to use the draft language.Revision of the Regulations:
This is still in progress. It was noted that Mrs. Corrigan would submit language about archeological sites that she hoped would be included. Mrs. Hill noted the large number of waivers that had recently been granted and suggested that the Commission determine whether this was an indication that further revisions should be considered.Incomplete Applications:
Due to the large number of incomplete applications received over the past few years, the Commission discussed this problem at length. The following policies will be implemented. The Regulations will be revised to a) more strongly encourage preliminary discussions and b) to require that applications be submitted 15 days prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. This will give staff enough time to review the application for completeness and to notify the applicant what must be done to complete the application before it is received by the Commission. Applicants will be strongly urged not to submit incomplete applications. If an applicant insists, however, he will be advised that the Commission will deny the application at the next meeting and the application fee will be forfeited. Once an application has been submitted, if during the review process revisions to the plan are made less than 5 days prior to the upcoming meeting, the applicant shall be advised that those changes will not be discussed until following month’s meeting. By implementing these measures, the Commission hopes that applicants and the professionals who represent them will begin to take seriously their responsibility to submit complete applications.Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road and BEC Holdings, LLC./204 Wykeham Road:
Mr. Carey noted two issues with the these pending applications. 1) Reger: He noted the Conservation Commission recommended the top of the hill be preserved as open space, but that the applicant did not want to locate it here because that was the best house site. The plan submitted, however, shows the house site at the bottom of the hill. 2) BEC Holdings: When he was asked if the lots had the potential to be resubdivised, Mr. Carusillo had said, probably not. However, according to the information on the Site Analysis Plan, both lots could be resubdivided.FOI Report:
Mrs. Roberts read her report on the Town’s October FOI meeting. Of particular concern to the Planning Commission, subcommittee meetings of only two commissioners must be noticed and minutes submitted. It was noted how difficult this would have been to accomplish during the Depot Study process. Also, the Commission must cite specific items when it adds subsequent business to the agenda.Approval of 2009 Calendar:
MOTION: To approve the 2009 Calendar as presented. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/Request to Revise Condition of Approval:
This matter had been discussed several times at previous meetings. Several years ago the Commission had meant to place a specific condition on only the new subdivision lot, but had incorrectly made the condition apply to both the existing and new lot. This had been brought to the Commission’s attention last summer and Mrs. Hill had confirmed it was so. Mrs. Hill had then consulted with Atty. Miles who advised the Commission that it did not have to conduct a Public Hearing to correct the condition of approval; the correction could be made at a Regular Meeting, but that that the Commission chairman should sign the letter informing Mr. Talbot of the corrective motion passed, and that the letter should then be filed on the Town Land Records. A motion using language provided by Atty. Miles to make the correction was unanimously approved. (Note: Upon discussion with Atty. Miles the day after the meeting, however, it was brought to the Commission’s attention that the amendment made, although correct, did not completely address the request made by Mr. Talbot. Therefore, the motion made was not filed with the Town Clerk within 48 hours as required by state statute and is invalid. The matter will be discussed again at the next meeting, when, hopefully, Mr. Talbot will be present to fully discuss his request with the Commission.)Northwestern Ct. Council of Governments Draft Plan of Conservation and Development:
Copies of the draft had been circulated at the last meeting. Mrs. Roberts noted that she and Ms. Gager would attend the Public Hearing to consider the document on 12/4/08. She said she thought some aspects of this Plan such as the sections on railroads, community septic systems, and floodplains, may not be in the best interests of Washington. Mr. Rimsky said he would like to see provisions added to encourage the use of open space for agricultural businesses. He noted the importance of farmland preservation and said he would not want to loose this opportunity to preserve it. Mrs. Roberts agreed this was an important issue, particularly for small towns. Mr. Rimsky thought that community gardens in open space lands should also be considered and that agricultural business opportunities might help keep young people in the area.MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Rimsky. Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: December 1, 2008 November 5, 2008
Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Gager
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. Braverman
STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Sheila Silvernail, Acting for Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Bart Clark of Open Environmental
I. Regular Business
Ms. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. and seated Members Dimitri Rimsky, Susan Jahnke, Paul Frank, Addie Roberts and welcomed Alternates Dick Carey, Barbara Braverman, and Winston Fowlkes. After slight confusion, Winston Fowlkes was seated.
II. Consideration of the Minutes
Regular Meeting – 10/7/08MOTION: To accept the Oct 7, 2008 regular meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Frank, Seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed unanimously.Site Inspection – 10/28/08
Ms. Roberts commented she had received the minutes and they were very brief, but the rest had not received them. However most had been on the site, but it was decided to wait and include them in the next meeting.
III. MOTION: To Include Subsequent Business Not Already Posted on the Agenda
By Mr. Fowlkes, Seconded by Ms. Jahnke, and passed unanimously.Ms. Roberts requested that this motion be presented even though there was no subsequent business to include or discuss.
IV. Pending Application
A. Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Ms. Roberts introduced Mr. Bart Clark with Open Environmental. He recalled that Polly Reger has property at 65 Gunn Hill and was looking to do a two-lot resubdivision for her property. He noted that there were some comments from Janet Hill relative to the review and materials that she has as part of the application. Offered to review some of the issues that Janet has and then entertain any questions from that point.There were issues relative to the subdivision and map provided by the surveyor. Mr. Clark indicated that a letter had been submitted requesting some waivers for the subdivision regulations. He provided details on what the requirement is, the waiver requested, and reasoning for the waiver and offered to go through them in detail.
Ms. Roberts commented that they should be viewed and that they should be careful of being so overloaded with waivers that things didn’t make sense anymore. Mr. Clark summarized the waivers and then details.
Waiver #1:
Map scale regulations require 1 inch equals 40. Survey map was provided in 1 inch equals 80 and their engineering drawing in 1 inch equals 60. So request for a waiver from the 1 inch equals 40 to allow them to show the site on one sheet and avoid multiple sheets.Ms. Roberts reminded that each waiver had to have a separate vote. She sympathized with applicant since map seemed very readable and was not too small and questioned how other members felt. She prompted members to take a good look to determine readability. All agreed that the map worked fine in this case.
MOTION: To accept request for Waiver #1 from 1 inch equals 40 to 1 inch equals 80 on subdivision map and site plan.
By Ms. Jahnke , Seconded by Mr. Rimsky and passed unanimously.Mr. Frank stated concern on multiple requests for waivers with no opportunity to review and the burden it places on members and possible lack of understanding. Mr. Clark responded reminding them that issues relative to waivers were addressed at last meeting and Janet’s review. They had made a request for one waiver, but others were added in response to her comments.
Waiver #2:
Due to location of property there’s no easy reference location for the state plan coordinates. There would be considerable expense involved to provide coordinates. Because of this expense, request that Commission allow the state plane coordinates to be omitted from the subdivision map.Members agreed that this was a customary request that the Commission had been getting.
MOTION: To accept Waiver #2 to not include state plane coordinates.
By Mr. Rimsky, Seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed unanimously.Waiver #3:
On Lot 1 with the existing house no changes to the grade are required to show conformance with Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. The area shown on the plans with two foot contours in this area needed to show conformance with Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. The waiver is to allow ten foot USVS contours to be used in all areas except those in the area showing the feasible layout for the driveway and the house and septic area.Ms. Roberts commented that this was a large lot and understood the request to have a waiver in this case. It’s steep. Questioned how the Commission felt about it. Ms. Jahnke required clarification of pertinent areas. Waiver pertained to area going to be developed and not for the rest. Ms. Roberts commented that she was comfortable as did the other members.
MOTION: To accept Waiver #3 to allow ten foot USVS contours to be used in all areas except those in the areas showing a feasible layout for the driveway, house, and septic area.
By Mr. Frank, Seconded by Ms. Jahnke, and passed unanimously.Waiver #4:
Requesting that the map show no boundaries of the wooded areas. The entire property is wooded with the exception of the area immediately around the existing house and septic system. The information concerning wooded areas does not seem to be important to the review of this application.Ms. Roberts agreed with the request as did the rest of the Commission.
MOTION: To allow map to show no boundaries of the wooded area.
By Mr. Frank, Seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed unanimously.Waiver #5:
The requirement for solar and renewable energy is to show that passive energy techniques have been considered. … review concerning passive energy techniques due to the subdivision slope and the size of the lots there are no issues relative to passive solar energy techniques that can be impacted by the subdivision design.Ms. Roberts felt that they might want to say something about this to have some protection against too much cutting. This is a wooded area. As soon as you begin cutting in that area, there will be very difficult drainage problems. She felt that the Commission should have something attached that suggests that there was at least awareness that it might be so and there is a concern about it.
Ms. Jahnke asked how that related to solar energy. Ms. Roberts explained that in order to have solar energy, a direct view of the sun was needed at all times. This is so wooded it’s clear that there wouldn’t be.
Mr. Fowlkes commented that the requirement is to demonstrate that it has been considered. Since there is not evidence that it has been considered, he questioned the validity of granting a waiver. Ms. Roberts agreed and felt that something should be in writing from the applicant regarding their consideration and stating a few of their reasons for the waiver. Without having that, the waiver couldn’t be given. Ms. Roberts asked Mr. Clark if he would attend to that and he agreed.
Mr. Clark withdrew request for waiver and they could provide consideration of passive solar energy techniques as suggested.
Ms. Roberts discussed with Mr. Clark how they could easily review all the responses and details he provided. Mr. Clark suggested that he could highlight issues the applicant felt were important for the Commission to address and that the issues raised by Janet Hill could be simply provided.
Ms. Roberts agreed and questioned the issue of fee in lieu of open space. Mr. Clark said it was one of the big issues. Ms. Roberts commented that this was tricky because it is on the books, but they have never done this before and asked patience from applicant as Commission endeavored to do it right. The suggestion is to consult with Mrs. Johnson, the Assessor, to get a list of appraisers from her. Ms. Roberts asked Mr. Clark if that would be acceptable and then the applicant could determine who to use.
Mr. Clark explained the usual process in other towns is that the Commission agrees to the concept and then after the approval, then the actual appraising work is done.
Ms. Roberts explained that the suggestion is that the Commission obtain the list and give it to the applicant who then chooses someone and notifies the Commission of said appraiser.
Mr. Rimsky questioned the process. If they accept a fee in lieu of open space after approving the application, how does the Commission know that the fee in lieu is commensurate with the piece of property that would have been the conservation easement? Ms. Roberts didn’t know and agreed with Mr. Rimsky. He then questioned equivalent value relative to the property and monetary value.
Mr. Carey asked Ms. Roberts if he could comment and was allowed. The application was a two-lot subdivision and the concept of waiving open space and taking cash fee. He discussed an interior piece standing alone for the appraiser to look at to evaluate. The highest and best use in a residential zone is whether it meets test of legal building site. Contradicting that concept is that this is a very simple subdivision which doesn’t even identify the high ground as a potential open space. It was semantic, but tangible. The appraiser is going to question what could be done with the piece of ground.
Mr. Clark explained the way the state law is written is that the fee is computed based upon 10% of the value of the property. Mr. Carey agreed, but said that was the mechanics. Others questioned the law as stating that it was prior to the approval of the subdivision. Mr. Clark said it was prior. Mr. Carey commented that the only thing to do was evaluate the whole piece and Mr. Clark agreed and said that’s the way the state law is written based on the value right now. The fee is computed on the 10%.
Ms. Roberts explained that this was really his right and the Commission could only ask if he would do it this way to be helpful to the Commission. Mr. Clark explained difficulties in computing because of equivalence. They computed an approximate size piece as 6.1A as open space. The issue is whether you take that open space now or take the fee for purchasing higher value open space someplace else.
Ms. Roberts commented that this probably wouldn’t be approved tonight because these were important issues if it was alright with the applicant. Mr. Fowlkes commented that based on Janet’s notes that the Commission consult with the Assessor for her recommendation and then the appraiser must be acceptable to both the Commission and the applicant.
Ms. Roberts agreed to consult with the Assessor and get back to Mr. Clark, and if it was acceptable to him it was a go ahead. They would work together.
Mr. Frank questioned why the applicant preferred the fee rather than the easement. Mr. Clark stated that it doesn’t appear that there’s any real value to the open space that’s on this property in an overall sense. The owner feels she gives up the value as she sells the property. Ms. Roberts questioned what would happen if she doesn’t ever sell it.
Ms. Roberts commented on another note regarding water run off. There’s the possibility that any house that is built there would need roof drains. She thought it should be part of the acceptance of any conceptual plans that some sort of mention should be made that those be taken into consideration.
Mr. Clark responded positively and explained that any new buyer could choose not to build it exact location as indicated so he felt it was appropriate to address it at that point. He agreed that conceptually, they would put something on the plans if that’s what the Commission wanted. Ms. Roberts personally wanted just a notation that there were thoughts about water on this steep property and any house built should be aware of the concern.
Mr. Rimsky asked about a driveway. Mr. Frank mentioned Inland Wetlands Commission consideration of this. There was further discussion about Inland Wetlands Commission wanting an approval right on the plans just for that reason and for the water issues being discussed. There was a recommendation from Inland Wetlands Commission regarding an alternate driveway route resulting in fewer run off issues be a part of the Planning Commission approval. Mr. Frank asked Mr. Clark about an alternate driveway site he had shown and if it was in response to this. Mr. Clark explained process with Inland Wetlands Commission, steepness, alternate drive, and pointed out areas on the map.
Mr. Clark also explained that there are competing issues between different town departments because of road closings and lack of winter maintenance. Someday it might have to be upgraded. Ms. Roberts discussed current issue is before Commission and future upgrade not part of current consideration.
Mr. Fowlkes further discussed Selectmen’s authority on road plans. Mr. Clark explained report has been issued to Selectmen’s Office and First Selectman is on vacation and he hasn’t yet received a letter, but Mr. Smith, Director of Highway Department, said this location is acceptable and feasible and they would continue to close road as they have been doing. Mr. Clark indicated that they’d be happy to provide an easement as the solution for future road changes. Ms. Roberts agreed that an easement made sense and there was further minor discussion. Mr. Fowlkes questioned when easement came into play and it was indicated that the easement was part of the subdivision approval so it would be in perpetuity.
Mr. Carey commented on computational ramifications about putting an easement over the residual site. Mr. Clark commented that they’ve gone through that computation and there is an allowable density and no significant impact.
Ms. Roberts wanted to be helpful to Mr. Clark with this discussion and easement made sense for future owners if the applicant agreed. Everyone agreed.
Ms. Roberts addressed other issues and explained difficulties because application was just conceptual and wanted to work out what would happen if it became fact. She brought up the fire department review.
Mr. Frank interrupted and read notes from Ms. Hill about objections to driveway by Dan McGinnis because of inadequate sight lines. He asked Mr. Clark if he had a response. Mr. Clark responded that there is an available sight distance of 150 feet on the plan. The subdivision regulations don’t specify a minimum sight distance. The plans show what works for other towns in the area. The sight line available on the actual site is much larger. He showed photos of site. The uphill shot shows about 220 feet and probably after construction and clearing there’ll be more than 220 feet. He explained a few more details. Without having guidance from regulations, they used what was typical in other towns. Mr. Frank and Mr. Rimsky noted that this was Selectmen’s province not this Commission’s.
Ms. Roberts explained this wasn’t Commission’s province because she thought that the Selectmen had to check with fire department when they make the decision about the driveway cut. That’s not really Commission business. She asked others if she was correct, could they ask Selectmen to please take it up and then advise. Mr. Rimsky questioned what was required by and for the fire department. Mr. Frank explained that Commission regulations require consideration of the fact whether the Commission will require fire protection measures. Mr. Rimsky asked if the fire department has looked at this. Ms. Roberts didn’t know if they had. Mr. Rimsky commented that the Commission didn’t know whether or not the fire department had a problem. Ms. Roberts agreed and noted that this was another thing.
Mr. Frank noted that this kind of requirement is more properly related to a multi-lot subdivision rather than a two-lot subdivision. Others agreed noting similar cases and that the Commission didn’t have to address this issue.
Ms. Roberts explained to Mr. Clark that there were a quite a number of things to attend to and that a public hearing was required and could set that for the next meeting or put off with extension. Mr. Clark provided extension request to get to next meeting.
Mr. Carey questioned statutory limits regarding adjoining towns. Mr. Clark commented that regulation states requirement for notification to adjoining town clerks. Actually the town has to notify the adjoining town clerks. This particular property adjoins two other towns, both Kent and New Milford so Janet Hill has mentioned in her memo that she has made those notifications.
Ms. Jahnke questioned who looks at the sewage/septic. It was noted that the Health Department granted provisional approval. Mr. Clark explained that they always grant provisional approval to subdivision lots that are proposal for construction. Their provisions are that they have to come back with an engineered design plan.
Ms. Roberts asked if there were other issues. Ms. Jahnke asked about boundaries of regulated areas not showing. Mr. Clark explained that regulated areas have to do with the wetlands and watercourses. Ms. Jahnke asked if they were all there. Mr. Clark said they will be shown on the subdivision map. The revisions weren’t made because of issues relative to the waivers and will be made all at once now that waivers are approved. The only major issue left is the open space. If fee accepted, there’s no change. If fee not accepted, they’ll have to provide open space.
Mr. Frank questioned storm water drainage and that it has to be demonstrated that there is adequate feasible area for managing drainage. A feasible plan should be shown. Mr. Clark agreed to show something and show roof drains connected into catch basin to get it underneath the driveway and back out so it doesn’t cause erosion and that sort of thing. Mr. Frank commented that was part of final plans to show Inland Wetlands Commission with further comment by Mr. Fowlkes who indicated that this is a feasible plan if it were to take place. If building more detail would be needed and Ms. Roberts noted that it would then come back.
Mr. Rimsky questioned if fee in lieu of conservation easement was something that Commission could actually accept or deny. Mr. Frank and Ms. Roberts and Mr. Clark said that it was at the discretion/approval of the Commission.
Mr. Frank asked if Mr. Clark had been to the Conservation Commission today and he had not. Ms. Roberts explained that the Conservation Commission advises and lets Planning Commission know what their preference is. Their meeting was today so this is all new. She asked Mr. Carey to explain.
Mr. Carey explained position of Conservation Commission who had adjourned their meeting just prior to the start of this Planning Commission meeting. The Chairperson asked if Mr. Carey would communicate their position and asked that instead of a fee, they would like a 200-foot band along the New Milford property line reserved as hilltop open space so that it not be used for building a structure. Their minutes will probably be submitted tomorrow. There was clarification about the boundary line and hilltop. Ms. Jahnke asked if it was just for Lot 2 and Mr. Carey noted it was to protect the viewshed because it’s over 10000 feet in elevation. Ms. Roberts said this would have to be considered.
Mr. Rimsky asked Mr. Clark if he had any idea how owner would respond to Conservation request. Mr. Clark said right now the fee would be preferred, but would consider the request if that’s the only way that thing would move ahead. Mr. Fowlkes noted that at this moment in time the fee is an unknown quantity, an unknown factor. The applicant has the right to withdraw that preference and submit the other. Mr. Clark affirmed that it had to be agreeable to both parties during approval process. Mr. Fowlkes indicated that there wasn’t any action required at this time. Ms. Roberts agreed, but felt it was important to note.
Ms. Roberts asked if there was anything else. Mr. Frank read wording of extension to determine dating. Mr. Clark explained that public hearing starts new time frame. Mr. Rimsky asked Mr. Clark if the applicant wanted the public hearing. Mr. Clark agreed that if the Commission felt the applicant was ready, they felt they could have the revised materials well in advance. He feels the applicant is ready and the decision is up to the Commission if there is enough information. Mr. Frank noted that the request was really for an extension of the period to commence the public hearing and Commission may specify any date for a public hearing. He felt more info was needed and Commission could better decide at next meeting.
Mr. Rimsky asked what other info was outstanding besides fee in lieu. Mr. Frank explained the conservation question and driveway information from Selectmen. Mr. Clark noted that the Commission can still receive reports after the public hearing. It’s still something that can be considered. After the public hearing there can be no more testimony. Mr. Clark was confident in resolving issues.
Members tried to clarify whether things would be ready for next meeting date and should they set public hearing. Mr. Frank’s personal preference was not to schedule at this time. Other members agreed that there was a lot that was unknown. If Dec 2 public hearing was scheduled, info would only be provided by email. Mr. Clark explained they wanted to submit all revisions at same time instead of one after the other. Members felt another regular meeting was required first for more complete information. Mr. Fowlkes questioned clarity of setting Dec 2nd as last date for scheduling a public hearing without the extension, the applicant is requesting an extension, and allowing more time to go by before a public hearing is in fact scheduled. Ms. Roberts explained that if Commission accepts the extension request that gives the appropriate time.
Mr. Clark stated submitted request just to get to next meeting and take things from there. Ms. Braverman questioned what info would be available next meeting. It was noted they’d have Wetlands report, Conservation report, Selectmen would be back from vacation. Mr. Clark noted current assessed value could give an idea of what the fee would be. Ms. Roberts asked if discussion was completed and could the motion be made to accept request. Members agreed.
MOTION: To approve the request for an extension of time in which to commence the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Ms. Reger for a 2 lot resubdivision at 65 Gunn Hill Road.
By Mr. Fowlkes, Seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed unanimously.
V. New Applications
A. BEC Holdings, LLC./204 Wykeham Road/2 Lot Subdivision
Ms. Roberts noted a new application had been received for BEC Holdings for 204 Wykeham Road for a two-lot subdivision. Mr. Frank explained it was an application submitted and withdrawn at the last meeting. Ms. Roberts noted there were a number of maps and pointed out a map showing locations of angle points where the monuments are missing.Mr. Fowlkes and Mr. Carey recused themselves from this issue. Ms. Roberts seated Ms. Braverman in place of Mr. Fowlkes for the BEC Holdings discussion.
Ms. Roberts noted Mrs. Hill’s 11/6/08 review and asked if the driveway cut had been approved by the Selectmen. Mr. Rimsky commented that it looked like it was still an incomplete application. Ms. Roberts read list to determine. Approval of driveway cut by Selectmen was unknown. There was the question of improvements on Clark Road and who is responsible for those. There needs to be a written agreement for the file. Did Inland Wetlands Commission take this up and approve this? Did they have report from Conservation on proposed open space?
Mr. Carey indicated that he was the messenger for Conservation Commission. They’d like to enlarge that elongated strip of open space. It was sort of ambiguous. He referred to areas on the map that they’d like to have as open space. Conservation would like it to go into the internal area. There’s very little there. Janet Hill was questioning some of the information on the map is not labeled.
Ms. Roberts noted that there is the report from Conservation on proposed open space. The density form seemed to be incomplete. It was unknown. Did they think a public hearing should be schedule and if so, why?
Mr. Frank asked if someone was expected to appear in support of this application. Ms. Roberts seemed to think so. Mr. Rimsky suggested that they pass on it and that they’ve had conversations before about wasting time with incomplete applications and this is a good example of that. Ms. Braverman noted they addressed that a couple months ago and others commented other months and weeks as well.
Mr. Frank noted Janet’s memo said the Commission should schedule a site inspection and others thought it was a good idea, but otherwise to pass on this. Ms. Braverman asked about access. Mr. Fowlkes noted he knew and didn’t feel he had to recuse himself from a site inspection. The members discussed area, directions, parking, and possible dates. The site inspection was tentatively scheduled for noon on Thursday, November 13th and Janet Hill will contact applicant and confirm
Ms. Jahnke questioned that if there’s so much trouble with applications, why doesn’t the 65 days from the application being submitted to the hearing start from when the application is complete. Mr. Frank noted that if the applicant insists on submitting it, the time begins to run. The last meeting the applicant agreed to withdraw it so there wouldn’t be any time started. Ms. Roberts commented that again this had come in with no one there to answer questions so all the Commission is going to do is let applicant know they are planning a site visit. Otherwise the Commission is not acting on it. Mr. Frank also noted that the Commission was free at any point to deny an application because it wasn’t complete.
VI. Other Business
A. Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements
Ms. Roberts thought they should skip over that. Mr. Frank noted that there had been no further reports.B. Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Roberts said that there was no one to report on it so that would be skipped. Mr. Frank said Janet had a note about it. Mark O’Connor suggested that it go to review to save money. Ms. Roberts preferred to put off until next meeting.C. Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/Revision of Conditions of Subdivision Approval
Ms. Roberts read note from Janet Hill that by telephone conversation with Attorney Miles, he advised that:
“A public hearing is not required to vote on a revision of a condition of approval. This may be voted on at regular meeting. The letter sent to the property owner to advise him of the action should be signed by the Commission Chairman and filed on the town land records.”Ms. Roberts stated that they did not have to have a public hearing. Mr. Carey commented that it goes back to Peter’s request to change part of the legend on a family subdivision map on the east side of Bell Hill Road. Ms. Roberts confirmed that was so. Mr. Rimsky suggested they just clear this off our table and say fine. Mr. Frank said he didn’t recall enough of the request to act at this meeting.
Mr. Carey explained it was a clarification based on what had happened. He had taken objection thinking the Commission had the authority to allow a change in a map that is recorded by number upstairs since a title searcher would never find the change unless a subsequent map is filed reflecting the change. Then would this get bogged down in a hearing and so forth? That’s the background.
Mr. Frank recalled it as an administrative error here that caused this problem. Others agreed. And Mr. Rimsky commented that was one of those things that shouldn’t be of much concern and just get it out of the way. Mr. Carey explained that the Talbots immediately agreed to file a map that had a new number.
Ms. Roberts indicated the letter sent to the property owner to advise him of the action should be signed by the Commission. The Commission needed to vote now on this and questioned what the motion actually was to vote on. The minutes weren’t available. Mr. Rimsky noted that they could make a motion to approve the applicant’s request to correct an administrative error on the map and file the corrected map. Mr. Frank preferred to be more precise. Ms. Roberts thought it was a mistake to get it so over complicated. Mr. Frank thought they should be precise to change something on land records and suggested it would take little time at the next meeting and isn’t holding anything up. Ms. Roberts noted that since they wouldn’t delay anything the Commission would wait and take no action now.
D. FOI Meeting Report
Ms. Roberts stated preference to wait to have discussion for next agenda. She felt a discussion was necessary, but this was not the appropriate time and they needed to get things together. She suggested putting it on the agenda for next meeting. Others agreed and noted that no motion was necessary.E. Regional Plan of Development
Ms. Roberts asked if members had read it and noted that was all that was needed. They didn’t need to do anything else. Ms. Jahnke noted she hadn’t received it nor had Mr. Rimsky. Mr. Fowlkes noted it was a remarkable compilation. Mr. Frank noted it was a stating of a prior. Mr. Fowlkes asked if public hearing was Dec 4th and it was confirmed. Mr. Frank noted that there was a requirement for a public hearing for Northwest CT Council of Governments.Ms. Roberts thinking back at the work she had done a while back getting ready for the Depot study. She noted the mention to support efforts to upgrade tracks on the Housatonic Rail Line. One of the factors she recalled coming out of the Depot study discussion was the history of the railroad and how it served to increase population growth. She wasn’t sure that upgrading it would be a good idea if this pattern could repeat. Mr. Rimsky indicated the paradox that it did reduce the carbon footprint, but made the area more accessible to people. Historically the greatest influx of people came from the railroad and Ms. Roberts wasn’t sure that this was the best idea for the town. Mr. Carey noted that she articulated the problem very clearly and did she have plans to show up on Dec 4th to present/warn about this consideration. Ms. Roberts mentioned that they could show up, but it wasn’t necessary to show up in mass. Ms. Roberts indicated she was happy to go to the meeting and stated again that a lot of these towns are not in the shadow of other large entities such as Washington is with New Milford. She was conscious of its impact on us because of development that Washington has no control of that occurs right next door to it. She expressed that small towns should be concerned. Mr. Fowlkes noted that New Milford is not part of this association.
Mr. Frank had a comment that was discussed last time. There was a statement that Washington has an explicit policy of limiting development to avoid necessity of building a municipal sewer system. He thought this was true at one point, but at last planned conservation and development didn’t mention it and mentioned some kind of facility for denser use. Mr. Rimsky noted the village center. Ms. Roberts noted it wasn’t really a sewer system, but is really a community septic system which is different from a sewer system. The public often gets that confused causing concern. There are ways to do this and as technology improves there is a possibility for a community septic system to encourage having community centers. This might be a good idea and should stay open for consideration. Others commented and agreed. Mr. Carey noted details of an ongoing situation for Washington Housing Committee and limited non-FEMA land. Statement that we’re trying to avoid one is pertinent to lack of available land. Mr. Rimsky noted that brought us back to FEMA floodplain problem and everything in Depot is nonconforming system. If anything were to be done in the Depot that would have to be addressed and a large municipal expense is always a sensitive subject for everyone.
Ms. Roberts noted it was suggested ages ago and Planning Commission turned it down because at that time it was a single use and land was too valuable. It continues to be so.
VII. Communications
No communications.
VIII. Public Comment
No public comment.
IX. Adjournment
MOTION: To adjourn.
By Mr. Frank, Seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed unanimously.The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila Silvernail, Acting Clerk for Land Use Coordinator, Janet Hill
Posted: October 11, 2008 October 7, 2008
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Jahnke
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Mr. Clark, Ms. Bailey Mr. Carusillo
PUBLIC HEARING
Camp Windguage, LLC./24 Old North Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mrs. Jahnke.
She read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/24 and 10/1/08.
She then read the list of documents in the file and those that had been received too late to have been included on the list:
1) 10/7/08 letter to Mrs. Roberts from Mr. Boling,
2) 11 white certified mailing receipts,
3) “Preliminary Baseline Documentation Report,” dated 10/7/08, by Mr. Branson, and
4) Residential Density Determination Form.The commissioners reviewed Mrs. Hill’s 10/7/08 report, which updated the completeness of the application. It was noted that several items had been addressed since the report was written such as payment of the $30 state tax and submission of the proofs of certified mailing and requests for waivers of specific sections of the Regulations.
Regarding the requirements of Section 7.0, Stormwater Drainage, Mr. Charles, agent, noted that the engineer had confirmed that the driveway grading was proposed so that the stormwater runoff would infiltrate into the field.
The set of maps by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., 7 sheets, top sheet, R.1, “Property Survey Map,” revised to 9/9/08 was briefly reviewed.
Ms. Gager asked if the proposed driveway grade complied with the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Carey pointed out there was a discrepancy between the information on the Residential Density Determination Form and the baseline report regarding the amount of wetlands on the property.
Mr. Charles explained that Mr. Branson’s information had been taken from USDA aerial photos, while the soil scientist had field verified his, and so it was the Residential Density Determination form that was the more accurate.
Mr. Carey noted that so much material had been submitted at the last minute that the Commission had not had time for an adequate review.
Mrs. Roberts agreed that this made it difficult for the Commission and said she would discuss the implementation of stricter policies regarding the submission of complete applications later in the meeting.
There were no comments from the public.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 8:02 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.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 8:03 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mrs. Jahnke.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the September 2, 2008 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. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Camp Windguage, LLC./24 Old North Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mrs. Roberts unseated Mr. Fowlkes and seated Mr. Carey for Mrs. Braverman because he had been seated for the public hearing.Mrs. Hill noted that in addition to the waiver requests in Mr. Boling’s 10/7/08 letter there was also a previous written request to waive Section 5.8; the open space requirement. She reported that the Conservation Commission had approved the waiver of Section 5.8.
Mr. Rimsky thought the reasons given in the letter for the waivers were reasonable and so they should be granted. The waiver requests were briefly reviewed and it was noted that in several instances the information that would be waived for some of the documents had been provided on other documents in the file. The Commission acted on each of the waiver requests.
MOTION: To waive Section 5.8.2; open space requirement. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To waive Sections 4.2.1, 4.7.2, and 4.6.2; 1”=40’ map scale requirement. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.4.11; state plane coordinates requirement. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.3; easement information requirement. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.12; specimen tree requirement. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.13; landscaping requirement. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.15; historic site requirement. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.7; sediment and erosion control plan requirement. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Frank asked if the driveway cut had been approved by the Selectmen. Mrs. Hill said it had.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Camp Windguage, LLC. for a 2 lot resubdivision at 24 Old North Road. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mr. Clark, engineer, presented his map, “Site Development Plan,” revised to 9/16/08. He noted two lots were proposed; a 7.7 acre lot with the existing house and a 13.98 lot. He said the smaller lot was not resubdividable, but the larger one was, although this would be difficult to accomplish due its steep and ledgy terrain. He noted that 40 percent of the parcel has slopes greater than 25 percent and pointed out the location of wetlands and intermittent watercourses. He also noted that the Health Department had not yet approved the plans, but was in the process of reviewing them.Mr. Rimsky asked why no open space was proposed.
Mr. Clark said the applicant proposed a fee in lieu of open space.
Ms. Gager asked how much open space would be required under Section 5.8 if it was determined a fee in lieu was not appropriate.
Mr. Clark said approximately 6 acres.
Mrs. Hill stated she had referred the application to the Conservation Commission for its comment.
Mrs. Roberts recommended a site inspection and noted a public hearing was required. The site inspection was scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Clark said he would stake the proposed boundary line and driveway for the inspection.
BEC Holdings, LLC./204 Wykeham Road/2 Lot Subdivision:
Mr. Fowlkes recused himself.The map, “Property/Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex, revised to 10/7/08 was reviewed.
Mr. Carusillo, property owner, pointed out the location of “seasonal wetlands” and the proposed open space. It was noted the property fronts on Clark Road as well as Wykeham Road and the status and condition of Clark Road were briefly discussed.
Mr. Frank noted that according to Mrs. Hill’s review, this application was substantially incomplete. He pointed out that the Regulations require a complete application to be submitted six days prior to the meeting and it was unfair to expect the review process to begin when so much information was missing. He thought a preliminary discussion would have been more appropriate at this time. He also stated that the Commission could recommend that the application be withdrawn and resubmitted when it is complete or that the Commission could deny it because it was incomplete. It was noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet reviewed the application, that Mr. Neff had submitted the site development plan just this afternoon, and the application fee had not yet been paid.
Mrs. Hill said she had advised the applicant to wait to pay the fee until she had looked into what the correct amount was.
Mrs. Roberts urged the applicant to withdraw the application.
Mr. Carusillo submitted a memo dated 10/7/08 to the Commission to formally withdraw the application.
Other Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Mr. Frank reported that Mr. Picton, Inland Wetlands Chairman, had commented on the template and that the Conservation Commission would continue to review the draft.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
It was noted that the latest draft had been emailed to all commissioners for comments and that Mr. Frank had reviewed it and had raised several pertinent points. The draft will be referred to Atty. Zizka for a legal review.Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/Revision of Condition of Subdivision Approval:
The Commission will wait for advice from Atty. Miles before taking any action to revise the condition of approval.Land Use Consultant:
Mrs. Roberts asked the commissioners to list their questions and concerns about the organization of the land use office so that she can discuss them with the consultant.Mr. Rimsky thought the Commission should get advice about how to ensure applications are complete before they are submitted.
Mrs. Roberts noted that incomplete and last minute submissions were putting a strain on both the commissioners and the land use staff.
Mr. Fowlkes recommended that new procedures with stricter deadlines for the submission of new applications be implemented and strictly adhered to.
Mrs. Roberts and Ms. Gager noted they had recently attended a land use seminar where they learned that many other towns have strict submission policies and don’t tolerate any missing documents. It was noted if an applicant insisted on submitting an incomplete application, he would be advised that he would risk denial by the Commission due to its incompleteness.
Communications
It was noted a letter dated 9/1/08 from Mrs. Peacocke had been received concerning the Wykeham Rise, LLC. applications to Inland Wetlands and Zoning. A letter will be sent thanking her for her interest, but advising her that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Mrs. Roberts reminded the Commissioners of the FOI seminar at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 10/21/08 at the Town Hall.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 5, 2008 September 2, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Charles
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 8/5/08 Regular Meeting Minutes as written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mrs. Jahnke, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/15/08 Special Meeting Minutes as written. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mrs. Jahnke, 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 Application
Camp Windguage, LLC./24 Old North Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mrs. Hill’s 9/2/08 review, which found the application was incomplete, was circulated. Mr. Charles said he had received a copy of the review and would have a complete application ready for the public hearing scheduled for the October meeting. There were no new applications.
Other Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Mr. Frank noted he had sent Mr. Boling his technical comments, which he had raised at the last meeting. Mr. Boling has not yet responded.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Gager will include the proposed revisions in an electronic copy so that the commissioners may review them before the next meeting.
Conduct of Commissioners:
Mrs. Roberts reminded all commissioners about the proper conduct for commission business. She noted that when an application is pending before the Commission, all discussion should take place in public at the Planning meeting. She asked commissioners to refrain from telephone calls, interviews with reporters, discussion at dinner parties, etc. She went on to caution that even for townwide issues that do not come before the Planning Commission, commissioners should not comment publicly because it impacts the public’s perception of the Commission. She noted that Zoning’s counsel had advised the Zoning commissioners that when they speak in public they represent Zoning whether they think they are speaking as private citizens or not. Ms. Gager recommended that a land use attorney be hired by the Town to conduct an informational seminar on legal guidelines for all Town commissioners. She will bring this matter to the First Selectman’s attention.
Communications
The commissioners were reminded there is an all day land use seminar at UConn’s Torrington branch on Saturday, Sept. 27, 2008.
It was also noted a CCM conference is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2008 at the Ct. Convention Center.Mrs. Hill noted there was an 8/22/08 letter to the Planning Commission from the State Traffic Commission re: developments with a gross floor area over 100,000 sq. ft. or needing 100 or more parking spaces. She will forward it to the Zoning Commission.
Abandoned and Discontinued Roads:
Mr. Carey reported there are currently 88 miles of roads on the state road aid list and he circulated a copy of the 2004 list for review. He said it was an impossible task to research abandoned and discontinued roads by going through old Town Meeting minutes, because these minutes are not available for review. He said he would soon meet with Atty. Miles to discuss this matter and would investigate how other towns such as Kent and Roxbury have handled it. Having had a discussion with Mr. Lyon, he said the First Selectman would agree to submit a list of all current Town roads at a Town Meeting and acknowledge the Town’s legal and maintenance responsibilities for them and would state that any road not on the list would be considered a discontinued road. The Town would then have no responsibility for making improvements to the discontinued roads.
Mr. Frank suggested that the state statutes address the proper procedure for discontinuing Town roads.
Mr. Charles also recommended that Mr. Carey consult with Mr. Boling, Conservation commissioner who also served on the committee regarding abandoned and discontinued roads. Mr. Charles said he was concerned about any “taking” from a property owner and so stressed that the public noticing for the discontinuance of Town roads be “meticulous.” Mr. Charles did not want the Town to give up its right to use these roads for pedestrian access and passive recreation.
Mr. Carey did not think the Town could have it both ways. He said if they were open to the public, the Town would be responsible and there would be insurance considerations. Mrs. Roberts urged Mr. Carey to continue his research with Atty. Miles and officials from Kent and Roxbury and to report to the Commission at its next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 5, 2008 August 5, 2008
Regular Meeting
August 5, 2008
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Talbot, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Ms. Goodwin
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
The July 1, 2008 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. Mrs. Roberts asked that this sentence be added to the report on abandoned and discontinued roads at the end of the first paragraph on page 3: “The Planning Commission has concern about the issue of abandoned and discontinued roads and as this is the responsibility of the Selectmen, Planning suggests that a clear statement be put on record to that effect.” Also on page 3, Under Public Comment, Mrs. Hill asked that in the third line “proposed” be inserted before “project.”
MOTION: To accept the July 1, 2008 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. 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. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Camp Windguage, LLC./24 Old North Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
A site inspection was scheduled for Friday, August 15, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.
Referring to the map, “Record Subdivision Map,” dated 7/30/08, by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., Mr. Boling briefly reviewed the application for a two lot resubdivision of the 31 acre property. He said the owners were working on a conservation easement for twenty of the acres. A 5.38 acre interior lot was proposed. He pointed out the location of the proposed driveway and of the wetlands on the lot, noting that the driveway location was contingent upon Wetlands approval. He said the proposed driveway hugged the existing stonewall and required a wetlands crossing and that the reason for its proposed location was to preserve the existing agricultural fields. He noted the property is part of a larger agricultural landscape and that there were fields on adjoining properties.
Mr. Rimsky asked if the Selectmen had been consulted about the driveway cut. Mr. Charles said that more information from the Wetlands Commission was needed before going to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Boling noted that while the sight lines were good for the proposed curb cut, Old North Road was narrow in that area. Mr. Boling said the applicant was requesting a waiver of the open space requirement because the conservation easement that was being drafted was separate from this application.
Mrs. Hill said she had not had time to review the application for completeness because it had been submitted that afternoon. She did say, however, that a Conservation Commission review was needed and that there were no Health Dept. or Inland Wetlands Commission approvals. A public hearing was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Other Business
Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision/Correction of Condition of Approval:
It was noted that one condition of the 5/4/04 subdivision approval was that the mylar include a note that “Lots #1 and #2 may be transferred only to one or more of the subdivider’s relatives named in Section 5.8.4.A of the Subdivision Regulations for no consideration.”
Mr. Talbot said he understood why the note was required for Lot #2, the new lot, and advised the Commission that it had been transferred to relatives. However, he asked why the note included Lot #1, the lot that had been existing at the time of the application.
Mrs. Hill said she had reviewed the file and had determined that this had been an error; that the condition should have placed on Lot #2 only. After a brief discussion, the commissioners agreed that it had been an error. There was a second discussion regarding how the error should be legally corrected.
Mr. Talbot said he would consult with Atty. Miles regarding what the proper legal procedure would be and would follow his advice.
Template for Conservation Easements:
The commissioners thought the draft template was very thorough and thanked Mr. Boling, Conservation commissioner, for his efforts. Mr. Frank and Mr. Carey had several technical questions about the document including:
1. Should the template state who is responsible for paying for the baseline study? Mr. Boling said that issue is part of the negotiation process, but does not belong in the easement itself. All agreed that the donor should pay for the study.
2. Would a baseline study be required for all transactions? Mr. Boling said the Conservation Commission had not yet made a formal decision, but said he thought so because it would help with the monitoring of each property. He said the level of detail required in each study could vary depending on the property.
3. Would it be possible to include minimum standards for the baseline study? Mr. Boling thought this was a good idea.
4. Would a report from the Conservation Commission be acceptable for the baseline study? Mr. Boling said it might depending upon the property. He noted photos and a written description would be required. Mr. Talbot suggested the aerial photographs taken by the state every five years would be helpful to have in the file.
5. Mr. Frank asked if several of the items in the easement were related to IRS requirements. Mr. Boling stated that they were, indeed, tax driven. 6. What exactly does the extinguishment provision mean? Mr. Boling was not sure and agreed it was difficult to understand. Mr. Frank noted he had other technical questions that he would submit to Mr. Boling. Mr. Boling said he would also get feedback from the Wetlands Commission and then would refer the document to Atty. Miles for a legal review.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Mrs. Hill circulated Draft #4, dated 8/5/08 with the minor revisions made since the last meeting noted on page 1. It was noted this draft did not include language regarding archeological sites and reviews. Mrs. Roberts asked the commissioners to study the draft to prepare for discussion at the next meeting. Ms. Gager will consult with Mr. McGuinness to find out if he has an electronic copy of the Regulations. It was the consensus that reviewing the proposed revisions would be easier if they were noted in the current Regulations.
Communications
It was noted that two letters regarding the proposed Wykeham Rise, LLC. inn proposal had been received; one from Mrs. Talbot dated 7/3/08 and one from Mr. Condon dated 7/22/08. Mrs. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter and the letters were not discussed.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the Meeting at 8:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: July 11, 2008 July 1, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. KlauerMrs. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:40PM and seated all of the Members.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/5/08 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.
Mrs. Roberts noted there were no new applications.Other Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Ms. Gager said she and Mr. Frank were sent copies which they would be willing to circulate for all the members to read. The information is quite lengthy and very thorough. Mrs. Roberts suggested that this discussion be put aside for now and considered at a future meeting. All agreed.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Mrs. Roberts said she would have preferred to have more time to read the Revisions thoroughly - there seems to be a lot of proposed new language. She asked the members if they had a chance to read them. Mr. Frank said he had and there are many provisions where changes are suggested. The commissioners agreed that Mrs. Hill should be present when they begin that process. There was a brief discussion regarding archeological sites, in which it was noted by Ms. Gager, that if something is thought to be of archeological or historic significance, then it should go to the State for review. Most of the time, there is nothing the State can do. However, if the State considers it significant, they will refer the applicant to approved sources who will do a further review.
Report on Abandoned and Discontinued Roads:
Mrs. Roberts asked Mr. Carey to give a synopsis of the meeting he attended on abandoned and discontinued town roads. He gave each member a copy of the notes he wrote about the meeting along with a newspaper article by George Krimsky, who also attended the meeting. The two speakers were Tom McGowan, a Planner and John Lambert, an Attorney. Mr. McGowan explained that an abandoned road is not maintained by a town, but is still owned by a town; whereas, a discontinued road must be voted on at a town meeting and then the roadbed restored to neighboring property owners. Mr. McGowan also stressed the importance of keeping an accurate and updated list of abandoned and discontinued roads. Mr. Carey said that one of the components of the Master Plan of Development should be to list the town’s discontinued and abandoned roads by location and name. Mr. Carey said that both Mr. Lambert and Mr. McGowan were very positive in emphasizing how important this is. Mrs. Roberts noted the recommendation seems to be immediate. She asked if these discontinued roads are being listed now. Mr. Carey said he did look through some town meeting minutes where he found recently recorded documentation referring to discontinued roads by location and name. He suggested it would not be an overwhelming task to come up with a list of discontinued roads by going through past town meeting minutes.
The commissioners briefly discussed the implications of discontinued roads on abutting property owners such as loss of road frontage value or perhaps being forced into an increased assessment that they do not want. The members agreed that while well intended, discontinuing a road can cause problems. Mrs. Roberts said this issue is quite complicated and should be given careful attention. Mrs. Roberts asked the members if they had any suggestions about how to proceed; whether Planning should start making a list of discontinued roads. Mr. Rimsky said they should first determine if it is the responsibility of Planning or the Selectmen, since they are in charge of roads. Mr. Frank said he thinks it is the Selectmen’s responsibility because they come to Planning when they wish to discontinue a road. Ms. Gager said, at the very least, they should put their thoughts into writing to let the Selectmen know that Planning is concerned about the issue of abandoned and discontinued roads and inform them about the meeting Mr. Carey attended. All agreed.Public Comment:
Matthew Klauer introduced himself and thanked the members for giving him a few minutes to explain his project at 101 Wykeham Road. He showed the commissioners the Site Development Plan by Arthur Howland & Associates dated May 7, 2008. He has hired Moisan Architects to design something more appropriate to Washington. There is to be a spa, inn and restaurant. Mr. Klauer said this will increase taxes to the town, create 50 jobs and support local farms and artisans. Mr. Klauer walked through the plans with the commission. The existing buildings will be taken down due to considerable water damage. New buildings will take advantage of solar and geothermal energy. Most development will be on the west side of the property. They are decreasing lot coverage and keeping the existing septic system. Mr. Klauer said he has met with many of the neighbors to try and address their concerns. The commissioners thanked Mr. Klauer for coming in and discussing his plans with them.MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Roberts.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:40PM.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Planning Commission
Posted: June 11, 2008 June 5, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Parker, Mr. Klein, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling
Press
Mrs. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 5/6/08 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. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Jahnke arrived at this point.
It was noted there were no pending or new applications.
Other Business
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/Request for Boundary Line Revision in Approved 2 Lot Subdivision: The commissioners compared the approved survey map dated 12/18/07 with the proposed map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 6/5/08. Mr. Klein stated that the approved subdivision map had not yet been filed on the Town Land Records; that if approved, the 6/5/08 map would be filed. He described the proposed change. The boundary line to the shoreline would be moved 32 feet to increase the amount of shoreline with the existing boathouse on Parcel B. Mr. Frank noted that in the Planning Commission's point of view, this was not a material change.
MOTION: That the 6/3/08 request from Mrs. Klein to amend the approved Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision map to adjust the shoreline boundary in accordance with the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 6/5/08 be approved. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
Preliminary Discussion/Camp Windgauge, LLC./24 Old North Road/ Subdivision: Mr. Boling, agent, presented the preliminary map, "Existing Conditions Map," by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 12/12/07. He gave the location of the 31 acre family owned parcel and said the family was currently in the process of voluntarily placing most of the property under a conservation easement. Mrs. Braverman arrived at this point. In addition to creating the easement, the family plans to create a 5 acre lot, which it would sell to create an endowment for the repair and maintenance of the existing Rossiter house on the property. In response to a question from Mr. Carey, Mr. Boling stated that although there was no site development plan at this time, there were 7 density units and the soils had been partially field verified and were better than those indicated on the USDA map. Mr. Boling pointed out the access to the proposed lot from Old North Road and said that an Inland Wetlands permit would be required for the driveway. Mr. Rimsky voiced his concern about the location of the curb cut due to the nature of Old North Road in that area, but said he did not think there were significant wetlands in the area of the proposed crossing. Mr. Boling stated his purpose for appearing before the Commission was to ask, if a large portion of the property was voluntarily placed under a conservation easement, would the Commission waive the open space requirement at the time of the subdivision application. He cited the Taylor subdivision on New Preston Hill Road as an example to show that the Commission had previously approved such a request to waive the open space requirement. Mr. Rimsky asked how much more open space would be donated than would be required for the subdivision application. Mr. Boling responded that approximately 6 acres of Class A soils would be required, but the family has volunteered to conserve 20 acres. Mr. Frank stated that the Commission could have no firm opinion until proposed plans were submitted. Mr. Rimsky noted there was adjoining open space and that there were few remaining properties in the Green Hill area that could be preserved this way. Mr. Frank and Mr. Rimsky said at this time they had favorable views. Mrs. Roberts noted that she was familiar with the property and that her preliminary opinion was also favorable. Mr. Carey stated that a site inspection would be appropriate at the time of the application.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Mr. Boling said that the Conservation Commission had finalized the easement language and would send it to the Planning and Inland Wetlands Commissions for review and then to Atty. Miles for his review.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mrs. Hill circulated a draft document, which she asked the commissioners to review before the next meeting. She noted that Ms. Gager's comments and recommendations were included, but that the proposal regarding archeological reviews was not. Ms. Gager will send this language to Mrs. Hill to include in a final draft. The proposed revisions will be discussed at the next meeting.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37/Lot Coverage, and to Create New Section 11.5.3/Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces, and Add a Definition in Section 21 for "Pervious Traveled Surfaces": Mrs. Hill noted that the Zoning Commission public hearing had been continued to June 23 and that the Planning Commission comments were needed by that date. Ms. Gager explained that a joint meeting with Zoning to discuss the petition would not be possible because discussion outside the hearing was not appropriate. Mr. Frank said, however, that the Planning Commission had been invited to attend the hearing. Those commissioners who had not attended the first session of the public hearing had read the petition and the 3/08 and 5/08 Zoning minutes on this matter. Mr. Rimsky thought Mr. McGowan's remarks on pervious surfaces were straightforward. Mr. Frank said this issue was important for Lake Waramaug, but he was not sure that the revisions proposed in the petition were the most appropriate way to handle the problem. He noted that Mr. McGowan said many factors should be considered before deciding whether to give a bonus for lot coverage when pervious surfaces are installed. Two significant factors, he said, were whether the surface was properly installed and whether it was adequately maintained. Mr. Rimsky asked what would happen if the pervious surface was not maintained and a larger house already constructed. Ms. Gager said she did not support the idea of tying additional lot coverage to the use of pervious surfaces. Mr. Rimsky stated that a holistic approach that would consider a much broader range of property management, especially around the lake, was warranted. Ms. Gager agreed, noting that the management must be permanent management. Mr. Parker asked why lot coverage was currently limited to 10% and whether the concept of a bonus in lot coverage for the use of pervious surfaces would encourage more density. Mrs. Hill explained that current maximum lot coverage varies to up to 15% depending on lot size and that two of the reasons it had been implemented was to preserve water quality, which begins to degrade when lot coverage exceeds 10% to 15%, and to control density. Mr. Rimsky agreed that lot coverage was a method for controlling development. Mr. Parker asked if pervious surfaced parking lots could be installed. Mr. Frank responded, yes, and if a pervious driveway and parking lot were installed, 10% additional coverage would be permitted, which could bring the total coverage up to 25% for some properties. Mr. Parker thought this was a lot of coverage. Mr. Frank explained that some of the Zoning commissioners thought the Commission should consider requiring pervious surfaces for driveways in sensitive areas such as around the lake and on steep slopes without providing a coverage incentive. Mr. Carey recommended that the Zoning Commission investigate how other Ct. towns have handled this matter. Mrs. Hill noted that Coventry had been cited by the petitioner as one town that had instituted an incentive for the installation of pervious surfaces, but that according to Ms. Gager, it had not worked exactly as planned. In Coventry on the smaller lots where the driveways were generally located closer to the septic systems, the infiltrated stormwater runoff from the pervious surfaced driveways had affected the function of the septic systems, resulting in the need for town sewers. Mrs. Roberts agreed that the Zoning Commission should proceed cautiously because this was a very complicated issue. Mrs. Roberts asked Mrs. Hill to deliver the Planning Commission minutes to Zoning for its 6/23 hearing and noted that if any Planning commissioners spoke at the hearing, they would be speaking individually and not on behalf of the Commission. It was the unanimous consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend to the Zoning Commission that the petition to amend the Zoning Regulations regarding lot coverage and pervious surfaces be denied subject to further investigation of the entire subject by Zoning Commission.
Mr. Carey reported that he had recently attended a seminar on discontinued and abandoned roads and would report on it at a future meeting. He noted there are five relevant state statutes, which he would give to Mrs. Hill for the file.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 14, 2008 May 6, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Atty, Kelly, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Matson
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Gager called the Meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, and Rimsky and Alternate Carey for Mrs. Roberts.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 4/1/08 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision: Mrs. Hill advised the Commission that the only two matters to resolve before the application was acted on were the requests for waivers of the state plane coordinates and the open space requirements.
MOTION: Re: Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision: to waive Section 4.4.11 that the state plane coordinates be shown on the Record Subdivision Map. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Atty. Fisher noted that the current conservation easements are held by Steep Rock Assn. Mr. Carey asked if a new septic system would be permitted in the open space, and noted it was important to note the conserved land was perpetual open space. Atty. Fisher reviewed the easement language and said that hiking and other non commercial outdoor recreational activities were permitted in the eased areas.
MOTION: Re: Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision: in view that a great deal of the property is already subject to conservation easements, to waive Section 5.8, the open space requirement. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
There were no other outstanding issues or questions from the commissioners.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Ms Klauer for a 2 Lot Subdivision at 102 East Street. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/Revision of Conservation Easement Language for 3 Lot Resubdivision: Mr. Szymanski, engineer, explained that during the application process no one, including his office, the Planning and Conservation Commissions, Town staff, and the owner's and Commission's attorneys, had noticed that the potential septic reserve area for the original lot was in the open space area, and there was no corresponding governing language in the written conservation restriction. He presented the final map, "Record Subdivision Map," by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., revised to 11/29/07 and the final Deed of Conservation Restriction, which had been revised to incorporate corrections by Mr. Frank. Mr. Szymanski noted the septic reserve area had been indicated on the map during the entire application process although it had not been mentioned in the easement language. Mr. Frank reported that prior to the meeting he and Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission chairman, had reviewed both the map and the document and Mrs. Payne had found that the easement was similar to others held by Steep Rock and was appropriate. Mr. Carey was concerned that allowing a potential septic system in the conservation area could be precedent setting. Mrs. Hill said she did not think this would set a precedent because 1) each property has different characteristics that would be addressed in a conservation easement and 2) the Commission did not cover conservation easement language in its Regulations. Mr. Szymanski noted, too, that the Abella open space was well in excess of the 15% required. Mr. Frank read Section 4.5 of the document, which states that the grantee must consent to the installation of a septic system per paragraph 3.11. Mr. Carey was satisfied with the wording. Mr. Frank noted that the other changes were not substantive and the 4/22/08 letter from Mr. Szymanski listing all of the revisions was circulated. Mr. Carey asked that a note be added to the map to make it clear to future title searchers that the property owner would have the right to construct the reserve septic system in the easement area. Mr. Szymanski agreed to do so. Mr. Frank noted that the application had been originally approved with the condition that the final conservation easement language be reviewed by Atty. Zizka. He advised the Commission that Zizka's office had reviewed a previous draft, and the Conservation Commission had considered those comments, and said that he saw no need for further review. Mr. Rimsky and Ms. Gager agreed. Ms. Gager asked that the minutes reflect that 1) the Planning Commission was satisfied with the final conservation easement language and the final map dated 11/29/07 with the one note to be added regarding the location of the reserve septic system in the easement area and 2) that it was the consensus that no further review or publication was necessary.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Ms. Gager reported that the Conservation Commission has circulated materials among its members. She will contact Mr. Boling to learn if there will be a draft ready for the next Planning meeting.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mrs. Hill is still working on proposed language for the revisions. It was the consensus that an entire draft should be sent to Atty. Zizka for review rather than having him comment on the revisions section by section.
Referrals from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regs:
1) Section 13.11.1/Accessory Apartments: Ms. Gager noted that the Planning Commission had requested a joint meeting with the Zoning Commission to discuss this matter, but there had not yet been one. Mr. Rimsky and Mrs. Jahnke thought the Commission should encourage affordable housing options whether or not they meet the state definition of "Affordable" because this type of housing is needed in Town. Mr. Carey noted that Mr. Hileman, Chairman of the Housing Commission, did not support the proposed amendment and said he was not prepared to issue an opinion on it at this time. Mr. Frank said that he, too, had read Mr. Hileman's letter and he did not think there was an immediate reason for the revision. It was the consensus to meet with the Zoning Commission to discuss this matter before reporting back to Zoning on the proposal. Possible dates to meet with the Zoning Commission were June 9 and June 12.
2) Section 12.15.4, 12.15.9/Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts: Mr. Frank noted the proposed revisions clarify the current regulations and prohibit lights mounted in trees. Mr. Carey regretted this section was not retroactive and thought Region #12 should improve the lighting at the high school and turn off the lights when there is no one using the building. Mr. Rimsky noted that bright lighting doesn't necessarily make a property secure. It was the consensus that the Planning Commission had no objection to the proposed revisions.
3) Section 13.9/Tourist Home or Inn: It was noted the proposed revision was a clarification and was consistent with the Zoning Commission's past interpretation of this section to require frontage on a state highway for an inn. The Planning Commission had no objection to the proposed revisions.
4) Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37-Lot Coverage, and to create a new Section 11.5.3-Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces and add a definition in Section 21 for "Pervious Traveled Surfaces": Atty. Kelly and Mr. Matson from Kent Greenhouse, petitioners, were present. For the file, Atty. Kelly brought a full copy of the petition, an article from a construction magazine on pervious surfaces, and a manufacturer's brochure on porous pavements and how they are used. He made a lengthy presentation, which included the following points: a) Alternative driveway surfaces should be encouraged around the lake. b) Driveways are separate and distinct from the rest of lot coverage. c) Including driveways in lot coverage has a disproportionate affect on smaller lots and interior lots and the result is that houses are pushed closer to the lake. d) This is not a new idea. Mr. Hackney encouraged the Commission to look into this concept in October 2003. e) The pavement is constructed like "rice krispies" from recycled tires. The porous driveway has a sand base. The runoff turns the driveway into a basin that collects water and then allows it to be reabsorbed. Maintenance is not an issue. f) The proposal was put in with an incentive because it is expensive. As proposed, if a pervious driveway or parking area were installed to meet or exceed industry standards and the installation was done by an approved installer and/or certified by a licensed engineer, it would not count as lot coverage. g) Washington is in a minority of towns that include driveways in lot coverage. Ms. Gager noted that a specific product was proposed, but Atty. Kelly pointed out that it was referenced to industry standards as to porosity and method of installation. Mr. Frank said this was an important issue to consider around the lake and that Mr. McGowan would address it at Zoning's public hearing, but noted that such an incentive could change the character of Town by allowing larger homes to be built on smaller lots. He suggested that perhaps a 100% exchange of pervious driveway for additional lot coverage should not be permitted. Atty. Kelly said the Zoning Commission would decide the amount of the exchange after receiving public input at the hearing, but he stressed that an incentive was needed. Mr. Matson noted that the pervious surfaced driveways could be repaired and if taken up, they can be recycled. Ms. Jahnke asked what would prevent an owner from installing a pervious surface over his entire property. Atty. Kelly responded that he had proposed a 10% cap, which the Zoning Commission could change. Mr. Rimsky asked if the pervious surfaces would be suitable for terraces, pool patios, etc. Atty. Kelly said if everyone agreed they were beneficial, he would support their installation for these uses, but to start, he had proposed it for only traveled surfaces and the Zoning Commission had expanded it to parking lots. It was the consensus of the Commission that this was a significant issue that would require further consideration. Ms. Gager and Mr. Frank did not recommend a report to the Zoning Commission at this time and suggested the discussion of this petition be added to the agenda of the soon to be held Special Meeting with the Zoning Commission. Atty. Kelly noted that he was preparing a PDF information package and would email it to the Commission. He stated that adoption of the proposed language would give the Zoning Commission a tool for increasing lot coverage and would provide more flexibility than an all or nothing variance.
5) Section 21.1.8, 21.1.9, 11.7.2.3/Method for Measuring Average Finished Grade and Pre Existing Grade: While Ms. Gager thought it was not necessary to complicate this section by offering an alternate method of computation, Mr. Frank pointed out that it would not affect Planning Commission business. Therefore, it was the consensus that if the Zoning Commission supported the revision, the Planning Commission had no objections.
Klein/Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision/Request for 90 Day Extension for Filing Mylar: Ms. Gager read the 2/24/08 letter from Mrs. Klein.
MOTION: To grant a 90 day extension for the filing of the mylar for Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mrs. Jahnke, and passed 5-0.
Communications
The 5/6/08 letter to Mrs. Roberts from Mr. Charles regarding the Selectmen's concern about the scenic road designation process was noted. Mrs. Hill explained that she had already discussed this matter with the First Selectman and had advised him that the Planning Commission routinely sends the Highway Dept. notice of all scenic road applications and would send a duplicate to the Selectmen's Office in the future. Ms. Gager thanked Mr. Charles for bringing this matter to the Commission's attention.
Change of Meeting Date: Because there was a concern that there would not be a quorum for the regularly scheduled June 3rd meeting, the meeting date was changed to June 5, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Ms. Gager adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: April 9, 2008 April 1, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the March 4, 2008 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Mrs. Roberts noted that the Commission will work to implement procedures to ensure that applications are complete at the time of submission.
Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision
Mrs. Roberts noted there were still outstanding questions regarding this application and that the Commission must act on the request for a waiver of the open space requirement.
Atty. Fisher submitted the revised 1" = 40' scale map, "Property/Boundary Survey," 5 sheets, by Mr. Alex, dated March 2008, which was reviewed by the Commission. He also submitted the 4/1/08 letter requesting a waiver for the state plane coordinates.
Several questions and issues were raised based on points from Mrs. Hill's 4/1/08 report. 1. Mr. Temple did the mapping of the upland soils as required. Mrs. Hill asked if a soils report had been submitted. Atty. Fisher said there was no report, but there was a note on the map. He asked Mrs. Hill to advise him as soon as possible if this was adequate. 2) Mrs. Roberts asked whether monuments were located at the lot corners. Atty. Fisher stated that three were shown on the map. 3) Mrs. Roberts noted that a large portion of the property had already been placed under conservation easements and said she saw no reason not to waive the open space requirement. 4) A request to waive the 2 ft. contour requirement for the site development plan had previously been approved. 5) Atty. Fisher noted the proposed larger lot had not been labeled "Parcel A" and that was the only remaining deficiency he was aware of. 6) Mrs. Roberts asked if the existing driveway would be utilized for the proposed lot. If not, she advised Atty. Fisher that approval for the new driveway cut would have to be obtained from the Selectmen's Office. Atty. Fisher did not know where the driveway would be located, but said it would be within the building envelope. 7) Mr. Carey noted that perc tests were shown at the south end of the property, but not within the building envelope. He said if the existing septic system could not be used, the primary and reserve septic systems should be shown on the map.
Mrs. Roberts noted that the application would be reviewed again for completeness and would be discussed again at the May meeting.
Other Business
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/Request to Amend Conservation Easement Language: Atty. Fisher noted he had used the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road conservation easement as the template for the proposed revisions in this easement. He thought there should be no problem with the proposal since the Bowles easement language had been approved. It was noted, however, that there could be site conditions that should be addressed. The proposed amendment will be referred to the Conservation Commission for review.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Ms. Gager will contact Mrs. Payne and Mr. Boling to find out how this work is progressing.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Gager and Mrs. Hill had compiled a list of possible revisions to be considered and this had been circulated prior to the meeting. There was a lengthy discussion on many points and sections, which included: 1) Ms. Gager recommended that one of the maps submitted with each application show all of the required information. She said it was difficult to review a proposal without all of the information on one map. 2) Mrs. Hill recommended that Section 3.2 be expanded to list all of the information required for a complete application. If an applicant insisted on submitting an incomplete application, it could be denied without prejudice. Mr. Frank read Section 3.6.1, which confirmed this was true. To help applicants become aware of all of the documentation required for a complete application, it was decided that the application form would be revised to a check list format. 3) Ms. Gager suggested that Section 5.8.4.c be amended to set a specific time period during which the transferred property must remain in the family. If the property is sold before that time period is up, a fee in lieu of open space must be paid. She noted that two other towns in the state have successfully made this a requirement. Prior to the transfer of the lot to the family member a note is placed on the Land Records so any potential buyer would be aware of the requirement. It was generally thought that 3 years would be an appropriate time period. 4) Previously Mrs. Hill had pointed out that the Regs do not include an explanation of how the length of a cul de sac is measured. Therefore, a revision of 6.5.1 was proposed so this would be specified. Also, a reference to hammerheads as an alternate turnaround will be added. 5) Ms. Gager recommended several revisions concerning detention basins in Section 7.2. They should be designed by a Ct. licensed engineer, should not be located in open space, and should not drain into public drainage systems. 6) After consulting with Mr. Bellantoni, state archeologist, Ms. Gager recommended the addition of a requirement that sites of archeological and/or historic concern must be sent to the state for review. The sites of concern would be noted on a map produced by the state. 7) Mrs. Hill thought that the current reference in the Regs to road design standards was outdated because the Town Road Specification Ordinance administered by the Selectmen's Office has been adopted by the Town. It was thought that these and all of the other revisions should be reviewed by Atty. Zizka before a public hearing was scheduled. Because Atty. Zizka works in land use, he could review the legality of the proposed language as well as advise the Commission if there were additional revisions it should implement. Mrs. Hill and Ms. Gager will try to prepare a referral for Atty. Zizka before the next meeting.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 16.5.1/Non Residential District Signs: Mrs. Hill explained that the state right of way was so wide in some of the commercial districts, that business signs erected 10 feet from the front property line were not visible to passers-by. The proposed revision would eliminate the 10 ft. setback from the front boundary line for commercial properties. The commissioners generally thought this made sense and said for the record that they had no objections.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Sections 13.11.1-Accessory Apartments, 12.15.4, 12.15.9-Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts, 13.9-Tourist Home or Inn, Petition to Amend 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 21.1.37-Lot Coverage, and 21.1.8, 21.1.9, 11.7.2.3-Method for Measuring Finished and Pre Existing Average Grade: Mrs. Hill circulated the proposed language and asked the commissioners to be prepared to discuss the referrals at the next meeting. She noted that three of the proposed revisions were mainly clarifications, while the two on Accessory Apartments and Lot Coverage were more substantive.
Communications
Mrs. Roberts and Ms. Gager had recently attended the seminar on the roles and responsibilities of land use commissions and strongly encouraged all commissioners to attend the next one In Torrington on 9/27/08.
Mrs. Roberts circulated the 3/31/08 committee meeting minutes regarding potential uses of the Washington Primary School building. She noted that when the Depot Study had been done the Commission had not included a detailed review of the Town owned school property and so said that a planning study should be done now.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: March 13, 2008 March 4, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Feldman, Mrs. Branson, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Lyon
PUBLIC HEARING
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Whittlesey Road
Mrs. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Rimsky. She then read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/20/08 and 2/27/08 and read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Rimsky arrived at 7:38 p.m.
Mrs. Roberts reviewed the 3/4/08 memo from Mrs. Hill, Land Use Coordinator, which noted that 14 of the 20 certified mailing receipt cards had been received and that no photos to document the existing road conditions had been submitted. She recommended that the latter be made a condition of approval. Mr. Rimsky noted there were photos of Whittlesey Road in the Ad Hoc Committee report. Ms. Feldman stated that she understood photos had been requested, but was waiting for the snow to melt before taking them.
Mrs. Branson, Executive Director of Steep Rock, spoke in support of the application.
Ms. Feldman stated that Whittlesey Road met all of the scenic road criteria.
Assessor's Map #4-12 showing the entire length of the road and the properties along it was studied.
For the record Mrs. Roberts read three communications in support; 1) 3/3/08 phone message from Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, 2) 3/3/08 email from Ms. Karron and Mr. Foley, and 3) 2/26/08 letter from Mr. Woetzel and Ms. Watts.
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, said there were drainage problems that had to be corrected at both ends of the road. He said there would be no significant changes, but he was not sure that the entire road would remain dirt. Mrs. Hill advised Ms. Feldman that except for emergency repairs needed for safety, any proposed changes to the road would be noticed in advance and a hearing held. (This is what was stated, but actually per the Scenic Road Ordinance, a hearing would be conducted only if there were objections to the proposal.)
There being no further questions or comments, Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts and noted all Alternates were present. Mrs. Roberts welcomed Mrs. Jahnke to the Commission.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/5/08 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 Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher represented Mr. Bowles. The map, "Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/3/08 was reviewed. It was noted that the Conservation Commission had discussed both the open space configuration and the conservation easement language. That Commission had requested that in addition to the conservation easement, a deed restriction be noted on the mylar to be filed on the Land Records. Atty. Fisher said he was waiting to see if the Planning Commission agreed to the deed restriction before adding it to the map. Mr. Rimsky noted that a significant portion of the property was proposed for open space, said the deed restriction would be an intrusion on the property owner, and questioned whether it necessary. Mr. Frank said the deed restriction had resulted from the Conservation Commission's desire to protect the land along the road. Mrs. Roberts agreed that the rural streetscape was important to preserve, but thought the deed restriction would be a burden on the owner as it would restrict the location of the house on the proposed lot. Mr. Rimsky was also concerned that the Planning Commission might set a precedent if it required both the deed restriction and the conservation easement. After a brief discussion it was the consensus that requiring the deed restriction would be excessive and would not be made a condition of approval, but that Mr. Bowles could go ahead with it on his own if he wanted to. Atty. Fisher noted that he had revised the conservation easement according to comments from the Conservation Commission and Atty. Miles' final recommendations for sections 4a, 4c, and 5.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Bowles for a 2 Lot Subdivision at 52 Carmel Hill Road. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher submitted the letter dated 3/4/08 to supplement the application form. The map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 2/1/08 was reviewed. Atty. Fisher noted the 86.7 acre parcel, which included land across the street on Potash Hill Road, was located on East Street and Horse Heaven and Potash Hill Roads and briefly reviewed its history. He noted that after several parcels had been combined, there had been two primary residences on one lot. The current application proposed two lots; 3.63 acres with the existing house and 67.42 acres with a 4 acre building envelope where a future house would be built to replace one that had been moved off site. Atty. Fisher noted that 90% of the property was already under conservation easements and so requested a waiver of the open space requirement for this subdivision. He said he would attempt to address the issues raised in Mrs. Hill's 3/4/08 memo, including submitting a map at a readable scale, before the next meeting. He also noted that since the property was very level, he had requested a waiver of the 2 ft. contour requirement for the site development plan.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.4, requirement for 2 ft. contour lines to be shown on the Site Development Plan, for the Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
A site inspection was scheduled for Friday, March 14, 2008 at noon. The commissioners will meet at the main house.
Other Business
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Whittlesey Road: Mr. Frank noted that this was one of the most scenic of Washington's scenic roads.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Ms. Feldman for scenic road designation for the entire length of Whittlesey Road. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Ms. Gager reported that work is progressing and the subcommittee would soon meet again.
Referral from Board of Selectmen/CGS 8-24/Improvements at Town Beach/59 East Street: Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, submitted an undated letter, which described the work proposed. This included the replacement of the existing beach house, the installation of rest rooms, a changing area, office, and storage, reconfiguration of the parking area, replacement of fencing, establishment of an area from which to launch small craft, and the construction of a separate building to house the air compressor for the Lake Waramaug Task Force's aeration system. He noted the Town currently has an application before the ZBA and would soon submit an application to the Inland Wetlands Commission. Although the final maps with the location of the compressor building were not yet ready, Mr. Lyon explained that this 10' X 16' building was needed soon because the equipment had to be up and running by spring in order to maintain the quality of the lake. He pointed out its proposed location between the retaining wall and the existing frame building on the map, "Boat Ramp," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 1/15/08. The floor plans for the new beach house, "Existing Conditions," Sheet A-1, by Mr. Worcester, revised to 9/30/07 were also reviewed. Mr. Lyon noted that the idea of phasing the project had been a problem in the past so the Town was preparing a complete plan for the remainder of the work. Mr. Sabin's plan, "Final Conceptual Design," dated 1/15/08 was studied. Mr. Lyon explained how the parking area would be reconfigured so that it would be wide enough for right angle parking with defined spaces and the beach area would be extended to compensate slightly for the larger parking area. The object of the design, he said, was to preserve the square footage of the recreation area. Also, he detailed how the drainage would be improved and said a gravel walkway to the small craft launch area would be installed. The entrance to the parking area would be improved and vegetation planted. He noted the Park and Rec Commission hoped to extend the hours the beach is open after all of the work is completed and added that the entire area would have to be fenced to secure it. Financing, he said, would come partly from the Town's non recurring budget and hopefully, partly from grants. The commissioners noted that the Planning Commission had gone on record in support of Phase I, which was the installation of the new boat ramp. Mr. Rimsky thought the current proposal would increase the value of the Town property. No one raised any objections. Mrs. Roberts will write a formal response on behalf of the Commission.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mrs. Hill will circulate information on the sections that require updating and potential revisions prior to the next meeting.
Mrs. Roberts gave a brief summary of the recent meeting she attended at the Sharon Land Trust. This lead to a discussion regarding how growing produce locally can help solve the country's energy problems and how the global economy will eventually favor neighborhood resources and put an end to strip mall development.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: February 12, 2008 February 5, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Jahnke
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Neff, Mr. Klein, Mr. Papsin
PUBLIC HEARING
Klein-Cannizzarro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision/Con't.
Mrs. Roberts called the continuation of the public hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, and Roberts and Alternates Carey and Fowlkes for Mrs. Jahnke and Mr. Rimsky. She read the list of documents submitted to the file since the last meeting.
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 1/5/08. He explained that since the last meeting a soil scientist had identified wetlands near the route of the originally proposed driveway off West Shore Road and so an alternate driveway off Tinker Hill Road was now proposed. He noted that there were no wetlands issues for the new driveway route and that the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application.
Mr. Rimsky arrived at 7:36 p.m.
Mr. Neff noted that the driveway would be 2000 ft. longer, but the feasible house and septic sites had not changed.
Mrs. Roberts asked if the driveway slope would be an issue. Mr. Neff said that most of the driveway cut cross slope, resulting in a 10% grade. The first 300 feet would be 5% and a 100 ft. section would be 12%, but the entire driveway would not exceed the 15% maximum grade permitted by Zoning.
Mrs. Braverman entered at 7:38 p.m.
Mr. Carey asked if the driveway would be paved. Mr. Neff said it would not.
Mr. Carey noted there had been concern about possible further future development off the Tinker Hill Road access. Mr. Neff said that would still be possible. Mrs. Roberts said the Commission had to act on the application before it and that any future development plans would require another application.
The 2/5/08 Application Review by the Land Use Coordinator was briefly reviewed.
There were no other questions or comments from the commissioners or from the public.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:43 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mrs. Jahnke.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 1/2/08 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision: The commissioners considered the applicants' requests for waivers and whether fire protection measures and/or landscaping and buffering should be required as conditions of approval. Mr. Carey did not think the watershed would support a fire pond and Mr. Neff noted that usually cisterns were required only for larger developments.
MOTION: To waive the 1"=40' scale and 2 ft. contour requirements for the maps and plans for the Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To determine that additional fire protection measures are not required for the Klein- Cannazzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To determine that no landscaping or buffering is required for the Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
It was noted that one of the corners on the proposed boundary line did not have a monument or marker as required per Section 6.10. Mr. Neff said this was because there was a tree at the corner as was indicated on Mr. Alex's survey map.
MOTION: Regarding the proposed boundary line corner between contours 720 and 730 for the Klein - Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application, as long as the existing tree remains to mark the corner, a monument or iron pin is not required, but should the tree ever be removed, a marker must be installed at that time. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mrs. Klein and Ms. Cannizzaro for a two lot subdivision at 285 West Shore Road per the plans, "Proposed Site Development Plan," 13 sheets, by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/08. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Representing the applicant, Atty. Fisher noted that per Mrs. Hill's 2/5/08 review, Mr. Alex still had several items to correct on the Subdivision Map, and so he submitted the 2/5/08 letter requesting an extension of time in which the Commission may consider the application. Atty. Fisher stated that he was concerned about the Conservation Commission's recommendation that either the open space be located along Carmel Hill Road or the applicant be required to pay a fee in lieu of open space. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/3/08 was reviewed. Since the goal of the easement was to preserve land, Atty. Fisher suggested that instead of relocating the open space, that in addition a deed restriction against the cutting of trees be placed on the property along the road. He said his client had no problem with a conservation easement, but would not be financially able to pay a fee in lieu of. Mr. Rimsky stated that much of the front of the property was wetlands where there could be no disturbance. Mrs. Roberts noted that the two reasons the Commission has often favored open space along the front boundary line were 1) that it is easier to monitor and 2) that it preserves the rural streetscape. However, she said that in this case when the Commission conducted its site inspection, it did not necessarily think the protection along the front of the property was merited. Mr. Frank agreed that for this particular property the open space should not be required along the front boundary due to the unique qualities of the parcel. Atty. Fisher noted he had also requested a waiver of the requirement to place a note on the map regarding endangered or species of special concern, but it was the consensus that this was not necessary because his 1/22/08 letter stated there were no endangered species on the property per the 5/2003 DEP map. It was noted the main issue to be resolved was the conservation easement language, which would be reviewed by the Conservation Commission at its next meeting. Atty. Fisher stated that he would attend to discuss it with the commissioners.
Other Business
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/CGS 8-24/Replacement of Sprain Brook Culvert on Nettleton Hollow Road: Mr. Lyon stated that when it had inspected the deteriorated corrugated steel culvert ten years ago, the state had determined that it must be replaced. Mrs. Luckey, the then First Selectman, began the application process at that time for a state bridge grant for the project. The plans, "Replacement of the Nettleton Hollow Road Bridge Over Sprain Brook," by Lenard Engineering, revised to 10/11/07 were reviewed. Mr. Lyon detailed the construction process, stated that the DEP and state fisheries had approved the work, and explained how the bottom of the culvert and the streambanks would be restored to a natural condition. Mrs. Roberts was disappointed there was no rendering to show what the finished bridge would look like. She noted that the new guardrails that had been installed along Lower Church Hill Road looked "awful." Ms. Gager noted that Nettleton Hollow Road is a scenic road and so said that the guardrails should blend in with their surroundings. Mr. Lyon responded that since the work is funded by the state, crash rated guard rails must be used. Mr. Rimsky recommended that the Town install the same kind of guardrails as used by the state in its recent work on Rt. 219 in New Hartford. Mr. Lyon said the issue of guardrails had been raised at the public informational meeting and he had asked the engineer to look into suitable options. The commissioners asked that efforts continue to find appropriate guardrails that would be in keeping with the rural character of the area.
MOTION: The Planning Commission has heard from the First Selectman who described the proposed municipal project to replace the Sprain Brook culvert on Nettleton Hollow Road and finds 1) that it has no objections to the project and 2) that the work is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
Traffic Speed Display Signs for the Depot: Mr. Brinton circulated an information sheet on radar speed display signs and said the Town hoped to install two in prominent locations in the Depot and around Town in an effort to slow traffic. He said the signs would be 12" X 12" mobile units with battery packs that would be mounted on existing sign posts once permission from the state DOT has been obtained. Funds for the signs would not be available until after July 1 unless Trooper Sordi can obtain a state grant before then. Mr. Brinton said the signs would be moved around by the police depending on where they were needed and would record the speed of each passing vehicle. Mr. Frank noted that the installation of these signs would be in keeping with the recommendations of the Depot Study, which call for traffic calming measures in the Depot.
Update/16 Titus Road/River Loop Property: Mr. Brinton reported that the regrading would be completed at the beginning of the fiscal year. Mrs. Roberts asked if the committee investigating appropriate uses for this property was still active. Mr. Brinton said it was and that he would keep the Commission posted on its progress.
Committee for Possible Uses for Primary School Building: Mr. Lyon noted that a short term committee would be formed to study possible future uses for the Primary School Building if there came a time when it was not used as an educational facility. He asked if any of the Planning commissioners would be interested in serving on it. Mr. Frank was concerned that Planning commissioners could have a potential conflict of interest as Planning would be asked to review any future proposal for the school building under CGS 8-24. Mr. Rimsky thought it was appropriate for Planning to have at least one member on the committee and said that this member could recuse himself for the 8-24 discussion. He said this and the Town Hall were the most valuable pieces of Town owned real estate and so deserved serious consideration. Mrs. Roberts said that the overall Town point of view was supposed to be represented by the Planning Commission and so agreed a Planning commissioner should serve on this committee.
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Whittlesey Road: It was noted that the application was now complete. A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision/Request for Extension for Filing Mylar:
MOTION: To grant a 90 day extension for filing the mylar for Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision on the Town Land Records. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Mr. Frank noted that he and Ms. Gager had met with Mrs. Payne and Mr. Boling of the Conservation Commission on 1/17/08. He said the meeting had been productive and that Mr. Boling was going to create models for each of several types of easements.
FEMA Mapping: Mr. Carey reported that the cost of this study was estimated at $75,000 to $100,000 with no guarantee that the flood plain would be remapped in the Town's favor. He said the Board of Selectmen thought the study would be risky and so supported instead the approach of instructing the school architect to deal with the 100 year flood plain in any proposed design.
16 Titus Road Committee: Mr. Carey said the committee met last week and had discussed several topics: 1) request for a dog park, 2) perc testing, and 3) demolition and clean-up of the garage. He said the consideration of a dog park had not been positive. He said there were two acres that was dry enough for housing and the perc tests would indicate how many bedrooms/dwelling units might be accommodated there. He also noted that on the advice of Mr. Solley, the building slab for the garage would remain in place so it would be "grandfathered" should the Town want to build a pavilion or other structure there in the future.
2008-2009 Budget Request: This was very briefly discussed and OK'd. It was noted that the total was the same as last year's budget, but that the line items had been reapportioned to reflect this year's spending.
Application Procedure: Mr. Carey reported on a land use seminar he had attended, in which Mr. Gibbons warned about the processing of incomplete applications. He noted the number of incomplete applications that the Commission had received recently and said that Mr. Gibbons had stated that the Commission's job was to protect the Town and not to work with applicants as a pro bono consultant. He urged the Commission to do as Mr. Gibbons recommended; advise the applicants of incomplete applications that if they do not withdraw, their applications will be denied. Mrs. Hill said she understood that from a legal standpoint the Commission should review applications, not design them. Mrs. Roberts, however, thought it was important to maintain Washington's small town attitude of helping and cooperating with applicants.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mrs. Hill and Ms. Gager will work to organize the issues that need to be addressed and will attempt to get a list out for all the commissioners to review before the next meeting.
Cluster Subdivisions: The Conservation Commission has indicated an interest in cluster subdivisions. Mrs. Payne, Mr. Shapiro, and Ms. Gager will meet to begin consideration of this concept.
Joint Planning-Zoning Meeting: Mrs. Roberts noted that she had requested that this meeting be postponed until March. She will talk to Mr. Owen about scheduling it for a date other than a Regular Meeting date.
Election of Officers: Mrs. Roberts stated that she was willing to step down as chairman and noted that Mr. Charles was no longer on the Commission and so a new vice chairman was needed.
MOTION: To reelect Mrs. Roberts Chairman of the Planning Commission. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and unanimously passed.
MOTION: To elect Ms. Gager Vice Chairman of the Commission. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and unanimously passed.
Appointment of Commissioner: Mrs. Roberts announced that Mrs. Jahnke had been appointed to the Commission to take Mr. Charles' seat. She thought the Commission was fortunate to have such a competent new member with long time Washington ties.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: February 14, 2008 January 2, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Gager
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Litwin, Mrs. Payne, Mrs. Frank, Mr. Neff Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Wellings, Mr./Mrs. Manson, Mr. Charles, Atty. Fisher, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:38 p.m. and seated Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, and Mrs. Roberts and Alternate Carey. She read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/19/07 and 12/26/07 and the list of documents in the file for the record.
Atty. Litwin represented Mrs. Klein. He submitted a letter she wrote to the Commission dated 12/28/07, which provided historical information about the property, questioned the subdivision application process, and stated that she and her sister had no intention of developing the property, but planned only to divide it between them. He noted the public hearing would have to be continued because the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet acted on the application.
Mr. Neff, engineer, briefly described the application. The property would be divided into two lots; Parcel A consisting of 63.39 acres and frontage on West Shore, Ash Swamp, and Tinker Hill Roads and Parcel B consisting of 21.56 acres with frontage on West Shore Road and containing all of the existing buildings except the pump house. He stated that no activities were proposed on either parcel at this time. He discussed the plans, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 12/6/07, which demonstrated the feasibility of future construction on the larger lot. He pointed out the one house site, the well and septic locations, and the driveway route. No tree cutting would be required. He said that all of the work would be done in the open field.
Ms. Baldwin asked about the driveway easement on the Ernhout property at 289 West Shore Road and asked if it would be retained by one of the proposed lots. Mr. Neff said it would be retained by Parcel B.
Mrs. Frank asked if a permit for the driveway cut on the state road had been issued. Mr. Neff said it had been applied for, but not yet approved. He did not anticipate any problems because the speed limit along that section of the road was only 25 mph and the sight lines exceeded the state's minimum requirements.
Atty. Litwin noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission had asked that possible wetlands in the vicinity of the feasible driveway route be mapped and that Mr. Neff could not finalize the driveway apron design to be approved by the state DOT until that mapping had been completed. Mrs. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission is also waiting for a copy of the completed map.
Mr. Manson asked about the driveway specs. Mr. Neff responded that the driveway would have a gravel surface, would be 10 ft. wide, have a maximum 12% slope, and would not qualify as a new road. Atty. Litwin said that Mrs. Klein had clearly stated that the driveway would be to serve one single family dwelling, although no one knew what might happen in the future.
Mrs. Roberts noted for the record that the Planning Commission may not speculate about the future, but must consider the application before it. If plans change in the future, she said, the property owner would then have to reapply and go through the application process again. She also noted that a public hearing had not been required for the current application, but the Commission had decided to hold one due to public interest.
Mr. Wellings asked Mr. Neff how many lots the property could be divided into based on the proposed location of the house. Mr. Neff said that Parcel A had limited road frontage, which would limit the number of possible lots. Mrs. Hill referred to the residential density computations on Mr. Alex's map, "Site Analysis Plan," revised to 12/18/07 and pointed out that considering soil types, Parcel A had an approximate capacity of 10 dwelling units and Parcel B, 4 dwelling units. Mr. Neff did not think this many units would be possible due to the limited road frontage and other factors that would have to be considered.
Mr. Manson asked if the property was being divided in a manner so that both lots would have frontage on West Shore Road. Mr. Neff said it was. Atty. Litwin noted Parcel A's access to Tinker Hill Road is limited because it is so steep and its access to Ash Swamp Road is limited due to the existence of wetlands and watercourses, which would require a culvert or a bridge to cross.
Mrs. Frank asked if it would be possible to put in a road from West Shore Road without exceeding the 10% maximum road grade allowed. Mr. Neff said it would be possible, but would be so expensive that it would not be likely.
Ms. Baldwin asked how much of the shoreline was included in Parcel B. Mr. Neff said the property was being divided so that each lot would have a few hundred feet of lake frontage.
Mr. Frank asked if there were drainage problems associated with the proposed driveway. Mr. Neff said that drainage provisions were included in the plans. There would be a rip rapped swale on the upper side to catch the hillside runoff and cross culverts under the driveway in three locations. He said that none of the runoff would flow towards the adjoining Weeks property.
Mr. Frank asked Mr. Neff to talk about the conservation easement. Mr. Neff said that over 22 acres, the bulk of Ash Swamp, was proposed for a conservation easement that would be conveyed to Steep Rock.
Mr. Carey asked if an 800 to 900 foot long, gravel surface driveway would cause erosion problems. Mr. Neff said, no, because the proposed swale would keep the drainage from above off the driveway and the driveway would be crowned. He also noted that the driveway would be less impervious if it was not paved.
Mrs. Frank asked if Mr. Neff had considered installing small berms. Mr. Neff said this would not be necessary due to the rip rapped swale above the driveway.
As there were no other questions or comments from the Commission or from the public, Mrs. Roberts noted that the public hearing had to be continued to receive revised maps and the DOT approval, and so at 8:06 p.m. she continued it to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 8:11 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 12/4/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 3, line #8, the correct meeting date was January 7, 2008.
MOTION: To accept the 12/4/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/15/07 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/29/07 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Mrs. Roberts noted that discussion would be tabled to the next meeting because the public hearing had been continued to February 5, 2008.
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher submitted the following: 1) "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 1-2-08, 2) the 12/28/07 letter of authorization for Atty. Fisher from Mr. Bowles, and 3) the 1/2/08 letter to Mrs. Roberts from Atty. Fisher requesting three waivers of the Regulations. He noted the open space acreage had been recalculated. Mrs. Roberts asked if the open space connected with the open space on the adjoining Davenport property. Mrs. Hill said she had reviewed the Davenport subdivision map and it did not appear to connect. Atty. Fisher noted that the residential density calculations showed the lots would not be able to be resubdivided. He said that earlier in the day he had submitted the proposed conservation easement; its form was based on Steep Rock language and had been used previously by the Town. Mrs. Hill reported that she had referred it to the Conservation Commission for review. Mrs. Roberts explained that the Conservation Commission is concerned about its ability to monitor open space to the rear of lots. Atty. Fisher stated that the easement would grant Conservation the right to access the open space over the front part of the lot. Mrs. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission often favors open space along the road to preserve the rural streetscape. Atty. Fisher responded that some of the front of the property is wetlands where nothing could be built anyway. Mrs. Roberts reviewed Mrs. Hill's 1/2/08 report. Two minor additions to the map were required; 1) additional monuments and 2) a note concerning DEP endangered and threatened species. Mrs. Hill noted that she had reviewed the DEP map and had found there were no species of concern on this side of Carmel Hill Road. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that fire protection measures and landscaping and buffering would not be required. Mr. Neff reviewed his plan, "Proposed Site Development Plan," dated 11/1/07. After considering the merits of the applicant's request, the Commission waived the following requirements:
MOTION: To waive Section 4.2.1, map scale requirement, for the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.4.11, state plane coordinate requirement, for the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.4, 2 ft. contour requirement, for the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-0.
Mrs. Roberts said she anticipated action on this application at the next meeting.
Other Business
Application to Designate Whittlesey Road a Scenic Road: It was noted the application was not yet complete because all of the forms to be certified by the Town Clerk had not yet been submitted. Consideration of the application will continue at the next meeting.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: This will be discussed at the next meeting when Ms. Gager, who has been working on a list of needed revisions, is present. Mr. Rimsky recommended that the requirement to show state plane coordinates on subdivision maps be deleted because there are now more accurate methods of mapping.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: It was noted that Mr. Frank and Ms. Gager would form a subcommittee with Mrs. Payne and Mr. Boling of the Conservation Commission to draft standard procedures and a standard conservation easement form that can be used by most applicants. Atty. Fisher had submitted a template for consideration and copies were given to Mr. Frank for review by the subcommittee.
FEMA Mapping: Mr. Carey noted that his letter dated 12/15/07 had been submitted to the First Selectman, who responded that the request for funds to update the FEMA maps will be considered as part of the upcoming budget process. The Selectmen's Office will also investigate the possibility of obtaining a grant for the map work. Mr. Charles noted that having the correct flood plain elevations is very important because the state has ruled that Washington will not be reimbursed for any renovations to the Primary School because it is in the flood plain. However, this would not be so if the current mapping is incorrect. It was noted that although Milone and MacBroom estimated that the work, including making a presentation to FEMA in Virginia, would cost $70,000 (and by now, several years later, this has probably risen to $100,000,) this was not much compared with millions of dollars of reimbursements the Town could receive if it is found the school building is not in the flood plain. Mr. Charles explained that the Building Committee has to know exactly where the flood plain is so that it can make informed decisions regarding the school. It was noted that other decisions about development in Town such as the most appropriate use of the River Loop property are also dependent upon the accurate mapping of the flood plain.
Special Meeting: The Commissioners were reminded that there is a Special Meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commissions scheduled for approximately 8:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room on Monday, January 7, 2008.
Election of Officers: Mrs. Roberts noted that the election of officers would take place at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Meetings in 2007