The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Planning Commission - 2009
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning Commission - 2009 |
|
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 1 •November 4 •October 6 •September 10 •September 1 •August 4 •July 7 •June 2 •May 5 •April 7 •March 3 •February 3 •Previous years: 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 11, 2009 December 1, 2009
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Ms. Gager
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Valerie Friedman
Regular Business
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
Seated: Frank, Rimsky, Roberts, Carey, Alt (for Gager), Fowlkes, Alt.(for Jahnke)On behalf of the Planning Commission, Ms. Roberts expressed her condolences to Fritz Byerly’s family and remembered his years of service on the Commission.
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of November 4, 2009 were considered.
Corrections:
Page 1:
Before Public Hearing: insert: Seated: Frank, Roberts, Rimsky, Jahnke, Fowlkes, Alt.Motion:
to accept the November 4, 2009, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as corrected,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.Then minutes of the October 14, 2009 Special Meeting – Site Inspection were considered.
Motion:
to accept the October 14, 2009, Special Meeting Minutes - Site Inspection of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.Other Business
2010 Calendar
The 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Date Calendar was considered.Motion:
to adopt the Planning Commission 2010 Meeting Dates Calendar as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.Discussion of Mill Race Run/Talbot Concept-Depot Study
Ms. Roberts stated the importance that people understand that the study Mr. Talbot presented is a concept and not a proposal. Mr. Carey stated that Selectman Nick Solley reactivated the 16 Titus Road Committee and they met at Peter Talbot Architects to hear Mr. Talbot’s presentation of the Mill Race Run/Depot Study. Mr. Rimsky stated that he felt it was important that the Planning Commission be more proactive in affirming Mr. Talbot’s and any other individual’s extensive work on a concept that takes the Town of Washington’s Plan of Conservation and Development into consideration. Ms. Roberts stated she agreed that the Planning Commission has an obligation to the Town to look forward and develop the vision for the Town. Ms. Braverman stated the importance of input from the residents of the town.7:46 p.m. Ms. Gager arrives.
Mr. Rimsky stated that businesses have left the Town and impacted the community. He stated that maybe there was a way that the Planning Commission could have been more proactive rather than reactive in these situations. Ms. Roberts stated that she would talk with the Selectman’s Office to discuss the role of the Planning Commission. There was a discussion regarding town planners in larger municipalities. Ms. Hill reminded the Commission that Mr. Charles had suggested that a chapter dedicated to economic development of the Town included in the next Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Frank stated that State Statute determines the Planning Commission’s duties. Ms. Roberts stated that the current Plan of Conservation and Development suggests what each Commission should be addressing. The Planning Commission agreed that they could revisit these suggestions. Mr. Carey stated that the Commission should compose a letter to Mr. Talbot thanking him for his “thoughtful utilization of his spare time, his professional skills and the thoughtfulness with which he approached a study of what might be done with a component of the Depot.” He stated that the letter should include that the Planning Commission will communicate to the Selectmen that they are pleased with this study. Mr. Rimsky stated that the Planning Commission would need to state that they do not object to this plan. Mr. Carey stated that Mr. Talbot has asked the Town to assist with specific resolutions regarding flood plain, property and septic issues. The Planning Commission agreed that a plan could be worked at incrementally. Ms. Roberts suggested that the Commissioners take a look at the Plan of Conservation and Development and come to next meeting with specific ideas as to how the commission will proceed. Ms. Gager suggested requesting a priority list from the Selectman’s Office. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a letter should be sent to Mr. Talbot thanking him for his work and to the Selectman’s Office stating the positive reaction it had to Mr. Talbot’s concept-Depot Study.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations/Eating & Drinking Establishments by Special Permit in The Business Districts
Mr. Frank read CGS Section 8-3a(b) that requires the Planning Commission to provide a report on its findings when approving or objecting to a regulation or amendment. Mr. Frank suggested that the letter to the Zoning Commission contain the statement “this letter constitutes the Report of the Planning Commission required by CGS Section 8-3a(b). Mr. Frank stated that he thought the proposed amendments are consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development.Motion:
to approve the proposed amendments to Sections 7.3.7, 7.14.17, 8.3.7, 8.4.20, and 9.4.1.d, relating to Eating and Drinking Establishments by Special Permit in all business districts, are consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development because they further the goals of preserving rural character and enhancing village centers. The uniform requirement of a Special Permit procedure will assure consideration in each case (under Section 13.1b of the Zoning Regulations) that the proposed use is “consistent with the objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development” and that the location, type, character, size, proportion, appearance and intensity of the proposed use…shall be in harmony with and conform to the appropriate and orderly development of the Town and the neighborhood…”,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements
Ms. Hill distributed the final copy of the Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements. The Commissioners will look at it and discuss at the January 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Hill explained that she and Ms. Roberts met with Marty Connor twice. She stated that revisions in the Subdivision Regulations are in bold letters.8:37 p.m. Ms. Jahnke arrives.
There was a discussion regarding the definition of ‘agent’. The Commission will review the language and discuss at the January 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:40 by Ms. Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: November 16, 2009 November 4, 2009
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent: Ms. Gager
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
Alternates Absent: Ms. Braverman
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Peter Talbot AIA, Martine Nolletti, Martin Brown, Gary Fitzherbert, Chris Charles, Tony Bedini, Jack Johnson, ResidentsPublic Hearing
Application for Scenic Road Designation for West Mountain Road (section off Route 47):
Ms. Roberts read the legal notice published in Voices on October 21 and November 1, 2009 and the list of contents in the file. She stated that she and other members of the Planning Commission attended a site visit on October 14, 2009.Mr. Jack Johnson of West Mountain Road stated that all neighbors were notified of the application for Scenic Road Designation and that only two neighbors did not respond and there weren’t any negative responses.
Mr. Frank read the criteria for Scenic Roads and stated that he felt that West Mountain Road met these criteria and he was in favor of this application.
Mr. Slaibey, a property owner on West Mountain Road, asked if there would be a ‘Scenic Road’ sign on the road. Ms. Hill stated there would not be.
Motion:
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
to close the Public Hearing for the application for Scenic Road Designation for West Mountain Road (section off Rt. 47),
Regular Meeting
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm.
Seated: Frank, Jahnke, Rimsky, Roberts, Fowlkes, Alt.Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of October 6, 2009 were considered.
Corrections:
Page 3, 6th sentence should read: After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it does not have any objections….Under Revision of Klein/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Resubdivision, 3rd sentence should read: Ms. Hill and the Planning Commission looked at the previously approved Property Boundary Surveys prepared for Leila Klein and Linda Cannizzarro, 285 West Shore Road and Tinker Hill Road…..
4th sentence beginning with Ms. Hill explained….and the property owners are now applying to Zoning for another minor lot revision (asking for approval of a minor change) as indicated on the survey dated August 2009.
6th sentence should read: Attorney Jim Kelly, who was present….
Under Land Use Academy Seminar, 2nd sentence should read: Ms. Hill is in the process of summarizing the information relating to proper conduct of meetings of town commissions and boards and she will share them…
Motion:
to accept the October 6, 2009, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as corrected,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to defer Consideration of the October 14, 2009, Special Meeting Minutes - Site Inspection of the Planning Commission until December 1, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda, Re: Condition of Approval for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Re-subdivision,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.Pending Applications
The Planning Commission considered the application for Scenic Road Designation for West Mountain Road. There were no questions.Motion:
to approve the application for Scenic Road Designation for West Mountain Road (section off Rt. 47),
by Mr. Fowlkes, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Presentation – Discussion re: Mill Race Road Concept by Peter Talbot
Peter Talbot, Martin Brown and Martine Nolletti presented the Mill Race Road a.k.a. 16 Titus Road, Washington Depot, CT, Civic Sustainability Project, dated November 4, 2009 (on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Talbot stated that they are looking for input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Talbot explained the history of the property, displayed maps of the area, and presented historical pictures. He displayed a map titled “Topographic & Property Lines, Flood Plain,” prepared by Wilbur Smith and Robert Orr for the 2005 Washington Depot Village Area Study.Ms. Martine Nolletti talked about the LEED neighborhood development program. She explained the LEED program and suggested that the Mill Race Road/Washington Depot project might qualify even thought the LEED pilot program was designed with urban areas in mind. Ms. Nolletti stated that she has been in contact with the U.S. Green Building Council to see how its criteria and Peter Talbot Architect’s concepts could work together. She stated that LEED is not necessary to develop a sustainable community. Ms. Nolletti stated she would like to have further discussions with the USGBC in Washington DC to see how the new LEED development program and the new set of government standards for this type of work might be able to help with this project as long as the Planning Commission was in agreement that this was worth pursuing.
Mr. Talbot discussed the project initiative and displayed several plans. He explained 3 options that included commercial units, residential units and a possible community center. He discussed how the plans promote smart development and include environmental protection. He discussed the flood plain issue. He stated that if the Town of Washington were interested in this project it would have to provide financial support for determining the flood plain and addressing the zoning issues. Mr. Frank asked how this proposal ties in to the recent Depot Study. Mr. Talbot explained how it ties in with both the studies in that the 1993 study is supported in the 2005 study and he explained that it incorporates many of the recommendations listed on page 45 of the Natural Resources Inventory Report, dated November 2000 by the Town of Washington Ad Hoc Conservation Commission (on file in Land Use Office).
There was a discussion regarding the Ellsworth Property that the First Congregational Church currently owns. There was a discussion regarding the phases of the project. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the existing zoning regulations and whether or not there needs to be a separate set of zoning regulations for the Depot. Mr. Talbot explained the different phases this project would require.
There was a discussion regarding the flood plain and FEMA. Mr. Rimsky explained how this town would not have been able to be built under the current zoning regulations. He stated that it is essential that the Town starts planning for the future of the Depot or we will end up with failed commercial businesses and no residents living in the center of town. Ms. Roberts agreed, noting that if these problems were not addressed it would result in the slow ruin of the Town.
Mr. Charles stated that he worked on the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development and he believes that the two main issues regarding development of the Depot are the flood plain and septic capacity. He stated he believed the next step should be to do the ‘field work’, which, he says, seems to be a money issue for the Town.
Ms. Nolletti stated that with new information and new technologies it may not be as expensive as people think. Mr. Bedini asked if an outline should be created as to what the Town would like to see happen in the Depot and then work on the regulations to allow these changes. Ms. Roberts stated that she hopes that the Land Use Commissions could work together regarding this subject. Mr. Talbot stated that he believes this work should be done in stages. He stated he believes that the FEMA mapping should be researched for accuracy and that if it is found inaccurate, the appeal process would be lengthy but at least the Town would know.
Mr. Fowlkes asked if there is some element of this plan that could be accomplished without answering the FEMA question or the septic question.
Mr. Fitzherbert voiced his support of both the Mill Race Road proposal and The Planning Commission’s ability to make town policy. He said the Zoning Commission would support the Planning Commission’s efforts. Mr. Talbot asked how the Planning Commission would move forward if it thought this concept were best for the Town. Ms. Roberts stated that the Planning Commission would have a discussion and, if in agreement, would send a letter to the Selectmen giving its support and requesting that these ideas are pushed forward.
Ms. Hill asked if the Planning Commission wanted to think about this or make a motion tonight to approve the money to be allocated towards an engineered report. There was a lengthy discussion as to how the Planning Commission should proceed.
The Planning Commission discussed the accuracy of the FEMA map. Mr. Carey stated that it is his opinion that it is up to the Town to decide to spend the money to research the FEMA map before anything is done.
Ms. Hill stated that there are two points of view:
1) to get all the information before anything is done, and
2) to work on the proposal a little at a time.Ms. Jahnke stated that to work on it a little at a time would also require funds. There was a discussion regarding financing. Ms. Roberts noted the possibility of both strategic goals for this section of the Depot and a plan for their implementation.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations/Eating & Drinking Establishments by Special Permit in The Business Districts
Ms. Hill passed out the Revision of Zoning Regulations for Eating and Drinking Establishments by Special Permit in The Business Districts. She stated the Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing for their December 28, 2009 meeting.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easement
Ms. Hill stated that she spoke with Susan Payne, Chairman of the Conservation Commission and the Conservation Easement Model is finished but has not been sent to Ms. Hill.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Hill stated that she and Ms. Roberts have a meeting on November 13, 2009 with Marty Connor.Land Use Academy Seminar
Ms. Hill distributed “Roles and Responsibilities of Local Land Use Officials, Planning Commission,” by Mark Branse for the Land Use Academy of the University of Connecticut. She distributed a summary of points raised by the various speakers at the September 26, 2009 Land Use Academy Workshop on Working to Keep Land Use Decisions Legal. Ms. Hill suggested that the Planning Commission read these handouts and discuss them at the December 1, 2009 meeting.
Subsequent Business
Re: Condition of Approval for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Re-subdivision:
The Planning Commission had made a condition of approval that all corners should be marked on the site plan. Ms. Hill stated that the major corners are marked but not the various changes in direction indicated on the site plan. Ms. Hill stated that she was concerned about future property owners not having these points indicated and asked the surveyor if they should be marked. Mr. Michael Alex, surveyor, stated that the existing farm fence should be sufficient. The Planning Commission agreed that the farm fence was in poor condition and will probably be taken out and then the property will not be marked. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that all changes in direction are marked or the property line is indicated as a straight line.
Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 10:25 by Ms. Roberts.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:25 pm
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: November 16, 2009 October 6, 2009
7:30 p.m.mm Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent: Ms. Gager
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Carrie Rowe, Brian Neff, Attorney Jim Kelly, ResidentsPublic Hearing
Rowe/44 Kielwasser Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on Wednesday, September 23 and September 30, 2009 and the list of contents in the file.Mr. Brian Neff was present to represent the Rowes for this application. He explained the Proposed Site Development Plan, titled Susan Rowe 2-Lot Resubdivision, revision date 10-5-09 and that the plan indicates the proposed house on Lot #1 and the existing house on Lot #2.
There were no public comments.
Ms. Hill read her memo regarding the Updated Application Review for Completeness to the Planning Commission, dated 10/2/09 (on file in Land Use Office). Ms. Hill went over the requested waivers and recommended that all lot corners be marked with suitable markers per section 6.10and indicated on the Record Subdivision Map as a condition of approval.
Mr. Carey asked what material are used to monument the corners. Mr. Neff stated that rebar is usually used as it last and is easily found by using a metal detector.
Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 4.2.1, regarding the application for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Resubdivision, to allow 1”=100’ so the map of the entire property will fit on one sheet,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 4.4.11, regarding the application for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Resubdivision, relating to state plane coordinates,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 4.5.4, regarding the application for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Resubdivision, to allow 10 foot contours to be shown on the Site Development Plan,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Resubdivision, at 7:47 p.m.,
by Ms. Roberts.
Regular Meeting
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:47 pm.
Seated: Frank, Jahnke, Rimsky, Roberts, Carey, Alt.
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of September 1, 2009 were considered.Motion:
to accept the September 1, 2009, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.Ms. Hill read the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 2009.
Motion:
to accept the September 10, 2009, Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
Subsequent Business Motion:
to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda, Re: Mr. Chris Charles letter, dated 9/21/09 to the Zoning Commission,
by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
Application for Scenic Road Designation for West Mountain Road (portion off Rt. 47):
Ms. Hill stated that she performed a review and all items have been provided for a complete application. Ms. Roberts read the contents of the file. Mr. Jack Johnson of West Mountain Road was present to represent this application. He explained that 11 out of 13 property owners on the road responded favorably to this application and two property owners did not respond and there has not been any negative feedback. The Planning Commission and Mr. Johnson examined the Tax Assessor’s Map. The Planning Commission scheduled a site visit for Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 9 a.m. They will meet at Mr. Johnson’s red barn on West Mountain Road. A Public Hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 7:30 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Pending Applications
Rowe/44 Kielwasser Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
There were no further comments from the Planning Commission.Motion:
to approve the application for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Re-subdivision, as reflected in the Property Boundary Survey, prepared for Susan A. Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, June 2009, revision dated 9/30/09 by Michael Alex, Land Surveyor and as reflected in the Site Development Plan, titled Susan Rowe 2-Lot Re-subdivision, dated 8/9/09, revision date 10/5/09, by Brian Neff, Engineer, subject to the condition that the Property Boundary Survey be revised to indicate all lot corners with suitable monuments,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5.A
Ms. Hill stated the Public Hearing for the Zoning Commission is scheduled for October 26th at 7:30 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Ms. Hill explained that the current regulations allow Special Exceptions for setbacks and lot coverage under specific circumstances. Currently there is not a Special Exception for setbacks from Wetlands and Watercourses. The proposal is to add the Wetlands and Watercourse setbacks to the Special Exception Section of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant would be required to obtain an Inland Wetlands permit first in order to apply for a Special Exception for a Wetlands and Watercourse Setback. Ms. Hill stated that this would be for existing non-conforming structures. Ms. Roberts stated that she thought this proposal made sense as it simplifies the process. Ms. Braverman stated that the proposed revision would still address the same issues. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission does not have any objections to this revision and Ms. Roberts will send a letter to the Zoning Commission.Revision of Klein/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mr. Carey questioned if the Planning Commission was required to schedule another public hearing regarding this revision. Ms. Hill stated that it is not creating a new lot and it is a minor change to the already approved lot revision so a public hearing would not be necessary. Ms. Hill and the Planning Commission looked at the previously approved Property Boundary Surveys prepared for Leila Klein and Linda Cannizzarro, 285 West Shore Road and Tinker Road, dated October 2007, Revised plan dated June 5, 2008 and the most current revision dated August 2009, all plans prepared by Michael Alex, Land Surveyor. Ms. Hill explained that the Property Boundary Survey dated June 5, 2008 was approved by the Planning Commission and the property owners are now applying for to Zoning for another minor lot line revision (asking for approval of a minor change) as indicated on the survey dated August 2009. There was a discussion as to whether West Shore Road was a state owned road. Attorney Jim Kelly was present to represent the property owners explained the history of the revisions to the properties and he confirmed that the State does not own the road but they have a right of way. There was a brief discussion of the proposed changes. The Planning Commission agreed that they had no objections to this revision.Procedures and Template for Conservation Easement
Mr. Frank stated that it was his understanding that the Conservation Commission would be discussing the final draft at the Conservation Commission Meeting tomorrow, October 7, 2009 at 5 pm.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Hill stated that she and Ms. Roberts met with Mr. Martin Connor on Friday, September 11th and reviewed his comments. Ms. Hill stated that she would be typing the revised changes and would forward them to Mr. Connor for review. Ms. Hill stated that when the revised document is circulated she would put Mr. Connor’s changes in boldface type so that the Planning Commission would be aware of the changes Mr. Connor made.Land Use Academy Seminar
Ms. Roberts stated that she and Ms. Hill went to the Land Use Seminar. Ms. Hill is in the process of summarizing the information on keeping town meetings legal and she will share them with the Planning Commission at the November meeting.
Communications
Ms. Roberts discussed her letter to the First Selectman, dated 10-2-09 regarding Traffic Control (on file in Land Use Office). Ms. Roberts asked that the flashing speed limit sign that shows drivers how fast they are actually going be used on town roads if the police department won’t use it on state roads. There was a brief discussion regarding areas in town where speeding is a concern.Ms. Roberts asked that the Commission to read Mr. Charles’s letter to the Zoning Commission dated September 21, 2009. She stated the Planning Commission would invite Mr. Charles to the next meeting on November 4, 2009 to provide feedback and discuss his request.
Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Carey.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:35 pm
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: September 10, 2009 September 10, 2009
Special Meeting
9:00 a.m.
44 Kielwasser RoadMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mrs. Jahnke, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, engineerRowe/44 Kielwasser Road/2 Lot Resubdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
A site inspection was conducted and the plans to develop the site were reviewed.
The Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 a.m.
Filed Subject to Approval
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: September 7, 2009 September 1, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky
Members Absent: Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Carrie RoweCall to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Frank, Gager, Rimsky, Roberts, Braverman, Alt.Consideration of the Minutes
The Minutes of August 4, 2009 were considered.
Motion:
to accept the July 7, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, by 5-0 vote.New Applications
Rowe/44 Kielwasser Road/2 Lot Subdivision:
The Planning Commissioners examined the Site Analysis Plan, Proposed Boundary Survey, Re-Subdivision Map, prepared for Susan A. Rowe, by T. Michael Alex, Dated June 2009. Ms. Hill stated Brian Neff is the Engineer and Michael Alex is the Surveyor. She stated she sent the Commissioners a report via email and that she had two additional comments regarding this application;
1. There is only a residential density calculation for one of the lots, and
2. The note saying the lots could be re subdivided should be clarified because the residential density for the one lot only comes out to 1.6 so this lot would not be subdividable.
Ms. Hill stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission approved the plan on August 12th and the Health Department approved the proposed septic plan on August 24th. Ms. Carrie Rowe was present. Ms. Rowe confirmed that this proposed subdivision was a transfer within the family. Ms. Addison stated that the Commission would need to schedule a Public Hearing and a Site Visit. A Site Visit was tentatively scheduled for September 10th at 9 a.m. A Public Hearing was scheduled for October 6th at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. Ms. Hill stated she would email Ms. Rowe the application review before the Public Hearing.Other Business
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5.A
Ms. Hill stated the Public Hearing for the Zoning Commission is scheduled for October 26th at 7:30 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Ms. Hill explained that the current regulations allow Special Exceptions for setbacks and lot coverage under specific circumstances. Currently there is not a Special Exception for setbacks from Wetlands and Watercourses. The proposal is to add the Wetlands and Watercourse setbacks to the Special Exception Section of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant would be required to obtain an Inland Wetlands permit first in order to apply for a Special Exception for a Wetlands and Watercourse Setback. Ms. Hill stated that this would be for existing non-conforming structures. The Planning Commission decided they would look over the revision to discuss at the October 6th Planning Meeting.Procedures and Template for Conservation Easement
Ms. Gager stated that Conservation Commission would be discussing the feedback it received from Attorney David Miles at its meeting tomorrow, September 2, 2009.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Hill stated that Mr. Martin Connor has been working on the Revisions. She stated that she and Ms. Roberts have a preliminary meeting with Mr. Conner on Friday, September 11th and will report back to the Commission at the October 6th Planning Meeting.Consideration of 2008-2009 Annual Report
The Commission reviewed the Annual Report for the Planning Commission. Ms. Roberts asked if there were any comments from other commission members. Mr. Carey stated that the last paragraph on the first page should possibly be reworded. Ms. Hill stated she would make the appropriate changes.Communications
Ms. Roberts reminded the Planning Commission there is a Land Use Seminar on September 26, 2009.Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn by Ms. Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 7:55 pm
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: August 6, 2009 August 4, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent: Mr. Fowlkes
Staff Present: Shelley WhiteRegular Business
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, Roberts
Consideration of the Minutes The Minutes of July 7, 2009 were considered.
Mr. Carey stated that he was concerned that the language was too expansive in the 2nd sentence on page 2 that reads: He stated the Town of Washington must provide an eight-foot right of way to the deed holders that live across the lake and on Flirtation Avenue. The Commission discussed clarifying the language. It was the understanding of the Planning Commission that the intention was that the Town is obligated to provide access only to those property owners who had deeded rights to such access.
Motion: to accept the July 7, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted subject to the clarification, by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations/Sections 6.4.13 and 12.14.1-12.14.3:
Ms. Hill stated that some time ago the Zoning Commission amended it’s regulations by adding section 4.4.17 to allow, by Special Permit, accessory structures involved with the operation and maintenance of a golf course in the R-1, Farming and Residential District because golf courses are non conforming uses and any structure on the property would have required a variance. She stated the Lake Waramaug Country Club requested the same provision to be added to the R-3 Lake Waramaug Residential District as Section 6.4.13 under Uses Permitted by Special Permit.
The Planning Commission had no objections.
Ms. Hill stated that a pool contractor recommended a revision of sections 12.14.1-12.14.3. The contractor asked that only noise generating pool related equipment be required to be located within 50 feet of the pool served. The Planning Commission had no objections to this revision.Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Mr. Gager stated that they are waiting for feedback from the Conservation Commission.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Hill distributed copies of a letter she wrote to Martin Connor, dated August 3, 2009, regarding hiring him to review the proposed amendments to the Washington Subdivision Regulations. The Commissioners approved the letter for Ms. Hill to send.Communications
Ms. Roberts reminded the Planning Commission there is a Land Use Seminar on September 26, 2009 and that if they would like to attend they would need to let Ms. Hill know.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn by Ms. Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: July 10, 2009 July 7, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. Braverman
Staff Present: Shelley White
Also Present: Ann Compton
Regular Business
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
Seated: Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, RobertsConsideration of the Minutes
The Minutes of June 2, 2009 were considered.Motion: to accept the June 2, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted, by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, by 5-0 vote.
Motion: to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda, Re: Cluster Development/Subdivisions, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applicationsOther Business
Referral from Board of Selectmen /CGS 8-24/ 59 East Shore Road/Phase II/ Town Beach:
Selectman Nick Solley presented the Landscaping Plan for the Town of Washington Town Beach, by Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, dated 6/23/09. Mr. Solley explained the proposed plan includes tearing down the existing beach cottage and rebuilding a two-bedroom beach cottage. The top floor will be living quarters for the caretaker of the beach property and the bottom floor will be public space. The first floor will have a unisex, handicapped access, bathroom, two other bathrooms (mens & womens), an office, mechanical room and a boat storage garage for the fire department airboat. The upstairs will be a two-bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living area. Mr. Solley explained that in order to accommodate the airboat the proposed cottage would be 4’6” higher than the existing cottage. The existing septic tank and pump chamber will be positioned next to the building because of health requirements. He explained the width increase in the parking area, improvements to the drainage with the addition of a bio-filtration system. Mr. Solley stated there would be a gravel path to a new dock. He stated the Town of Washington must provide an eight-foot right of way to the deed holders that live across the lake and on Flirtation Avenue. The new dock will be closer to parking area and the public entrance. A new 4 ft. high fence will replace the chain link fence along the parking area.Ms. Roberts asked if the fence would be high enough. Mr. Solley stated that the property is not prohibited to the public.
Mr. Frank asked if the deed holders have the right to access the beach at a particular location. Mr. Solley stated he did not think so but the town is obligated to provide an eight-foot legal access way that must abut a town road and lead to the lake.
Mr. Carey stated the rendering of the cottage shows an overhead power feed that is interrupting the view of the lake as well as being inconsistent with the residential requirements of having all the wiring of new structures be underground. Mr. Solley stated the wiring would go from the pole near the house, underground to the compressor building and then to the house.
Ms. Gager asked where the parking for the cottage would be located. Mr. Solley stated the caretaker could park in the low-pitched access way to the airboat garage or the end bay of the main parking area.
Mr. Carey asked how the cottage would be heated. Mr. Solley stated it would be heated with propane and that the airboat garage must maintain at least 55 degrees in order for the boat to start.
Ms. Gager asked if maintenance would be required on the bio-filters. There was a discussion regarding how the bio-filters will work. Mr. Solley stated that the bio-filter would not need maintenance as long as it is performing correctly.
Mr. Frank asked if the Inland Wetlands Commission approved the plan. Mr. Solley stated they had one more meeting with the I/W Commission and they should receive approval at that meeting.
Mr. Carey asked if the lighting would comply with the new residential lighting regulations. Mr. Solley stated there would be a porch light and a floodlight over the airboat garage but they have not discussed the lighting plan at this point.
Ms. Roberts stated she would provide a letter of approval on behalf of the Planning Commission.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations/Sections 6.4.13 and 12.14.1-12.14.3:
Ms. Gager stated the commission members should review the Revision of Zoning Regulations and talk about it at the August 4, 2009 meeting.Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Mr. Frank stated that Attorney Miles has given the Conservation Commission his comments and they have not had a chance to completely review them. Ms. Gager suggested they would wait for comments from the C.C. and have a discussion at the September 1, 2009 meeting.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Gager stated the Planning Commission should choose the planner they would like to send their regulations to. She stated Ms. Hill informed her that the planner estimates were in the same price range. Ms. Roberts stated she thought the three planners in question were all good for the job. She stated she was in favor of hiring Marty Connor because he is familiar with the town and has currently worked with the Washington Land Use Office. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Mr. Connor should be hired.Motion: to have Janet Hill, Land Use Administrator, hire Mr. Martin Connor for the revision of the Subdivision Regulations, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, by 5-0 vote.
Communications
Ms. Roberts reminded the Planning Commission there is a Land Use Seminar on September 26, 2009 and that if they would like to attend they would need to send in the application as well as contact Phyllis in the Selectmen’s Office.Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Subsequent Business
Cluster Development/Subdivisions:
Ms. Gager stated that the Conservation Commission would need to define the purpose of this committee. Ms. Roberts stated she thought they should consider revising the name of the committee. Ms. Gager stated the intention is to communicate to a developer that one section of a site could be developed while a large portion could be left as open space. Mr. Frank stated this would require a revision of the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Gager stated it would require a revision in the Zoning Regulations but not with Planning. There was a discussion of multiple house septic systems. Ms. Gager stated she discourages this.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn by Ms. Roberts.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:20 pm
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: June 12, 2009 June 2, 2009
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. Braverman
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Regular Business
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.Seated: Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, Roberts
Consideration of the Minutes
Motion: to accept the May 5, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, by 5-0 vote.Motion: to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda, Re: Cluster Development/Subdivisions, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applicationsOther Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Ms. Hill stated she had not heard anything from Attorney David Miles yet.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Gager stated she would have to submit the revisions in July under the new budget. Ms. Hill stated that the commissions seemed to support sending subdivision applications that have an archaeological or historic area of concern to the State. Ms. Hill asked the commission what procedure they would like to follow, 1) the application for a subdivision would be reviewed in the Land Use Office or by the Planning Commission and they would make a decision as to whether is be sent to the State Archaeologist or 2) send all applications directly to the State Archaeologist and let them make the decision. Mr. Rimsky did not agree that all applications should be sent to the State. He stated that a map with the sensitive areas in town would help determine if an applicant falls within an area of concern. There was a discussion on obtaining an updated map of archaeological sensitivity. Mr. Frank stated a tool that would trigger a reference is needed and this could indicate whether or not the application should be sent to the State. Mr. Frank stated that the town should protect the sites but not place an unreasonable burden on the property owner. Ms. Gager stated she would check with Betsy Corrigan to see if she has received an updated version of this map.Report on Greenway Committee meeting by Mrs. Roberts:
Ms. Roberts stated she attended the Greenway Committee on their walk of the 10 Titus Road property with Peter Talbot. Ms. Roberts explained some history about the property. She stated there was a proposed plan to put in a septic system and another plan to put in soccer fields. The Town of Washington decided a policy to leave this parcel alone until a use that would best benefit the town could be figured out. Ms. Roberts asked the current Planning Commission Members if they are in favor of this policy. Ms. Roberts stated that future technology and needs could reveal the best use of this parcel. Mr. Rimsky stated the Greenway Path along the river buffer is reasonable passive use. Mr. Carey stated there has been exhaustive research on the best use for this property and it is best left alone at this time. There was a discussion about a proposed dog park. Mr. Carey stated it was not well received because there are plenty of trails for dog owners to walk their dogs. Mr. Rimsky suggested that a communal garden would be a good use. Ms. Gager discussed the liability of the town and the need for fencing and parking are issues. It was the consensus that the Planning Commission should reaffirm, for the record, that it supports the current town policy of not approving any plans for 10 Titus Road until it is determined what the best and most appropriate use of the property will be.Report on 5/13/09 economic seminar by Mr. Carey:
Mr. Carey stated he and Mr. Averill attended this seminar. Mr. Carey stated that Mr. Gibbons had made a comment on Special Permit Zoning. Mr. Carey talked about Mr. Gibbon’s presentation on how to do and when to start a master plan of development and conservation. He stated the statutes do not say that that every 10 years you have to make a new plan, but rather revise, build on it and modify it. Mr. Carey stated the economic development section of the seminar did not seem to fit towns in Litchfield County. He stated that the only applicable discussion was regarding promoting tourism.Mr. Rimsky asked Ms. Gager if, in the interest of economic development, Steep Rock had any discussions to encourage a revitalization of organic farming. Ms. Gager stated she was not on Steep Rock, however, it became clear to her, during the process of obtaining the lease for the garden at Macricosta, that, since Steep Rock received state funding to purchase the property, statutes state they cannot make any profit off of the preserved land. She stated one possibility would be that the donor of the land could put a stipulation on the donation that it stays or a portion of the land stays agricultural.
Subsequent Business
Cluster Development/Subdivisions:
Ms. Gager stated that she has talked with Ms. Payne, Mr. Markert and Mr. Sonder of the Conservation Commission and Mr. Fitzherbert of the Zoning Commission. She stated they discussed what could be done to create open space by clustering subdivisions on parcels while allowing the utilities and other services to be installed in the open space.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn by Ms. Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 13, 2009 May 5, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Also Present: Kris Collum, Wayne HilemanCall to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.Seated: Roberts, Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Alternate Fowlkes
Consideration of the Minutes
Motion: to accept the April 7, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted, by Mr. Fowlkes, seconded by Mr. Frank, by 5-0 vote.Motion:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, by 5-0 vote.New Applications
There were no new applications.Other Business
Seated: Robert, Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky
Discussion: 16 Titus Road with Mr. Hileman, Housing Commission Chairman:
Mr. Hileman, Chairman of the Housing Commission explained he has come to the Planning Commission to give an update on the 16 Titus Road property. Mr. Hileman stated the Housing Commission has spent several months looking at this property. They were considering the property for an Incentive Housing Zone. Mr. Hileman explained the Incentive Housing Zone is a program initiated by the State Office of Policy and Management that would essentially allow a municipality to create an overlay zone to encourage a ‘smart growth type of principle’. It would encourage more residential or commercial development in specific areas of a town. He stated an advantage would be that the Town would receive State money. He stated that the Depot could be a candidate because it was a village center. Mr. Hileman stated the H.C. thought this would be difficult for the Town of Washington. Mr. Hileman stated that the State has cut the funding for this program and the H.C. has decided to not pursue it. Mr. Hileman stated that throughout the process the Housing Commission has been able to examine this parcel. He stated the H.C. discussed two uses. The first use would be to extend the look and feel of the Depot and use the property in a mixed-use scenario, which would entail storefronts with apartments above. The second use considered was a type of senior housing. Mr. Hileman stated, in both cases, the H.C. ‘feels strongly’ the riverbank should be left unaltered and public access should be maintained. He stated our Land Use Regulations do not allow anything to be built there because it is in a flood plain. Mr. Hileman referred to the Town of Washington’s Plan of Conservation and Development. This plan encourages development closer to the village centers. He stated it could be done but it would be difficult. Mr. Hileman stated the Town had paid for perc tests on the parcel and any septic system on this parcel would have to be engineered, Judea Water Company would service the water needs of the site and the developer would have to incur the costs of hooking the system up. Mr. Collum stated the Town Regualtions were meant to protect areas such as this. He stated the town had led its residents to believe that when the Town Garage was relocated this location would be restored and untouched. He also stated that he wasn’t sure that Judea Water Company would have to service this parcel. Mr. Carey stated he was sympathetic to the housing issues but did not see the need for more commercial space, as there is empty commercial space in the Depot at present time. Mr. Hileman stated the reason for considering the mixed-use scenario was because of the state requirements if the Town were to receive money from the State of Connecticut Incentive Housing Zone program. Mr. Frank asked what the Housing Commission’s plan for the parcel would encompass. Mr. Hileman stated there are 4 acres on the parcel and the Housing Commission thought only about 1 acre would be able to be developed. He stated he understands the need for the regulations and they are protecting the town in most cases however, these are the same regulations that are ‘protecting our village centers from ANY development’. Ms. Roberts stated the property has been examined many times over the years and that it is important to look at options for this property, as it is important for the future development and success of our town. There was a discussion about the majority of Washington Depot being in the flood plain and businesses operating and needing flood insurance.Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
The Conservation Commission is still waiting for Atty. Miles.Revision of Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Gager and Ms. Hill have finished their review of the draft of the regulations and are ready to send it to a consultant for a professional review. Ms. Roberts stated the money would be in the budget to hire a consultant in July.Reminder: State Archaeologist, Nick Bellantoni, to attend Conservation Commission Meeting 5/6/09:
Ms. Roberts reminded the commission that Mr. Bellantoni would be attending the Conservation Commission Meeting to discuss Archaeological & Cultural Resource Protection in Town Regulations. Mr. Carey, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank and Ms. Roberts stated they planned to attend.Road Discontinuance:
Mr. Carey asked what actions could be taken in order to discontinue roads. Ms. Hill stated the Conservation Commission had a Road Discontinuance Subcommittee and suggested Mr. Carey inquire about it at the CC Meeting tomorrow. Ms. Roberts stated she would talk the Selectman’s Office regarding the matter.Traffic/Speeding in Washington Depot:
Ms. Braverman asked if the town received funds to install the flashing speed sign in the Depot. There was a discussion regarding speed bumps and other methods to slow traffic in the center of town. Ms. Roberts volunteered to talk to the Selectman’s Office about the increasing problem of speeding in town and the lack of action taken to improve the problem.Communications
Ms. Hill distributed “How To Be An Effective Commissioner” to the members.Public Comment
There were no comments from the public.Adjournment:
Motion: to adjourn by Ms. Roberts.Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: April 21, 2009 April 7, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Braverman
Members Absent: Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Also Present: Ms. Cheney, Mr. Charles, Mr. Pappas
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm and seated members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, Alternate Carey and herself.
Consideration of the Minutes
The regular meeting minutes of the March 3, 2009 were amended as follows:
Page 2:
Under Revision of the Subdivision Regulations, 1st sentence should read:
Ms. Hill, Land Use Coordinator, prior to this meeting, suggested a Town Planner review these revisions.Motion: to accept the March 3, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, by 5-0 vote.
Motion: to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.Other Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Mr. Frank stated he reviewed Conservation Easement Process drafted by Ms. Payne of the Chairperson of the Conservation Commission and thought it was a little confusing. He asked if this would be something to be distributed to applicants. Ms. Hill stated she thought it was an effort to explain the process and have the Planning and Conservation Commissions on the ‘same page’. Ms. Hill stated that Ms. Payne stresses the preliminary discussion in the process. Ms. Hill said this would be valuable and would encourage a potential applicant but it can’t be required of an applicant. Ms. Gager stated the preliminary discussion take more time up front but less during the process. Mr. Rimsky asked if the forms for the applicant would be simplified and revised. Ms. Hill stated the application form and the regulations would be revised to include everything that is required of an applicant. Mr. Fowlkes suggested that Town Counsel should review any different language from the approved model easements as opposed to any new language and Ms. Hill noted that the Conservation Commission had already sent the proposed language to Attorney Miles. He asked for clarification of the requirement of ‘No town signage such as ‘Town Easement Area’ will be posted.’ Ms. Hill stated other organizations do put up signage for their easements and she thought it meant that ‘no, the Conservation Commission is not going to put up signs’ for the Town of Washington easement areas. Ms. Roberts asked if Mr. Fowlkes had any suggestions as how to improve the language. Mr. Fowlkes suggested they could say the Town will not post any signage designating the area. Mr. Frank suggested the commission continue to review this language and give any comments to Ms. Hill.Referral from the Board of Selectmen/CGS 8-24/Proposed Purchase of 108 New Milford Turnpike:
Ms. Roberts and Mr. Frank attended the site visit and meeting on Saturday, April 4. Ms. Roberts read the letter she drafted to the Board of Selectmen, on behalf of the Planning Commission, as a response to this referral and requested feedback from the commission. Mr. Rimsky stated that he is bothered that there are not any provisions for affordable housing. Ms. Roberts stated the issue of affordable housing should not be ignored. Mr. Rimsky stated land owners give land to the town for open space preservation in return for tax breaks and land owners could also receive the same tax breaks if they donated land to the town for affordable housing and this fact is not promoted as often as it should be. Ms. Roberts suggested the Planning Commission have a discussion with the Housing Commission to discuss where they are and their thoughts on this subject. The Planning Commission is in favor of Ms. Roberts’ suggestion. Ms. Roberts volunteered to contact Mr. Hileman of the Housing Commission to arrange a mutually convenient time for an informal discussion. Mr. Frank stated the statute looks for a report, which approves or disapproves and there are different consequences, which follow of the vote that’s required. He stated he did not think the letter stated whether or not the Planning Commission approves or disapproves the proposed purchase of the property. He stated that he thought the Planning Commission was leaning towards approval yet, would like some other things taken into consideration. Mr. Frank stated he did not think the Planning Commission could control the funds the Town is using to make this purchase. Ms. Hill stated Town Counsel is researching what the Town could do with the property if a portion of it was needed for municipal use in the future. Mr. Charles encouraged the Planning Commission to read this letter at the Town Meeting tomorrow evening and stated he thought the Town should have a certain amount of flexibility for the use of this land. There was continued discussion among the members of the commission about the drafted letter by Ms. Roberts and what it should contain. The commissions agreed this letter should be narrowly focused and meet the requirements of a CGS 8-24 Report and a separate letter, if necessary, should be composed stating concerns and issues regarding remediation and expenses to Selectman Lyon.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Roberts stated the State Archaeologist, Mr. Nick Bellantoni will be attending the May 6, 2009 Conservation Commission Meeting, 5 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room and members of the Planning Commission are urged to attend. Mr. Frank asked if there was anything to report on the review of the Subdivision Regulations. Ms.Gager and Ms. Hill stated they would meet and go through the definitions and whatever items they are unable to address will be forwarded to a professional planner.Communications
Letter from Ms. Holly Reger requesting a 90 day extension for filing subdivision mylar:
Ms. Roberts read the letter from Ms. Reger.Motion: to grant Ms. Reger/65 Gunn Hill Road, a 90 day extension for filing a subdivision mylar, by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, by 5-0 vote.
Letter from the Conservation Commission re: Warren Cell Tower application:
A short discussion regarding the proposed cell tower occurred. Ms. Roberts stated she had a discussion with Ms. Dupuis of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Roberts stated she would let Ms. Dupuis know the Planning Commission would like to help out but would need more information so they would not be taking any action at this time.Public Comment
There were no comments from the public.Adjournment:
Motion: to adjourn by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, by 5-0 vote.Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 12, 2009 March 3, 2009
Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Jahnke, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
Alternates Absent: Ms. Braverman
Staff Present: Shelley White
Also Present: Susan Payne
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm and seated members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and herself.
Consideration of the Minutes
The regular meeting minutes of the February 3, 2009 were approved as submitted.Motion: to accept the February 3, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted, by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, by 5-0 vote.
Motion: to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda, by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Gager, by 5-0 vote.
Ms. Roberts invited Ms. Payne, Chairperson of the Town of Washington Conservation Commission, to join them in executive session.
7:35 pm
Motion: to go in to executive session to discuss Washington Partners, LLC/108 New Milford Turnpike/Possible Application for 9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision, by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, by 5-0 vote.8:03 pm
Motion: to come out of executive session to discuss Washington Partners, LLC/108 New Milford Turnpike/Possible Application for 9 Lot Affordable Housing Subdivision, by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Roberts, by 5-0 vote.New Applications
There were no new applications.Other Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
Ms. Payne stated the Conservation Easement Model has been submitted to Town Counsel for review. Ms. Payne has created a checklist of items needed when accepting a regulatory & voluntary conservation easement. She stated the Conservation Commission would be reviewing this list at the March, 4, 2009 meeting. Ms. Roberts stated the Planning Commission would make sure to look at the model next month.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Hill, Land Use Coordinator, prior to this meeting, suggested a Town Planner execute these revisions. Ms. Roberts read the estimates of three planners, 1) Chris Wood, $1500.00-$2500.00 2) Planemetrics, $500.00-$1,000.00 3) Marty Connor, approximately $1,000.00. Mr. Frank asked if an itemized list of what the Planning Commission is requesting had been given to these planners. Ms. Roberts said there was not a list and this was a preliminary, informal query to get an idea of the cost. Mr. Carey asked if it would help reduce the cost if the highway regulations were eliminated from this review. Ms. Gager stated there is not a large section on the highway regulations and does not think it would. Ms. Gager suggested reviewing definitions in house could decrease cost and a planner could do the technical aspects. The members of the commission agreed that Ms. Gager and Ms. Hill should go over what could be done in house. Ms. Gager stated Nick Bellantoni, State Archaeologist, has offered to talk to the Planning Commission and answer any questions about archaeological regulations. Mr. Carey stated that clarifying the regulations should decrease or eliminate waivers. Mr. Rimsky stated it should also put and end to incomplete applications.Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations – 3/23/09 Public Hearings:
Ms. Roberts reported the request to revise Section 11.7.1/Height of Principal Structures in Historic Districts has been withdrawn by the Historic District Commission. The Planning Commission had no objection to the proposed revision to Section 12.14/Noise Generating Equipment that would result in going back to the original procedure of requiring a variance to install noise-generating equipment that does not meet the setback requirements, which the owner would then have to prove hardship. The Planning Commission discussed the revision of Zoning Regulation Section 16.4/Business and Institutional Signs in Residential Districts. Mr. Frank read a proposed list of permitted signs in a residential area. Ms. Gager pointed out that seasonal signs, such as farm stands would fall under this. She suggested the ones that exist should be grandfathered. Mr. Fowlkes stated proper signage is important to promote things like farming/farm stands and does not think one sign will be enough. Mr. Carey stated he had concerns about grandfathering some of the existing lighting in residential areas that are currently able to light up acres. Mr. Rimsky asked about Bed and Breakfasts, art studios, etc. in residential areas. The commission agreed the list of allowable residential signs was limiting and that listing these would end up with people asking for exceptions. The possibility of permitting smaller and only unlighted signs in the residential districts was discussed. Mr. Frank stated he would write down the Planning Commissions thoughts regarding this regulation. The commission had no objection to adding ‘offices’ to the uses in Section 9.2.3/Permitted Uses in the Marbledale Business District.Communications
2/17/09 Letter to Ms. Larson from Mr. Lyon re: Proposed Rabbit Hill Tower Proposal:
Ms. Roberts asked Ms. Payne to comment on the Rabbit Hill Tower Proposal. Ms. Payne expressed the difficulty in getting the appropriate, updated technical information from the attorney for Optasite. She stated the Conservation Commission has been communicating with the Connecticut Siting Council and Attorney Larson requesting this updated information will then schedule a town meeting on this subject. Ms. Roberts stated she had been informed there would have to be a cell tower every mile or so in the Town of Washington to get full coverage because of the terrain of the area. Mr. Carey questioned why a cell tower would be set on land that had been purchased by taxpayers of the state in order to preserve agricultural land. Ms. Roberts asked Ms. Payne to keep lines of communication open between the Conservation and Planning Commissions regarding this proposal. Ms. Roberts read the letter from Atty. Larson. She suggested the members of the commission come in to the Land Use Office and read through the accompanying report sent to the Connecticut Siting Council by Ms. Larson.2/24/09 Notice of Tentative Determination from Intent to Renew from the State of Connecticut DEP:
Mr. Frank explained how the system oxygenates the water of Lake Waramaug. The Department of Environmental Protection is asking if there is any public comment before Permit # CT0024805 is renewed.Public Comment:
No one from the public was present.Adjournment:
Motion: to adjourn by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, by 5-0 vote.
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
3-11-09
Posted: February 6, 2009 February 3, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Gager
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Talbot
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Ms. Gager.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 1/6/09 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda: 1) Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/ Request to Remove Note on Approved Subdivision Map and 2) 2009 Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed 5-0.
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Talbot/44 Bell Hill Road/Request to Remove Note from Approved Subdivision Map:
Mr. Talbot read his letter dated 2/3/09. He explained that 1) when it had approved the subdivision, the Commission had erred in requiring the condition, “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,” for both lots and 2) that the normal time period in which the Commission requires transfers to relatives only had expired; the lot having been created in 2004. He asked that the note be removed. Mrs. Hill, Administrator, said Mr. Talbot’s statements were accurate. She noted that she had consulted with Atty. Miles who had advised 1) no public hearing was required to remove the condition and 2) if the Commission acted to remove the condition, it should file a letter stating its action on the Town Land Records. Mr. Talbot read a draft letter for the Land Records by Atty. Miles. After a brief discussion, the commissioners agreed to the request.MOTION: Resolved; that the condition, “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,” that was imposed upon the subdivision property owned by Talbot Realty Trust shown on Map #1639 filed in the Town Clerk’s Office be removed and be of no further force or effect; that the revised mylar map eliminating the condition shall be filed on the Land Records; and a letter by the Commission citing this action shall also be filed the Town Land Records. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mrs. Jahnke, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Referral from Zoning Commission/Petition to Amend Section 11.7.1 Regarding the Maximum Height of Principal Buildings and Structures in Historic Districts:
The referral, containing the 1/20/09 letter from Mr. Talbot to the Zoning Commission, elevations and measurements of many of the existing buildings in the various historic districts, and copies of Section 11.7 to illustrate how it has evolved over the years, was circulated. Mr. Talbot explained the proposed maximum height limitation for the historic districts would support the Historic District Commission’s efforts to require appropriate scale and design for new construction within those districts. He noted this was becoming more difficult as the width of proposed dwellings gets wider and wider and roofs get higher. The proposal calls for a maximum total vertical height for principal buildings and structures in historic districts of 35 feet if on sloping land and 30 feet if on flat land. Mr. Talbot offered to attend the next meeting if the commissioners have any questions.Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements:
The final template has not yet been received. Mrs. Hill noted that the Planning and Conservation Commissions should also tighten up their review procedures to ensure the Planning Commission receives the same version of the easement as the one Conservation has approved.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
The review of the draft by a consultant was discussed. Mrs. Roberts noted that Mr. Connor had recommended this be done by a planner instead of an attorney because it would be less expensive. Mr. Carey and Mr. Frank thought a review by an engineer was needed. Mr. Frank thought planners had a more conceptual view and that the Regulations require both technical and legal analysis. Mrs. Hill suggested that because the Town now has the Road Construction Specification Ordinance, which supersedes that section of the Subdivision Regulations, that a planner or attorney might recommend Section 6 be deleted or revised, and the review by an engineer would then no longer be necessary. Mr. Rimsky thought a planner could first review the document and point out those sections, which need further technical and/or legal review. He pointed out it would be very expensive to have planning, legal, and technical reviews by three separate consultants. He also was hesitant to have jurisdiction over road construction removed from the Regulations as he wanted the Planning Commission to have some authority if needed. The importance of preliminary discussions and proving the feasibility of proposed building lots was discussed. Mrs. Hill suggested that a sample health form and residential density determination form be included as an addendum to the Regulations. Mrs. Roberts agreed with Mr. Rimsky that a professional planner should review the document first and the Commission would decide whether additional reviews were necessary based on the planner’s recommendations. Mr. Carey thought a planner could coordinate the revision of the Regulations with the update of the Plan of Conservation and Development, which would be coming up soon.MOTION: That the Commission find out how much it will cost to hire a planner to review the draft revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and to make further recommendations. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, passed 5-0.
Referral from Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations: Section 10.4.1.a/Addition of Eating and Drinking Establishments to Uses Permitted by Special Permit in the Woodville Business District:
Mr. Rimsky noted that Woodville had previously been more of a mixed use “shock absorber” district, but that since its area had been so reduced by the Zoning Commission, it no longer served that purpose. Mrs. Roberts noted the proposed use would be permitted by Special Permit only. Mr. Carey and Mr. Frank said this would give Zoning more control and that public hearings would be required when considering these applications.MOTION: That the Washington Planning Commission has no objection to the proposed revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations; Section 10.4.1.a; to allow eating and drinking establishments by Special Permit in the Woodville Business District. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Referral from Zoning/Revision of Zoning Regulations: Sections 12.14, 16.4, 11.7.1, and 9.2.3:
Mrs. Hill passed out copies of the proposed revisions and explained them briefly. Earlier in the meeting Mr. Talbot had addressed 11.7.1: maximum height of principal structures in historic districts. In addition, Zoning proposed 1) to delete Section 12.14.5 that permits, by Special Exception under certain circumstances, noise generating equipment to be located farther than 50 ft. from the principal structure served, 2) in Section 9.2.3, to add Offices to the list of permitted uses in the Marbledale Business District when specific criteria are met, and 3) to allow certain business and institutional signs in all residential districts. The commissioners will review the proposed language and discuss these revisions at the next meeting.Communications
Mrs. Hill noted the 2009 Northwestern Ct. Council of Govt’s Plan of Conservation and Development is available for anyone interested to review.
The commissioners briefly discussed the Town’s recent property reassessment and the problems associated with it.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Meetings in 2008