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 6 •October 4 •September 21 •September 6 •August 2 •July 5 •June 7 •April 5 •March 24 •March 1 •February 17 •January 4 •Previous years: 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 15, 2011 December 6, 2011
5:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman,
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne
Staff Present: Ms. White, Ms. Hill
Also Present: First Selectman LyonMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Seated: Roberts, Frank, Rimsky, Jahnke, Braverman, Alt.
Consideration of the Minutes
Regular Meeting of 10-4-11
The Commission considered the minutes from the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on October 4, 2011.
Corrections:
Page 2:
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, should read: Mr. Templeton stated that the Board of Finance looks forward to an economic development plan…
Under Review of Chapter 3 – Preserve Rural Character, Protect Water Quality, 4th sentence, should read: Ms. Gager stated that the water quality monitoring is not done by the Town.
Under Establish a Municipal Open Space Program section, last sentence should read: They will revisit this subject, and its effect on the municipal funding mill rate.Motion
to accept the October 4, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Ms. Braverman, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications to consider.
Other Business
Discussion re: Available Grants with the First Selectman:
First Selectman Lyon stated that the NWCOG has an $880,000 Transportation Enhancement Grant that could be used for municipal projects. One of the requirements is that the project must cost at least $300,000 so they would be choosing 2 projects from any town that applies out of the nine towns that are in the NWCOG. He stated that he spoke to the NWCOG about spending the money on re-doing Bryan Memorial Plaza. Mr. Lyon stated that the application does not need to be handed in until January and engineered plans would not be required at the submission of the application but a budget would have to accompany the application. He stated that he estimates that the project would cost around $350,000 to $400,000 and after talking with Mr. Smith, Town Engineer, and other people in Town some of the projects to consider would be to put a drainage system in the plaza, sidewalks, install curbs, install sidewalk lamps and improve the parking and traffic flow.7:40-Ms. Gager arrives.
The Commission and First Selectman Lyon discussed the different projects that could be done. Mr. Lyon stated that all of it may not be able to get accomplished with this one grant but it would be a stepping-stone to further improvements. He stated that he would like to know that the money would be available before doing all of the work and he has come to the Planning Commission for input.
Ms. Hill stated that she felt the Planning Commission would like to see Dark Sky Friendly Lighting for any lighting project considered for the Plaza. Mr. Lyon stated that he thinks it would be a good idea to form a committee to help make decisions if the grant was awarded to the Town of Washington.
Plan of Conservation and Development
Chapter 4 – Enhance Village Centers
· Undertake a Special Study –
The Commission discussed the Depot Study. The subject of the floodplain is still an issue and the mapping of the floodplain has not been completed. The Commission agreed that this section would have to be rewritten and the relevant issues of the Depot Study could be used.Mr. Carey stated that the Planning Commission might want to consider whether or not they would be addressing economic development in the revised POCD. The Commission decided that a chapter would be included and they would get input from the selectmen and write it with the guidance of a consultant.
· Washington Depot -
Modify Zoning Districts/Zoning Requirements – The Commission agreed that special zoning districts should be considered and that they would need to work with the Zoning Commission with this issue. Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that encouraging mixed use adds to the strength of the village centers. Ms. Roberts stated that she feels that planning for some contingencies is a good idea because planning for what the Town wants is a good idea.·Marbledale -
Modify Zoning Districts/Zoning Requirements - The Commission discussed the Gateway Districts. The Commission decided that this section should be rewritten with the help of a consultant and the map on page 4-5 would be revised accordingly. The side bar on page 4-6 regarding Special Permit should be deleted.·New Preston -
Modify Zoning Districts/Zoning Requirements – The Commission did not feel that it would be necessary to have a village study done for New Preston. They stated that they would meet with the residents and rewrite this section with the guidance of a consultant.·Washington Green –
Modify Zoning Districts/Zoning Requirements – The Commission would like to work with a consultant and the Zoning Commission to establish more specific goals and zoning requirements.·Woodville –
The Commission agreed that it would be important to meet with the residents from the individual gateway areas and work with a consultant.The Commission agreed that the Depot Study should be incorporated in to the Natural Resource Inventory Report.
The Commission discussed working with a firm of consultants that have specialists in all the areas needed and how they would need to define the role of the consultants. Ms. Hill stated that they need to consider this soon so that it could be asked for in the budget.
Ms. Gager stated that she would work with Janet to figure out the estimated cost of consulting for the budget.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Mr. Frank stated that there was a change in the statutes that became effective last October with respect to the security the Town gets once there is a subdivision approved. He stated that the present statute states that there should be a performance bond that the contractor would finish all of the public improvements and this statutory change requires us to accept the entire performance bond as a surety bond under terms, which are very favorable to the developer and not favorable to the towns. He stated that Mr. Connors proposes that the Town has no reference to surety bonds but that we take advantage of a section, which has always been on the statute that says that the Commission may authorize the filing of a plan with a conditional approval.The Commission discussed how this could protect the Town from liability.
Mr. Frank stated that he would like to find out what other towns have done. Ms. Hill stated that she would ask Town Counsel what they have advised other towns to do.
Administrative Business
Ms. Roberts stated that she has a concern that a newly appointed selectman, Mr. Carey, is on the Planning Commission and she is wondering if it would result in a conflict of interest. Mr. Carey stated that he would recuse himself from matters that would involve a conflict of interest.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:10 pm by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. RimskyMs. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: October 7, 2011 October 4, 2011
5:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman,
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne
Staff Present: Ms. WhiteMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Seated: Roberts, Frank, Rimsky, Gager, Jahnke
Consideration of the Minutes
Regular Meeting of 9-6-11
The Commission considered the minutes from the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on September 6, 2011.
Corrections:
Page 2, 1st Motion, 1st sentence, should read: Resolved, the Planning Commission has no objection to the discontinuance of Clark Road….Motion
to accept the September 6, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.Special Meeting of 9-21-11
The Commission considered the minutes from the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on September 21, 2011.Motion
to accept the September 21, 2011 Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications to consider.
Other Business
Plan of Conservation and Development
Ms Braverman and Ms. Jahnke gave an update of the 9-27-11 POCD Subcommittee Meeting. Ms. Braverman stated that representatives from the Zoning Commission and the Board of Education were not present. She stated that the representatives from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Inland Wetlands Commission stated that they are regulatory commissions but the members would like to contribute as members of the public. Mr. Templeton stated that the Board of Finance looks forward to and economic development plan and he volunteered to look into some possible consultants that could help in this area. He stated that the Weantinogue tribe should be mentioned as indigenous people of the Marbledale, New Preston and Warren area. The Conservation Commission would submit updated numbers regarding Open Space for the revised POCD and Ms. Payne offered use of her map, that she has been updating by hand, as a reference to protected land in Town and stated that HVA could be a possible resource for updating the Town maps. The Housing Commission submitted a list of their possible recommendations and a 3-page report titled Region 12 Census Data by town (both on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Hileman stated that the Washington Housing Commission went through the Land Use cards to get more accurate numbers regarding housing. The members of the POCD Subcommittee expressed that they were pleased that the Planning Commission is considering meetings in each village and not only the Depot. They discussed how all of the Town commissions are interrelated and this should be reflected in the goals of the revised POCD. Ms. Roberts stated that it might be a good idea to have representatives from the other commissions in Town come to Planning Commission meetings to provide input. Ms. Braverman stated that the representatives at this last subcommittee meeting expressed an interest in receiving emails pertaining to the progress of the revision of the POCD. She stated that they seemed unaware of the cost that is involved and discussed the ability to provide the POCD on the Town website and make a minimal amount of hard copies. Ms. Braverman stated that the subcommittee members feel that input from the Zoning Commission is important in this revision process.The Planning Commission reviewed Chapter 3-Preserve Rural Character in the POCD. Mr. Carey stated that he felt that some of the sidelines could be eliminated. There was a brief discussion regarding how the maps could be updated. Ms. Gager stated that the first step would be to find an electronic version of the POCD and see if it is an editable version. The Commission discussed how the cost of copying could be cut by having the revised POCD on the Town website and selling copies on computer discs. Ms. Gager stated that an editable version of the revised POCD should be part of any agreement with a consultant.
Review of Chapter 3-Preserve Rural Character:
* Maintain Soil-Based Zoning – There was a discussion regarding denser development in village centers. Mr. Rimsky stated that the Town should consider how it zones for the population and not only village centers should be considered but other areas that could handle denser development where there is access to a main road. The Commission agreed that they would hire a consultant to look into any revised soil classifications and seek advice regarding increasing density in certain areas of Town.
* Protect Water Quality – Ms. Gager stated that the water quality is not done through the Town. The Commission discussed whether the Town should do the monitoring or continue to let the nonprofit groups do the monitoring. The Commission agreed that they should ask the Selectmen and Conservation Commission if they would change the way the water is being monitored or keep it the way it is. Ms. Braverman suggested that the revised POCD acknowledge that the water is tested.
* Establish a Municipal Open Space Program – The Planning Commission will consult with the Conservation Commission regarding this section. The Conservation Commission has offered to provide updated numbers for the revised POCD. The Commission will seek advice from a consultant as to what other towns are doing regarding Open Space Tax Abatement. They will revisit this subject, and the municipal funding mill rate.
* The Planning Commission will consult with the Conservation Commission regarding the sections on Greenways, Municipal Open Space Funding Programs, Annual Open Space Action Plan, Scenic Protection, Scenic Roads and Preserving Agricultural Land and Farming.
* The Planning Commission will consult with the Historic District Commission regarding the section titled Encourage Preservation of Historic Resources. Ms. Gager stated that there is a group of people that are getting together to decide whether they want to form a Washington Historical Society. The Planning Commission members thought the group would be a good idea for the Town.
* The Planning Commission discussed the section titled Promote Appropriate Architectural Design. Ms. Roberts stated that that could be tricky and she feels diversity in architecture can make a town interesting over time. The P.C. decided to ask a consultant about appropriate architectural design and municipal and commercial lighting and noise pollution. They stated that the Zoning Commission has already addressed lighting in the residential districts and they would ask the Zoning Commission for their input regarding the commercial and municipal properties.
The Commission agreed that they would review the next 20 pages of the POCD. Starting at Chapter 4 – Enhance Village Centers.
There was a brief discussion about having a chapter on ‘Green Living’. Ms. Gager suggested that the Commission ask the Washington Environmental Council what other towns are doing in this area.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Mr. Frank suggested, and the Commission agreed, that the revised section relating to the new statutory requirement concerning bonds and other surety be referred to Mr. Connor for an initial draft.
Administrative Business
Mr. Roberts stated that she approved the Annual Report.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:38 pm
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. RimskyMs. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: September 23, 2011 September 21, 2011
Special Meeting
5:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman,
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne
Staff Present: Ms. White, Ms. Hill
Also Present: Mr. CharlesMs. Roberts called the Special Meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.
Seated: Roberts, Frank, Rimsky, Braverman, Alt., Carey, Alt.
5:55 p.m. Ms. Jahnke arrives and is seated.
6:15 p.m. Ms. Gager arrives and is seated.
MEETING
Ms. Roberts suggested that the Commissioners go page by page in the Plan of Conservation and Development and discuss possible changes, additions & deletions to the language.The Commission reviewed the Preface and Chapter 1 – A Brief History and Current Conditions.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the data, figures, charts and maps would have to be updated. They briefly discussed the possibility of using a consultant for collecting the data and how the Planning Commission could possibly collect some of the data necessary. There was a discussion regarding funds to pay for a consultant.
The Commission reviewed Chapter 2 – The Community’s Views. It was the consensus of the Commission that this section would have to be rewritten based on the input received from the public.
The Commission agreed to review Chapter 3 – Preserve Rural Character at the next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, beginning at 7:30 p.m. on October 4, 2011 in the Land Use Meeting Room
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 6:50 pm by Ms. Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: September 13, 2011 September 6, 2011
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager
Members Absent: Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Osborne
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Ms White, Ms Hill
Also Present: Selectman Lyon, Ms. CarusilloMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
Seated: Roberts, Frank, Rimsky, Braverman, Alt., (for Jahnke), Osborne, Alt.(for Gager)Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of August 2, 2011 were considered.
Corrections:
Page 1, 1st sentence, under Plan of Conservation and Development, should read: …to go over his comments and editing of the POCD.
Page 2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence should read: “shall be a statement of the policies, goals and standards for the physical and economic development of a municipality.”Motion:
to accept the August 2, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Referral from Board of Selectmen/Discontinuance of a Portion of Clark Road:
Ms. Roberts read the letter from Mark Lyon, First Selectman, dated August 19, 2011 (on file in Land Use Office) regarding “the discontinuance of Clark Road pursuant to CGS 13a-49 from a point south of the existing Washington Transfer Station; shown on Washington Tax Map 2-8 as the corner of Lot 4 and Lot 3; to its intersection with Wykeham Road.” First Selectman Lyon and the Commission looked at the tax map. Mr. Lyon stated that Ms. Carusillo brought a petition to discontinue this section of Clark Road to the Board of Selectmen and that this section of road has been abandoned, there are no records of improvements or maintenance and is not listed in the Town Road Inventory with the State. He stated that the section of Clark Road that begins at Nettleton Hollow and up to the Transfer Station and the section off of Wykeham Road are considered part of the Town’s Road Inventory. Mr. Lyon stated that abutting property owners have been notified and no one has come forward with any opposition and these property owners are aware that they will still access their property by the existing Right of Way and they will be responsible for the maintenance which would relieve the Town of that responsibility or future responsibility of this R.O.W.Ms. Gager arrives.
The Commission and Selectman Lyon discussed Right of Ways and accessing interior lots.
There was a brief discussion regarding abandonment and discontinuance of roads.
Motion:
Resolved, the Planning Commission has no opposition to the discontinuance of Clark Road from a point South of the existing Washington Transfer Station; shown on Washington Tax Map 2-8 as the corner of lot 4 and Lot 3; to its intersection with Wykeham Road,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Osborne, passed by 5-0 vote.Ms. Gager is seated.
Plan of Conservation and Development:
Ms. Gager stated that she is still in the process of reviewing Chapter 3 – Preserving Rural Character and will have a report at the next meeting.Mr. Rimsky discussed his suggestions for Chapter 4 – Enhance Village Centers. He stated that recommendations were made and never followed through. The Commission agreed that the villages of Marbledale, New Preston and Woodville should be addressed separately and in more detail in the revised POCD.
Mr. Osborne stated that the maples in Bryan Memorial Plaza are at the end of their life and will have to come down. He discussed the proposed planting plan and the possibility of getting a grant from the government for the America The Beautiful program. He discussed how ‘herringbone’ parking has been discussed and considered for Bryan Memorial Plaza in the future.
The Commission discussed the Depot Study and agreed that the ideas should be incorporated into the revision of the POCD.
Ms. Braverman stated that she would like to meet with the Housing Commission to discuss Housing Development.
Mr. Frank stated that the sections in the POCD titled, Cooperate with Private Educational Institutions, Address Telecommunications Issues, Maintain and Enhance Community Spirit should all be rewritten.
Ms. Hill stated that she reviewed the POCD line-by-line and made a list of what the Planning Commission could do and what a hired consultant could do. Ms. Gager stated that she feels that the process of revising the POCD would be more efficient if there were meetings dedicated to the process of going through the POCD line-by-line. The Commission discussed additional meetings.
A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was scheduled for Wednesday September 21, 2011, 5:30 pm to approximately 7:00 pm to go through the first 20 pages of the current POCD.
Ms. Hill stated that she would mail a copy of her comments to the Commissioners.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Mr. Frank stated that he and Ms. Hill have met and continue to work on the revisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Hill distributed a copy of the Substitute Senate Bill No. 860, Public Act No. 11-79 – An Act Concerning Bonds and Other Surety For Approved Site Plans and Subdivisions with an attached Memorandum from Atty. Branse dated July 11, 2011. Ms. Hill asked if the Planning Commission would like to work on incorporating this into the Subdivision Regulations or have a Planner do the work. The Planning Commission suggested that a land use attorney review this and recommend further action. There was a brief discussion regarding how Connecticut Municipalities are notified of Acts that have been passed. Mr. Frank stated that he would discuss this with the 1st Selectman.
Communications
Ms. Hill stated that an interested citizen asked to see the proposed revisions of the Subdivision Regulations. She stated that he had many comments regarding the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Hill read the comments to the Commission.Ms. Hill stated that she would email a copy of the Annual Report to the Commissioners.
Public Comment
No one from the public was present.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 9:15 pm by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Braverman.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: August 7, 2011 August 2, 2011
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent: Ms. Gager,
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet HillMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:36 pm.
Seated: Roberts, Frank, Rimsky, Jahnke, Carey, Alt.Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of July 5, 2011 were considered.Motion:
to accept the July 5, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Plan of Conservation and Development:
Ms. Jahnke and Ms. Braverman stated that they would like to have a meeting with the POCD Subcommittee members at the end of August and that they would like to meet with Mr. Carey to go over his comments and editing of the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Roberts stated that she would like to assign a chapter of the POCD to members to edit and comment on. Ms. Hill stated that this could be step 1 and the next step would be to discuss relevant additions to the POCD.Mr. Rimsky distributed a blank timeline that he created for the Commissioners to use as a planning tool in this revision process.
Mr. Carey stated that he during his personal editing of the current POCD; he condensed some chapters and dissolved what is irrelevant. He stated that he has concerns about including maximum build out of the community, economic development and commenting on the regional school issue in the revision of the POCD. Mr. Frank stated that the Planning Commission should address these issues because they are legitimate concerns of the community. Ms. Hill stated that she thinks that the Planning Commission could make recommendations for economic development. Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that the economic development should not just focus on the town centers but the whole community.
Mr. Frank stated that the Connecticut State Statute regarding Plans of Conservation and Development contains a statement that the plans “shall cover is a statement of the policies goals and standards for the physical and economic development of a municipality.” Mr. Carey stated that the recommendations should be concise and contemporary.
The Commission and Ms. Hill assigned Commission Members to each chapter of the current POCD.
Chapter 3 – Preserving Rural Character – Gager Chapter 4 – Enhance Village Centers – Rimsky Chapter 5 – Guide Housing Development – Braverman Chapter 6 – Address Other Community Issues – Jahnke - Frank - Address Community Facility Issues Cooperate with Private Educational Institutions Maintain Town Roads Address Telecommunications Issues Consider Future Utility Needs Maintain and Enhance Community Spirit The Commission had a brief discussion regarding ridgeline control.
The Commission discussed the participation and input from other the other Town entities in the revision of the POCD. Ms. Braverman and Ms. Jahnke agreed that Tuesday, September 27th at 1 pm, the POCD Subcommittee would meet in the Land Use Meeting Room. At this meeting, they would like to have a report from each of the commission’s representatives as to what their group feels needs to be considered in the revision of the POCD.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Mr. Frank stated that he has gone through the latest draft of the Subdivision Regulations and has made comments and corrections and would like to discuss his changes with Ms. Hill.Mr. Frank discussed some the major issues he found in his review of the Subdivision Regulations.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.Public Comment
No one from the public was present.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:00 pm
by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Braverman.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: July 8, 2011 July 5, 2011
7:30 p.m.
Land Use Meeting RoomMembers Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Osborne
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Shelley White
Also Present:Ms. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:40 pm.
Seated: Roberts, Frank, Rimsky, Jahnke, GagerREGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of June 7, 2011 were considered.Motion:
to accept the June 7, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Plan of Conservation and Development:
Ms. Jahnke and Ms. Braverman stated that they have notified members of the POCD Subcommittee regarding a POCD Subcommittee meeting in August and that they would like them to continue to review the 2003 POCD on their own and consider topics that could be deleted from, addressed more thoroughly, and/or added to, the updated POCD. All Land Use Committee Chairpersons will be notified when the meeting is scheduled.The Commission briefly discussed the possibility of purchasing an electronic copy of the POCD. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this would be money well spent.
Mr. Carey stated that he has reviewed the current POCD and feels that the priorities of the Town have not changed but they need to consider where to place the emphasis.
Mr. Rimsky submitted a preliminary Timeline for Refinement of POCD. There was a discussion regarding public outreach and input. He stated that he would make a more detailed timeline and bring it to the next Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Carey stated that the issues the Town is facing could not be resolved by planning alone. Ms. Jahnke stated that the Planning Commission should acknowledge the issues. The Commission discussed different reasons as to why young families are not choosing to live in Washington and the State of Connecticut.
Mr. Carey stated that a member from the Steep Rock Association would come to a Planning Commission Meeting to show the most updated map of protected land in the Town.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Ms. Hill sent an email with the proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Frank stated that he looked at them and made a few changes and that he would sit down with Ms. Hill to go over the changes. He stated that he felt there should be a consistent use of terms throughout the document and some terms need to be defined.Ms. Gager stated that the Planning Commissions goal would be to have a public hearing in November so that the Revised Subdivision Regulations would be in effect by January 2012.
Mr. Frank stated that he would bring any content changes in the Subdivision Regulations back to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.Public Comment
No one from the public was present.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:55 pm by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Jahnke.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: June 18, 2011 June 7, 2011
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Osborne
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Chris Charles, Steve WadeltonMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Roberts, Frank, Rimsky, Jahnke, Carey, Alt. (for Gager)REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of May 3, 2011 were considered.Motion:
to accept the May 3, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Referral from Zoning/Revision of Zoning Regulations/New Section 17.8 and renumber following sections/Enlargement or Extension of a Non conforming Use:Mr. Frank gave a brief history of this referral. He stated that the Planning Commission did not approve the first referral sent to them from the Zoning Commission. He read the most recent proposed language submitted by the Zoning Commission and stated that he felt that, in his opinion, it was a good solution to the problem. Ms. Jahnke asked how many non conforming uses that are over 50 years old exist in Town. Ms. Hill stated that this was not known. There was a brief discussion regarding the conforming uses and non conforming setbacks in the Depot. There were no further questions or comments
Motion:
Resolved, that the Washington Planning Commission approves the proposed new section 17.8 of the Washington Zoning Regulations authorizing the grant of a Special Permit for enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use, which has existed continuously for no less than 50 years under certain circumstances. The Commission finds that this regulation is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development because, although it departs from the general policy restricting nonconforming uses, it is limited in its scope and is subject to procedures and standards for the granting of Special Permits contained in Section 13 of the Regulations. This resolution constitutes the report required by Section 8-3a of the Connecticut General Statutes,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.7:45 - Sarah Gager arrives and is seated.
Plan of Conservation and Development:
Ms. Roberts stated that she reviewed the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2011 and would like to discuss some of the recommendations made by Mr. Wood and that she would like the Commission to narrow down the key issues that they feel need to be addressed in the revised POCD. She asked that the Commissioners have their ideas ready for discussion at the Planning Commission’s Regular Meeting on July 5, 2011.Mr. Rimsky stated that he read an article about demographics in the northwest towns of Connecticut and apparently the whole region is experiencing the same issues as the Town of Washington. He suggested that the Planning Commission reach out to the neighboring towns and share resources.
Ms. Roberts stated that she feels the Planning Commission’s role is to make suggestions and not step on the toes of other town entities. Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels the Planning Commission should be able to voice the concerns of the town and address them.
Ms. Roberts stated that the 2003 POCD did not focus enough on the business community in Town.
Mr. Carey stated that the POCD should be revised with the future of the Town in mind. He stated that he has seen a map from Steep Rock that indicates protected areas of the Town and the Town has come close to its 30% goal. He stated that a member from the Steep Rock Association offered to come to a Planning Commission meeting to explain the map. He stated that the revised POCD should consider the previous goal of 30% protected areas when revising the POCD.
Ms. Baverman stated that the map would be helpful and that new mapping is a great expense to the Town.
There was a brief discussion regarding the relationship between the goal of 30% protected area and affordable housing.
Ms. Braverman and Ms. Jahnke stated that the Housing Commission and the Board of Education have been very vocal at the subcommittee meetings. The Conservation Commission made the suggestion to concentrate on a few key issues for the revision. Ms. Gager suggested that the representatives from each commission report on where there commission was at the beginning of the 2003 POCD, what has been accomplished, what still needs to be accomplished and what is no longer needed in the POCD. She also suggested that they bring a list of a couple of key issues that they feel should be addressed in the revision of the POCD. Ms. Roberts stated that this would help in starting a dialogue with the community.
Mr. Rimsky volunteered to create a timeline of goals for the Planning Commission to work towards to meet the deadline of the revised POCD. He stated that this would help specify what needs to be done by what date. Mr. Carey stated that the goals would need to be reprioritized and he feels the main concern of the Town is economics. Mr. Carey volunteered to look at the current POCD goals to see what has been done, what still needs to be done and what is irrelevant.
Discussion of Connecticut Statute 8-24 and Update POCD requested by Mr. Charles:
Mr. Charles was present to discuss the proposed pedestrian bridge at Hidden Valley. He stated that Selectman Lyon was able to get the DOT to commit to installing a pedestrian bridge along the existing bridge on route 47 that would be available to pedestrians, cyclists and horses. Mr. Charles stated that the Steep Rock Association submitted their own proposed plans for a pedestrian bridge because they felt that the proposed bridge from the DOT was visually unappealing but he does not feel that they have addressed pedestrian safety. He stated that Steep Rock did not reach out to the community or share their plans until they came to the Board of Selectmen on March 31st. He stated that the language of Statute 8-24, addresses municipal improvement and ‘abandoning a public way’ and he feels that the contracted DOT bridge is a public way. Mr. Charles stated that the Town would receive funds into an account to pay for the Steep Rock proposed bridge and those funds, he feels, are municipal funds and the Town is making an improvement, which is going to benefit the Town and he sees it as a municipal improvement. He read a letter that Atty. Miles sent to the Selectmen, that states that the land owned by Steep Rock is private property and they could control or prohibit public access to their properties with out the consent of the Town and that Statute 8-24 does not apply to this project. Mr. Charles asked if the Town really wants to gift the funds to an entity that could prevent the citizens’ access.Mr. Frank stated that the Planning Commission must deal with the state statute that addresses municipal improvement and he feels this bridge is a state facility.
Mr. Charles stated that he feels that his argument is based on the spirit of the law.
Mr. Carey stated that others have questioned as to whether a STEAP Grant should be spent on a private entity construction project because, theoretically, the purpose of this money is to benefit the maximum amount of taxpayers within a political boundary.
Mr. Rimsky stated that he agrees with Mr. Frank that this is not a Planning Commission issue. He stated that he feels that Steep Rock does control a large portion of property in the community and they do not always consider the concerns of the community and he feels they should.
Ms. Roberts stated that the Planning Commission has a role in the Town but it is not to run the Town.
Mr. Frank stated that the ultimate town’s people input was the vote on the STEAP Grant.
Communications
5/4/11 letter/Report from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies:
Ms. White stated that the report is online at www.yale.edu/gisf.
Public Comment
There were no further questions or comments from the public.
Administrative Business
Mr. Carey stated that there was nothing to report on the proposed cell tower at the Town Garage site or the mapping of the river.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:50 pm by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: April 10, 2011 April 5, 2011
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Mr. Frank
Members Absent: Ms. Gager
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Staff Present: Shelley White
Also Present: Selectman Nick SolleyMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Roberts, Jahnke, Frank, Rimsky, Carey, Alt. (for Gager)Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of March 1, 2010 were considered.
Corrections:
Page 5: 3rd paragraph: first sentence should read: Mr. Frank noted that the POCD is regulated by state statute…
8th paragraph, 1st sentence should read: Reporting again on the subcommittee meeting, Mrs. Braverman said the Zoning Commission wants the Board of Selectmen to take a proactive role and make recommendations for acceptable cell tower locations, but the Board was not inclined to do so.Motion:
to accept the March 1, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Birch Hill Run Subdivision/Acceptance of Town Road:
Mr. Solley stated that the Board of Selectmen met with Mr. Pappas an abutting property owner of Birch Hill Run. He stated that the Town would be going forth with the road. Mr. Solley and the Commissioners looked at the map titled Recommended Subdivision Map prepared for Birch Hill Run Inc., by Nexus Engineering Associates, sheet 1 of 4, dated March 26, 1991. Mr. Solley stated that Mr. Pappas asked the Selectmen to consider providing language, upon acceptance, that no developer could use the road for any other purposes. Mr. Solley stated that this would be unlikely. There was a brief discussion regarding some possible alternate solutions to satisfy Mr. Pappas’ concerns regarding the location and use of the road. Mr. Solley stated that the road is in, but a little offset, to the right of way. He stated that Mr. Pappas would have his property surveyed and get back to the Selectmen.Update: Referral/Section 8-24/Municipal Improvement/Proposed Cell Tower/10 Blackville Road
Mr. Solley stated that Mr. Markert and Mr. Comi are supposed to have a meeting. Ms. Roberts stated that the Planning Commission has had a site visit to the proposed cell tower site and are waiting to review the lease before endorsing the proposed site.Plan of Conservation and Development/Update/Economic Development/Subcommittee Report/Etc.
Ms. Braverman stated that the POCD Subcommittee had its second meeting on March 24th and will be meeting again on May 12th at 1 pm in the Land Use Meeting Room. She stated that representatives from the Board of Finance, Board of Education, and Housing Commission have talked about issues that the Town needs to address and that the majority of the representatives feel that these issues should be prioritized.Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that the Town is active in wanting to conserve the land but is also dealing with population issues and the Town would need to figure out what kind of community is wanted in terms of people and not solely in terms of appearance.
Ms. Roberts stated that she read the minutes from the POCD Subcommittee Meeting of 3-24-2011 and noted that one of the questions was whether the Planning Commission should deal with what now exists or look forward and make recommendations. She asked the Commissioners for comments. She stated that the POCD has not address education and the Planning Commission must decide if this element should be in the plan. Ms. Roberts suggested that the Commissioners write down all of their questions and consult experts in planning for advice.
Mr. Carey stated that he felt addressing the subject of education involves two other towns and the Town of Washington does not have the authority to consider what would be good for Bridgewater and Roxbury.
Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that it is not necessarily the issue of education that needs to be addressed, as it is the nature of the population that requires the education. He asked why the Town could not consider establishing a fund similar to the Open Space Fund for land available for long-term affordable leases and give tax breaks to individuals that want to donate land for this purpose. He stated that part of planning for the community is looking at the health of the population of the community.
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the infrastructure of the schools. Ms. Roberts stated that she feels it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to bring this crisis to the public’s attention. Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that if there is a problem with the growth of this community the Planning Commission should bring the issue to light. He stated that some members, including himself, have grown up in Washington, others have lived here for many years and he feels this connection with the community coupled with professional guidance would be helpful in revising the POCD to meet the Town’s needs.
Ms. Roberts stated that another concern that she has is that the Planning Commission tends to focus more on the Depot area. She feels that areas such as Woodville, Marbledale and New Preston must be considered in the POCD. There was a brief discussion regarding the changes that have occurred in these areas.
Ms. Jahnke stated most people do not feel comfortable with change and when something new is suggested progress is delayed because of the opposition or it ends with less than desirable final results. Mr. Frank read some excerpts from the Connecticut General Statutes 8-23 Plan of Conservation and Development and suggested that the Planning Commission seek professional advice regarding what the POCD should address and how narrow the statutes are. Mr. Rimsky stated that he agreed with Mr. Frank that the POCD should reflect the State Statutes.
Mr. Frank stated that he went to the Land Use Seminar given by the Connecticut Bar Association and he asked the attorney that presented the Planning portion of the seminar why most of the plans do not deal with education. He stated that the attorney responded that it was probably because the Board of Education is a creature of the State and not of the Towns.
Referral from Zoning Commission Petition to Amend Zoning Regs./Deletion of Section 13.13.4 – Minimum Apartment Size for Housing in the Business Districts(Apartments in Commercial Buildings):
Mr. Frank stated that the Zoning Commission amended section 13.10 Residential Conversion of Older Home in December by deleting section 13.10.3, which states the required minimum dwelling size for an apartment. The Housing Commission then petitioned to delete Section 13.13.4: Each apartment unit shall contain at least 550 square feet. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve this revision.Motion:
Resolved, that the Washington Planning Commission approves the proposed revision to Section 13.13.4 of the Washington Zoning Regulations as consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development because it promotes diversity of housing opportunities and supports economic growth. This resolution constitutes the report required by Section 8-3a of the Connecticut General Statutes.Referral from Inland Wetlands Commission Shoreline Protection Policies:
Mr. Frank stated that he feels the draft of Shoreline Protection Policies is protective of Lake Waramaug and other water bodies in Town.The Planning Commission has reviewed the referral from the Inland Wetlands Commission concerning shoreline protection and endorses the policy in its proposal, which furthers the goal of protection of Lake Waramaug and other important natural resources.
Public Comment
No one from the public was present.Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Administrative Business
Ms. Roberts asked that the Planning Commissioners draft questions regarding the revisions of the POCD and submit them to Ms. White by April 12th so that they may be discussed at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on May 3, 2011 in the Land Use Meeting Room.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:55pm by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Carey
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: April 2, 2011 March 24, 2011
Plan Of Conservation and Development Subcommittee
1:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomPresent: Ms. Braverman, Ms. Jahnke, Mr. Hileman, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Bedini, Mr. Templeton, Mr. Catlin, Ms. Payne
Staff Present: Shelley White
Also Present: Chris CharlesMs. Braverman called the Meeting to order at 1:11 pm.
Consideration of the Minutes
The committee members considered the Minutes of the February 17, 2011 POCD Subcommittee Meeting.
Corrections:
2nd page: 3rd Paragraph, 4th sentence should read: Mr. Templeton stated that there is a likelihood that the Town will lose some state funding…
4th page: Under Public Comment, 1st sentence should read: Mr. Charles stated that the Planning Commission did consult an engineer in the past and the engineer suggested an evaluation should be done to determine sewage potential in the Depot…Motion:
to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2011 POCD Subcommittee Meeting as amended,
by Mr. Hileman, seconded by Ms. Braverman, passed by 5-0 vote.
Regular Meeting:
Ms. Braverman read an email sent to her from Mr. Markert of the Conservation Commission who was unable to attend today’s meeting. In the letter Mr. Markert stated that legislation requiring the plan is written vaguely and it does not recommend an implementation plan that includes all town government bodies that must establish and adhere to time bound milestones. In his letter, Mr. Markert stated that he feels that the Town’s Commissions should have a level of commitment, which may not happen in one cycle and that he feels that if the Town could not move forward in that direction that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend much time on new plans. He stated that he thinks it is worth the effort to initiate a process that involves all functions of town government working together and making commitments to a limited number of high priority projects that are consistent with the strategic view of how the town is likely to develop. He stated he had researched other towns that have been successful with some of there planning goals and he found that these towns have done some of the following things and suggests that the Town of Washington may want to consider: 1. Have a specific town employee work with all of the town government entities to follow up on the deadlines and deliverables and generally help with implementation. 2. Extensive and constant communication to all government functions and citizens about progress, delays and changes. 3. Reduce the long catalogues of things each department and commission wanted to do. It is essential to have only a few high priorities to which everyone is committed. He stated that he feels that the Town has existing material to work with and does not need to have a planner to produce a plan that is useful. Mr. Markert also suggested that Janet Hill, Land Use Administrator be involved.
Ms. Braverman stated that she feels that all the commissions seem to be on the same page and that some priorities have been established already and this could be the starting point for the revision of the POCD.
Mr. Wadelton of the Inland Wetlands Commission stated that a group was formed to come up with a reasonable set of guidelines for development at the shoreline. He stated that a draft of these guidelines has been sent out to the other commissions and they are waiting to receive feedback.
Ms. Jahnke stated that she and Ms. Braverman thought that the Conservation Commissions side of the POCD was relatively complete and she asked for everyone else’s opinion. Ms. Payne of the Conservation Commission stated that they have been reviewing the Natural Resource Inventory Report because it is part of the POCD. She stated the Conservation Commission is in the process of going through the Implementation Guide in the POCD, discussing what has been done, what still needs to be done and what, if anything, should be added. She stated that the C.C. has discussed and is interested in the idea of cluster development and that they realize this would require regulation changes.
Mr. Hileman stated that the idea of cluster development is a good idea but questions whether it would work in the Town of Washington.
Ms. Braverman stated that it is clear that one of the main issues is housing. She stated there aren’t many options for families starting out. Mr. Hileman distributed an outline created by the Washington Housing Commission for a Study on the Creation of New Residential Zones for Washington and another sheet that contains the United States Census Bureau Population and Housing Data for Washington, CT. He stated that the data indicates that the Town of Washington lost over 300 people in the passed 20 years but gained 268 houses. He stated that 2/3 of the people that left town were children. He stated that the percentage of weekend homes is increasing and the Housing Commission estimates that it is approximately ¼ to 1/5 of the houses in Washington. The committee members had a brief discussion regarding the population impact on town services. Mr. Hileman stated that the Housing Commission is still doing research and is not prepared at the moment to present a formal proposal to the Zoning Commission regarding the creation of a new residential zone.
Mr. Templeton stated that he feels there must be a way to plan for the community somewhere in the middle between hard economic times and booming economic times. Mr. Hileman stated that most of the foreclosures is town were million dollar homes. Mr. Templeton stated that these foreclosures could possibly become a burden to the community.
Mr. Bedini, from the Board of Education, stated that he attended a presentation on Monday where the Curriculum Director spoke about the crisis in Region 12. He stated that the population continues to decrease in the High School and soon there will be too few kids in the class to provide programs and when the school starts dropping these programs, parents start to pull their kids out of the school to put them somewhere else. He stated other schools have the teachers, space and kids so they offer more programs. There was a brief discussion regarding price of tuition at Shepaug and other schools. Mr. Bedini stated that the Curriculum Director suggested that an option would be to add grades 13, 14 and 15 operating somewhat like a small community college and it would provide A.P. courses for high school students. He stated that it would be beneficial to have data that goes back 10 years to see the trends in the student population. Mr. Hileman stated that the Housing Commission has researched the enrollment of schools in Washington and they found that from 1985 to approximately 2003 the enrollment was consistently up and down but in the last 7years has steadily decreased. He stated that the number of students that are not enrolled in public school in the Town of Washington has remained consistent at about ±20%. He stated that the Region’s current private schooling percentage is 22%.
Mr. Bedini stated that another option is to combine grades 2 & 3 and 4& 5 in some of the elementary schools. Ms. Payne stated that she feels that that is not necessarily a bad thing. Mr. Bedini stated that people have mixed opinions and that some of the teachers feel that it will slow things down. There was a brief discussion about the populations of the three towns in Region 12. Mr. Bedini stated that it was recommended to have all grades in one building. He stated that one of the three towns could petition the Board of Education to put together a committee that would be made up of representatives from each town to discuss the future of the region, whether it is wanted, do all three towns want to be part of the region or maybe two towns are part of the region. He stated that this conversation needs to happen and it could happen without petitioning the B.O.E. but the people must be open-minded.
Mr. Templeton stated that he feels in order for each town to have a contingency built into the education system it would be necessary to have centralized schools then the school system would be better equipped to address the fluctuations in the student population. Mr. Catlin stated that he thought the reason behind the consolidation of the schools was financial and he feels that, considering conversations that he has had with other people in Town, they think the same. He stated that he feels something needs to be done to educate the public about the crisis in the education system and what their options are. Mr. Bedini stated that the B.O.S. and the Board of Finance of the three towns are working together and that he agreed that the parents and public need to be educated and get involved. Ms. Payne stated that there isn’t a local newspaper to keep the Washington residents informed.
Ms. Payne stated that she feels that a great amount of work was done on the Depot Study and it provides valuable information that should be reviewed and that she feels that Mr. Talbot has done some visionary thinking for the Town on what could happen in the Depot. Ms. Payne stated that she feels that the coordination of all the commissions, and all of them working together is important and that the economic development is an important piece of the Town’s planning.
There was a brief discussion about the Town website.
Ms. Braverman stated that the Housing Commission did not exist when the current POCD was created. Mr. Hileman stated that the Housing Commission is basically an advisory group and he feels it operates as a permanent subcommittee of the Planning Commission. He stated that they are not the Housing Trust and do not want to duplicate their efforts and that the Housing Commission’s job is to study the information and make recommendations.
Ms. Braverman stated that it is the intention of the Planning Commission to consider the Depot Study.
Ms. Braverman stated that Education was not included in the current POCD and the Planning Commission feels that it should be addressed in the revised POCD.
Mr. Hileman stated that he attended the last Planning Commission Meeting where they discussed focusing on economic development. He stated the Housing Commission feels that more small houses around the Depot would be good for the businesses in Town. He stated that they have noticed a trend of a decrease of full time stores and an increase in part-time stores that seem to cater to the weekend/part-time residents.
Public Comment
Mr. Charles talked about the benefits of the Conservation Easement in an Open Space Subdivision.There will be a follow up meeting for the POCD Subcommittee on Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 1:00pm at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 2:32 pm by Ms. Braverman.Ms. Braverman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 9, 2011 March 1, 2011
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Gager
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Hileman, Mr. SolleyMrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Roberts, Frank, Jahnke, and Rimsky and Alternate Braverman for Ms. Gager.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 1/4/11 Regular Meeting minutes as written.
By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, and passed 5-0.
MOTION:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
1) Referral from the IWC re: shoreline protection policies and 2) update on floodplain mapping.
By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mrs. Braverman, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Referral from Inland Wetlands Commission/Shoreline Protection Policies:
The draft document addressing shoreline protection policies was circulated. The commissioners will review it and discuss it at the next meeting.Birch Hill Run Subdivision/Acceptance of Town Road:
The 1991 subdivision map by Nexus Engineering, 4 sheets, was reviewed. The location of the property was noted and Mr. Solley, Selectman, pointed out the Phase I section of road that was actually completed. Ordinance 4.13 on the acceptance of roads by the Town and the 1991 Planning Commission minutes, which indicated both the applicant and the Commission expected the road would be accepted as a Town road, were referred to. Mr. Solley explained that although residents on Birch Hill Run want the road to be accepted by the Town, the current subdivision owner does not because he fears it could then be used for access to a potential future subdivision on adjoining property. Mr. Solley noted that Washington does not allow private roads and that more than half of the lots on the portion of completed road have been developed. In preparation for a vote at a Town Meeting to accept Birch Hill Run as a Town road, he asked the Commission for a letter of support. A lengthy discussion followed regarding why hadn't the road been accepted already and what would happen if it was voted down at the Town Meeting. Mr. Solley stated the road had been built to the required standards of The Town Road Specifications Ordinance, currently needed to be chip sealed, but otherwise was in good condition. It was the consensus of the commissioners that the Commission could not have approved the subdivision in 1991 if it had not included a Town road. Mr. Rimsky thought it would set a bad precedent if this matter was not dealt with appropriately. The commissioners agreed that when the Board of Selectmen has scheduled a Town Meeting for a vote to accept Birch Hill Run as a Town road, it will send a letter of support.Update/Referral from Board of Selectmen/Section 8-24/Municipal Improvement/Proposed Cell Tower:
Mr. Solley said there had been little progress since the last meeting. Mr. Frank noted that the Commission wanted to review the final draft of the proposed lease before commenting on the tower.Update/Floodplain Mapping:
Mr. Solley advised the commissioners that the 2 ft. contour map was finished and available for review in the Selectmen's Office. The contours will be compared with those on the current FEMA maps and if there are significant differences, FEMA will be challenged. Mr. Carey noted the 2 ft. contour map includes a lot of detail and could be used in connection with other existing maps to show all of the Depot from Cook Street to the firehouse on one A2 map. He also noted that later in the spring when there is no more flooding, the surveyor would locate the riparian edges on the map. All agreed that accurate maps were needed in order to discuss future plans for the Depot.Report on 1/28/11 the Connecticut Main Street Center's Workshop on Downtown Revitalization (and POCD):
Mrs. Jahnke, Ms. Gager, and Mrs. Hill had attended the day long workshop. Mrs. Jahnke noted that many Ct. towns have problems similar to Washington's and have come up with innovative solutions. Mrs. Hill reported her impressions of the economic development study the NW Collaborative had done for the towns in the NW corner. She said the study had included issues such as demographics, retail analysis, retail and commercial surveys, village center analysis, review of how each town related to the whole NW corner, carbon footprints, gateways, regional strategy councils, town economic leadership councils, marketing and promotion, and broadening the definition of transit oriented development to include feet and bikes. She thought there was much to consider when drafting a chapter on economic development for the POCD, noted no one on the commission had a background in economic development, and so strongly recommended that the Commission hire a consultant to guide this work. The discussion progressed to the Plan of Conservation and Development.Plan of Conservation and Development/Subcommittee Report, Budget, Etc.
Mr. Rimsky said there were economic problems unique to Washington due to the configuration of its village centers and their disparate interests and agreed the Commission was limited in its ability to work on solutions due to its lack of economic knowledge. He suggested there may be people in the community with the expertise to help and said the Commission should ask for volunteers. He also thought it would be a good idea if the business community had a vested interest in the Plan's recommendations for economic solutions. Mr. Frank suggested the Planning Commission join the NW Collaborative so it could draw upon its resources. Mr. Carey questioned whether economic development was under the charge of the Commission and also noted that some components of the current Plan were outdated. He said that education was the major source of employment in Town and so the Plan should be supportive of it.Mrs. Braverman began a summary of the subcommittee committee meeting and noted the minutes were posted on the website. Mr. Hileman, chairman of the Housing Commission, and Mr. Bedini, Board of Education, had attended and had spoken at length regarding housing and education issues. (See 2/17/11 minutes for specific discussion.) She said Mr. Hileman had suggested that new residential zones be established surrounding the existing village centers. He said these zones would allow denser development, which would bring down housing costs and strengthen the centers.
There was a discussion about specific educational issues. Mr. Bedini said a major problem was how to educate the pubic about regional school district problems. He cited specific examples such as declining enrollment, cost per student, enormous cost of operating the district, terrible disrepair of the facilities, etc. The difficulty of trying to get the three towns in the district to work together to tackle problems was noted. He also said that it was a misconception that because all three towns must agree, the regional plan could not be changed. He said he had spoken with state senators who said the state laws can be revised. Mrs. Roberts asked how he thought the Planning Commission could help. Mr. Bedini thought the Commission should understand that the school buildings are "in crisis" and that there is now a "disconnect" between the school system and Town government.
Mrs. Hill referred back to the broader issue of updating the Plan. First she noted the poor public reception of the 2005 charrette and the Depot Study report as it was thought it had gone too far and that it encouraged the development of the Depot. Then she noted her surprise when she had heard at the subcommittee meeting comments that the POCD had not gone far enough and did not address all of the issues that it should have, and that the Commission had not worked hard enough to implement the recommendations it did make. She thought one of the first things the Commission should do when updating the Plan was to decide whether it would deal with what now exists in Town and make recommendations based on current trends or whether it would try to direct policies and make recommendations that would help shape the future.
Mr. Rimsky thought it was important to take a pragmatic approach and to advise the public of the ongoing problems with housing, demographics, education, and the economy in Town. Mrs. Braverman thought the Commission should be proactive. Mr. Carey said a strong document containing both the facts and the major problems was needed. Mr. Frank said the Plan should describe current conditions, but look forward and make recommendations about what should be done. He said the Commission must collect, understand, and evaluate all relevant information before making recommendations in the Plan.
Mr. Rimsky noted that he had spoken with several business owners who want the Town to focus more on its relationship and communication with the business community. He said the Town is not paying attention to its economic component, which in turn, impacts all who live here.
Mr. Hileman stated that all of the issues discussed tonight were interconnected; the Commission could not just deal with one in isolation. He said that Region 12 was the Town's second largest employer and so the Town must plan for its future. He said he knew education was not traditionally addressed in the Plan, but said these were not traditional times. He thought the upcoming Plan was more important than the previous Plans of the last 30 years.
Mr. Hileman addressed the issue of housing. He noted that how the Commission deals with it must change because there is no longer any state funding available. He urged the Commission to address the housing problem, not the "affordable" housing problem, in Town since there are opportunities for families earning less than $60,000 per year, but none for families earning between $60,000 and $150,000. He said this was the most serious problem as the Town's declining population impacts the others and the quality of life. He suggested the Planning Commission could help start to restore the balance by presenting a Plan that could guide the Town forward.
Mr. Hileman complained that 76 pages of the 2003 Plan had addressed open space/rural character issues, while only 9 pages addressed people. He thought people were the most important component of the Town's character, not land preservation.
Mr. Frank noted that the POCD is authorized by state statute and he did not know whether towns were authorized to include topics such as education.
Mr. Bedini pointed out that in his experience in other Ct. towns planning commissions wielded more "power" than the other commissions. He wondered why the Washington Planning Commission could not be more influential in establishing the Town's goals and implementing regulations to achieve them. He suggested the town commissions and Board of Selectmen should work together under the direction of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rimsky responded that the Town is like a multi million dollar business and so the Commission should try to think more like a corporation. He noted that Planning does express its opinion at public hearings, but was often frustrated when it puts forth sound ideas that are not acted upon.
Mrs. Roberts thought Planning was obliged to state where the Commission thinks the Town should be heading. She said Planning was willing to take on this responsibility.
Mr. Hileman thought the Town was equipped to deal with its problems because so many talented people live here. He said once the Town's current state of affairs was evaluated, the people could all work together to achieve the Town's goals. Mrs. Roberts agreed that more focus is needed to bring attention to the issues and to speed up the process of working on solutions. Mr. Bedini stated that both a strategic plan and an implementation plan were needed.
Reporting again on the subcommittee meeting, Mrs. Braverman said the Zoning Commission wants the Board of Selectmen to take a proactive role and make recommendations for acceptable cell tower locations, but the Board was not willing to do so. She noted a second subcommittee meeting will be held on March 23.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of Zoning Regulations Re: Youth Camps:
Mr. Frank reported that the Zoning Commission had consulted with its attorney who advised that it could either proceed with the proposal to define youth camp and allow it by Special Permit in the R-1 District or take a broader approach to revise the Regulations to allow the expansion of grandfathered non conforming uses by Special Permit. The Zoning Commission thought the broader approach had merit because it was not specific to one site and it will continue to discuss it at its next meeting. Mr. Frank noted that recently the Planning Commission had voted three times against revisions to the Zoning Regulations that had been proposed by the Zoning Commission. He thought the two commissions should work more closely together and suggested the Planning Commission be part of the revision process before proposed language is finalized so that it is not put in the position of having to take an adversarial position against Zoning. Mr. Rimsky thought the two commissions might meet together once a month. Mrs. Roberts asked Mr. Frank to discuss this with Mr. Owen, Zoning chairman, before the next meeting.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations:
Mrs. Hill asked the commissioners to review the latest draft for the next meeting and recommended this work be completed before work begins in earnest on the update of the POCD.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: February 28, 2011 February 17, 2011
Plan Of Conservation and Development Subcommittee
1:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomPresent: Ms. Braverman, Ms. Jahnke, Mr. Hileman, Mr. Owen, Mr. Wadleton, Mr. Bedini, Mr. Templeton, Todd Catlin
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Chris CharlesMs. Braverman called the Meeting to order at 1:13 pm.
Regular Meeting
Ms. Braverman requested that each committee representative express their concerns and provide input for the revision of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Hileman was present to represent the Housing Commission. He stated that the Housing Commission did not exist when the current POCD was written. He stated that the Housing Commission feels that Chapter 5, Guide House Development would have to be rewritten because none of the issues apply to the present day needs of housing in the Town of Washington. Mr. Hileman stated that the section entitled Encourage Conservation Subdivision Design does not apply to the needs of the Town. He stated that it has not happened yet and he feels that it won't happen because there would be no incentive for a developer. Mr. Owen stated that he agreed. Mr. Hileman stated that the idea of cluster development is a good one but it would need to be in an area that is close to a town center. Mr. Hileman stated that the Housing Commission has identified two demographic groups that are in need of housing opportunities in the Town: 1. Middle class families, and 2. Seniors. He stated that middle class families are, for the most part, the source of the student body and these families are leaving the Town of Washington. He stated that the student enrollment has decreased by 20% in the passed seven years and is slated to decrease another 30% in the next ten years. There was a discussion regarding the expense of running a school system that is operating a 50-80% capacity. Mr. Hileman stated that the per pupil cost is high because the schools are only 2/3 full. He stating that affordable housing for these families is a part of the whole issue as to why families are unable to reside in Town. Mr. Owen stated that he feels that another factor in the decrease of families with children would be that there are families that live in Washington and their kids have grown up and left the family home. Mr. Hileman stated that the two demographics that the Housing Commission has identified do not have the same needs. He stated the younger families would like to get in to the Town and the older 'empty nesters' want to stay but down size. There was a discussion regarding the difficulties of keeping up with both the young/middle class families and seniors needs. Mr. Owen suggested that the POCD should consider the ideal projected population of the Town. Ms. Hill stated that cluster development was only one suggestion that was mentioned in the POCD. She stated that she feels that both older couples and young families could see the benefit of having a house on a smaller, more manageable size lot and would enjoy living close to neighbors and having open space to play or walk dogs, etc. Mr. Hileman stated that the Housing Commission would like to see an new residential zone that would allow for smaller houses to be built on smaller lots ideally near a village center. He stated that the H.C. collected data on the new housing growth in Town over the last 20 years and the median house size is 2800 sq. ft. on 5.3 acres and the average house size is 3500 sq. ft. on 13 acres. The Housing Commission feels that ten houses a year is a healthy number of houses for the Town but the scale and location of the houses that are being built is a concern. Mr. Hileman stated that one of the goals in the POCD is to develop housing around the village centers but the Zoning Regulations make this difficult because streets near the village centers are zoned the same as roads that are further out in Town. Mr. Owen stated that he agrees with Mr. Hileman but that the issues of septic and flood plain in the Depot would require new infrastructure. Mr. Hileman stated that the Housing Commission would like to see a residential only zone that would have adjusted density requirements. Mr. Owen stated that there should be an established need before adjusting the regulations to create a new zone.
Mr. Bedini was present to represent the Board of Education. He stated that the school system operates at about $54,711 a day 365 days a year and the Town of Washington pays $25,200 of that daily total. Mr. Bedini stated that the three primary school buildings and Shepaug Valley Middle/High School building are deteriorating and the student population is decreasing. He stated that Region 12 has 931 students in grades K-12 and this enrollment is projected to decrease to 639 by 2020 and the cost per student is around $20,000 a year and will increase to above $25,000 a year if the projected enrollment is correct. Ms. Jahnke stated that the Planning Commission should plan for the decrease in population. Mr. Bedini stated whether the region has 200 kids or 100 kids in a building the operating expenses are the same. He stated that the Board of Education, the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance for Roxbury, Bridgewater and Washington have met and one subject that was discussed was the legal question regarding changes to the original agreement and whether it has to be voted on by all three towns and all three towns have to have a majority vote. He stated that another impediment is figuring out how to inform the residents of how bad the deterioration of the buildings are in Region 12. The committee discussed the per student cost. Mr. Hileman stated that the enrollment could increase by 200 students today and the schools would be able to take them without any additional costs but the percentage of that cost that the Town of Washington pays would increase. He stated that he feels the problem is viability because the region would be operating at 1/2 its capacity with the projected 639 students. Mr. Hileman stated that he feels strongly that the future of Region 12 should be addressed in the POCD. Mr. Bedini stated that the region is in crisis at this time. There was a brief discussion regarding Region 12 CMT scores compared to the other surrounding districts. The committee briefly discussed the options of consolidation, merging regions, etc. Mr. Templeton stated that he feels that the Town needs to look at things that the Town of Washington can influence.
Mr. Templeton was present to represent the Board of Finance. He stated that the Board of Finance believes that every span of time has a lot of unforeseen eventualities and the POCD should allow flexibility because the Town doesn't want to create a plan that promises things that may not happen. He stated that he feels that the POCD should have a prioritized list of things that must be done and things that "would be nice to do." Mr. Templeton stated that the Town is going to lose a lot of state funding but the Board of Finance feels that Washington is in good fiscal condition right now. He stated that people should contact representatives in Hartford and tell them that the Region 12 agreement is not working.
Mr. Bedini stated that Mr. Templeton has some good points and that the Board of Education went to some of the state senators and representatives during the school consolidation discussions and they told them that if the BOE could get agreement between the three towns that the legislation could be changed. He stated the BOE has convened a long-term planning commission and that they are looking for people that could help out with putting together a strategy. He stated that he feels that the short-term crisis situation needs to be addressed as well.
Mr. Owen was present to represent the Zoning Commission. He stated that Section E, Telecommunications of the Zoning Regulations should be revised. He stated that in terms of the state law the Town needs a position on location of the cell towers. He stated that the existing Section E is extensive but has no legal meaning. He stated that the Town Attorney advised him that the town has a voice as to where they would like to locate cell towers and this could be presented to the Connecticut Siting Council. He stated that he feels this should come from the Board of Selectmen and/or the Planning Commission and it should state the Town's position. Mr. Owen stated that the Town is advisory regarding the input of locating cell towers. He stated that the CSC would consider alternative sites but a Town could not deny a proposed tower without proposing an alternative site.
Mr. Catlin was present to represent the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that the ZBA operates in direct relation to the Zoning Commission.
Mr. Wadleton was present to represent the Inland Wetlands Commission. He stated that the IWCs responsibilities are extremely limited, strictly defined, and each application is treated individually. He stated that there are guidelines that must be followed to either approve or deny a specific application. Mr. Wadleton stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission is the only commission that is required by the state law and they are charged with balancing the landowner's rights to do what they want on their property versus protecting the wetlands and watercourses of the State while also considering maintaining sustainable communities and reasonable healthy economic growth. There was a brief discussion regarding legal suits against the town commissions. Mr. Hileman asked if the IWC sees the need for the POCD to address the need for more legal advice or training. Mr. Bedini stated that it would be helpful if the POCD addressed some of the issues in the Lake Waramaug District. Ms. Hill stated that in response to the current POCD the Zoning Commission did increase the Lake Waramaug District and provide more protection for the whole Lake Waramaug watershed. She stated that Inland Wetlands Commissions are offered statewide training by the DEP that the commissioners are expected to attend which they have. Ms. Braverman asked if the Lake Waramaug Task Force worked with the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Wadleton stated that they consult with them occasionally.
2:30 Mr. Hileman leaves.
Public Comment
Mr. Charles stated that the Planning Commission did consult an engineer in the past to evaluate the sewage potential in the Depot and that the Town would also need a water system. Mr. Charles stated that the Dan Esty was appointed the Commissioner of DEP and Energy. He stated that the POCD has not addressed economic development in any substantial way and that he thinks the evolution of environment, energy and economic development is interesting. Mr. Wadleton stated that he agreed that economic development should be addressed. Ms. Braverman stated that the Planning Commission has discussed economic development and viability. There was a brief discussion regarding the existing businesses and the businesses that have left the Town.
Mr. Wadleton stated that there are many empty units in his condominium complex that are in 'move in' condition and he hears that older people want to downsize but these units stay on the market. Mr. Templeton stated that this is where flexibility would be necessary and that affordable housing is a great idea but not if people don't want to move in to it.
There will be a follow up meeting for the POCD Subcommittee on Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 1:00pm at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 2:50 pm by Ms. Braverman, seconded by Mr. Owen.
Ms. Braverman adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted, Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: January 9, 2011 January 4, 2011
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Mr. Frank
Members Absent: Ms. Gager
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet HillMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:40 pm.
Seated: Roberts, Jahnke, Frank, Braverman, Alt. (for Rimsky), Carey, Alt. (for Gager)Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of December 7, 2010 were considered.
Corrections:
Page 1: Under Preliminary Discussion re: proposed cell tower lease on Town Property: 1st paragraph:
Atty. David Myles should read: Atty. David Miles
Town should seek council should read: Town should seek counsel
Page 2: 1st paragraph:
Sentence beginning with: The Town should control…should read: The Town should control the height of the tower by…
Sentence beginning with: Mr. Lyon stated an RF Engineer…should read: Mr. Lyon stated an RF Engineer was hired to do a study that contains radio frequency emission figures that are…
2nd paragraph: 1st sentence should read: Mr. Carey asked if there would be a provision in the lease that provides for the site to be restored if the tower was deactivated.
Page 3: Under Other Business Plan of Conservation and Development /Economic Development, second paragraph, sentence beginning with: Mr. Rimsky stated…should read: Mr. Rimsky stated that the existing topography could affect the centers…Motion:
to accept the December 7, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Roberts, passed by 5-0 vote.7:45 pm Mr. Rimsky arrives and is seated.
Minutes of 12/17/10 Site Inspection
Motion:
to accept the December 17, 2010 Special Meeting – Site Inspection Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Roberts, Passed by 5-0 vote.
Subsequent Business
Motion:
to add Election of Officers to the agenda,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Plan of Conservation and Development/Economic Development/Other Topics
Ms. Roberts suggested that Ms. Jahnke and Ms. Braverman meet with Ms. Hill, Land Use Coordinator to work on the agenda for the POCD Subcommittee. Ms. Gager has sent a list of members of the Land Use Commissions that have volunteered to be part of the subcommittee.Ms. Roberts stated that Mr. Talbot discussed his concern that the Planning Commission would focus the revisions of the POCD on the Depot area and that he feels that the Woodville area should be taken into consideration. The Commission discussed the changes in Zoning of the Woodville area. Mr. Rimsky stated that it is important for the Town to look at the Woodville area for mixed/commercial use. Mr. Carey stated that the designated scenic road would be an additional hurdle for development. The Commission discussed the commercial zones of Marbledale and New Preston. Ms. Hill stated that she felt Mr. Talbot’s main concern was that there should be a Town build-out analysis and that soil-based zoning hinders the development of denser vibrant village centers. She stated that she thought that he wanted the build-out analysis so that he would know how many possible building lots were in Town and then allow a property owner to transfer development rights to enable denser development of the village centers. Mr. Rimsky stated that the Open Space Ad Hoc Committee talked about a projected build-out analysis and the ad hoc committee layered maps to get an idea of how a build-out would look. Ms. Roberts stated that the current mapping of the Town would be useful. Mr. Frank stated that he read that the Town of Kent asked the University of Connecticut to do a build-out analysis. Mr. Rimsky volunteered to research what mapping data is available to the Town and how it could be utilized in Planning.
Ms. Hill, by request of Mr. Charles, distributed a letter to the Planning Commissioners, written by Mr. C. Charles, addressed to Mr. George Bender (Chairman of Planning at the time), dated November 13, 2001.
Referral from Zoning Commission
Revision of Zoning Regulation/Section 4.4.19 & 21.1.69/Addition of a) Youth Camp as a Use Permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District and b) a Definition of Youth Camp:Mr. Franks stated that at its November Meeting, the Planning Commission did not approve the first referral from the Zoning Commission regarding camps. He read the report that was sent to the Zoning Commission that states why the Planning Commission did not approve this referral and the Commission’s recommendations to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Frank read sections of the Zoning Meeting Minutes from the November 22, 2010 meeting in response to the Planning Commission’s report. Mr. Frank read the Zoning Commission’s revised referral. He discussed the changes in the language. Mr. Franks stated that he feels a camp is a major commercial enterprise, that there is activity noise, traffic, P.A. systems and that “this is a one camp problem and request but the cure goes to the entire district.” He stated that he feels that this would be inconsistent with the policy of preserving rural character and the statement of purpose in the R-1 Zoning Regulations. Ms. Hill stated that camps are not a permitted use in the R-1 district but this camp was grandfathered in and now the owners would like to expand but they cannot because it is a nonconforming use. The Commission briefly discussed why the owners could not get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Frank read his proposed resolution. The Commission unanimously adopted Mr. Frank’s proposed resolution.
Motion:
Resolved:
That the Planning Commission does not approve the proposed revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations (section 4.4.19 and 21.1.69 relating to Youth Camps) as written because it finds that such revisions are not consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. They are contrary to the goal of preservation of rural character because they would permit the operation of such commercial enterprises throughout the R-1 Farming and Residential District and are inconsistent with the Statement of Purpose contained in Section 4.1 of the Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission again recommends as an alternative that a regulation restricted to the expansion of non-conforming uses by the single existing summer camp be considered. This resolution constitutes the report required by Section 8-3a of the Connecticut General Statutes,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.Birch Hill Road/Acceptance as Town Road
Ms. Hill stated that Selectman Solley wanted to talk to the Planning Commission about Birch Hill Road being accepted as a Town Road but he was not in attendance. There was a brief discussion regarding the location and history of Birch Hill Road. The Commission agreed to defer this subject until the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 1, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall.Referral from Zoning Commission
Revision of Zoning Regulation/New Section 2.4 Re: Public Hearing Submissions:
The Commission agreed to defer this subject until the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 1, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall.Referral/Section 8-24/Municipal Improvement/Proposed Cell Tower/10 Blackville Rd.
Mr. Carey stated that the First Selectman informed him that the Town would be meeting with representatives from Verizon and the consultants and he hoped that the remaining questions regarding the lease would be answered on Thursday. Mr. Frank stated that the Planning Commission should consider that bringing cell phone coverage into the Depot would provide cell service to emergency services and could enhance the village center. Mr. Rimsky stated that, in principle, bringing cell phone service into the Depot would benefit the Town. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that they would like a more concrete lease to review before an 8-24 report is drafted and that this discussion will be continued at the next meeting.
Public Comment
No one from the public was present.
Communications
Ms. Hill stated that she, Ms. Gager and Ms. Jahnke have registered to attend the Connecticut Main Street Seminar at the end of this month.
Administrative Business
Ms. Roberts stated that she has submitted a list of suggestions for the Alternate position to the First Selectman.
Election of Officers
Motion:
to re elect the present slate of officers,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:50 pm
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Rimsky.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Meetings in 2010