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
August 3 •July 6 •June 21 •June 1 •May 4 •April 6 •March 2 •February 2 •January 5 •Previous years: 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: August 9, 2010 August 3, 2010
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent: Ms. Gager
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent: Mr. Fowlkes
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Mr. Solley, Mr. CharlesMs. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:34 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, CareyPUBLIC HEARING
There were no public hearings scheduled.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of July 6, 2010 were considered.
There was a brief discussion regarding a quote from Mr. Fowlkes.Motion:
to accept the July 6, 2010, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote
Subsequent Business
Motion:
to include subsequent business on the agenda under section VI. Other Business to discuss Flood Plain Mapping Process with Selectman Solley,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to include subsequent business on the agenda under section VI. Other Business to discuss the Walker Brook Subdivision,
by Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations/Review of Archaeological Map
Mr. Frank stated that he has done a little work on the revisions. He referred to section 1.2 of the Subdivision Regulations that contains general-purpose statements that provide for the orderly development of the Town in accordance with the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Frank read these statements and the addition suggested by Mr. Martin Connor. He stated that he felt that this addition by Mr. Connor was too specific to include in the general-purpose statements. Mr. Frank noted that there were terms that were defined and only used once within the regulations and he feels that in this case the term should be defined at the location it is used and that all defined terms should be capitalized throughout the document. There was a brief discussion regarding the importance of State Plane Coordinates. The Commission discussed family transfer exemptions and agreed that this matter should be looked at more closely. Mr. Frank stated that he, Ms. Gager and Ms. Hill would look over the rest of the revisions and create a comprehensive list of questions for Atty. Zizka. There was a brief discussion regarding the State Statutes regarding adjacent/adjoining property owner notification.Mr. Charles commented that there is nothing that prevents the Planning Commission from listing standards for an application submitted under 8-30-g, however, the Planning Commission could not enforce these standards, “but if a developer sees a clear path that the town will support, it would much rather come in conforming to what the town says it would accept because there is less fear of being denied and having to go appeal through the courts.”
Discussion of Flood Plain Mapping
Selectman Nick Solley was present to report on the discussions that he, 1st Selectman Lyon, Ms. Gager and Mr. Carey had regarding the Request for Proposal for the Depot Flood Plain Study. He stated that Lenard Engineering recommended photogrammetric mapping of the river basin, which Mr. Solley felt would be “financially prudent, and give us (the Town) a far broader spectrum” than only the 2-3 acres at 10 Titus Road. Mr. Solley submitted Lenard Engineering’s base bid (on file in the Land Use Office), which includes estimates for mapping the Shepaug River from 1,000 feet upstream of the Route 47 Bridge (near the Fire House) to 2,500 feet downstream of the Washington Primary School, totaling 12,500 feet. Two alternate bids were included that give the option of adding an additional 7,000 feet and 13,000 feet. He stated that this type of mapping would give a cross section of the area specified and the engineers will be able to determine where the flood plain is on either side of the river. Mr. Solley stated that this bid for the aerial photography and the engineering is estimated at approximately $30,000. He stated that over approximately three years the total cost of this project may total $50,000- $60,000. The second phase of the project would be to take the information that was gathered in phase 1 and either refute FEMAs maps or compare the information that FEMA has to this newly collected data. It was the consensus of the Commission that Lenard Engineering should be asked for a specific job description for this second phase. Mr. Carey stated that FEMA claims that they periodically update their maps and it is an ongoing project. Mr. Solley stated that this method of mapping has been used for years and has been proved accurate. He stated that the fly over would take place in either the November/December or March/April time period and the Selectman would continue to update the Planning Commission and eventually request money to help fund this project. Ms. Jahnke briefly discussed the Watts Fund as a possible source of additional funds.8:20 pm. Selectman Solley leaves.
Plan of Conservation and Development /Economic Development
Ms. Roberts asked the Planning Commission members to consider how much emphasis there should be on Economic Development with the revisions of the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Rimsky stated that he has gathered, from his interviews with the businesses in Town, that the businesses feel that the Town could assist in improving the commercial environment with more events such as Christmas in the Depot. The Commission briefly discussed how the Town and businesses could reach out to the community. Mr. Rimsky suggested that a Town directory of services and businesses would be useful. Ms. Roberts asked that the Commissioners to come to the next meeting with a list of suggestions of how to bring the community together. Ms. Hill stated that the new POCD is not due until December 2013 and she suggested that the Commission consider how much they would like to change about the current POCD and possibly hire an expert to come to a single meeting to guide the Commission. The Commission agreed that the POCD is good but needs to be reinforced and strengthened. Mr. Carey stated that it is important that the POCD look 10 years ahead and realistically update what is important to the Town while protecting the school system, open space, and rural character. The Commission agreed that they should go through the lists in the back of the POCD and figure out what has been accomplished, what has not been done and what is still part of this Town’s goals.Discussion of Walker Brook Subdivision
Mr. Carey stated, it is his understanding, that there were three investors for this property and one has dropped out. He stated that he believes that the two investors that remain do not have the money to proceed and the project is now stalled.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Public Comment
Mr. Charles stated that he believes that the same entity that bought the Walker Brook Road Subdivision also bought the McGugan farm. He briefly mentioned the erosion issue was as a result of the road installation at the Walker Brook Subdivision property. Mr. Charles stated that he attended this meeting because he is interested in how the update of the POCD is proceeding. He discussed two recent controversial applications and stated that a better and more detailed understanding of how these proposed uses would impact the community would have been beneficial to the community. He encourages the Community to respond and voice their concerns regarding what they would like to see in the POCD.
Adjournment
Motion: To adjourn at 9:05 pm by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: July 24, 2010 July 6, 2010
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager
Members Absent: Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Mr. Szymanski, Ms. FriedmanMs. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:32 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Gager, Carey, FowlkesPUBLIC HEARING
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mr. Paul Szymanski, Engineer was present to represent Ms. Laus. Mr. Szymanski stated that he met with Ms. Stevens, a concerned neighbor on site and they walked the property but did not find a vernal pool. He stated that another neighbor was concerned with removal of stone walls. Mr. Szymanski added a note to the Record Subdivision Map that indicates that no stone walls will be removed. He stated that there would be two ‘minor openings’ in the stone wall, each approximately 20 feet wide to allow for a driveway. He stated that if a stone wall is a property line and someone removes it, then they are removing something equivalent to an iron pin, “so by State Statute, you would have the right to be fined.” Mr. Carey stated that, in Town, stone walls have been disappearing and a property owner should be getting permission from the Town to remove a stone wall if it is on a Town highway. Mr. Szymanski met with Kevin Smith, Highway Director, to discuss the sight distance with the proposed driveway. Mr. Smith had expressed a concern that the existing stone wall was in the sightline and it was a safety hazard. Mr. Szymanski stated that the owner would move the stone wall (in the area from the existing walkway to the proposed driveway) 8 feet back using the existing stone and rebuilding it in the same style as the existing stone walls. Mr. Smith sent an email, dated 6/17/10, to Ms. Hill stating that he has reviewed and approved Mr. Van Zanten’s (of Arthur Howland & Associates) recommendations and drawing PP.1 dated June 11, 2010. Mr. Szymanski requested a waiver to the open space requirement as the property owner has already eased close to half the property to Steep Rock Association. He discussed the measures that have been taken to preserve the natural resources of the property and that these resources were considered when locating the proposed house and driveway. Ms. Hill stated that, at the last meeting it was discussed that there could be a possible archaeological site so she referred the application and maps to the Dr. Bellantoni, State Archaeologist. Dr. Bellantoni stated that while the area lies within a sensitive area, the State of Connecticut Archaeological Site Files and Maps do not indicate any known archaeological site in the project area and that the proposed project would have no effect on the State’s cultural resources. Ms. Roberts read Ms. Hill Administrative Review dated 7/6/10. There were no additional comments or questions. Ms. Roberts closed the public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:48 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Gager, Carey (for Mr. Rimsky), Fowlkes (for Ms. Jahnke)Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of June 1, 2010 were considered.
Correction:
Page 1: Under Regular Meeting: should read: Ms. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order….Motion:
to accept the June 1, 2010, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 voteThe minutes of June 21, 2010 Special Meeting were considered.
Motion:
to accept the June 21, 2010, Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision Site Visit
There was a brief discussion regarding State plane coordinates.Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 4.4.11, for the application for Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision, regarding State plane coordinates because established State plane coordinates are too far away to maintain accuracy,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 4.2.1, regarding the application for Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision, to allow 1”=60’scale so the map of the entire property will fit on one sheet,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 5.8, for Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision, regarding Open Space because the applicant has granted easements for more than required open space set aside and has taken other steps to meet the conservation requirements,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.Ms. Roberts asked if the Commission would like to discuss the possibility of adding a condition of landscaping/buffering to the motion. The Commission agreed that this was not necessary.
Motion:
to approve the application submitted by Ms. Laus for a 2 lot Resubdivision at 22 Nichols Hill Road per the map, “Record Subdivision Map,” revised to 6/8/2010 and the plans, “Site Development Plan,” revised to 3/13/10, “ Proposed Lot 2 Site Development Plan,” revised to 11/10/09, “Plan and Profile,” dated 10/1/09, and “Proposed Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan,” revised to 10/28/09, all maps and plans by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., subject to the following condition: 1. A note shall be added to the Record Subdivision Map that lot #2 requires an engineered septic system,
by Mr. Frank, seconded Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations/Review of Archaeological Map
Mr. Frank stated that he has not completed the review but would like to finish and then meet with Ms. Gager and Ms. Hill and report back to the Planning Commission at its next meeting on August 3, 2010. Ms. Hill stated that the State Archaeologist would like to see applications that not only fall into the Archaeologically sensitive areas indicated in circles on the map but potential areas that are indicated in blue on the map. Ms. Hill stated that this would not be procedure until the regulations are revised.Plan of Conservation and Development /Economic Development
Ms. Roberts stated that Mr. Rimsky and Ms. Braverman are making progress with the interviews with business owners. Ms. Hill distributed handouts on economic development. There was a brief discussion regarding the issue of economic development across the State and possible resources the Commission might use when it works on updating the POCD.Administrative Business/Conflict of Interest
Ms. Roberts suggested the Commission discuss the issue of conflict of interest and recusal. She stated that Mr. Owen of the Zoning Commission had said that it was left to each commissioner to decide whether they should recuse themselves. Ms. Gager stated that leaving it up to the individual commissioner is important, but sometimes they may be too close to an issue and not realize it and in that case the Chairperson should possibly have a one on one discussion with that commissioner. She stated that it is important, as commissioners, not to bring their own thoughts and personal opinions into the decision making process. Mr. Frank stated that he believed that Mr. Owen was correct in saying that it is up to individual and that whether they recuse themselves would taken to court if necessary. He stated that if he had a conflict or was perceived to have a conflict, he would recuse himself. Ms. Roberts agreed with him. Ms. Gager stated that it is not in the best interest of the Town if a commission is taken to court. Mr. Fowlkes stated that he assumed that “one recuses oneself because one is a member of a commission. Not for any other reason.”He asked, “Why wouldn’t a selectman be expected to recuse him/herself in public discussion of issues before the Town?” Ms. Roberts stated that she felt there was a great deal of confusion among commissions and that is why she is requesting this discussion. Mr. Fowlkes stated that the times that he has recused himself was because he had personal knowledge or interests that involve the applicant. Mr. Carey stated that the media has influenced the perception of the public. The Commission discussed the need for ethics training for all the boards and commissions and that attendance should be required and it should start this year.
Update on Report to Zoning re: Proposed Inn Regulations
Ms. Roberts asked if the Planning Commission should write a letter to the Zoning Commission responding to a Zoning Commissioner’s statement made at the 6/28/10 Zoning Public Hearing that the Planning Commission had not taken into consideration the Special Permit process when it voted that the proposed revisions to the Zoning Regulations regarding inns were inconsistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. She stated that the Planning Commission did take the Special Permit process into consideration, “but the scope of the proposed changes made it inconsistent with the POCD whether or not there was a Special Permit process or not. We’re concerned that misinformation be allowed to stand as presented at the last hearing.” It was the consensus of the commission that Mr. Frank would draft a letter to the Zoning Commission to be read at the next Zoning Meeting on July 26, 2010 in Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Communications 6/22/10 Letter from Mr. R. Dutton
Ms. Hill stated that she believed the letter was meant to arrive to the Planning Commission before they responded to the Zoning Commissions referral on the proposed inn regulations. This letter is on file in the Land Use Office. The Commission briefly discussed the letter.6/10/10 Letter from the Northwestern CT Regional Planning Collaborative
There was a brief discussion regarding the Northwestern CT Council of Governments.
Ms. Hill stated that the Northwestern CT Regional Planning Collaborative services are now available to the Town of Washington and advised the Commissioners to look at the brochure and comment at the next Planning Meeting on August 3, 2010
Public Comment
Ms. Friedman stated that she supported the idea of ethics training and that attendance should be mandated. The Commission and Ms. Friedman discussed how other towns do this and what the Town of Washington could do. Ms. Roberts stated that she felt the training is very important.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:25 pm by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: June 22, 2010 June 21, 2010
Special Meeting
5:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Ms. Setlow, Mr. Shapiro, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. SolomonMrs. Roberts called the Special Meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts. She noted the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and finalize the report to the Zoning Commission regarding its proposed revisions to the Zoning Regulations.
The 6/17/10 discussion draft by Mr. Frank had been circulated prior to the meeting and the commissioners said they were prepared to discuss it. They thanked him for his thorough and detailed work. Mrs. Roberts said Mr. Frank had done a good job to include all of the points that had been raised at the last meeting and all of the reasons the Commission had voted against the proposed revisions concerning inns. Ms. Gager agreed, saying the report provided the details necessary for the Zoning Commission to understand why Planning voted as it did.
Mr. Frank read from the state statutes. He explained they require the Planning Commission to submit a report to the Zoning Commission regarding whether its proposed revisions are consistent with the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development. This report shall include a statement of the vote on the proposed regulations, the reasons for the vote, and any recommendations the Planning Commission would like to make. He noted since the revisions regarding inns were determined to be inconsistent with the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development, the Zoning Commission would require a vote of not less than two thirds to approve them.
Mr. Frank briefly reviewed the draft report, noting that proposed revisions regarding approval of applications involving the installation or modification of a septic system and the continuation of Special Permits upon the conveyance or leasing of the subject property, which language had been recommended by the Zoning Commission’s counsel, had been unanimously found to be consistent with the goals of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. The proposed revisions concerning inns, and including definitions, including a definition of “inn,” were unanimously voted as inconsistent with the goals of the POCD. He summarized the main reason, which was they were not consistent with the primary goal of the POCD, which is to preserve the Town’s rural character. He noted in the last paragraph, the Commission acknowledges the input the Planning Commission received from the public about how inns could be beneficial to Washington, but states that although these are important concerns, they can not be appropriately addressed by the current proposal.
It was the consensus that the report was complete and a motion should be made to adopt it.
MOTION:
That the report (dated 6/21/10) of the Planning Commission in response to the referral from the Zoning Commission filed with the Town Clerk, dated 5/4/10, shall be in the form annexed to the minutes of this meeting.
By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Ms. Gager.Mrs. Roberts adjourned the Meeting at 5:19 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
REPORT OF THE WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-3a, CGSJune 21, 2010
To the Washington Zoning Commission:
Several proposed changes to the Washington Zoning Regulations have been referred to the Planning Commission for a report pursuant to Section 8-3a,CGS, which requires us to report our “findings…on the consistency of the proposed regulation…with the plan of development of [Washington] and any other recommendations the Planning Commission deems relevant.” This is our report pursuant to the statutory requirement.
A. As to the proposed revision of Section 2.3.6 regarding approval of applications requiring installation or modification of sewage disposal systems and corresponding updates, deletion or renumbering in Sections 13.6 13.10, 13.11.2.d, 13.11.3d, 13.14.7, 13.15 and 13.17.5 : These changes, which were recommended by counsel to the Zoning Commission to reconcile the Town’s procedure with the State’s procedure, are approved (by 5-0 vote) as consistent with Washington’s Plan of Conservation and Development (the “POCD”).
B. As to the proposed addition of Section 13.5 regarding conditions for the continuation of Special Permits upon the conveyance or leasing of the subject property: This change, which was recommended by counsel to the Zoning Commission to promote continued observance of Special Permit conditions upon a change of ownership or tenancy of the affected property, is approved (by 5-0 vote) as consistent with the POCD.
C. As to the proposed changes to various sections of the Zoning Regulations, the composite effect of which is to allow “Inns”, as proposed to be defined in Section 21.1.38, to be a permitted use (subject to Special Permit) in all of Washington’s Residential and Business Districts (except for the Marbledale and Woodville Business Districts) on local town roads as well as state highways: The Planning Commission respectfully disagrees with this proposal and finds (by 5-0 vote) that, as presented, it is not consistent with the POCD.
Reasons for the Planning Commission’s Unanimous Vote on Proposal C, above:
While we recognize that the aim of the Zoning Commission has been to craft a functional regulatory system for “inns” and other transient lodging accommodations as Special Permit uses throughout Washington, and we respect its efforts to do so, our responsibility is limited to the examination of the present proposal for consistency with the goals of the POCD.
The pre-eminent goal of the POCD is the preservation of Washington’s rural character. The POCD recognized that “…Washington has a decidedly residential character” (p.1-11). As stated in the POCD (at page 3-1):
“Washington is defined and distinguished by its rural character. Preservation of this encompassing but vulnerable attribute has been the dominant planning theme of the Town of Washington since the first plan of development in 1963. In several surveys over the past decade and during public meetings on this Plan, this continuing objective was strongly supported by Washington residents.
“The extent of that support was also evidenced by the significant efforts undertaken by Town residents over the past ten years to identify and understand the foundation of the Town’s character and to protect it.
“The next ten years may prove crucial for the longer term preservation of Washington’s rural character. Many of the strategies identified in this Plan will lay the foundation for community actions to help retain the qualities that today’s residents clearly value and future residents will cherish.”
Indeed, the paramount significance of that goal has been recognized in the purposes of each of the residential districts as expressly stated in the Washington Zoning Regulations. Thus, development in the R-1 Farming and Residential District (constituting approximately 97% of Washington’s land area) is to “consist primarily of scattered residential, agricultural and related uses, open space, low intensity recreational activities, and "other uses which will retain the rural character and natural beauty of the Town.” Activities in the R-2 Washington Green District are “restricted to those which are compatible with a residential-historical district.” Uses in the R-3 Lake Waramaug Residential District are permitted “in a manner that will avoid deterioration of the lake’s water quality and minimize runoff and the flow of nutrients and other harmful elements to the lake, groundwater and other wetlands and watercourses in the District.”
Consistent with the preservation of rural character, inns are not presently permitted in the R-2 Washington Green District (but would be a permitted use under the proposal, even though the recommendation of the POCD that highly regulated “General Home Occupations” be considered for that district was not adopted) or in the R-3 Lake Waramaug Residential District (but would be a permitted use under the proposal, although it is now recognized that such an intensive use may adversely affect the lake’s water quality). Present practice allows only for less intensive “Room and Board” and “Bed and Breakfast Establishment” use by Special Permit in those districts. In the R-1 Farming and Residential District, Inns and Tourist Homes are allowed by Special Permit on State highways, while “Room and Board”, “Bed and Breakfast Establishments” and “Boarding Houses” are similarly allowed on local roads. The fundamental difference, we believe, between what is presently allowed and the potential for development under the proposal is one of intensity of use and impact on the residential neighborhoods. The transient accommodation uses presently permitted (with the exception of The Mayflower Inn, on a State highway and with a unique history) are of a traditional mode, small in size and scale, consistent with the preservation of rural character, in the same manner as home occupations are permitted in the residential districts on an appropriate scale and subject to highly detailed conditions to minimize the conflict of such commercial use with surrounding residential uses and to protect residential property values.
The potential maximum size and scale of an “Inn” as expansively defined under the proposed regulations---a multi-function enterprise of an indeterminate number of rooms, a restaurant and bar with a seating capacity of twice the inn’s lodging capacity, a spa, a fitness facility, a retail shop, conference meeting rooms and other like services and facilities open to the public---present a potential for a high intensity of use and the introduction of businesses never independently permitted on the winding local roads of all of our residential districts. We believe that the likely consequences of such development activity---traffic, parking issues, safety issues, noise from events and equipment, lighting of the night sky, and the like---are fundamentally incompatible with the goal of the POCD to preserve rural character. Such a commercial enterprise may be suitable for a business district, but not for our protected residential districts.
We are aware that it is said that additional lodging facilities would be helpful to our local independent schools, an important segment of Washington’s life, and for general tourism purposes; that as farming activities disappear in town, the operation of a modest lodging facility by a family might help to avoid subdivision and sale of their property; and that there are various economic and social benefits which may accrue to the town and its residents from such activities. These are important concerns but, in our view, cannot be appropriately addressed in the context of the present proposal, in which the potential size, scale, intensity of use and impact on residential neighborhoods are incompatible with the primary goal of preservation of rural character which is the hallmark of our Plan of Conservation and Development, and the reason why many of our residents have chosen to live in Washington.
Respectfully submitted,
WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Adelaide C. Roberts, Chairman
Sarah Gager, Vice Chairman
Paul R. Frank
Susan Jahnke
Dimitri RimskyAlternates (not seated for this matter):
Barbara Braverman
Richard Carey
J. Winston Fowlkes III
Posted: June 9, 2010 June 1, 2010
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Selectman Nick Solley, Ms. Friedman, Mr. & Mrs. Davis, Mr. Charles, Mr. Dutton, Mr. & Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Averill, Mr. Monteleone, Ms. Stevens, Mr. Parker, Ms. Peacocke, Ann Compton, ResidentsMs. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Gager, Rimsky, JahnkePUBLIC HEARING
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on Wednesday, May 19 and again on Wednesday, May 26 and read the list of documents in the file. In his letter dated 6/1/10, Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, requested a waiver of Section 5.8.2, The Open Space Requirement, because he said all of the requirements of Section 3.5 have been met. Ms. Roberts asked that he explain in writing, for the record, how the requirements of section 3.5 have been met. Mr. Davis, an adjoining property owner, stated that he was concerned about the stone wall between his property and the proposed subdivision property and asked that it not be disturbed. Ms. Roberts stated that when the Commissioners and Mr. Szymanski walked the property that the preservation of the stone wall was acknowledged. Mr. Davis and the Commissioners looked at the map titled, Record Resubdivision Map, prepared for Patricia A. Laus, Parcel 3, revision date 4/6/10, sheet R-1, by Arthur H. Howland and Associates. They discussed the existing conservation easement. Ms. Stevens, also an adjoining neighbor, asked if there was any consideration of the vernal pool. Ms. Stevens and the Commissioners looked at the Record Resubdivision Map. Mr. Roberts stated that she would prefer to discuss this when Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, would be present. It was decided that the application would be referred to Dr. Bellantoni, State Archaeologist, because it was determined that the property falls in part of an archaeologically sensitive area. Ms. Hill stated that the Highway Department has not submitted approval for a proposed driveway cut. There were no further comments from the Commissioners or the public. This hearing will be continued on July 6th, in the Land Use Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall at 7:30 pm.,
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:46 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Gager, Rimsky, JahnkeConsideration of the Minutes
The minutes of May 5, 2010 were considered.Motion:
to accept the May 5, 2010, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.The minutes of May 11, 2010 Special Meeting were considered.
Corrections:
Page 1: 2nd Paragraph, 3rd sentence, should read: Mr. Frank said that the language was probably intended to meet the bonding requirements.Motion:
to accept the May 11, 2010, Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Roberts, passed by 5-0 vote.
Subsequent Business
Depot Floodplain Study
Ms. Roberts read an email, dated May 19, 2010 from Ms. Gager to First Selectman Lyon regarding their meeting with Lenard Engineering concerning the flood plain study for the Depot. Ms. Gager’s email states that she has left five messages with FEMA’s Boston office and that she has not received any response. She stated that she did speak to a woman in the Washington D.C. office that told her that FEMA is currently working on revisions of their maps all over the country but in order to find out what was going on in our area that she (Ms. Gager) would have to speak to the regional office directly. Ms. Gager’s letter addressed the following questions that she has for Lenard Engineering: 1. What is the process that is used to submit to FEMA to request changes to a flood zone, if it is determined that a change should be requested at this point in time? 2. What is the success rate of FEMA recognizing and granting this request? 3. Do they require the information to be submitted in a specific format for the request to be considered? 4. Do they have a time frame for which they must respond by for each request received? 5. If the regional office denies the request, is there a process to appeal to the main office for a review? 6. Are there any USDA grants or Small Town grants that cover such work, should a larger area be considered for the study?Mr. Carey stated that there was a separate meeting that occurred with the Engineer from Lenard Engineering, Selectman Lyon and Selectman Solley, in which they discussed that the field work to be done would encompass the area from the Hidden Valley Bridge to the Washington Primary School property. Mr. Carey stated that the engineer suggested that every thousand feet would have to be surveyed and recommended aerial photography be used. Mr. Carey stated that the aerial photography would comprise 30-40% of the field surveying. He stated that FEMA is working in the Eastern Connecticut shoreline area and it would be difficult to determine when they would be able to work in the Town of Washington. He stated that Selectman Lyon offered to contact FEMA to see if he could get a timetable as to when they would be able to work here. Ms. Gager stated that the aerial photography would take place in the fall.
Pending Applications
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision Site Visit
The Public Hearing is continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 6, 2010, at Bryan Memorial Town Hall, at 7:30.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations/Review of Archaeological Map
Mr. Frank stated that he was not prepared to discuss these revisions and would like to schedule this discussion on the agenda for the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on July 6, 2010.Plan of Conservation and Development – Update: Survey for Business Owners
Mr. Rimsky read his revised questionnaire. The Commission agreed that this questionnaire would not be an ‘exact science’ and is meant to be conversational. Mr. Rimsky stated that he and Ms. Braverman would work together on scheduling time to speak with business owners.Zoning Referral Re: Revision of Zoning Regulations: Sections: 2.3.6: approval of applications requiring installation or modification of sewage disposal systems and deletion of current language re: septic approval in sections 13.6 (renumbered), 13.10,13.11.2.d, 13.11.3.d, 13.14.7, 13.15, and 13.17.5 as they will now be covered by 2.3.6 and Section 13.5 (and renumbering of following sections): addition of new section re: continuance of a Special Permit upon the conveyance of the property and/or change in lessee
Mr. Frank suggested that the Commission act upon above items first. Ms. Hill stated that Health Department and the State procedures have changed over the years and have made the Town of Washington’s regulations outdated. She stated that when there is an application with a large septic system, it is required to be sent to the State. She explained that the Town of Washington requires that the application is approved by the State before the Town can accept it. However, the State says they won’t look at the application unless it has local approval. This problem was addressed by the proposed revisions.Ms. Hill stated that Section 13.5 was revised because the Special Permit goes with the property, and the Zoning Commission wanted to make sure that when the property changes hands or there is a new renter that the new owner understood the criteria and limits of the Special Permit. There were no other comments from the Commission or the public.
Motion:
the Planning Commission has no objection to the following changes to the Zoning Regulations recommended by counsel to the Zoning Commission, which changes it finds to be consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development: Section 2.3.6, relating to approvals of applications involving sewage disposal systems, and related sections; and, addition of Section 13.5, relating to continuation of Special Permits upon conveyance of the subject property,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.Zoning Referral Re: Revision of Zoning Regulations: Sections: 4.4.1, 5.4.9 and 6.4.14: addition of “Inn” and specific Special Permit standards as a use permitted by Special Permit in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts; 4.4.1, 4.4.6, 4.4.14, 5.4.1, 6.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.12, 8.4.5, 8.4.12, 9.4.8, 10.4.5, 13.14, 13.14.3, and 15.2: deletion of “Tourist Home,” “Room and Board Establishment,” and “Boarding House,” from uses permitted either by zoning or by Special Permit in all Zoning districts and from the “use” column in the parking requirement chart and Section 13.9: deletion of Special Permit standards for Inn and Tourist Home; 21.1.10: deletion of definition of Boarding House and addition of definition of “Bed and Breakfast Establishment;” 21.1.30 (and renumbering of following sections): addition of definition of “Fitness Facility;” 21.1.38: addition of definition of “Inn;” 21.1.65: addition of definition of “Spa;” and 6.4 and 12.1.2: minor deletions to make language consistent throughout text.
Ms. Roberts reminded the Commissioners that their focus was to determine whether or not these proposed revisions are consistent with the goals of the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development, that this would be a discussion among the Planning Commission members, and that it was not a public hearing. Mr. Frank read a prewritten statement (attached). He stated that the question of ‘inns being permitted on Town roads’ throughout the residential districts is a difficult question. Mr. Frank, in his statement, discussed his reasons why he did not feel that these revisions were consistent with the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development. Ms. Roberts stated that she agreed with Mr. Frank. Ms. Gager agreed with Mr. Frank and Ms. Roberts that these revisions are not consistent with the POCD and stated that she is concerned with safety and the traffic these inns would generate in residential areas. Ms Roberts stated that the Town made preserving rural character one of its most important goals when it developed the POCD. Ms. Gager stated that she agreed with Mr. Frank that water quality of Lake Waramaug and the Shepaug River is important to protect in respect to development. Mr. Rimsky talked about what most people consider an ‘inn’ and that this is not the definition being proposed in this revision. He feels that the definition of an ‘inn’ should be more precise and that this definition does not work with the goals of the POCD because it is much broader than the Town’s historic concept of an ‘inn’. Ms. Jahnke stated she agreed with the other commissioners and that she could see an inn in our rural community but not with conference rooms and large dining facilities. Mr. Fowlkes read a section out of the POCD regarding the importance of the private schools in Town and noted that the Planning Commission received letters favoring inns from two of the schools and that the schools needs are important to consider. Mr. Rimsky stated that it would be a good idea to have a place for the parents to stay but questioned whether the inn they stay at needs all these additional facilities. Ms. Roberts stated that she felt the definition should be more carefully written. Mr. Carey stated that he agreed with Mr. Frank’s statement and he felt the issue was scale and that the definition that has been proposed is ‘unworkable.’ Ms. Braverman questioned why the definition of ‘Bed and Breakfast’ was so specific as to the number of rooms and the definition of ‘Inn’ was not. Ms. Gager referred to the Natural Resource Inventory Report and Recommendations, by the Town Ad Hoc Conservation Committee, dated November 2000 and said she was concerned that implementation of the proposed inn regulations could impact some of the features the Town is trying to conserve such as scenic roads and environmental quality. Ms. Roberts stated that public comment should take place at the Public Hearing at Zoning Commission Meeting on June 28, 2010.Motion:
the Planning Commission finds that the Revision of Zoning Regulations regarding Inns, as presented in the referral from the Zoning Commission, dated May 4, 2010, is inconsistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development regarding preservation of rural character, conservation, and environmental issues,
by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, by 5-0 vote
Communications
Communications from Mrs. Boyer and Mr. Dutton regarding the revisions to the Zoning Regulations for Inns were distributed prior to the meeting for the Commissioners to review.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:55 by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Attachment:
STATEMENT FROM PAUL FRANK:
Analysis of this proposal is both difficult and simple. Difficult and complex because men and women of good will have advanced completely opposed views on the proposed regulations, particularly on the question of whether inns should be permitted on town roads, and the Zoning Commission has manfully struggled to come up with a thoughtful approach to resolve the issue. Some members of the public have submitted to us their views in support of the change (local employment, local gathering place, support local schools and provide accommodations for parents and visitors, benefits to the local economy, among others) – and in opposition to the proposed changes (no room number limits, increased traffic, allows otherwise prohibited commercial activities in residential zones, open up narrow residential roads to commercial development, eliminates objective standards and substitutes subjective judgments among others). So – difficult and complex.
But the role of this Commission is limited: we are directed by statute to report on the consistency of the proposed changed regulations with our Plan of Conservation and Development and to offer any other recommendations we deem relevant. So our task is the relatively simple one of taking the proposed changes on the one hand, and our POCD on the other, and determining whether in our view they mesh --- do the proposed changes comport with the goals of the POCD? If we say that they do, that ends the inquiry. And, if we say they do not (since the POCD is by its terms a living instrument), have circumstances or conditions changed in the last seven years to suggest the need to revise the Plan in this respect prior to the end of its usual statutory decade?
My answer is to each of these questions is “no”. In my view the primary thrust of the proposed change ---permitting inns with complex accessory functions on local roads --- is inconsistent with the overarching goal of the Plan to preserve rural character by safeguarding the integrity of the town’s residential districts; and I believe that nothing has occurred since 2003 to diminish the strength of that goal. We are faced with this question only because of the purchase of one parcel of real estate, which cannot now be used by the purchaser for his intended purpose. …… but which would result in a change having profound consequences throughout the entire town.
The issue for me is one of intensity of use and impact on the residential neighborhoods. The POCD recognized the decidedly residential character of the town and that “ Washington is defined and distinguished by its rural character.”
I believe that our judgment as to consistency with the POCD must be based on the broadest permission that might be given under the proposed regulation: an inn of undetermined size with restaurant and bar, a spa, a gym, a retail shop, conference facilities and other like accessory services and facilities, most of which would be available to the general public. This is a revolutionary expansion of the permitted intensity of use of property on a town road in a residential zone--- involving issues of traffic, parking, safety, night time use, lighting, noise and the introduction of commercial operations which are not otherwise permitted in the residential district. I do not believe that the Special Permit Procedure brings this proposal in accord with the POCD.
The Zoning Commission has been sensitive in the past dealing with business uses in residential districts, carefully defining with great specificity the scope of Home Offices, Traditional Home Enterprises and General Home Occupations utilizing criteria “designed to maintain the residential character of the lot and the neighborhood, minimize the conflict of the home occupation use with the surrounding residential uses and protect residential property values”. That concern was appropriately expressed in the Zoning Regulations; it is dwarfed by the magnitude of the Inn and other commercial activities potentially possible under the proposed regulation.
The Impact of the proposed regulation in the R-2 Washington Green residential district and the R-3 Lake Waramaug Residential District, where inns are not presently a permitted use, should also be noted. For the Washington Green District, the POCD recommended consideration by the Zoning Commission of “allowing general home occupations by special permit, with appropriate protections for residential properties”. While that conservative recommendation (allowing slightly more intensive activity in the Washington Green District) was never adopted, and inns have not been a permitted use in that district, it is now proposed that inns (as expansively defined in this proposed change) be permitted in older buildings in the Washington Green District.
Inns are not presently a permitted use in the R-3 Lake Waramaug Residential District, which covers the Lake Waramaug watershed and in which uses are restricted to those which will avoid deterioration of the lake’s water quality and minimize run off and the flow of harmful elements to the Lake. Permitted uses are limited, consistent with its special purpose and must under current language of the regulation “meet the purposes of the district”, language to be deleted in this proposed revision. Inns, which were historically located at the lake in pre- automobile days are no longer permitted because the intensity of their use is not consistent with protection and preservation of the Lake. There are now no inns on the Washington shore of Lake Waramaug. The POCD noted “concern in the community about the amount of development around Lake Waramaug and the impact on water quality in the Lake”. The proposed regulation permitting inns in the Lake Waramaug Residential District is inconsistent with the POCD.
_______________________________________________ In summary, I believe the proposed change of regulations to permit inns and their accessory businesses on town roads in residential neighborhoods is not consistent with the goal of the POCD to preserve Washington’s rural character. It introduces the potential for commercial activity of high intensity on all of Washington’s winding country roads.
Posted: May 12, 2010 May 11, 2010
Special Meeting
5:00 p.m. Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank Mrs. Jahnke
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. BediniMrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts. She noted the purpose of the Special Meeting was to review and report per Section 8-24 of the state statutes on Town expenditures for maintenance projects at the Washington Primary School. She read a draft resolution of approval provided by the Town Clerk’s Office.
Ms. Gager asked if the motion was written by the school’s business manager. Mr. Bedini said, no, it was language required by the state. Mr. Frank said the language met the bonding requirements.
Mr. Frank asked Mr. Bedini to describe the project. Mr. Bedini responded there would be no major changes to the buildings; that it was mainly a repairs project. He noted work to set up the project had begun in 2008 when the Selectmen asked for assurance that if the school building was ever returned to the Town, it would be in reasonable condition. He noted standard repairs had not been made during the ten previous years. He gave a short history and described the project timetable. The work to be done at the three primary school buildings included replacement of old and rusted outside door frames, replacement of old windows, installation of new hardware on eighty percent of the doors, removal of the carpet in the nurses office and installation of a new floor, replacement of rotted outside boards at Booth School, and repairs and maintenance to the stormwater management system at the Washington Primary School.
Mr. Rimsky thought these were the kinds of repairs that should have been made routinely by the school district. Mr. Bedini agreed. He added there was now a new maintenance manager, but noted there was not much money or staff to maintain the five existing buildings.
Ms. Gager asked if Roxbury and Bridgewater would approve the repair project and if they did not, what impact would that have. Mr. Bedini stated all three towns had agreed to approve the project.
In response to a question from Mr. Carey, Mr. Bedini described the savings that would result from changes in the construction management of the project. He also briefly detailed the selection process for the construction manager hired.
Mr. Bedini noted it would be difficult to get all of the proposed repairs done before school begins in the fall. Due to previous commitments for use of the Washington Primary School property, for example, work there can not begin there until July 26.
Mr. Frank read from the “Community Issues” section of the 2003 Town Plan of Conservation and Development in which he found a basis for the approval of the resolution.
Mr. Carey asked Mr. Bedini what had happened to the idea of the consolidation of the primary schools. Mr. Bedini thought the option on the land for a central elementary school on Rt. 199 in Roxbury had expired. He said the Board of Education is putting together a committee to work on drafting a strategic plan for the school district.
MOTION:
Resolved, that the Washington Planning Commission approves the following project solely for purposes of Section 8-24 of the General Statutes of Connecticut: Various renovations, improvements, and related work to the Washington Primary School in Washington Depot, the scope and particulars of which are to be determined by the Board of Education of Regional School District #12, or any building committee or committees delegated all or any portion of such responsibility by the Board of Education.Further resolved, that this resolution is for approval of conceptual plans only. The project is subject to and shall comply with all applicable zoning, site plan, subdivision, inland wetland, and other laws, regulations, and permit approvals, and this resolution shall not be a determination that the project is in compliance with any such applicable laws, regulations, or permit approvals. Further resolved, that the Commission report its approval of this project, for purposes of Section 8-24 of the General Statutes, by sending a certified copy of this resolution to Regional School District #12.
By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.Several commissioners and Mr. Bedini thought the public should be educated about the extremely poor condition of the three primary school buildings and the very high cost of operating the schools in the manner they are now being operated. Mr. Bedini said the new maintenance manager was already saving the towns money, but noted that Washington taxpayers are spending $25,600 a day 365 days a year to operate the school. It was thought Town citizens should be concerned about spending tax money frugally. Ms. Gager asked for the comparable cost of running the Montessori and Rumsey Hall Schools, but this was not known. Mr. Bedini did say, however, that with the district’s enrollment of 946 students, the Region #12 school budget is higher than most in the state.
The commissioners thanked Mr. Bedini for attending this meeting and for all of his work on the Board of Education.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 5:29 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 8, 2010 May 4, 2010
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager
Members Absent: Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
Alternates Absent:
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Paul Szymanski, Engineer, Selectman Nick Solley, Valerie Friedman, Randy Solomon, Eric Federer
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Gager, Rimsky, Braverman, Alt.(for Jahnke)Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of April 6, 2010 were considered.
Corrections:
Page 2: under Other Business, Request by Board of Selectmen to Use POCD Funds for Floodplain Studies, 1st sentence should read: First Selectman Lyon and Selectman Solley were present to discuss available Planning Commission funds and to request that approximately $17,000.00 be made available for engineering and survey work for a Floodplain Study.
Page 3: 1st paragraph, 8th sentence should read: He stated that he would accumulate “more specific engineering, and an A-2 Survey of the rest of the business district.”Motion:
to accept the April 6, 2010, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision Site Visit
Ms. Roberts stated that she went to the site and walked the property with Mr. Szymanski. Mr. Szymanski stated that he would be able to schedule another time to walk the property with the other Commissioners. The Planning Commission scheduled a site visit for Friday, May 7 at ll:00 a.m. at 22 Nichols Hill Road. The Planning Commission scheduled a Public Hearing for June 1, 2010 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall, at 7:30.
Other Business
Consideration of using POCD Funds for Depot Studies – Update
Selectman Solley was present. Ms. Gager stated that she spoke with a FEMA representative in Washington D.C. and they advised her to speak with the representative in Boston, Massachusetts. She stated that she has left a couple messages with the representative in Boston and has not received a response. Ms. Gager stated that she sent the State Guidelines for Surveying to First Selectman Lyon. Mr. Solley stated that it was his understanding that Ms. Gager has scheduled an engineering firm to consult with the Town gratis and that he requested that First Selectman Lyon ask Lenard Engineering to do the same. He stated that Lenard Engineering could be a prospective bidder on the project given that they have worked with the Town previously. Ms. Roberts stated that it would be a good idea to have both firms come to the Town. Mr. Solley stated that he would like to have more information to bring to the next Planning Commission Meeting.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations/Review of Archaeological Map
Ms. Hill stated that the Conservation Commission proposed, as part of the revision of Subdivision Regulations, that the Town obtain a map of the archaeological sites in Washington. The Planning Commission and Ms. Hill looked at the map titled, Town of Washington, Archaeological Sensitivity Map, dated February 2010, by Mr. Bellantoni, State Archaeologist. The Conservation Commission recommends that this map be used in the Land Use Office when a subdivision application is submitted. The Land Use Office would check the map and send the application to the State Archaeologist for review if it falls in an area of high sensitivity. Ms. Hill stated that this process would not formally be required until a Public Hearing is held and the Planning Commission adopts the proposed revisions. There was a brief discussion regarding the scale of the map. Ms. Hill stated that she incorporated Marty Connor’s recommendation into the draft of the Revision of the Subdivision Regulations and the Commission needs to review the revisions. Mr. Frank stated that he would like to review the most current revisions. Ms. Gager stated that this should be at the beginning of the agenda of the June meeting. Ms. Gager and Mr. Frank stated they would form a subcommittee to review the most current revisions.Plan of Conservation and Development – Update: Survey for Business Owners
Ms. Roberts stated that it is important to include all business owners in all business districts of the Town of Washington. Mr. Rimsky stated that he would work on individual interviews with all business owners through the summer and then would like to schedule a meeting with all the business owners in the fall of this year. It was agreed that the survey would be finished for the Planning Commission Regular Meeting on August 3, 2010. Ms. Braverman volunteered to assist Mr. Rimsky with interviewing business owners. There was a brief discussion regarding question #7. It was noted that the article from The Planning Commissioners Journal, “Coping With Economic Meltdown,” by Ms. Hallsmith, raised several additional issues and Mr. Rimsky said he would revise the survey questions accordingly. Mr. Rimsky stated that he would send the revisions to Ms. Hill and she would disseminate the draft to the rest of the Planning Commission.Zoning Referral Re: Proposed Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Sections: 13.21
Ms. Roberts suggested that the Commissioners take the eight pages of revisions home and study it and reserve comment until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 1, 2010 at 7:30. She stated that it is necessary that the Commissioners consider whether the revisions are consistent with the goals of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Ms. Hill stated that she attached copies of letters that were sent to the Planning Commission from residents regarding the revisions to the Zoning Regulations. She stated that there are three topics: 1. Septic, 2. Inns, and 3. Special Permit Transfer and that the Commission may want to consider if they want to vote on the three topics separately or make one vote on the revisions as a whole.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Public Comment
Selectman Solley asked if the three sections of the Zoning Referral were voted on separately, if these sections are the inter-related and would one vote against one topic effect the other(s). Ms. Hill stated that one would not alter the other if it was adopted and the others were not.
Executive Session to Discuss Potential Real Estate Purchase by the Town of Washington per 8-24
Mr. Frank stated that it appears that a referral for an 8-24 report is premature and that the Planning Commission does not need to take action until a further request is made. Executive Session was not necessary.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:13
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Braverman.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: April 12, 2010 April 6, 2010
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Ms. Gager
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent: Mr. Fowlkes
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Brian Neff, Engineer, Heather Rowe, 1st Selectman Mark Lyon, Selectman Nick Solley, Chris CharlesMs. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Jahnke, Gager, RimskyPublic Hearing
Rowe/44 Kielwasser Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on Wednesday, March 24 and Wednesday March 31, 2010. Ms. Hill read a list of contents in the file. Mr. Brian Neff, Engineer, was present and he reviewed the details of the Resubdivision. He stated that a waiver was requested for the Conservation Easement and Open Space area requirement because Ms. Susan Rowe, the owner, would be conveying the 5.33-acre lot to daughter, Heather Rowe, at no consideration. He stated that the remaining 11.8 acres that Ms. Susan Rowe owns could be resubdivided again but it would be difficult and not likely. Mr. Carey asked how the configuration of the driveway would affect the neighboring property. Mr. Neff explained that the driveway does not encroach on the neighbor’s driveway. Mr. Carey asked if the configuration of this driveway would prevent the neighbor, in the future, from being able to subdivide their property. Mr. Neff explained that the regulations would allow that neighbor to have a shared driveway with the neighboring lot if needed.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Susan Rowe for a two lot Resubdivision at 44 Kielwasser Road,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, by 5-0 vote.
Regular Business
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:50 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Jahnke, Gager, RimskyConsideration of the Minutes
The minutes of March 2, 2010 were considered.Motion:
to accept the March 2, 2010, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, passed by 5-0 vote.The minutes of the March 29, 2010 Special Meeting were considered.
Motion:
to accept the March 29, 2010, Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
There were no further questions from the Commission.Rowe/44 Keilwasser Road/ 2 Lot Resubdivision:
Motion:
to approve the application of Susan Rowe for a two lot re subdivision of the property at 44 Kielwasser Road as shown on the “Property/Boundary Survey”, by Mr. T. Michael Alex, revised to 1/10/10, and the “Proposed Site Development Plan”, 3 sheets, by Mr. Brian Neff, revised to 2/22/10 subject to the following condition: that a note be placed on the mylar to be filed on the Land Records that Lot # 2 requires an engineered septic system,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application
Laus/22 Nichols Hill Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
The Commission looked at the Cover Sheet, titled “2 Lot Re-Subdivision, 22 Nichols Hill Road”, by Arthur H. Howland and Associates, dated January 13, 2009. There was a brief discussion of the property. The Commission scheduled a site visit for Monday, April 26, 2010 at noon.
Other Business
Request by Board of Selectmen to Use POCD Funds for Floodplain Studies
First Selectman Lyon and Selectman Solley were present to discuss available Planning Commission funds for the Floodplain Study. Ms. Roberts stated that she thinks it would be a good idea for the Planning Commission and the Selectman to work together on the flood plain issue. She stated that Ms. Gager has an engineering background and Mr. Carey has been involved with the 16 Titus Road property for years and she would like them to act as liaisons for the Planning Commission. She stated that the Planning Commission has the following concerns: 1. How much of the Shepaug area will be included in the study? 2. Will the Flood Way as well as the Flood Plain be in the study? 3. Is Lenard Engineering the most appropriate firm to use? and 4. Does Lenard Engineering have a hydrologist involved? She stated that this money is earmarked for phase II of the Depot Study and so the Planning Commission needs to be involved. Selectman Lyon agreed that the funds were earmarked for the Depot Study and that Peter Talbot had requested this proposal from Lenard Engineering and it is specific to 16 Titus Road and the Mill Race Road Concept. He stated that this is an issue that affects the whole Depot area from Apple Tree Design Depot down to Washington Primary School. Selectman Lyon stated that he believes Mr. Talbot selected Lenard Engineering because they had done work for the Town of Washington before and if this study were to move forward it would have to go out to bid. Mr. Rimsky stated that it would be important that the Town finds out what more of the Depot area can be included in the study and at what cost. Ms. Gager suggested that the Town get a proposal for the whole area and then a separate specific proposal for the Titus Road area. Selectman Solley stated that increasing the area would increase the cost. He stated that it is the goal of the Town to get the most area for the money. He stated that the 4.5-acre parcel at Titus Road would have to be in the study no matter what, that the Engineering and Surveying would have to go out to bid, and that the RFP (Request for Proposal) must be specific and the Planning Commissions involvement would be needed.Mr. Carey stated that he has been involved with this issue since 2005. He stated he researched what it would cost to get an A-2 Survey for the Depot area starting at the Washington Supply and ending at Canoe Brook. He stated that there is not an A-2 Survey for the Depot area east of the Route 47 and 109 intersection. He discussed the history of what was discussed with the surveyors and engineers at the time and stated that they estimated the cost of the study would be approximately $60,000 to $65,000, including time and materials, and to consult with FEMA. Mr. Carey stated that he recently examined the numbers of the old Depot Study done three years after the Master Plan of Development done in 2003. He stated that there was a significant amount of money earmarked for the Planning Commission’s study of the Depot with the presumption that there will be a phase I, II and III. He stated that only phase I has been done. He stated he was told that there is $34,500 remaining. He stated that Lenard Engineering’s proposal is specific to Peter Talbot’s Mill Race Road concept. He stated that he would like The Planning Commission to hang on to the $17,000 unless the Town can find a firm that could accumulate “most specific engineering, both in flood, maybe ‘FEMA-imiliaration’, and an A-2 Survey surveying of the rest of the business district.” He stated that this might include the area from the bridge just beyond G.W. Tavern to the top of the W.P.S. property. He stated that he feels strongly that this project be put out to competitive bidding.
Mr. Rimsky stated that how the RFP is structured would define the parameters of what could be explored within the budget and he feels this would be the Town’s opportunity to include in the RFP all that they would like to have done and then extract what could actually be done with the budget that is available. Ms. Gager stated that she feels the RFP should be generic and not specific to Mr. Talbot’s concept.
First Selectman Lyon stated that there are funds that the Planning Commission has and they are listed under the Depot Study. He asked if the Planning Commission thinks that this would be a worthwhile use of the funds and stated that the Selectmen wants the Planning Commission to define what they think these funds should be spent on. Ms. Gager stated that she feels the concept is great but it depends on how much it costs and what will be done for that amount of money. Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that it makes sense to consider 3 things: 1. What can be done with the small amount of money that is being requested? 2. What would be the cost of doing more? 3. What would be the cost of doing everything? Mr. Solley stated that Lenard Engineering, Inc.’s proposal includes the initial study that ‘would verify or not’ FEMA’s maps.
Mr. Chris Charles stated that when you are dealing with this type of specific engineering and dealing with FEMA, the Town could come up with a variety of concepts and FEMA could still say ‘No’. He stated that having Ms. Gager, who has an engineering background, help the Town with this is a good idea. He stated that she would probably direct the Town to get input from experts in hydrology. He stated that he thinks it makes more sense to get the estimate for the whole project and then execute it in phases. He stated the Town would receive solid proposals if the RFP states exactly what the firms are bidding for.
Ms. Roberts stated that it is important that the Planning Commission is constantly in the loop if they decide to use the funds for this study. Ms. Gager stated that the Planning Commission would have to see the results of the RFP before they could decide what to spend. Mr. Solley stated that $17,000 would pay for the work included in the two proposals already received, but it is not known if this is all that needs to be done. First Selectman Lyon stated that he would like to work with the Planning Commission to put an RFP together, get the bids, and then decide how much money the Planning Commission would contribute. The Commission and the Selectmen briefly discussed dividing RFP into zones of the Depot. Selectman Solley stated that he feels that the RFP should be specific because the Town needs “specific costs to a specific job.” Ms. Gager stated that she thinks there should be a base bid, and then additional areas that would be separate proposals. Mr. Solley suggested that proposals for specific properties would be another option.
Mr. Charles stated that one of the goals would be to know what the Town can and can’t do and there are people in the Depot that must pay flood insurance and these people will be motivated to see something happen. He stated it would be good for the Town to know what needs to be done.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
The Commission agreed to discuss this at the next regular Planning Commission Meeting on May 4, 2010.Plan of Conservation and Development
Mr. Rimsky submitted a draft of a questionnaire for the business owners in the commercial districts. The Commission discussed how the process would work.Zoning Referral Re: Proposed Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Sections: 13.21
There was a brief discussion regarding the history of this proposed revision.Motion:
resolved, that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed addition to the Washington Zoning Regulations of Section 13.21(“Eating and Drinking Establishments”), relating to the transfer of Special Permits for such establishments where no significant operational or appearance changes are proposed by the new owner or lessee, is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development because it furthers the goal of preserving community character,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.
Communications
Ms. Hill stated that the Planning Commission received information from both Land Tech and Kings Mark regarding the services they offer.
Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present at this time.
Executive Session to Discuss Potential Real Estate Purchase by the Town of Washington per 8-24
Motion:
go in to Executive Session at 8:55 pm to discuss potential real estate purchase by the Town of Washington per 8-24,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to come out of Executive Session at 9:18,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Roberts, passed by 5-0 vote
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:18
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Ms. Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 18, 2010 March 2, 2010
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Ms. Gager
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent: Mr. Fowlkes
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Brian Neff, Engineer, Mark Riefenhauser, P.E., Shaun NettletonRegular Business
Call to OrderMs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Jahnke, Gager, Rimsky
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of February 2, 2010 were considered.
Corrections:
•1st page, date under title should read: February 2, 2010
•Last page, last paragraph, 9th sentence under Discussion: Setting Priorities For Beginning Work on The Plan of Conservation and Development should read: He stated that ‘Statute requires that the plan shall be a statement of the policies, goals and standards for the physical and economic development of the municipality.’Motion:
to accept the February 2, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to accept the February 19, 2010, Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Rowe/44 Keilwasser Road/ 2 Lot Resubdivision:
Brian Neff, Engineer, was present to represent Susan Rowe. Mr. Neff gave a brief history of the property. He explained that this lot was an interior lot, 5.3 acres, has some wetlands and the access way will be a shared driveway with Ms. Rowe’s 11.3 acre lot. Mr. Neff stated that the Health Department and the Inland Wetlands Commission have approved this resubdivision. Mr. Neff stated that it would be possible to divide Ms. Rowe’s property further but it would be very difficult. Mr. Neff stated that he would submit the original signed statement from the property owner that the proposed lot will be conveyed to a close relative for no consideration, as soon as he receives it. The Commission scheduled a site visit for March 29th, 2010 at 12 noon. Ms. Roberts stated that a Public Hearing could be scheduled at the April 6, 2010 meeting when the issues with the application are resolved.Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 4.2.1, regarding the application for Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, 2 Lot Resubdivision, to allow 1”=100’ so the map of the entire property will fit on one sheet,
by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.Nettleton/81 Painter Ridge Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mr. Mark Riefenhauser, P.E. and Mr. Shaun Nettleton were present. Mr. Riefenhauser discussed the revised 2 Lot Subdivision Map, and Site Development Plan, prepared for Shaun Nettleton, 81 Painter Ridge Road, by Smith & Co., dated 12/16/09, revision date 2/22/10. Mr. Riefenhauser explained that the 1:50 scale map allowed the entire property to fit on one sheet and the nearest Connecticut general grid system for the state plane coordinate requirement is over a mile away from the property.Motion:
to approve the waiver of the requirements of section 4.2, 4.4.11 and 4.7.2, regarding the application for Nettleton, 81 Painter Ridge Road, 2 Lot Subdivision, for the map,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.There was a discussion regarding storm water management. Mr. Riefenhauser stated that after the first 300 feet of driveway, the grade is steep and a stone shoulder, made of heavy stone would be necessary. He stated that the rest of the driveway and the house site are on a gentle grade. The Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the plan. There was a brief discussion regarding fire protection. It was the consensus of the Commission that this issue would be addressed as part of the application process when building a house on the lot. There was a brief discussion regarding specimen trees. Mr. Riefenhauser stated that there were a limited amount of specimen trees and that most of the trees are of smaller caliber.
Motion:
resolved, that the Application of Shaun Nettleton, dated January 4, 2010, for a two lot subdivision of the property at 81 Painter Ridge Road, as shown on the map titled Nettleton Subdivision, 4 sheets, prepared by Smith and Company, dated 12/16/09 and revised 2/22/10, and as modified by letter dated 2/24/10 from Mark Riefenhauser, P.E., to this Commission, is approved, subject to the condition that Lot #2 requires an engineered septic system in accordance with the 2/12/10 approval of the subdivision by the Washington Health Department,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Consideration of Using POCD Funds for Depot Studies:
It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to discuss this with Mr. Solley, Selectman, at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 6, 2010.Motion:
to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda under V. Other Business: D. Referral from the Zoning Commission Re: Review of Proposed Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section: 2.2.3, 12.6.1.10, 15.2 and 21.1.24 Eating and Drinking Establishments,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, by 5-0 vote.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Hill distributed a 6 page response from Marty Connor that answered the questions that the Planning Commission had relating to the Revision of the Subdivision Regulations, a legal response from Atty. Zizka regarding Section 5.8.4 Exceptions to Open Space Requirements, a response from Mr. Connors explaining the importance of State Plane Coordinates and a memo from Ms. Hill to the Planning Commission regarding Revision of the Subdivision Regulations, Section 11.1 Public Sewer Systems. Ms. Hill stated that she made the grammatical corrections requested at the last meeting. Mr. Carey questioned Atty. Zizka’s email to Janet Hill, dated 1/6/10 stating “since the legislature did not actually say that the lots had to be retained in “family” hands for any particular length of time, the courts may not be willing to create such a requirement by judicial interpretation.” Mr. Carey asked if there was some way the Planning Commission could improve their controls? Ms. Hill stated that Atty. Zizka suggested that the Planning Commission could require an affidavit from the property owner. The Commission agreed that this issue should be included in the revision of the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Roberts stated that bringing this issue to the attention of the Northwest Corner Planning Commission would be an informal way to see how other municipalities are dealing with this issue.Plan of Conservation and Development
Ms. Roberts stated that the Commission should consider setting up a meeting with the Business Association to hear what its needs and concerns are regarding the POCD. Mr. Rimsky volunteered to draw up a questionnaire for the business owners of the Town and talk with them on an individual basis. He stated that he would bring a draft of the questionnaire to the Commission for their input. The Commission discussed that all the villages must be included and that if this questionnaire works for the Depot it could be used in the other villages as well. There was a brief discussion regarding how economic development would be addressed in the POCD.Zoning Referral Re: Proposed Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations:
Sections: 2.3.2, 12.6.1.10, 15.2 and 21.1.24
The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the proposed revisions.Motion:
resolved, that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments to Sections 2.3.2, 12.6.1.10, 15.2 and 21.1.24 relating to Eating and Drinking Establishments are consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development because they further the goal of preserving rural character,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.
Communications
Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:55 by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: February 6, 2010 February 2, 2010
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Ms. Gager
Members Absent:
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent: Mr. Fowlkes,
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present: Mark Riefenhauser, P.E., Mr. Shaun NettletonRegular Business
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.Seated: Frank, Roberts, Jahnke, Gager, Rimsky
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of January 5, 2010 were considered.Motion:
to accept the January 5, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
Subsequent Business
Motion:
to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda under V. Other Business:
D. Referral from the Zoning Commission Re: Proposed Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Sections: 2.3.2.g, 12.6.1.10, 15.2 and 21.1.24,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
Nettleton/81 Painter Ridge Road/2 Lot Resubdivision:
Mr. Mark Riefenhauser, P.E. and Mr. Shaun Nettleton were present to discuss the proposed 2 Lot subdivision at 81 Painter Ridge Road. Mr. Riefenhauser, Mr. Nettleton and the Commissioners looked at the 2 Lot Subdivision Map, and Site Development Plan, prepared for Shaun Nettleton, 81 Painter Ridge Road, by Smith & Co., dated 12/16/09. Mr. Riefenhauser submitted Residential Density Determination Forms for the existing lot, proposed lot 1 and proposed lot 2, dated 2/2/10. He stated the parcel is 17.25 acres and the proposed subdivision will create a 5.06 acre lot (lot 1) and a 12.19 acre lot (lot 2). Mr. Riefenhauser stated that there is an existing gravel driveway that crosses the wetland area, which has been approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission. He stated that the parcel is currently registered with the Department of Agriculture as a farm. He stated that Mr. Nettleton is proposing a 4-acre Agricultural Preservation Easement, which is currently going before the Conservation Commission for review. There was a discussion regarding the location and soil tests of the proposed 2nd lot. Mr. Riefenhauser stated that they have not obtained approval from the Health Department for the 2nd lot. Ms. Roberts stated that the Planning Commission would have to schedule a site visit and review the information before scheduling a public hearing. The Planning Commission scheduled a site visit for February 19, 2010 at noon for 81 Painter Ridge Road.Rowe/44 Keilwasser Road/ 2 Lot Resubdivision:
Ms. Hill stated that she sent a review of the application to Brian Neff, Engineer. The Commission looked at the Property Boundary Survey, Resubdivision Map, by T. Michael Alex, prepared for Susan A. Rowe, 44 Kielwasser Road, dated June 2009, with a revised date of 10/28/09. Ms. Hill stated that there were several issues that needed clarifying, such as the Subdivision Map is not drawn to a 1”= 40’ scale and the configuration of the proposed shared driveway. Ms. Roberts stated that a Public Hearing could be scheduled at the March 2, 2010 meeting when the issues with the application are resolved.
Other Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements
Mr. Frank stated that he would like to take the final draft home and review it.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Hill stated that Marty Connors would be away and would respond to the Planning Commission’s comments from the January 5, 2010 meeting, regarding the Revision of the Subdivision Regulations, when he came back. She stated that he may have a report ready for the March 2, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. It was noted that Attorney Mike Zizka commented on the time limitation of intra family transfers.2010-2011 Budget
The Commission reviewed the 2010-2011 Budget. The Commissioners agreed to request an increase the amount for Consultant Fees and decrease the amount for Membership Education.Zoning Referral Re: Proposed Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Sections: 2.3.2.g, 12.6.1.10, 15.2 and 21.1.24
The Commissioners agreed to review the proposed revisions and discuss them at the March 2, 2010 Meeting.
Communications
Earth Day Challenge
Ms. Gager stated there was a discussion at the Washington Environmental Council Meeting to challenge the Land Use Commissions to adopt a section of Town to clean up for Earth Day. She stated that Earth Day Clean Up would start at the Town Hall on April 17th at 12 pm. The Planning Commission agreed to participate.There was a brief discussion regarding a Meeting of the Selectmen and Land Use Chairmen or Commissions. Ms. Roberts stated that she would confirm when and whether or not there is a meeting scheduled.
Discussion:
Setting Priorities For Beginning Work on The Plan of Conservation and DevelopmentMr. Frank stated that he looked at the existing Plan of Conservation and Development and feels that the Planning Commission should start with listing what has been done and what has not been done under the existing plan and see what new problems have arisen. Mr. Rimsky agreed with Mr. Frank and stated that he felt the process should begin with the existing plan. Mr. Frank stated that under the implementation section of the POCD it states that it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to monitor and oversee implementation of the plan. Ms. Gager suggested including this excerpt of the implementation section in a memo to the other Land Use Commissions requesting an update on their progress. Mr. Carey stated that he came across the 1/13 /06 Litchfield County Times in which there is an editorial dedicated to the Depot Study, concentrating on the townspeople’s concerns. He stated that he thinks that there are a number of ways to start this procedure, that there will be a focus on the commercial areas of the Town and that most people agree with maintaining open space. Mr. Rimsky feels that it is important to get the business owners of the Town involved and to hear their opinions and suggestions. Mr. Frank stated that each section has a strategy, summary, and implementation guide to follow. He stated that there was some criticism that the POCD did not deal with economic development. He stated that ‘the Statute requires that the plan shall be a statement of the policies, goals and standards for the physical and economic development.’ Mr. Rimsky stated that an economic development plan is beneficial for the community and it needs to be included. Ms. Roberts suggested that the Planning Commission invite the Selectmen to a meeting to discuss the lack of an economic development plan. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would use the existing POCD as the starting point to update the POCD. Ms. Gager suggested going through the POCD, checklists, comparing them, and in March, breaking into sub groups. Mr. Carey stated that ambiguous language should be eliminated from the plan. There was a brief discussion regarding funding.
Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:50 by Ms. Roberts.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Posted: January 9, 2010 January 5, 2010
7:30 p.m., Land Use Meeting Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke,
Members Absent: Ms. Gager
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Braverman
Alternates Absent: Mr. Fowlkes,
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Also Present:Regular Business
Call to Order
Ms. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Frank, Roberts, Jahnke, Carey, Alt (for Gager), Braverman, Alt (for Rimsky)Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of December 1, 2009 were considered.
Corrections:
Page 2:
Motion: at the bottom of the page should read: to approve the proposed amendments to Sections 7.3.7, 7.14.17, 8.3.7, 8.4.20 and 9.4.1.d, relating to Eating and Drinking Establishments by Special Permit in all business districts, as consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development….Motion
to accept the December 1, 2009, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as corrected,
by Ms. Braverman, seconded by Mr. Carey, passed by 5-0 vote.
Subsequent Business
Motion:
to include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda under V. Other Business:
C. Election of Officers and
D. Discussion of Setting Priorities For Beginning Work on The Plan of Conservation and Development,
by Ms. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements
Mr. Frank submitted revisions he made to the Deed of Conservation Restriction. Ms. Hill stated they would be given to the Conservation Commission for review.Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
The commissioners reviewed the latest draft of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Frank had many corrections; most of them technical. There were several questions for Mr. Connor, consultant. These included: 1) Section 1.2.C: Shouldn’t the reference to downstream impacts be more specific, 2) Section 2.2.23 and elsewhere: The Commission does not think the terms, “parcel” and “lot” are synonymous, 3) Throughout: Should language from the state statutes be used when it does not specifically apply to Washington, 4) Section 2.2: Some additional terms that should be defined were noted, and 5) Sections 3.2.1.Q and 9.0: The commission asked for more information on water supply reports and its responsibility regarding water supply on proposed lots. Mrs. Hill was directed to consult with Atty. Zizka about the legality of existing Section 5.8.4.A, which Mr. Connor had recommended be deleted. Mrs. Hill will make all noted corrections, contact Mr. Connor and Atty. Zizka, and report back to the Commission at the next meeting.Discussion re: Setting Priorities For Beginning Work on The Plan of Conservation and Development
Ms. Roberts asked if the Planning Commissioners would consider proactive measures that would encourage businesses in the Depot. Mr. Carey stated that he feels, because of timing, that if the Master Plan of Development were made more permissive there would be an adverse effect on the law of supply and demand. He stated that the Depot has a sufficient supply of commercial spaces that should be maintained and fairly priced. Ms. Roberts stated that she felt that a vital village center would be beneficial to the Town. Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that a healthy town center should have some kind of “gravitational pull” and that there has to be something that brings commerce to that area. He stated that in order for the Depot businesses to stay viable they need people to have a reason to come into the Depot and not go to other places outside of Town. He stated that, as a first step, the Planning Commission should review the existing Plan of Conservation and Development and revisit what was recommended to be done, what has been done and what still needs to be done. Mr. Rimsky suggested the Planning Commission should start a dialog with the community and business owners of the Depot. Ms. Roberts requested that the members of the Planning Commission come to the next meeting in February with lists or suggestions regarding where to start, what has been accomplished and what needs to be done with The Plan of Conservation and Development.
Election of Officers
Motion:
to nominate Ms. Addie Roberts as Chairman of the Town of Washington Planning Commission,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to nominate Ms. Sarah Gager as Vice Chairman of the Town of Washington Planning Commission,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, by 5-0 vote.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.Public Comment
There was not anyone from the public present.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 9:40 by Ms. Roberts.
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting.
Filed subject to approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley White
Land Use Clerk
Meetings in 2009