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
April 1 •March 4 •February 5 •January 2 •Previous years: 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: April 9, 2008 April 1, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the March 4, 2008 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Mrs. Roberts noted that the Commission will work to implement procedures to ensure that applications are complete at the time of submission.
Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision
Mrs. Roberts noted there were still outstanding questions regarding this application and that the Commission must act on the request for a waiver of the open space requirement.
Atty. Fisher submitted the revised 1" = 40' scale map, "Property/Boundary Survey," 5 sheets, by Mr. Alex, dated March 2008, which was reviewed by the Commission. He also submitted the 4/1/08 letter requesting a waiver for the state plane coordinates.
Several questions and issues were raised based on points from Mrs. Hill's 4/1/08 report. 1. Mr. Temple did the mapping of the upland soils as required. Mrs. Hill asked if a soils report had been submitted. Atty. Fisher said there was no report, but there was a note on the map. He asked Mrs. Hill to advise him as soon as possible if this was adequate. 2) Mrs. Roberts asked whether monuments were located at the lot corners. Atty. Fisher stated that three were shown on the map. 3) Mrs. Roberts noted that a large portion of the property had already been placed under conservation easements and said she saw no reason not to waive the open space requirement. 4) A request to waive the 2 ft. contour requirement for the site development plan had previously been approved. 5) Atty. Fisher noted the proposed larger lot had not been labeled "Parcel A" and that was the only remaining deficiency he was aware of. 6) Mrs. Roberts asked if the existing driveway would be utilized for the proposed lot. If not, she advised Atty. Fisher that approval for the new driveway cut would have to be obtained from the Selectmen's Office. Atty. Fisher did not know where the driveway would be located, but said it would be within the building envelope. 7) Mr. Carey noted that perc tests were shown at the south end of the property, but not within the building envelope. He said if the existing septic system could not be used, the primary and reserve septic systems should be shown on the map.
Mrs. Roberts noted that the application would be reviewed again for completeness and would be discussed again at the May meeting.
Other Business
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/Request to Amend Conservation Easement Language: Atty. Fisher noted he had used the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road conservation easement as the template for the proposed revisions in this easement. He thought there should be no problem with the proposal since the Bowles easement language had been approved. It was noted, however, that there could be site conditions that should be addressed. The proposed amendment will be referred to the Conservation Commission for review.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Ms. Gager will contact Mrs. Payne and Mr. Boling to find out how this work is progressing.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations
Ms. Gager and Mrs. Hill had compiled a list of possible revisions to be considered and this had been circulated prior to the meeting. There was a lengthy discussion on many points and sections, which included: 1) Ms. Gager recommended that one of the maps submitted with each application show all of the required information. She said it was difficult to review a proposal without all of the information on one map. 2) Mrs. Hill recommended that Section 3.2 be expanded to list all of the information required for a complete application. If an applicant insisted on submitting an incomplete application, it could be denied without prejudice. Mr. Frank read Section 3.6.1, which confirmed this was true. To help applicants become aware of all of the documentation required for a complete application, it was decided that the application form would be revised to a check list format. 3) Ms. Gager suggested that Section 5.8.4.c be amended to set a specific time period during which the transferred property must remain in the family. If the property is sold before that time period is up, a fee in lieu of open space must be paid. She noted that two other towns in the state have successfully made this a requirement. Prior to the transfer of the lot to the family member a note is placed on the Land Records so any potential buyer would be aware of the requirement. It was generally thought that 3 years would be an appropriate time period. 4) Previously Mrs. Hill had pointed out that the Regs do not include an explanation of how the length of a cul de sac is measured. Therefore, a revision of 6.5.1 was proposed so this would be specified. Also, a reference to hammerheads as an alternate turnaround will be added. 5) Ms. Gager recommended several revisions concerning detention basins in Section 7.2. They should be designed by a Ct. licensed engineer, should not be located in open space, and should not drain into public drainage systems. 6) After consulting with Mr. Bellantoni, state archeologist, Ms. Gager recommended the addition of a requirement that sites of archeological and/or historic concern must be sent to the state for review. The sites of concern would be noted on a map produced by the state. 7) Mrs. Hill thought that the current reference in the Regs to road design standards was outdated because the Town Road Specification Ordinance administered by the Selectmen's Office has been adopted by the Town. It was thought that these and all of the other revisions should be reviewed by Atty. Zizka before a public hearing was scheduled. Because Atty. Zizka works in land use, he could review the legality of the proposed language as well as advise the Commission if there were additional revisions it should implement. Mrs. Hill and Ms. Gager will try to prepare a referral for Atty. Zizka before the next meeting.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 16.5.1/Non Residential District Signs: Mrs. Hill explained that the state right of way was so wide in some of the commercial districts, that business signs erected 10 feet from the front property line were not visible to passers-by. The proposed revision would eliminate the 10 ft. setback from the front boundary line for commercial properties. The commissioners generally thought this made sense and said for the record that they had no objections.
Referral from the Zoning Commission/Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Sections 13.11.1-Accessory Apartments, 12.15.4, 12.15.9-Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts, 13.9-Tourist Home or Inn, Petition to Amend 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 21.1.37-Lot Coverage, and 21.1.8, 21.1.9, 11.7.2.3-Method for Measuring Finished and Pre Existing Average Grade: Mrs. Hill circulated the proposed language and asked the commissioners to be prepared to discuss the referrals at the next meeting. She noted that three of the proposed revisions were mainly clarifications, while the two on Accessory Apartments and Lot Coverage were more substantive.
Communications
Mrs. Roberts and Ms. Gager had recently attended the seminar on the roles and responsibilities of land use commissions and strongly encouraged all commissioners to attend the next one In Torrington on 9/27/08.
Mrs. Roberts circulated the 3/31/08 committee meeting minutes regarding potential uses of the Washington Primary School building. She noted that when the Depot Study had been done the Commission had not included a detailed review of the Town owned school property and so said that a planning study should be done now.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Rimsky.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: March 13, 2008 March 4, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Feldman, Mrs. Branson, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Lyon
PUBLIC HEARING
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Whittlesey Road
Mrs. Roberts called the Public Hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, and Roberts and Alternate Fowlkes for Mr. Rimsky. She then read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/20/08 and 2/27/08 and read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Rimsky arrived at 7:38 p.m.
Mrs. Roberts reviewed the 3/4/08 memo from Mrs. Hill, Land Use Coordinator, which noted that 14 of the 20 certified mailing receipt cards had been received and that no photos to document the existing road conditions had been submitted. She recommended that the latter be made a condition of approval. Mr. Rimsky noted there were photos of Whittlesey Road in the Ad Hoc Committee report. Ms. Feldman stated that she understood photos had been requested, but was waiting for the snow to melt before taking them.
Mrs. Branson, Executive Director of Steep Rock, spoke in support of the application.
Ms. Feldman stated that Whittlesey Road met all of the scenic road criteria.
Assessor's Map #4-12 showing the entire length of the road and the properties along it was studied.
For the record Mrs. Roberts read three communications in support; 1) 3/3/08 phone message from Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, 2) 3/3/08 email from Ms. Karron and Mr. Foley, and 3) 2/26/08 letter from Mr. Woetzel and Ms. Watts.
Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, said there were drainage problems that had to be corrected at both ends of the road. He said there would be no significant changes, but he was not sure that the entire road would remain dirt. Mrs. Hill advised Ms. Feldman that except for emergency repairs needed for safety, any proposed changes to the road would be noticed in advance and a hearing held. (This is what was stated, but actually per the Scenic Road Ordinance, a hearing would be conducted only if there were objections to the proposal.)
There being no further questions or comments, Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts and noted all Alternates were present. Mrs. Roberts welcomed Mrs. Jahnke to the Commission.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/5/08 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher represented Mr. Bowles. The map, "Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/3/08 was reviewed. It was noted that the Conservation Commission had discussed both the open space configuration and the conservation easement language. That Commission had requested that in addition to the conservation easement, a deed restriction be noted on the mylar to be filed on the Land Records. Atty. Fisher said he was waiting to see if the Planning Commission agreed to the deed restriction before adding it to the map. Mr. Rimsky noted that a significant portion of the property was proposed for open space, said the deed restriction would be an intrusion on the property owner, and questioned whether it necessary. Mr. Frank said the deed restriction had resulted from the Conservation Commission's desire to protect the land along the road. Mrs. Roberts agreed that the rural streetscape was important to preserve, but thought the deed restriction would be a burden on the owner as it would restrict the location of the house on the proposed lot. Mr. Rimsky was also concerned that the Planning Commission might set a precedent if it required both the deed restriction and the conservation easement. After a brief discussion it was the consensus that requiring the deed restriction would be excessive and would not be made a condition of approval, but that Mr. Bowles could go ahead with it on his own if he wanted to. Atty. Fisher noted that he had revised the conservation easement according to comments from the Conservation Commission and Atty. Miles' final recommendations for sections 4a, 4c, and 5.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Bowles for a 2 Lot Subdivision at 52 Carmel Hill Road. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher submitted the letter dated 3/4/08 to supplement the application form. The map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 2/1/08 was reviewed. Atty. Fisher noted the 86.7 acre parcel, which included land across the street on Potash Hill Road, was located on East Street and Horse Heaven and Potash Hill Roads and briefly reviewed its history. He noted that after several parcels had been combined, there had been two primary residences on one lot. The current application proposed two lots; 3.63 acres with the existing house and 67.42 acres with a 4 acre building envelope where a future house would be built to replace one that had been moved off site. Atty. Fisher noted that 90% of the property was already under conservation easements and so requested a waiver of the open space requirement for this subdivision. He said he would attempt to address the issues raised in Mrs. Hill's 3/4/08 memo, including submitting a map at a readable scale, before the next meeting. He also noted that since the property was very level, he had requested a waiver of the 2 ft. contour requirement for the site development plan.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.4, requirement for 2 ft. contour lines to be shown on the Site Development Plan, for the Klauer/102 East Street/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
A site inspection was scheduled for Friday, March 14, 2008 at noon. The commissioners will meet at the main house.
Other Business
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Whittlesey Road: Mr. Frank noted that this was one of the most scenic of Washington's scenic roads.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Ms. Feldman for scenic road designation for the entire length of Whittlesey Road. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Ms. Gager reported that work is progressing and the subcommittee would soon meet again.
Referral from Board of Selectmen/CGS 8-24/Improvements at Town Beach/59 East Street: Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, submitted an undated letter, which described the work proposed. This included the replacement of the existing beach house, the installation of rest rooms, a changing area, office, and storage, reconfiguration of the parking area, replacement of fencing, establishment of an area from which to launch small craft, and the construction of a separate building to house the air compressor for the Lake Waramaug Task Force's aeration system. He noted the Town currently has an application before the ZBA and would soon submit an application to the Inland Wetlands Commission. Although the final maps with the location of the compressor building were not yet ready, Mr. Lyon explained that this 10' X 16' building was needed soon because the equipment had to be up and running by spring in order to maintain the quality of the lake. He pointed out its proposed location between the retaining wall and the existing frame building on the map, "Boat Ramp," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 1/15/08. The floor plans for the new beach house, "Existing Conditions," Sheet A-1, by Mr. Worcester, revised to 9/30/07 were also reviewed. Mr. Lyon noted that the idea of phasing the project had been a problem in the past so the Town was preparing a complete plan for the remainder of the work. Mr. Sabin's plan, "Final Conceptual Design," dated 1/15/08 was studied. Mr. Lyon explained how the parking area would be reconfigured so that it would be wide enough for right angle parking with defined spaces and the beach area would be extended to compensate slightly for the larger parking area. The object of the design, he said, was to preserve the square footage of the recreation area. Also, he detailed how the drainage would be improved and said a gravel walkway to the small craft launch area would be installed. The entrance to the parking area would be improved and vegetation planted. He noted the Park and Rec Commission hoped to extend the hours the beach is open after all of the work is completed and added that the entire area would have to be fenced to secure it. Financing, he said, would come partly from the Town's non recurring budget and hopefully, partly from grants. The commissioners noted that the Planning Commission had gone on record in support of Phase I, which was the installation of the new boat ramp. Mr. Rimsky thought the current proposal would increase the value of the Town property. No one raised any objections. Mrs. Roberts will write a formal response on behalf of the Commission.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mrs. Hill will circulate information on the sections that require updating and potential revisions prior to the next meeting.
Mrs. Roberts gave a brief summary of the recent meeting she attended at the Sharon Land Trust. This lead to a discussion regarding how growing produce locally can help solve the country's energy problems and how the global economy will eventually favor neighborhood resources and put an end to strip mall development.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: February 12, 2008 February 5, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Jahnke
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Neff, Mr. Klein, Mr. Papsin
PUBLIC HEARING
Klein-Cannizzarro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision/Con't.
Mrs. Roberts called the continuation of the public hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, and Roberts and Alternates Carey and Fowlkes for Mrs. Jahnke and Mr. Rimsky. She read the list of documents submitted to the file since the last meeting.
Mr. Neff, engineer, presented his map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," revised to 1/5/08. He explained that since the last meeting a soil scientist had identified wetlands near the route of the originally proposed driveway off West Shore Road and so an alternate driveway off Tinker Hill Road was now proposed. He noted that there were no wetlands issues for the new driveway route and that the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application.
Mr. Rimsky arrived at 7:36 p.m.
Mr. Neff noted that the driveway would be 2000 ft. longer, but the feasible house and septic sites had not changed.
Mrs. Roberts asked if the driveway slope would be an issue. Mr. Neff said that most of the driveway cut cross slope, resulting in a 10% grade. The first 300 feet would be 5% and a 100 ft. section would be 12%, but the entire driveway would not exceed the 15% maximum grade permitted by Zoning.
Mrs. Braverman entered at 7:38 p.m.
Mr. Carey asked if the driveway would be paved. Mr. Neff said it would not.
Mr. Carey noted there had been concern about possible further future development off the Tinker Hill Road access. Mr. Neff said that would still be possible. Mrs. Roberts said the Commission had to act on the application before it and that any future development plans would require another application.
The 2/5/08 Application Review by the Land Use Coordinator was briefly reviewed.
There were no other questions or comments from the commissioners or from the public.
Mrs. Roberts closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:43 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Gager, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey for Mrs. Jahnke.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 1/2/08 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision: The commissioners considered the applicants' requests for waivers and whether fire protection measures and/or landscaping and buffering should be required as conditions of approval. Mr. Carey did not think the watershed would support a fire pond and Mr. Neff noted that usually cisterns were required only for larger developments.
MOTION: To waive the 1"=40' scale and 2 ft. contour requirements for the maps and plans for the Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To determine that additional fire protection measures are not required for the Klein- Cannazzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To determine that no landscaping or buffering is required for the Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
It was noted that one of the corners on the proposed boundary line did not have a monument or marker as required per Section 6.10. Mr. Neff said this was because there was a tree at the corner as was indicated on Mr. Alex's survey map.
MOTION: Regarding the proposed boundary line corner between contours 720 and 730 for the Klein - Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision application, as long as the existing tree remains to mark the corner, a monument or iron pin is not required, but should the tree ever be removed, a marker must be installed at that time. By Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mrs. Klein and Ms. Cannizzaro for a two lot subdivision at 285 West Shore Road per the plans, "Proposed Site Development Plan," 13 sheets, by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/5/08. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Representing the applicant, Atty. Fisher noted that per Mrs. Hill's 2/5/08 review, Mr. Alex still had several items to correct on the Subdivision Map, and so he submitted the 2/5/08 letter requesting an extension of time in which the Commission may consider the application. Atty. Fisher stated that he was concerned about the Conservation Commission's recommendation that either the open space be located along Carmel Hill Road or the applicant be required to pay a fee in lieu of open space. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 1/3/08 was reviewed. Since the goal of the easement was to preserve land, Atty. Fisher suggested that instead of relocating the open space, that in addition a deed restriction against the cutting of trees be placed on the property along the road. He said his client had no problem with a conservation easement, but would not be financially able to pay a fee in lieu of. Mr. Rimsky stated that much of the front of the property was wetlands where there could be no disturbance. Mrs. Roberts noted that the two reasons the Commission has often favored open space along the front boundary line were 1) that it is easier to monitor and 2) that it preserves the rural streetscape. However, she said that in this case when the Commission conducted its site inspection, it did not necessarily think the protection along the front of the property was merited. Mr. Frank agreed that for this particular property the open space should not be required along the front boundary due to the unique qualities of the parcel. Atty. Fisher noted he had also requested a waiver of the requirement to place a note on the map regarding endangered or species of special concern, but it was the consensus that this was not necessary because his 1/22/08 letter stated there were no endangered species on the property per the 5/2003 DEP map. It was noted the main issue to be resolved was the conservation easement language, which would be reviewed by the Conservation Commission at its next meeting. Atty. Fisher stated that he would attend to discuss it with the commissioners.
Other Business
Referral from the Board of Selectmen/CGS 8-24/Replacement of Sprain Brook Culvert on Nettleton Hollow Road: Mr. Lyon stated that when it had inspected the deteriorated corrugated steel culvert ten years ago, the state had determined that it must be replaced. Mrs. Luckey, the then First Selectman, began the application process at that time for a state bridge grant for the project. The plans, "Replacement of the Nettleton Hollow Road Bridge Over Sprain Brook," by Lenard Engineering, revised to 10/11/07 were reviewed. Mr. Lyon detailed the construction process, stated that the DEP and state fisheries had approved the work, and explained how the bottom of the culvert and the streambanks would be restored to a natural condition. Mrs. Roberts was disappointed there was no rendering to show what the finished bridge would look like. She noted that the new guardrails that had been installed along Lower Church Hill Road looked "awful." Ms. Gager noted that Nettleton Hollow Road is a scenic road and so said that the guardrails should blend in with their surroundings. Mr. Lyon responded that since the work is funded by the state, crash rated guard rails must be used. Mr. Rimsky recommended that the Town install the same kind of guardrails as used by the state in its recent work on Rt. 219 in New Hartford. Mr. Lyon said the issue of guardrails had been raised at the public informational meeting and he had asked the engineer to look into suitable options. The commissioners asked that efforts continue to find appropriate guardrails that would be in keeping with the rural character of the area.
MOTION: The Planning Commission has heard from the First Selectman who described the proposed municipal project to replace the Sprain Brook culvert on Nettleton Hollow Road and finds 1) that it has no objections to the project and 2) that the work is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, and passed 5-0.
Traffic Speed Display Signs for the Depot: Mr. Brinton circulated an information sheet on radar speed display signs and said the Town hoped to install two in prominent locations in the Depot and around Town in an effort to slow traffic. He said the signs would be 12" X 12" mobile units with battery packs that would be mounted on existing sign posts once permission from the state DOT has been obtained. Funds for the signs would not be available until after July 1 unless Trooper Sordi can obtain a state grant before then. Mr. Brinton said the signs would be moved around by the police depending on where they were needed and would record the speed of each passing vehicle. Mr. Frank noted that the installation of these signs would be in keeping with the recommendations of the Depot Study, which call for traffic calming measures in the Depot.
Update/16 Titus Road/River Loop Property: Mr. Brinton reported that the regrading would be completed at the beginning of the fiscal year. Mrs. Roberts asked if the committee investigating appropriate uses for this property was still active. Mr. Brinton said it was and that he would keep the Commission posted on its progress.
Committee for Possible Uses for Primary School Building: Mr. Lyon noted that a short term committee would be formed to study possible future uses for the Primary School Building if there came a time when it was not used as an educational facility. He asked if any of the Planning commissioners would be interested in serving on it. Mr. Frank was concerned that Planning commissioners could have a potential conflict of interest as Planning would be asked to review any future proposal for the school building under CGS 8-24. Mr. Rimsky thought it was appropriate for Planning to have at least one member on the committee and said that this member could recuse himself for the 8-24 discussion. He said this and the Town Hall were the most valuable pieces of Town owned real estate and so deserved serious consideration. Mrs. Roberts said that the overall Town point of view was supposed to be represented by the Planning Commission and so agreed a Planning commissioner should serve on this committee.
Application for Scenic Road Designation for Whittlesey Road: It was noted that the application was now complete. A public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision/Request for Extension for Filing Mylar:
MOTION: To grant a 90 day extension for filing the mylar for Abella/44 Scofield Hill Road/3 Lot Resubdivision on the Town Land Records. By Mrs. Roberts, seconded by Mr. Frank, and passed 5-0.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: Mr. Frank noted that he and Ms. Gager had met with Mrs. Payne and Mr. Boling of the Conservation Commission on 1/17/08. He said the meeting had been productive and that Mr. Boling was going to create models for each of several types of easements.
FEMA Mapping: Mr. Carey reported that the cost of this study was estimated at $75,000 to $100,000 with no guarantee that the flood plain would be remapped in the Town's favor. He said the Board of Selectmen thought the study would be risky and so supported instead the approach of instructing the school architect to deal with the 100 year flood plain in any proposed design.
16 Titus Road Committee: Mr. Carey said the committee met last week and had discussed several topics: 1) request for a dog park, 2) perc testing, and 3) demolition and clean-up of the garage. He said the consideration of a dog park had not been positive. He said there were two acres that was dry enough for housing and the perc tests would indicate how many bedrooms/dwelling units might be accommodated there. He also noted that on the advice of Mr. Solley, the building slab for the garage would remain in place so it would be "grandfathered" should the Town want to build a pavilion or other structure there in the future.
2008-2009 Budget Request: This was very briefly discussed and OK'd. It was noted that the total was the same as last year's budget, but that the line items had been reapportioned to reflect this year's spending.
Application Procedure: Mr. Carey reported on a land use seminar he had attended, in which Mr. Gibbons warned about the processing of incomplete applications. He noted the number of incomplete applications that the Commission had received recently and said that Mr. Gibbons had stated that the Commission's job was to protect the Town and not to work with applicants as a pro bono consultant. He urged the Commission to do as Mr. Gibbons recommended; advise the applicants of incomplete applications that if they do not withdraw, their applications will be denied. Mrs. Hill said she understood that from a legal standpoint the Commission should review applications, not design them. Mrs. Roberts, however, thought it was important to maintain Washington's small town attitude of helping and cooperating with applicants.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: Mrs. Hill and Ms. Gager will work to organize the issues that need to be addressed and will attempt to get a list out for all the commissioners to review before the next meeting.
Cluster Subdivisions: The Conservation Commission has indicated an interest in cluster subdivisions. Mrs. Payne, Mr. Shapiro, and Ms. Gager will meet to begin consideration of this concept.
Joint Planning-Zoning Meeting: Mrs. Roberts noted that she had requested that this meeting be postponed until March. She will talk to Mr. Owen about scheduling it for a date other than a Regular Meeting date.
Election of Officers: Mrs. Roberts stated that she was willing to step down as chairman and noted that Mr. Charles was no longer on the Commission and so a new vice chairman was needed.
MOTION: To reelect Mrs. Roberts Chairman of the Planning Commission. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and unanimously passed.
MOTION: To elect Ms. Gager Vice Chairman of the Commission. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and unanimously passed.
Appointment of Commissioner: Mrs. Roberts announced that Mrs. Jahnke had been appointed to the Commission to take Mr. Charles' seat. She thought the Commission was fortunate to have such a competent new member with long time Washington ties.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: February 14, 2008 January 2, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Gager
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Fowlkes
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Litwin, Mrs. Payne, Mrs. Frank, Mr. Neff Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Wellings, Mr./Mrs. Manson, Mr. Charles, Atty. Fisher, Residents
PUBLIC HEARING
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision
Mrs. Roberts called the public hearing to order at 7:38 p.m. and seated Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, and Mrs. Roberts and Alternate Carey. She read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/19/07 and 12/26/07 and the list of documents in the file for the record.
Atty. Litwin represented Mrs. Klein. He submitted a letter she wrote to the Commission dated 12/28/07, which provided historical information about the property, questioned the subdivision application process, and stated that she and her sister had no intention of developing the property, but planned only to divide it between them. He noted the public hearing would have to be continued because the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet acted on the application.
Mr. Neff, engineer, briefly described the application. The property would be divided into two lots; Parcel A consisting of 63.39 acres and frontage on West Shore, Ash Swamp, and Tinker Hill Roads and Parcel B consisting of 21.56 acres with frontage on West Shore Road and containing all of the existing buildings except the pump house. He stated that no activities were proposed on either parcel at this time. He discussed the plans, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 12/6/07, which demonstrated the feasibility of future construction on the larger lot. He pointed out the one house site, the well and septic locations, and the driveway route. No tree cutting would be required. He said that all of the work would be done in the open field.
Ms. Baldwin asked about the driveway easement on the Ernhout property at 289 West Shore Road and asked if it would be retained by one of the proposed lots. Mr. Neff said it would be retained by Parcel B.
Mrs. Frank asked if a permit for the driveway cut on the state road had been issued. Mr. Neff said it had been applied for, but not yet approved. He did not anticipate any problems because the speed limit along that section of the road was only 25 mph and the sight lines exceeded the state's minimum requirements.
Atty. Litwin noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission had asked that possible wetlands in the vicinity of the feasible driveway route be mapped and that Mr. Neff could not finalize the driveway apron design to be approved by the state DOT until that mapping had been completed. Mrs. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission is also waiting for a copy of the completed map.
Mr. Manson asked about the driveway specs. Mr. Neff responded that the driveway would have a gravel surface, would be 10 ft. wide, have a maximum 12% slope, and would not qualify as a new road. Atty. Litwin said that Mrs. Klein had clearly stated that the driveway would be to serve one single family dwelling, although no one knew what might happen in the future.
Mrs. Roberts noted for the record that the Planning Commission may not speculate about the future, but must consider the application before it. If plans change in the future, she said, the property owner would then have to reapply and go through the application process again. She also noted that a public hearing had not been required for the current application, but the Commission had decided to hold one due to public interest.
Mr. Wellings asked Mr. Neff how many lots the property could be divided into based on the proposed location of the house. Mr. Neff said that Parcel A had limited road frontage, which would limit the number of possible lots. Mrs. Hill referred to the residential density computations on Mr. Alex's map, "Site Analysis Plan," revised to 12/18/07 and pointed out that considering soil types, Parcel A had an approximate capacity of 10 dwelling units and Parcel B, 4 dwelling units. Mr. Neff did not think this many units would be possible due to the limited road frontage and other factors that would have to be considered.
Mr. Manson asked if the property was being divided in a manner so that both lots would have frontage on West Shore Road. Mr. Neff said it was. Atty. Litwin noted Parcel A's access to Tinker Hill Road is limited because it is so steep and its access to Ash Swamp Road is limited due to the existence of wetlands and watercourses, which would require a culvert or a bridge to cross.
Mrs. Frank asked if it would be possible to put in a road from West Shore Road without exceeding the 10% maximum road grade allowed. Mr. Neff said it would be possible, but would be so expensive that it would not be likely.
Ms. Baldwin asked how much of the shoreline was included in Parcel B. Mr. Neff said the property was being divided so that each lot would have a few hundred feet of lake frontage.
Mr. Frank asked if there were drainage problems associated with the proposed driveway. Mr. Neff said that drainage provisions were included in the plans. There would be a rip rapped swale on the upper side to catch the hillside runoff and cross culverts under the driveway in three locations. He said that none of the runoff would flow towards the adjoining Weeks property.
Mr. Frank asked Mr. Neff to talk about the conservation easement. Mr. Neff said that over 22 acres, the bulk of Ash Swamp, was proposed for a conservation easement that would be conveyed to Steep Rock.
Mr. Carey asked if an 800 to 900 foot long, gravel surface driveway would cause erosion problems. Mr. Neff said, no, because the proposed swale would keep the drainage from above off the driveway and the driveway would be crowned. He also noted that the driveway would be less impervious if it was not paved.
Mrs. Frank asked if Mr. Neff had considered installing small berms. Mr. Neff said this would not be necessary due to the rip rapped swale above the driveway.
As there were no other questions or comments from the Commission or from the public, Mrs. Roberts noted that the public hearing had to be continued to receive revised maps and the DOT approval, and so at 8:06 p.m. she continued it to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Roberts called the meeting to order at 8:11 p.m. and seated Members Frank, Rimsky, and Roberts and Alternate Carey.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 12/4/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 3, line #8, the correct meeting date was January 7, 2008.
MOTION: To accept the 12/4/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/15/07 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To accept the 12/29/07 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Klein-Cannizzaro/285 West Shore Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Mrs. Roberts noted that discussion would be tabled to the next meeting because the public hearing had been continued to February 5, 2008.
Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision: Atty. Fisher submitted the following: 1) "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 1-2-08, 2) the 12/28/07 letter of authorization for Atty. Fisher from Mr. Bowles, and 3) the 1/2/08 letter to Mrs. Roberts from Atty. Fisher requesting three waivers of the Regulations. He noted the open space acreage had been recalculated. Mrs. Roberts asked if the open space connected with the open space on the adjoining Davenport property. Mrs. Hill said she had reviewed the Davenport subdivision map and it did not appear to connect. Atty. Fisher noted that the residential density calculations showed the lots would not be able to be resubdivided. He said that earlier in the day he had submitted the proposed conservation easement; its form was based on Steep Rock language and had been used previously by the Town. Mrs. Hill reported that she had referred it to the Conservation Commission for review. Mrs. Roberts explained that the Conservation Commission is concerned about its ability to monitor open space to the rear of lots. Atty. Fisher stated that the easement would grant Conservation the right to access the open space over the front part of the lot. Mrs. Roberts noted that the Planning Commission often favors open space along the road to preserve the rural streetscape. Atty. Fisher responded that some of the front of the property is wetlands where nothing could be built anyway. Mrs. Roberts reviewed Mrs. Hill's 1/2/08 report. Two minor additions to the map were required; 1) additional monuments and 2) a note concerning DEP endangered and threatened species. Mrs. Hill noted that she had reviewed the DEP map and had found there were no species of concern on this side of Carmel Hill Road. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that fire protection measures and landscaping and buffering would not be required. Mr. Neff reviewed his plan, "Proposed Site Development Plan," dated 11/1/07. After considering the merits of the applicant's request, the Commission waived the following requirements:
MOTION: To waive Section 4.2.1, map scale requirement, for the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.4.11, state plane coordinate requirement, for the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Carey, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To waive Section 4.5.4, 2 ft. contour requirement, for the Bowles/52 Carmel Hill Road/2 Lot Subdivision application. By Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, and passed 4-0.
Mrs. Roberts said she anticipated action on this application at the next meeting.
Other Business
Application to Designate Whittlesey Road a Scenic Road: It was noted the application was not yet complete because all of the forms to be certified by the Town Clerk had not yet been submitted. Consideration of the application will continue at the next meeting.
Revision of the Subdivision Regulations: This will be discussed at the next meeting when Ms. Gager, who has been working on a list of needed revisions, is present. Mr. Rimsky recommended that the requirement to show state plane coordinates on subdivision maps be deleted because there are now more accurate methods of mapping.
Procedures and Template for Conservation Easements: It was noted that Mr. Frank and Ms. Gager would form a subcommittee with Mrs. Payne and Mr. Boling of the Conservation Commission to draft standard procedures and a standard conservation easement form that can be used by most applicants. Atty. Fisher had submitted a template for consideration and copies were given to Mr. Frank for review by the subcommittee.
FEMA Mapping: Mr. Carey noted that his letter dated 12/15/07 had been submitted to the First Selectman, who responded that the request for funds to update the FEMA maps will be considered as part of the upcoming budget process. The Selectmen's Office will also investigate the possibility of obtaining a grant for the map work. Mr. Charles noted that having the correct flood plain elevations is very important because the state has ruled that Washington will not be reimbursed for any renovations to the Primary School because it is in the flood plain. However, this would not be so if the current mapping is incorrect. It was noted that although Milone and MacBroom estimated that the work, including making a presentation to FEMA in Virginia, would cost $70,000 (and by now, several years later, this has probably risen to $100,000,) this was not much compared with millions of dollars of reimbursements the Town could receive if it is found the school building is not in the flood plain. Mr. Charles explained that the Building Committee has to know exactly where the flood plain is so that it can make informed decisions regarding the school. It was noted that other decisions about development in Town such as the most appropriate use of the River Loop property are also dependent upon the accurate mapping of the flood plain.
Special Meeting: The Commissioners were reminded that there is a Special Meeting of the Zoning and Planning Commissions scheduled for approximately 8:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room on Monday, January 7, 2008.
Election of Officers: Mrs. Roberts noted that the election of officers would take place at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Frank.
Mrs. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Meetings in 2007