www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2002

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 the Town Clerk. Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.

---

Jump down to: December 16 • November 25 • October 28 • September 23 • August 26 • July 22 • June 24 • May 20 • May 7 • April 22

---

December 16, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Mrs. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Abella
STAFF PRESENT: Atty. Byrne, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Solley, Mr. Wyant
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Boyer, Mr. Millington, Mr. Cannavaro, Mr. Shannon, Mrs. Rourke and approximately 100 residents and members of the press

PUBLIC HEARING

Washington Montessori School-Washington Community Housing Trust

16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page. He explained the hearing procedure and agenda to the public and introduced the Commission's counsel, Atty. Byrne.

Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on December 4 and 11, 2002.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file. (See attached list.)

Mr. Sears, President of the Washington Community Housing Trust, presented the proposal to convert the existing Montessori School building to 12 units of affordable housing in accordance with the State of Ct. general statutes re: affordable housing. One 3 bedroom apartment, 2 handicapped apartments, three 2 bedroom, and six 2 bedroom townhouse apartments totaling 23 bedrooms were proposed on the 3.465 acre parcel. He compared this density to South Commons in Kent, which has 24 apartments on 3.4 acres. Mr. Sears and Mr. Talbot, architect, compared the existing conditions map with the plan, "Site Plan, by Mr. Talbot, revised to 10/22/02, noting that both the footprint of the building and the total coverage of the lot would decrease due to the proposed demolition of sections of the existing school and the decrease in the number of parking spaces from 56 to 31. Mr. Sears referred to the scale model of the project and the elevations by Mr. Talbot and said the Housing Trust was attempting to compliment the historic and aesthetic characteristics of the neighborhood and would provide landscaping and buffering per the landscaping plan by Mr. Sabin.

He stressed the design was in harmony with the neighborhood and appropriate for the lot. He stated the proposal was consistent with the 1993 Plan of Conservation and Development and described how it complied with Sections 13.1.B.1-8 of the Zoning Regulations. The points Mr. Sears made included:

• 12 units were proposed based on septic tests and economic feasibility.

• According to Ms. Adams, real estate broker, the proposed complex would not affect property values in the area.

• Neighbors have expressed concerns about transients, but the average tenant stay at the Dodge Farm affordable housing complex is over 4 years and at Ellsworth Apartments it is longer.

• Rents would be set according to the state affordable housing requirements in the state affordable housing appeals act (AHAA), which were reviewed.

• WCHT carefully selects tenants by checking references and credit checks, has renters sign rental contracts, and enforces the rules in the tenants' handbook.

• It is estimated the complex will have 30 residents of various ages and incomes.

• The New Preston Water Co. reported it has adequate water to serve the proposed units, but low pressure. WCHT is working with the water company to make improvements to solve the pressure problem.

• The Fire Chief has issued preliminary approval. A 10,000 gallon cistern will be installed on site.

• Traffic congestion will decrease as the existing school has a yearly average of 100 trips per day and the 12 apartments will have many fewer trips per day.

• Parking will be reconfigured and there will be entrances from both Church Street and Hinckley Road.

• The proposed apartments will have less of an impact on the neighborhood than the existing school; reduction of noise, less traffic, less fumes, smaller structure. There will also be minimum signage and low level lighting.

• Mr. sears confirmed that this application is being submitted under the AHAA. WCHT will comply with the three-fold requirements under this act: 1) % of units set aside; 2) rental/income formula: and 3) 40 year deed restriction.

The Commissioners asked several questions.

• Mr. Shapiro asked for more information about the water problems. Mr. Sears said the WCHT would work with the Water Company to raise the cistern at the water source for more pressure and to increase the size of the water main.

• Mr. Martin asked if the water supply was adequate. Mr. Sears referred to Mr. Black's 9/23/02 letter, which stated there is currently an excess of 7000 gallons per day.

• Mr. Martin asked Mr. Sears to explain in detail how the project meets the three criteria of the affordable housing statutes. Mr. Sears stated all the units, not just the required 30%, would be affordable, rents would not exceed 30% of the medium income of the state, and the units would be deed restricted as affordable in perpetuity, not just the 40 years required. Mr. Sears provided additional figures based on the 2000 census data. Atty. Byrne stated the information provided was adequate to show the applicant intends to comply with the state statutes governing affordable housing (AHAA).

• Mr. Martin asked if the WCHT had considered building fewer apartments. Mr. Sears stated the proposal was smaller than the 20-21 units originally discussed with Mr. Chapin and said to make the complex economically feasible and to have a manager reside on site, 12 units were required.

Mr. Shannon represented forty-four New Preston area residents against the application. He submitted a list of the 44 names, a petition with 153 signatures against the project and a copy of his slide presentation for each Commissioner. He stated the residents he represents do not object to affordable housing in general, but to the size and scale of this project because it does not fit in with the neighborhood. The points he made in his presentation included the following:

• Traffic congestion in the area would increase because the existing school is not open during the weekends, summer, or evenings as the apartments would be.

• The existing rural road network is not adequate due to the narrow roads, hills, poor sight lines, and many driveways in the area. His slides included photos of dangerous areas and intersections. He also noted that church and New Preston Women's Club events add to the traffic and parking problems and said on street parking adds to the dangerous conditions, limits two way traffic, and makes if difficult for emergency vehicles to access the area. He noted there has been no traffic study for the proposal.

• He maintained 31 parking spaces was not enough to accommodate 23 bedrooms.

• According to Mr. Hazo, a certified appraiser, the complex would make the area less desirable.

• 2.19 acres of the parcel have deed restrictions so all the units would be located on 1+ acres.

• The two 2 story buildings proposed would be visual obstructions, which would block the view of the historically and architecturally significant church.

• The lighting and parking required for 12 apartments would create a nuisance in the neighborhood.

• In comparison to River Woods and Dodge Farm, which are set back far from the road with substantial vegetation for buffering, the proposed units have no buffering on three sides of the property.

• A project of 6 apartments, or small starter homes or single family condos would be the size and scale appropriate for this parcel and would be more in keeping with the historic neighborhood.

• He stressed the traffic congestion the complex would create would be hazardous to public safety and would increase the traffic in the area during non school hours.

Public Input:

• Mr. Cannavaro/12 Church Street: He appreciated the need for affordable housing in Town, but objected to the size and scale of this project. He noted there are deed restrictions on the property and submitted a letter to Atty. Fairbairn concerning these restrictions for the record. He thought a larger, more appropriate parcel could be found elsewhere in Town.

• Mrs. Rourke/Hinckley Road: She requested more specific information concerning the proposed landscaping, mature trees, and a guarantee the landscaping plan would be implemented. She expressed her concern about the proposed driveway on Hinckley Road because it would not be safe for the children who live and play in the vicinity. She stated the WCHT did not take the comments of area residents into consideration when it drafted its plan, which she said was dictated by the donors of the funds for the units instead of what was in the best interests of the neighborhood. She also said later in the hearing she was not against affordable housing, but was against the size and scale of this proposal.

• Mr. Tagley/Quarry Ridge, Mygatt Road: He commented on the political nature of the situation to which Mr. Martin replied that the Zoning Commission is charged by state statute to base its judgements on the law rather than popular sentiment. Mr. Tagley noted his understanding that when the state criteria for affordable housing is met, it may be located anywhere, which could have a significant impact on the character of Town. He asked if the Zoning Commission could create a specific corridor where this type of housing would be permitted. He objected that owners of single family dwellings must meet stricter zoning standards than affordable housing projects. Atty. Byrne agreed that if the state criteria for affordable housing was met, the standards in the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations do not have to be met. He explained the state legislature has established the affordable housing statutes and these supercede local Zoning regulations so the Commission could not restrict these projects to any specific district. Atty. Byrne also discussed the standards considered by the court when deciding an appeal of an affordable housing decision. Matters of substantial public interest, he said, had to do with public welfare and safety, such as water supply and sewers. Although he was not aware of any case where the court upheld an affordable housing appeal due to traffic concerns, he said it was always possible that the court could consider this a matter of substantial public interest.

• Mr. Ross/Hinckley Road: He expressed his concern about traffic and the safety of school children who would be home on days when school was canceled.

• Mr. Anderson/7 Hinckley Road: He asked whether the proposed apartments would be for Washington residents only, pointing out WCHT had stated River Woods would be for Washington residents only, but was now accepting out of towners. He noted while the scale model of the project was nice, it was misleading because it did not include all the surrounding buildings or the imperfections of the site and used trees on other properties for buffering. He thought the apartments were an unwelcome and out of place island in the center of his neighborhood and recommended the Commission conduct a site inspection. He was also concerned about traffic. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Sears what the market scope would be in terms of Washington residents vs. outsiders. Mr. Sears said the WCHT was committed to provide housing opportunities for people with significant ties to Washington including people who commute here to work, those who couldn't afford to stay here, etc. Mr. Sears explained River Woods was filling more slowly than the other affordable housing projects because it is a difficult decision for an elderly person to make a major lifestyle change. He anticipated the senior housing would be full by spring. Mr. Boyer stressed the WCHT had never said it would strictly limit the tenants in any of its projects to Washington residents only, but had always said it would accept those with strong ties to Washington.

• Mrs. Rourke: She noted the Dodge Farm residents who had saved enough to purchase homes had had to move out of Washington due to the lack of affordable homes here. She recommended this site be used to construct two or three affordable single family houses.

• Mrs. Friedman: She noted the Commission did not have enough information to judge whether a complex with fewer units would be feasible. Mr. Sears responded 1) 12 units were needed in the larger context of affordable units for the Town as a whole, 2) Dodge Farm has 14 units and just breaks even, 3) Originally River Woods had been planned for 8 units, but due to mortgage financing was increased to 12 units, and 4) One of the apartments was a unit for an on site manager. Mr. Martin noted some people thought one reason it was taking so long for River Woods to fill up was the small size of the units. He asked whether fewer, but larger units might be a better solution. Mr. Sears said the proposal has generously sized apartments ranging from 900 to 1400 sq. ft. (According to the floor plans submitted the exact sizes proposed range from 995 to 1323 sq. ft.) Mr. Brinton asked what the average number on the waiting list for Dodge Farm is. Mr. Meyers said it varies, but is usually 8 or 9.

• Mr. Cannavaro: He said he had heard the size of the project could not be scaled down due to costs, and so asked what the cost of the project would be.

• Ms. Pring/Hinckle Road: She objected to the WCHT's advertisements for out of town people to fill Dodge Farm. Mr. Sears explained state funds were used to finance those units so the Trust was bound to an affirmative action marketing plan in both urban and minority areas.

• Mr. Boling/Church Street: He voiced his concern regarding clusters of people of modest means and suggested the proposed units reflect greater diversity to attempt to preserve rural character. He asked the Commission to consider conditions of approval that would help achieve these goals, but not affect the affordability of the units.

• Mrs. Shannon/Hinckley Road: She questioned the need for more affordable apartments in Washington and complained the donors were controlling the project rather than the needs of the Town.

• Atty. Kelly/Kielwasser Road: He made the following points: 1) Currently Washington has only 33 affordable units, but needs 200 to reach the 10% goal. 2) The people who would live in the proposed units would be a source of volunteers for the Town. 3) WCHT deserves enormous thanks for its efforts to provide affordable housing in Town and to keep this proposal a modest size since any developer could have proposed a much larger complex. 4) He urged those opposed to encourage the Town to begin partially funding affordable housing as a way to keep costs down and in turn, density lower. Atty. Byrne agreed the current Zoning Regulations can not stop for profit developers while the 10% goal has not yet been met. He also noted that for profit developers need only propose 30% of their units be affordable to meet the state statutes.

• Mr. Boyer, WCHT: He noted if these 12 units were constructed the Town would achieve 2% of the affordable unit goal and that would give the Town a 4 year moratorium on outside developers.

• Mr. Krenkle/Hinckley Road: He complained with the school parking gone there would be no place for church parking and said on street parking would make it difficult for emergency vehicles to access nearby homes.

• Mr. Rourke/Hinckley Road: He asked how much money had been donated for the project, what the money would be used for, and thought if a $3 million dollar donation had been made it would pay for all of the costs. Mr. Martin stated financing was not a zoning issue. Atty. Byrne thought the information could be helpful if available. Mrs. Friedman thought financing was, indeed, a zoning issue because it relates to how many units must be built to make the project work. She requested financial data so the Commission could make a judgement about whether 12 units were needed.

• Atty. Fairbairn/Green Hill Road: He noted he represents Kent Affordable Housing. He said Kent required 24 units to make it financially feasible and so thought it was remarkable the WCHT could achieve this with only 12. He offered to provide figures from Kent as an example.

• Mr. Lambino/Litchfield County Times: He asked Atty. Byrne if there were any precedents for the court upholding an appeal based on decrease of property values. Atty. Byrne said there was not.

• Mr. Tagley: He asked if the project had to be fully funded before it could be approved. Atty. Byrne stated this was not a requirement.

• Mr. Martin: He asked whether the DEP approval was for water and septic. Mr. Sears stated it was for septic only.

• A site inspection was scheduled for Sunday, January 5, 2003 from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. The public hearing was continued to Monday, January 13, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

• Mr. Martin asked WCHT for any financial information, which would substantiate the need for the size and scale of the project.

• Mr. Martin noted the issue of water supply was one a court would take into consideration. He indicated the Commission would carefully review the report from R.J. Black and Son.

• Mt. Shapiro noted many residents had complained about traffic hazards in the area and asked if there was any evidence to be submitted concerning accidents and injuries in the area. Mr. Shannon stated traffic patterns would be different when the units were constructed and there would be an increased risk of accidents.

• Mr. Avery/New Preston Hill Road: He stated there is no speed limit posted on his road and cars pull blindly out onto it from Church Street. He also asked whether the water tank for the New Preston Water Co. would be above or below the ground. Mr. Sears said it would be below ground.

• Mr. Krenkle: He complained the perc tests had been done during a dry period and said there was no reserve area should the septic fail. He asked the Zoning Commission to study this matter. Mr. Martin responded the Commission has a long standing precedent to accept state and local health department rulings as it has no expertise in this area. Mr. Owen noted it would be highly unlikely that the Commission would hire an expert to challenge the state Department of Public Health, adding a citizen could do so on his own if he thought it necessary. Mr. Martin noted, too, that septic systems of this size have safety margins built into their designs to protect against failure. Mr. Anderson thought the Commission should consult directly with the state DPH. Mr. Martin said he would ask Mr. Crespan, Director of Health, for copies of the state paperwork so that it could be entered into the public record of this public hearing for anyone to review. Ms. Pring noted there is a lot of ledge in the area and asked if this had been accounted for in the septic plans. It was noted this is not a zoning issue.

• Mr. Carlson/Kinney Hill Road: He asked for clarification that if the state criteria for affordable housing is met, the state statutes then override the local Zoning Regulations. Mr. Martin said this was true.

• Mrs. Allen: She stated the Sunday morning church parking issue is the church's problem, not the problem of the owner of 16 Church Street.

• Mr. Ross/Hinckley Road: He noted his concern about the size of the project in relation to the size of the property. He asked if the Commission has any recommended guidelines and if approved, whether a precedent would be set for similar projects. Mr. Martin responded Zoning's density regulations are very important and apply to the whole Town. In this limited case, however, the density regulations have been overriden by the AHAA because the project meets the state criteria for affordable housing.

• Atty. Fairbairn: He noted there are other areas in Town with higher densities than currently permitted under soil based zoning, which are grandfathered. He cited The Green as an example, where there are 5 apartments on a half acre property and 7 units and an office on another parcel that is under an acre.

The following documents were submitted at the hearing:

1. Petition against the application

2. Copies of slide presentation by Mr. Shannon, "New Preston, 16 Church Street Proposed Apartment Complex Development"

3. Letter from Mrs. Rourke to the Commission, dated 12/16/02 - opposed

4. Letter from Mr. Sachs and Ms. Lerner to the Commission, dated 12/12/02 (unsigned) - opposed

5. Letter from Atty. Fairbairn to Mr. Arturi dated 3/19/01 re: restrictions on the property

6. Warranty Deed, 4 pages, re: restrictions on property

7. Letter from Mr. Somersett to Mr. Sears, dated 6/30/02 - in support

8. Letter from Mr. Wright to WCHT, dated 7/4/02 - in support

9. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Murgio to WCHT dated 7/1/02 in support

10. Letter from Mrs. Kopp to WCHT, dated 7/1/02 - in support

11. Letter from Mr. Duncan to whom it may concern, dated 7/5/02 - in support

12. Letter from Ms. Morse to WCHT, dated 7/2/02 - in support

13. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Seitz to Mr. Sears, dated 4/12/02 - in support

14. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Benedict to Mr. Sears, dated 6/29/02 - in support

15. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Averill to Mr. Sears, dated 6/24/02 - in support

16. Letter from Ms. Adams to whom it may concern, dated 7/7/02 - in support

17. Letter from The First Congregational Church to Mr. Sears, dated 10/1/02, in support and making a substantial donation

18. Letter from Mr. Reinholt to whom it may concern, dated 6/29/02 - in support

19. Letter from Mr. Boling to WCHT, dated 4/21/02 - in support with recommendations for changes

20. Letter from Mrs. Bronson to the Zoning Commission, not dated, - in support

21. Letter from Mr. Sears to New Preston neighbors, dated 12/02 re: notification of area residents about the proposal and public hearing

22. Letter from Mr. Sears to the Zoning Commission, dated 12/16/02 re: compliance with Washington Zoning Regulations

23. 2 photos of light fixtures

24. Letter from Mr. Black, R.J. Black & Son to Mr. Sears, dated 9/23/02 re: water supply

25. Series of 3 site plans, unsigned, undated, comparing layouts and lot sizes for River Woods, Dodge Farm, and current proposal

26. "Drainage and Grading Plan," by Mr. Howland, dated 12/13/02

27. "Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and Detail Sheet," by Mr. Howland, not dated

28. "Site Photo," Peter Talbot Architects, 10/22/02

29. "Church Street and Hinckley Road Neighborhood Density Map," unsigned, not dated, re: number of current residents per lot

30. "Landscaping Plan, by Mr. Sabin

At 9:50 p.m. after everyone present had the opportunity to express themselves on this matter, Mr. Martin continued the public hearing to the site inspection on January 5th.

This hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Martin called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:04 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 11/25/02 Regular Meeting Minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Cass-DePecal/43 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet approved this application. Therefore, a public hearing was not scheduled.

Washington Montessor School-Washington Community Housing Trust/ 16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing

The public hearing was continued to the January 5th site inspection and to Monday, January 13, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

New Applications

Long View Landing/96 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment

It was noted Health Department approval had been granted. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, January 27, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.

McCullers/18 Plum Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

It was noted the Health Department had not approved this application and so it was considered incomplete.

Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Construct Faculty Housing

Mrs. Hill noted this application had been submitted after the agenda had been mailed. There was no Health Department approval and so it was considered incomplete.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17/18

It had been agreed at the last meeting that Atty. Byrne would be asked to work on a draft regarding Special Exceptions. Mr. Shapiro completed a memo of instructions/parameters for Atty. Byrne, which was circulated for review. Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Shapiro for his efforts and noted it had already been handed to Atty. Byrne. Mr. Martin also noted Atty. Kelly had written an outline of suggestions for this effort, which contained some good points. This also will be sent to Atty. Byrne. It was noted the new language will specify exactly which sections of the Regulations will qualify for flexibility by Special Exception. Mr. Martin also noted that instead of incorporating this in Section 17 it had been suggested it be added to Section 18, Zoning Board of Appeals. All Commissioners were asked to carefully consider how flexibility under a Special Exception section could best be implemented.

Plan of Development

It was noted the next Planning Commission to discuss the Plan of Development will be held on Tuesday, December 17 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The topic is Development and the Zoning Commission is invited to attend.

Privilege of the Floor

On behalf of the Washington Community Housing Trust Mr. Sears thanked the Commission for its time and effort at the public hearing.

Other Business

AT&T Wireless/Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations

Mrs. Hill reported the petition to amend the Regulations had been received at 5:02 p.m. today. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, January 27, 2003 in the Land Use Meeting Room, at 7:35 p.m. Mrs. Tracy asked if she could discuss this matter with the Commission, but Mr. Martin advised her to wait until the public hearing.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, ZEO

---

November 25, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. O'Rourke, Mr. Cannavaro, Mr. Sears, Ms. Leavitt, Mrs. Tracy, Atty. Alexander, Mr. Charles, Mr. Frenkel, Mr. Shannon

Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 10/28/02 Regular Meeting mintues as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Cass-DePecol/46 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mrs. Hill reported the Inland Wetlands Commission had referred the application to Land Tech Consultants for a review of the driveway plans and that Zoning concerns had been included in the referral letter. As the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet approved the application, a public hearing was not scheduled.

Beck/132 Calhoun Street/First Cut

Mrs. Hill noted Health Department and Inland Wetlands Commission approvals had been obtained and she had calculated the driveway grade for the rear lot would be less than 15%. There were no outstanding issues.

MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Beck for a first cut at 132 Calhoun Street per the map, "Site Development Feasibility Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 7/16/02. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fizherbert, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

New Preston Congregational Church-AT&T Wireless/15 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.19/Personal Wireless Service Facility

Mr. Martin informed the Commissioners that Atty. Zizka has recently advised that the Zoning Commission, not the Ct. Siting Council, has jurisdiction over this application because the facilities are proposed within an existing structure. The Commissioners read the letter from Atty. Zizka dated 11/22/02, which explained this opinion. Mr. Martin noted it had been pointed out during AT&T's preliminary discussion that this proposal would not comply with all the requirements of the Zoning Regulations and so if it was to be approved, revisions to the Regulations would be needed. He said the Commission had not gone ahead on its own to work on revisions because until recently it had been advised that the application would be under the Siting Council's jurisdiction. He said the most appropriate way to handle this now would be for the applicant to petition to amend the Regulations. He advised Atty. Alexander, who represents AT&T Wireless, that if a petition was received at the December 16th meeting, there would be adequate time to meet the notice requirements and hold a public hearing at the January meeting. He also noted that due to time constraints and notice requirements under the state statutes, the wireless application might have to be withdrawn and resubmitted if/when the Regulations are revised. Mrs. Friedman clarified there would be two hearings required, one for the proposed change to the Regulations and the second for the wireless application should the changes be approved. Atty. Alexander was given a disc with the current Zoning Regulations as Mrs. Hill had previously provided him with an outdated copy of the Regulations. Mr. Martin noted that the Zoning Commission's policy was to provide anyone with a disc of the Town's Zoning Regulations for free since the cost of creating the disc was nominal.

Atty. Alexander proposed a brief presentation of the application. Mr. Martin declined saying any substantive discussion should take place during the required public hearing when all interested parties had received proper notification.

Mrs. Hill returned the application fee to Atty. Alexander because the checks were made out for the wrong amount and said the application was incomplete until the correct fee was submitted. Atty. Alexander said he had received a letter regarding the application fee from Atty. Zizka and said he had a problem with application fees being used as a way to levy taxes. Mr. Martin said he would leave this matter to Atty. Zizka and the applicant to resolve, but added that no matter what the fee was, the Town has an ordinance that allows the Commission to charge the applicant for any costs in excess of the application fee. He also indicated that the application would not be considered complete until the agreed upon fee was submitted.

Mrs. Tracy asked when the public would be able to speak about the proposed revisions to the Regulations and the application. Mr. Martin said the public would have the opportunity to speak at both public hearings.

Mr. Frenkel complained that the public was not receiving enough notice to prepare for the upcoming hearings. Mr. Martin advised him all the notice requirements in the state statutes would be met. Mr. Frenkel then complained there was the appearance of impropriety because the Commission had given the disc of the Zoning Regulations to the applicant but had not provided him with one. Mr. Martin noted the Zoning Regulations are a matter of public record. Mr. Owen noted the Regulations are on the Town website and can be downloaded by anyone. Also they are always available at the Land Use Office. When Mr. Frenkel continued to complain, Mr. Martin said he would be happy to provide him with a disc either tonight or the next morning at his convenience. (Note: Mr. Frenkle never came in for the disc.)

Washington Montessori School-Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing

It was noted the Health Department had approved the septic plans and the Selectmen had approved the proposed driveway. Mr. Talbot indicated the Inland Wetlands Commission had been given a copy of the latest plans to review.

A public hearing was scheduled at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2002 in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

Mr. Shannon stated he represents a group of residents and requested 45 minutes for a presentation at the hearing. Mr. Martin advised him he would have all the time he needs, but to please minimize redundancy. Mr. Owen noted comments to the Zoning Commission should focus on the Regulations and matters over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Mr. Martin said the Commission would apply the eight standards listed in Section 13.1.B when evaluating the application and said a summary of these standards would be posted at the public hearing. Mr. Martin described the public hearing procedure and said if there was not enough time to give everyone an opportunity to speak, the hearing would be continued to January. He also noted the Commission usually takes time to evaluate complicated applications and does not act on them the same evening the hearing is closed. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Fitzherbert asked Mr. Shannon to submit a list of the people he represents. He was also advised to coordinate any equipment requirements with Mr. Gueniat, custodian. Mrs. Hill asked for copies of any material to be presented before the hearing so she could make copies available for the Commissioners.

Other Business

Communications

Copies of the draft testimony to be given by Atty. Zizka at the Siting Council's hearing on the New Milford Sprint application were circulated. It was noted copies were also provided for Mrs. Luckey, Mrs. Payne, and Mr. Markert.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Fitzherbert asked for the moment that he be considered a member of the public and be given the privilege of the floor. He then stated for the record that Mr. Frenkel's earlier comments that the Commission had acted improperly because it gave a disc of Zoning Regulations to AT&T's attorney were extremely inappropriate and showed a lack of knowledge about the availability of the Regulations and the procedures followed by the Commission. He thought Mr. Frenkel's comments were uncalled for.

Zoning Regulations

Mr. Owen reported he had reformatted the Zoning Regulations for the Internet so they will be easier for Mrs. Hill to work with and for the public to search on the website. Mr. Martin expressed his appreciation for all the work on the website done by Mr. Owen and Mr. Swain.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17

Mr. Abella reported he and Mr. Shapiro had reviewed the Litchfield regulations and that Mr. Shapiro had researched other towns' regulations, and they had concluded Litchfield's were good. He noted these included percentage limitations on approvals. Mrs. Friedman noted a great deal of thought would have to be put into figuring out what the maximum percentage should be because once it was established, it could not be exceeded. In general, it was reconfirmed that because the ZBA had tightened up on hardships, it would be beneficial for the Zoning Commission to provide some flexibility for nonconforming structures and properties. It was noted that the Zoning Commission could create Special Exception regulations, which could provide the ZBA a fair amount of discretion without setting maximum percentages as long as specific criteria were established. It was agreed to consult with Atty. Byrne about drafting revised regulations.

Revision of the Regulations/Section 14

Mr. Martin noted no further work had been done on this section due to the Commission's full agenda.

Plan of Conservation and Development

Mrs. Friedman gave a brief report on the last meeting. Topics discussed were affordable housing, the percentage of open space that should be required for subdivision applications, transfer of development rights, protecting the Lake Waramaug watershed, village centers, and making setback requirements a function of size of the structure, distance from the road, and grade of the land. The Zoning Commission thought the old Town Garage site and Town storage problems should be addressed in the Plan. The next Special Meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 17 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The Zoning Commission is invited.

2003 Calendar

Copies of the proposed 2003 Calendar had been mailed to the Commissioners.

MOTION: To accept the 2002 Calender as presented. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

CL&P Flood Lights Along Rt. 202, Marbledale

Mrs. Hill reported CL&P had redirected the floodlights along Rt. 202. The representative she spoke with said additional improvements could be made if necessary if the Commission submitted the pole numbers of the offending lights. Sheilds could be installed on these lights, but it would not be an easy task as there were no standard fixtures and shields were not kept in stock. Mrs. Friedman said she had recently driven through Marbledale at night and thought there had been an improvement. Members were asked to inspect the area prior to the next meeting. Mr. Martin recommended that Mr. Chapin's replacement at CL&P be sent a copy of the 5/20 letter to Mr. Breitweiser regarding the Commission's preference for minimum wattage, placement of light fixtures as low as possible, light fixtures directed downward and towards the property, and installation of shields or visors on floodlights.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, ZEO

---

October 28, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. McCarthy, Atty. Kelly, Mr. De Pecal, Mr. A. McNaughton, Mr. W. McNaughton

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert and Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/16/02 and 10/23/02.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file. (See attached list.)

Mr. Martin read the 9/25/02 report from Mr. McGuinness, Director NW Ct. Regional Council of Governments, which stated the proposed revisions did not conflict with any policy or plan of the NW Ct. Regional Council of Gov'ts. The report also included a suggestion that in 12.14.3 the defined term, "building line," be substituted for "setback line." He then read the 10/22 memo from the Planning Commission, which stated the proposed revisions would be beneficial to the Town and in keeping with the Plan of Conservation and Development.

Mr. Martin explained the proposed revision would increase the permitted setback distance for generators, air conditioners, etc. from 10 to 25 feet from the structure principally served (12.14.1) and for pool equipment from 25 to 50 feet from pools served (12.14.2). He also noted the revision, which requires this type of equipment to be located closer to the structure served than to any setback line (12.14.3). He noted the ZBA had recommended some relief of the setback requirement due to the number of variance requests received for Section 12.14.

Mr. McCarthy thought that easing the permitted setback distances was helpful but should be increased even more than the Commission had proposed.

Atty. Kelly asked why the Commission had not considered requirements such as enclosures, mufflers, and planted buffers to solve the noise and visual problems. Mr. Owen responded they would not be effective, would be difficult to enforce, and said the regulation as written provides an incentive for the property owner to keep the equipment as quiet as possible. Mr. Martin read the purpose of this section. Atty. Kelly thought the addition of 12.14.3 that noise generating equipment shall be located closer to the structure served than to any setback line was a good improvement.

Atty. Kelly saw no benefit in adding Section 12.14.4., which clarifies that this equipment, and its enclosures and its pads are structures since this is already addressed in Section 21 (Definitions). He recommended the definition of "Building" in Section 21.1.10 be amended to include an enclosure to store equipment. Mr. Martin noted if the Commission decided to do so, it could delete Section 12.14.4 due to redundancy since it would be a minor change to the proposed text.

There were no additional comments or questions from the public or from the Commissioners.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to Section 12.14 of the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations concerning generators, air conditioners, pool filters, and other noise generating equipment. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17/Nonconforming Lots, Land, Structures, and Uses

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:48 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert and Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/16/02 and 10/23/02.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file. (See attached list.) He read Mr. McGuinness's 9/25/02 report, which stated the proposed revisions did not conflict with any policy or plan of the NW Ct. Regional Council of Gov'ts, and the 10/22/02 Planning Commission memo, which stated since the revisions were recommended by Town Counsel, the Planning Commission had no opinion.

Mr. Martin noted the proposed changes; 1) deletion of language as recommended by Atty. Byrne to bring this section into compliance with 8-2 of the Ct. General Statutes, 2) standardization of the terms lot/land, building/structure, and ordinance/regulation, 3) deleting a sentence fragment in 17.6, and 4) changing "regulation" to "requirement" in the third line of 17.3.

Atty. Kelly voiced agreement with the proposed amendments as legally valid, but strongly asserted that they did not go far enough. He pointed out that nonconforming lots, buildings, and uses contribute greatly to the historical and rural character of Town, but that 17.1.c states their survival should not be encouraged. He spoke of the national epidemic of historic buildings being demolished, the need to preserve the heritage of Town, and the consequences the Zoning Regs have on owners of nonconforming properties, homes on smaller lots, etc. He stated the current Zoning Regulations work against small affordable neighborhoods and asked for the addition of a statement recognizing the value of nonconforming properties and structures.

Mr. Martin noted Mr. Kelly had raised some valid points, but explained the deletions proposed for Section 17 were only as a result of a legal review, not a fundamental overhaul of the entire section. He also noted the Commission had begun discussing a possible future revision to the Regulations, which would permit flexibility for non conforming properties and structures through the Special Exception process rather than by variance. He said both Zoning and the Zoning Board of Appeals were interested as it would provide for flexibility without proof of hardship, but that such a revision would take a thorough and thoughtful review; it was not a revision that could be decided upon this evening.

Atty. Kelly thought it would be better if the revisions were made all at once, since he thought a piecemeal approach would create public confusion.

Mr. Martin asked each Commissioner if he agreed with the basic philosophy of the desirability of retaining the Town's non conforming buildings, neighborhoods, and lots and if so, whether he considered it a priority.

Mr. Brinton and Mr. Abella: Agreed the phrase, "not to encourage their survival" should be deleted now.

Mr. Owen: Noted the Commission understood the problem Atty. Kelly was addressing. Said Zoning had already increased the permitted maximum coverage for smaller lots. Noted by its nature all the work to amend the Regulations was piecemeal. Agreed "not to encourage their survival" could be deleted now.

Mrs. Friedman: Agreed with many of Atty. Kelly's points including deletion of "not to encourage their survival," but questioned whether all the revisions should be made at once or if a more detailed review should be undertaken later.

Mr. Shapiro: Although he agreed in principle with the deletion of the phrase, he recommended the Commission give thoughtful consideration to any and all revisions to this section.

Mr. Martin: The phrase, "but not to encourage their survival," in 17.1.c could be deleted since it was not an operative clause from either a legal or an enforcement viewpoint. The key operative words in 17.1.c require that once a nonconformity is abandoned, it can not be reinstituted. This particular phrase, while not operative, sets an unhelpful tone and should be deleted.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to Section 17 of the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations concerning non conforming lots, land, structures, and uses. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 18/Zoning Board of Appeals

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 8:28 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert and Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/16/02 and 10/23/02.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file. (See attached list.) He read the 9/25/02 report from the NW Ct. Regional Council of Gov'ts, which stated the proposed revision did not conflict with any of its plans or policies. He also read the Planning Commission's 10/22/02 memo, which stated that the Planning Commission had no objections.

There were no questions or comments from the public or the Commissioners.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 18 of the Washington Zoning Regulations: the addition of Section 18.1.3 to prohibit the granting of use variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.

These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert and Ms. Page.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 8/26/02 and 9/23/02 Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Noise Generating Equipment

Mr. Martin noted the two issues to be decided were 1) whether to use the term, "building line" or "setback line" in section 12.14.3 and 2) whether to include proposed redundant section 12.14.4 for clarification. It was the consensus to use "building line" and to include in parenthesis (defined in Section 21.) It was also agreed not to adopt proposed section 12.4.4 as it was redundant.

MOTION: To approve the amended revision to Section 12.14 of the Washington Zoning Regulations:

12.14 Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment. The purpose of this section is to limit the impact of noise generating equipment on neighboring properties and to give the owners of noise generating equipment an incentive for reducing the noise produced by equipment they own and operate for their own benefit.

12.14.1 All generators, air conditioners, and other noise generating equipment installed in a fixed location (except pool filters and related equipment; see 12.14.2) shall be situated within twenty- five (25) feet of the structure principally served.

12.14.2 All pool filters, pool heaters, and related equipment shall be situated within 50 (50) feet of the pool served.

12.14.3 All generators, air conditioners, pool filters, and other noise generating equipment shall be situated nearer to the structure principally served than to any building line (defined in Section 21).

By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17/Nonconforming Lots, Structures, Etc.

It was the consensus to delete the following phrase in Section 17.1.c, "but not to encourage their survival." Mr. Martin explained this was not an operative clause from a legal or enforcement standpoint since once a non conforming use was abandoned, it could not return. All other amendments to this section were adopted in the form discussed at the public hearing.

MOTION: To adopt the proposed amendments to Section 17; Non Conforming Lots, Land, Structures, and Uses:

1. Delete all sections recommended by Atty. Byrne in his 5/10/02 letter,

2. Change the word, "building(s)" to "structure(s)" throughout the text,

3. Change the word, "land(s)" to "lot(s)" throughout the text,

4. Change the word, "ordinance(s)" to "regulation(s)" throughout the text,

5. Section 17.1: Delete the phrase, "but not to encourage their survival,"

6. Section 17.3: third line: Change "regulations" to "requirements,"

7. Section 17.6: delete entire second sentence,

8. Renumbering as required throughout.

By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and

passed 5-0.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 18: ZBA

Mr. Martin noted this was a straightforward change and that there had been no concerns raised at the public hearing.

MOTION: To adopt the following amendment to Section 18.1.3 of the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations:

18.1.3 The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not grant a variance for a use of land which is not listed as a permitted use for the district in which the land is located.

This section of the Regulations is enacted, pursuant to the provisions of 8-6(a)(3) of the General Statutes, for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Washington and achieving the purposes for which these Regulations have been enacted as articulated in Section 1.3.

By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

The effective date for all the revisions approved this evening will be 15 days after the date the legal notice is published in the newspaper.

New Applications

Cass-De Pecol/46 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

The application is to construct a new single family dwelling on this property and to convert the existing house to a detached apartment. Mrs. Hill noted the Commission's policy has been to have Inland Wetlands and Health Department approval prior to scheduling a public hearing. Health Department approval was granted in this case, but the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet decided whether to require a full application for the construction of the driveway to serve the new single family dwelling. It was noted the proposed driveway was 1600 feet long with a 14% grade and some sharp curves. Mrs. Hill asked whether the Commission thought the construction plans should be referred to the Fire Department and/or a consulting engineer due to concerns about erosion control measures and drainage. A public hearing will be scheduled for Monday, November 25, 2002 if either the Inland Wetlands Commission decides an application is not required or grants approval for the driveway in time for legal notices to be published for the 25th. If not, the hearing will be scheduled for December. The application will be referred to the Fire Department for comment and to an engineer for review. Coordination with Inland Wetlands will take place if it also decides a review is necessary.

Other Business

Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Review of Building Materials

Mr. Martin read the 9/24/02 fax from Mr. McNaughton to Mr. Andrews, contractor, regarding permitted work hours and the consequences should they be violated. Mrs. Hill stated she had received no complaints since the hours had been revised and Mr. Node had contacted her once about Saturday work to maintain erosion controls as required by the Inland Wetlands Commission.

Mr. McNaughton circulated the sheet, "Washington Montessori School, Building Materials and Colors," dated 10/28/02. He showed samples of the materials and colors listed. Basically the roof shingles would be slate colored asphalt. Most of the siding building materials sand or a similar color, and the trim ivy green. William McNaughton strongly recommended that these colors and materials were appropriate. Mr. Martin indicated where there was a choice he favored a less glossy finish. It was the consensus that the sample materials and colors presented were acceptable and no further review would be necessary.

Pending Application

Beck/132 Calhoun Street/First Cut

It was noted Health Department approval had not been received.

Other Business

Mr. Shapiro reported briefly on the 10/10/02 meeting Atty. Zizka had with the ZBA. He noted Atty. Zizka specifically explained the conditions listed in the state statutes that must be met in order to grant a variance and what constitutes a hardship.

Noting that now the Zoning Board of Appeals is requiring hardship as the basis for granting variances, Mr. Martin asked the Commissioners to consider whether it would be in the best interests of the Town to institute a process to provide flexibility for non conforming structures and lots, per Section 17. This could be done by Special Permit or Special Exception without the need to prove hardship, but would require an amendment to the Zoning Regulations that would include specific criteria for these cases. After substantial discussion it was unanimously thought that some flexibility or relief should be provided for nonconforming property owners and that the ZBA should be the body empowered to grant these permits or exceptions according to the limitations and guidelines to be adopted by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen pointed out that the ZBA has the institutional experience to make these types of decisions, while Mr. Martin stated the Zoning Commission already has a full workload. It was noted Atty. Byrne had provided a copy of Litchfield's zoning regulation and his own suggested wording for the Commission to consider. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Abella volunteered to work on a first draft. Mr. Martin will discuss this matter with Mr. White, ZBA Chairman. The ZBA will be asked to review an early draft before a public hearing to consider this revision to the Regulations is scheduled.

Plan of Development: Mr. Martin recommended each Commissioner read workbook #5 on Development. Discussion of this chapter began on 10/15 and will continue on 11/19 at a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission in the Land Use Meeting Room. The Zoning Commission is again invited to attend and participate.

Subcommittee on Lot Coverage: Mr. Owen reported on the 9/16/02 meeting with Mr. White and Mr. Owens of ZBA and Mrs. Hill. What should count as coverage and the method of calculation was discussed. Mr. Owen thought the clarifications decided upon including a universal diagram to be drawn by Mr. Owens should be adopted as part of the Zoning Regulations. He noted a second meeting would be held, but a date had not yet been set. Mr. Martin was encouraged the two boards were in agreement on this matter.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 14/Site Plan Requirements: Mr. Martin reviewed the discussion at the last meeting where several people expressed concern that the stringent requirements in the draft regulations would apply to too many routine projects. He noted the draft had been sent out for review to the other land use commissions and to Mr. McGuinness, Director of the Ct. NW Regional Council of Gov'ts, and Mr. Neff, engineer. Mr. Martin read part of Mr. McGuiness's informal review, which strongly recommended not adopting site plan requirements for the construction of single family dwellings. He also part of Mr. Neff's letter, which similarly recommended that single family dwellings and additions should be exempt. Mr. Neff had also sent a copy of the Kent regulations for review. Mr. Owen did not think Washington should be the most restrictive town in the state, while Mrs. Friedman agreed routine procedures should be exempt and asked if there was a way the Commission could grant a waiver for these. Mrs. Hill agreed, but suggested the size of the proposed building and steep slopes should be taken into account. Mr. Martin noted the Commission's goal had been to draft guidelines to better control runoff. He added that this kind of tool would have been helpful to the Commission when reviewing projects such as the new Montessori School. He asked if the Commission wanted to continue pursuing this project. He said that the next step would be to factor all the input received to date into a second draft. It was the unanimous consensus to begin work on a second draft that will address the comments and suggestions received. The Commission will ask both Mr. Oley, consulting engineer, and Mr. McGuinness to attend a future meeting to discuss this further with the Commission.

Revision of the Application Forms: Copies of the work done to date were circulated before the meeting. The Commission is waiting for Atty. Zizka's review before making a final draft. Mr. Owen explained the purpose of the revisions is to enable the forms to be available on the Town website and to provide more information on each form. The website was briefly discussed.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Zoning Enforcement Officer

---

September 23, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, and Mrs. Page
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Brinton
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Werner, Mr. McNaughton, Mr. and Mrs. Stephens, Mrs. Tracy, Mr. Sears

Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Brinton for Mr. Fitzherbert.

Consideration of the Minutes was put off until the next meeting.

Other Business

Tracy/47 Rabbit Hill Road/Request for Renewal of Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen

Mr. Martin read the 9/16/02 letter from Mr. and Mrs. Tracy requesting the renewal of their above referenced permit. Mrs. Hill advised the Commission that according to Section 13.16.7 renewal could be granted without reapplication and that she had inspected the property, had found the operation had not affected the character of the surrounding area, the storage was not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and there were no violations. Mr. Owen noted the Tracys faithfully renewed their permit every two years as required.

MOTION: To grant a two year renewal of the Tracy Special Permit: Section 13.16 for shop and storage use by contractors and building tradesmen at 47 Rabbit Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Page, and passed 5-0.

Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request to Amend Condition of Special Permit: Section 4.4.10

Mr. Martin noted the 9/17/02 letter from Mr. McNaughton had been mailed to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. In this letter, Mr. McNaughton had asked that the condition regarding outside construction be revised as follows; "There shall be no outside construction before 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, outside construction on Sunday be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and that no blasting, no operation of heavy machinery including pneumatic equipment, and no site work be permitted before 8:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, or on Sunday."

Mr. Martin briefly noted that soon after the Special Permit had been granted the school had asked for revisions to the limitations on outside work hours and these had been granted. Since that time many complaints had been received from neighbors about work beyond the approved hours. School officials had attended the May meeting to discuss these violations and had assured the Commission there would be no more. However, the complaints have continued.

Mr. McNaughton admitted there have been times when the contractors exceeded the approved work hours, but said many of the "violations" were the beeping sound of large equipment backing up when technically there was no work in progress. He explained a certain number of hours is needed to complete the project and that working more days is less efficient due to the long start up/shut down time each day. He said the school was trying to get the dust under control by seeding the disturbed areas and had to get the driveway in so that work could continue over the winter.

Ms. Page suggested more workers and equipment be used to get the work done. Mr. McNaughton said additional equipment could not be use due to safety concerns. He also said he had heard remarks that if less time had been spent processing top soil, the work would be on schedule, but said this was not the case.

Mrs. Friedman noted the request did not provide a time when work would stop each day. She asked how many weeks the expanded hours would be needed. Mr. McNaughton said he did not know, but it was dark now at 7:00 p.m. and soon daylight savings time would end.

Mr. McNaughton asked for clarification of two points: 1) The condition of approval said no outside work after 5:00 p.m., but did this include quiet work such as painting? 2) Did pneumatic tools include hand tools such as staple guns? Mr. Brinton pointed out air compressors used for pneumatic tools are very noisy. It was the consensus all pneumatic tools were considered heavy machinery.

Mr. Martin read the 9/23/02 ZEO Report, which included Mrs. Calhoun's concerns about the request to extend the work hours and the 9/23/02 letter from Dr. and Mrs. Sherman, which also expressed concerns. Mr. Stephens, Warren Road, stated his concerns that no shut down time was given and that the ongoing construction had negatively impacted the wildlife on his property. He said he was against the request for longer work hours.

Mr. Brinton asked if the school could prioritize the work to be done and complete the regrading and seeding before resuming construction. Mr. McNaughton said he did not think the extended hours would speed up the enclosure of the building; that the construction schedule and site work schedules were separate.

Mr. Martin noted the request was for a sufficiently minor change in a condition of approval so that it could be considered tonight and would not require a public hearing.

It was the strong consensus there should be no work on Sunday. Mr. McNaughton stated that if he had to choose longer work days during the week or work on weekends, it would be more efficient to be permitted to work longer on the weekdays. A lengthy discussion followed regarding whether to extend the work hours as requested for weekdays and Saturday. In general it was thought it would be a big benefit to the school, neighbors, and the environment to get the project completed and so it was agreed to extend the hours as follows:

• Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Working under lights would be OK, but they must be off by 6:00.
• Saturdays and Sundays: No change (Saturdays: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. with no site work or heavy machinery, Sundays: no work)
• No engines to be turned on to warm up prior to 7:00 a.m.
• Revised work hours shall remain in effect until the January 2003 Zoning meeting at which time they will be reevaluated.

Mr. Martin noted the Commission did not expect to receive any additional requests for further extensions of the work hours. He also advised the school that the violations must stop. Mr. McNaughton said he would inform all contractors on the job that if there were any further violations, the work hours would immediately revert to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The consensus of the Commission was in strong agreement with this statement.

MOTION: To approve the following change in one of the conditions of approval of the Special Permit issued to Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Section 4.4.10/Construct School: that outside construction may take place between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday until the date of the January 2003 Zoning Commission meeting, limitations on work on the weekends shall not change, and all other conditions shall not change. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

Public Comment

Mr. Sears, president of the Washington Community Housing Trust, asked if there would be any discussion regarding its upcoming application for affordable housing units at 16 Church Street, New Preston. Mr. Martin responded a letter dated 9/23/02 had been received from Mr. Boling, but would not be discussed until the application is submitted.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations

1. Sections 12.14, 17, and 18.3.1: Three public hearings will be scheduled for Monday, October 28, 2002.

2. Section 2.3.1: Atty. Zizka will review this section and do further work.

3. Section 14: Mr. Martin noted the draft section had been forwarded to the Inland Wetlands, Planning, and Conservation Commissions and ZBA for review. The draft is still being worked on and a hearing had not yet been scheduled. He said when input has been received it will be forwarded to Mr. Oley to review and factor in when appropriate. Mr. Owen stated he was concerned that the proposed revisions would be too complicated and expensive to deal with. He said he thought Washington already had stricter coverage requirements and lower density development than the ideal presented in the NEMO workshop. He did not think the movement of water on land was a pressing problem in Town and he did not see the need for the changes proposed. Mr. Martin noted the Commission's objective for 2002 had been the update of this section with particular attention to drainage and runoff problems. He said the problem the Commission was trying to solve was poor designs causing runoff problems. Mr. Owen thought the proposed requirements were excessive and so recommended the draft be reviewed by an engineer. Mr. Martin indicated he had already asked Mrs. Hill to forward the draft to Mr. Neff for review. Mrs. Friedman suggested he be asked whether it was possible to accomplish the same goal in a less expensive way for the applicant. Mr. Sedito, ZBA Member, objected to the proposed requirements for single family dwellings and additions. He thought the required site plan, topo information, storm drainage plan, landscaping plan, and soil scientist would result in long delays for the applicant and would make the process very expensive. He thought the Regulations should protect the common people who would like to remain in Town. Mr. Martin explained former First Selectman Chapin had pointed out some disastrous projects, which had caused serious runoff problems for neighbors and Town roads. He said there were not enough guidelines and safeguards re: runoff and noted future development would tend to take place on steeper slopes so the problem would escalate in the future. Mr. Sedito thought the driveway ordinance dealt with these issues. Mr. Martin said the driveway ordinance only pertained to driveways. Other types of construction involving excavation, clearing, and grading, for example, could also create runoff problems. Mr. Sedito asked if there was another way to accomplish the Commission's goal without making it so difficult for the average property owner, for example, spelling out the storm water management requirements without a corresponding site plan requirement. Mr. Martin said this would be the next step in the Commission's process in redrafting this proposal. He thought, however, that Mr. Sedito's specific suggestion would make it difficult to confirm that the design of the project meets the standards of the Regulations. Mr. Owen suggested cash bonds be required. He also said he did not think it was necessary for the regulation to cover all contingencies. Mr. Sedito recommended the Commission investigate how other towns manage this problem. Mr. Martin noted Mr. Oley had studied other towns' regulations and that many of them had addressed the problem by strengthening their site plan sections. Mr. Owen thought the remedy proposed by the Commission would be a higher cost than what it was trying to prevent and that it would be a mistake if the Commission did not consider the cost to the applicant. Mr. White thought perhaps the stricter requirements should be added to the driveway ordinance instead of the Zoning Regulations. Mrs. Friedman thought Mr. Oley had done an impressive job that showed forward thinking. Mr. Owen, however, thought the draft would make it more difficult and expensive to develop land in Town. Mr. Martin said there definitely was a runoff problem in Town and the Commission's consultant had attempted to address it in a proactive manner. He said the next step in the process would be for the Commission to gain suggestions on how this draft could be improved. He said he appreciated all the input to date and that the Commission would continue to work on the draft and try to find a better balance between benefits and costs. He also said the cost and timing impact of the proposed revision would have to be better understood and validated prior to the next redraft.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations - General

Mr. White asked about the requirements for posting proposed revisions to the Regulations. Mr. Martin said the Commission must comply with the state statutes. Mrs. Hill noted by state statute she is required to refer proposed Zoning changes to the Planning Commission, but Zoning typically sends them to the other land use commissions as well. Mr. White suggested they be posted on the website. Mr. Martin said it would not be appropriate to circulate early stage drafts and noted the required public hearing is the time for comments. He noted, too, the subjects discussed by the Commission are included in the minutes, which are posted on the Town's website, and anyone can contact the office for additional information. Mr. White asked Mrs. Hill to send him copies of the comments received on draft Section 14 to date. Mr. Martin thought this was a good idea because many of the responses received have been positive.

Communications

Mr. Martin noted the memo he had received from Mrs. Osborne to inform the Zoning Commission of ZBA's 10/10 meeting with Atty. Zizka. Mr. White said this would mainly be a discussion on general procedural issues. All Commissioners and Alternates are invited to attend.

Copies of the June 2002 Final Report of the Housing Study Committee were circulated.

It was noted the updated Zoning District map was now hanging in the Land Use Meeting Room.

Enforcement

Mr. Owen noted there were tables outside Doc's. Ms. Page said the restaurant had a sign posted that the tables were for lounging, not eating.

Ms. Page asked whether Montessori School was permitted to sell top soil. Mrs. Hill noted that the Regulations had been recently revised to state that excavation resulting from a bonafide construction project did not require a separate Special Permit.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer

---

August 26, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Abella
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Sears, Atty. Andrews, Mr. Talbot, Mrs. Werner, Ms. O'Rourke, Mr. Piscuskas, Ms. Zelenko, Mr. Boling, Mr. Anderson, Press

PUBLIC HEARING

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.1.B and 2.3.1

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 8/14/02 and 8/22/02. Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page were seated and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file. (See attached list.) He read the 7/18/02 comments from the Northwestern Ct. Council of Governments and an excerpt from pp. 4-5 of the 8/6/02 Planning Commission minutes. Regarding proposed Section 13.1.B the Planning Commission thought the wording was vague, but Mr. Martin noted the current wording was more vague and the proposed language would tighten it up. Regarding proposed Section 2.3.1 the Planning Commission was concerned about enforcement. It was noted Planning did not object to either of the proposed revisions.

Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the proposed revisions. Changes to Section 13.1.B, standards for Special Permits, were recommended by Atty. Byrne to better align it with recent court cases and to add clarity. He noted a few minor editorial changes had been made since the last meeting and were shown on the sheet, "Proposed Amendment to the Washington Zoning Regulations Revised Draft - August 26, 2002." There were no questions or comments from either the Commissioners or the public concerning 13.1.B.

Mr. Martin read the current and proposed sections 2.3.1. He stated the land use attorney had advised the Commission it could not stop the transfer or recording of non conforming parcels, but it could refuse to issue zoning permits on parcels that were not in compliance with the Zoning Regulations. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Talbot asked if after the regulation was adopted if a small non conforming parcel had been cut off from a larger parcel, would the combination of both parcels be reviewed prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. Mr. Talbot also asked if there was an existing conforming 50 acre parcel and a small non conforming parcel was cut off but the remainder of the original parcel was still in compliance, could a permit be issued for a proposed activity on the large conforming lot. Mr. Owen and Ms. Page thought the wording of the proposed regulation was confusing and that it said there could be no permit issued in this case, however Mr. Martin thought it was clear there would be no jeopardy to the 50 acre lot as long as it had been in compliance before the second lot was transferred. A lengthy discussion followed. The Commissioners thought it was clear that when the original parcel was non conforming and a small non conforming parcel was cut off to make the larger parcel conforming, a zoning permit could not be issued for either parcel. However, there was a difference of opinion about whether a zoning permit could be issued for the larger parcel when it was conforming both before and after the small non conforming parcel was transferred. Mr. Martin noted this was the wording drafted by Atty. Byrne who said it would prevent a situation similar to what occurred on Old North Road from happening in the future and that the Commission could indicate non compliance on the Land Records if it chose to. He also said it was difficult to draft a regulation to address every possible situation that might come up. Atty. Andrews suggested this type of property transfer might be better addressed by redefining "lot line revision" in the Regulations. Mr. Martin noted the Commission could continue the public hearing to have further dialogue with its attorney or enact the proposed regulation as it was an improvement over the existing section. There was a discussion about whether Section 13.1.B could be voted on separately while 2.3.1 was further researched as one public hearing was held for both. In the future a separate hearing will be conducted for each proposed revision. Mr. Owen suggested modifying the proposed revisions to Section 2.3.1 by eliminating the unclear portion, paragraph c. It was the consensus to do this. Mr. Martin explained 2.3.1 included the requirement that a zoning permit be issued for lot line revisions as a result of coordination with the Planning Commission who had brought it to Zoning's attention that under the state statutes Planning was not authorized to act on them.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the proposed revisions to Sections 2.3.1 and 13.1.B of the Washington Zoning Regulations. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:14 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

Regular Business

Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:14 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 7/22/02 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 2.3.1 and 13.1.B

It was the consensus to approve the revised 8/26/02 draft of Section 13.1.B and paragraphs a and b of proposed Section 2.3.1.

The Commission will continue to work on paragraph c. These revisions will become effective two weeks after the publication date of the legal notice.

MOTION: To approve the proposed changes to the following sections of the Washington Zoning Regulations:
1. Section 13.1.B per the revised 8/26/02 draft
2. Section 2.3.1, proposed sections a and b only.
By Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Affordable Housing

Mr. Talbot, Mr. Sears, and Mr. Boyer were present on behalf of the Housing Trust. Mr. Martin noted an incomplete application had been submitted and said the Commission generally requires Health Department approval prior to scheduling a public hearing. Due to the technical application requirements such as publishing of a legal notice for the hearing, notification of adjoining property owners, and the statutorial time limits for consideration of the application, he recommended the application be returned to the applicant and submitted when Health Department approval is obtained. He said the Commission would promptly schedule a hearing upon receipt of a complete application and that the review process would not be slowed down. It was also noted Zoning had not formally heard from Inland Wetlands about whether a formal Inland Wetlands application would be required. Mr. Martin asked Mrs. Hill to request a report from the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Martin referred the applicants to Section 13.1.B of the Zoning Regulations and advised them that the requirements of this section must be addressed at the public hearing. The Housing Trust agreed to withdraw the Special Permit application and to submit it when Health Department approval is obtained. The application was returned to them.

Mr. Talbot also asked if the Commission was in the process of working on a definition for lot coverage. Mr. Martin stated a subcommittee comprised of Zoning and ZBA Members would be set up to review this matter and come up with a common methodology including a definition and how to measure coverage.

Other Business

Update/Sprint/Telecommunications Facility/New Milford

Mr. Martin noted the Commissioners had all received a copy of Atty. Zizka's 7/25/02 letter regarding the proposed tower at 399 Chestnut Land Road, New Milford, in which he detailed the Commission's concerns to Sprint. Sprint has not yet submitted an application to the Ct. Siting Council. Mr. Martin said there had been a well done article in the Litchfield County Times that included the rationale for the Commission's proactive approach regarding possible future cell tower projects in Town as well as this particular proposal. He reported a committee with representatives from the land use commissions had been set up by the Conservation Commission to look into the most appropriate locations for telecommunications towers in Town.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations

Section 14 - Site Plan Requirements: The Commissioners had received a complete rewrite of this section and were asked to review it for the next meeting. Mr. Martin explained regulations regarding drainage and runoff was the Commission's main goal this year, that the revision process had begun in February with a workshop by NEMO, and that Mr. Oley of Land Tech had done a thorough rewrite based on his own experience and a comparison of similar regulations in other towns. Mr. Owen asked if adoption of the revisions would result in increased application costs. Mr. Martin did not think there would be much of an increase because projects requiring site plan submission already require the services of an engineer. Referrals will be sent out to the other land use commissions with a request for responses by the September 23rd meeting. At the September meeting the Commission will decide whether to schedule a public hearing for November.

Section 12.14 - Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment: Mr. Martin said he had talked with Mr. White, ZBA Chairman, and there was mutual agreement to revise the draft revisions to allow for the status quo of the roles of the two commissions. This could be easily accomplished by deleting sections .5 and .6. Sections .1 - .4 would provide dimensional relief and would continue to have the ZBA be the organizations that grants variances. Three minor edits were made: 1) in .3, strike out the word, "yard," 2) in .4, strike out the word, "all" and insert "any," and 3) in .4 add "also" to read, "... enclosure is also a structure."

Section 17 - Non Conforming Lots, Land, Structures, and Uses: Again, Mr. Martin stated that in an effort to achieve coordination between Zoning and the ZBA, the proposed changes to Section 17 should maintain the status quo for the roles of the two commissions. Therefore, the deletions proposed by Atty. Byrne to bring this section up to date would be considered. The additional wording, however, regarding how to provide flexibility for non conformities would not be considered at this time. Mr. Martin said he continues to be concerned about any proposed wording that would increase the Zoning Commission's already great workload.

Section 18.1.3: This proposed change to the Zoning Regulations would also maintain the status quo and is consistent with the state statutes and with Town policy. Mr. Martin said he had discussed this matter with Mr. Solley, past ZEO and ZBA Chairman, Mr. White, current ZBA chairman, and Mrs. Hill, current ZEO, and no one could recall a use variance ever having been considered or approved. Mrs. Hill stated that she has always advised applicants that it is not possible to apply for a use variance. Mr. Martin thought it was in the Town's best interest to clarify in writing what is already actual Town policy. It was noted this is consistent with the Plan of Development, would protect the Town, had been recommended by the Commission's land use attorney. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commissioners to go forward with this proposal.

Public hearings for these three sections will be scheduled for October 28, 2002

Privilege of the Floor

Ms. Zelenko and Mr. Piscuskas were present to discuss the possibility of moving their light manufacturing business to Woodville. They had previously received a Special Permit for their business in an existing building in the Depot Business District, but the sale of the property had not been completed. The Regulations were reviewed and it was determined this was not a use permitted in Woodville. The two said they were exploring their options, and asked if it would be possible to move the business to Marbledale. They were advised that this would be possible and that the Regulations for the Marbledale Business District were flexible and could provide options for applicants.

Other Business

The 8/21/02 Planning Commission Special Meeting to discuss the Conservation section of the Plan of Conservation and Development with the Conservation and Inland Wetland Commissions, Steep Rock, and other invitees was briefly reviewed. It was noted Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force had attended and had presented a list of recommendations for Lake Waramaug including that the Zoning Commission increase its setback from the lake. Mr. Martin pointed out that although the Inland Wetlands Commission wants the Zoning Commission to retain the current Section 12.1, Atty. Byrne had advised that it is not enforceable because it is in the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Commission, not Zoning. It is unlikely, therefore, that Zoning would act to increase the current setbacks. Mr. Martin summarized the discussion regarding preservation of natural resources, open space, historic resources, and community character and spirit. He noted that Development is the next section of the Plan to be worked on and that the Zoning Commission would be invited to take part in that discussion. Regulations regarding lighting were also discussed. This is an issue that was raised in the Conservation section, but will be addressed under Development.

Copies of the 2001-2002 annual report were circulated.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Friedman.

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, ZEO

---

July 22, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT:	ALTERNATES PRESENT:	ALSO PRESENT:
Mr. Fitzherbert	Mr. Abella	Atty. Andrews
Mrs. Friedman	Mr. Brinton	Mr. Cass
Mr. Martin	Mr. Shapiro	Ms. Campbell
		Mr. White

MEMBERS ABSENT:	STAFF PRESENT:
Mr. Owen	Mrs. Hill
Ms. Page

PUBLIC HEARING

Devereux Foundation/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Library Addition

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Friedman and Martin and Alternates Abella, Shapiro, and Brinton. Mr. Fitzherbert recused himself because he is employed by Devereux and had left the table. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/10 and 7/17/02.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of all the documents in the file. (See attached list) He read the 6/20/02 letter from Mr. Cass to Mr. Wetterman of the DEP and the 7/19/02 memo from Mr. Fitzherbert regarding compliance with the standards in Section 13.1.B.

Mr. Cass and Ms. Campbell represented the Devereux Foundation. Using the "Site Analysis Plan," dated March 2002, unsigned, Mr. Cass pointed out the proposed location of the 1500 square foot library addition approximately in the middle of the existing campus, stating a corner of an existing building would be "filled in." He also submitted photos, which showed the proposed location and the view of the area from the road. Due to the existing landscaping and vegetation, the addition would be visible from only one of the adjoining property owners. Elevations by Mr. Worcester dated 6/26/02 were reviewed. It was noted the addition would require no plumbing because there were already bathroom facilities in the existing building, and the Health Department had approved the application.

Mr. Martin noted the adjoining property owners had been sent certified letters twelve days prior to the hearing.

Future plans for Devereux-Glenholme were briefly addressed. The site plan was reviewed again. Mr. Cass said the school was currently fundraising for an indoor riding ring and an auditorium. Future plans also called for a classroom addition and two dorms. Mrs. Campbell noted that only the dorms would increase the size of the student population and the staff.

No one from the public spoke for or against the application.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Foundation to construct a library addition at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:47 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

Regular Business

Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:47 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternates Abella and Brinton for Mr. Owen and Ms. Page.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 6/24/02 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 6, under 13.19.8.f "roof" should be added to read, "on the school roof."

MOTION: To accept the 6/24/02 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Pending Application

Devereux-Foundation/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Library Addition

Mr. Fitzherbert recused himself because he is employed by Devereux and left the table. Mr. Martin seated Alternate Shapiro.

Mr. Martin noted no issues had been raised either at the public hearing or in the 7/22/02 ZEO's Report.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Foundation to construct a library addition at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Fitzherbert was reseated.

Communications

Report on Meeting of Zoning and ZBA Chairmen and Vice Chairmen

Mr. Martin reported the meeting had been constructive and common ground between the two commissions had been found. He said there was general agreement that variance standards in the CGS statutes should be applied and that ZBA should be the board that defines what constitutes a hardship. Each application should be considered on its own merits in applying variance standards. Mr. White said ZBA was revising its application form, basing it on the Town of Warren's, which requires a statement regarding hardship and parcel uniqueness.

Mr. White, ZBA Chairman, noted that whether or not it is reported in the minutes, the pros and cons of each application have been considered by the ZBA and in the future they would be related more to the question of hardship, and this discussion would be reflected in the minutes.

Mr. Martin thought ZBA's applications should be used as an early indicator of those areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need revision. For example, the maximum coverage for smaller lots was increased to 15% due to the number of variance applications ZBA received in this area. Mr. Martin noted this was a good example of how the two commissions have worked together in the past. He suggested that a joint meeting could be of value to discuss matters of mutual interest in the future.

Mr. White said ZBA favored a joint meeting. He added that the Zoning Commission must understand what is involved in considering ZBA variance applications so there would be a level of mutual respect between the two commissions. He noted, too, that in most towns zoning commissions and zoning boards of appeal almost never always agree.

Update/Sprint/399 Chestnut Land Road, N. Milford/Wireless Communications Facility

Mr. Martin said Atty. Ziska had been retained to help guide the Commission through the telecommunication tower process as he had experience before the Ct. Siting Council and also land use experience in the Town of Washington. His primary focus will be the issues raised by the Commission at the last meeting; location and the options Sprint has not considered for mitigating harm to Washington's vistas. Mrs. Friedman was assigned as "point person" to find documentation regarding vistas in Washington documents. Mr. Martin explained that since the jurisdiction over cell towers recently shifted to the state Siting Council, the mission of the Siting Council is to arrange for competitive coverage in Ct. Therefore, Atty. Ziska has advised the Town to take a proactive approach, and tell the Siting Council that Washington wants to find the best sites with the least harmful impact to the Town. Mr. Martin noted this was a less costly approach than to hire a radio frequency engineer and contest every application. Hopefully, the Siting Council would order the applicant to research some of the options that would mitigate impacts on Washington. He said Zoning's strategy was to intervene early in the process to help ensure the most appropriate sites were chosen. Mrs. Friedman recommended the Conservation Commission be utilized to study where the most appropriate locations for communications towers would be in Washington and it was the consensus this was a good idea. Mr. Martin said he would ask for the Conservation Commission's help. Mr. Martin stated this is a Town policy issue that would be discussed at future Board of Selectmen meetings. Mrs. Friedman also thought properties where the Town or a Town organization would receive rent should be those considered first and not private properties. Mr. Martin thought that the best sites should be considered, irrespective who owns them. Mr. White suggested the Town could approach the owners of potential sites where the location of towers would not be in the best interests of the Town and try to preempt them. It was noted the current Zoning Regulations are only advisory since the jurisdiction has been given to the Ct. Siting Council.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations

1. Sections 13.1.B and 2.3.1: It was noted a final discussion took place at the last Zoning meeting and a public hearing had been scheduled f`or 8/26/02. Mr. Martin read proposed Section 2.3.1 and noted proposed Section 13.1.B was a clarification and change of wording to align better with recent Supreme Court rulings. Mr. Shapiro had several comments concerning the proposed revision of Section 13.1.B: A) 13.1.B.4: He liked the current wording, which states the Town's existing rural street network includes state highways and town roads. B) Also, in the same section, he was not sure "width" and "capacity" were interchangeable. C) 13.1.B.5: Mr. Shapiro questioned what was meant by "provision of buildings." D) Mr. Shapiro thought the rewording of the entire section was confusing as it sometimes refers to uses and other times refers to structures and is structured in three different ways. E) 13.1.B.6: At the end, he thought "screening material" should be added. Mr. Martin noted all these concerns must be raised again at the public hearing.

2. Section 12.14 - Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment: Mr. Martin noted this section had been drafted by Mr. Owen, but the handwritten comments were his. He noted the metrics proposed were taken from ZBA recommendations and that Section 12.14.5 was Mr. Owen's idea to create more flexibility for the applicant. Mr. White objected to Section 12.14.6, which stated this section could not be varied. Mr. Martin raised concerns whether proposed Section 12.14.6 was legal. Mr. White suggested Zoning delegate this matter to ZBA as a Special Exception rather than exercising every oversight possible over ZBA. Mr. Martin noted the Zoning Commission had no interest in taking on more regulatory workload. Deleting proposed sections 12.14.5 and 12.14.6 would achieve this. Further discussion was tabled to the next meeting when it was hoped Mr. Owen, the author of the proposal, would be present.

3. Section 18 - Zoning Board of Appeals: Mr. Martin referred to the 6/28/02 letter from Atty. Byrne, which stated the Zoning Commission has the authority to say use variances may not be granted by the ZBA, and Atty. Byrne recommended that it do so. As this has never been the practice of the ZBA, Mr. Martin did not foresee any problem with codifying it. Mr. White said he would like the opportunity to discuss it with the ZBA Members.

4. Section 17 - Nonconforming Lots, Structures, Uses: Mr. Martin explained the proposed revisions would create more flexibility when dealing with nonconformities. The current Regulations, he said, do not encourage the survival of nonconformities even though the Town does want some, such as The Green, to continue. Another reason for the revisions, he said, was that the state statutes had been revised to give owners of nonconforming properties more rights, and so the Regulations required corresponding changes to reflect this. He noted Atty. Byrne had previously indicated the sections that should be deleted and was now recommending additions that should be handled by the Special Permit process. Mr. Martin reminded the Commissioners that Atty. Byrne had sent the Litchfield Regulations as an example of how this section could be addressed, but the Commission had asked him to simplify it in one or two pages. He asked the Commissioners to review this section and to comment at the next meeting. Mr. White pointed out that with all the proposed changes 90% of ZBA's current workload would go to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Martin said Zoning was concerned about increasing its workload. Thus, the proposal could be modified to have ZBA continue to evaluate nonconformity variance applications as it does now. The proposed section was discussed briefly and many questions were raised. Mr. Martin recommended a joint meeting with Atty. Byrne, given the complexity of the matter. Mr. White said the ZBA would also like to have an opportunity to study the proposal. Mr. Martin said when Zoning's proposal is completed, he would refer it to ZBA for input.

Privilege of the Floor

Mrs. Bouquillion, 72 East Shore Road, asked if the Zoning Commission would consider changing the Lake Waramaug Residential District to allow some commercial uses such as restaurants. She noted there had once been a Lake Waramaug commercial district and an ice cream shop at 68 E. Shore Road, the property she was interested in buying, and that it was located between The Boulders Inn and Docs. She also thought a more reasonably priced restaurant was needed near the Town Beach and said this particular property would have no problem with septic or parking. Mr. Martin told her the Commission did not favor spot zoning, and so any change would have to be made throughout the District. In general, the Zoning Commissioners thought this type of change would have tremendous negative implications for properties around the lake and so were not supportive. It was also thought there are generally too many non residential uses in the residential zones so in recent years the Commission has been leaning toward deleting some of those uses rather than adding to them. Mrs. Bouquillion was advised that she had the right to petition the Commission, but, based on this discussion, it did not look likely that the petition would be viewed favorably.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Abella.

There being no further business, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, CZEO

---

June 24, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Mello, Mr. Millington, Atty. Regan, Mr. Wells, Mr. Greggor, Mr. Libertine, Atty. Leary, Mr. Joseph

Regular Business

Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page. He noted Mr. Potter's 6/12/02 letter of resignation and said Mr. Fitzherbert had been appointed a Regular Member and Mr. Brinton had been appointed an Alternate. Mr. Martin congratulated both Commissioners on their appointments. A brief discussion followed concerning Mr. Potter's contributions and the following motion was made.

MOTION: Be it resolved that the Washington Zoning Commission pass a motion of appreciation for John Potter who has resigned his seat after many years of distinguished service. John, a former Zoning Commission chairman in the 1970's, rejoined the Commission in 1999. As a life long Washington resident with many years of experience dealing with a broad range of land use issues, he was an important and valued voice on the Commission, and he will be missed. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 5/20/02 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Devereux-Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Addition to Library

Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the application form dated 6/20/02. Mrs. Hill noted the Health Department had approved it. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, July 22, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.

Other Business

Sprint Spectrum LP/399 Chestnut Land Road, New Milford/Wireless Communications Facility/Pre Application

Mr. Martin noted this pre-application information had been referred to Washington because the applicant believed the proposed tower was within 2500 feet of the Town line. He also reminded those present that jurisdiction over telecommunications facilities had recently been given back to the Ct. Siting Council. He thanked the Sprint representatives for appearing at this meeting, which was the first opportunity for the Town to dialogue with Sprint on this pre application. Atty. Regan, Mr. Wells, radio frequency engineer, Mr. Greggor, site engineer, and Mr. Libertine, Director of Environmental Services represented Sprint. They reviewed Sprint's application for a 160 foot tall telecommunications tower at 399 Chestnut Land Road, New Milford on the north east side of Rt. 109, approximately a half mile from Washington. The proposed site is on a farm in a wooded area 1000 feet north of the road on the Washington side of the ridge. Maps and plans reviewed included the following: "Sprint PCS, Wireless Communications Facility, Site #CT33XC606, New Milford, Ct.," 5 sheets, by SEA Consultants, Inc., dated 7/9/01; "Visual Resource Evaluation Report," by VHB, Inc., dated July 2001, map of the zoning layout of the proposed site, topo map, existing and proposed coverage maps, visibility map, and site development map. The site plan showed an existing 12 ft. wide gravel driveway would be used to access the 100 ft. X 100 ft. tower site. Underground power, a concrete pad, crushed stone and drainage swales would be installed The following questions were raised:

• Where are the nearest surrounding cell towers? Mr. Wells stated they are a significant distance from the site. He said this tower would try to connect with one to the south, and to date, there were only preliminary coverage sites within search rings to the north along Rt. 202.

• Does Sprint plan to share the tower with other wireless carriers? Atty. Regan said the tower is designed for colocation. He also said Sprint has a marketing division, which handles colocation. He made no commitment, however, that this particular tower would be shared with other companies.

• How much higher is the tower than the elevation of the ridge? Mr. Greggor said it would be approximately 30 feet higher than the ridge and 60 to 80 feet higher than the tree line.

• Will the tower be visible from Washington? Mr. Libertine explained a balloon had been raised to 160 feet and representatives had driven along area roads within a 2 mile radius of the site to determine where it could be seen from. He pointed out photo #5 from the "Visual Resource Evaluation Report," noting the tower would be seen from West Church Hill Road, from some of the fields along Rt. 109, and the peak of Church Hill. When the leaves are on the trees, he said, the tower will be seen from only 2% of the land within the 2 mile radius. When there are no leaves, it will be visible from additional areas including a longer stretch of Rt. 109.

• Would Sprint conduct another balloon test so that Washington residents would have an opportunity to see the results? Atty. Regan said a second test would be part of the Siting Council public hearing procedure. No other test would be conducted until that time.

• Why can't Sprint build lower towers as in Woodbury, even if it takes more of them to provide the same coverage? Mr. Wells stated topography and tree coverage were the reasons for the taller tower. He said Sprint uses a higher megahurtz frequency, which can not bend around trees and hills. He explained Sprint tries to cover as much territory with a tall tower and then fill in coverage with shorter ones.

• How does the proposed 160 ft. height compare with other towers? Mr. Wells said it was close to average.

• If two towers were constructed, could the height be lowered? Mr. Wells said that would depend on the sites, noting the topography is rough along Rt. 202. He also noted that as you decrease the height of a tower, you also decrease the opportunities for colocation.

• How does the colocation process work? Atty. Regan stated that Sprint has a separate market division to market towers, that none of its towers are built on speculation, and that its towers are built based on its own needs and not those of potential future users. He said the towers are always designed to accommodate at least two additional carriers.

• How does the Siting Council regard multiple towers in close proximity to each other? Atty. Regan stated the Siting Council has a professional staff that reviews all applications and as part of the process, the applicant must show why he can not locate his facility on any existing structure.

• What if another company says that 160 feet is not high enough for its purposes? Atty. Regan stated in some cases a new tower must be built to replace the original or Sprint must build an expandable tower. He said this was covered in the Council's application process. He noted, too, other companies intervene when an application is submitted to make their needs known.

• Is it true that these towers will soon be obsolete? Mr. Wells stated that due to both the laws of physics and capacity considerations the use of satellites was problematic.

• Why can't you install this facility in the New Preston Congregational Church steeple? Atty. Regan said Sprint tries to use existing structures whenever possible, but in this case 160 feet was needed; the steeple was not tall enough to provide adequate coverage. (Note: Later in this Zoning meeting AT&T Wireless, operating in the same megahurtz range, proposed a wireless facility that would be installed in this church steeple.)

• Will there be any attempt "to disguise this hideous looking tower?" Mr. Libertine said that while mono pines were sometimes used to disguise towers, in this location it would be so high above the tree line, it would not be effective. He said this kind of design works only in selective locations.

• Were alternate sites with less impact on Washington's vistas and scenic views considered? Atty. Regan said 30 to 40 property owners within the search ring were contacted, but this was the only location where the coverage was adequate and the owner interested.

• Is this the only site that is feasible? Atty. Regan said this is a one site solution. He claimed that in order to connect with the nearest location to the south, this is the only viable piece of real estate.

• It appeared from the topography map provided by the applicant that there is another siting option on this same parcel, but on the west side of the ridge, that would have less visual impact on Washington. It was noted that the same property owner owns both the east and west sides of the ridge. Mr. Wells and Mr. Libertine, however, noted site development would be more difficult in that location because the length of the driveway would have to be increased and more cuts and fills for construction would be required due to the steeper topography. Mr. Libertine thought a site on the other side of the ridge would be only slightly less obtrusive for Washington. Atty. Regan noted the height requirement for the tower could change if the location changes. Mr. Martin requested that Sprint evaluate this particular siting option and others that Sprint may have, which would mitigate the harm done to Washington's scenic vistas. Atty. Regan said Sprint would not consider an alternate site unless directed to do so by the Siting Council.

• What determines what is a viable site? Mr. Wells said once a search ring is established, the two factors considered are adequate coverage and the property owner's cooperation.

• Where will the next tower to the north be located to continue the coverage along Rt. 202? Mr. Wells said depending on the topography and whether there are any existing structures that can be used, a tower is needed every 2to 3miles.

• Why can't repeaters be installed along the Rt. 202 corridor? They are lower, more inconspicuous, and still provide coverage. Mr. Wells said Sprint does use repeater technology when it can, but in this case, the objective was also to provide coverage to surrounding neighborhoods outside the corridor.

In summary, Mr. Martin noted Washington's concern was that although the primary service area for the tower would be outside the Town of Washington, it would impact Washington's scenic vistas and viewsheds due to its proposed location on the north east side of the ridge. He noted that the Town's Plan of Development recommended the protection of vistas and scenic resources. He said Washington requests that Sprint mitigate this problem through the use of an alternate site. He said that Washington would make this same request directly to the Ct. Siting Council.

Mr. Martin voiced his concern about the Sprint proposal and its impact on that section of Washington. He said the Commission did not have much time to educate itself before the Siting Council's public hearing. It was the consensus a consultant was needed, although consulting funds were limited, to represent the Town at the Council's hearing. A primary concern to be conveyed to the Council would be the possibility of an alternate site to lessen the impact on Washington.

AT&T Wireless PCS/New Preston Congregational Church/15 Church Street/Wireless Communications Facility/Preliminary Discussion

Atty. Leary and Mr. Joseph represented AT&T Wireless. Atty. Leary presented plans, "Church Elevation," and "Antenna Plan," by AT&T, both dated 6/13/02 for the installation of an antenna in the steeple of the New Preston Congregational Church and an associated equipment cabinet on the side of the existing building. He noted that unlike the tower just discussed, this installation was under the jurisdiction of the local zoning authority. He noted the proposed personal wireless facility would require a Special Permit.

He stated AT&T would evaluate Sprint's proposed New Milford site as a colocation opportunity, but said it seemed to be located too far to the SE to serve all of the area AT&T is trying to cover, which is Rt. 202 in New Preston and Marbledale.

Atty. Leary asked for the Commission's guidance regarding the following standards specified in the Zoning Regulations:

1) Section 13.19.8.O.2: A tower or personal wireless service facility may not be located closer than 750 feet to an existing church.

2) Section 13.19.8.O.1: The siting of such a facility may not be within 1500 feet of any public or private school property.

3) Section 13.19.8.f: Such a facility may not be located on a school.

First, he noted that although a school is presently located across the street, he understood that it would be moving to another location. Second, he asked whether the antenna would be permitted in the church spire. He noted that although there was a 750 ft. setback required from a church, the regulations did not specifically prohibit siting a facility on a church as they prohibit siting one on a school. If it was not allowed, he asked if there was a procedure by which he could obtain a variance. Mr. Martin stated if the application was viewed favorably by the Commisison, an amendment could be made to the Regulations to permit the church steeple location. Third, Atty. Leary noted the 750 ft. setback requirement from a dwelling unit and asked if the church parsonage would be considered part of the church or a separate dwelling unit.

Mr. Martin said, and the other Commissioners concurred, the proposal to camouflage the facility in a church steeple was in the spirit of the Regulations. Thus, depending on the degree to which this facility would pre-empt the need for other facilities in Town, and other aspects of the project, the Zoning Commission would be willing to work cooperatively with the applicant. Mr. Owen noted that if the Regulations prevent the location of a facility in a church steeple, this is contrary to the Commission's intent to reduce visual impact whenever possible.

Atty. Leary was asked if other sites were currently being considered. He responded that no specific sites were being studied at this time, but that in general sites along Rts. 202, 109, and 47 would be considered.

Mr. Owen asked him whether there were any other sections of the Regulations that could conflict with this proposal. Atty. Leary said perhaps those concerning ridgelines and watercourses may be in conflict. Mrs. Hill asked how large the church property is because Section 13.19.8.q.7 prohibits facilities on lots that are less than the minimum lot size required for the zoning district in which they are located. Atty. Leary thought the lot size requirements would not be a problem.

Mr. Martin noted the Commission was concerned about the possibility of 160 ft. towers being sited in Town, and so said if an acceptable application is submitted, it would work with the applicant on addressing the problem areas. It was the consensus that locating the facility in a church steeple was a desirable solution in that it would help to preserve scenic vistas. Mr. Owen said that in addition to avoiding an eyesore, another beneficial aspect of this proposal would be that it would provide coverage for Washington residents.

The actual installation of the facility in the steeple was discussed. Atty. Leary said the louvers in the steeple would be replaced with materials similar in appearance that would be technologically suitable.

Mrs. Friedman asked how AT&T could accomplish at 58 ft. what Sprint required 160 ft. to do? Atty. Leary stated the property was 600 ft. above sea level and was suitable for the company's needs, adding that he had not brought technical staff with him to answer this kind of question. It was noted that both companies operate in the same megahurtz range.

Mr. Joseph from the American Tower Corp. with AT&T advised the Commission that the fact AT&T was able to propose a facility in a church steeple did not necessarily mean that the same kind of plan would meet the needs of other companies or that colocation would be possible. For example, he said frequency levels could interfere with each other.

Atty. Leary asked if the Commission would recommend he submit an application for a text amendment. Mr. Martin said the Commission might propose one itself. Atty. Leary stated at the time an application is submitted he would show it is aesthetically acceptable, safely constructed, and that the intent of the setback regulations have been met.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations

• Section 13.1.B: The Commissioners had reviewed Atty. Byrne's recommended revisions in his 5/8/02 letter to the Commission. (See attached proposed amendments) The objective of these revisions is to improve clarity and to better align this section with Ct. Supreme Court case law. It was the consensus to schedule a public hearing for 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002 in the Land Use Meeting Room.

• Circumventing the Zoning Regulations by Conveying a Small Parcel of Land: Mr. Martin briefly described the situation on Old North Road where a property owner had conveyed a small parcel with a large percent of coverage to a third party so that his remaining lot would be far enough under the maximum coverage so that he could get a zoning permit for an accessory building. Several attorneys had been consulted about this and had advised Mrs. Hill that while this action may not be in the spirit of the Zoning Regulations, it was legal. Mr. Martin expressed his concern that it was possible to circumvent the Zoning Regulations in this way and expressed his disappointment that a resident would consider this type of scheme. He said he had consulted with Atty. Byrne regarding possible amendments to close this loophole. He read a proposed amendment to Section 2.3.1. Mrs. Hill suggested that proposed Sections A and B have the same explanation included. Mr. Martin and Mrs. Hill will soon contact Atty. Byrne regarding this and future revisions and will ask him 1) if the same explanation should be included for each section and 2) if there could be any unintended consequences or rights taken away if the amendment is adopted. The wording of this section will be clarified by Atty. Byrne and added to the revisions to be considered at the August public hearing.

• Other Zoning Revisions in progress:

  1. An update of Section 17 by Atty. Byrne

  2. A general update of the entire Regulations by Atty. Byrne

  3. A technical update of Section 14 by Land Tech Consultants

  4. Revision to the Woodville Business District section by Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Owen.

There was a general discussion about the Zoning Commission's concern that the ZBA does not apply the standards for hardship and parcel uniqueness as required by state statute when granting variances. Mr. Owen and Mr. Martin will soon meet with Mr. White, ZBA Chairman, and Mr. Owens, ZBA Vice Chairman, to discuss this issue. The possibility of a joint meeting of the two commissions was also suggested.

Mr. Fitzherbert stated his intention to recuse himself when an application is submitted by the Housing Trust for affordable housing at the Montessori School site. He thought it could be perceived that he has a conflict because Mr. Sears, President of the Trust, reports directly to him at work. Mr. Martin said he would have no personal or financial gain from the outcome and if he had not made a predetermination regarding the application, there was no actual conflict. He said he would leave the decision up to Mr. Fitzherbert.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:34 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer

---

May 20, 2002

Present: Henry Martin, Chairman, Valerie Friedman, David Owen

Alternate: Andrew Shapiro

Guest: Bob Nicholas, Patti Brown, Edward Gilbert, John Friedman, Pat Werner, Vinnie Node

REGULAR MEETING

The Chairman, Mr. Martin called the regular meeting to order at 7:37pm and seated all regular members present and alternate Andrew Shapiro.

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

MOTION: to accept the minutes of the April 22, 2002 regular meeting of the Zoning Commission as submitted by Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Ms. Friedman, passed 4-0.

MOTION: to accept the minutes of the May 7, 2002 special joint meeting of the Zoning Commission and Planning Commission as submitted, with the condition they are accepted by the Planning Commission, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, passed 4-0.

MOTION: to include on the agenda the approval of the minutes of the April 8, 2002 special meeting of the Zoning Commission as submitted by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, passed 4-0.

MOTION: to accept the minutes of the April 8, 2002 special meeting of the Zoning Commission as submitted by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, passed 3-0-1. Ms. Friedman abstained because she did not attend the April 8th special meeting.

NEW APPLICATIONS - none

OTHER BUSINESS

Renewal of Special Permit: Section 13.16/ Gilbert/330 Old Litchfield Road/Shop and Storage Use

Mr. Martin read the ZEO report dated 5/20/02.

MOTION: to approve the renewal, without application, of the Special Permit: Section 13.16 for Gilbert/330 Old Litchfield Road for shop and storage use by contractors and building tradesman by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, passed 4-0.

It is noted that Mr. Gilbert's checks will be returned to him.

Preliminary discussion/Nicholas/Revision of Section 10.4.1.a: Woodville Business District

Mr. Nicholas and Ms. Brown were present to seek clarification on what can be done as far as establishing a "coffee bar" type business on premises. Mr. Nicholas owns Sebec Trading at 330 Litchfield Turnpike and Ms. Brown wants to rent a portion of the building to serve coffee, donuts and accessory foods. It will be take out only, no preparation on site, no inside seating. In the future possibly incorporate the sale of sandwiches and a few outside tables. They are looking at limited hours (6:00am to 12:00noon). Mr. Martin thought this sounds like a reasonable request and encouraged Mr. Nicholas to petition the Zoning Commission to amend their regulations. Mr. Owen felt this was not a restaurant/fast food establishment but a small scale residential establishment and the regulations were not meant to exclude this type of business. Ms. Friedman felt the right way to proceed would be to amend the regulations as Mr. Martin had recommended. There was much discussion on the definition of restaurant/fast-food/ deli and the best way to proceed with both the application and amendment process and get things done in a timely fashion. Mr. Martin explained the special permit process and the applicants need to explain why this is not a restaurant as defined under the existing regulations. Ms. Friedman and Mr. Owen will work on a draft of the propsed change to the regulations. Ms. Hill reminded everyone of the need for health department sign off on all zoning applications.

Revision of Zoning Regulations

Members discussed revisions to Section 13.1.B and Section 17. All members received copies of correspondence from Atty. Byrne regarding revisions to both of these sections. Mr. Martin gave a brief overview of the proposed amendments to Section 13.1.B. and asked members to review them for next months meeting. In regards to Section 17 Atty. Byrne states that parts of current Section 17 are not consistent with state statutes(these parts were crossed out in the correspondence). Given Atty. Byrne's opinion, Mr. Martin asked Atty. Byrne to do a legal overview of the entire Zoning Regulations. Mr. Martin would like him to check for anything inconsistent with of state statutes or common sense changes in view of Atty. Byrne's experience. It was stressed that this will not be a complete rewrite but highlights only.

CORRESPONDENCE

5/10/02 Referral from Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels to ZEO re Telecommunications Tower in New Milford. Mr. Martin briefed members on this referral. It was unclear if the proposed site is within 2500' of Washington's town line. The telecommunications tower company was asking for comment from the Washington Zoning Commission. Members felt that this would be a good learning experience and that the Zoning Commission should take them up on their offer of attending a Zoning meeting. The First Selectman's office will invite Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels to the June 24th regular meeting. It was decided if this date was not convenient have them provide (3) alternate dates to meet.

Members briefly discussed the town web site. The minutes form the April 22nd Zoning Commission meeting were posted on the web site. Mr. Owen informed members that Rex Swain completely revamped the web site. There is still a problem will reformatting information to be posted. The zoning regulations are currently on the web site but need to be downloaded to your computer to access. Mr. Owen felt that more progress has been made in the last month than the last year and that the site will not be fully functional for a few years. Members discussed when the minutes should be posted on the web site. It was decided by the commission that minutes should be made available for posting when they are recorded with the Town Clerk, prior to approval by members, but with a warning that the minutes posted have not yet been approved and are subject to change.

Members also discussed the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) recommendations for the revisions to Section 12.14 pertaining to generators and pool filter. Some members felt the revisions were fine others wanted slight changes. Mr. Martin would like to stay as close to ZBAs recommendations as possible. Mr. Owen will work on some slight wording changes. All embers felt the proposed ZBA distances were reasonable.

ENFORCEMENT

Washington Montessori Association: Enforcement Issue

John Friedman, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Pat Werner, and Vinnie Node, Site Manager were present. Mr. Martin referred members to a letter written by Janet Hill, ZEO (Zoning Enforcement Officer) to the Washington Montessori Association Re: Notice of Violation written 5/20/02. Mr. Martin read the amended motion from the 9/24/01 meeting of the Zoning Commission stating the limitation on outside construction hours. Mr. Friedman apologized and stated that they were lacking in the chain of communication and today they drew up new procedures. Mr. Martin wants no more violations and assurance that the message is conveyed and understood by all. Mr. Friedman stated that he understood and feels the new system of checks, put into place today will w