Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2003 - Washington, Connecticut

Seal: Washington, Connecticut; Founded 1779

www.WashingtonCT.org
The Town of Washington, Connecticut

Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2003

Web page last updated: December 26, 2003

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.

General information about the Zoning Commission
Jump down to: December 15 • November 24 • October 27 • October 8 • September 22 • August 25 • July 28 • June 23 • May 26 • April 28 • March 24 • February 24 • February 20 • January 27 • January 13 • Meetings in 2002

December 15, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Oley, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Mr. Sedito, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Williams, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Charles, Mr. McGowan
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Town of Washington/59 East Street/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6
Fence on the Lake Waramaug Side of East Shore Road
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/3 and 12/10/03.
Mr. Martin read the 12/15/03 ZEO Report, which noted the hearing should be continued because the applicant had not notified the adjoining property owners of the hearing.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by the Town of Washington to install a fence at 59 East Shore Road to Monday, January 26, 2004. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
At 7:34 p.m. Mr. Martin continued the public hearing.
Ryland-Jenkins/18 Curtis Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/
Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Martin called the hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/3 and 12/10/03. Mr. Martin read the list of documents in the file and the ZEO Report dated 12/15/03, which noted the proposed apartment is 532 sq. ft. Mr. Martin noted the ZEO Report concluded that the application complied with the regulations.
Ms. Jenkins, owner, was present and offered to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Shapiro asked about the size of the existing house. Mrs. Hill referred to the site plan, which indicated it was larger than the garage where the apartment would be located and said the size of the house was noted in the file.
There were no comments or questions from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Ryland-Jenkins for a detached accessory apartment at 18 Curtis Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Consideration of the Minutes
Mr. Owen corrected the last sentence before the motion on page 5 of the 11/24/03 Minutes to state, "Mr. Owen stated that he believed the current Regulations were adequate to deal with the issue at hand."
MOTION: To accept the 11/24/03 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence: The public hearing was continued to 1/26/04.
Ryland-Jenkins/18 Curtis Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Ryland-Jenkins for a detached accessory apartment at 18 Curtis Road. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations/Section 14/Site Plan Requirements/ Work Session: Mr. Martin introduced Mr. Oley, a principal with Land Tech, the Commission's consultant on this matter. Mr. Martin noted work to revise this section had begun last year due to concern about surface water runoff and its impacts, protection of water quality, and management practices to best protect the environment. He said Mr. Oley's 12/12/03 draft included feedback from local engineers, the Inland Wetlands and Conservation Commissions, and Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. COG. Mr. Martin referred to the Plan of Conservation and Development and noted the revision of Section 14 was one of the most important things Zoning could do in support of a key recommendation of the Plan - to protect natural resources. The draft was reviewed section by section. The discussion included the following:
14.1: No change.
14.2-14.3: There was a lengthy discussion about when sketch plans vs. site plans should be required. Last year when the Commission had proposed site plans be required for all new single family dwellings, the local engineers and contractors and Mr. McGuinness expressed concerns that this would add substantial cost and time to single family dwelling projects. Some Commissioners thought, however, that many houses in Washington are very large or are on steep slopes and that site plans should be required for homes that exceed size or slope criteria. Mr. Charles thought that site plans be required for all new construction and that they should be submitted in a way so all the information could be entered into the Town's computer system and easily shared by all the land use commissions. Mr. Martin was concerned about the time and cost to the applicant that such a requirement would impose. Mr. McGowan recommended the Commission set specific criteria for when a single family dwelling would require a site plan. He suggested the Zoning Commission ask the Planning Commission to delineate in subdivision approvals appropriate building envelopes to protect natural resources and said this would be a means to help accomplish Zoning's goals. It was agreed that the site plan requirements should be based on 1) size of the proposed structure or addition, 2) grade, 3) coverage, and 4) size of disturbed area. It was noted a definition for "disturbance" would have to be added to Section 21. In addition to these criteria, it was also agreed that site plans should be required for all new construction in the R-3 (Lake Waramaug) District. Mrs. Friedman noted there were several lots in Town where trees had been clear cut without permits and asked if this would fall under the category of disturbance. Mr. Oley thought this was more of a wetlands issue, but if there were no wetlands on the property, clear cutting could possibly require a site plan if the disturbed area were to exceed the limitations the Commission chose to establish for disturbance. Mr. Oley thought some drainage information should be required for sketch plans to ensure there would be no post development impact to neighboring properties or watercourses. When questioned by Mr. Owen about what the benefit of the stricter regulations would be to Washington residents, Mr. Oley responded that erosion would be handled correctly to prevent sediment from reaching wetlands and watercourses, the adequacy of the capacity of downstream culverts would be maintained, and downgrade flooding due to increased runoff would be prevented. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Oley to recommend reasonable criteria thresholds for size of construction, slope, and area of disturbance. Mr. Oley said he would consult with Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Charles asked the Commission to reward applicants for keeping the disturbed area to a minimum, perhaps by increasing the coverage permitted on a property. It was the consensus the Regulations were complex enough already. Mr. Frank suggested the language in 14.2 be revised to state that except as provided for in Section 14.3, sketch plans would be required for all single family dwellings. Mrs. Friedman and Mrs. Hill agreed the current language was confusing and this change would be an improvement. It was also the consensus re: Section 14.3 to take out the reference to projects within 500 feet of wetlands. It was thought 1) 500 feet as written was too great a distance, 2) it could not be known for certain where wetlands are without hiring a soil scientist, and 3) if reduced to 100 feet as proposed by Mr. Oley, this was already under the jurisdiction of the Inland Wetlands Commission.
14.3.k: The requirement to show trees with a trunk circumference of 18" within the limit of disturbance was questioned, especially if there would be no requirement to preserve them. Mr. Oley noted larger trees are valuable to the community, not just the property owner. It was the consensus to retain this requirement for commercial properties only.
14.3.j and 14.3.n: It was the consensus that no matter what the proposal, if more than half an acre would be disturbed, a site plan would be required. Mrs. Hill asked that the distance between the proposed structure and the existing or proposed septic system be shown on both sketch and site plans because the Health Department requires this information. She also asked that the existing and proposed coverage calculations be required on both sketch plans and site plans.
14.3.1: A statement will be added that invasive species are not permitted.
14.3.n.9: This section will be clarified as the meaning of "certified" was unclear.
14.5: The ZEO will be authorized to waive specific individual elements of the sketch plan requirements, if upon inspection, it is determined they are not needed. Mr. McGowan suggested another term be substituted for "waiver" in this section so it would not be confused with waivers in the state statutes, which require a two thirds vote of the Commission. The Commission will get a legal opinion about this.
14.7.1: The Commission agreed with Mr. Oley that this section was too vague and should be deleted.
14.7.3: Mr. Oley noted he had tried to tie in this section with the Town's Driveway Ordinance.
14.7.6: Mr. Oley said he was waiting for input from the Council of Governments, but in the meantime had reviewed Westport's lighting regulations, which he thought were good. A 20 foot maximum height requirement and a provision that outdoor lights may not be left on all night will be added. It was noted liability was an issue, and so a statement that these requirements should be followed as long as they are consistent with the safety and security of the property will be added. Mr. Charles thought uplighting and the number of lights allowed on a property should be regulated. Mr. Martin asked that requirements to state there may be no glare and that light may not cross property lines be added.
14.7.7: Mr. Oley explained designs to handle 10 year storms are generally adequate. Mr. Owen asked if this proposed section differed from the Inland Wetland Regulations. Mr. Oley will investigate. Mr. Owen thought this proposed section was "overkill" and recommended lesser regulations similar to Roxbury's. Mr. Oley stated Roxbury's regulations were not specific and that most towns were now using a format similar to what was proposed in this draft. Mr. Owen thought the Wetlands Commission should regulate drainage, but Mrs. Hill pointed out not all properties have wetlands. Mr. Oley noted that while the proposed language seems complicated, engineers understand it and routinely deal with it. The consensus of the Commission was in agreement with Mr. Oley's recommendations.
14.7.8: Mr. Oley added a reference to the 2002 DEP guidelines for erosion and sedimentation control.
14.7.7.I: Mr. Oley explained the reason for the roof drain requirement was to prevent an increase in post development stormwater runoff onto adjoining properties. There was a brief discussion regarding runoff onto adjoining properties, which results from a project that does not require a zoning permit. Mr. Oley explained per state statute a person may not damage another's property and in such a case, it would be a civil matter between the two property owners.
14.7.9: Mr. Oley added a statement that fire ponds should be kept clear of litter and debris.
14.3.13: Language similar to that in Section 6.5 will be added to state invasive species are not permitted.
14.3.16: Mr. Oley stated the proposed language was from the Town Atty. and would apply to both residential and commercial properties. He noted the applicant's engineer should prepare the bond amount for the Town's engineer to review.

Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Oley and said his input had been very helpful. Mr. Oley will have a revised draft ready in time for the Commissioners to review it before the next meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5/Special Exceptions
Mr. Martin pointed out the changes made since the last meeting:
1) 17.5.a.1: It was made clear that the uses referred to in this section were residential and uses accessory to residential uses and did not include institutional or commercial uses.
2) 17.5.c.1: Mr. Martin had consulted with Atty. Zizka in light of Mr. Brinton's concerns raised at the last meeting. Atty. Zizka said the language should not be changed because it is virtually identical to that in the state statutes. Mr. Martin said this would be a good example of the Zoning Commission promoting housing diversity. Two minor changes made to this section were: in 17.5.c.1.1: "economic" was added to read, "promoting housing choice and economic diversity..." and 17.5.c.1.2 was changed to: "supporting the continued use of a single family dwelling or the continued use of an accessory building with...."
It was noted the public hearing on 17.5 was scheduled for January 26 at 7:30 p.m.
Enforcement
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Affordable Housing Units: Mr. Owen said the Commission had approved the modification of the existing school buildings, but he had observed that all of the structures had been torn down. He questioned whether this was OK as the Commission had approved the plans in part because it had been told it was not feasible to make changes because the existing buildings were to be utilized. Mr. Martin noted the Commission had approved a specific site plan. Mr. Charles said the existing foundations were being used and thought some of the demolition was due to the Commission's condition that the gym wing be cut back. Mrs. Hill thought some of the demolition was required due to the asbestos removal. Mrs. Hill will contact the Housing Trust to get a report on why the structures that were to have been partially utilized have been demolished.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. Mr. Shapiro.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill

November 24, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Klein, Mr. Tagley, Mr. Frank, Mr. Kleinberg, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Meeker, Ms. Gil-Rogers, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Regulations to Enhance the Protection of the Water Quality of Lake Waramaug/Section 6, Definitions for Dock, Rowing Shell Dock, Float, Boathouse, and Shoreline and Change of Boundary of R-3 District/Cont.
Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page.
Mr. Martin noted the Commissioners had been sent the latest draft, which had been thoroughly reviewed by Zoning's land use counsel. The following changes were agreed to: Section 6.4.11 should include floats and in Section 6.5.1.a.2 the spelling of university was corrected and the end of the sentence changed to, "are not permitted."
Section 6.6.5 was briefly discussed. Mr. Martin noted the first 5 ft. of a dock must be no wider than 8 ft. and perpendicular to the shoreline and the reason for this was to protect the shoreline and 5 ft. into the lake, which are the most environmentally sensitive areas around the lake. The language was revised to clarify the dimensional requirement.
The written description of the R-3 District and the definition of shoreline were discussed. "This" was changed to "that" in the 4th line of the District description. Mr. Martin explained the reference to elevation in the definition of shoreline was based on Atty. Zizka's recommendation to utilize the elevation specified on the topographic map. As a result of this approach the shoreline would not change due to fluctuations in the water level of the lake and it would be easier for the ZEO to measure by using the topo map.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked why the street number was required to be posted on docks. Mr. Martin said this was requested by the Lake Waramaug Authority to help to direct emergency access by the lake patrol.
Mr. Shapiro asked about the proposed language for Section 6.6.10 and Mr. Martin responded it was recommended by the Building Official and was taken from the State Building Code.
Mr. Frank asked if in the future the Commission would be receptive to written requests for further revisions from the Lake Waramaug Association. Mr. Martin said it would and specifically the Commission would consider revisions to the regulations governing the size and volume of boathouses and fences if the Commission received specific recommendations in writing. He said the Commission appreciated input from the Lake Waramaug Association, the Lake Waramaug Task Force, and the Lake Waramuag Authority on these matters.
Mr. McGowan thanked the Commission for its efforts to address stormwater management and noted the Task Force would offer advisory assistance in reviewing these plans.
Mr. Kleinberg voiced his support for the proposed stormwater management and landscaping requirements, but asked if the Commission had the resources to effectively enforce them. Mr. Martin explained the Town has an ordinance, which allows the Commission to charge the applicant if consultation with a professional is necessary. He told Mr. Kleinberg the proposed landscaping plans would be checked for invasive species. Mr. Kleinberg thought applicants should also agree to future inspections of plants on the property, but Mr. Martin pointed out there were legal constraints to making the application procedure too open ended. Mr. McGowan suggested the conditions of each Special Permit be filed on the Town Land Records and also noted the Lake Waramaug Task Force would continue to educate residents on how to protect the lake. Mr. Martin recommended the Task Force create an educational brochure that could be given to new property owners in the area.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations to enhance the protection of the water quality of Lake Waramaug; the entire Section 6, revision of the written description and the R-3 District boundary line, and definitions for dock, rowing shell dock, float, boathouse, and shoreline. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a
Retail Pool and Spa Store
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:55 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen, and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page. Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/12 and 11/19/03.
Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file and the 11/24/03 ZEO's report.
Mr. Meeker was present. He stated he would have no outside storage and had no plans to pave the parking area and driveway. It was noted paving the parking area as shown on the site plan would be a violation of Section 9.6.9 if the Regulations because it would be within 25 feet of the adjoining property line. It was also noted Inland Wetlands Commission approval would be required to pave within 100 feet of the Aspetuck River. Mr. Brinton asked if chemicals would be stored outside. Mr. Meeker said there would be chemicals inside the show room only as there are now at his existing store at 210 New Milford Turnpike.
Mr. Meeker proposed to convert the first floor of the existing two family dwelling to commercial space and to continue to rent out the apartment on the second floor.
Landscaping was discussed. Mr. Meeker pointed out that the location of the building would screen some of the parking from the road and showed on the site plan where he proposed to plant pines and rhododendrons. He also noted there was already a fence and some trees along the northern boundary.
Mr. Martin noted Marbledale is a mixed use district with residential properties on both sides of the road in this area. Therefore, he thought a neat appearance was important. Mr. Meeker said he had no plans for changes to the exterior of the building or to the site other than to erect signs. He also said there would be no all night lighting and Mrs. Friedman recommended this be made a condition of approval.
There were no comments for or against the application from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.a submitted by Mr. Meeker for a retail pool and spa store at 269 New Milford Trnpke. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Jahnke/52 River Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:11 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page. Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/12 and 11/19/03.
Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file and the 11/24/03 ZEO's report. The 3/19/98 minutes were included in the file. They stated the reason a detached accessory apartment had been denied in 1998 was because the owners did not live on the property. It was noted Mrs. Jahnke now resides on the premises and a letter confirming this is in the record. It was also noted the Health Department had approved the application.
Mr. Quist submitted a letter of authorization, photos of the barn, and the floor plan. He noted there are horse stalls on the first floor of the barn and the apartment would be confined to the second floor.
Mrs. Gil-Rogers noted residency had been a problem in the past and voiced her concern the property would become a series of rental units. Mr. Martin explained the Regulations prevent this.
It was noted the ZBA had previously granted a variance to allow the apartment to be served by a separate driveway.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mrs. Jahnke for a detached accessory apartment at 52 River Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Addition to School Building
Mr. Fitzherbert recused himself and left the table.
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 8:18 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Brinton for Ms. Page and Mr. Fitzherbert. Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/12 and 11/19/03.
Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file, noting the Health Department had approved the application, and **read the 11/24/03 ZEO's report. He circulated the 11/21/03 letter from Mr. Fitzherbert submitted with the application, which explained how the proposal complied with the Regulations. The 10/03/03 floor plan was reviewed.
Mr. Tagley, an adjoining property owner, expressed his concern about the expansionary nature of schools in general in Washington and asked that approval be tabled until specific long range regulations that target schools and protect residential neighborhoods are implemented. He noted this application was only for a small addition, but that it was the third by Devereux in as many years. Mr. Martin responded the Commission was aware of the recent expansion of the Town's schools, but advised Mr. Tagley the Commission had tightened the criteria in Section 13.1.B to regulate neighborhood impact from Special Permit uses. He said the Zoning Commission had met with the Planning Commission earlier this year and had voiced its concern about the degree of institutional expansion in the R-1 District. He noted in addition to the criteria listed in the Regulations, the Commission considers the recommendations in the Plan of Conservation and Development and considers each school application on a case by case basis. In the past, approvals had often been made with conditions to enhance harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Regarding the current application, he noted the Commission had to base its decision on the current Regulations and said the proposal was small, could not be seen from the road, and would not intensify the use of the property. It was noted the Commission would review the overall issue of institutional uses in the R-1 District in the future, and it was suggested that Mr. Tagley raise his points again at that time. Mr. Owen stated that he believed the current Regulations were adequate to regulate institutional uses in the R-1 District.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 by the Devereux Glenholme School for an addition to a school building at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape, which is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:38 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page.
Election of Officers
MOTION: To elect the current slate of officers for another term: Mr. Martin-Chairman, Mr. Owen- Vice Chairman, and Ms. Page-Secretary. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin thanked the Commission for its great work over the past several years. He noted that with the upcoming evaluation of the Plan of Conservation and Development, reliance on the contributions of all eight members and alternates of the Commission would be needed to accomplish the Zoning Commission's goals.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/27/03 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that on page 8, in the last sentence in the first paragraph, the section referenced should be 12.5.1.
MOTION: To accept the 10/27/03 Minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Regulations to Enhance the Protection of the Water Quality of Lake Waramaug

Mr. Martin noted the Commission had worked on the proposed revisions since June and had drafted a comprehensive package to help protect the lake. He noted, too, the revisions were supported by the Lake Waramaug Association, Lake Waramaug Task Force, and Lake Waramaug Authority.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations to enhance the protection of the water quality of Lake Waramaug: entire Section 6 Section 21-Definitions for boathouse, dock, rowing shell dock, float, and shoreline, and revision of the written description and boundary location of the Lake Waramaug Residential District as amended at the 11/24/03 Public Hearing, the effective date to be 15 days after the publication of the legal notice. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a
Retail Pool and Spa Store
Mr. Martin noted outside storage had not been applied for and if it were needed in the future, Mr. Meeker would have to apply for it. It was agreed restrictions on outdoor lighting would be made a condition of approval.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.a submitted by Mr. Meeker for a retail pool and spa store at 269 New Milford Turnpike subject to the following conditions: that the outdoor lighting be as low wattage as possible to maintain safety and security, that the lights be directed downward and the light source shielded, and the lighting not remain on all night. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Jahnke/52 River Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mrs. Jahnke for a detached accessory apartment at 52 River Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Addition to School Building

Mr. Fitzherbert recused himself and left the table. Mr. Brinton was seated.
It was the consensus the proposed addition was small and would not intensify the use of the property.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Glenholme School for an addition to a school building at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin noted Mr. Tagley had raised some valid points, but it would be more appropriate to discuss them when revisions to the Regulations were being considered as opposed to when a specific application was being reviewed.
Mr. Fitzherbert was reseated.
New Applications
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence on the Lake Waramaug Side of East Shore Road
Ryland-Jenkins/18 Curtis Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

It was noted public hearings were required for these applications. These were scheduled for Monday, December 15, 2003 in the Land Use Meeting Room: Town of Washington at 7:30 p.m. and Ryland-Jenkins at 7:35 p.m.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5/Special Exceptions
Mr. Martin noted at the last meeting the Commission had withdrawn its proposed revision concerning Special Exceptions so that Atty. Zizka could factor in all the input received to date, including that from Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. Council of Governments. He explained the new draft had three important changes:
1) Section 17.5.a limited the flexibility granted for lot coverage to a maximum of 5%.
2) All the inappropriate variance language was deleted from Section 17.5.c and specific criteria added.
3) Section 17.5.c added the requirement that prior to granting a Special Exception the ZBA must make a written determination for the record that all the criteria are met.
Mr. Shapiro made two grammatical corrections. 17.5.c.1 should read "will" further, not would further. In 17.5.c.2 a colon should be inserted at the end of the 3rd line and "the" deleted.
Mr. Brinton was concerned that "low and moderate income households" was not defined. Mr. Martin said this would be considered on a case by case basis and decided with the discretion of the Commission. Mrs. Friedman pointed out the Commission would not be asking households to demonstrate low and moderate incomes, but would look at modest sized homes and properties. Mr. Martin agreed the focus was on the housing stock. Mr. Martin said he would consult with Atty. Zizka to clarify the section.
A public hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 14/Site Plans

Mrs. Friedman said she found some sections of the draft were confusing. Mr. Martin noted Mr. Oley, consulting engineer, had offered to attend the next meeting to discuss stormwater drainage issues and the proposed revisions to this section. The latest draft will be mailed out before the next meeting. There was a lengthy discussion regarding when a sketch plan vs. a site plan should be required. While it had been previously decided that site plans should not be required for single family dwellings, Mrs. Friedman argued that larger houses and those on steep grades should be required to submit engineered plans. Mr. Martin noted the goal of the proposed revisions was not to impede applicants, but to protect the Town's natural systems as recommended in the Plan of Development. Mrs. Friedman noted former Commissioner John Potter had often complained about the impact of construction on Town roads and neighboring properties and urged these concerns be addressed. Mrs. Hill noted the Roxbury Inland Wetlands Commission requires roof and driveway drainage plans for all new construction and the Zoning Commission requires site plans for new houses and said she would try to get a copies of their regulations. Mr. Martin reminded the Commission that the consensus of advice on this matter including input from Mr. McGuinness was that single family homes should continue to be excluded from site plan requirements and only larger, more complicated projects should be made to comply.
Communications
Mr. Martin noted Mr. Underwood had sent a letter dated 11/15/03 regarding driveways. Mr. Underwood incorrectly thought the Zoning Commission was restricting property owners from accessing their properties and asked the Commission to revise any regulation that may impinge on an owner's right to do so. Mrs. Hill will draft a response.
2004 Calendar

MOTION: To approve the 2004 Calendar as presented. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Model Parking Regulations from COG: Copies of the model regs were given to all Commissioners. Mr. Martin also gave a copy to the First Selectman. It was noted most towns deal with minimum parking requirements, but that having too much parking is just as bad as having too little. Mrs. Hill noted Mr. McGuinness had offered to attend a meeting to discuss this topic and said the COG website would soon have additional information. Mr. Martin asked the Board of Selectmen to provide input to the Zoning Commission regarding these model regulations.
Mr. Martin received an e-mail from Mr. Boling requesting additional Zoning Regulations to govern driveways over discontinued public roads. Mr. Martin advised him the Zoning Commission would cooperate, but thought the driveway ordinance might be a more appropriate place to address this matter. He referred this matter to Mr. Sears and asked him to advise the Commission which approach the Board of Selectmen thought would be the more appropriate.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer

October 27, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. McTaggart, Atty. Shub, Mr. Smith, Atty. Andrews, Mr./Mrs. Chapin, Mr. Fuller, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mr. Hackney, Ms. Holiman, Mr. Kleinberg, Mr. Charles, Mr. Klein, Mr. Swain, Ms. Roberts, Mr. White, Mr. McGowan, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Regulations to Enhance the Protection of the Water Quality of Lake Waramaug/ Sections 6. 6.5, 6.6, 21.1.17, 21.1.26, 21.1.34, 21.1.50, and Revision of Lake Warmaug Residential District Boundary
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page.
Mr. Martin explained the Commission had been working with the Lake Waramaug Association, Task Force, and Authority since June to bring about revisions to provide greater protection for the water quality of the lake. He then briefly described the proposed revisions: 1) Section 6 - a reorganization of the principal uses, accessory uses, and uses allowed by Special Permit in the R-3 District, 2) Section 6.5 - a new section that puts Washington Zoning Regulations in line with new regulations in Warren to permit activity within 50 to 75 feet of the shoreline by Special Permit, 3) Section 6.6 - a new section governing docks and floats, and 4) the revision of the R-3 District boundaries to increase the district to include the entire watershed.
Mr. Martin read the following documents for the record:
1. 10/27/03 letter from the Planning Commission stating the proposed regulations were in compliance with the 1993 Plan of Development and the draft 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development.
2. 9/22/03 memo from Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct Council of Governments.
3. 10/27/03 letter from Atty. Zizka. Section 6.6.7: Mr. Zizka offered a draft regulation to address Mr. McGuinness's concerns about referring dock applications to the Lake Waramaug Authority. If approved by the Authority and all other requirements were met, the ZEO could approve the application, if not approved by the Authority, a Special Permit would be required. Written description of the Lake Waramaug Residential District: Atty. Zizka provided a description, which clarified the drainage cited in this section was surface water and deleted the reference to highways, referring only to measurements from the lake shore. Section 6.6.12: Atty. Zizka suggested a revision regarding side yard setbacks for docks, which would allow an owner to apply for a Special Permit if he could not reasonably meet the 25 ft. side yard setback due to the size or shape of the lot, physical obstructions, or the location of sensitive natural resources.
4. Undated memo from Mr. McGowan. Mr. McGowan proposed to delete proposed Section 6.5.2.c and move it with a slight modification into 6.5.1.a to clarify what is meant by "near the lake." He did not want to specify an exact distance because he hoped the entire lot and especially the shoreline would be considered when landscaping and stormwater management plans were being drawn up. He noted that because each lot is unique due to topography, natural features, distance between buildings and the lake, etc. it would be difficult to set a specific distance and feared if a distance were set, attention would be focussed on that area only and not the entire lot.
5. Comments from Kent Inland Wetlands Commission. Section 6.5.2.c: This memo recommended "native" be changed to "native to Ct." Mrs. Roberts asked if there was an accompanying list of native plants. Mr. Martin responded the Conservation Commission and Steep Rock Assoc. have lists of invasive species. After a long discussion it was agreed the wording would be changed to "Vegetation native to Ct. is encouraged, especially along the shoreline."
6. 10/24/03 Memo from Mr. Picton, Acting Chairman Inland Wetlands Commission. This memo asked for clarification of Sections 6.4.6, 6.6.5, and 6.6.6.b and stated general support of proposed revisions.
The regulation of fences on the lake side of East and West Shore Roads was discussed. Mr. Martin explained the current regulations. Mrs. Friedman suggested fences be taken out of the Special Permit process, but be limited to three feet in height. Mr. Kleinberg asked the Commission to consider prohibiting fences on both sides of these roads to preserve the views of the countryside. Mr. Martin noted the Commission had to balance the rights of the individual property owners who may want fences for privacy or safety with the collective right of the public to have a view of the lake. Ms. Baldwin agreed with Mr. Kleinberg and suggested only "open" fences that would allow an unobstructed view be permitted. The Commissioners generally agreed to preserve the view by controlling height rather than the style and design of fences. Mr. Fitzherbert thought regulations to enhance the protection of the water quality of Lake Waramaug were beneficial, but that fences were a separate issue and should be taken out of this discussion. He also felt the proposed revisions governing the size of docks and floats did not directly address water quality. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Martin disagreed, stating that except for the size restriction, these regulations had been the result of environmental concerns. It was noted both the Lake Waramaug Association members and the Planning Commission supported restrictions on size.
Mr. White, Chairman of the ZBA, voiced his concern about Atty. Zizka's recommendations regarding side yard setbacks for docks. He said the Zoning Board of Appeals has been very strict regarding setbacks for docks and feared the "flood gates" would open if the revision to address setbacks less than 25 ft. by Special Permit rather than by variance were adopted. He noted multiple docks were a problem on other area lakes and thought it good the Commission was being proactive regarding docks and fences.
Mr. Solley thought the Commission should establish a maximum length for docks.
Mr. Martin informally asked the Lake Waramaug residents in attendance whether they supported the proposed regulations regarding docks. They overwhelmingly did.
Mrs. Chapin did not think a property with long lake frontage should be limited to one dock. She also noted her concern that the proposed revisions did not address existing docks. Mr. Martin responded the state statues guarantee "grandfathering" and so existing docks would be totally protected.
Mr. Fuller did not support the proposed regulations because he thought most of the degradation of the lake's water quality was due to improperly functioning septic systems, which the revisions did not address. He also thought the possibility of a state boat launch should have been included. Mr. Martin noted the Commission did not have jurisdiction over septic systems or the proposed boat launch. Mr. Fuller did not think controlling dock size would improve the water quality, but Mr. Martin said 80% of the proposed dock regulations were aimed at protecting the shoreline, which would, in turn, help to protect the water quality. He read proposed Section 6.6.
There was a brief discussion regarding the maximum size of docks. While some like the Planning Commission thought the maximum size to be permitted was too large, it was noted they are currently unrestricted and so the proposed 360 sq. ft. maximum was an improvement over the current policy.
It was noted requiring docks to be removable did not necessarily mean they had to be actually removed on a seasonal basis. Mr. Martin noted this requirement dictated how the docks would be fastened to the shore and said there would be less potential damage to the shoreline if they were left in the water.
Mr. Chapin generally supported the intent of the proposed revisions, but noted many regulations would be added. He asked if the Commission had considered the increased workload for the Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Hackney made a lengthy statement regarding the affect of impervious surfaces on the water quality of the lake. While he supported the proposed revisions, he maintained the Commission could have a greater positive impact on the lake if it made a distinction between pervious and impervious surfaces when computing lot coverage for driveways and provided a coverage incentive to property owners around the lake to install gravel rather than paved driveways. He cited information from the EPA and NEMO and specifically addressed water permeable construction methods that could be required for driveways and parking areas. Mr. Martin noted Mr. McGowan had also submitted information on water permeable construction methods. He added, however, that the Commission had a 30 year lot coverage policy based on information from organizations such as NEMO and so would not modify the regulations without an in depth study into this matter. He also stated this would be a major change that could not be incorporated into this round of proposed revisions, but that the Commission would consider this recommendation for the future. Mrs. Friedman thought that coverage incentives in exchange for pervious driveways was an issue that should be considered on a townwide basis, not just for the R-3 District. Mr. Hackney stated the priority of the protection of such a valuable resource would justify the suspension of the current coverage regulations.
Ms. Holiman supported Mr. Hackney's recommendation. Mr. Martin again noted the Commission would study the matter, especially whether such a changein the regulations would have unintended consequences.
Mr. McGowan read a statement in support of the proposed revisions. He submitted a paper entitled, Proposed Amendments to Washington Zoning Regulations Lake Waramaug Residential District Amendments," which included a seven page attachment on filter strip construction methods.
Mr. Frank supported the proposed amendments on behalf of the Lake Waramaug Association.
Mr. Martin recommended the public hearing be continued to provide the Commission the opportunity to consider all the comments made and to draft appropriate text revisions.
Mr. Kleinberg asked the Commission for a more far reaching review of regulations to protect the lake's scenic and natural resources. Mr. Martin responded the Commission would take up the issue of the preservation of scenic resources for the entire Town when the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development had been adopted.
Mrs. Friedman suggested another matter to be reviewed should be a limit on the size of boathouses. Mr. Fitzherbert again stated that he thought boathouse, fence, and dock regulations were not related to the protection of Lake Waramaug's water quality and so should be taken up separately.
Mr. Martin presented the map of the revised boundaries of the Lake Waramaug Residential District.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations to enhance the protection of the water quality of Lake Waramaug, Sections 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, definitions, and revision of the boundary of the Lake Waramaug Residential District to 11/24/03. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
At 9:26 p.m. Mr. Martin continued the public hearing to November 24, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Definitions of Lot Coverage and Setback/Sections 21.1.34 and 21.1.50
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 9:27 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page.
Mr. Martin explained the proposed revisions were a collaborative effort of the Zoning Commission and ZBA to clarify what is included in the measurement of setbacks and calculation of lot coverage.
He read both the 9/22/03 memo from Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. Council of Gov'ts, which made no particular comments and the 10/27/03 memo from the Planning Commission, which generally supported the proposed amendments, but questioned the exclusion of bay windows, cantilevers, and gable end projections extending less than 24 inches from the setback measurements and coverage calculations. Mr. Charles, Planning Commissioner, said his Commission's concern was that these three categories could be used to increase living area, while the other items listed such as gutters, roof overhangs, and cornices could not.
There was a brief discussion about whether bay windows, cantilevers, and gable end projections should be included in the lot coverage and setback calculations even if they extend less than 24 inches from the structure. It was agreed that they should and that balconies should also be included.
Mr. Hackney asked that his comments concerning coverage made at the previous public hearing be considered part of this hearing as well.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations; Sections 21.1.34 - Lot Coverage and 21.1.50 - Setback. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at approximately 9:45 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washigton Depot, Ct.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Special Exceptions/Section 17.5
Mr. Martin explained the proposed Special Exception section would grant the Zoning Board of Appeals the authority to exercise some specific limited flexibility for setbacks and coverage in specific circumstances for single family dwellings and for setbacks for historically significant accessory structures. He noted both Mr. McGuinness from the NW CT. Council of Gov'ts and the Commission's counsel, Atty. Zizka, had concerns about some of the proposed criteria, which were too hardship oriented and inconsistent with Connecticut general statutes. Therefore, Atty. Zizka was working on a rewrite of this proposal. It was the consensus of the Commission to withdraw consideration of the proposed revisions at this time and to reschedule a public hearing after receiving written recommendations from Atty. Zizka. It was noted cooperation with the ZBA on the adoption of Section 17.5 would continue.
REGULAR MEETING
Regular Business
Mr. Martin called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:47 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 9/22/03 Regular Meeting minutes and the 10/8/03 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
The Gunnery School/22 South Street/Driveway
Mr. Brinton recused himself and left the table.
Mr. Martin explained the application was to construct the first 1000 feet of the driveway, which had been shown on the plans submitted to the Commission three years ago for soccer fields and that were subsequently withdrawn. He said Zoning usually did not act on applications involving driveways until the Selectmen's Office had signed off, but that in this case the 65 day time limit in which to act on the application would expire before the Commission's November meeting.
He noted the 9/22/03 letter from Mrs. Graham, which stated The Gunnery had no specific plans to develop or improve the property beyond the construction of the driveway and there was no principal use associated with it. He read the 10/27/03 ZEO's report, which recommended the application be acted on by the Commission, as opposed to the ZEO alone. He then read the 10/27/03 letter from Atty. Zizka. It was Atty. Zizka's opinion that the Zoning Regulations do not authorize the issuance of a permit for a driveway that is not tied to a proposed principal use.
Mr. Martin stated the Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to the Enforcement Officer and the ZEO could then act utilizing her own judgement. He asked the Commissioners for input.
Mr. Shapiro thought Atty. Zizka provided convincing justification for his opinion and also thought it was logical not to consider an accessory use before the primary use of a property was known. He referred to Section 12.1 of the Regulations.
Mr. Martin said he knew of no precedent where a driveway of this nature was permitted without knowing what the principal use of the property would be. He noted sometimes a permit is granted for a driveway to access a building lot approved for a single family dwelling, but that the principal use was always known. In this case Mrs. Graham had written that the property could be used for anything. He noted, too, the proposed driveway was 1000 feet long and 18 feet wide, or 18,000 sq. ft. of coverage. He thought approval without a site plan, which identified the principal use defied logic. He objected to The Gunnery's piecemeal approach.
Atty. Andrews said she represented The Gunnery and she noted Mr. Smith, engineer, was also present to answer technical questions.
Atty. Andrews agreed with Atty. Zizka's letter but claimed the proposed driveway does serve a principal use and apologized that the application did not state what that principal use was. She said the property had always been used by the school for the following low intensity purposes: 1) the school's wells for potable water; and 2) recreational activities such as hockey and skating on the ponds, hiking, environmental and nature education, art and photography, and as a refuge and retreat. She noted the property is located in the R-1 District and read Section 4.1, which states low intensity recreational activities are permitted. She said these uses did not require a principal building and were in harmony with the R-1 District. She said the driveway was proposed to provide access deeper into the parcel for these same activities. Mrs. Hill noted the wells were already served by a separate existing driveway.
Mr. Martin asked if she would submit a site plan for the uses she described. She stated they take place all over the lot. Mr. Martin thought The Gunnery put the Town in an unfair position by asking it to approve only one segment of an old site plan.
Mr. Martin noted the uses listed had not needed a driveway for the past 50 years. Atty. Andrews said that did not mean a better access was not permitted.
Mr. Owen stated the Regulations do not list low intensity recreational uses as primary uses permitted in the R-1 District.
Atty. Andrews stated the school did not propose any new use of the property now and that the current use would not change as a result of the driveway construction.
Mr. Fitzherbert noted the other schools in Town have brought in long range plans for review upon request of the Zoning Commission and all have complied except for The Gunnery.
Mr. Martin noted the Zoning Commission has been supportive of The Gunnery in the past and that its current position concerning the proposed driveway did not negatively reflect on the school. He said it was both logical and reasonable that the Commission must know what the driveway will access before it grants approval.
Atty. Andrews said the Commission should not base its decision on a use that has not yet been proposed. She said Atty. Zizka did not have the benefit of her statement when he wrote his opinion and asked that he now revise it.
Mr. Martin advised The Gunnery it could withdraw its application and resubmit when ready to document what uses will be associated with the driveway.
Mr. Owen recommended the ZEO deny the application without prejudice. He also noted the site plan submitted with the driveway application included soccer fields
Mr. Shapiro thought the uses listed by Atty. Andrews were intermittent and there was no predominant use of the property. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed, adding there was no current use that required an 18 foot wide, 1000 foot long, paved driveway. Mrs. Friedman also agreed, noting the uses Atty. Andrews had noted had not required a driveway in the past.
MOTION: To recommend the Zoning Enforcement Officer deny without prejudice the application submitted by the Gunnery School to construct a driveway at 22 South Street for the reasons listed in the 10/27/03 letter from Atty. Zizka, which is incorporated in this motion. (See attached) By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Brinton returned at 10:22 p.m.
New Applications
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Retail Pool and Spa Store: Mr. Meeker was present. Mr. Martin noted the ZEO recommended a public hearing be scheduled for November 24. The hearing was set for 8:00 p.m. Mr. Meeker was advised to consult with Mrs. Hill regarding the documentation required for the application.
Jahnke/52 River Road/Special Permit: Section Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment: A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 24, 2003 at 8:05 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Addition to School Building: Mr. Fitzherbert explained the school proposed a 350 sq. ft. addition to the "little kids" school building and that he would recuse himself when the application is considered. A public hearing was scheduled for November 24, 2003 at 8:10 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Other Business
Mr. Martin noted the public hearing to consider revisions to the Zoning Regulations to enhance the protection of the water quality of Lake Waramaug had been continued to 7:30 p.m. on 11/24 and the proposed amendment for Section 17.5, Special Exceptions, had been temporarily withdrawn.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Definitions of Lot Coverage and Setback/Sections 21.1.34 and 21.1.50
It was the consensus these two sections should be amended as follows:
Section 21.1.34: Lot Coverage: The fifth sentence was revised to: "The ground directly beneath roof overhangs, eaves, cornices and gutters and leaders is not included in the lot coverage calculations if these projections extend less than 24 inches from the structure."
Section 21.1.50: Setback: The third sentence is changed to read, "Chimneys, balconies, bay windows, porches, decks, basement hatchways, cantilevers, handicap ramps, utility pads, gable end projections, and entry steps or stoops are part of the structure to which they are attached and must meet all setback requirements as enumerated in Section 11.6. The fourth sentence was revised to, "Roof overhangs, eaves, cornices, and gutters and leaders that extend less than 24 inches from the structure are not counted in the setback calculations."

MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations; Sections 21.1.34 - Lot Coverage and 21.1.50 - Setback as revised at the 10/27/03 Zoning meeting. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
(Alternate Brinton was seated for Ms. Page.)
Mr. Shapiro was reseated.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 14: Site Plans: Mr. Martin noted Mr. Fitzherbert and Mrs. Friedman have agreed to review Mr. Oley's latest draft and report back to the Commission. This will be included on the 11/24 agenda.
Plan of Conservation and Development: Mrs. Hill announced the public hearing on adoption of the Plan was scheduled for 10/29/03 at 7:30 p.m.
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request to Revise Landscaping Plan: The 10/22/03 letter to the Commission from Mr. McNaughton was reviewed. He requested a revision of the approved landscaping plan and detailed reasons why the requirement for shade trees to be planted 15 feet apart in all directions in the parking islands to the north of the building should be changed so that the existing 11 deciduous trees planted satisfied the requirement. Mr. Martin referred to the 10/27/03 ZEO report. The ZEO had inspected the site and had consulted with the landscaper and Mr. McNaughton. She recommended the request be granted for the reasons listed in the letter and because the landscaper had advised her this type of tree should be planted approximately 30 feet apart.
MOTION: To approve the request submitted by the Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike to modify its landscaping plan per the 10/22/03 letter from Mr. McNaughton. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Correspondence
It was noted letters from Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Kleinberg had been received requesting an in depth review and revision of the Zoning Regulations to preserve the scenic area around Lake Waramaug. They also requested a moratorium on all new construction until the revisions were adopted. The Zoning Commissioners thought that a moratorium on further development in the Lake Waramaug Residential District was not necessary at this time. It was agreed, however, that recommendations made regarding fences and lot coverage would be considered in the future.
Enforcement
Madoff/West Shore Road/Fence: Mr. Ajello inspected the property and found the fence had been lowered. He remeasured it to confirm it complied with the conditions of the Special Permit approval. There was a brief discussion regarding fence heights, recommendations in the Plan of Conservation and Development to protect views, and the rights of property owners to privacy.
Frater-Feldman/West Shore Road/Boathouse: Mrs. Hill said she had thoroughly investigated complaints that the boathouse was too tall and had determined it was less than 15 feet high, which was consistent with the zoning permit granted. Mrs. Friedman noted she thought the height of boathouses should be restricted.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer

October 8, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Brinton
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. and Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Sedito, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Charles, Mrs. H. Averill, Mrs. Wilbur, Mr. and Mrs. Rourke, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Shannon, Mr. Cannavaro, Mr. Boling, Mr. White, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Request to Amend Condition #12 of Special Permit for 11 Affordable Housing Units
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page, who arrived at 7:45 p.m. and so was not present for the entire hearing.
Mr. Martin stated the public hearing was required per state statute and that only discussion pertinent to the proposed modification of condition #12 of the Special Permit approval conditions would be considered. He noted the criteria for deciding whether condition #12 would be amended would be the same criteria required by state statute that had been considered by the Commission when it acted on the original application. 1) Is there a substantial public interest that would be harmed if the condition were modified? 2) If so, does that public interest outweigh the need for affordable housing? He stated the Commission would not become involved in the negotiations between the New Preston Water Company (NPWC)and the Washington Community Housing Trust (WCHT), and would consider its statutory responsibility only.
Mr. Martin stated all documents pertinent to the water issue from the initial public hearing would be entered into the record of this hearing. Also all copies of recent NPWC and WCHT correspondence received for the file and the 1993 Plan of Development were included in the record.
Atty. Fisher represented the WCHT. He noted the current condition #12 prevented demolition and construction on site until the State DPH approves the water system upgrade plan. The Trust proposed to amend this to state instead that the certificate of zoning compliance could not be issued until state approval was granted. This modification, he said, would allow work to start now, which was very important to the WCHT and would not cause any hardship for the users of the NPWC since a certificate of occupancy could not be issued without zoning compliance.
Mr. Martin asked if the condition was not amended, what impact would there be on the project? Mr. Sedito, construction manager, stated if work could not begin immediately, the project would be delayed until spring. He anticipated cost increases if the work was delayed. Mr. Boyer said the construction contracts would expire after 60 days and also voiced his concern about the recent large increases in the cost of construction materials. Atty. Fisher also noted a six month delay in the start of construction would result in a six month delay in opening the units.
Mrs. Rourke asked the Commission to review the reasons why it had included condition #12 when the Special Permit was originally approved. Mr. Martin said there had been evidence presented that the water supply in the ground was adequate, but that the distribution system needed to be upgraded. He said condition #12 had been his idea to ensure an orderly process and to acknowledge on the record that the Zoning Commission understood this was an important matter. He said it was not meant to be used to obstruct or to jeopardize the project.
Atty. Fisher submitted a letter dated 10/7/03 from the State Department of Public Health, which stated the state was not concerned whether demolition and/or construction took place on the premises, but before any changes to the water system could be made, that department's approval was required. For the record, Mr. Martin read the 10/7/03 letter addressed to Atty. Fairbairn. He noted this letter clarified the state's position that its approval is required before any work on the water system could begin, but not before construction of the dwelling units could begin.
Mrs. Rourke did not think waiting to begin the work until spring would have a negative financial impact. She also stated there was no potable water source confirmed for the units. Mr. Boyer responded it was not realistic to think the WCHT would install its own water system and said the state requires use of the NPWC system.
Mr. Anderson stated the original condition #12 had been well thought out and should remain in place to ensure the units wouldn't be constructed and then learn they had no water supply. Mr. Martin pointed out that if this happened, it would have to be dealt with by the State Department of Public Health.
Mr. Anderson complained that the asbestos removal that was allowed to begin at 16 Church Street was actually demolition that is not permitted per condition #12. Mr. Martin briefly explained the building code had been researched and the property owner had the right to remove the asbestos. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed stating that under federal law all asbestos must be removed before demolition may begin.
Mr. Martin asked whether there was a public interest that would be harmed if condition #12 were amended, and if so, did that interest outweigh the need for affordable housing.
Mr. Owen suggested residents near 16 Church Street might think the WCHT would have more leverage to receive lenient treatment from the Zoning Commission if the buildings are already in place and then it is determined there is a problem with the water supply. He said, however, that this would not be the case. Mr. Martin agreed, saying State approval of changes to the water system is a state Department of Public Health requirement, not a zoning issue. If there is no resolution between the NPWC and the WCHT, he said, it should not be dealt with by any agency of the Town of Washington. He added it could be argued that now that the State DPH jurisdiction on this matter is a fact of this hearing's public record, condition #12 could be considered redundant to the State DPH requirements.
Mr. Owen asked if the Commission could require a bond from the property owner to ensure the water system would be properly completed. Mr. Martin did not think Zoning should interfere with the state DPH. It was noted the Zoning Commission would have no power to over rule the Department of Public Health, but could require an agreement for the upgrade of the system prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
Mrs. Shannon worried that if the units were built and there was no water supply system it would be a fire hazard for the neighborhood. Mr. Owen noted the current condition #12 required only that a plan for the water system be agreed upon, not that a new system be installed, and so thought whether or not the condition was amended would not affect the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Boyer stated the WCHT's plans call for the installation of a cistern of non potable water that will be directly available for fire safety. He said this could be installed without DPH approval because it would not be connected to the drinking water system. He also stated WCHT agreed to pay for an 8" main that would be attached to fire hydrants and would improve fire safety in this part of Town.
Mrs. Rourke said it was a risk for the WCHT to proceed with construction because upgrades to the water system are needed before it may join the NPWC and being permitted to join is not guaranteed. Mr. Shapiro asked for clarification regarding the water source. Mrs Rourke stated there is a potable water source, but the WCHT can't hook up to it unless the developer pays for the upgrades required. Mr. Martin read Mr. Black's 8/2/03 letter, which confirmed there was plenty of water available in the ground and noted the WCHT's preference was to join the NPWC rather than install its own water system.
Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Boyer if he was concerned about the possibility of vandalism should the units be constructed but then can't be lived in because an agreement was not reached. Mr. Boyer said in that case a security officer would have to be hired, adding he thought the potential for vandalism was worse now with the empty school building on site.
Mr. Charles and Mr. Sedito explained the construction schedule would allow new residents to move in before the start of school next year. Mr. Martin reminded them the units could be occupied only if State DPH approval of the water system upgrade was granted.
Mrs. Averill, 10 New Preston Hill Road, welcomed the proposed improvements to the neighborhood and said by amending condition #12 these improvements could be made sooner. She said the project would bring positive results and good housing to the neighborhood and that she thought it was possible for the parties involved to resolve the matter and reach an agreement.
Mr. Martin thanked her for the spirit in which she made her comments.
Mr. Martin thanked all those who attended the hearing.
There were no other comments or questions from the Commission or the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the request made by the Washington Community Housing Trust to modify condition #12 of the Special Permit for 11 affordable housing units at 16 Church Street. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin adjourned the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
The public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in
the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
SPECIAL MEETING
Mr. Martin called the Special Meeting to order at 8:23 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page.
Mr. Shapiro thought condition #12 was superfluous because the DPH would not let the water system upgrade begin without its approval. Since there is an adequate supply of potable water, he did not think an amendment to #12 would make any difference.
Mr. Martin agreed, saying that we now have on the record that the State DPH would conduct a proper evaluation, approval, and enforcement of the required improvements to the water system. He noted, too, that in the seven months since the Zoning Commission approved the Special Permit, the DPH had not yet received all the information it had requested from the NPWC and so the condition was creating difficulties for the applicant. He also thought the Zoning Commission should not be involved in the ongoing negotiations between the NPWC and the WCHT.
Mr. Fitzherbert said he was very concerned about the slow progress of the negotiations, thought the State DPH would protect the interests of the community, and said approval of a modification of condition #12 would still mean the buildings would not be occupied until all parties were satisfied.
Mr. Owen said the difficulty in reaching an agreement about the improvements to the water system should not be used as a tool to derail the project. That, he said, would not be in the public interest.
Mr. Martin explained that at the time the Special Permit was approved, the Commission had not understood the policies and position of the DPH, but now those policies were on the record. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed, adding that at that time the Commission had added condition #12 to ensure the improvements would be made.
Ms. Page noted she had voted against the Special Permit, but in this case, was satisfied with the documentation received. She said there would be no harm to the public interest because the DPH would ensure the required work would be done.
Mr. Martin said he hoped both parties would come together for their mutual benefit.
MOTION: To approve the request made by the Washington Community Housing Trust to modify condition #12 of the Special Permit for 11 affordable housing units at 16 Church Street to: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, a plan for upgrading the New Preston Water Company system must be approved by the State Department of Public Health, after taking into account the increased demand load on the system created by this housing project. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5/Special Exception
Mr. Martin noted a public hearing had been scheduled for October 27 to consider this proposed section. He explained the purpose of the section was to empower the Zoning Board of Appeals to administer Special Exceptions in specific circumstances. In the case of single family dwellings the ZBA would have the flexibility to deal with lot coverage and yard setback issues without having to make the determination a hardship exists as it must when it grants a variance. In the case accessory structures with historic significance, ZBA would be able to deal with setback issues in the same way. He noted the Commission worked with the ZBA for a long time to draft the proposed language.
Mrs. Friedman raised concerns about the concept of granting Special Exceptions. She thought the language was so vague the ZBA would have difficulty turning down applications. She reviewed portions of the proposed section on criteria, which she thought was so vague it was not clear what was meant. She said the ZBA was doing an adequate job under the current regulations and feared adoption of the new section would make a mockery of the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Owen explained Section 17.5 would give the ZBA the legal rationale to make flexible decisions when the legal definition of hardship could not be met. He thought the language was purposely open ended to provide the ZBA the flexibility to deal with non conforming proposals. Mrs. Friedman asked what the phrase, "to the smallest extent possible" meant. Mr. Owen said what was reasonable would be determined by the ZBA. Mr. Martin noted that in addition to what the ZBA determined was the smallest extent possible, the Special Permit criteria in Section 13.1.B had to be met. He said he was comfortable with the ZBA determining the least amount possible on a case by case basis and reminded Mrs. Friedman that only lot coverage and setbacks for single family dwellings and setbacks for accessory structures with historical significance would be covered under 17.5. Mr. Owen felt some of the existing regulations that make sense for 50 acre properties don't necessarily make sense for half acre parcels or for properties with very old buildings. He thought the proposed section would help the ZBA find ways to accommodate different kinds of properties by taking a broader view of hardship.
Mrs. Friedman thought properties not falling into these categories would try to use this section, too. Mr White, ZBA Chairman, responded the Town Attorney had advised him the language was strong enough so the ZBA could determine an applicant did not comply or did not qualify for consideration under 17.5. He noted if the ZBA approved an application under this section, it would always approve the minimum that is reasonable. He also thought adoption of 17.5 would provide the ZBA with enough flexibility so that it could be harder on variance applications.
Mrs. Friedman thought attorneys would interpret the proposed section to the advantage of their clients and asked if the Commission would consider rescinding it if it was found to provide too much flexibility and did not work. Mr. White noted Washington was not the only town in the state to have Special Exceptions and said Atty. Byrne had incorporated as much of the language from state statutes as possible. He said the ZBA felt comfortable with the proposed section and would be willing to come to an agreement with the Zoning Commission that if it doesn't work as anticipated, both Commissions would reevaluate and possibly rescind it.
Mr. Shapiro said he agreed with Mrs. Friedman to some extent, but thought it would be worthwhile to grant flexibility when there was no hardship in the specific situations described.
This opinion was the consensus of the Commission and so it was decided to put off further discussion to the public hearing.
Mr. Martin thanked Mrs. Friedman for voicing her concerns.
MOTION: To adjourn the Special Meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO

September 22, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Brinton
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Rourke, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Wilbur, Atty. Fairbairn, Mr. Wilbur, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Frank, Mr. Sears, Mr. McGowan, Mrs. Sutter, Ms. Baldwin
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., noted there was a quorum present, and seated Members Martin and Owen and Alternate Brinton for Mr. Fitzherbert. (Ms. Page arrived at 7:457:45 p.m. and was also seated.)
Consideration of the Minutes
Mrs. Hill noted there was a typo on page 4. In the first line of the last paragraph, the figure should be 15,890, not 1589.
MOTION: To accept the 8/25/03 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 3-0.
Other Business
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Request to Modify Condition #12 of Special Permit for 11 Affordable Housing Units

Mr. Martin noted the Commissioners had been sent copies of the Housing Trust's 9/4/03 letter requesting a modification to condition #12 of its Special Permit. He said he had consulted with Town Counsel who advised him as follows: 1) The Commission is required to evaluate and make a decision regarding the request. 2) A public hearing must be conducted to consider the request. 3) The Commission will address only the request to modify condition #12, and no other issues, at the hearing. 4) The criteria for making a decision must be the same as the criteria used when the original decision was made on whether to grant the Special Permit under the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals section of the state statutes. The two questions to be considered will be 1) Will approval of the request cause substantial harm to a public interest? 2) If there is harm to a public interest, does that harm outweigh the need for affordable housing? Mr. Martin said the Commission would focus on its statutory responsibilities and would avoid getting involved with negotiations between the Housing Trust and the New Preston Water Company.
Ms. Page arrived and was seated.
A public hearing-Special Meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the request. Mrs. Hill will check to see what room is available. Atty. Fairbairn was advised to mail out notification to all adjoining property owners as soon as possible.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5/Special Exception:
Mr. Martin reported there had been no changes to the draft text since the last meeting and that the proposed amendment had been referred to appropriate agencies as required by state statute. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 27, 2003.
Mr. Owen brought up the problem of the Washington Club golf course property. It is a grandfathered use that is currently not permitted in the R-1 District. According to Atty. Byrne, changes other those than for maintenance and repairs to any of the Club buildings would require a variance. Mr. Owen noted the golf course had a long history in Town and did not think it right that it was now basically prohibited from making any changes at all. He recommended the Commission consider either adding golf courses to uses permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District or adding it under the Special Exception section. Mr. Martin noted that per the proposed language of Section 17.5, only residential properties would fall under this section and that Mr. Owen's suggestion would be too major a change to include in the October 27th public hearing. He thought the Commission might consider it at a later date. Meanwhile, he said the Club was a unique situation and agreed with Atty. Byrne that it should apply to the ZBA for a variance.
Revision of the Regulations/Definitions for Lot Coverage and Setback
A few minor changes were made since the last meeting. The final draft was referred to all appropriate agencies and the public hearing scheduled for October 27, 2003.
Revision of the Regulations/Section 14
Mr. Oley's latest draft was mailed to the Commissioners for their review. Mr. Martin recommended a two person subcommittee review the draft and report back to the Commission.
MOTION: To suggest that Mr. Fitzherbert and Mrs. Friedman serve as the subcommittee to review Mr. Oley's revisions to Section 14. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 4-0.
Plan of Conservation and Development

Mrs. Hill reported the public hearing would be held on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
Accessory Apartments
Mr. Owen noted that only one detached accessory apartment is permitted per residential property and the recent problems the Commission encountered when a building not intended to be an accessory apartment meets the definition of accessory apartment, based on its capacity to be a dwelling unit. He noted the current Regulations define apartments structurally according to size and amenities and suggested this be clarified. He recommended a statement be added that if any accessory structure, other than an approved accessory apartment, is being occupied without zoning approval, it is an illegal accessory apartment, and if there is an illegal apartment on a property, a legal apartment may not be applied for. He said this would also address situations where structures that do not meet the definition of accessory apartment are being lived in. It was the consensus the inclusion of such a statement was a good idea. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Owen to submit draft language for review.
Communications
The 2002-2003 Annual Report and letters from Mr. Hackney dated 9/1/03 concerning including gravel driveways in lot coverage calculations in the R-3 District and from Ms. Baldwin dated 9/10/03 regarding the Madoff fence at 241 West Shore Road were noted.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations to Enhance the Protection of Water Quality of Lake Waramaug
Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the changes made to the draft regulations based on the input received at the 9/14/03 meeting of the Lake Waramaug Association. He noted the proposed amendments had been referred to the local councils of governments, Planning Commission, Town Clerk, Inland Wetlands Commission, and the towns of Kent and Warren and the public hearing had been set for October 27, 2003. Copies of the map of the proposed new boundaries of the Lake Waramaug District were circulated. The draft language and map are attached.
The following further revisions were suggested, but it was noted they would have to be taken up at the public hearing because the proposed amendments had already been referred to the appropriate agencies. 1) 6.6.1: "Either" will be added to state, "Only one dock and either one rowing shell dock or one float...." 2) 6.6.3: "Submerged land" will be added to state, "They must be removable on a seasonal basis and have no permanent contact with submerged land and require no excavation of the submerged land." 3) 21.1.17: The spelling of scull will be corrected.
Ms. Page submitted a written statement regarding her thoughts on why docks should be permitted on smaller properties around the lake. She asked the Commissioners to consider her arguments in the future after the Public Hearing on the proposed revisions. Mr. Frank noted he, too, had intended to raise this issue in the future.
Mr. McGowan entered the meeting at this point.
Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Hackney wrote a letter questioning why there was no differentiation between gravel and impervious surface driveways in the coverage calculations. Mr. Martin responded that most Litchfield County towns agreed with this approach because the degree of permeability between the two was not significantly different after the gravel drive had settled over a winter and had been compacted by vehicular traffic. Mr. McGowan noted engineers currently use different runoff calculations for gravel and impervious surface driveways. He also noted that due to variations in construction and maintenance, not all gravel driveways are equal. He suggested the Commission offer incentives for properly designed and installed driveways and explained one construction method using filter strips, which would more effectively absorb driveway runoff. The Commissioners were interested in receiving more detailed information about this type of construction and the incentive approach. Mr. Martin said it would also be helpful to recommend such construction techniques when projects are proposed by Special Permit under the proposed new Section 6.5.
Mr. McGowan noted his concern that the many non conforming structures around the lake might be allowed to expand under the Special Exception procedure proposed in Section 17.5. Mr. Martin explained, and the rest of the Commissioners agreed, that Section 17.5 was proposed to deal with the setbacks listed in Section 11.6 and not the setback from Lake Waramaug addressed in Section 12.1.1.
Mr. McGowan thanked the Zoning Commission for its efforts to protect Lake Waramaug and circulated copies of the September 2003 Lake Waramaug Task Force newsletter.
Privilege of the Floor
Mrs. Sutter said she was bothered that there could be exceptions made to the Zoning Regulations that were contrary to the intent of the state scenic road designation. Mr. Martin explained the approval of the Madoff fence at 241 West Shore Road had not been an exception to the Regulations, but had been approved as a Special Permit as was allowed under the Regulations. He noted any fence over 2 feet tall requires a Special Permit and that with the condition imposed by the Commission that it would be installed downgrade of the existing hedge, the Commission had determined the proposed fence would not excessively block the view of the lake from the road. Mrs. Sutter complained the fence was too tall. The ZEO confirmed that sections of the fence were too tall and had ordered the Madoffs to lower it to the approved height. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the difficulty of balancing the rights of property owners versus the public's right to have a view of the lake. Mr. Martin said Special Permit fence applications would continue to be reviewed on a case by case basis, but offered to refer them to the Lake Waramaug Association for comment. Mrs. Sutter said the Commission should adhere to the intent of the state scenic road designation. Ms. Page responded Mrs. Sutter could petition the Commission to amend the Regulations to reflect the state designation. Mr. Frank thought the current Regulations already take the ordinance into consideration. Ms. Page noted there are also issues of privacy and safety to consider. Mr. Owen noted the collective right includes the right of property owners to make improvements to their properties. Mr. Martin indicated the Commission may want to examine whether the balance of private vs. public rights should be shifted in light of the state scenic road designation and asked for input from the Lake Waramaug Association. Mrs. Sutter also questioned the use of plantings rather than fences as they can be planted close together to block views and can grow so tall that they eventually block the view from the road. Mr. McGowan noted the Association has been trying to promote the use of plants instead of fences to provide both screening and a filtered view of the lake.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO

August 25, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Abella
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Connolly, Mr. Miller, Ms. Zinick, Mr. Cable, Mr. Owens, Mr. Piskura, Mr. Boyer, Mr. and Mrs. Madoff, Mr. Thompson, Mr. and Mrs. Mnuchin, Mrs. Hedley, Mr. Trevenen, Residents
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Martin noted Mrs. Friedman would serve as hearing officer for the two continued public hearings.
Harris/18 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment/Con't.
Mrs. Friedman reconvened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Ms. Zinick and Mr. Cable, contractor, represented the applicants.
Mrs. Friedman noted notifications of the hearing had been sent by certified mail and 8 of 11 receipts had been received.
The map, "Property Survey Showing a Portion of Property Owned by D. George and Charlene C. Harris," by Mr. Grossenbacher, dated 12/4/01 was reviewed.
Mrs. Friedman stated the main issue to be resolved was whether approval of the application would result in two detached accessory apartments on the property. She said the Commission had to be sure the existing cabana did not meet the standards for an accessory apartment. She reviewed the 8/25/03 ZEO Report, which stated someone is living in the cabana while waiting for approval of the apartment.
Mrs. Friedman read the 8/13/03 letter from Mr. Miller, adjoining property owner, in which he complained the applicants' piecemeal approach was being used to circumvent the Regulations. It was noted the Commissioners had been sent copies. Mr. Cable responded he had consulted with both the Health and Building Departments who had approved the cabana, which neither classified as a dwelling unit because it has no closets and no full kitchen. He asked what changes could be made so the Zoning Commission would not consider it a dwelling unit. Mr. Martin explained the Commission had to ensure approval of the new apartment would not undermine the soil based zoning requirements.
Measures that could be taken to guarantee there would not be two detached apartments on the property were discussed. Mr. Cable said the property could be subdivided, but the owners did not want to do this. Other possibilities were removing the bar sink and associated plumbing and filing a notice on the land records that this is not a dwelling unit, decreasing the size of the cabana to under 400 sq. ft. (the minimum size allowed for an accessory apartment), and/or dividing the interior of the structure into two sections without changing the exterior.
Comments from the public were taken. Mr. Miller thought if the size of the cabana was to be reduced, the measurements would have to be taken from the outside of the building, meaning one of the outside walls would have to be moved in.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Harris for a detached accessory apartment at 18 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Friedman closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Piskura/258 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen/Con't.

Mrs. Friedman reconvened the hearing at 8:10 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella.
Mr. Piskura was present.
Mrs. Friedman read the written statement submitted by Mr. Piskura, which addressed how the proposed operation would comply with each requirement of the Regulations. She reminded the Commission of the issues raised at the last session of the hearing; 1) there is an unregistered septic pump truck on the property, 2) the barn has not been completed due to pending legal matters, 3) there is a complaint on file regarding the storage of business equipment on the property, and 4) Mr. Piskura had been asked to provide buffering to minimize the visibility of the equipment/vehicles from Rt. 47 and adjoining properties. Mr. Piskura's written statement said the only evidence of the commercial use of the property would be the vehicles, he did not envision there would be more than 6 vehicles parked on the property, and all vehicles would be parked by the barn.
The map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated April 1998 with the location of the driveways and parking sketched in by hand was reviewed. Mrs. Hill noted there was a steep drop between the house and the barn, which blocked the view from the road of the vehicles parked by the barn. She said when she had inspected the site there had been vehicles in a parking area near the front of the property and these had been clearly visible from both the road and the adjoining property. Mr. Piskura said he would now park all his commercial vehicles by the barn and the pump truck in the barn. He added he would have only one pump truck, but could not move the second from the property until a law suit had been resolved.
Buffering was discussed. Mr. Piskura pointed out where he would plant white pines to buffer the adjoining properties. Mrs. Hill recommended a diagonal line of plantings just above the drop off to screen the property to the south. Mr. Savage, neighbor to the south, agreed 5 ft. tall pines would completely block his view of the parked vehicles and said he had no other concerns. A second row of pines was proposed along the north side of the property, both rows to consist of 10 to 12 5 ft. tall trees. Mr. Piskura initialed the buffering details drawn in on the map.
Mr. Piskura said his personal vehicles would be parked by his house. He indicated he would be on call, but normal work hours would be 7:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. and that he would work only off site. He again agreed to park his commercial vehicles only in the rear near the barn. Mr. Piskura stated outside lighting would be directed downward, would not be on all night, and would be on only if he was working outside or if turned on by motion sensors. It was noted the Building Official had OK'd parking vehicles in the barn even though a C of O had not yet been issued.
Mr. Martin asked how soon he thought he could have the unregistered pump truck removed. Mr. Piskura hoped the matter would be resolved by 9/23.
There were no other questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.16 submitted by Mr. Piskura for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 258 Woodbury Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Friedman closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Madoff/241 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 8:29 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/13 and 8/20/03. Mr. Martin noted the list of documents in the file, which consisted of the routine correspondence associated with a Special Permit application.
Mr. Thompson, contractor, and Mr. and Mrs. Madoff were present.
Mr. Martin asked why the proposed 6 ft. fence was so tall, noting if it was 2 ft. shorter it would not block the view of the lake. Mr. Thompson said it would be placed behind the existing 8 ft. tall hedge and Mrs. Madoff said the fence was needed to protect her children as well as for privacy. Mrs. Friedman asked how low the fence could be and still do the job it was intended for. Mrs. Madoff noted the fence has 1 ft. of lattice on the top so if 1 or 2 feet were taken off the bottom, it would look awkward. It was noted, however, the new proposed fence location on sloping ground behind the hedge would lower the height of the fence as seen from the road by 2 to 3 feet. Photos of the property were circulated and Mr. Thompson said the State DOT had approved the fence as long as it was installed behind the hedge.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Madoff to install a fence on the Lake Waramaug side of West Shore Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.

Fairfield Land and Properties, LLC. and Mayflower Inn, Inc./35 Wykeham Road (116 Woodbury Road)/Special Permit: Section 13.9/ Spa and Inn
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 8:41 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/13 and 8/20/03.
Mr. and Mrs. Mnuchin, owners, Mrs. Hedley, and Mr. Owens, architect, were present.
Mr. Martin noted the application listed the property owner as Mayfair Properties, LLC. Mr. Mnuchin said this was incorrect; the actual owners to be listed on the application were Fairfield Land and Properties, LLC. and Mayflower Inn, Inc. The correction was made and Mr. and Mrs. Mnuchin signed the corrected form for both owners.
Mr. Owens submitted revised maps and information sheets, Mayflower Garden Spa and Rooms," by Halper Owens Architects, revised to 8/25/03, 8pp. to supplement the documents submitted at the last meeting and a memo dated 8/25/03, which summarized the changes and included information requested by the ZEO regarding buffering, proposed lighting, exterior equipment, commercial driveway, coverage calculations, and dust control during construction. He also presented scale models of the proposed buildings and connector and of the entire site.
Mr. Owens summarized the proposal for the 1589 sq. ft. garden spa with indoor pool and 7340 sq. ft. "rooms building." He said spa guests would use the existing entrance for the Mayflower Inn off Rt. 47 and would register at the Mayflower before proceeding to the spa. The footprints and height of the proposed buildings were reviewed. Coverage was discussed. Calculations by Mr. Owens showed the coverage at 35 Wykeham Road would be 7.58%, at 116 Woodbury Road 9.34%, and at the existing Mayflower Inn at 118 Woodbury Road 8.8%. Coverage of the Mayflower and spa properties combined would be 9%. It was noted these figures included the service drives.
The grade of the service driveway was discussed. The ZEO noted it was over the 10% maximum permitted for commercial driveways, but Mr. Owens countered that the 150 ft. section over 10% was an internal service drive to be used by staff only. He also questioned whether this met the official definition of driveway as it did not provide access to a street. It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the service drive and the 10% grade had not been an issue.
Other matters addressed included:
New inn building: This would have 8 rooms and the floor plan had been revised to include an egress stairway.
Buffering and landscaping: Mr. Owens detailed the existing topography and vegetation, which would screen the proposed buildings. It was agreed a final landscaping plan would not be required at this time, but if approval were to be granted it could be conditioned upon receipt and approval by the Commission prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, a prerequisite for the Certificate of Occupancy.
External equipment: The location of the equipment had been added to the revised plans. Mr. Owens said generators would be tested only on Wednesdays between noon and 2:00 p.m. and reminded the Commission all equipment would be kept as quiet as possible as the success of the project would depend on preserving the solitude of the area.
Lighting: Information sheets regarding the proposed lighting were submitted with the 8/25/03 memo. Footlights like those installed at the Mayflower would be installed, a few more near the buildings. Tree lighting was proposed by the tennis courts and in three other places. The 50 watt lights would be installed above eye level on the back sides of the trees would be turned off at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Martin noted there was some concern about the cumulative effect of lights in the area and what was appropriate for the preservation of rural character. Mr. Mnuchin responded the lights would be subtle and minimal. Mr. Owens said porches and outside doors would be lighted in a residential manner.
Dust control: Mr. Owens noted there was a well onsite and there would be a press tank and temporary power available to water the construction area if it gets dusty.
Improvements to existing driveways: Areas where regrading was proposed were noted. Mr. Owens pointed out there would be incidental widening of the driveways to 16 feet.
Mr. Owen read the 8/21/03 letter from Mr. Hearn, adjoining property owner, who was present and indicated support of the application
Mr. Walzer, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Gunnery School, also an adjoining property owner, thought the new buildings would be adequately screened and spoke in favor of the application.
Mr. Martin noted the issues raised in the 8/25/03 ZEO Report had been addressed. He asked the Commissioners if they thought a bond should be required. It was thought this was not necessary in this case because the new buildings were to be integrated with the Mayflower operation and that would be an incentive to properly complete the project.
It was also noted approval would have to include a condition that the two parcels of land, 116 Woodbury Road and 118 Woodbury Road remain contiguous, used for the same purpose, and under the same ownership in perpetuity. Mr. Mnuchin said he understood a restrictive covenant would have to be drafted.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.9 submitted by Mayflower Inn, Inc. and Fairfield Land and Properties, LLC. for a spa and inn at 35 Wykeham Road (to be 116 Woodbury Road) whose operation would be integrated with the inn at 118 Woodbury Road. By Mr.Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 9:27 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 9:27 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 7/28/03 Regular Meeting minutes and the 7/31/03 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin suggested altering the order of the agenda to consider the Mayfair and Mayflower-Fairfield applications first.
Mayfair Properties, LLC./35 Wykeham Road/First Cut
The map, "Zoning Compliance Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 7/24/03 and the 8/25/03 ZEO Report were reviewed. The report found the application to be substantially complete with only two questions remaining; 1) Would the coverage on Parcel B exceed the maximum of 10% permitted? and 2) Would the Commission require the existing driveway connecting Parcels A and B to be taken up to eliminate the possibility of through traffic? It was noted the coverage calculations presented by Mr. Owens during the last public hearing showed the coverage of Parcel B, 35 Wykeham Road, would be 7.58%. Mr. Owens noted while Parcels A and B were under the same ownership, the existing driveway provided convenient access between the two and provided an alternate route to the fire pond. He said he expected it would be removed if Mr. Mnuchin ever sold the property. It was agreed a condition of approval should be that a notice be filed on the Town Land Records that the property may not be resubdivided.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mayfair Properties, LLC. for a first cut at 35 Wykeham Road per the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated July 2003 subject to the following condition: that the applicant file a restrictive covenant on the Town Land Records for Parcel B (35 Wykeham Road) that it may not be resubdivided in the future. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mayflower Inn, Inc.-Fairfield Land and Properties, Inc./35 Wykeham Road (116 Woodbury Road) Special Permit Section 13.9/Spa and Inn

Mr. Martin noted for the record the Mayflower Inn, Inc. and Fairfield Land and Properties, LLC. were co-applicants per the revisions made to the application form at the public hearing.
Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the three conditions of approval that had been discussed previously: 1) that a restrictive covenant be filed on the Town Land Records that would require in perpetuity that the two parcels, 116 and 118 Woodbury Road, be operated on an integrated basis, remain contiguous, remain under the same ownership, and have the same use. Such a restrictive covenant would enable the Commission to consider the two properties as one, 2) that the Zoning Commission approve a landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, and 3) that the existing driveway between Parcels A and B may not be used for access by construction vehicles during the development of Parcel A.
Mrs. Friedman suggested approval also be conditioned upon the lighting being directed downward, shielded, etc. Mrs. Hill thought this would be consistent with other recent approvals by the Commission. It was the consensus that there was no need for a lighting condition considering the overall context of the application and because the input at the public hearing was adequate. Mrs. Friedman said uplighting might be a problem. Mr. Martin noted the Commission's sensitivity about the appropriateness of the lighting, and asked the applicant to keep this in mind.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.9 submitted by Mayflower Inn, Inc. and Fairfield Land and Properties, LLC. for a spa and inn at 35 Wykeham Road (to be 116 Woodbury Road) whose operation will be integrated with the inn at 118 Woodbury Road per maps and plans entitled, "Mayflower Garden Spa and Rooms," by Halper Owens Architects, revised to 8/25/03, 8 pp., and "Mayflower Garden Spa and Rooms," by Halper Owens Architects, dated 7/23/03, pp. SCH-E8-11 subject to the following conditions: 1. upon approval of its language by the Zoning Commission's counsel, the applicant must file a restrictive covenant on the Town Land Records that requires in perpetuity the spa/inn at 35 Wykeham Road (to be 116 Woodbury Road) be operated on an integrated basis with the Mayflower Inn at 118 Woodbury Road with the same principal use, "inn" for both properties; the two properties remain under common ownership; and that there be a contiguous property line between 116 Woobury Road and 118 Woodbury Road, 2. prior to issuance of zoning compliance for the Certificate of Occupancy the applicant must submit a landscaping plan for review and approval by the Commission, and 3. that use of the existing driveway between Parcels A and B for access to Parcel A is not permitted and that no access for Parcel A from Wykeham Road is allowed. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Harris/18 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

The Commissioners considered the various options discussed at the hearing to ensure the cabana would not be used as a second detached accessory apartment. Mr. Martin pointed out an additional option was to deny the application. Mr. Cable did not favor a suggestion to take out the heating as the nearby pond is used for skating in the winter and the cabana is used at that time. It was the consensus the cabana should be downsized by constructing an interior partition of uninhabitable space and there would be no need for changes to the exterior walls. By doing this work, the cabana would no longer meet the definition of an accessory apartment and would not be eligible for a dwelling unit. A revised floor plan must be approved by the ZEO. After further discussion it was also agreed the owner would be required to file a notice on the Town Land Records that as long as the cabana remains at 18 Sabbaday Lane (the property is not subdivided) it may not be a dwelling unit.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Harris for a detached accessory apartment at 18 Sabbaday Lane subject to the following conditions: 1. that the interior of the existing cabana on the same property be modified to decrease the habitable area to less than 400 sq. ft. and that the plans for this work first be approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, and 2. that the applicant file a restrictive covenant on the Town Land Records acknowledging the cabana is not a dwelling and may not be used for habitation. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Madoff/241 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence on the Lake Side of West Shore Road

Mr. Martin noted it was not so much the fence, but the height of the fence that was objectionable. It was agreed that if the fence was installed behind the hedge where the grade was 2 to 2.5 feet below the road level, the height measured from the road would not exceed four feet. Mrs. Madoff asked then why she could not have a 4 ft. tall fence installed in front of the hedge. Mrs. Hill responded the official she had contacted at the DOT had approved the fence as long as it was erected behind the hedge as he knew that land was not in the state right of way.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Madoff to install a fence at 241 West Shore Road subject to the following condition: that the fence not exceed 4 feet in height measured from the surface of West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations to Enhance Protection of the Water Quality of Lake Waramaug

Mr. Frank and Mr. McGowan were present.
Draft #7 of the proposed dock regulations was discussed. Mr. Martin said he had referred it to the Inland Wetlands Commission chairman who was supportive of the work done to date. When the proposed revisions are completed, they will be formally referred to the Inland Wetlands Commission.
f. If any part of the dock or float extends further than 40 feet from the shoreline, the ZEO shall consult with the Lake Waramaug Authority prior to issuing a zoning permit. It was suggested this be expanded to include docks and floats that may potentially impair public safety. Mrs. Hill noted this would include all docks and floats and Mr. Martin said the ZEO was not qualified to make this determination. It was the consensus to change f to: The ZEO shall consult with the Lake Waramaug Authority for any dock or float prior to issuing any zoning permit.
k. While the front yard setback shall be waived for docks, side yard setbacks must continue to be adhered to. Ms. Page and Mr. Frank thought people should have the right to install docks on lake front properties and that it was not fair to penalize people who own smaller waterfront frontage. Ms. Page suggested requiring smaller, centrally located docks on the smaller waterfront properties. Mr. Martin questioned whether the Commission should differentiate between docks and other structures. Mr. McGowan asked whether docks were a primary or an accessory use. It was the consensus that docks are accessory to single family dwellings and that this should be clarified by including an accessory use section in Section 6 of the Regs as has already been done for the Woodville and Marbledale sections. The Commission agreed to retain the proposed wording.
replacement of nonconforming docks. Mr. Martin noted property owners have the right to rebuild grandfathered docks on the same footprint, but said the Commission had the right to regulate what materials were used and how they would be attached to the shoreline. Mrs. Friedman voiced her concern that the Commission has no records on the existing docks and would not know whether they were being rebuilt to the same footprint. She also asked how property owners who do not need a zoning permit to replace in kind would know there were new regulations to follow regarding construction materials and attachment to the shore. Mr. Frank said the Lake Waramaug Association could educate its members.
i. Floats was added to the heading.
j. Canvas canopy was changed to fabric canopy.
a. There was debate about whether more than one dock should be permitted per property, especially in cases where an owner has extensive lake frontage. It was the consensus that one dock per property was fair, especially since the size of docks is not regulated.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Addition of Section 6.5 Re: Spec. Permit Required for Construction Within 50-75 Ft. of Lake Waramaug
The 8/21/03 draft was reviewed.
Mrs. Friedman asked where the Lake Waramaug Residential District would be redefined. Mrs. Hill responded Planimetrics had recommended this be done in simple language rather than by hiring a surveyor to mark the metes and bounds. Mr. Martin noted the Commission has a map of the proposed boundaries available to present at the public hearing.
It was noted the proposed wording would be amended to state new construction could in no case be closer than 50 feet to the lake and that all new construction, whether it results in an increase in lot coverage or not, will be included. It was also noted driveways are structures and so would fall under this section.
Ms. Page left the meeting at 10:55 p.m.

Piskura/258 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen
The following conditions of approval were agreed upon: 1) The buffering would be as shown on the site plan discussed at the hearing, all planting must be completed by 12/1/03, and any trees that do not survive the first year must be replaced. 2) Only one septic tank truck is allowed on the property. The unregistered pump truck must be removed from the premises by 12/1/03. 3) The septic pump truck must be parked inside the barn when it is on the premises. 4) With the exception of personal vehicles, all vehicles and equipment must be parked in the barn and any vehicles that do not fit inside must be parked adjacent to the barn. 5) Lighting must be directed downward and on only when work is in progress or turned on by a motion sensor.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.16 submitted by Mr. Piskura for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 258 Woodbury Road subject to the following conditions: 1. buffering be planted by December 1, 2003 as shown on the site plan reviewed at the public hearing, and any trees that die during the first year must be replaced, 2. only one septic pump truck is allowed on the property and the unregistered septic pump truck must be removed from the premises by December 1, 2003, 3. with the exception of personal vehicles, business vehicles must be parked in the barn or outside adjacent to the barn if they do not all fit inside, and the septic pump truck must be parked inside the barn, and 4. all lighting associated with the business must be directed downward and on only when work is in process or connected to motion sensors. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 4-0.
Kopp/137 Litchfield Turnpike/Renewal of Special Permit: Section 13.14/Bed and Breakfast

Mrs. Hill reported there had been no changes made to the operation since it was originally approved, the Health Department had approved the renewal, and there were no complaints on file.
MOTION: To approve a three year extension of the Special Permit: Section 13.14 granted to Mrs. Kopp for a Bed and Breakfast at 137 Litchfield Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 4-0.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Definition of Setback and Lot Coverage, Addition of Section 17.5 Re: Special Exceptions, and Section 14 Re: Site Plan Requirements

definitions: The latest drafts of the definitions were reviewed. Mr. Owen said he would work on improving the language and fax the rewritten definitions to Mrs. Hill. Mr. Martin said he hoped to hold public hearings on these proposed revisions in October.
Section 17.5: Mrs. Hill said she had passed the latest draft out at the last ZBA meeting for that board's review.
Section 14: Mr. Martin noted he had just received Mr. Oley's redraft of this section. It will be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting.
Plan of Conservation and Development
Mrs. Hill noted the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on adoption of the Plan on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer

July 28, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Abella
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Zinick, Mr. Cable, Mr. Piskura, Mr. McGowan, Mr. Frank, Mr. Mnuchin, Mrs. Hedley, Mr. Owens, Mr. Neff, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Madoff, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Harris/18 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and noted Mrs. Friedman would serve as hearing officer this evening.
Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/16 and 7/23/03. Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Brinton were seated.
Ms. Zinick, authorized agent, represented the applicant. Mrs. Friedman noted the 7/24/03 letter of authorization in the file. Ms. Zinick reviewed the application for a 912 sq. ft. apartment over a three bay garage. It was noted she had submitted a written statement to explain how the proposed apartment would comply with each requirement in Section 13.11.3 and the certified mailing receipts from the notification of the adjoining property owners. This mailing had not been completed 10 days prior to the hearing as specified in the Regulations.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding whether there was already a detached accessory apartment on the property. Mr. Martin noted the determining factor was intent of use of a building, but whether the building was capable of being used as an apartment. The Commission had to be absolutely sure the cabana on the property could not also be used as an apartment.
Mrs. Connolly, adjoining property owner, voiced concerns. She asked how it would be determined whether the cabana was habitable and expressed her concern about density on the property. She also complained she could see both the cabana and garage from her property and that there was a lot of traffic using the driveway near her property line. Ms. Zinick explained there had been an existing cottage with both heat and a kitchen and that although the owners had originally intended to restore it and use it as an apartment, they had since changed their minds and had converted it to a non habitable pool cabana. She noted the kitchen had been taken out and replaced with a bar area. The bar had a sink, but there was no stove or refrigerator. She also stated electric heat had been installed, but said it was not "hooked up." It was noted the Health and Building department paperwork on the cottage/cabana would be reviewed.
The site plan, "Property Survey," by Mr. Grossenbacher, dated 12/4/01 was reviewed. Mrs. Hill noted there was an existing circular driveway with two entrances onto Sabbaday Lane.
Mrs. Friedman said the hearing would have to be continued in order to provide the adjoining property owners proper notice.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Harris for a detached accessory apartment at 18 Sabbaday Lane to August 25, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
At 7:48 p.m. Mrs. Friedman continued the hearing to 8/25/03.
Piskura/258 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen
Mrs. Friedman called the public hearing to order at 7:49 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Brinton for Mr. Fitzherbert. She noted the hearing could not be concluded tonight because the applicant had not notified his adjoining property owners.
Mr. Piskura, property owner, was present.
Mrs. Hill had inspected the property and reported there were two septic pumpers, a trailer, a dump truck, a backhoe, and various other equipment. She noted the property drops off steeply in back so that if the vehicles were parked in the rear by the barn, they could not be seen from the road. She was concerned, however, that the trailer and dump truck had been parked in the front where they were quite visible from the house to the north. Mr. Martin asked if the vehicles could be parked in the barn. Mr. Piskura said that was his plan, but the barn was not finished and could not be finished until a court case was resolved.
Mr. Shapiro asked if the business was a one man operation. Mr. Piskkura said it was.
No one from the public spoke for or against the application.
Mrs. Hill noted that in addition to notification of the adjoining property owners, Mr. Piskura was required to supply information on lighting, hours of operation, screening, etc. Mr. Piskura said he would have outside lights on only if he was working outside at night. The location of fencing was noted. Mr. Martin advised Mr. Piskura a work out a planting/buffering plan with his neighbors and Mrs. Hill before the next meeting.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.16 submitted by Mr. Piskura for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 258 Woodbury Road to August 25, 2003 at 7:40 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
At 8:00 p.m. Mrs. Friedman continued the public hearing to August 25, 2003 at 7:40 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 Regular Meeting to order at 8:01 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Brinton for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/23/03 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Harris/18 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Piskura/258 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen
Mr. Martin noted these public hearings had been continued to August 25, 2003.
New Application
Madoff/241 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence on the Lake Side of West Shore Road
Mr. Thompson, contractor, was present. He presented photos of the work done prior to obtaining a permit, and said the portion of the fence already installed would be removed the next day.
The proposed location of the fence was discussed. Mr. Thompson said it might be moved behind the existing hedge due to property line concerns and because that would lower the height of the fence as viewed from the road by 2. feet due to the slope of the property. Mr. Martin noted the Commission's main concern was whether the public view of the lake would be blocked. Mrs. Friedman asked if it was an evergreen hedge. Mr. Thompson said it was not.
Mrs. Hill noted a Special Permit application had been submitted and the Health Department had approved it. She said approval by the State Scenic Road Committee was still needed.
It was the consensus to schedule a public hearing for August 25, 2003 immediately following the Piskura hearing. It was hoped a report from the state would be submitted by that date. Mr. Martin requested that Mr. Thompson to bring a letter of authorization from the property owner to the public hearing.
Mayfair Properties, LLC/35 Wykeham Road/First Cut and Special Permit: Section 13.9/Garden Spa and Inn
Mr. Owens, architect, and Mr. Mnuchin, property owner, were present.
Mr. Martin noted a public hearing was required, but asked for a brief overview of the proposal. Mr. Mnuchin noted a five page summary had been written by Mr. Owens and Mr. Martin asked Mrs. Hill to send copies to all Commissioners.
Mr. Owens summarized the application for a spa and associated building with eight guest rooms on property adjoining the Mayflower Inn. The plans, "Mayflower Garden Spa and Rooms," 11 Sheets, by Halper Owens Architects, LLC., dated 7/23/03 were reviewed.
Mr. Owens noted a first cut would be required. He submitted an addendum to the site plan regarding a lot line correction made to 35 Wykeham Road in 1988 and he noted Residential Density Determination forms had been submitted for the first cut application. The entire parcel is 27 acres. Twelve of these would be kept with the 1899 Rossiter house, would continue as residential use,, and would not be further subdivided. The remaining fifteen acres would be used for the spa and inn. Access to the residential lot would remain from Wykeham Road. The spa would be accessed from the existing Mayflower entrance and no change to that entrance was proposed.
Mr. Mnuchin stressed the success of the project would depend on the quiet and peacefulness of the site. He also noted the spa would in every way be an extension of the present Mayflower Inn operation and would have the same owners. He added spa use would be limited to guests staying in the guest rooms.
Mr. Owens explained the spa would consist of a reception area, indoor pool, locker rooms, exercise rooms, treatment rooms, and massage and facial facilities to accommodate 20 people.
Floor plans and elevations were briefly reviewed. Mrs. Hill asked if the cupola on the proposed spa building would be less than 25 sq. ft. Mr. Owens said it would.
A site inspection was scheduled for Thursday, July 31 at 4:00 p.m. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, August 25, 2003 immediately following the Madoff hearing.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 14: Mr. Martin said he had sent Mr. Oley all the material and Mr. Oley was working on it.
Plan of Conservation and Development: Mr. Martin remarked the Commissioners had had an opportunity to attend one of the presentations on Draft #5 and/or to read the draft in its entirety and asked if there were any comments. Opinions differed about whether the draft was too vague or whether it was adequate as a guideline document. Mr. Martin thought the purpose of the Plan was to provide direction without being too specific so that the implementing commission would have the discretion and flexibility to come up with its own statutory response. A few concerns were expressed. Mr. Owen pointed out that although the section regarding enhancement of the village centers sounded good in principle, in reality, much of it would not be possible to accomplish due to the geographical restrictions in these areas. Mr. White was concerned about what he perceived as support for the expansion of the commercial districts at the expense of the residential districts. Mr. Shapiro did not think the Plan clearly explained the concept of the gateway and transitional commercial districts. Most commissioners had serious doubts about establishing an architectural review board because 1) there had been negative feedback from property owners when this idea had been considered in connection with the revision of the Marbledale Business District regulations, 2) several commissioners were philosophically opposed to that degree of regulation, and 3) it would be very difficult to achieve a consensus regarding what was an appropriate design. Mrs. Friedman, however, thought the public would welcome such a review board due to the poor designs of some recently constructed buildings in Town. Other than these concerns, the consensus of the Commission was not to provide official feedback at this time. The Commission will wait for the next draft before commenting to the Planning Commission.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations re: Enhancing the Protection of the Water Quality of Lake Waramaug: Mr. Martin noted since the last meeting he had met with Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, Mr. Frank of the Lake Waramaug Association, and Mr. Berner of the Lake Waramaug Authority about possible revisions to the Regulations. He briefly reviewed his memo from the June 23 meeting.
Expansion of the R-3 District to include the entire Lake Waramaug watershed: Mr. Martin noted this was a recommendation of the Plan of Conservation and Development and that it had been agreed at the last meeting to revise the Regulations accordingly. The one remaining issue was whether the district boundary line should follow the watershed line exactly or deviate somewhat to accommodate property boundary lines. Mr. Martin recommended following the watershed line as it was natural vs. manmade and was, therefore, less arbitrary. It was agreed Section 3.2 could be waived in this case so that only the portion of a property that was actually within the watershed would have to apply to the stricter standards of the Lake Waramaug District.
Discouraging "front loading" of waterfront properties: Mr. McGowan and Mr. Frank studied the shoreline properties and found when the setback from the state road right of way, the setback from the lake, the natural configuration of these parcels, and the existing coverage requirements are considered, additional regulations to prevent greater development density along the shoreline would not be needed. The Commission agreed and it was decided not to proceed with this proposal. Mr. McGowan asked if the Commission had consulted its attorney about how coverage on these parcels should be computed; whether 10% was allowed on each side of the road or whether the 10% maximum was the combined total of both parcels. Mr. White said this was unclear especially considering that some properties are one parcel with the state right of way going through and some are two separate parcels. Mr. Martin said he would check with the Town attorney and incorporate the answer in the lot coverage definition.
Maintenance of the 50 ft. setback from the lake and further requiring a Special Permit for proposed development within 50 to 75 feet of the lake: A draft regulation was reviewed. A copy is attached. Mr. Martin noted Warren had approved a similar regulation and thought it was desirable to have the 95% of the lakefront covered by Washington and Warren governed in the same way. Mr. McGowan recommended Washington increase the required setback to 75 feet and allow development within 50 to 75 feet of the lake by Special Permit if the applicant shows how he will make improvements in stormwater management for the entire lot. He did not think improvements in stormwater management would happen unless the Commission used them as leverage. The Commission agreed with this idea. Mr. Martin asked Mr. McGowan to draft language to accomplish this goal.
Stricter regulation of docks and floats: Mr. Martin circulated draft #3, which reflected his discussions since the last meeting with Mr. McGowan and Mr. Frank. A copy is attached. Mr. Martin pointed out the area of environmental concern was the point where the dock connects to the shoreline and 5 feet out into the water, and said the proposed dimensional regulations address protection of this area. The following changes to that draft were agreed upon:
a) "Used for the berthing of boats" to be deleted from the definition of dock.
b) "Such as a pier or wharf" to be deleted from the definition of dock because they are not removable.
c) If a proposed dock is longer than 40 ft. prior approval by the Lake Waramaug Authority will be required. Mr. McGowan asked the Commission to investigate whether mandatory approval by an outside agency is legal. He thought perhaps it should be made advisory only.
d 6.3.2.e - Add "existing" to describe the shoreline.
e) 6.3.2.g - "Or similar modification" will be added to the second sentence.
f) 6.3.2.h - Change "over" to "elevated directly above" and add "or similar modification" as in g above. Also: In the third sentence, add "and other construction methods that require cutting into the shoreline."
g) 6.3.2.i - Note the required materials are for both docks and stairs.
h) 6.3.2.j - Change "profile" to "above water" and add "of docks and floats."
i) 6.3.2.l - End of the first line: Change "numbers" to "numerals."
j) 21.1.25 - Add size limitation of 10' X 10', it is anchored, and that floats can't be anchored closer than 5 ft. to shore to float definition.
Mr. Frank noted that under the proposed regulations, property owners with only 50 ft of shoreline would not be able to have a dock. Mr. Martin noted this has been true under the current regulations for many years. Docks would also be exempt from the 75 ft. setback from the lake.
Grandfathering of docks was discussed. While the Commissioners understood that the size and location of existing docks were grandfathered, they hoped the materials and construction methods specified in proposed sections 6.3.2.d, e, g, and i would be used whenever docks are replaced.
The definition of Boathouse was discussed. It was the consensus to add the following:
a) No plumbing or plumbing fixtures are allowed.
b) No toilets are allowed.
c) The building is not designed for habitation.
Mr. McGowan asked that the Commission give the Lake Waramaug Association time for its members to review and comment on the proposed revisions prior to scheduling a public hearing. Mr. Martin agreed and noted the draft would also be referred to the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/17.4.b: Last month's ZBA draft and Mr. Owen's revised proposal were reviewed and compared. Mr. Owen said he had attempted to include all of the ZBA's proposed conditions while making the language concise and easy to understand. He explained the purpose of the new section by saying changes in the way people use their property have made certain nonconforming dwellings less practical in modern terms, that these nonconforming dwellings are usually on small lots on which it is difficult to meet the needs of the property owners, and that by approving the proposed revisions, changes to make these dwellings more livable could be approved without the property owner having to prove a hardship. Mr. White, ZBA Chairman, noted the Zoning Commission had originally suggested revisions to allow the ZBA to deal with setback issues, but noted 90% of the applications for setback variances also require coverage variances. He asked that coverage also be addressed in Section 17.4.b. Mr. Martin noted the two main questions to be resolved were 1) would this section pertain to nonconforming accessory buildings as well as nonconforming single family dwellings; and 2) would flexibility in coverage as well as setbacks be included. He said the Zoning Commission originally had not included coverage because it had already increased the maximum coverage permitted by 50% for lots less than 2 acres. Also coverage regulations had been instituted for critical reasons including preservation of rural character and protection of water quality. After a lengthy discussion it was the consensus to include coverage in the proposed ZBA Special Exception process only for nonconforming single family dwellings that meet specific criteria because they have a much higher priority than accessory buildings. It was also agreed to allow the ZBA to grant Special Exceptions for setbacks for both nonconforming single family dwellings and for nonconforming accessory buildings with historical or cultural significance. The draft language will be finalized for review at the next meeting. Mr. Martin noted the proposed revisions to this section were substantial and so should be reviewed again by the Town attorney. He also noted referrals to the Planning Commission and NW Ct. COG were required prior to action by the Zoning Commission. He concluded by noting the cooperation between Zoning and ZBA had resulted in substantial improvements to this section of the Regulations.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Definition of Coverage: Mr. Owen's proposed revision from the June meeting was used as the basis for discussion. Mr. Martin noted the main issue remaining was whether pedestrian walkways should be included in coverage calculations. The current regulations state all traveled surfaces are counted. Mr. Owen proposed walkways under 3 feet wide, no matter how they are constructed, be omitted from the coverage calculations unless they are connected to another structure such as a walkway around a swimming pool. His rationale was that they are difficult to measure, narrow walkways do not significantly impact water absorption, to date no one has abused the use of walkways, they are not an aesthetic issue, and they are difficult to enforce. The Commissioners discussed whether to follow Mr. Owen's recommendation or to only discount walkways if they were permeable. It was the consensus that only permeable pedestrian walkways such as gravel, crushed stone, or random stones set in grass would be excluded from the coverage calculations. All impervious walkways would be included in the determination of coverage. A revised draft will be prepared for the next meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Definition of Setback: It was the consensus of the Commission the ZBA proposal was acceptable as is.
Draft Scenic Road Ordinance: Copies of the draft document were circulated. Mr. Martin advised the Commissioners to send their input to Mr. Gitterman.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Page. Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Zoning Enforcement Officer

June 23, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Abella
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Larson, Mr. Frank, President Lake Waramaug Assoc., Mr. McGowan, Director Lake Waramaug Task Force, Mrs. Corrigan, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Larson/64 Carmel Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 6/11 and 6/18/03.
Mr. Martin reviewed the 6/23/03 ZEO Report, which stated the application was complete and the proposal complied with all the requirements of Section 13.11.3. The site plan and floor plans, which were all drawn by the property owner, were reviewed. Mr. Martin asked if there were any issues with coverage or setbacks. Mrs. Hill replied, no, the lot size was over 10 acres.
There were no other questions or comments from the Commission and none from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Larson for a detached accessory apartment at 64 Carmel Hill Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. It is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the April 28, 2003 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Larson/64 Carmel Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Martin noted again the application complied with all requirements.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Larson for a detached accessory apartment at 64 Carmel Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Enhancement of Zoning Regulations to Protect Lake Waramaug: Mr. Frank of the Lake Waramaug Association (LWA) and Mr. McGowan, Director of the Lake Waramaug Task Force (LWTF),were present. Mr. Martin noted the Commissioners had received a memo on this subject and a draft of revised dock regulations to review prior to the meeting. (Attached) Four main topics were discussed; 1) increasing the size of the Lake Waramaug Residential District (R-3) to conform to the Lake Waramaug watershed area, 2) discouraging concentration of development nearer to the shore via lot coverage requirements, 3) maintaining the current 50 ft. setback from the lake and adding a requirement that proposed development within between 50 and 75 feet of the shore require a Special Permit, and 4) providing stricter regulation and definition of docks. Mr. Martin said he had recently attended an LWA meeting and those in attendance had voiced their support for these types of revisions to the Zoning Regulations.
Expanding the District to Include the Entire Watershed In Order to Protect Water Quality: Colored maps by Planimetrics showing the present R-3 District, the watershed, and a new proposed District boundary line were reviewed. Mr. Martin noted he had asked that existing lot lines be used as the District boundary wherever reasonable. There was a brief discussion of the lots and terrain along the watershed boundary line. Ms. Page noted that the areas where the Commission was debating whether the District boundary line should drawn along lot lines or the watershed line were mostly very steep areas that would be difficult to develop. Mr. McGowan pointed out state owned and Steep Rock owned parcels. Mr. McGown preferred the watershed line for the boundary as it is the same as the ridgeline should the Commission adopt ridgeline protection regulations in the future, but agreed some practical adjustments could be made for those lots with only a small portion within the watershed. He pointed out that more detailed site plan and drainage plan requirements for the redrawn District would help protect the lake from non point source pollution and chemicals such as phosphorous. It was the consensus of the Commission that subject to the work that Mr. Frank and Mr. McGowan agreed to do in evaluating individual lots along the watershed line, the Lake Waramaug District should be expanded to include the entire watershed.
Discouraging Concentrated Development or "Front-Loading" Along the Lake Shore: Mr. Martin noted this was a concern of the ZBA as well as the LWA. He proposed keeping the current overall lot coverage regulations, but prohibiting more than 7.5% coverage within 200 feet of the lake. Mr. Owen questioned whether this would unfairly restrict some of the smaller lots around the lake and Mr. McGowan pointed out that when the setbacks from the lake and the road are considered, most of these smaller lots are already restricted. Mr. McGowan said there was research done that showed a direct correlation between lake shore development and degradation of water quality. He said 10% coverage is the limit beyond which there are adverse impacts to water quality and so noted the 10% coverage requirement that Washington has had for many years makes sense according to modern research. Mr. Martin noted the Commission could accomplish the same goal if it kept the current 10% and added a requirement that the 10% had to be evenly distributed over the entire lot and not "front-loaded" along the shore. Mr. Fitzherbert noted Maine allows greater coverage for every 25 feet further from the lake shore you get. Mr. McGowan thought the Commission should finalize its policy on front yard setbacks (whether the setback is measured from the property line or from the state road right of way) before making a final decision regarding coverage. Mr. Abella voiced his concern that development might be too restricted on smaller lots, but Mr. Martin said in such cases the property owners could apply to the ZBA for variances. Mrs. Friedman thought decreasing the maximum coverage permitted near the shore was a good idea, but could result in home owners building up. She recommended the height of houses between the road and the lake be restricted. Mr. Martin agreed this was a matter that should be addressed, but on a townwide basis, not just for the R-3 District. He also thought height was an aesthetic issue, whereas the purpose of the proposed revisions was the protection of water quality. Mr. Owen suggested 10% coverage within 200 feet of the lake because he did not know whether the lake shore residents would support 7.5%. Mr. McGowan noted the LWA has been educating the public on protecting water quality since 1978 and so thought these property owners would understand the reasons behind the need for stricter regulations. The Commissioners agreed this issue should be studied in more detail. Mr. Frank and Mr. McGowan agreed to study individual lots to determine what the impact on smaller parcels would be.
Maintaining the 50 Foot Setback Requirement and Requiring a Special Permit for Development Between 50 and 75 Feet From the Lake: Mr. Martin noted if such a regulation was to be adopted the Commission would have to develop standards that would have to be complied with. Mr. McGowan said he would get the Commission information on dry wells, swales, infiltration systems, etc. that can be utilized to decrease and slow down run off and would also draft model literature that he would distribute to property owners. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the setback requirements would include septic systems and Mr. McGowan noted these must be at least 75 feet from the lake. Mr. Martin noted this proposal was also being considered by Warren and if the two towns should approve it, improved protection would extend to 95% of the lake properties. It was the consensus Washington should work to draft regulations consistent with those Warren is now considering.
Stricter Regulation and Definition of Docks: Mr. Martin noted the current regulations governing docks are not detailed and he reviewed the proposed revisions, which would give the Commission greater control over the type, size, and use of docks on the lake. Ms. Page noted that the Commission would have to decide whether slides or other play equipment for children would be permitted on docks. Mrs. Friedman asked what the difference was between docks and piers and Mr. McGowan responded dock includes pier and wharf and recommended those other terms be eliminated. He also noted the proposed revisions would include floats. Mr. Owen noted the Commission should make sure terms such as pressure treated wood and polystyrene are accurate and up to date. Mr. McGowan reviewed how various shaped and sized docks could impact the water quality of the lake. It was noted this was a safety and aesthetics issue as well as an environmental one. It was the consensus that more specific regulations for docks should be adopted, but that the Commission should contact the Lake Waramaug Authority regarding safety issues prior to finalizing any new regulations.
Boathouses and other accessory buildings were discussed at length. Mr. Martin said there was no consensus at the LWA meeting he attended on whether boathouses should be deleted as a permitted use within 50 feet of the lake. The problems encountered in enforcing the current boathouse regulations and "grandfathered" buildings were noted. Mr. Frank explained Warren's policy regarding storage buildings around the lake. It was generally thought that revised regulations should include well defined size and use limitations for accessory buildings.
Mr. Fitzherbert suggested all revisions to the Regulations for the purpose of protecting the water quality of the lake be considered first and those for safety, aesthetic, or other reasons be considered separately at a later date.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 14: Mr. Martin reported he had discussed resuming work on this Section with Mr. Oley and would soon forward him the latest updates.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17.4.b: The attached draft written by the ZBA was discussed. The Commissioners questioned why accessory buildings were added to this section when the original intent had been to address only non conforming single family dwellings. After a lengthy discussion it was decided Mr. Owen would attempt to draft language that would include accessory structures with specific limitation. He will also work on improving the clarity of this section.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Definition of Setback: Mr. Martin explained the ZBA was concerned about the method used to measure setbacks and had proposed the attached definition. Again, the Commission was concerned about clarity and Mr. Owen offered to work on improvements to the proposed language. It was the consensus to add a definition of setback to Section 21 when the Zoning Commission is satisfied with the wording.

Wright/14 Kinney Hill Road/Section 13.16/Request to Renew Special Permit for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Martin noted a request for a two year renewal had been received and that according to the Regulations, reapplication was not required. Mrs. Hill reported she had recently driven by the property and found it looked residential in character and saw no violations. Ms. Page said she had seen six or seven vehicles parked across the street on several occasions, but she did not think this was a problem. Mrs. Hill said there were three vehicles parked in the barn driveway and next to the barn when she drove by. She noted there had only been one complaint since the permit was issued in 1990 and none since the last reapproval. Mrs. Friedman thought action should be delayed until there was more information submitted about parking. Several other Commissioners thought they could vote to reapprove tonight as there had been no complaints made by neighbors.
MOTION: To approve the request for a two year extension of the Special Permit: Section 13.16 granted to Mr. and Mrs. Wright for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 14 Kinney Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page and passed 4-0-1. Mrs. Friedman abstained because she thought more information was needed about the parking situation.
Update of the Plan of Conservation and Development: The Commissioners had all received an invitation to the Planning Commission's POCD presentation on July 15 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. or July 18 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Martin strongly recommended the Zoning Commissioners attend one of these meetings as the revised Plan would raise serious issues for Zoning to wrestle with. He said this subject would be included for discussion on Zoning's July 28 agenda and that Zoning's reactions, comments, and opinions would be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Land Use Application Process: Mr. Martin reported he and Mrs. Hill had met with ZBA Members and that concern was raised the current land use application procedures did not always ensure identical plans were approved by all departments. Mrs. Hill, in turn, had discussed this problem with Mr. Jenks, Building Official, and had compiled a list of optional solutions/ improvements, which the Commission reviewed. Mr. Martin noted that these varied in effectiveness, the most effective being the most time consuming. He also noted this was an issue for all departments to consider, not just Zoning. Mr. Owen noted Atty. Zizka has been working to revise the Zoning application forms and thought requiring more explicit information on the forms would help facilitate the process. Mr. Fitzherbert said he had heard many complaints from residents who thought the current application process took too long and cost too much. Mrs. Hill feared residents might be tempted to do work without permits if the process became even more complicated. In general, the Commissioners favored changes that would not substantially slow down the process. They also thought increases in hours or staff in the land use offices would enable staff to check application forms for accuracy and ensure identical plans were approved by all departments. Mrs. Hill said she would soon be discussing this matter with the First Selectman. She added now that she and Mr. Jenks had been made aware that there is a problem, they would work more closely together to find a solution.
Communications
Mr. Martin reported the stop sign recommended at the corner of Church Street and Hinckley Road had been installed.
Mr. Martin noted the telecommunications tower applied for by Sprint on Rt. 109 in New Milford had been approved as submitted by the Siting Council.
Mr. Martin reported Bill #6640 had not been approved by the state legislature. This was because the session ran out of time and so it is expected it will be raised again next year. This will give the Commission the opportunity to educate the legislators about the negative impacts to small towns this bill will cause if enacted. He noted Senator Roraback had been very helpful and responsive and that he had also had a good discussion with Representative O'Neill.
Enforcement
Mr. Martin asked for a report about the landscaping at Underwood's self storage units on New Milford Turnpike. Mrs. Hill reported the trees had been planted as required, but the dead stock had not yet been replaced. She said she had spoken with Atty. Fairbairn and Ms. Page who agreed the work had been completed as agreed upon at their on site meeting. She had also spoken with Mr. Underwood who assured her the dead trees would be replaced.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. owen.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO

May 26, 2003
No meeting.

April 28, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Mrs. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Leab, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 17.4 and 17.4.a Re: Nonconforming Structures

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 4/16 and 4/23/03.
Mr. Martin read the 4/28/03 letter from Mr. Bender, Planning Chairman, which stated the Planning Commission voted unanimously to support the proposed amendments. He then noted that the memo from the Northwest Ct. Council of Governments had no comment on the proposed revisions. He also briefly reviewed the comments received from the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials and the Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials. None of these agencies voiced any objections.
Mr. Martin explained the purpose of the amendment to 17.4 was to include the intent of this section of the Regulations. He noted this language was entirely new and he read it for the record. Regarding the proposed amendment to Section 17.4.a, he said the purpose of the revisions was to clarify Washington's consistent historical interpretation of this section. Vertical expansions in the setback area for nonconforming structures would continue to require variances. He then read proposed Section 17.4.a.
Mr. Owen made a few grammatical corrections to the text.
Mrs. Friedman asked whether the word, "lot" should be included in the 7th line of Section 17.4.a. Mr. Martin said it was correctly worded because what makes a nonconforming structure nonconforming from a setback point of view is its placement on the lot.
There were no other questions or comments from the Commissioners or from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider amendments to Sections 17.4 and 17.4.a of the Washington Zoning Regulations. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. He seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 3/34/03 Regular Minutes were accepted as corrected. Mrs. Friedman pointed out two typos on pages 1 and 2 where the date was written 02 instead of 03.
MOTION: To accept the 3/24/03 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 17.4 and 17.4.a/Non- conforming Structures
There was no further discussion regarding the proposed text. An effective date of May 15, 2003 was set.
MOTION: To approve amendments to Sections 17.4 and 17.4.a of the Washington Zoning Regulations regarding nonconforming structures as corrected at the 4/28/03 Zoning Commission meeting effective May 15, 2003. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Recommendations to the Board of Selectmen Regarding the Non Binding Recommendations for the WCHT, 16 Church Street
Mr. Martin asked for the opinion of the other commissioners on whether the three way stop sign recommended by the Zoning Commission for the corner of Church Street and Hinckley Road should be installed as soon as possible instead of waiting for the project to be completed. He pointed out the Housing Trust's traffic consultant had stated the sign would improve safety and also that the neighbors thought it was a good idea. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Fitzherbert said the signs should be installed right away because it was more important to have them up now before the sight line is improved by the demolition of a portion of the building and before construction vehicles begin to operate in the area. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that Mrs. Hill should write a letter to the Board of Selectmen, which would include the following points: 1) a reminder of the non binding recommendations, 2) the WCHT's traffic consultant thought the three way stop sign would improve safety, 3) the neighbors were in favor of the sign, 4) it would be better to install the sign now than to wait until the project is completed, and 5) a request that this matter be taken up at the next Board of Selectmen meeting.
Future Priorities of the Zoning Commission
Mr. Martin briefly discussed possible future projects for the Commission including revision of Section 14 and enacting provisions for ridgeline protection. He noted work on Section 14 had been interrupted after the first draft due to the Commission's heavy workload since last fall. It was generally thought major initiatives should be held off until adoption of the updated Plan of Conservation and Development, although Mrs. Friedman thought the Commission should begin working now in anticipation of completion of the Plan.
Section 14: It was noted that the input received to date, indicated that single family dwellings should not be included under the updated requirements being drafted. Mrs. Friedman noted the immense size of some of the new houses in Town and suggested that criteria for when to include very large single family dwellings under the new regulations should be established. Enhanced site plans would be required for the more complicated projects. The input received last year will be organized and sent to Mr. Oley, consultant. Hopefully he can prepare a second draft for the June meeting.
Ridgelines: Mr. Shapiro asked whether the Commission has the authority to draft ridgeline protection regulations as Washington's ridgelines are not specifically referenced in the state statutes. Mr. Martin explained the Town could adopt its own regulations in the Zoning or Subdivision Regulations or both. Mrs. Hill has obtained the latest draft model regulations from COG and Woodbury's ridgeline protection regulations. These will be mailed to the Commissioners.
Other Projects:
1) Enlarging the Lake Waramaug Residential District: It was noted Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force had recommended this district be enlarged to include the entire watershed to help protect the water quality of the lake. It was generally thought this was a good idea, although a revised map has not yet been drafted for review. Mr. Martin noted the Plan of Conservation and Development would probably recommend this expansion.
2) Revision of the Depot Business District: Mr. Martin noted the Plan may also recommend a study to determine the feasibility of dividing the Depot Business Districts into core and gateway sections so that different regulations could be applied to these different sections.
3) Expansion of the New Preston Business District: It was also noted the Plan may recommend studies to determine the feasibility of the expansion of the New Preston and Marbledale Business Districts to provide additional parking area. It was generally agreed that Zoning should wait for the adoption of the Plan before beginning these studies.
Plan of Conservation and Development: Mr. Martin and Mrs. Hill gave a brief review of the progress by the Planning Commission to date and noted there would be a lot of work for the Zoning Commission to accomplish once the Plan was adopted.
Section 17.4.b: Mrs. Leab, ZBA Commissioner, said the ZBA is working to provide feedback on an amendment to the Regulations to add a new section 17.4.b to allow the ZBA to grant Special Exceptions for residential setbacks under specific circumstances, but first must know exactly how to measure minimum setback requirements. She said Stonington has exact measurement details included in its Regulations. Mr. Owen said it is only the marginal lots where this makes a difference and so hoped the subcommittee currently working on this matter would keep the process simple. Mr. Martin agreed, noting that as the Regulations become more complicated the workload increases. He thought the goal should be to simplify procedures so that additional personnel will not be required.
Change in 2003 Calendar: Mr. Martin announced the May meeting would be cancelled due to a lack of business.
Substitute House Bill 6641: Mr. Martin noted that the COG feedback on this proposed bill had been mailed out with the Agenda. The Commissioners had many concerns about lines 126-130, which would require zoning commissions to revise their zoning regulations to be consistent with the town's Plan of Conservation and Development within two years of the adoption of an updated Plan. The discussion included the following points. 1) Considering the time it takes to conduct a thorough study of a single issue, draft appropriate language, and obtain public input and considering the large number of recommendations in the Plan that will be under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission, two years is an unreasonable time frame. 2) The bill provides no funding for commissions that would have to hire consultants to accomplish the required zoning amendments within the two year time limit. 3) The bill would require implementation of all recommendations no matter what legitimate objections were raised by the public, taking away the discretion of local zoning commissions and possibly overriding public opinion. 4) This would be a liability for the Town as it would be open to lawsuits if it did not get the regulations amended within the timeframe or if the language of the Zoning Regulations differed from that in the Plan. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to write a letter to Mr. Roraback in opposition to this section of Bill #6641. As the vote would be coming up soon in the Legislature, Mr. Fitzherbert said he would also call Mr. Roraback.
Enforcement
Piskura/Woodbury Road/Shop and Storage Use: Mrs. Hill said she had received an application from Mr. Piskura and was waiting for Health Department approval. A public hearing will be scheduled for June 23 if Health approval is received.
Underwood/New Milford Turnpike/Self Storage Units: Mr. Martin said the required planting had not been installed and asked Mrs. Hill to inspect the property and to write a letter asking when the landscaping will be completed. Ms. Page will review the letter before it is sent.
Carter/West Shore Road/Stone Wall: Mr. Martin asked Mrs. Hill to renew her efforts to contact Mr. Carter to inform him a Special Permit is required for the stone wall he constructed.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer

March 24, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Page
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr. Talbot, Mrs. Avery, Mr. and Mrs. Frenkle, Mrs. O'Rourke, Mr. Anderson, Atty. Fairbairn, Atty. Leary, Mr. and Mrs. Murgio, Mr. Shannon, Mr. Cannavaro, Mrs. Werner, Mr. O'Donnell, Ms. Habib, Mrs. Tracy, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Request for Modifications of Special Permit Conditions of Approval and Site Plan under Chapter 126a, Section 8-30g(h) of the CGS

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on March 12 and 19, 2003.
Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the documents in the file, noting a site plan by Mr. Talbot revised to 2/3/06 had been submitted. He said this had been reviewed by the Inland Wetlands Commission, which had determined it had no jurisdiction. Mr. Talbot confirmed the Board of Selectmen had approved the driveway application for the project.
Mr. Sears, President of the Housing Trust, explained the Trust was requesting minor revisions to conditions #5B, #5C, and #13 of the original conditions of approval for the Special Permit for affordable housing units. (Per Mr. Talbot's 2/13/03 letter to Mrs. Hill, the changes proposed were as follows: #5B: Hinckley Road access to be used to access 8 parking spaces, by emergency vehicles, and for trash pick up and the gate would be installed between the upper 8 and lower 15 parking spaces. #5C: All parallel and perpendicular parking spaces to be removed from Church Street and Hinckley Road and included these spaces in a new layout within the perimeter of the site. #13: The northwest building would be reconfigured to eliminate the old gym section in its entirety and one apartment and an addition built on the south side per the 2/6/03 site plan.)
Ms. Manning, traffic consultant for the WCHT, submitted a report dated 3/19/03, which addressed existing site conditions, Zoning's conditions of approval, and the 2/6/02 revised site plan. She thought the stop sign required by the Commission at the driveway exit onto Church Street was not necessary. The Commission said it was necessary for safety reasons because it would slow down the traffic, but agreed a smaller sized stop sign would be OK as it would be within the project property. Ms. Manning said the parking plan with eight spaces off Hinckley Road and no parallel or perpendicular parking on either Church Street or Hinckley Road was a superior plan to the one originally submitted. The Commissioners viewed the model of the site and Mr. Talbot pointed out the 8 proposed spaces; 1 handicapped, 2 for Unit #1, 1 each for Units #3 and #4, 1 for the manager's office, and 2 visitors spaces. Ms. Manning noted the gate would block through traffic. Mr. Talbot stated according to the motion of approval parking spaces could remain along Church Street and Hinckley Road, but the WCHT followed recommendations from Lenard Engineering and proposed to eliminate them to improve safety. In exchange it was requesting limited access from Hinckley Road. He noted that although the number of units had been decreased to 11, the original number of parking spaces, 31, had been retained. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the parking spaces would be designated and Mr. Talbot said they would.
Mr. Talbot explained the other modifications proposed. The old gym would be removed and the remaining flat roof section of the building would have a gable roof built for a more residential appearance. A 1 bedroom unit would be added to the south side of the building. The total number of units would remain at 11. The total number of bedrooms would remain at 22. Mr. Martin said this improved the appearance of the structure and increased the setback between the northwest corner of the building and the intersection as the Commission had requested.
There was a brief discussion regarding the placement of stop signs at the Church Street/Hinckley Road intersection. Ms. Manning agreed the three way stop sign would enhance safety, but felt that one of the signs may be difficult to place. Mr. Martin noted this should be taken up with the Board of Selectmen as the Commission had previously recommended.
Mr. Sears noted all the modifications being requested were due to safety concerns. Ms. Manning summarized she found the proposed parking plan to be superior to the original, removal of the gym would improve sight lines at the intersection, the installation of a three way stop sign would improve safety, and signs should be installed in the area for a 15 mph speed limit and to prohibit parking on Church Street between the entrances to the circular driveway.
Mrs. Friedman voiced her concern about the parking spaces on the circular driveway and asked that they be assigned to visitors, but Ms. Manning warned that visitor spaces are usually used more than assigned residents' spaces."
Limited access from Hinckley Road was discussed. Atty. Fairbairn, speaking for the WCHT, said the requirement that all traffic use the lower driveway created a safety hazard within the complex that the Hinckley Road access would offset. Mr. Talbot said limited use of the upper access would lessen the impact of headlights and noise from through traffic on the Shannon and Cannavaro properties. He also said he hoped to eliminate the middle section of the driveway except for use as a fire lane.
Mr. Martin referred to Mr. Talbot's 2/13/03 letter, which requested the modifications noting it said they were crucial to the project. He asked the WCHT to explain. Atty. Fairbairn stated the Trust had a budget for the construction of the affordable units and the Zoning Commission's conditions, without these modifications, made the project no longer affordable. He said it was not financially possible to remove only a section of the gym as the Commission had required. He said the conditions of approval had a substantial adverse impact on the viability of the project so that it could not be accomplished within the budget.
Mr. Anderson submitted a letter dated 3/23/03 to the Commission, which voiced support for the proposed modifications of #5C and #13, but not for #5B, limited use of the Hinckley Road access.
Mr. Shannon thought the revised site plan was a better design than the original proposal, but agreed with Mr. Anderson that the relocation of the gate and limited use of the Hinckley Road access would be dangerous for the neighborhood children. When Mr. Fitzherbert pointed out one of the reasons for use of this access was to protect his property from noise and headlight glare, Mr. Shannon said he would prefer to ensure the safety of his children and the other children who would be playing near their homes and at the nearby ball field.
Mrs. O'Rourke agreed with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Shannon that the modification to #5B should not be granted because it would endanger the neighborhood children who play in Hinckley Road.
Mr. Brinton asked if the placement of the gate affected the financial viability of the project. Atty. Fairbairn said it did not, but was "what works best." Mr. Brinton suggested speed bumps be installed at the Hinckley Road exit to slow down traffic.
Mr. Martin said the 2/6/03 site plan was far superior in terms of architecture and the elimination of on street parking, noting the question remaining was whether to allow limited use of the Hinckley Road access. Mr. Talbot thought there should be public access near the eight upper parking spaces and that those assigned to the upper spaces should not have to drive through the entire complex to reach them. He said limited use of this access would also reduce the impact on the complex's green area. Atty. Fairbairn stated the Zoning Commission had an obligation to ensure the safety of those living in the complex as well as Hinckley Road residents. Ms. Manning thought there would be less congestion on Hinckley Road if those who thought they could enter the complex from Hinckley Road could drive right in rather than having to turn around in the driveway. She also thought that some of the vehicles that tried to enter from Hinckley Road would end up parking along the street. She suggested the upper access be approved for a limited six month period and evaluated after that time. Mr. Fitzherbert said the Trust would have 100% control within the complex so could ensure traffic safety within, but would not be able to do so on the Town roads. He therefore supported the original condition of approval that the Hinckley Road access be used for emergency access only with a gate installed between the road and the parking area. He said the safety of the area children should be the Commission's top priority. Mr. Martin noted this issue (#5B) was not tied to conditions #5C and #13 and so the Commission could decide to deny this request without adversely impacting the project. Atty. Fairbairn agreed this was so.
Mr. Talbot and Atty. Fairbairn asked that if the Commission was going to put conditions on the request for modifications, it do so during the public hearing to allow the Trust an opportunity to respond to any concerns raised. For example, Mr. Talbot noted the position of the garbage bin and driveway layout would have to be changed if limited access from Hinckley Road were denied. Mr. Martin thought this was the kind of detail that could be worked out between the Trust and the ZEO.
Mr. Martin proposed a modification to condition of approval #8 concerning the sign for the project be added to state notwithstanding this condition, emergency service requirements shall be complied with. It was the consensus this modification should be added.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Request for Modifications of Special Permit Conditions of Approval and Site Plan Under Chapter 126a, Section 8-30g(h) of the Ct. General Statutes. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Abella was seated for Ms. Page instead of Mr. Brinton.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 9:02 p.m.
Brown-Long View Landing, Inc./96 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page. He noted the applicant was not present. He advised the Commission the hearing had been continued twice before and could not be continued again. The information missing at the last meeting had not been submitted and Mrs. Hill had left telephone messages for Dr. Brown, who had not yet responded. It was the consensus the application should be denied because it is incomplete.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Dr. Brown-Long View Landing for a detached accessory apartment at 96 Romford Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m.
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Faculty Housing

Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page. It was noted the legal notice had been read at the last meeting. Ms. Habib, Business Manager, represented the applicant.
Mrs. Hill reported the application was complete and had been approved by the Health Department. She said she had inspected the site and had found Inland Wetlands approval was not required and that the required certified mailings had been sent.
Ms. Habib presented a small scale copy of the school's master plan to show the location of the proposed faculty housing. Although several houses were shown, Mrs. Hill noted the application was for one dwelling only. She stated there were no issues concerning lot coverage or density.
The Members commented they appreciated seeing the master plan for the school and thought the fire department and highway department would also be interested in reviewing it.
There were no other questions or comments.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School for faculty housing at 184 Romford Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 9:10 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 9:10 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page for Washington Housing Trust business and Alternate Brinton for the rest of the meeting.
Consideration of the Minutes
Mrs. Hill noted the 2/24/03 minutes should be corrected to state the Main Hall, not the Land Use Meeting Room was the location of that meeting.
MOTION: To accept the 2/20/03 Special Meeting minutes as written and the 2/24/03 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Brown-Long View Landing/96 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment

MOTION: To deny the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Dr. Brown - Long View Landing for a detached accessory apartment at 96 Romford Road because the application is incomplete. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Faculty Housing

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School for faculty housing at 184 Romford Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Request for Modifications of Special Permit Conditions of Approval and Site Plan Under Chapter 126a, Section 8-30g(h) of the CGS

Mr. Martin stated the Commission had agreed during the hearing the proposed modifications to the architecture of the existing school building and changes to the parking layout including elimination of all on street parking were improvements that were appreciated. The remaining issue to be decided, he said, was whether the request for limited access from Hinckley Road and relocation of the gate would be approved. Mr. Owen and Mr. Fitzherbert supported the neighbors who had spoken against these modifications. Mr. Fitzherbert stressed that the influx of new neighbors in the established neighborhood could be a problem, said he saw no need for access from Hinckley Road, and thought safety measures could best be enforced by the complex manager within the site. Mrs. Friedman expressed her concern about Ms. Manning's suggestion that cars would turn around in the Hinckley Road access, which would cause unintended safety problems. Mr. Owen thought if this was found to be the case, the neighbors could come to the Commission to request a change. Mr. Abella and Mr. Brinton thought this was not a financial issue and that safety could better be controlled from within the complex. Mr. Martin stated the WCHT had generated good will by what it had and had not requested for modifications. He appreciated its willingness to work with the Zoning Commission and noted the modifications resulted in a plan that was substantially better than the original.
MOTION: To approve the following modifications requested by the Washington Community Housing Trust to the conditions of approval and site plan for its affordable housing units at 16 Church Street: the change of the architectural structure of the building at the northwest corner of the site dealing with units #1, #2, and #3 and addition to the rear of that same building and the new parking layout, all per Mr. Talbot's 2/6/03 revised site plan. Also, the Commission adds a statement to condition of approval #8 that states, Notwithstanding this condition, emergency service requirements shall be complied with. The request for any access other than emergency vehicle access from Hinckley Road is denied. The request to move the location of the gate at the Hinckley Road entrance is also denied. The Zoning Enforcement Officer is authorized to work out any further details with the WCHT as long as they are consistent with the 2/6/03 site plan and the original or modified conditions of approval. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Abella was seated for Ms. Page instead of Mr. Brinton.
At 9:25 p.m. the Commission took a five minute recess. Mr. Martin reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
AT&T Wireless PCS/Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations/ Sections 13.19.8.o and 13.19.8.q
Mr. Martin noted the public hearing to consider the petition had been closed on February 24th. He noted the petition was to amend the Washington Zoning Regulations, but that federal laws also had to be considered and so the Commission had asked for guidance from Town Counsel.
Mr. Martin stated he was opposed to granting the petition for several reasons. They are briefly stated here but are stated in their entirety in the following motion. 1) Washington residents had expressed widespread support for the current Regulations, the requirements of this section had been purposely included, the current Regulations already effectively balance the Town's need for seamless wireless service with impact to taxpayers, and the petitioner had not demonstrated the proposed amendments would improve that balance or that the proposed amendments were in compliance with the comprehensive zoning plan and with the Plan of Conservation and Development. 2) The petitioner failed to prove it would be unable to provide seamless coverage without the proposed amendments. 3) The Commission understands it may consider factors other than visual impact in cases where more than one equally viable location for a proposed facility is available. 4) The Commission agreed with the Planning Commission's 1/23/03 memo. 5) Use of an existing structure does not necessarily mitigate visual impact due to limited co-location opportunities, which may not necessarily limit the proliferation of wireless facilities that would have visual impacts throughout Town.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated the Commission had received a lot of input in an extensive public hearing, but he was not convinced the Regulations should be amended. Mr. Martin noted 125 residents had attended the first session of the hearing.
Mr. Brinton noted remarks from the public had been unanimously against the granting of the petition and thought sites other than church steeples were available.
Mr. Owen noted Washington's position regarding the use of church steeples may not be typical of other towns, but was consistent for Washington since this section of the Regulations had been adopted. He also thought there were many other viable locations that could be considered.
Mrs. Friedman said she was not convinced the only viable option was to amend the Regulations. She thought all others should be exhausted first. Mr. Martin noted the record of the public hearing shows there are other alternatives available to AT&T. Mrs. Friedman also did not think approval of the petition would necessarily decrease the number of towers that would eventually be required to provide coverage in Town.
Mr. Martin stated the Town has the right to prioritize impacts within the Town.
MOTION: That the petition by AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Wireless to amend Sections 13.19.8.o and 13.19.8.q of the Washington Zoning Regulations be denied for the following reasons:
1. The public hearing evidences widespread support by Washington residents for the existing Zoning Regulations. These Regulations were adopted after a public hearing in which careful review of the consistency of the telecommuni- cations regulations with Washington's comprehensive plan of zoning and its Plan of Conservation and Development and of the potential impacts to the Town of possible future telecommunications facilities took place. The record also shows that the setback provisions addressed by the petition were purposefully included in Washington's telecommunications regulations. The Commission finds that the existing regulations satisfactorily balance the need to provide for seamless telecommuni-cations coverage with the need to protect Washington residents and taxpayers from undue and unnecessary impact to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Commission further finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed amendments would provide a better or fairer balance between these potentially competing goals. The Commission further finds that the petitioner failed to show whether or how the proposed amendments comport with the comprehensive plan of zoning or the Plan of Conservation and Development.
2. The Commission finds that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it would be unable to provide seamless telecommunications coverage for its PCS network without the proposed amendments. The record reflects that the site currently under consideration is only one potentially feasible alternative, that other potential sites exist or may exist that would not require an amendment to the Regulations, and that the petitioner has not fully explored such potential alternatives. The Commission concludes that the amendment of its existing telecommunications regulations should not be taken as a matter of mere convenience to a particular applicant or for a particular site, without a demonstration that the existing regulations are more generally impractical, unworkable, or inadequate to address the matters to which they pertain. The Commission finds that no such demonstration has been made to date with regard to the presently proposed amendments.
3. The petitioner has suggested that the visual impact of a telecommunications facility is the only impact that may or should be of significance to the Commission. Although the Commission understands that its ability to consider the possible health and environmental impacts of telecommunications facilities is presently limited by federal or state laws or regulations, it also understands that it is not completely prohibited from considering such factors, particularly when more than one equally viable location for a proposed facility is potentially available.
4. The Commission has considered, and agrees with, the comments of the Washington Planning Commission, as set forth in its memo dated January 23, 2003.
5. The Commission finds that, while the proposed use of an existing structure could mitigate visual impacts for a specific telecommunications facility, it does not necessarily limit proliferation of wireless facilities that have visual impacts in Washington. The record shows that co-location would probably not be feasible in the church steeple the petitioner is presently considering for its facilities. Consequently, other carriers who may require a site in New Preston may need to erect a tower regardless of whether the petitioner's equipment is installed in the existing structure. Therefore, the Commission finds that the use of an existing structure by one applicant would not necessarily eliminate the need for a tower at a nearby location, and that the amendment would not necessarily provide any visual benefit to the Town in the long run.
By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Regulations/Sections 17.4, 17.4.a, 17.4.b, 18.1.4, and 18.2.1

Mr. Martin noted since the last meeting he had received input from the Zoning Board of Appeals that it was not comfortable with the proposed language for Section 17.4.b, which would grant it the authority to approve Special Exception applications. At ZBA's 3/20 meeting several Members had expressed concern about the lack of specificity of the criteria to be used in granting Special Exceptions. Mr. Martin said he would write to Mr. White, ZBA Chairman, that the Zoning Commission will hold off on considering the addition of Section 17.4.b until the ZBA submits specific recommendations to the Zoning Commission. It was noted, however, there was no reason not to proceed with a public hearing to consider revisions to Section 17.4 and 17.4.a, which would clarify the Town's historical position that no increase in height or volume of a non conforming structure is permitted. Notices had already been mailed to the surrounding councils of government and it was noted the hearing was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on April 28th.
Zoning Fees: Mr. Martin said it had been decided at the last meeting of the Land Use Chairmen that the Town should comply with state statutes and set the land use fees by town ordinance rather than by each commission's regulations. Therefore, the Board of Selectmen was creating such an ordinance and had asked each Commission to consider its existing fee schedule and to report what changes, if any, it would like stated in the proposed ordinance. Sheets showing the current zoning fees and a comparison of these fees with those in other NW Ct. towns were reviewed. In general, it was thought most of the current zoning fees; $25 for a zoning permit, $150 for a Special Permit, and $50 for the renewal of a Special Permit were in line with other towns and that any increase might make residents less inclined to apply for a permit. The Commission agreed to raise the fee for petitions to amend the Zoning Regulations and Zoning map to $250 due to arduous process involved in considering these petitions.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Anderson appreciated the fact the Commission did not raise its permit fees. He said as a contractor he knows that from the applicant's viewpoint the fees required are astronomical and keep rising so much so that a $400 deck can cost as much as $1000.
Mr. Anderson also thanked the Commission for its vote not allow limited use of the Hinckley Road access to 16 Church Street. Mr. Martin again stated the approved modifications had been good for the project and had showed how much the WCHT was willing to work with the community.
Mr. Fitzherbert noted the number of Commission meetings that last late into the night and asked if the Commissioners would consider an earlier start time. Mr. Martin said 7:30 p.m. had been set to give individuals who work time to get to the meetings. Mr. Fitzherbert suggested 6:00 p.m. Mr. Owen and Mr. Abella said that was not convenient for them. A second suggestion to move the start time to 7:00 p.m. was tabled.
Communications
Mr. Martin reported the ZBA had unanimously upheld the ZEO's denial of the Hermann application for a second story addition within the front yard setback and then granted a variance for the same project.
Mr. Martin noted he had received a request from the Conservation Commission for a volunteer from the Zoning Commission to serve on a new data management committee. Due to the Zoning Commission's workload, there were no volunteers. Mrs. Hill will inform the Conservation Commission.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO

February 24, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Leary, AT&T Wireless Representatives, Mr. and Mrs. Chapin, Ms. Levitt, Mrs. Avery, Mrs. Rourke, Ms. Dupuis, Mr. McNaughton, Mrs, Kirk, Mrs. Tracy, Ms. Habib, Mrs. Werner, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
AT&T Wireless, PCS/Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations/ Sections 13.19.8.o and 13.19.8.q/Continuation
Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and noted the legal notice had previously been read into the record. He seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen, and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page.
Mr. Martin read the list of documents that had been submitted since the last meeting. (See attached list.) He noted he had asked Mr. McGuinness of the Council of Governments what the provisions for setbacks were in the model regulations the Commission used when writing Section 13.19. Mr. McGuinness said there were no setback requirements for wireless facilities in existing buildings in the model regs. Mr. Martin interpretted this to mean that the wording in Washington's regulations was not just transferred from the model regulations without thought, but had been intentionally added at the time of adoption.
Mr. Martin reminded those present the hearing was not about specific sites, but was to consider proposed text amendments that would enable the installation of telecommunications facilities within enclosed structures without having to meet the current setback requirements. He noted this was a townwide issue.
There were no questions or comments at this time from the Commissioners.
Atty. Leary renewed AT&T's request to approve the petition that would exempt facilities enclosed within existing structures from the setback requirements, saying there would be no visible impacts and that any other issues were "neutralized." He reminded the Commission the federal government has ruled it may not regulate based upon health issues. He said the current Regulations were "inoperative" if based on health issues and approval of the petition would give the Town the chance to "correct itself." He noted that the current Regulations exempt repeaters from setback requirements even though they are external and visible. He also noted if the petition is approved the Commission would have to grant a Special Permit before a facility enclosed within an existing structure could be installed. Mr. Martin noted setback requirements could be based on criteria other than health concerns such as aesthetics, public safety, nuisance, property values, or commercial projects in the R-1 District. He disagreed with Atty. Leary that the Regulations needed remediation. Atty. Leary responded that nuisance and safety issues also have no bearing and said AT&T would have to show a proposed facility complied under the Special Permit criteria. Mr. Shapiro noted the Regulations acknowledge they do not regulate on the basis of health effects of radio frequency emissions, and said the setbacks were included for other reasons.
Mr. Martin asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Hank Dutton said granting of the petition would permit AT&T to take away the value of properties within the setback area. Due to perceived health issues, he said, no one would want to purchase property within the setback area. He said whether the facility could be seen or not made no difference since property valuation would be affected as long as the public knew there was a telecommunications facility in the immediate area. Atty. Leary said the courts had rejected property devaluation as a basis for denial of an application if the devaluation was based on the perception of health concerns due to radio frequency emissions. Mr. Martin asked Atty. Leary to submit a copy of this decision for the record.
Ms. Levitt cited the case, AT&T vs. Virginia Beach and said it had been ruled it is possible to consider some health concerns as long as that is not the only concern raised. She said that decision also ruled repeated widespread objection could be taken into account. She submitted this case and a case regarding a ruling in Texas on liability issues where a judgement was made against a town for allowing a cell tower too close to private residences. She noted insurance companies do not want to underwrite telecommunications facilities and so it puts the average citizen in the position of having to come to the Town for claims. She stated the Zoning Commission would be liable in perpetuity for the decisions it makes.
Atty. Leary cited Sprint Spectrum vs. Farmington, 1997. He said the federal court had expressly held that one of the grounds to set aside the Commission's denial was it had cited as a reason for denial the effect the radio frequency emissions would have on property values. He also stated in the same case the prudent avoidance doctrine was rejected. Mr. Martin said the Commission has always encouraged public input irrespective of what it might be, but tries to abide by the law when it makes a decision. He said the Commission would be interested in hearing more about this case from its attorney. Atty. Leary said he would fax the case to Atty. Zizka.
Ms. Levitt informed the Commission that Dr. Holzworth could not attend the hearing, but had asked her to relay her thoughts that the Regulations were working well and should not be changed.
Mrs. Kirk noted she had spoken at the first session of the hearing of her experiences with health, safety, and nuisance issues when she lived near a cell tower and did not want to repeat her testimony except to counter Atty. Leary's assertion that devaluation of property values may not be considered. She stated she had trouble selling her house and had to practically "give it away."
Mr. Chapin thought the Commission had done a good job allowing the public to speak about what its concerns were whether or not they could be considered according to federal law. He stated the Commission had enacted the provisions of this section for specific reasons that were not site specific and thought it should leave well enough alone.
Mr. Lockwood agreed with Mr. Chapin that the Regulations should not be changed. He noted that future technology might permit several facilities within a single structure.
Mr. Owen asked Mr. Solley if the Board of Selectmen had a position regarding this petition. Mr. Solley noted the letter written about cell towers had addressed the proposed Rabbit Hill Road facility only. He said he personally did not think the Regulations should be revised, but said the Board had not discussed it. Mr. Owen asked if the Commission were to vote against the petition and this resulted in an appeal, would the Town support the Commission? Mr. Solley said the Board of Selectmen had come up with an alternate site to the New Preston Congregational Church steeple and so noted the applicant would have other options if the petition were denied. Mr. Martin noted the Zoning Commission is independently empowered by the state statutes and does not need approval from the Board of Selectmen regarding its decisions. He said the two bodies often try to work together, but they are both independently elected bodies.
Mr. Martin reminded everyone the petition under consideration was not site specific. He noted the idea of an alternate site came up at the last session of the hearing as an example of other sites that might be available and that the Commission hoped AT&T would pursue and evaluate. He noted, too, that the alternate locations would probably not offer the possibility of concealing the facility. Mr. Martin said the public had expressed the Town's values through the public hearing process and had indicated concealment of such a facility was not its priority and so other options should be pursued. Atty. Leary referred to the New Preston Firehouse and said AT&T had to know whether it was available or it could not be considered a viable option. Mr. Martin advised him the mechanics of any particular site did not apply in this hearing to consider a text change and asked him to consult with the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Chapin noted that anything that might be done at the firehouse site would require both Planning Commission and possibly Town Meeting approval and so the Board of Selectmen could not give a definite answer.
Mrs. Friedman noted the Planning Commission did not support the proposed amendments and so a 4-1 vote of the Zoning Commission would be required to approve the petition.
Ms. Levitt stated she did not think the federal Telecommunications Act would apply in this case because it was a petition for an amendment to the Regulations and not an application for a facility. She advised the Commission to carefully read the court cases she submitted prior to acting on the petition. Mr. Martin noted Atty. Zizka had advised the Commission that if the courts found the Town had tried to block coverage either by denial of an application or by virtue of its Regulations, it would be problematic under the FCC Act.
Mr. Lombino asked if grounds for denial of the petition would include the argument that approval could cause further proliferation throughout Washington since facilities in church steeples can accommodate only one carrier. Mr. Martin noted that AT&T indicated the New Preston Congregational Church steeple could accommodate only one carrier, but it was not known how many carriers other existing buildings could accommodate. He said if the petition were approved, thus enabling an application for wireless facilities in the New Preston Church steeple it would not reduce proliferation and the Commissioners might take that into account before voting. Atty. Leary stated that steeple as it currently exists can accommodate only one carrier, but if its faade was replaced with something transparent it might accommodate more. He then advised Mr. Lombino this was not an appropriate matter for the Commission to consider.
Mrs. Friedman noted Atty. Leary had listed many issues that according to him the Commission could not consider. She asked Atty. Leary what it was allowed to consider. Atty. Leary responded it could consider the criteria used when this zoning regulation was adopted. Mrs. Friedman asked if the perception of property devaluation could be considered. Atty. Leary said property devaluation based on perceived health issues was not permitted under the law.
Mr. Dutton argued this was not law, but precedent, which could always be struck down by the court in a subsequent case.
Ms. Levitt noted there would soon be a ruling on a lawsuit based on property devaluation in Cincinnati.
Mr. Lockwood, a former telecommunications company employee, said AT&T proposed the revisions so it could install facilities the cheapest way possible and so if passed, facilities enclosed within structures would probably proliferate. Mr. Martin noted it was not cost, but the impact of the proposal on the Town that mattered to the Commission.
Ms. Dupuis said the current Zoning Regulations protect residents' health and property values, but also help to protect the character of Washington. She stressed that allowing a telecommunications facility so close to residences would devalue properties.
Mr. Martin noted that if the Commission does not grant the petition, it would preclude wireless facilities virtually in all the church steeples in Town since most of the churches were near residential areas. This means more freestanding towers would be constructed. He asked if this was really what the Town wanted. Mr. Fitzherbert responded that changing the Regulations would not necessarily have any affect on the number of freestanding towers eventually constructed because the extent of colocation possibilities was not known.
Mr. Abella asked if there were any wireless facilities enclosed within structures in this area. Atty. Leary listed several including a church on the New Milford green and said the company had always been encouraged to use existing structures.
Mrs. Rourke noted churches are typically located in higher density areas and said the current setbacks were in place to protect residents for whatever reason.
Mrs. Chapin agreed wireless facilities should not be permitted near residences, and suggested the Commission consider language that would allow them in enclosed structures that are not located in a residential zone.
Mr. Daft asked if there were any towns that have decided not to permit telecommunications facilities. Atty. Leary said the federal Act mandates interconnected seamless service throughout the nation and towns can not forbid these facilities. He said under the law service in New Preston is required and so it will be provided. Mrs. Friedman asked if service in other areas of Town was deficient. Atty. Leary said he did not know, but if there were a need it would have to be addressed.
Mr. Dutton said if the Commission did not approve the petition it would not mean the telecommunications companies would be prevented from providing seamless coverage.
Mr. Martin noted that if facilities were excluded from church steeples external mounted facilities would be required. This type of installation would be under the jurisdiction of the Ct. Siting Council and so the Town would loose control. Mr. Shapiro thought it could not be known whether the Town would retain its control if the petition were granted because freestanding towers would probably be needed anyway.
Mr. Lockwood advised the Commission that existing structures have a finite capacity for colocation.
Ms. Levitt noted the FCC had recently considered satellite service to be wireless service that could be used to provide universal coverage for dead spots. She also noted the current Regulations reserve the right to require stealth designs and said the Commission could go to the Siting Council to request a stealth design for a freestanding tower. She also pointed out there is already good coverage along the Rt. 202 corridor and said the FCC deems 75% coverage is adequate, especially in hilly areas. She stressed that safety and environmental issues were important reasons for setback requirements, noting the problems associated with the use of batteries at these sites. Mr. Martin asked if the Ct. Siting Council could now consider satellite service as a viable alternative. Ms. Leavit said that had not yet been determined.
Atty. Leary stated the Town's RF engineer had confirmed the coverage along Rt. 202 was deficient. Mr. Martin noted that engineer had been hired by the Washington Environmental Council, a private, non profit institution. Mrs. Tracy noted the engineer's report did not say he was an expert. Atty. Leary also stated that AT&T's petition did not request a change in the wetlands setbacks.
Mr. Owen asked what was the typical maintenance schedule for a wireless facility? Atty. Leary said each carrier is inspected once a month by a service technician.
As there were no further comments from the public, the Commissioners discussed whether to close the hearing. Mr. Martin noted closing the hearing would not prevent the Commission from consulting with its attorney. Atty. Leary was concerned if the hearing were closed he would not have an opportunity to comment on the cases submitted this evening by Ms. Levitt. Mr. Martin said the Commission would listen to the advice of its attorney rather than assertions by either Ms. Levitt or Atty. Leary regarding case law. Noting consideration of the petition was not site specific, he asked Atty. Leary if he had any other practical matters to submit for the record. Atty. Leary said he had none.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the petition submitted by AT&T Wireless, PCS to amend Sections 13.19.8.o and 13.19.8.q of the Washington Zoning Regulations. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
It was the consensus the vote would be taken at the March meeting. Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m.
Brown-Long View Landing/96 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. and noted the legal notice had been read at the first session of the hearing. He seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen, and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page.
Mrs. Hill stated she had spoken with Dr. Brown earlier and he had advised her he would submit a written request for an extension of the public hearing.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Brown-Long View Landing for a detached accessory apartment at 96 Romford Road to March 24, 2003. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
At 9:11 p.m. Mr. Martin continued the hearing to March 24, 2003.
Cass-DePecol/46 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 9:12 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/12 and 2/19/03.
Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file (see attached list) and noted both the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Health Department had approved the application.
Mr. DePecol reviewed the application to convert the existing cottage to a detached accessory apartment. He noted the cottage had a finished basement, which brought the building over the 1200 sq. ft. maximum for apartments, but he showed the Commissioners the proposed floor plan to address this requirement. He proposed to block off a section of the basement per Exhibit 3, "Proposed Finished Basement, 290 sq. ft." He noted this would take a bedroom out of the basement. He also pointed out the existing kitchen and bathroom on the existing floor plan and submitted a written statement that he would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit.
Mr. DePecol presented the revised map, "Site Development Plan," by Berkshire Engineering, revised to 1/22/03, which the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved. He said Land Tech had reviewed the plans for both wetlands and zoning issues and they had been revised according to Land Tech's recommendations. He submitted a copy of the Land Tech report dated 12/6/02.
No one from the public spoke for or against the application. It was noted four of the six certified mailing receipt cards had been received.
Mr. Owen noted no changes were proposed to the exterior of the cottage.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Cass-DePecol for a detached accessory apartment at 46 June Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 9:19 p.m.
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Faculty Housing
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 9:20 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/12 and 2/19/03. Seated were Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page.
Mr. Martin reviewed the 2/24/03 ZEO Report, which stated there were no wetlands within 100 feet of the proposed structure and the Health Department had signed off on the application.
The ZEO Report noted that the survey map by Bradford E. Smith and Son, dated 11/15/02 was not complete and would have to be amended to show the proposed building site.
Mr. Martin also noted the public hearing would have to be continued because the applicant had not notified the adjoining property owners of the public hearing.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School for faculty housing at 184 Romford Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
At 9:23 p.m. Mr. Martin continued the public hearing to March 24, 2003.
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
Regular Business
Mr. Martin called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:25 p.m and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 1/27/03 Regular Meeting minutes and 1/29/03 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Mr. Martin noted the public hearings for the following two Special Permit applications had been continued to March 24th:
1. Brown-Long View Landing/96 Romford Road/13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment
2. Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/4.4.10/Faculty Housing

Cass-DePecol/46 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mrs. Friedman asked what would prevent the applicant from finishing off the entire basement once the permit was issued. Mrs. Hill responded the C of O would not be issued if the building was not in compliance with the zoning permit and thereafter there would be reval inspections every four years. Mrs. Friedman was not sure this would be effective as the reval inspectors do not enter the building.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Cass-DePecol for a detached accessory apartment at 46 June Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Request to Modify Approved Site Plan
Mr. Martin noted a letter dated 1/28/03 had been received requesting a modification of the Special Permit approved on 9/9/01 to add a driveway to access parking spaces located in Warren. He reminded the Commissioners at the time of the application the applicant had said additional parking in Warren was being considered and the Commission had thought it was a good idea. Mr. McNaughton, representing Montessori School, noted a condition of the Inland Wetlands Commission approval had been that 36 parking spaces on the lower level had been removed. The map, "Additional Parking Plan," by DyMar, dated 1/10/03 was reviewed. Mr. McNaughton noted the Washington Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the revision, the Warren Inland Wetlands Commission had no jurisdiction, and the Warren Zoning Commission had scheduled a public hearing for March 11, 2003. The modifications requested were the addition of a 100+ ft. driveway to access the 106 Warren parking spaces and the installation of two additional catch basins. Mrs. Hill said this was a minor change that could be considered without a public hearing. Mr. McNaughton said there would be no access to the school from Couch Road and said all work would be at least 250 feet from adjoining property lines. It was noted neither the driveway or the new parking area would be visible from Rt. 202 because the view would be blocked by the new building. Mr. McNaughton said the modifications would not be built if Warren did not approve its application for the parking lot.
MOTION: To approve the request by the Washington Montessori School for modifications to its approved site plan for construction of a school at 240 Litchfield Turnpike per the map, "Additional Parking Plan," by Dymar, dated 1/10/03 because the Commission determined the modifications were minor and subject to the approval of the plans by the Warren Zoning Commission. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 5-0.
AT&T Wireless, PCS/Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations/
Sections 13.19.8.o and 13.19.8.q
There was a brief discussion about the public concern regarding the issues of health, safety, nuisance, property values, etc. vs. the realities of the FCC law. Given all the issues Atty. Leary told the Commission it could not consider under the Telecommunications Act, the Commission decided to consult with Atty. Zizka about what criteria it could use as the basis of its decision on the petition.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17
The Commissioners had reviewed proposed amendments to Sections 17.4.a and 17.4.b. (See attached pages.) Under b, the phrase that begins in the fifth line, "...that is located on a legally existing, nonconforming lot" will be deleted. Also under b, Mrs. Friedman questioned what was meant by "promote a public policy goal." She thought the wording was so vague that 1) it was meaningless and 2) it could be used as the rationale to approve just about anything. Mr. Martin explained the premise was to give a fair amount of discretion to the ZBA, but only in matters pertaining to yard setbacks for single family dwellings. He reminded the Commission that the ZBA has been doing a good job evaluating hardships for variances and adopting a Special Exception provision would reintroduce some needed flexibility to the process. The ZBA reviewed the proposed amendments at its 2/20/03 meeting and its comments are due by 3/6. It was agreed Mr. Owen would write an introductory paragraph regarding the intent of the Special Exception section. Due to the public notice requirements, a public hearing may not be held to consider these amendments until the April meeting. If all comments are in so that a final draft can be prepared by 3/15, the hearing will be scheduled for 4/28.
Lot coverage was discussed. Mr. Owen said he had met with ZBA Members Owens and White a few months ago to get their views on what should be counted as coverage and how it should be measured. Mr. Martin recommended a follow up meeting be held to clarify these guidelines and to make sure the Zoning Commission and ZBA are in agreement.
Communications
Mr. Martin noted he had received a request from the Conservation Commission for a Zoning Commissioner to serve on a committee writing a welcome to Washington brochure. Due to the heavy zoning workload of late there were no volunteers. Mrs. Hill was directed to inform Mrs. Payne.
Mrs. Hill announced Mr. Byerly of the Planning Commission and Mr. White of the ZBA would be honored by the Ct. Federation of Planning and Zoning Commissions for their years of service on these boards. A banquet will be held at the Aqua Turf on 3/20/03.
Mr. Martin thanked the Commissioners for the time, effort, and teamwork put in over the past several months and for their good nature and sense of humor shown during the deliberation of several difficult issues.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO

February 20, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Kelly, Atty. Fairbairn, Mr. Sears, Mr. Rudin, Atty. Bloom, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Cannavaro, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Shannon, Ms. Simone, Residents, Press
Mr. Martin called the Special Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Fitzherbert, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Ms. Page.
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Affordable Housing
Mr. Martin explained the WCHT had submitted a request to the Zoning Commission for approval of modifications to its approved site plan for affordable housing units at 16 Church Street. Originally this request was not submitted under the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act and thus, could be considered at tonight's Special Meeting. Mr. Martin said, however, the WCHT had recently decided that its request would be under Section 8-30h of the State Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. Therefore, a public hearing would be required to consider the request for modifications. The public hearing was scheduled for Monday, March 24, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Herrmann, Trustee/328 Nettleton Hollow Road/Application for Second Story Addition Within the Setback Area/Advice to the ZEO
Mr. Martin said he would not make a motion for the Commission to go into executive session. Letters from the Town attorneys to the Commission pertaining to pending litigation of this matter had been released to the applicant and so an executive session was no longer necessary. He noted that the decision to release these letters would enable the Commission to focus on the substantive aspects of this matter as opposed to procedural aspects.
Mr. Martin noted all Commissioners had received detailed information packets several days prior to the meeting. Additionally, the Commissioners had reviewed the additional documents received since the mailing, which were passed out this evening. (A list of both categories of documents is attached.)
Mrs. Hill, ZEO, noted normally she would have acted on her own to deny this type of application, but because the applicant had said he would appeal if her decision was a denial, she had decided to consult with both the Town Attorney and the Commission. Mr. Martin asked the Commissioners to make recommendations on the basis of what they thought was right and not to advise Mrs. Hill based on any concerns about a possible appeal.
The issue to be decided was whether a second story addition within the setback area should be considered an increase in the nonconformity of the building. While the addition would not increase the existing footprint, it would increase the volume of the building within the setback area.
Mr. Shapiro asked what the rationale for denying the application would be. Mrs. Hill said she had been trained and it had been her consistent practice that an increase in the volume of a nonconforming building required a variance and it had been done this way for as long as she knew (having been employed by the Town for 14 years). Since other parts of Section 17 stated the volume of the nonconformity could not be increased, she had thought it was a common sense approach that this would apply throughout the entire section. Mr. Martin agreed variances for an increase in the volume of a nonconforming building had been historically and consistently required by both the ZEO and the ZBA. He pointed out that the percentage of the building within the setback area would increase even though the footprint would not. Mr. Owen said this was a logical interpretation of the Regulations and that this had been the procedure when he had served on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mrs. Friedman asked if the ZBA had been consistent in its interpretation and Mr. Owen said it had. Mr. Martin noted both the ZBA and the ZEO had consistently interpreted the Regulations this way.
Mr. Shapiro asked if it had been thought an increase in volume of a nonconforming structure would make it more nonconforming, and if so, where was this written? Mr. Martin said this was the way it had historically been done. Mr. Owen stated the proposed second story would increase the encroachment on the setback. Mr. Shapiro felt the nonconformity was the setback and that a second story would not increase the encroachment into the setback area. Mr. Owen stated the justification for this regulation was to keep building mass out of the setback and it was logical that a two story building would be more intrusive than one story would be. He also said this had been the way it had always been done and he did not think it would make sense to make an abrupt change. Mr. Brinton and Mr. Abella agreed.
Mrs. Hill asked whether the Commissioners thought it made a difference that volume was referred to in one section but not the other. Mr. Martin pointed out there are inconsistencies throughout the Regulations and said over time the Commission has worked to eliminate them. However, he said in this case because it is known how the regulation has been interpreted over time and knowing how imperfect the Regulations are, he did not think there was sufficient reason to change this interpretation.
Mr. Owen pointed out Washington's Regulations are written to state that if something is not explicitly permitted, it is prohibited. (Section 2.3.2) He said, therefore, an interpretation could not be made that such a second story addition is permitted.
Mr. Martin noted both the Town Attorney and the applicant's attorney had referred to the 2002 Doyen decision and asked if there were any questions about how to apply this case. Mr. Shapiro said it had struck him that Essex had more restrictive regulations than Washington, and yet the court held that a vertical expansion need not be viewed as an increase of a nonconforming characteristic. Mr. Martin agreed but also noted the court accorded significant weight to being consistent with the procedure historically followed.
Atty. Bloom asked if the public could comment. Mr. Martin noted this was a Special Meeting and privilege of the floor was not on the agenda. He reminded Atty. Bloom that the Commission was thoroughly briefed on the points of view in the matter. He referred to all the legal opinions received from the applicant's attorney and the Commission's attorneys. (See attached list.)
Mr. Martin informally polled the Commissioners for their opinions, noting these were not to be considered a formal vote at this point in the discussion. Mr. Fitzherbert said the Commission knew how this issue had been handled previously and should act consistently with past procedures. Mrs. Friedman agreed, but added the regulation should be further clarified so this issue would not come up again. Mr. Martin agreed, but cautioned that if the Commission decided to clarify this section it would not necessarily mean the existing language is deficient. Mr. Abella stated that per the existing language of 17.4.a, building upward does constitute an increase in the nonconformity of a nonconforming structure. Mr. Shapiro thought the practice that has been followed did not comport with the language of the Regulations and so said if he had been seated, he would have voted to recommend approval of the application.
Mr. Martin said the issue to be decided was whether the Commission thought the historical interpretation by the ZEO and the ZBA carried the most weight or whether any ambiguity of the Regulations was the more important factor to consider. Mr. Owen thought the wording was, indeed, ambiguous, but did not agree that it contradicted the historical interpretation. He said there should be more reason than just ambiguous wording to force a change in the historical procedure. Mr. Shapiro said the language was not only ambiguous, but compelled a practice other than that which the ZEO and ZBA have followed. Several Commissioners disagreed with this view.
An informal poll was taken. Of the Commissioners present, 6 supported the historical interpretation and 1 thought the ambiguous wording should carry more weight. Of the Commissioners seated, all 5 thought the historical interpretation was the more important factor.
A motion to advise the ZEO was considered and the following wording agreed upon:
MOTION: The Washington Zoning Commission recommends that the ZEO continue to apply the historical interpretation by the ZEO and the Zoning Board of Appeals of Section 17.4.a of the Washington Zoning Regulations and, therefore, not issue a zoning permit in the case of a proposed second story addition for Herrmann, Trustee, 328 Nettleton Hollow. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO

January 27, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Leary, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Julius, Ms. Gaudet, estimated 125 residents
AT&T Wireless PCS,LLC/Informational Public Hearing/Proposed Tower Facility/911 Rabbit Hill Road, Warren

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 10:05 p.m. He explained the purpose of the hearing was to collect information on the proposed facility from the applicant and input from the public. He noted that by the end of the week the minutes of the hearing and all letters and documents in the file would be sent to AT&T, who would consider it all in its application to the Ct. Siting Council.
Atty. Fisher represented AT&T. He said AT&T was a federally licensed utility company providing wireless service to the community with minimal impacts. He noted the State had deemed this service a necessity and so the question was not, would it be deployed, but where would it be deployed. He said this service must be located where roads and people are located and the transmission sites must be within the community for which they provide service. He also noted according to its FCC license the company is obligated to build out its infrastructure with the goal of providing seamless service.
Atty. Fisher then explained the site selection process. He said AT&T has no power of eminent domain and the company has long term leases on most of the properties where its towers are located. He described the process the site acquisition real estate specialist goes through to find appropriate tower sites. First, use of existing structures in the search area is considered. If none are available, other issues such as local regulations, land use trends, and density are considered. Finding a willing property owner is also a necessity. When a particular site is chosen reviews on need for service in the area and environmental concerns are completed. He noted at this point in the process AT&T was not at the hearing to justify the need for the proposed tower, but to receive input from the public to take into consideration in its application to the Siting Council.
Ms. Gaudet said the site was at 911 Rabbit Hill Road in Warren on a 22 acre parcel through which runs the Washington-Warren town line. The 150 ft. tower with space for six carriers would be entirely located in Warren. A 100' X 100' parcel would be leased and an 80' X 80' fenced compound would be constructed around the tower. A 12' X 24' concrete equipment pad would also be constructed. Access would use an existing "path" off Rabbit Hill Road. She stated the tower would be 150 ft. tall because that was the minimum height required to cover the area site targets.
The following questions and comments were made by the public and Commissioners:

Mrs. Korzenko asked what other sites had been investigated. Ms. Gaudet stated the search area had included Rabbit Hill Road and the area north of Rt. 202. The silo on the Tanner property in Warren had been considered, but from an RF perspective had not been tall enough for service on Rt. 202. Also construction of a tower on the Tanner property had been considered, but the portion of the property closest to Rt. 202 where the tower would have to be situated was not available due to its inclusion in a state farmland preservation program. Another 33+ acre parcel had been investigated, but the owner was not interested.
Mr. Martin noted he had received many letters voicing concerns about the proposed tower's fall zone, which would be in Washington, its proximity to homes in the area, the need to protect wildlife and habitat, and the protection of possible inland wetlands in the area. He asked if AT&T would be willing to conduct environmental studies in the spring and to consider recommendations for alternate sites that might be better suited. Ms. Gaudet responded alternate site suggestions would be investigated, but asked that owners of such sites be willing to cooperate and that site coordinates be provided. She said the wetlands on the property had been flagged and there were none along the proposed access road or compound area. Atty. Fisher said he had received correspondence about ecological impacts, but said the impact of the facility would be less than that from the construction of a single family dwelling. The main impact from a planning and zoning rationale, he said, was visibility. He noted the proposal included some sight line studies and that the Washington Conservation Commission had asked that additional views be done.
Mrs. Luckey asked if a tower at Mt. Tom state park would be possible. Ms. Gaudet said this was quite a distance from the search area, but that she would run the propagation for this site. She noted the proposed tower site was 100 feet from the Washington boundary line and more than 450 feet to the Tanner property.
Mr. Solley asked what the determining factor was in locating the tower on that particular property. Ms. Gaudet stated the 100' X 100' site was chosen in an attempt to minimize clearing and utilize the existing path. She said it also took advantage of the trees for natural screening. Mrs. Luckey noted the tower would be only 600 feet from homes on Rabbit Hill Road and asked if it could be moved to the NE to get it further away from these houses.
Ms. Gaudet was asked for the elevation of the proposed site. She said it was 1068 at ground level.
Ms. Levitt, a Warren resident, asked if each carrier would require its own equipment slab. Ms. Gaudet said they probably would. She then asked if AT&T had considered extending the height of the Tanner silo to meet its needs. Ms. Gaudet said this had not been discussed. Ms. Levitt noted that with the proposed tower height of 150 ft. and ground elevation of 1068, the top of the tower would be at the horizon of the top of Tanner Hill. She asked if it was normal for antennae to be placed at the ground level of the top of a hill. Ms. Gaudet responded the tower did not need to be any taller. Ms. Levitt noted the proposed tower would provide almost no coverage for the town of Warren. Atty. Fisher noted towers must be placed where needed regardless of town boundaries.
Mr. Martin asked if the site would be better placed on the same parcel, but at the top of the hill, which would probably require a shorter tower and be able to be located further from the residences on Rabbit Hill Road. Ms. Gaudet said the site had been chosen due to ground related environmental effects and in order to minimize the visibility by placing it against the hillside. She also noted that higher is not always better.
Mrs. Chapin asked if there was an A-2 survey of the property, noting there had been speculation that site was actually in Washington. She also asked how far above the trees the tower would extend. Ms. Gaudet conservatively estimated the tower would extend 100 feet above the trees. Mrs. Chapin asked how wide the tower was at the top. Ms. Gaudet said it was 1.5 ft. with a triangular platform. Atty. Fisher noted that in assessing how much of the tower would be visible above the tree line, the elevation of the person looking at it and the topography in between had to be taken into consideration. Mrs. Chapin asked when a balloon would be flown. When Ms. Gaudet said that this is done as part of the Siting Council's process, usually on the day of its hearing, Mrs. Chapin asked if it could be done sooner. Mr. Martin agreed it would be a good idea to know as soon as possible what the visual impact would be and said the Commission would appreciate it if the test was done sooner. Ms. Gaudet said AT&T would be willing to do so, but noted weather conditions this time of year are a factor and asked that the Town take the responsibility for notifying the community. Mr. Martin said the Commission would do so if it was given two weeks notice.
A resident asked if a lower tower was an option. Ms. Gaudet said it was not. Mr. Martin asked if there were fewer colocators, if it could be lower. Ms. Gaudet said AT&T required 150 feet.
Mr. Martin asked if a "needle" type tower could be constructed. Mr. Julius noted some technical issues with equipment and antennae placement, but said this would have a lower profile and would be considered.
Mrs. Avery noted the Washington Zoning Regulations state these facilities must be located at least 750 feet from dwelling, but this tower would be within 600 feet of the Hart residence. She asked why it did not have to comply with the Regulations. Mr. Martin noted in this case the Siting Council was the final authority, but the Zoning Commission would provide it with information regarding whether or not it complies with local regulations. Mrs. Avery asked if the Town would obtain legal counsel for representation in the Siting Council procedures. Mr. Martin said it would.
Mrs. Friedman noted other companies would likely require 150 feet as well and so asked if potential colocators would find the height of the proposed tower inadequate. Ms. Gaudet said AT&T can speak only for its own needs. She said it was possible a potential colocator could make its needs known to the Siting Council or could apply for a taller design at a later date.
Mr. Brinton asked if the Siting Council approves towers that are taller than applied for. Ms. Gaudet said she could not recall this happening, but said colocators have the opportunity to apply later for an increase in height. Atty. Fisher said the Council sometimes requires excess construction in case there is need for a higher tower in the future.
Mrs. Page pointed out on the coverage map that even with the three proposed facility sites coverage along Rt. 202 was spotty. She asked if AT&T had plans to rectify that with additional tower sites. Mr. Julius responded the company strives for a continuous web of coverage, but that it is not perfect due to constraints caused by terrain and the regulatory process. He said no additional tower would be needed to fill in the small spots, noting that the map showed a conservative estimate of the coverage to be provided.
Mr. Tagley stated Washington residents want to live in a rural atmosphere without having to look at cell towers. He asked if there was any criteria the Zoning Commission could use to defeat a proposal like this. Mr. Martin stated he was not sure Mr. Tagley's premise was correct. He noted that the majority of comments made tonight had indicated the general public valued distance from dwellings to be more important than visual impact. In terms of defeating a proposal, Mr. Martin thought the most effective way would be to convince the Siting Council there are alternate locations that meet the same objectives.
Mr. Owen said he was not clear what the Town's interest in this matter should be. He said whatever location is chosen there will be residents who object, and so asked whether the Town must hire an attorney every time there is opposition to a proposed tower. He thought the Town should decide on a few ideal sites and then work with the companies to see they are utilized. Atty. Fisher noted AT&T is not trying to be adversarial and wants to achieve a good result for the community. Mr. Martin stated the Town's interest was to obtain input and pass it along to both the applicant and the Siting Council. Atty. Fisher noted the Town is not obligated to submit information to either party, but said Town officials had deemed the Zoning Commission as the board best suited to obtain input and forward it to AT&T and the Council. Mr. Martin noted conversely, if the Town does submit input, the applicant is obliged to consider it. Atty. Fisher said such input is received as part of the technical review process to improve the application.
Mr. Martin and Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission Chairman, stated the Conservation Commission's subcommittee would continue its study of alternative sites. Atty. Fisher said AT&T would be willing to accept some specific recommendations even after the 60 day comment period, but they would have to be submitted as soon as possible. He offered to help in the process, noting it was difficult to regulate an industry you don't understand. Mr. Martin said he would make the offer known to the committee.
Mr. Chapin noted public comment throughout the evening clearly stated telecommunications facilities should be kept away from residences.
Mr. Hart asked how far from Rabbit Hill Road the tower could be installed. Ms. Gaudet said she would take another look at the property based on the comments she heard.
Ms. Page noted it appeared the tower site was chosen based on the location requiring the shortest driveway in order to keep down costs. She urged AT&T not to base its choice on cost only. Ms. Gaudet noted the Siting Council requires the applicant to take many factors into consideration, for example, how many trees will be cut. Atty. Fisher noted the ideas expressed at the hearing differed from the typical considerations of the Siting Council. He recommended that if the Town wished to stress ideas such as it is OK to cut more tress, have longer driveways, or make towers more visible if doing so will place them farther away from residences, then the Town must made the effort to explain this rationale to the Council.
A resident asked if from an RF perspective there were better locations on the same property for the tower. Ms. Gaudet said AT&T had already agreed to take another look at the site.
Ms. Dupuis asked if AT&T had completed any environmental studies, conducted a wildlife inventory, or had researched the impacts on habitat and wildlife. She noted the Natural Resource Inventory had labeled this a critical habitat area and that Steep Rock identified more than 100 endangered and special concern species that can be supported in this area and asked if the application could be delayed until late spring so these studies could be done. Ms. Gaudet said she had consulted with the DEP's diversity data base. Ms. Dupuis said the DEP data base was not up to date because she was told no official had been to inspect this area. Neighbors and recognized birding organizations have seen the endangered sharp shinned hawks and other threatened birds in the area. She said the DEP was willing to open a file on the area and would make confirmation in the nesting seasons if the application could be postponed. Ms. Dupuis also stated the tower would be located just above the Town's largest, most important aquifer and in a critical habitat at for amphibians at the headwaters of Meeker Swamp. She noted that towers cause an increase in lightning strikes, adding that since Washington had received 380 lightning strikes last summer, any potential increase concerned residents.
Mr. Abdella noted the purpose of the tower was to serve Rt. 202, but there are widespread efforts to ban cell phone use while driving. Atty. Fisher stated it is not illegal to use a cell phone while driving and noted the new laws were to prohibit hand held cell phones while driving.
Ms. Levitt asked if the company had considered alternate technologies and submitted printed information for the record.
****
Mr. J. Cook thought AT&T was taking a contradictory position by proposing a 60 foot tall facility in the New Preston church steeple, but insisting on a 150 ft. tall structure on Rabbit Hill Road. Atty. Fisher noted the company was trying to utilize and existing structure in New Preston and would achieve less coverage due to the lower height.
Mr. Tracy asked why a tower could not be constructed at the silo site at the Tanner farm. Ms. Gaudet again stated the most appropriate area for a tower on the Tanner property was protected farmland and so was unavailable under the terms of the state protection program. Mr. Tracy said he wanted the tower to be located away from people's houses and so did not care if it was on state land.
A resident noted how the Town's hilly terrain makes it difficult to achieve total coverage. She also questioned whether the companies were doing enough planning for the future to ensure the maximum coverage with the least amount of facilities throughout Town. She suggested the Town embrace satellite technology. Mr. Martin said the Siting Council would not consider such a suggestion. Atty. Fisher noted Congress had decided a terrestrial based system was needed by the public and so must be deployed. He noted satellite technology is not the same as wireless service.
Mrs. Tracy read a letter voicing concerns from Mr. and Mrs. Day, property owners within 750 feet of the proposed site. She then said she was concerned about the health of her two small children and about the devaluation of her property, which could be up to 30% and which would occur once the tower was built. She told AT&T she did not agree with their position that the Town should find alternate sites to be considered; she said it was AT&T's responsibility to find alternate locations that were not in established neighborhoods. She said other options AT&T should consider were extensions on utility and telephone poles, Mt. Tom, larger tracts of land owned by the state, the lower silo at the Tanner farm, and repeaters. For the record, she submitted a letter she had written.
Someone asked if AT&T's objective was to limit the number of towers erected. Atty. Fisher responded the objective was to limit the number in a way that would not prevent carriers from providing service.
Someone asked if the New Preston firehouse was used as a tower site whether a lower tower would be needed on Rabbit Hill Road. Mr. Martin pointed out the Town's propagation study showed comparable coverage from the church steeple and firehouse locations. Atty. Fisher noted the Town had evaluated the coverage from a 100 ft. tower at the firehouse, but AT&T had not verified that a taller tower would not be required. He said the Town would have to submit the coordinates of the site so that it could be evaluated.
Mr. Martin noted the Warren First Selectman had asked AT&T to delay its application until the spring and asked what the response would be. Atty. Fisher said he had not received any request from Warren, but would consider it if/when it is submitted. He again stated he did not think there would be a major impact on wildlife in the area, and therefore, he was not sure what wildlife studies would accomplish.
Ms. Levitt asked how soon the application would be submitted to the Siting Council. Atty. Leary noted he had agreed in writing to extend the period in which to receive input to January 31st.
Mr. Tracy read a letter he wrote to the Commission, which stated Rabbit Hill residents already have full AT&T wireless service and so the new tower is not needed. He listed many areas in Town where his AT&T cell phone already works. He voiced his opposition to all cell towers in residential neighborhoods and asked that alternate technologies and power sources be investigated. He also thought it was AT&T's responsibility, not the Town's, to find alternate sites in non residential areas. He noted there is a lot of open space in both Washington and Warren and suggested an appropriate tower location could be found there.
Mrs. Chapin submitted a letter she wrote and one from Mrs. Sivick for the record.
Mrs. Tracy asked if her letter would be forwarded to all Zoning Commission members, AT&T, and the Siting Council. Mr. Martin said it would. She then asked if the Zoning Commission did not amend its Regulations to allow a telecommunication facility in the New Preston Church steeple, would AT&T put the Rabbit Hill site on hold and complete a "build out" in a more logical fashion. Atty. Fisher argued AT&T already does its build outs in a logical fashion and said unless the Town had specific alternate sites to suggest, it had no other sites to consider that would provide equal service to the public. He indicated AT&T would move forward with this application.
Mr. Chapin noted many alternatives had been suggested at the hearing including, lengthening the driveway to move the tower farther from Rabbit Hill Road and using Mt. Tom. He told AT&T it had to explore these and the other possibilities mentioned. Mr. Martin agreed the public should be assured its suggestions for alternatives would be considered in a good faith manner. Atty. Fisher noted that AT&T could not take into account every suggestion made by the public tonight. He would look to the Town of Washington to tell AT&T what alternatives it should consider.
Ms. Levitt suggested AT&T approach Waterbury about leasing a site on water company land. This would provide coverage along both Rt. 341 and Rt. 202 and could be easily linked with Mohawk Mt. and Litchfield.

Mr. Martin thanked everyone for the comments made and adjourned the public hearing at 12:10 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO

January 13, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Luckey, Mr. Solley
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Shannon, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Cannavarro, Mr. Anderson, Mr./Mrs. Frenkel, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Sears, Mrs. Condon, Mr. Tagley, Mr./Mrs. Osborne, Atty. Fairbairn, Mr. Dutton, Mr. Boling, Ms. Pring, Mr. Woodruff, Mrs. Werner, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Chapin, Mrs. Tracy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Millington, Mr. Meyers, Press, Residents
Washington Montessori School-Washington Community Housing Trust/ 16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing/ Continuation of Public Hearing

Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert. He noted 35 documents had been added to the file since the 12/16/02 session of the public hearing and read the list for the record. (See attached list.) He noted the 5/16/02 report by R.J. Black and Son addressed the questions raised at the last meeting, the entire Plan of Development had already been entered for the record, and the 1/5/03 site inspection minutes should be added to the list. He read the 1/10/03 memo from Mrs. Johnson, Assessor, which stated there have been no reductions in the assessments of properties adjacent to or surrounding local affordable housing complexes.
Mr. Sears, WCHT President, said he had no statement to make at this time, but might make a summary statement later.
Mr. Boling read his 1/12/03 letter to the Commission regarding his recommendations for modifications to the application to minimize the adverse impact to the neighborhood. He submitted the following documents: 1) "The Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research," by Rohe, Van Zandt, and McCarthy, dated October 2001, and 2) "Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality," by A. Smith, dated October 2002,.
Mrs. Boyer read her 1/13/03 letter in support.
Mr. Martin read the 1/9/03 memo from Commissioner Fitzherbert who was not able to attend the meeting. In general he thought the proposed buildings would greatly improve the appearance of the property, the proposed use for the old school was a good one, and the complex would enhance the neighborhood. His recommendations included:

The facility's contract should contain a provision it will utilize the lower entrance with the upper entrance reserved for service and emergency access only.
The courtyard should be kept clear of structures.
The sidewalks and handicapped accesses should not be asphalt.
Playground equipment and barbeques should be owned by the WCHT, shared by tenants, and kept out of the courtyard.
Traffic safety measures should be implemented including lower speed limit signs to be posted by the Town.

Mr. Shannon spoke on behalf of New Preston residents. He submitted: "New Preston, 16 Church Street Proposed Apartment Complex Development, Hearing Continuation 1/13/03, 8 pp. and "Recent Developments Under Connecticut's Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act," by J. Williams, dated April 2002. He informed the Commission official state records indicate the Town already has 10.26% affordable housing and that this was confirmed by Rep. O'Neill, the state library, and the Dept. of Economic and Community Development. He maintained, therefore, that the appeals procedure should not be available to the WCHT and that the proposal should be made to comply with the Town's density regulations. He questioned the economic viability of the project. He complained there was no septic reserve system so that if the septic system failed it would leach onto adjacent properties and into the East Aspetuck River. He also compared the existing traffic at the Montessori School to the anticipated traffic that twelve units would generate and found while the school is now congested for five to ten minutes in the morning and afternoon, he estimated the apartments would cause two hours of traffic problems each day. He again stated the area residents were not against affordable housing, but were against this proposal, which they felt was too dense for the neighborhood and would cause traffic, safety, and health hazards. He advised the Commission it had the authority to reduce the number of units when doing so would not impact the viability of the project and said traffic and public safety issues were grounds for denial, which had held up in court.
Mr. Millington spoke in support of the application and stressed the importance of providing housing opportunities for young people and commuters. He feared Washington was becoming a gated community.
Mrs. Rourke stated she was not against affordable housing, but thought the scale of this proposed development would negatively impact the neighborhood.
Mrs. Shannon said property values in her neighborhood would be more directly impacted than for those properties surrounding Dodge Farm because the houses near Dodge Farm are further away and have significant buffers.
Mr. Boling noted the WCHT's architectural design was good, but modifications were needed so the character of the existing neighborhood would not be spoiled.
Mr. Owen asked what the WCHT thought of Mr. Boling's ideas for making some of the units market rate rents or limited equity. Mr. Sears said condo units might be considered in the future.
Mr. Martin asked the Trust to address the issue of residential diversity and whether the complex would be a segregated community. Atty. Fairbairn compared the proposed complex to twelve existing apartments on The Green. He noted he lives next to The Green and said the residents in these apartments have no negative impact on the area. Mr. Boyer stated the WCHT's charter clearly states its purpose is to provide affordable housing, but noted the affordable housing definition allows for a great variety in rents.
Mrs. Rourke noted the apartments on The Green were not affordable housing and so were not comparable to the proposed units. She also noted the seven Woodruff House apartments were located in an existing house.
Mr. Jonathan Woodruff thought the WCHT should find a more appropriate larger parcel instead of crowding all the units on this smaller piece.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Shapiro to address the issue of statistics as Mr. Dutton had submitted a letter and documents to the Commission stating that Washington already had 10.26% affordable housing. Mr. Shapiro read his 1/13/03 memo to the Commission, which stated a Department of Economic and Community Development employee informed him the Dept's website is incorrect because it attributes 176 governmentally assisted units to Washington, but these units properly belong to Waterbury. Making this adjustment, Washington has only 19 assisted units, not 181. His memo included a copy of the Dept's draft updated list. Mr. Shapiro informed the Commission 19 of the 1764 dwelling units in Washington, 1.08%, are affordable under the state statutes and so Washington is not exempt from the State Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. Mr. Martin noted the Town must continually check the accuracy of state data, must make sure that affordable units in Town receive official credit from the State, and noted for the Town to be officially declared exempt, it must go through a certification process, which it had not done. He thanked Mr. Dutton for his research, which brought these issues to light.
Responding to Mr. Fitzherbert's recommendations, Mr. Sears said he would consider using only the lower driveway for access by apartment residents. It was believed most residents would use this entrance anyway, but it was questioned how this could be enforced without erecting a gate at the upper entrance. Mr. Sears and Mr. Talbot, architect, commented the courtyard would absolutely be kept open because that was a major design concept for the complex. They said it would be used as a play area and would be kept free of clutter. Mr. Sears said barbeques had not been considered, but private areas for them would be designed. He also thought a driveway speed bump was a reasonable request and agreed the walkways would not be asphalt. Mr. Martin asked whether the Town would be willing to install additional speed limit signs on Town roads in the area and Mrs. Luckey stated it would. Mr. Shannon thought there should be speed bumps on the town roads, too.
Mr. Tagley asked if the Commission could deny the application if it determined substantial public interest would be harmed by the proposal. Mr. Martin noted at the last meeting Town Counsel had reviewed the criteria for a denial and said the Commission would follow his advice. He read the relevant section of Atty. Byrne's 12/11/02 letter.
Mr. Anderson asked the Commission to consider decreasing the number of units to lessen traffic and safety concerns.
Mrs. Friedman referred to the 5/16/02 letter from Mr. Black, which noted there was a water pressure problem in this area, and she asked who would be responsible for the upgrade. Mrs. Rourke, President of the New Preston Water Company, said a $100,000 upgrade of the New Preston Hill Road/Church Street/ Hinckley Road portion of the system would be required if the WCHT application is approved. Mr. Martin noted the groundwater supply and the drilled well were adequate, but the distribution and piping were not. He asked if STEAP funds could be used for the needed repairs. Mrs. Luckey said these public funds could not be used to make repairs for a private company. However, Mrs. Luckey and Mr. Solley both confirmed these funds could be used for filling in and fixing the roads once the repairs were made. Mr. Martin noted whatever upgrades are needed, the work will require State DPH approval. He noted the water supply is an important issue and if the affordable housing project were to be approved the Commission should make DPH approval of the water system, after taking into account the increased demand load of the affordable housing project, a condition of approval. Mr. Sears stated the WCHT could be a partner and help finance the repairs with a low interest loan.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the NW sight line could be improved by cutting back the existing building. Mr. Talbot responded the shed addition would be removed, but there were no plans to take any more off as that part of the building contained two dwelling units. He thought traffic speed would increase in this area if sight lines were improved.
Mr. Martin asked if there would be an on site manager or whether a managerial service would be hired. Atty. Fairbairn said the complex would be better managed if the manager was on site to enforce the rules. Mr. Martin suggested the WCHT could save money by eliminating the office. Mr. Fairbairn noted Kent uses a managerial service, but has an on site office anyway.
Mrs. Friedman asked if lighting had been addressed. It was noted photos of low level lights had been submitted and their locations were indicated on the site plan.
There were no further questions or comments from the public or the Commissioners. Mr. Martin declared the public hearing closed at 8:55 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.
Special Meeting
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 Special Meeting to order at 8:56 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin noted the Commission could 1) deny the application, 2) approve the application, or 3) approve the application with a major modification such as decreasing the number of units. He said the Commission could require a modification to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. He asked the Commissioners for their thoughts.

Mr. Brinton thought the application should be approved or denied without consideration of downsizing.
Ms. Page and Mr Owen agreed, noting the Commission should not design for the applicant.
Mrs. Friedman thought the number of units could be decreased without much impact and thought the apartment for the manager was a luxury.
Mr. Shapiro thought the Commission was extremely constrained by and its discretion limited by the State Act. He said it could not require downsizing if other reasonable changes could be made to address the traffic problem. He said if the traffic situation could be improved without changing the scope of the project he would vote to approve it as is, but if it could not be improved he would vote to downsize.

Mr. Martin summarized the Commissioners had indicated they would vote to approve or vote to approve with modifications, but no one had indicated the application should be denied. Mr. Owen briefly reviewed Mr. Boling's reasons for denial listed in his 1/13/03 letter, but found none of them provided adequate grounds for denial. He noted, too, that septic concerns were not a zoning issue. Mr. Martin agreed, saying the septic system had been approved by both the state and local health departments. Mr. Martin thought the two major issues to be considered were adequate water supply and traffic. Mr. Owen thought the area could absorb twelve units, noting Dodge Farm has more units and does not cause a hazard at the intersection with Rt. 109. He also did not think the apartments would worsen the safety of the neighborhood, and in fact, thought traffic and safety in the area would improve when the school moves. Mr. Martin thought water supply could have been a major problem if groundwater had been determined to be inadequate, but noted it was found to be adequate and the system would require approval by the DPH based on the increased demand load. Ms. Page agreed water supply was not an issue, but disagreed with Mr. Owen that traffic problems were not significant. She thought the traffic issues were so important they could be used as a basis for requiring downsizing. Mr. Shapiro questioned whether there were other more reasonable changes that could be made such as stricter enforcement of speed limits, more traffic signs, installation of speed bumps, etc. that would improve the problem without downsizing. Mr. Brinton disagreed with Mr. Owen on both issues, saying the Commission should not defer to the Department of Public Health and there would be a legitimate safety issue because the hours of traffic would change. Mr. Martin also noted the Conservation Commission had found no major environmental issues and the Inland Wetlands Commission found it unnecessary to require a permit.
There was a brief discussion regarding the water system. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that if the Commission voted to approve the application the approval motion would include the condition that prior to the commencement of construction the State Department of Public Health must approve the New Preston Water Company system after taking into account the increase in demand caused by the additional new WCHT units.
There was a lengthy discussion about traffic concerns. Ms. Page and Mr. Brinton thought traffic was a major issue because the pattern would change from the current school use pattern and would not be predictable as it is for the school. Mr. Owen and Mr. Abella thought the school already generates a lot of traffic and there would not be an increase with twelve apartments. Ms. Page thought even if there was already a lot of traffic in the area, it was the Commission's responsibility to improve it. Mr. Owen again stated he did not think traffic was a major problem. Mr. Martin noted the road widths and sight lines in this area were not much different than those on other roads in Town so to be concerned about traffic here would mean one should be concerned about traffic all over Town. Mr. Shapiro recommended a traffic safety plan, perhaps using Mr. Fitzherbert's recommendation re: the use of the lower driveway as the sole residential access, crosswalk requirements, etc., be made a condition of approval. Mr. Martin thought this was a good idea, but cautioned the public hearing had been closed and any plan or conditions would have to be crafted by the Zoning Commission without using outside input.
Mr. Martin asked the Commissioners to consider whether they thought the traffic was such a serious health and safety issue that the application should be denied, whether it was a problem that could be managed by traffic safety conditions, or whether it was not a serious problem and the application should be approved as is. It was the consensus that there should not be an outright approval without conditions.
Mr. Martin asked what the conditions should be, a decrease in the number of units or submission of traffic safety conditions. Ms. Page wanted to postpone the vote to the next meeting. Mr. Shapiro stated he had not heard any evidence that downsizing would not impair the financial viability of the project and therefore, he thought the condition imposed should be a set of traffic safety conditions to ameliorate any potential traffic problems. Mr. Martin asked how many Commissioners would agree to an approval containing such a condition. All agreed except Mr. Brinton who said he had no faith in a traffic plan and thought a reduction in the number of units would not improve the traffic problems because the time of the traffic was a more serious issue than the volume of traffic. Mrs. Friedman agreed it was questionable whether reduction in the number of units would affect the traffic. Mr. Martin reviewed the state statutes and asked Mr. Brinton if he thought the public interest outweighed the Town's need for affordable housing. Mr. Brinton responded he did think public safety in this case outweighed the need for affordable housing. He also noted that a traffic comparison with Dodge Farm was not comparable because in New Preston an entire neighborhood would be affected. Ms. Page stated she would like both the condition of a traffic safety plan and a reduction in the number of units, but added she was not sure how to determine how many units should be deleted. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Abella thought the Commission should focus on reasonable modifications to help control the traffic problem rather than on a reduction of the number of units. Mr. Owen agreed. He said he was not comfortable with downsizing, that if traffic was a substantial public interest it was the Commission's duty to deny the application rather than redesign it. Ms. Page stated she did not think the Commission was qualified to know what modifications would improve the traffic, nor did she think it qualified to determine how many units should be deleted and so suggested the Commission deny the application due to public safety concerns. Mrs. Friedman said she thought traffic safety was a compelling issue and so would vote for denial should the vote be taken tonight. Mr. Brinton thought the applicant should withdraw and resubmit with revisions rather than expecting the Commission to solve its problems. Mr. Owen noted Town Counsel had attended the first session of the hearing and had heard no issues sufficient to support a denial based on public safety concerns. Mr. Martin confirmed that had been his determination. Mr. Shapiro noted whatever decision was made by the Commission, it must be supported in the record. Mr. Martin again read the criteria listed in Atty. Byrne's 12/11/03 letter and stated he did not see anything in the record that supported the position that the traffic from the twelve proposed units would be so great that it outweighed the need for affordable housing. He said he favored a condition that would manage the traffic concerns.
Discussion continued about whether there was a compromise that could be reached, whether conditions could be written to address everyone's concerns. Ms. Page thought the number of units should be reduced by half. Mr. Shapiro cautioned against this as the Commission did not have information on record to show that cutting the project in half would not affect its viability. Mr. Abella recommended the Commission's consideration of safety measures to improve the traffic situation begin with Mr. Fitzherbert's idea that only the lower driveway should be used by residents. Mr. Brinton again stated the applicant should withdraw and resubmit a plan, which includes traffic safety measures. Mr. Martin said the Commission had the authority to require the applicant to make modifications to minimize the traffic safety issue as a condition of approval. Mrs. Friedman said such safety measures went beyond the scope of the Zoning Commission and any improvements on Town roads would have to be OK'd by the Selectmen and Road Foreman.
A lengthy discussion ensued about whether traffic concerns were significant enough upon which to base a denial. Based on the rationale of the state statutes, Mr. Martin said he did not think there was enough on the record for a denial. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Owen agreed. Mr. Brinton and Ms. Page thought traffic safety concerns were enough upon which to base a denial.
Conditions of approval were discussed. Mr. Martin noted the following were reasonable and customary conditions:

that all lighting be aimed downward, directed away from adjoining properties, and use the lowest wattage possible consistent with provisions for adequate safety and security
any changes to the buffering/screening plan by Mr. Sabin be approved by the Conservation Commission
no increase in the number of bedrooms would be permitted
a density per bedroom would be specified to ensure there would not be too many residents per bedroom
the lower driveway be used as the access for the residents and the upper driveway used for service and emergency access only
speed bumps be installed in the driveway
the courtyard is to remain clear of all structures
handicapped accesses and other walkways are not to be constructed of asphalt
barbeques and playground equipment shall not proliferate on site
prior to commencement of construction the State Department of Public Health and local health department, after taking into account the increased demand of the project, must approve the system upgrade for the New Preston Water Company.

There were no objections to any of these conditions.
Mr. Martin asked the Commissioners if a consensus could be reached tonight. Ms. Page responded traffic concerns should be addressed by downsizing the number of units by half, which would in turn reduce the number of vehicles. Mr. Owen thought the Commission could vote to approve the application when a reasonable condition was written to address traffic concerns. Although not convinced traffic is a serious problem, he recognized the need for a traffic condition, but questioned whether Mr. Fitzherbert's recommendations were the best solution. Mrs. Friedman thought the WCHT could be more flexible in the number of units proposed; for example, it could reduce the number of proposed units if it increased rents. She thought 8 or 9 units was reasonable. Mr. Shapiro thought the Commission could draft a traffic condition similar to the water supply condition. There was a suggestion that the Commission obtain advice from a traffic consultant, but it was noted the public hearing had been closed.
Mr. Martin proposed three trial motions to determine whether a consensus could be reached tonght.
1. Approve with the condition the project be downsized to 6 units: Ms. Page for, all others seated against.
2. Approve with the condition the project be downsized to 9 units: Mrs. Friedman for, all others seated against.
3. Approve with with no downsizing but with a condition to address traffic concerns: Ms. Page and Mrs. Friedman against, the other three Members seated for.
Mr. Martin said he would like to try for more of a consensus not just for consensus sake, but also to see if a better solution could be developed that would merit more support. The Commissioners agreed. He said he would contact Atty. Byrne for help in understanding the traffic problem and advice on the degree to which outside input may be used regarding the wording of an appropriate condition concerning traffic. Thus, he would adjourn the meeting without a vote tonight.
Mr. Martin thanked the Commissioners for their input and diligence in considering this application. It was decided to schedule a Special Meeting on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall to continue consideration of the application.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Meetings in 2002