The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2003
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission, 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 theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Zoning Commission
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. McGowanPUBLIC 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, PressPUBLIC 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, PressPUBLIC 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, PressPUBLIC 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. BaldwinMr. 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, ResidentsPUBLIC 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, PressPUBLIC 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 w