The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2004
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2004 |
|
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 20 •November 22 •October 25 •September 27 •August 23 •July 26 •June 28 •May 24 •April 26 •March 29 •March 22 •February 23 •January 26 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
December 20, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Connolly, Mr. Lasar, Mr. J. Ross, PressPUBLIC HEARING
Connolly/249 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1/ Addition-Alteration to Existing Commercial Building/Con't.
Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella, noting they had all attended the first session of the hearing on November 22. He also noted the seated Members except for Mr. Abella had conducted a site inspection on November 26. Mr. Abella noted although he had not attended that inspection, he had viewed the property on his own.
Mr. Martin said he thought the proposal was harmonious with the neighborhood. He stated there was adequate existing parking without disturbing the north side (St. Andrew's Church side) of the property and suggested if additional parking was needed in the future, the best location would be in the rear on the south side of the lot. He noted Mr. Owen has often stated in the past that the Commission should not require more parking spaces than are actually needed.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the Commission should require an additional hedge between this and the Post Office property. Mr. Ajello pointed out that a dumpster with a surrounding fence would provide a partial buffer. Mr. Owen and Mr. Martin thought due to the nature of the existing adjacent commercial uses, there was no need to install an additional buffer between the two properties.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the owner planned to pave the processed stone parking lot and driveway in the future, noting she would like it to remain stone. Mr. Connolly said the existing lot has been gravel since 1988 and he had no plans to pave it.
Mr. Martin stated the proposal was in keeping with the intent of the development options for Marbledale as specified in sections 9.5 and 9.6 of the Regulations.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1 submitted by David Connolly, Inc. for an addition and alterations to the existing commercial building at 249 New Milford Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded By Mrs. Friedman, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Brinton for Mr. Fitzherbert and Ms. Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 11/22/04 Regular Meeting minutes and the 11/26/04 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Pending Matters
Connolly/249 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1/ Addition-Alteration of Existing Commercial Building:
Mr. Brinton was not seated for this agenda item.
It was the consensus to approve the application with the understanding that if additional parking is needed in the future another application will be required.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1 submitted by David Connolly, Inc. for an addition and alterations to the existing commercial building at 249 New Milford Turnpike with the condition that there be no change to the existing parking on the north side (St. Andrew's Church side) of the property. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 4-0.
First Washington Capital, LLC.(Matthews)/89 Lower Church Hill Road/Single Family Dwelling and Inground Pool: Mr. Ajello noted his 12/20/04 ZEO Report included the following three letters concerning the Matthews' application: 1) the 12/10/04 letter from Mr. Bellantoni, Ct. State Archeologist, recommending the entire parcel be included in an archeological survey, 2) the 12/17/04 letter from Mr. Ajello to Mr. and Mrs. Matthews advising them of all the missing documentation in their application, and 3) the 12/17/04 letter from Mrs. Corrigan, Conservation Commission raising concerns about the impact of the proposed development. He listed the reasons why the application is incomplete and said it had been reported in the Hartford Courant that Mr. Matthew's attorney stated the application would be withdrawn. However, because the Commission has not yet received a written request for withdrawal, he advised the Commission to proceed according to the state timeline requirements. Mr. Martin recommended the Commission conduct a public hearing to consider the application given the town wide interest shown and the complexity of the environmental issues.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing to consider the application submitted by First Washington Capital, LLC. to construct a single family dwelling and pool at 89 Lower Church Hill Road on January 24, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Ajello noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had requested an application, which it would not receive until January 12th at the earliest. Mr. Martin pointed out that the 12/17 Conservation Commission letter referred to Section 22a-19 of the state statutes and he read a section of that statute regarding impairment of the public trust in the air, water, or other natural resources of the state. He noted the Conservation letter alleged that environmental damage could occur as a result of this proposed project.
New Application
Ross/24 Wilbur Road/Special Permit: Section ***/Construct Retail Establishment and Housing in the Business District: Mr. Ajello noted the application was in order and a public hearing could be scheduled. The hearing was set for Monday, January 24, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room. It will be the third hearing held that evening.
Other Business
Revision of the Sign Regulations/Section 16: Mrs. Friedman reported she had completed a first draft, which would be reviewed by Mr. Brinton and Mrs. Hill before it is given to the Commission for review.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Sears, First Selectman, thanked the Commission for its work throughout the year including its efforts to implement the Plan of Conservation and Development and for conducting its business in a fair and professional manner.
Communications
Regulations for Viewshed Protection: Mr. Martin summarized the discussion to date. Mr. Sinclair had explained the methodology he would use to prepare a map of the priority viewsheds to be protected throughout Town, but was waiting for the Commission to prioritize the views to be preserved. More than thirty percent of the Town had been designated as scenic viewsheds in the Natural Resource Inventory Report, and Mr. Martin explained this must be narrowed down for any viewshed regulations to be effective. He said he had talked with Mrs. Payne, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, who offered to have the Conservation Commission work on prioritizing the views. He appreciated this input and looked forward to receiving its recommendations.
Zoning Regulations for Driveways on Discontinued Town Roads: Mr. Sears noted Mr. Boling had worked on draft zoning regulations to govern driveways over discontinued Town roads. Mr. Martin said he had seen the draft, but had not yet shared it with the Zoning Commission because he did not know whether the Board of Selectmen supported it and he thought perhaps this matter might be more appropriately addressed by a town ordinance. He thought it was important to first get input from the Selectmen because they have the ultimate responsibility for discontinuing roads. He noted the Commission would be happy to work with the Board of Selectmen on this issue.
Ambient Lighting: The Commission was generally concerned about the growing problem of excess lighting on residential properties because it undermines the preservation of rural character. Mrs. Payne noted it also is unnatural, wastes energy, and disrupts the natural wildlife habitat. Mr. Owen suggested the Commission encourage use of appropriate lighting rather than regulating it by educating the public with a brochure handed out with each zoning application. Mrs. Friedman thought regulations were important so complaints could be enforced. Information and regulations about lighting in other towns will be reviewed and the Commission will discuss this topic after it has completed its work to revise Section 16.
Mr. Martin briefly updated Mrs. Payne on the discussions held before she arrived regarding Matthews/89 Lower Church Hill Road and viewshed protection. Mrs. Payne said Conservation has a two person subcommittee to begin work on prioritizing viewsheds and thought that recommendations could be ready in two months. Both Mr. Martin and Mrs. Payne agreed the viewshed regulations would not be a tool for preventing construction of home sites, but would be used to make sure homeowners design their sites in an environmentally sensitive manner. Mr. Ajello asked if the viewshed regulations would apply to all views or only those views on a specific list. Mr. Martin said the regulations would begin by covering only the important views from the most publicly frequented areas in Town and they would be identified on a prioritized natural resource viewshed map.
Mr. Martin said he appreciated all the work done by the Zoning Commissioners this year, and they in turn thanked him for the work he has done as Chairman.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
November 22, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Brinton
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Lasar, Mr. Swanson, Mr. Charles, PressPUBLIC HEARINGS
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.7.3.1, 12.5.2, 21.1.4/Height of Accessory and Primary Buildings
Mr. Martin called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Fitzherbert, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/10/04 and 11/17/04. Mr. Martin read the list of documents in the file and read the 10/7/04 memo from Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. Council of Govt's.
Mr. Martin briefly explained the proposed revisions to reduce the total vertical height of primary structures from 45 feet to 40 feet and to provide more flexibility in the regulations regarding the relationship between the height of accessory and primary structures. He said the revision to decrease the maximum height to 40 feet addressed a concern raised in the Plan of Conservation and Development and would bring Washington into line with other towns. Also, the 40 ft. limit would not unduly restrict the slope of a roof as steeper sloped roofs are often used in this region. Secondly, under the proposed language an accessory structure such as a barn could be taller than the primary structure as long as it is smaller in ground floor area and volume than the primary structure.
After taking into consideration Mr. McGuiness's comments and having consulted with the land use attorney, Mr. Martin recommended the following: 1) the term, "scale," be deleted throughout the proposed revisions, 2) the term, "volume," be retained because it is more clearly understood, 3) a provision that accessory buildings be limited to 75% of the size of the primary structure on the same lot be added to Section 12.5.2, 4) clarifications to the height chart and table be incorporated, and 5) a definition of ground floor area be added to Section 21. It was agreed the following sentence would be added to 12.5.2: The ground floor area and volume for an accessory structure shall not exceed 75% of the ground floor area and volume of the principal structure. Mr. Owen noted there could be instances where the principal structure is not a building, and so recommended "structure" be changed to "building" in this section. All agreed. In keeping with this recommendation, Mr. Owen further suggested the definition of accessory building be clarified and changed to: a building whose use is subordinate to the principal use on the property and which is smaller in ground floor area and volume than the principal building on the same property. In Section 11.7 a reference to the height chart and table will be added for clarification with the following sentence; Standards shown in the accompanying height chart and table are incorporated into these Regulations. In Section 11.7.2.2 a typo was corrected so that Section 11.7.3.2 will become 11.7.2.2. Also in Section 11.7.2.2 the following sentence will be added: See the accompanying height chart and table for the maximum mean height allowed by roof design. The height chart and table will be given a section number and incorporated into the Regulations. Mr. Martin pointed out that although flexibility is being added to the height restriction for accessory buildings, they could still not exceed 26 feet in height. Mr. Lasar thought this was still too restrictive for barns, but Mr. Martin explained that barns used for agricultural purposes were exempted.
There were no other comments or questions raised.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Sections 11.7.3.1, 12.5.2, 21.1.4 re: height of primary and accessory buildings. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
David Connolly, Inc./249 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1/Addition to Existing Commercial Building
Mr. Martin called the hearing to order at 8:03 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/10 and 11/17/04.
Mr. Lasar, architect, summarized the proposal for a one story commercial addition to be used as office space and light manufacturing in the Marbledale Business District and submitted a report entitled, "Special Permit Application for B-3 Marbledale Business District," revised to 11/21/04. He stated he was applying for the development options 9.5.1; 43.4% lot coverage and 9.5.2; 5400 total sq. ft. of buildings on the site. The map, "Site Plan," by CCA, LLC., 2 sheets, dated 9/10/04 and floor plans dated 9/22/04 by Stephen Lasar Architects were reviewed. Mr. Martin explained in order for the applicant to be granted flexibility under Section 9.5, he must show that he has met the additional criteria for site and building design listed in Section 9/6. Mr. Lasar stated he had done so.
Mr. Martin read the 11/22/04 ZEO Report.
The following issues were discussed:
Parking: Mr. Ajello recommended the required parking be computed under Section 15.2.9 because the facility will be used to manufacture jewelry. 23 parking spaces were proposed, although Mr. Lasar stated only 21 were required. He said that because many of the employees travel, they would not be there at the same time. Processed stone was proposed for the driveway and parking areas. The existing walkway will be used. Use: Mr. Lasar noted there would be office space and light manufacturing, but no retail activity. Coverage: Mr. Lasar stated the applicant met the criteria in Section 9.6 and so applied for 43.4% coverage. (25% is normally permitted.) Mr. Owen supported the request for increased lot coverage, noting the expansion of a local business was beneficial to the Town. Preservation of a historic structure/Architecture: Mr. Lasar said the existing building would be restored and that the architecture of the proposed addition was harmonious with and subordinate to the main building. The addition would be lower than the main portion and slightly set back. It would be brick so that it would not detract from the existing building and would "refer" to the church, which is also brick. A computer rendering of the addition was circulated. Mr. Owen noted the existing building looked residential and blended in with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Lasar said this would not change except a handicapped ramp is required. Buffering/Landscaping: Mr. Lasar noted the existing building would serve as a buffer between the addition and the church and that there is already buffering between this property and the Post Office lot. He proposed to take down one tree and to plant against the building. He did not think planting to screen the front was appropriate due to sight line requirements for pulling out of the driveway. Setbacks: Mr. Lasar stated the proposal met all setback requirements. It was noted four certified notices to adjoining property owners had been mailed and four green receipt cards had been received.
Mr. Martin noted the regulations had been written to encourage this type of project. There was a discussion concerning whether the Commission should approve the application contingent upon future additional landscaping or whether it should inspect the property and act at the next meeting. Because this was only the second application received under Section 9.5; Development Options Permitted by Special Permit, and the Commission wanted to review options for landscaping and parking configuration, a site inspection was scheduled for Friday, November 26, 2004 at 10:30 a.m.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1 submitted by David Connolly, Inc. for an addition to an existing commercial building at 249 New Milford Turnpike to December 20, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington, Ct. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tapes are 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 8:37 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 10/25/04 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Pending Matters
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.7.3.1, 12.5.2, and 21.1.4/Height of Primary and Accessory Buildings: The Commissioners approved the proposed revisions as discussed at the public hearing.
MOTION: To approve the revisions regarding height of primary and accessory buildings to Sections 11.7.3.1, 12.5.2, and 21.1.4 of the Washington Zoning Regulations as amended in the discussion at the 11/22/04 public hearing, including: 1) delete the term, "scale," throughout the proposed amendment, 2) add the definition of "ground floor area," to Section 21, 3) add the following sentence to 12.5.2, "The ground floor area and volume of an accessory building shall not exceed 75% of the ground floor area and volume of the principal building, 4) edit the definition of accessory building to: a building whose use is subordinate to the principal use on the property and which is smaller in ground floor area and volume than the principal building on the same property, 5) change the term accessory structure to accessory building throughout the proposed amendments, and 6) clarify the references to the height chart and table in Section 11.7 and incorporate the table into the text. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0
David Connolly, Inc./249 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1/Addition to Existing Commercial Building: The public hearing was continued to the next meeting.
New Application
Camp/101 Gunn Hill Road/First Cut: This application was incomplete because it had not been signed off by the Health Department and so was not accepted by the Commission.
Other Business
Section 16: Sign Regulations: It was noted that input had not yet been received from the Washington Business Assoc., (WBA). Mr. Martin recommended Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Brinton begin work on proposed revisions with the understanding that the WBA would have opportunities for input in the future. Mrs. Friedman asked if enforcement of the sign regulations had begun. Mr. Ajello said it had not due to his current high enforcement workload. It was noted that several businesses have complied with the regulations since receiving notification from the Commission. Mrs. Hill also noted that several institutions were now complying. Mr. Martin thanked them for their voluntary compliance.
Housing Diversity Discussion: An outline reviewing the Commission's previous discussions was discussed and is attached to the minutes. Mr. Martin noted several months ago the Commission had decided to wait for input from the Housing Diversity Committee before moving forward on this issue. He recently spoke with Mr. Fairbairn, committee chairman, however, who informed him that while the committee strongly supports measures that would increase housing diversity in Town, its main focus is on Town supported affordable housing. Mr. Martin said there had been some support for age restricted senior housing as a way of limiting possible unintended consequences of allowing multifamily units. Several commissioners, however, had voiced a preference that the market place decide who would live in these units. He noted that the best way to handle unintended consequences is by limiting the number of units that could be permitted. He proposed to begin the discussion by suggesting the maximum number of multifamily units per project be limited to 12 in the residential districts and 24 in commercial districts, noting the Commission had previously approved 11 units in New Preston, 12 units of affordable senior housing in Riverwoods, and 14 units in Dodge Farm, all of which had been in residential districts and were able to be assimilated into their surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Owen suggested the Commission begin by first permitting multifamily units only in the commercial districts to see what the consequences would be before allowing them in the residential districts. Mr. Martin noted this would be in keeping with recommendations in the Plan of Conservation and Development, which call for housing diversity priority in or near the village centers. Mrs. Friedman agreed with Mr. Owen, saying property owners in the residential districts had purchased their homes in part because they liked the appearance of their neighborhoods and so she was concerned about the potential for multifamily developments in the residential areas of Town. She said she was more concerned with appearance than she was with traffic impact. Mr. Shapiro thought any new regulation should ensure multifamily units would be located throughout Town and not concentrated in any one area. Mr. Abella thought 24 units was too many, even if restricted to the commercial districts. Mr. Owen suggested in addition to beginning with the commercial districts, the Commission should study whether these districts could be reconfigured to slightly expand them. Mr. Fitzherbert liked the idea of multifamily options in the commercial districts due to the ease of pedestrian access, and agreed with Mr. Owen that the current size of these districts would be very restrictive. Mr. Charles pointed out another way to control the size of multifamily developments would be based on the septic requirements. He said anything more than 5000 gallons per day (33 bedrooms) must be approved by the DEP rather than the local Health Department. He suggested clustering of single family units be included in any revisions. Mr. Martin pointed out that if multifamily units were allowed only in the commercial districts, applications for developments in residential districts could still be made under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act, and the Zoning Commission would have no control over them. He suggested the transition zone adjoining the Marbledale District, which was proposed in the Plan of Development, might be a suitable area in which to allow multifamily housing. Mr. Sears noted in reality the potential build-out in the existing business districts is very limited and asked the Commission to consider the issue of density as it affects affordability. Mr. Owen thought flexibility in density, setbacks, etc. would be needed in the village centers. Mr. Fitzherbert said that locating units in the commercial districts would help to keep them affordable. It was noted that when the Elsworth apartments and 16 Church Street units are certified by the state as affordable, the Town will have over 2% affordable units and may become eligible for a 4 year moratorium period during which local land use regulations would have jurisdiction over multifamily development applications. The Commissioners discussed what cap should be put on the number of units to be permitted per project and whether a percentage should be required to be reserved as affordable units. An informal poll was taken. All present except Mr. Owen, who was neutral, supported the concept of taking a first step to permit multifamily units by Special Permit in the business districts only; a total size limitation of 33 bedrooms and 30% of the units set aside as affordable. Also, all agreed there should be no age restriction set. Based on the above informal consensus, it was decided to begin the process of drafting regulations.
Enforcement
First Washington Capital, LLC.(Matthews)/89 Lower Church Hill Road/Site Preparation for Single Family Dwelling: Mr. Ajello, Enforcement Officer, reviewed his 11/22/04 ZEO report on this matter. Site work had begun before a zoning permit had been applied for and continued after he had ordered that it stop. A Cease and Desist Order had then been issued on 11/19/04. Mr. Martin read the 11/22/04 report, which stated that Mr. Ajello has declined the decision making responsibility on this matter because he was already involved in the enforcement proceedings for this property. Mr. Martin noted that this was a good policy because the Enforcement Officer would be able to avoid the appearance of any prejudice or conflict of interest. He commended Mr. Ajello for his discretion and judgment.
MOTION: To have the Zoning Commission accept, for the reasons cited in the ZEO's 11/22/04 report, the responsibility for decision making on the application submitted for the property at 89 Lower Church Hill Road to construct a single family dwelling. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Ajello briefly discussed the application. He noted it was deficient because: 1) the property owner's name on the application did not match the owner's name on the Town Land Records, 2) the application was not signed, 3) there was no agent authorization, and 4) the site plan was inadequate. Mr. Martin noted there was a great deal of public interest concerning the application due to the proposed location of the house, which was proposed for a promontory overlooking Steep Rock, possibly located on or near an archeological site. He hoped Mr. Matthews would work with the Commission to mitigate the environmental impacts of the proposed development. Mr. Martin noted the previous property owner had been required to obtain an Inland Wetlands permit for proposed work and asked Mr. Ajello to find out whether that Commission had jurisdiction in this case as well.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Generators and Other Noise Generating Equipment: Draft language was circulated, which would allow noise generating equipment, by Special Exception, under specific circumstances, to be situated farther from the structure principally served than is currently permitted. The draft is attached. After the Zoning Commission has amended its Regulations, the Zoning Board of Appeals would then develop a set of standards by which each application for a Special Exception would be judged. After a brief discussion, the only change made to the draft was that the word, "negative," was deleted from Section 12.14.5. A public hearing was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on January 24, 2005 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Boundary of New Preston Business District/10 Main Street: The Bakers, owners of 10 Main Street, New Preston, submitted an A-2 survey map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 11/19/04 to show that the New Preston Business District boundary line does not go through this property and that the property is entirely within the business district. It had previously been classified as residential because it had been thought that the district boundary divided the lot. It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the map as correct because it was an A-2 survey and because it was sealed by a licensed surveyor.
MOTION: To accept the location of the New Preston Business District boundary as shown on the A-2 survey entitled, "Property/Boundary Survey," revised to 11/19/04, and signed by Mr. Michael Alex. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
2005 Calendar
MOTION: To approve the 2005 Calendar as proposed. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Update of Assessor's Map: Mrs. Friedman asked when this work would be completed. Mr. Martin said Mr. Sears had informed him that Mrs. Johnson would finish the project soon after the first of the year.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
October 25, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Connolly, Mr. Lasar, Mr. Todorski, Mr. LaBella, and Boy Scouts from Troop 487: Ethan LaBella, Travis Morse, Eric TodorskiMr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 9/27/04 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 8/23/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Connolly/249 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Addition to Commercial Building, Parking
Mrs. Hill reported the Health Department had approved the application and the Wetlands Enforcement Officer said Inland Wetlands approval was not required.
A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 22, 2004; the second hearing of the evening. Mr. Martin explained the application would not be discussed until the hearing so that the public could be notified and attend if interested.
Mr. Shapiro arrived at this point.
Other Business
Signs: The thoughtful 10/25/04 letter from Mrs. Chapin, Director of the Gunn Memorial Library, was circulated. Mrs. Hill noted several institutions had indicated they would now apply for signs and asked if the Commission would consider waiving the application fee for non profit organizations.
MOTION: To waive the application fee for temporary Sign applications submitted by non profit organizations. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin noted the Commission had asked the business community for input about potential revisions to the sign regulations and would wait until the next meeting for responses. There was a brief discussion about how enforcement of Section 16 should proceed. It was the consensus to follow the policies agreed upon at the last meeting: 1) Sign enforcement would focus initially on business signs in the business districts. 2) The highest priority will be those signs in the commercial districts for which complaints have been received. 3) Illegal signs will not be confiscated until letters are sent by the ZEO to notify a property owner he is in violation and to advise him whether a permit is possible or that the sign must be taken down. Also included in the first round of enforcement will be signs on telephone poles. It was noted the number of commercial signs for out of town businesses on telephone poles has been escalating. These will be immediately removed by the ZEO since they are not permitted. Mr. Martin appointed Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Brinton to a subcommittee to begin work on revision of the Regulations. Mr. Abella agreed to act as liaison between the Commission and the Washington Business Association.
Street Lighting: It was noted as a result of the discussion at the last meeting, Mr. Martin had sent a letter to the Board of Selectmen encouraging them to work with CL&P to eliminate unnecessary street lighting. Each Member had received a copy of the letter to review.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Noise Generating Equipment: Mr. Martin stated that he had discussed this matter further with Mr. White, Chairman of the ZBA, and that he thought the best approach was not to revise the distance requirements, but to provide flexibility on a case by case basis. If an applicant could demonstrate to the Zoning Board of Appeals via the Special Exception process that locating the noise generating equipment further from the structure served than is permitted under Section 12.14 would not create a greater visual or noise nuisance to adjoining properties than it would if it were placed in compliance with the Regulations, the ZBA could approve it. A hardship would not have to be proven in these cases. Neighbors would be notified and a public hearing conducted. Mr. Fitzherbert suggested these Special Exceptions be approved only if the applicant could show the impact to adjoining properties would be less than if the equipment was located according to Section 12.14. Mr. Martin will work on draft language for the next meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 14/Development Plan Requirements: Mr. Martin will attempt to have the "final" draft prepared for the next meeting.
Communications
Mr. Martin noted the Washington Times and the new land use brochure had been mailed to all households and recommended they be read by all Commissioners. The Times listed upcoming meeting dates for the series of public discussions on townwide topics. Mr. Martin encouraged Zoning Members to attend the 10/28 meeting on open space and the 11/4 meeting on housing diversity. Regarding housing diversity, Mrs. Friedman noted New Milford is currently considering the floating zone concept to the consternation of those residents in rural areas who don't want large housing complexes in their neighborhoods. She thought the issues being debated there were relevant in Washington, too. Mr. Martin reminded the Commission that when it last discussed housing options, it had only been comfortable considering small scale developments consisting of approximately 12 units.
Privilege of the Floor
It was noted Boy Scouts from Troop 487 were observing the meeting to fulfill badge requirements.
Mr. Fitzherbert complained the new state health code requires residents to conduct costly perc and deep hole tests even for minor projects. He thought a zoning overlay map with soil types and lot lines could be used to obtain the required Health sign off on most zoning applications. Mr. Martin said the original reason for the map, which would include information about the percentage of each soil type on each lot, was to help residents fill out the Residential Density Form. He added the Commission has been prepared for several months to begin work on the map, but has been waiting for the Assessor's Office to update the lot lines. Mr. Sears agreed to check with the Assessor's Office to find out why there has been such a delay in getting the Assessor's maps updated.
Mr. Sears reported the Lake Waramaug Agreement had been finalized. Mr. Martin noted the next step from a Zoning standpoint would be an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to allow municipal boat ramps and related structures for storage and parking within 50 feet of the lake by Special Permit. Mr. Sears will work with the Land Use Coordinator to draft appropriate language.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
September 27, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Waldron, Mr. Murgio, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Boyer, Mr. Millington, Mr. and Mrs. Frenkel, Mr. Cannavaro, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Rourke, Ms. Schrier, Mrs. Buziak, Mr. Gerst, Mr. Bachelier, PressPUBLIC HEARINGS
Waldron/167 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Workshop and Retail Business
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Owen, and Alternates Brinton and Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert and Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/15 and 9/22/04.
Mr. Martin reviewed the application form and read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Waldron explained he would use the existing two car garage as a workshop to make metal and wooden items, which he would sell in the proposed retail area attached to his house.
Ms. Page arrived at this point.
Mr. Martin read the statement regarding the proposed operation and noted points from the 9/27/04 ZEO Report.
Parking, noise, and lighting were briefly discussed. Mrs. Friedman was concerned about possible noise from the workshop at night. Mr. Waldron said any machinery would be used inside and he would work only until 7:00 p.m. It was noted Studio Steel is located in a barn on the adjoining property and Mr. Waldron said he could not hear any noise from its metalworking equipment. It was noted the existing parking was sufficient to handle the proposed business. Mr. Waldron stated he had one existing floodlight that would be used.
Mr. Martin noted the adjoining property owners had been notified as required and that none were present to speak for or against the application.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.a submitted by Mr. Waldron for a workshop and retail business at 167 New Milford Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded By Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Affordable Housing Units/Request to Amend Condition #7 and to Revise Site Plan
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:41 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Brinton for Mr. Fitzherbert. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/15 and 9/22/04.
Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file and noted a letter dated 9/27/04 from Commissioner Fitzherbert and the 9/27/04 ZEO Report.
The site plan by Peter Talbot Architects, revised to 8/18/04 was reviewed.
The following proposed changes/revisions were discussed with Mr. Talbot, architect. No one from the public spoke for or against the first three items.
1) Lighting: There was a net decrease by two fixtures. Lighting was realigned due to the proposed sidewalk changes. Mrs. Hill, ZEO, thought the reduction in lighting would help make the units look less institutional.
2) Relocation of the Gate to Prevent Through Traffic: Mr. Talbot noted the change on the site plan reflected the change required by the Commission at the time of approval and not a further change. Mr. Fitzherbert favored the relocation in his 9/27/04 letter.
3) Change in Location of Buried Propane Tank: This was considered an insignificant revision.
4) Possible Changes to the Buried Fire Cistern: Mr. Martin read the 9/25/04 letter from the Fire Marshal, which stated he would prefer a 20,000 gallon cistern be buried at the Town owned Nick Platt field over the 10,000 gal. cistern proposed for the WCHT property, although he could not require it. Mr. Talbot noted the WCHT is committed to installing the 10,000 gal. tank, but was willing to work with the Town towards installation of the larger tank, which would serve the entire community. He hoped, however, that if installation of the 20,000 gal. tank could be worked out, that this would not hold up the zoning signoff needed for the certificate of occupancy for the project. He said the original location proposed for the cistern on the WCHT property would not work due to ledge found there, but said there was room elsewhere on site where a 10,000 tank could be buried. Mr. Sears, First Selectman, stated the Town was generally willing to use Platt field, but had questions about financing. Mr. Martin asked for comments from the public. Mrs. Schrier asked if all the land use commissions had approved the Platt field location. Mr. Martin noted a separate application would be required to bury the tank on property not owned by the WCHT. Mr. Gerst stated there is an existing well behind the Quist house on Town property and asked if that could be used for fire fighting purposes. Mr. Cannavaro thought the entire neighborhood should support the installation of the fire cistern. Mr. Boyer noted installation of the cistern could benefit the whole community by reducing insurance costs for the neighborhood. Mr. Talbot pointed out that a second cistern, this one for potable water, would not be buried on WCHT property because an agreement had been worked out with the New Preston Water Co. to bury it off site near the well.
5) Request to Allow Paving of Rear Parking Area and Change Condition #7 of Special Permit to Allow Asphalt Sidewalks: Mr. Martin read the portion of Mr. Talbot's 8/19/04 letter pertaining to walkways and asphalt, Mrs. Rourke's 9/27/04 letter to the Commission, Mr. Fitzherbert's 9/27/04 letter, and the 9/27/04 ZEO Report. Mrs. Rourke's letter included photos of residential walks in the neighborhood. Mr. Fitzherbert did not support the use of asphalt in front of the project, but did support paving the rear parking area if buffering was provided. Mr. Martin noted the reason for condition #7 was to prevent a commercial appearance. Mr. Talbot presented reasons why he thought asphalt should be permitted. Mr. Martin asked for comments from the public. Mr. Gerst did not think asphalt would hold up better than concrete and said asphalt looks more commercial. Mrs. Rourke referred to the photos she submitted and said asphalt was not typical on the residential properties in this area. Mrs. Buziak stated asphalt is hazardous. Mr. Cannavaro asked if cost was the issue. Mr. Talbot said it was not. Mr. Anderson thought unless a high fence was installed along Hinckley Road, its residents would be able to see the rear paved parking area. He also thought the runoff from a paved parking area would be channeled and flow down towards the septic system. Finally, he was concerned about the proposed removal of one of the front sidewalks for reasons of safety. Mr. Talbot responded that there would not be many people who would park in the front and walk around to the back and so the sidewalk was not necessary. Mr. Frenkel noted concrete could be dyed to make it look more like the bluestone installed at the entries to the units. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that asphalt was not a safer alternative and it was not aesthetic. Regarding the paving of the rear parking area, the WCHT's calculations showed this would result in only a 1% increase in impervious lot coverage. It was also noted that condition #7 pertained only to walkways and not to driveway or parking areas. Mr. Talbot clarified for the record that the front driveway had already been approved as asphalt and there were no changes proposed. There were no further comments or questions from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the request by the Washington Community Housing Trust to revise the approved site plan and condition #7 of the Special Permit for affordable housing units at 16 Church Street. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:36 p.m. and Seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Brinton for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Pending Applications
Waldron/167 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Workshop and Retail Business
Mr. Martin seated Alternate Shapiro for Ms. Page who had not been seated for the public hearing.
Mr. Martin voiced his support for the application, which would allow Mr. Waldron to sell his crafts on his property.
Mr. Owen noted the Commission should consider regulations that specify maximum rather than minimum parking requirements as one way to reduce impervious surfaces in Town.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.a submitted by Mr. Waldron for a workshop and retail business at 167 New Milford Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded By Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Ms. Page was reseated.
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Affordable Housing Units/Request to Amend Condition #7 and to Revise Site Plan
The Commissioners decided to address the proposed revisions in separate motions so there would be no misunderstanding regarding which revisions were approved.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the site plan for the Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street to reduce and realign lighting, change the gravel parking lot in the rear to asphalt, and relocate a buried propane tank per the revised site plan, "16 Church Street," by Peter Talbot Architects, revised to 8/18/04. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
It was clarified that installation of the cistern would not hold up the zoning sign off for the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling units. Mr. Martin stated Zoning could not comment on the Fire Marshal's sign off, which is also required. The Commission also encouraged the WCHT to work together with the Town to find a way to install the larger cistern on Town property as it would benefit the entire neighborhood.
MOTION: To approve the relocation of the buried fire fighting cistern with a minimum capacity of 10,000 gallons as located on the site plan, "16 Church Street," by Peter Talbot Architects, revised to 8/18/04 or in a better location to be determined by the Washington Fire Marshal and the Washington Community Housing Trust. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Brinton, and passed 5-0.
It was noted condition #7 referred to all sidewalks and did not differentiate between pre existing and new walks. Therefore, none of the sidewalks could be asphalt.
MOTION: To deny the request by the Washington Community Housing Trust to modify its Special Permit condition #7 pertaining to sidewalks and accessways for its affordable housing units at 16 Church Street. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To approve changes to the site plan requested by the Washington Community Housing Trust relating to deletion and relocation of sidewalks per the revised site plan, "16 Church Street," by Peter Talbot Architects, revised to 8/18/04. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
New Application
Connolly/249 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Addition to Commercial Building
It was noted the application was incomplete. The Health Department had not approved it and no fee had been submitted. Therefore, a public hearing was not scheduled.
Other Business
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Revision of Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Outside Storage Structure
It was noted Mrs. Hill had sent Mr. Meeker a letter dated 9/8/04 to remind him of the information Mr. Meeker agreed to provide to the Commission at the last meeting. She received no response. Mrs. Hill also advised the Commissioners that the Inland Wetlands Commission had determined it would require an application for the storage structure. Mr. Martin stated the Zoning Commission would not act on the request because the promised information had not been submitted and because an application to Inland Wetlands was required.
Several residents were in attendance and asked if they would be notified by the Commission when this matter would next be considered. Because 1) there was public interest; 2) the promised information had not been submitted: and 3) the Inland Wetlands Commission had determined it had jurisdiction, the Commissioners agreed a public hearing should be held to consider the request for outside storage. The applicant will be required by the Regulations to notify all adjoining property owners of the public hearing.
Signs - Revision of the Regulations and Enforcement: Mr. Martin noted the letter to ask the business community for suggestions on how to revise the sign regulations and to advise it the current regulations will be enforced had been mailed out to business property owners and members of the Washington Business Association. The letter will be sent with a short cover to other property owners such as schools, the library, the museum, and churches that own property in the residential districts, but often put up signs. It was the consensus to give the public until October 15th to comply with the Regulations before beginning enforcement action. Signs for which complaints have been received will be dealt with first, but eventually all illegal signs will be addressed. Mrs. Schrier, president of the Business Association, noted signs will be discussed at the next Assoc. meeting. Mr. Martin asked the Assoc. for constructive ideas on how the current regulations can be improved.
Conto/17 River Road/Request for Zone Change: Mr. Martin informed the Commission that the petition had been withdrawn. He noted that the Depot Business District (B-2) boundary was relocated on River Road from Cook Street to Canoe Brook in 1984. He said he had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had confirmed that since the office use at this property had been a legal permitted use at the time the zoning district boundary lines had been redrawn, in 1984, the office use was "grandfathered." He noted the "grandfathering" runs with the property, not with the owner. Therefore, the Conto property could be used for any kind of professional office such as dentist, doctor, lawyer, etc. without petitioning for a zone change. The Commission will consider boundary changes in the Depot commercial district after the Depot study is completed.
Communications
Zoning Staff: Mr. Martin explained upcoming changes in staffing. Mrs. Hill will continue as Land Use Coordinator and Mr. Ajello will take on zoning enforcement under her supervision. Mr. Ajello will attend Zoning meetings when there are significant enforcement matters to consider.
Referral from N. Milford Zoning Comm./Petition for Zone Change/Rt. 109 and Walker Brook Road: The Commissioners had been mailed copies of the letters from Washington land use commissions that will be received at New Milford's 9/28/04 public hearing.
2003-2004 Annual Report: Copies of the annual report had been mailed to the Members.
Lighting: A recent article from the Waterbury Republican regarding the town of Salisbury's negotiations with CL&P to purchase its own street light fixtures and bulbs in order to install street lighting that will preserve the integrity of the dark night sky had been mailed out to the Members. The Commission agreed excess lighting is a concern and on the following: 1) Mr. Martin and Mrs. Hill will send a letter to the Board of Selectmen to urge them to work for the removal of unnecessary street lights in Washington and to show support for the Salisbury selectmen and 2) Mrs. Hill will write to Dark Sky International for guidance and ideas on how to control outdoor lights.
Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 12.14 /Noise Generating Equipment: Martin noted the Zoning Board of Appeals was receiving many variance applications for noise generating equipment such as generators and pool filters. Mr. White, ZBA Chairman, is currently researching the matter and may submit revised language for the Zoning Commission to consider. It was generally thought that distance was a good standard to use to regulate such equipment because there was no judgment involved in determining whether a proposed location was in compliance. Mr. Owen suggested noise generating equipment could be added to uses permitted by Special Permit and be considered by the Commission on a case by case basis. He will draft language for the Commission to review at the next meeting.
Town Meeting on Planning Process: Mr. Martin noted all Commissioners were invited to a meeting on Monday night, 10/4/04 to learn about the Town's planning process. There will be seven meetings on various topics such as housing, education, and open space in the upcoming months.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
August 23, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. H. Averill, Mr. R. Averill, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Paggioli, Mr. Meeker, Mr. Waldron, PressPUBLIC HEARINGS
Paggioli/1 Tinker Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/ Fence on Lake Side of West 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 Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/11 and 8/18/04. Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file. The site plan, a portion of the map, Survey Prepared for Kenneth Duncan," by Mr. Farnsworth and the written statement by Mr. Paggioli, "Application for Fence/Trellis," were reviewed
Mr. Paggioli briefly explained the purpose of the proposed fence was to discourage trespassers and misuse of the property as well as to provide some privacy for the dock area. He said the design proposed was the least obtrusive, noting the Commission had previously approved a similar trellis fence further down West Shore Road. He stated the fence would not exceed 6 ft. high. Mr. Paggioli said he did not plan to landscape, but would allow vegetation to grow up around the fence. Mr. Martin noted the Commission strives to balance the rights of the property owner with the public's right to view the lake, and so asked if Mr. Paggioli would agree to maintain the vegetation so it would not obscure the view. Mr. Paggioli said he would do so.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
Ms. Page supported the proposal, noting she had observed the owners had been trying to keep the property neat and that the proposed fence was better than the one recently installed nearby on Town property.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the objectives could be met with a lower fence. Ms. Page noted the bottom would be at least one foot lower than the edge of the road due to the steep slope there and Mr. Owen pointed out that a 3 ft. high fence would not keep out trespassers.
Mrs. Hill noted Mr. Pagiolli submitted proof he had notified the State Scenic Roads Committee of the application, but it had not responded.
It was noted the public hearing only addressed the trellis fence on the lake side of the road and the other fence listed in the application would be acted on by the ZEO.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by Mr. Paggioli for a fence on the lake side of West Shore Road. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
Averill/10 New Preston Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:48 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/11 and 8/18/04. Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file, including the proposed floor plan.
Mr. Martin read the 7/17/04 written statement from Mr. Averill, which indicated how the apartment proposed in the existing barn would comply with each section of the Regulations and the 8/23/04 ZEO Report, which concurred the apartment would comply.
Mr. Heman Averill, described his efforts over the years to preserve the 200 year old barn and said every effort would be made to preserve the outward appearance of the building. This commitment was also made in Mr. Averill's 7/17/04 written statement.
Mr. Lambert, contractor, said the apartment would fill 30% of the barn. He circulated photos of the past restoration of the building and noted the exterior work needed would include new siding and some new windows.
Mr. Martin reread Mr. Averill's statement and noted the Commission has always been supportive of the preservation of historic buildings.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Averill for a detached accessory apartment at 10 New Preston Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:56 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 7:56 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 7/26/04 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Paggioli/1 Tinker Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/ Fence on the Lake Side of West Shore Road
The issue of maintenance of the vegetation near the fence was discussed. It was generally thought that see- through fences such as this one should be encouraged over stockade fences and that some vegetation growing around it would improve its appearance. It was agreed, however, the landscaping should be maintained in such a way so that the view would remain.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by Mr. Paggioli, Tinker Hill Road, for a fence on the lake
side of West Shore Road with the condition that shrubbery and landscaping around the fence be maintained in such a way that the view of the lake is not unduly obscured. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Alternate Brinton arrived at 8:00 p.m.
Averill/10 New Preston Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Averill for a detached accessory apartment at 10 New Preston Hill Road as submitted. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Waldron/167 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Workshop and Retail Business
It was noted the Health Department had approved the application. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, September 23, 2004 in the Land Use Meeting Room contingent upon receipt of the application fee.
Other Business
Tracy/47 Rabbit Hill Road/Renewal of Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen
Mr. Martin read the 8/24/04 ZEO Report. Mrs. Hill, ZEO, noted there had been no change in the operation since the permit had first been issued and no complaints had been received.
MOTION: To approve a two year renewal of the Special Permit: Section 13.16 granted to Mr. and Mrs. Tracy for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 47 Rabbit Hill Road. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Revision of Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a/Add Outside Storage
Mr. Martin noted outside storage had not been included in the Special Permit granted for the pool store. Although storage of the pool chemicals outside was a potential environmental concern due to the proximity of the river, the Fire Marshal had advised that the chemicals should not be stored inside a building, which includes a residence.
Mr. Meeker read a written statement dated 8/23/04 in which he proposed to construct a storage structure on the stone "patio" behind the existing building. Construction plans, which included a wooden catch basin lined with foam and a vinyl liner to trap any leaks, were described. He said the Fire Marshal would write a letter to state he had approved the plans.
Mr. Martin said the Commission needed to decide whether the request for outside storage was a significant enough revision of the Special Permit that it would require a public hearing or was a sufficiently minor modification that could be addressed without a hearing. He thought because the Fire Marshal was recommending storage outside a building containing a residence, it should be considered a minor change and acted upon as soon as possible. Mr. Shapiro pointed out the Fire Marshal had not yet approved the plans. Mrs. Friedman did not think the modification was insignificant. Mr. Abella asked whether the proposed structure would be seen from off site and whether the proposed construction would, indeed, provide adequate protection from leaks. Mr. Meeker described the types of chemicals that would be stored there. Mr. Owen noted there are no regulations against storing these chemicals on residential lots with pools. Ms. Page thought the proposed structure was not a significant change because it would be erected on the existing patio.
It was decided a public hearing would not be held, but the following information/documentation would be required before the Commission would act on the request: 1) written approval by the Fire Marshal, 2) approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission, 3) a photo or sketch showing what the structure will look like. The Commission will notify the adjoining property owners of the proposal before the next meeting.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the proposed structure was the absolute smallest to accomplish the objective. Mr. Meeker said it was and discussed the size and number of pallets to be stored. Mr. Shapiro asked if the proposed structure had adequate venting. Mr. Meeker said it was made of a fabric that would breathe and so no vents were necessary.
Other Business
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Signs
The 8/23/04 ZEO Report indicated there had been a complaint regarding the signs erected on this property and that Mrs. Hill had met on site with the owners to discuss the problem. As a result, one of the signs on the building had been removed, another had been lowered, and Mr. Meeker submitted an application to the ZBA for a variance for the location of a free standing sign. Mrs. Friedman thought the remaining signs were too large, but Mrs. Hill said they were in compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Meeker asked if he could keep his neon "open" sign lit during business hours only. Mr. Martin said no internally illuminated signs are permitted and thanked Mr. Meeker for his cooperation.
Proliferation of Signs: Copies of Mrs. Friedman's draft letter to be sent to all business owners were circulated for review. It was noted the Town does not have a list of all the business owners in Town so the letter will be sent to all members of the Washington Business Association and to all owners of properties in the business districts. Mr. Martin liked the tone of the letter as it will let business owners know the Commission is willing to revise its Regulations and to work with them where possible, while also advising them the current Regulations will be enforced. Mr. Owen will do a final edit before the mailing is done.
Communications
Lake Waramaug Agreement: Mr. Martin said he had sent a copy of the Agreement to Atty. Zizka for review. Atty. Zizka said the Zoning Commission has no jurisdiction over most of the document, but would have jurisdiction over Exhibit B, which deals with the site improvements proposed along the shoreline. He explained further that either the Town would have to exempt itself by ordinance from local land use regulations or amend the Zoning Regulations to permit municipal boat ramps, etc. within 50 feet of the lake before the Town could apply to Zoning for a permit for the Exhibit B improvements. Mr. Martin, Mr. Sears, and Atty. Zizka did not think it would be a good idea for the Town to exempt itself from the Regulations. Mr. Martin noted that a regulation amendment would be appropriate for the Zoning Commission to consider whether or not the Lake Agreement is executed because it was never intended to make the pre existing municipal boat ramp structure non conforming. Mr. Sears noted that Exhibit B is a concept plan, not the finished proposal. He said he expects input from the public and the land use commissions will improve it before it is ultimately approved. He said he had already asked for changes such as permeable parking areas to help protect the shoreline. He also noted the Town has two years, with a possible two year extension, to get the plan approved.
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Special Permit: Section 13.15/Request to Amend Condition of Approval for Affordable Housing Units: Mr. Martin noted both the 8/19/04 letter from Mr. Talbot and the 8/23/04 ZEO Report. He said regardless of whether the changes proposed were major or minor ones, the application had been submitted under the State Affordable Housing Appeals Act and so a public hearing was required. The hearing was scheduled for the September meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Height of Primary and Accessory Structures: Mr. Martin circulated the text of the proposed revisions to Sections 11.7.3, 12.5.2, 21.1.4, and the Height Chart that had been agreed to at previous meetings. (See attached.) These would lower the permitted maximum height of primary structures from 45 to 40 feet and would permit accessory structures that are higher than the primary structure on the same property as long as they 1) do not exceed 26 feet and 2) are clearly subordinate and smaller in ground floor area, volume, and scale than the primary structure. A public hearing was scheduled for the October meeting.
Referral from the Town of New Milford/Rt. 109 and Walker Brook Road/80 Lot Cluster Conservation Subdivision: It was noted the Land Use Office has a copy of the proposed plans and that the Board of Selectmen, Highway Department, and land use commissions had been notified. New Milford will hold a public hearing on 9/28/04.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, ZEO
July 26, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Brinton
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Stone, Ms. McCaffrey, Dr. Suma, Dr. Bundy, Mr. Manson, Mr. Werner, Mr. O'Toole, Mr. Solley, Mr. and Mrs. Fedderer, Mr. Millington, Ms. Adams, Mr. DeCourcy, Ms. Kurz, Residents, PressPUBLIC HEARINGS
Corax Corp./Special Permit: Section 6.5/248 West Shore Road/ Addition to Existing Dwelling
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for Mr. Owen and Ms. Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/14 and 7/21/04.
Mr. Martin noted all the documents submitted for the record and read the 7/26/04 ZEO Report. He noted the addition was within 50 to 75 feet of Lake Waramaug and so was a use permitted by Special Permit under the recently revised Regulations.
The map, "Improvement Location Survey," by Sterling Land Surveying, LLC., revised to 5/25/04 was studied.
Mr. Manson, owner, and Mr. Werner, designer, presented revised elevations of the proposed structure and photos of the existing dwelling and landscaping.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the WEO would review the plans and monitor the ongoing work. Mr. Manson said he would do so. He noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had required the preconstruction information included in the Appendix and that it had approved the stormwater management plan. Mr. Martin noted there would not be an increase in the roof runoff.
No one spoke for or against the application.
It was noted the landscaping plan included a barberry bush, which is invasive. Mr. Manson was asked to delete it from the plan. He did so and initialed the revision. Mrs. Friedman suggested a condition of approval that no invasive species be planted. Mr. Manson noted the landscaping plan showed the existing landscaping and said no new plantings were proposed.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application for a Special Permit: Section 6.5 submitted by Corax Corp. for an addition to the existing dwelling at 248 West Shore Road. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:46 p.m.
O'Toole/46 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternates Abella and Shapiro. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on July 21 and July 28, 2004.
Mr. Martin noted the documents in the file and read the 7/26/04 ZEO Report. It noted the west porch was proposed within 50 feet of the watercourse, which did not comply with Section 12.1.1 of the Regulations. Mr. O'Toole stated he had been informed of the problem. In her report, the ZEO had suggested approval of the application with the stipulation that construction of the porch not be included in the approval. Mr. O'Toole said he would prefer the Commission proceed in this way rather than wait to act on the entire application until ZBA ruled on a variance request.
There were no additional issues brought up by the Commissioners and no one from the public spoke in favor or against the application.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the appli-cation for a Special Permit: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. O'Toole for a detached accessory apartment at 46 Kielwasser Road. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:57 p.m.
Hotel Consult (The Learning Collaborative, Inc.)/101 Wykeham Road/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:58 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternates Abella and Shapiro. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on July 21 and July 28, 2004.
Mr. Martin noted all the documents in the file. He read the Town of Washington Health Dept. condition of approval, that the school may not occupy the buildings until all DEP requirements are met in writing and submitted to the Health Dept., which was specified by the Health Department in its 7/26/04 approval and the 5/19/04 telefax authorization from Mr. Kisseleff of the Hotel Consult. Mr. Fitzherbert read the 5/3/04 letter of accreditation from the Ct. Dept. of Higher Education.
Mr. Martin noted the application was to operate a school on the property, schools are permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District, no changes were proposed to any of the buildings or to the site plan, and if any such changes were proposed in the future, the applicant would have to apply again to the Commission.
Dr. Suma, Vice President of the Graduate Institute, Dr. Bundy of the Board of Trustees, Ms. McCaffery, Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Stone, Founder, were present. Mr. Stone detailed the organization of the proposed non profit institute of higher learning and explained the difference between The Learning Collaborative, Inc. and The Graduate Institute. He said The Learning Collaborative, Inc. was making the application for The Graduate Institute to operate the school at 101 Wykeham Road. The focus of the school was on adult learners such as teachers, health care providers, and businessmen. The schedules for the five accredited degree programs would be staggered and each program would meet approximately one third of the time off campus. He stated there could be some instances when students would stay overnight due to weather and the remoteness of the campus.
Mr. Millington asked if the funds had been raised to purchase the property. Mr. Stone said the school did not yet have a firm commitment for funding, but had a continuing option to purchase the property. Mr. Martin noted the Hotel Consult had authorized the applicant to apply and The Learning Collaborative, Inc. had the right to do so even though the funding was not in place.
Mrs. Fedderer asked for clarification regarding the scheduling of the programs. Mr. Stone noted the flexible scheduling was a complex process, but the aim would be to have only small numbers of students on campus at any one time. He said there would be approximately 60 group meetings over 40 weekends and that each group was comprised of 8 to 22 students. He also noted the school hoped to have 300 eventually enrolled with a maximum of 100 on campus at any one time.
Mr. Solley asked if the staff would reside on the premises. Mr. Stone responded there would be a superintendent on the grounds. Mr. Solley asked if the school would utilize the dining room and food service. Mr. Stone said the small kitchen/snack bar would be used, but not the large scale cooking facilities.
Mr. Fedderer referred to the ZEO's review and asked if the 28 existing parking spaces would be adequate. Mrs. Hill noted for the record the parking lot had 28 spaces, but there was additional parking on campus for a total of 79 existing spaces. Mr. Stone said car pooling was encouraged.
Mr. DeCourcy asked if the dorms would be used for overnight accommodations. Mr. Stone said they would be used by students with Friday evening and Saturday classes by reservation only. The current capacity is 110 students, but he did not anticipate more than 20 to 30 staying over on Friday nights.
The dorms were briefly discussed. Mr. Stone said there were three dorm buildings and if all went well, the school would eventually apply to tear them down and to rebuild them.
It was noted most of the students are from New England with occasional students from as far away as Europe and the mid west.
Mr. DeCourcy asked if the school was served by the Judea Water Company. Mr. Stone said there was an artesian well.
Mr. Millington asked if the school proposed to use all of the existing buildings. Mr. Stone did not know, but said they would all be maintained. He noted there was a possibility that seminars would be held on campus in the future as presently it conducts one day seminars at Yale.
An adjoining property owner asked about the expected noise level. Mr. Stone said there would be regular classroom and parking lot noise, noting that the students were serious adult learners.
Mrs. Fedderer asked why the school would consider purchasing such an expensive property. Mr. Stone stated Washington has a culturally focused reputation and that the residents of the area were attuned to intellectual and cultural pursuits more so than were some of the more urban areas. Mrs. Fedderer asked if the school expanded, would it increase weekend or weekday classes. Mr. Stone said most students were adult learners who were available on weekends. Mrs. Fedderer asked if there would be any entertainment for students. Mr. Stone said other than lectures, there would not.
Mrs. Friedman asked about the maximum number of weeks during the summer the school would operate. Mr. Stone said the Institute had never been in session for more than four weeks during the summer, usually in July.
Mr. Stone passed out brochures addressing the educational goals of the Institute.
Mr. Martin noted the proposed use of the property as a school must be consistent with the Zoning Regulations. He said the Commission was concerned about neighborhood impact and whether the proposed operation could be assimilated into the Wykeham Road area. The response to Mrs. Hill's 7/19/04 letter was reviewed. It was noted no additional outside lighting was proposed. Mr. Martin asked the residents present if the existing lighting was objectionable. They indicated it was not. A 15 /sq. ft. sign was proposed, which Mr. Martin stated was problematic because only 2 sq. ft. signs are permitted in the R-1 District.
Mr. Martin summarized the issues arising from the public hearing that the Commission would need to deliberate after the close of the hearing; 1) DEP requirements, 2) Fire Marshal approval, 3) relationship between The Learning Collaborative, Inc. and The Graduate Institute - although there was an overlapping board of trustees, The Learning Collaborative, Inc. was the applicant, but The Graduate Institute had state accreditation and would operate the school, 4) sign, and 5) parking. The proposed sign was briefly discussed and it was suggested if the application was approved, the school could then submit a proposed sign design for approval. Mr. Martin noted there are 79 parking spaces and asked the Commissioners if they thought this was adequate. It was the consensus it was adequate. Mr. Abella asked if the school intended to rent out the facilities when it wasn't using them. Mr. Stone said it did not.
Mrs. Fedderer asked what control the Commission would have over the future growth of the school. Mr. Martin noted the letters submitted were part of the application and on the record. If the numbers noted on the record were exceeded, another public hearing would be required.
Mrs. Collum asked about security. Mr. Stone said there would be a full time caretaker on the property.
A resident commented she thought the proposed use of the property would benefit the Town.
There were no further hands raised from anyone wishing to make additional public input on this matter.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the appli- cation for a Special Permit: Section 4.4.10 submitted by The Learning Collaborative, Inc. for the Graduate Institute to operate a school at 101 Wykeham Road. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 9:14 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 9:18 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for Mr. Owen and Ms. Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 5/24/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 6/28/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
The Commissioners thanked Mrs. Osborne for the good job she did on the 6/28/04 Minutes.
Pending Applications
Corax Corp./248 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/ Addition to Existing Dwelling
Mr. Martin noted the invasive barberry plant had been deleted from the landscaping plan. He said the documents presented showed there would be no increase in the runoff resulting from the proposed construction. Mrs. Friedman asked that the motion of approval formally note the erosion and sedimentation control plan is included in the application.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.5 submitted by Corax Corp. for an addition to the existing dwelling at 248 West Shore Road with the understanding that the plans, "Stormwater and Erosion Control Plan-Sec. 6.5.1, Narrative and Written Description-Sec.6.5.2," and "Appendix A" submitted as part of the application must be implemented. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
O'Toole/46 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Martin noted approval would include only converting the second story of the garage to a dwelling unit and constructing the northern stairway and would not include any external construction within 50 feet of the watercourse.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. O'Toole for a detached accessory apartment at 46 Kielwasser Road with the condition that this approval does not include any external changes to the exterior of the existing building that are within 50 feet of the watercourse, and thus are not permitted by the Zoning Regulations. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Hotel Consult (The Learning Collaborative, Inc.)/101 Wykeham Road/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School
Mr. Martin noted Mr. Stone had clarified the relationship between The Learning Collaborative, Inc. and The Graduate Institute. Dr. Segal was chairman of the board of trustees for both organizations and The Collaborative was making the application for the Institute to operate the school. It was noted the application had been amended in the public hearing to reflect this. The sign was discussed. It was agreed that only a 2 sq. ft. sign would be permitted and if the school wanted a larger size, it could apply for a variance. It was also agreed written approval by both the state DEP and Town Fire Marshal should be made conditions of approval. Mr. Martin noted the Commission was acting on the application submitted, which did not include a proposal to rent out any of the facilities when they were not in use by the Institute, but it was agreed this should also be specified as a condition of approval. Mrs. Friedman voiced her concern about the school's plans to expand. She asked that the letter indicating the size of the student body be referenced in the motion.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by The Learning Collaborative, Inc. for The Graduate Institute to operate a school at 101 Wykeham Road subject to the following conditions:
1. written approval from the State DEP is received,
2. written approval from the Town Fire Marshal is received,
3. the proposed sign is limited to 2 sq. ft. as is permitted in the R-1 District,
4. the Graduate Institute shall be the sole entity to operate the facility for its own sole and exclusive use,
5. approval is based on the 5/25/04 letter from Dr. Segal of The Graduate Institute to the Town of Washington Health Department, which states the anticipated number of students is approximately 200, and
6. approval is also based on the 7/21/04 letter from the applicant to Mrs. Hill.
By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Public hearings were scheduled on Monday, August 23, 2004 for the following Special Permit applications:
7:30 p.m. - Paggioli/1 Tinker Hill Road/Section 6.4.6/Fence on Lake Side of West Shore Road
Immediately following - Averill/10 New Preston Hill Road/Section 13.11.3 /Detached Accessory Apartment
Farmer/191 Popple Swamp Road/Renewal of Special Permit/Section 13.14/Bed and Breakfast Establishment
Mr. Martin read the 7/26/04 ZEO Report and noted there were no complaints on record nor any concerns about this Bed and Breakfast.
MOTION: To approve the renewal of the Special Permit: Section 13.14 issued to Mr. and Mrs. Farmer to operate a Bed and Breakfast at 191 Popple Swamp Road; expiration date: 7/26/07. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Conto/Petition to Amend the Zoning Map to Include 17 River Road in the B-2, Washington Depot Business District
A public hearing was scheduled for the September meeting and the petition will be referred to the Planning Commission as is required per state statute.
Signs
Mrs. Friedman noted the number of illegal signs was increasing throughout Town, especially sandwich board signs within the state right of way in the Depot. There have been no permits issued for sandwich board signs. While the Commission appreciated the need for small local businesses to advertise, it was concerned about the proliferation of these signs and how they detract from the overall appearance of Town. Mr. Martin noted that the Commission wants to help the local businesses because their sustainability is consistent with preserving rural character. Mrs. Friedman thought the current sign regulations are confusing, outdated, and in need of revision. Mr. Solley, Selectman, also voiced his concern about illegal signs and said he supported the current fairly restrictive sign regulations. Mrs. Hill noted the Commission's policy on enforcement has been complaint driven and so recent enforcement has not been consistent. She recommended enforcement be consistent throughout Town, not just in the Depot. Mrs. Friedman recommended the strict enforcement of the current regulations while the Commission works on revisions. Mr. Martin thought if the Commission was going to change its policy to aggressive enforcement, the business owners must first be notified. He recommended a letter be sent to the Business Association to inform it that 1) signs require zoning permits, 2) free standing signs must be placed at least 10 feet back from property lines, and 3) signs must be placed on your own property. He also recommended the Association be informed the Commission would soon begin discussion about revising the sign regulations and ask it for input about what improvements it thinks are needed.
Mrs. Hill and Mrs. Friedman will prepare a draft letter, which will ultimately be sent to the Business Association and all business owners to 1) inform them of the Commission's more aggressive enforcement policy, 2) inform them of the current sign regulations, and 3) inform them of the Commission's intent to improve the regulations and ask for their input. Mr. Martin will review the letter before it is sent out.
Also regarding signs, Mrs. Hill noted the Hildemanns, who had been granted a Special Permit for a commercial horseback riding establishment, wanted a sign larger than the 2 sq. ft. permitted in the R-1 District. It was the consensus of the Commission that larger signs were not permitted and that 2 sq. ft. was the maximum size allowed.
Use of Email for Commission Communications: It was noted Mrs. Hill finally has email capability. All Commissioners with email will be sent routine correspondence such as minutes and agendas by email. Absent Members should provide Mrs. Hill with their email addresses as soon as possible.
Implementation of the Plan of Development: Mr. Martin noted last month's discussion had been high quality and thanked Mr. Shapiro for his analysis. He noted the dialogue would be ongoing.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Zoning Enforcement Officer
June 28, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Osborne
ALSO PRESENT: Tim Cook, Dick Sears First Selectman, Sigrid Hildmann & daughter, Edwin Whitehead, James G. Kelly, Esq., Dan Whalen, Barbara and Richard Carey, Kirk Sinclair, John Millington, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Town of Washington/11 School Street/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Restroom-Kitchen Addition to Pavilion.
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:35pm and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen and Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page. Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on June 13 and 23, 2004.
Mr. Martin had a note from the ZEO stating she had no major concerns with this application.
Tim Cook spoke on behalf of this application as a member of the Town of Washington Park and Recreation Department. Mr. Cook stated that a high number of people use the athletic fields and pavilion, this area receives a lot of use. There is a town ordinance which regulates hours of activity, which state the pavilion closes at dark. There will be security lighting on the proposed addition; the entrance for the facilities is located on the side facing the Washington Primary School.
Mr. Martin noted that this application has Inland/Wetland and Health approval. At this point Mr. Martin asked for public comment.
Ms. Friedman was concerned with the hours of operation. Mr. Cook informed her that the facilities will probably be open from 7:00am to dark, March through November. Mr. Cook went on to state there will be male and female bathrooms, which will be handicapped accessible. The proposed kitchen/storage area will be enclosed. There will be lighting on the outside of the building and inside lighting as well. Mr. Martin asked that the lighting be kept as low wattage as possible keeping in mind safety and security and be aimed downward.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked about the other "old" building existing on the property. Mr. Cook answered that at a future date they would like to rebuild this building with garage doors for storage of maintenance equipment and the gator (which is housed at the Old Town Garage).
First Selectman, Dick Sears was present he stated the Board of Selectmen support this project.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.9 submitted by the Town of Washington to construct a restroom-kitchen addition to Pavilion at 11 School Street. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Hildemann/34 Popple Swamp Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.3/Commercial Horseback Riding Establishment
Mr. Martin called the public Hearing to order at 7:45pm and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen and Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page. Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on June 13 and 23, 2004.
Mr. Martin had a note from the ZEO stating she had no major concerns with this application. Mr. Martin also noted for the record that this application had Health and Inland/Wetland sign off as well as an endorsement from the Professional Horseman's Association of America. He noted that this was a special permit application for a change in usage. There will be no external changes to the site.
Mr. Martin read a letter dated May 19, 2004 from James G. Kelly, Esq. which characterized how the property is to be used. Mrs. Hildmann and her daughter were present. Ms. Hildmann gave a brief family history. She mentioned that their closest neighbor is Mr. Whitehead, there would be no outdoor lighting, noise and there is ample parking. Edwin Whitehead was present; he endorsed this application adding the Hildemann's have built a fine facility and are a credit to agriculture.
Ms. Friedman asked about the noise from voice commands during training. Ms. Hildmann answered that there is no yelling and no sound system will be used. Ms. Hildemann went on to explain the feeding schedule for the horses. The horses are feed four times a day 6:00am, 1:00pm, 6:00pm and 10:00pm.
There was much discussion on the number of horses to be kept at any one time on the property. This includes the Hildemann's horses and boarders. Mr. Kelly's letter stated the capacity is (24) horses, at present the Hildemann's have (7) and they could have an additional (6) to (8) boarders, the total number of students is (8) to (12). Ms. Hildmann said (6) to (8) students is realistic and fun, they are retired and are turning a hobby into a business for their daughters to make a living. She also stated that a high of (20) horses including their own is acceptable. Mr. Martin stated that the points in Mr. Kelly's letter, as modified by the applicant in this public hearing are part of the application and help to gage the impact on the neighborhood that the special permit would allow.
At this point members reviewed the usage perimeters discussed in Mr. Kelly's letter and the applicant's request for modifications as follows:
a. A maximum of 20 horses including boarders and their own.
b. A total of 8 to 12 students will be taken on with no more than 4 on site at any one time.
c. Training will occur between 6:00am and 8:00pm 7 days a week.
d. & e. eliminated
f. Training will occur both indoors and out. Any outdoor training will be in the back ring.
g. There will be no lighting at outdoor riding ring.
h. No sound system at the outdoor ring.
Ms. Hildemann stated that she had a verbal endorsement from the Lovelace's who are neighbors. Tim Cook spoke in favor of the application stating that Washington used to have 22 dairy farms and is down to 2. Dan Whalen spoke in support of the Hildemann's. He felt it was a clean and low impact establishment. Barbara and Richard Carey presented a letter of endorsement for this application which specified the (6) to (8) boarders. Mr. Carey went on to state that the barns are beautifully constructed, he's delighted to see the animals. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Carey's point of view would change now that the maximum number of horses is (20). Mr. Carey asked if the application goes with the land similar to a ZBA application. Mr. Martin stated that the application is just for this applicant, the Hildemann's. Mr. Carey said he would be concerned if it was not the Hildemann's applying for the special permit. Mr. Whitehead added that he also has no problem with the (20) horses, he believes they need that number to be a successful facility.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.3 submitted by Hildemann to permit a commercial horseback riding establishment at 34 Popple Swamp Road, By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Brinton, passed 5-0.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:25pm and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen and Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page.
Consideration of the minutes; members were missing page 7 of the minutes. Approval of the minutes will take place at the next meeting.
Pending Matters
Town of Washington/11 School Street/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Restroom-Kitchen Addition to Pavilion.
Ms. Friedman was concerned with the lighting, the understanding is there is no overall lighting, and any new lighting is low wattage, aimed down and is located on the side away from School Street. Ms. Friedman added that there are Town Regulations in place to address the hours of operation.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.9 submitted by the Town of Washington to construct a restroom-kitchen addition to Pavilion at 11 School Street. By Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Hildemann/34 Popple Swamp Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.3/Commercial Horseback Riding Establishment
Mr. Brinton felt the applicant had the support of their neighbors. Members went over the (7) stated changes in Atty. Kelly's letter, all points remained as stated in the public hearing except (b) which was changed to: A total of 8 to 12 students will be taken on with no more than 4 students in active training at one time.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.3 submitted by Hildemann to permit a commercial horseback riding establishment at 34 Popple Swamp Road as defined in the letter on file dated May 19, 2004 from James G. Kelly, Esq., as modified during the public hearing and as modified during the regular meeting. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Implementation of Plan of Conservation and Development
Preservation of Scenic Resources: Kirk Sinclair, GIS manager of Housatonic Valley Association gave a power point presentation on protection of scenic resources. The outline for this presentation was: doing background work, setting criteria, creating horizon belts, using the results. After Mr. Sinclair's presentation discussion ensued. Mr. Owen stated the hard part is determining what to protect. Mr. Martin asked members if they felt creating horizon belts could work to help define areas to regulate. Mr. Owen felt you need to define what you want to protect first. Ms. Friedman suggested looking at the states definition for ridgeline protection. Mr. Martin made reference to the vistas identified in the Natural Resource Inventory Report where did they originate? John Millington, of Steep Rock Association offered their help. Mr. Sinclair interjected that there needs to be logic in identifying areas of preservation. Mr. Martin suggested a bus ride, by members to view the town. Members will continue to discuss how to identify the priority views at next months meeting with the goal of utilizing Mr. Sinclair's approach once the commission has made progress on the prioritizing.
Housing Diversity: Members were given a letter dated June 22, 2004 from Mr. & Mrs. Robert F. O'Brien in support of the commission's work. Mr. Shapiro initiated discussion on this topic with a handout on the pros and cons of Senior-Only versus Wide-Open housing. The discussion included Mr. Sears comment that zoning help maintain diversity and affordability and Mr. Millington who stated there is also a need for units over and above affordable. There was much open ended discussion and viewpoints. Mr. Brinton felt the commission should move forward cautiously toward senior housing for 55 and older, with a project scale smaller than 40 units. This will help alleviate the immediate problem. To do nothing is ignoring the problem. Five of the members present support this view. This information can then be communicated to the Housing Diversity Committee.
Revision of Regulations/Section 14/Development plans: Mr. Martin will modify the revisions to reflect Mr. Oley's recommendations in his letter dated June 17, 2004.
New Applications
Public Hearings will be set up for the (3) new applications.
Other Business
Proliferation of Signs: Ms. Friedman asked members to be aware of signage through out town i.e. sandwich boards, flags etc. To be discussed at next months meeting.
Communications
A. 5/27/04 letter from Mr. Sears re: email communications to be discussed at next month's meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting at 11:07pm
Submitted subject to approval,
Pamela L. Osborne, Acting Secretary
May 24, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, and Ms. Page
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Chalder, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Meeker, PressREGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/29/04 Special Meeting minutes as submitted. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
The 4/26/04 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 2 under the Rumsey Hall School public hearings, the first hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. and the second hearing commenced at 7:53 p.m.
MOTION: To accept the 4/26/04 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Abella arrived at 7:34 p.m.
New Applications
Town of Washington/11 School Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Restroom-Kitchen Addition to Pavilion
Mrs. Hill noted the application was complete. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 28, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Hildeman/34 Popple Swamp Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.3/ Commercial Horseback Riding Establishment
The application was complete although there were several questions raised in the 5/24/04 ZEO Report. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 28, 2004 at 7:40 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Pending Matters
Revision of the Regulations/Section 14/Site Development Plans
Mr. Martin circulated and read excerpts from the 5/4/04 memo from Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct COG reviewing the current draft. Mr. McGuinness thought the proposed site plan requirements are still too onerous for residential applicants. Given this input, Mr. Martin asked the Commission to consider whether or not the threshold at which a site plan is required for residences (2500 sq. ft. overall building footprint) should be retained. Mrs. Friedman noted under the proposal someone with a small project in the Lake Waramaug District would have to meet very strict requirements. Mr. Martin agreed, but noted the Commission would have the ability to waive requirements. Mr. Martin suggested that instead of using the size of the structure to be built to determine whether a sketch plan or site plan is required, the Commission could use factors associated with the land and its topography as the criteria. He explained this would be consistent with the existing soil based zoning and residential density regulations. Steepness of slope and proximity to wetlands and watercourses could be considered. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commissioners that there was a strong rationale for basing the plan requirements on these environmental factors instead of more arbitrary footprint or site disturbance square footage. The Commissioners then discussed whether site plans should be required for projects on 15% vs. 20% slopes; Mr. Oley had recommended 20%, but the regulations for driveways and residential density refer to 15%. Mr. Owen thought it was arbitrary to use a percentage other than that which our engineering consultant recommended. Mrs. Friedman asked if there were additional factors that should also be considered in light of the fact that footprint, site disturbance, and location within the R-3 District will not be used as criteria. Mr. Martin will contact Mr. Oley to ask him if additional criteria should be listed and whether he thinks 15% or 20% slopes should be referenced. It is hoped the draft will be finalized at the June meeting. Mr. Martin thanked Mr. McGuinness for taking the time to twice review drafts before the final proposal was completed.
Conclusion: There was unanimous support for including only criteria such as slope steepness and proximity to wetlands as factors determining whether site plans or sketch plans are required for residences. Given this decision, Mr. Oley will be asked for his opinion on whether any other environmental factors should be considered and whether the slope percentage should remain at 20%.
Implementation of the Plan of Development
Mr. Chalder, consultant, was present. Discussion was based on the three draft documents attached. Mr. Martin hoped the Commission would be ready with drafts to present to the public at an informational meeting(s) in September.
Washington Green District: Mr. Martin explained the basis of the revised map of the proposed expanded R-2 District, which included 1) the existing R-2 District, 2) the existing Historic District, and 3) any lots split by either of these two districts. He noted Mrs. Hill had referred to the source documents used to create the Historic District to verify its boundaries. One inconsistency in the map was that the second house on Wykeham Road, the Wersebe house, was not included in the proposed new district. The Commission will have to decide whether or not to include it.
Conclusion: The Commission liked the proposed district boundary resulting from the above methodology. This district is substantially smaller than that proposed in the POCD.
Mr. Chalder reviewed the draft regulations.
5.1: The statement of purpose was expanded.
5.2 and 5.3: Sections addressing principal uses and accessory uses were set up as has already been done for the Marbledale, Woodville, and Lake Waramaug Districts. Mr. Owen noted the existing Post Office and restaurant were not listed as permitted uses and asked the Commission to consider making them conforming uses that would be permitted throughout the District. Mr. Martin asked if there was some way to allow them by Special Permit without making it possible for them to proliferate to other properties in the district. Mr. Chalder said this would be very difficult and thought that allowing these uses throughout the District would compromise what the Commission was trying to accomplish with these revisions. Most Commissioners did not think these uses should be added to the list of permitted uses.
5.6: Mr. Owen suggested the Green and the rest of Town would be improved by requiring a maximum number of parking spaces and smaller parking lots. Mr. Martin agreed this was a townwide issue that should be considered in the next round of revisions. Mrs. Hill worried that building designs and designs for other structures would have to be approved by both the Historic District and Zoning Commission and it might happen that a design would be approved by one and denied by the other. She suggested applicants be required to show proof of Historic District approval and the Zoning Commission review designs for only those properties not located in the Historic District. Mr. Chalder noted an applicant would have to know whether the Zoning Commission would approve an increase in lot coverage prior to going to the expense of detailed architectural drawings for the Historic District Commission. He recommended the regulation be left as is. Mrs. Friedman agreed it should be left as is to provide applicants with information about what the Zoning Commission would be looking for in an application. Mr. Martin suggested the Commission could set up a procedure for informal preliminary guidance for applicants.
5.6.2: Mr. Owen noted when the library and first Rossiter houses were built they weren't like anything else in Town, and so suggested it was not necessarily good to limit the types of construction that could take place under this regulation.
5.6.3.1: "Is attractive" will be deleted.
5.6.3.3: Mr. Owen thought the buffering requirements should be more specific, but Mr. Martin favored the proposed wording to provide the Commission with the flexibility to handle different situations.
5.6.3.5: Pedestrian access was discussed in detail. Mr. Owen thought this section should be deleted because it addressed a non existing problem. Mrs. Hill thought in order to preserve the character of the District it was important to stress non automobile orientated design. Mr. Chalder pointed out the Commission could waive this standard when it was not appropriate. It was the consensus to keep this section, again, to illustrate what the Commission is looking for in an application.
5.6.4.2: Mrs. Friedman recommended "driveways" be added. It was questioned whether 25 feet was a large enough setback for parking areas from residential uses, but Mr. Martin pointed out it called for at least 25 feet, which would give the Commission some discretion for dealing with this issue.
Next steps: The preceding comments will be factored into the next draft.
Senior Housing Floating District: This concept was discussed again at length. While the Commissioners understood the Plan of Conservation and Development calls for increased housing diversity, and felt the two-step floating district concept would allow the Commission to have substantial control over multifamily housing developments, they also feared the possible unknown effects of such developments. At the last meeting it had been decided to begin cautiously on a small scale by considering only a senior housing floating district. However, at this meeting several Commissioners pointed out that both housing for young families and affordable housing are needed, too, and so thought the regulation should be broadened. Others feared multifamily developments with no price controls would not benefit Washington residents and would increase the population and adversely impact rural character. Mrs. Friedman suggested the Commission wait to decide on the type of regulation to be implemented until the Housing Diversity Committee finalizes its recommendations. It was the consensus to provide this draft proposed regulation to the Housing Diversity Committee in order to inform it of the general concept the Zoning Commission is willing to support and, in return, to ask for input from this committee. Also, Mr. Owen had asked for more information on how a floating district would work, and so Mr. Martin asked Mr. Chalder to provide additional information.
Conclusion: The revised draft will be discussed at the Commission's June meeting and then provided to the Housing Diversity Committee.
Scenic Resource Overlay Zone: Mr. Chalder briefly reviewed the Special Permit criteria for the overlay zone, and noted the Commission would have to define the specific geographic zone for which they would apply. Mr. Martin stated the scenic vista map in the Natural Resources Inventory Report was too broad to use as the overlay because it includes approximately one third of Town. Mr. Chalder asked the Commission to consider how it would define the scenic resources it will preserve. Mr. Martin noted Mr. Sinclair from the Housatonic Valley Association had helped with the scenic vistas map and had a methodology for defining and narrowing down scenic resources.
Conclusion: It was the unanimous consensus of the Commissioners to continue making progress on this issue by seeking help from Mr. Sinclair on the appropriate geography for the overlay zone.
Enforcement
Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Outside Storage
Ms. Page recused herself. Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the matter. Mr. Meeker had been granted a Special Permit for a spa and pool store in November 2003. The permit did not include outside storage because there was none shown on the site plan and Mr. Meeker had specifically stated at the public hearing that there would be none. It was noted Mrs. Hill had sent him a letter to notify him he was not in compliance with his permit and he had moved most of the materials to the basement. Mr. Meeker proposed to apply for a 12' X 24' temporary building for the storage of pool equipment and materials. Mr. Martin read the 5/24/04 ZEO Report. The Commissioners decided the outside storage should be by Special Permit application and that Inland Wetlands Commission and Health Department approvals were prerequisites. Mr. Meeker said the proposed building would not be under Wetlands jurisdiction because it would be more than 100 feet from the river, but due to the corrosive nature of the chemicals to be stored, he was advised to apply to Wetlands first. Mr. Martin informed him a specific plan would be required with the application and told him both neighborhood impact and environmental factors would be considered. Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Meeker for cooperating with the Commission and removing the items stored outside until this matter is resolved.
Other Business
Washington Montessori School/240 Litchfield Turnpike/Release of Bond
Mrs. Hill noted the School had requested the release of the bond per letter dated 4/5/04. She reported she had inspected the site twice for compliance and said a detailed list of the conditions of approval, site plan requirements, and landscaping items she had checked was in the 5/24/04 ZEO Report. She had found only two minor problems; two trees required in the landscaping plan had died and there was a small eroded area on the bank of the ball field, and so recommended the release of the majority of the bond. She noted the trees would be replaced under the contract with the landscaper. There was a brief discussion about whether to release the full amount or to hold a small portion until the two items noted were corrected.
MOTION: To release the $75,000 bond posted by the Washington Montessori School for construction of the school at 240 Litchfield Turnpike with the under- standing that Mrs. Hill will obtain assurances from the school that the two dead trees will be replaced and the eroded area on the bank of the ball field will be repaired. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
Communications
Mr. Martin briefly updated the Commission on the following:
1) Effective July 1, 2004 the state tax on land use applications would increase to $30 and the Town can keep $2.
2) The state legislature had acted on the Poirer case. The new legislation states vacant lots in subdivisions must meet the zoning regulations in effect at the time of their approval, but all developed subdivision lots must meet current zoning standards.
3) The Smart Growth bill discussed by the Commission earlier in the year was substantially diluted and then killed.
4) The legislature had unanimously approved a bill containing an amendment setting a limit of 12,000 sq. ft. of total development area within 2000 feet of any lake 500 acres or larger. This would include Lake Waramaug.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 26, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Ms. Page, arrived 7:40 p.m.
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Hunt, Ms. Habib, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Charles, PressPUBLIC HEARINGS
Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Equipment Building and Generator for Water Supply System
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternates Abella and Brinton for Members Owen and Page. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 4/14 and 4/21/04.
Mr. Martin reviewed the documents in the file (see attached list) and read the 4/26/04 ZEO Report.
The map, "Overall Campus, Water System Reconstruction," revised to 4/23/04, by Buck and Buck was reviewed.
Mr. Farmen, Headmaster, Ms. Habib, Business Manager, and Mr. Hunt, engineer, represented Rumsey Hall. Mr. Farmen detailed the proposed work to upgrade the school's water supply system including construction of a 10' X 20' X 13' equipment building and installation of an enclosed generator. The equipment building would house the pump, pump controls, meters, and sampling taps. All other components of the system such as pipes and tanks would be installed underground.
Although the local Health Department signed off on the application, Ms. Habib stated the State Health Department had not yet done so. Mr. Martin noted State approval was required before the work on the water system could begin, but said this was not under the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Hunt, engineer, said the State was not likely to make major changes to the proposed overall system, but might possibly require detail changes. Ms. Habib said the preliminary work would begin as soon as possible because the building had to be completed by June 11 in order for CL&P to provide power by 9/1.
Mrs. Hill, ZEO, reported the building and generator met the setback requirements. Mr. Martin asked that insulation be installed to muffle the generator's noise.
Mr. Brinton, member of the Washington Fire Department, stated there were already water sources on the property, but the department appreciated the upgrade. Mr. Hunt pointed out the location of the existing fire hydrant and noted there would have to be a significant increase in the number of water tanks installed to accommodate any more hydrants.
There were no further questions or comments from the Commissioners or the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School to construct a building and install a generator for the water supply system at
200 Romford Road. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.
Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Second Floor Addition to Hull House
Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 8:53 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternates Abella and Brinton for Members Owen and Page. Ms. The legal notice published in Voices on 4/14 and 4/21/04 was read.
Mr. Martin reviewed the documents in the file and read the 3/9/04 letter from Mr. Coleman of the State DEP, which stated the proposed addition did not require DEP approval. He then read the 4/26/04 ZEO Report.
The map, "Overall Campus, Water System Reconstruction," by Buck and Buck, revised to 4/23/04 was used to show the location of the existing building in relation to the boundaries. Plans entitled, "Hull House Renovations," by Design Studio compared the existing and proposed floor plans and showed the proposed elevations.
Mrs. Hill noted there were no setback or wetlands issues.
Mrs. Habib stated she did not have written approval from Mr. Etherington, Fire Marshal, but Mr. Brinton said he had spoken with him and he had no problem with the proposal. Several Commissioners said they were uncomfortable with only a verbal approval from Mr. Etherington, but Mrs. Hill pointed out that he would have to sign off on the building plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Farmen stated that there would be no increase in the number of students as a result of this project.
No one from the public spoke for or against the application.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School for a second floor addition to Hull House at 201 Romford Road. By Mr. Brinton, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Martin called the meeting to order at 8:08 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Page, and Alternate Abella for Mr. Owen.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/22/04 Regular Meeting minutes as presented. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Building and Generator for Water Supply System
Mr. Martin seated Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School for a building to house equipment and a generator for the water supply system at 200 Romford Road per the plans, "Overall Campus, Water System Reconstruction," by Buck and Buck Engineers, revised to 4/23/04 with the understanding that every effort will be made to reduce noise from the generator. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Rumsey Hall School/201 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Second Floor Addition to Hull House
Mr. Martin seated Alternate Brinton for Ms. Page.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School for a second floor addition to Hull House at 201 Romford Road per the plans submitted at the hearing and dated 4/26/04. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Town of Washington/11 School Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Restroom-Kitchen Addition to the Pavilion
Mr. Martin noted the application had been withdrawn, but would be resubmitted upon approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Other Business
Barton/Preliminary Discussion/Washington Supply Co. Property: After requesting to be placed on the agenda, Mr. Barton decided a discussion at this time would be premature and so called to say he would not attend the meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 14: Development Plan Requirements: The latest draft with Mr. Oley's updates and Atty. Zizka's recommended language had been circulated. Mr. Martin explained Atty. Zizka's changes, which included 1) eliminating all language granting the ZEO the power to approve waivers; 2) clarifying that sketch plans would be approved by the ZEO and site plans by the Commission; and 3) deleting references involving Inland Wetlands Commission jurisdiction. He pointed out that Section 14.6 allows the Commission, not the ZEO, to grant waivers when the applicant can show to the Commission's satisfaction that requiried information is not needed to reach a decision on the application. Mr. Martin referred to Section 14.2.a and asked the Commissioners if they thought the overall footprint requiring a site plan should be increased from 2500 to 3000 square feet. It was the consensus it should not be increased, but that the language should be further clarified to make it clear the 2500 sq. ft. referred to the combined footprint for all buildings proposed and did not mean each building proposed could be 2500 sq. ft. under the sketch plan criteria. The text was reviewed by the Commissioners who clarified some of the language and corrected several minor typos. It was noted the definitions of "road" and "disturbed area" would be included with the proposed revisions. The public hearing to consider the revised Section 14 was scheduled for Monday, June 28, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Town Hall.
Plan of Conservation and Development: Mr. Martin summarized the discussion from the 3/29/04 meeting. The Commission had decided to focus on four areas to begin to implement the Plan of Conservation and Development.
1) Protection of Scenic Resources - The Commission had agreed with the concept of an overlay zone and had asked the consultants to draft standards and criteria. The exact boundaries of the overlay zone have not yet been determined, but it was the consensus the scenic vista map was not selective enough and that only the most important promontory vistas should be included. Mr. Martin suggested the Commission get a quote from Mr. Sinclair of the HVA on the price to use his methodology to scope down the overlay zone to include only the most critical areas. Mr. Martin thought the overlay zone should be ridgeline oriented and pointed out activities would not be prohibited in this zone, but would have to meet additional standards.
2) The Washington Green Residential District - Mr. Martin reported the consultants had been requested at the last meeting to draft regulations that would be consistent with the idea of permitting greater flexibility for lot coverage for both residential and institutional properties in this district in cases where buffering, traffic patterns, etc. could be improved. He also explained the Commission would reassess the boundaries of The Green District. Mrs. Friedman and Mrs. Hill had inspected The Green area and had planned to make a recommendation to the Commission regarding the most appropriate boundaries taking into account issues such as topography, access, and history. Mrs. Friedman said, however, this was very difficult without first knowing exactly what the new criteria would be. A lengthy discussion about possible boundaries and the rationale for establishing those boundaries followed. It was agreed that the expanded district should take into account the uniqueness of the area and the coexistence of residential and institutional uses. The boundaries of the current Green Historic District and Green Residential Zoning District plus the addition of any lots split by the above will, for discussion purposes, be used as the minimum size for the expanded district. This boundary will be mapped for discussion at the next meeting.
3) Age Restricted Housing - Mr. Martin reported a two step process was received favorably by the Commission at the last meeting. First an applicant would have to show that a particular parcel meets the criteria to be established so that the Commission could designate a floating zone for senior housing. Then a Special Permit application would have to be granted for the specific housing project. The consultants were asked to provide criteria for the floating zone. At the last meeting, some of the Commissioners had questioned whether the new regulations should focus only on age restricted housing, as housing diversity for young families is also needed in Town. Mr. Martin noted that limited equity single family housing being considered by the Washington Community Housing Trust may be better suited for young families. Mr. Charles asked the Commission to limit the number of units per project and to require a range of unit sizes and prices for all age groups in each project. Mr. Martin said that standards would have to be carefully drafted to cap the scale of projects so they can be integrated into existing neighborhoods. He also said that regulating the prices of dwelling units is beyond the jurisdiction of Zoning. While man