www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2005

Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from the Town Clerk. Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.

---

General information about the Zoning Commission

Jump down to: December 19 • November 28 • October 24 • September 26 • August 22 • July 25 • June 27 • June 2 • May 23 • April 25 • March 28 • March 7 • January 24 • Meetings in 2004 • Meetings in 2003 • Meetings in 2002

---

December 19, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Boling, Mr. Charles, Mr. Tagley, Mrs. Mathews, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Papsin Mrs. Federer, Ms. Stevens, Mr. Wasserstein

PUBLIC HEARING

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.3/Effective Date

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/7 and 12/14/2005.

Mr. Martin explained the purpose of the revision was to address those instances when the Commission does not set an effective date for Special Permits. He noted the current language is archaic and was not specific, but the language proposed by Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. Council of Governments, was in accordance with the state statutes. He read Mr. McGuinness's 11/15/05 memo to Mrs. Hill, which included the proposed language.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the revision to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 13.3 regarding the effective date for Special Permits. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. As the new chairman, he said he hoped to do as good a job as Mr. Martin had and that from Mr. Martin he had learned to be patient and to listen to the public. He said he would rely heavily on his experience. Mr. Owen noted he had previously served on the Zoning Board of Appeals and was serving his 12th year on the Zoning Commission. He thanked the Zoning Commissioners for their confidence in him.

MOTION: To express the Zoning Commission's appreciation for the work Hank Martin has done during his terms as Zoning Commission chairman. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 11/28/05 Public Hearing- Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.3/Effective Date:

MOTION: To approve the proposed revision to Section 13.3 of the Washington Zoning Regulations regarding the effective date for Special Permits per the language submitted by Mr. McGuiness in his 11/15/05 memo to the Commission, which was read at the public hearing and to set the effective date for for 15 days after the legal notice is published. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Signs: The latest draft has been referred to Atty. Zizka for review.

Pending Application

Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Application Under the State Affordable Housing Appeals Act for 10 Dwelling Units: Mr. Owen noted the Town Sanitarian had signed off on the application. Mrs. Friedman read the 12/8/05 letter to Ms. Von Holt from Mr. Pawlik of the DPH and it was noted it was a conditional approval since there were additional requirements that had to be met by the applicant, including additional perc tests. It was the consensus that although final approval had not been granted, the Commission would schedule the public hearing. Mr. Boling submitted a letter of authorization for Atty. Ebersol and himself and noted that Mr. Fowlkes, an owner, and Mr. Charles, a consultant, who both serve on the Planning Commission, would not represent the applicant before the Zoning Commission. He then submitted the 6/20/05 letter of intent to provide domestic water from the Judea Water Company and said he anticipated approval from the DPUC and DPH would be forthcoming. Mr. Boling reported that a letter had been received from Mr. Santoro of the Department of Economic and Community Development who advised the applicant that if the deed restrictions were put in place the three units would qualify as affordable housing. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Santoro had seen the proposed layout. He had not. Mr. Martin noted the letter was helpful, but said the Commission may require more information regarding comparability. Mr. Boling said the applicant had received Atty. Zizka's 12/11/05 letter regarding issues related to affordable housing, but was not prepared to comment on it tonight. It was the consensus of the commissioners that they would wait for the public hearing to look at the site plan. The hearing was scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

Comparability was briefly discussed. Mr. Martin noted Atty. Zizka's letter was helpful, but ambiguous. He said he would not like the Commission to find itself in the position where it had approved the application, but Mr. Santoro then ruled it did not meet the comparability requirement, so he recommended that Mr. Santoro review the site plan, not just the deed restrictions. Mrs. Friedman thought the Commission should determine whether it thinks the application meets the comparibility requirement prior to seeking an opinion from Mr. Santoro. Mr. Martin said it would be prudent to get Mr. Santoro's endorsement of the Commission's opinion. Mr. Owen and Mr. Martin will discuss the procedure with Atty. Zizka before the next meeting.

New Application

Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/First Cut

Mr. Owen read the 12/19/05 ZEO Report, which noted the application had approvals from Inland Wetlands, Health, and Mr. Cannavaro, road foreman, and did qualify as a first cut. Mr. Ajello stated driveway approval by the Selectmen's Office was not required at this time because this was a feasibility plan for development and the future owner would have to submit an application when he was ready to install the driveway. The map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 10/26/05 was reviewed. Mr. Boling pointed out the frontage for the proposed interior lot. Mr. Ajello noted the proposed lot was 10 acres and the remaining parcel with the existing house was 7 acres.

MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mrs. Murgio for a first cut at 21 New Preston Hill Road per the map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 10/26/05. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Anderson (Devereaux Glenholme School)/77 New Milford Turnpike/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School

Mr. Fitzherbert recused himself and Mr. Abella was seated. Mr. Owen read the 12/19/05 ZEO Report, which stated the $30 state tax was still due. It was noted the Health Department had approved the application. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room immediately following the first hearing scheduled for 7:30 p.m.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Tagley asked if the telecommunications tower proposal for the New Preston Firehouse property would be discussed. Mr. Owen noted information about the proposal had been circulated, but that any questions or comments should be directed either to the Board of Selectmen or the State Siting Council.

Depot Study: Mr. Frank, Planning Commissioner, presented Planning's 12/12/05 referral letter and asked the Zoning Commission to review the study and get any comments and suggestions to the Planning Commission by the beginning of February. He noted the study was a conceptual exercise. He said the Planning Commission was first seeking input from the Town boards and then would meet with the Zoning Commission and post the study on the Town website to engage the entire community. Mr. Owen thought the study contained some "terrific" ideas, but thought Zoning should wait to see whether there was a townwide consensus before making any revisions to the Zoning Regulations. He said the Zoning Commission would point out those aspects of the study, which do not conform to the current Zoning Regs. Mr. Martin thought each Zoning commissioner should have his own copy rather than sharing three as suggested by the Planning Commission. He said, too, that Zoning would have to be careful not to jeopardize its objectivity by making predeterminations about the study and the regulation revisions needed to implement it. Mr. Owen agreed the Zoning Commission should not be overly involved in the conception of the study, but suggested Zoning send a representative to Planning to participate in the discussions. He noted the Commission has a full agenda for January and was not sure Zoning would have a response for Planning by February.

Communications

11/17/05 Letter to Mr. Tomlinson from Verizon Wireless: Mr. Owen read the cover letter regarding Verizon's proposal to construct a telecommunications tower on the New Preston Firehouse property and noted the Zoning Commission had identified this as an appropriate site when it had considered the application by the New Preston Congregational Church for a facility in its steeple. Mr. Martin noted the Zoning Commission had no jurisdiction in this matter. Mrs. Friedman reported that Verizon would make a presentation to the Board of Selectmen in January. Mrs. Mathews asked if it was still possible to select an alternate site. Mr. Owen said that would be up to the Board of Selectmen and the Siting Council. Mrs. Friedman noted rejection of this site would not prevent the installation of a facility in a less suitable location.

Enforcement

Oliva's Restaurant: Mr. Ajello reported the restaurant is in the process of expanding its parking lot to accommodate the additional seating and since this is a use permitted in the New Preston Business District, a Special Permit was not required.

Deli at 210 New Milford Turnpike: Mr. Ajello will investigate complaints regarding the size of the sign.

Complaint re: "Junkyard" on Dark Entry Road: Mr. Ajello will address this before the next meeting.

Palm Classic Apparrel/Rt. 202 and Main Street: It was the consensus that when the sign Regulations have been amended, the property owner may then apply for a portable sign on Main Street in addition to the directory sign on Rt. 202 and that a sign that has a post that can be taken out nightly from a sleeve or pipe in the ground would be considered portable. It was not thought that the revised regulations would have to list every possible type of portable sign.

Green Hill Trading Coffee House: Mrs. Friedman had read about this business in the newspaper, but noted the Commission had not received an application. Mr. Ajello will contact the owner.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

November 28, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Owen

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

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fredlund, Mr. Charles, Mr. Boling, Mr. Sears, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Solley, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Brigham, Residents

Mr. Martin welcomed new Commissioners Averill and Wyant.

PUBLIC HEARING

Town of Washington/10-12 Blackville Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Facilities of the Town of Washington/Garage and Driveway Extension

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternate Abella for Mr. Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/16 and 11/23/05. Mr. Martin read the 10/28/05 ZEO Report.

The map, "Public Works Garage Expansion," by Mr. Howland, revised to 5/17/05, received 11/3/05 was reviewed and a photo showing a building similar to the one proposed was circulated.

Mr. Solley, Selectman, stated the new garage was needed so the Town could vacate the old Town Garage on Titus Road and consolidate road maintenance and construction equipment on one property. The new facility would be used to store equipment that is currently both outside and in the building at the old site. He noted the proposed building would be 40' X 150', smaller than the building shown in the photo, and would have a metal roof and vertical wood siding to match the other buildings. Also, the roof pitch would be lower. He said there would be a single entry door on the side and access through the gable end.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the new building would be seen from the road. Mr. Solley responded it would be barely visible due to the existing buffer of trees. He said the Town would add lower softwoods to the buffer for additional screening, as shown in the plan.

Mr. Martin suggested the color of the new building be in harmony with its surroundings. Mr. Solley said it would be. Mr. Fitzherbert thought a muted or environmentally friendly color should be used for both the siding and the roof.

Mr. Shapiro asked what the elevation of the new building would be in relation to the other buildings on site. Mr. Solley stated there was an approximate 72 ft. difference; the elevation of the new building would be 598 ft., while the elevation of the lower lot was 526 ft.

Mr. Martin noted when the Special Permit had originally been granted, a resident who resided on top of the hill off Parsonage Lane, had been the only one concerned about the view of the buildings. Mr. Solley said he had been more concerned about the clearcutting on the hillside and again stated the Town would make every effort to maintain the existing buffer.

Mr. Martin recommended the roof be constructed of non glare materials. Mr. Solley noted the metal roof could be painted and that if asphalt was used it would be non reflective.

It was noted the height of the proposed building was 30 ft. and that this was OK because it was a primary building. Mr. Solley said the height would most likely be between 26 - 28 ft., but would not exceed 30 ft.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if construction of the new building would result in the closing of the Titus Road facility and the demolition of that garage. Mr. Solley said it would not because there would still be piles of road construction materials housed there. He added the Town was looking for another 2 - 3 acre parcel to house these materials and that demolition of the garage was not included in this application.

Mrs. Friedman asked if there would be outside storage. Mr. Solley said there would, but that it would be no higher than 6 ft. and would be well screened.

Mr. Martin suggested two conditions of approval; that the roof be non reflective and the total vertical height not exceed 30 ft. He said these conditions would be appropriate because usually height and materials are specified in applications submitted to the Commission.

There were no questions or comments from the public.

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 garage facility and extend the

driveway at 10-12 Blackville Road. By Mrs.

Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and

passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Martin called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:54 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Martin and Alternate Abella for Mr. Owen.

MOTION: To add the following items to the agenda

under Other Business: IV.C. Ridgeline

Protection and IV.D. Affordable Housing

Appeals Act. By Mr. Martin, seconded by

Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 10/24/05 Public Hearing -

Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. By

Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and

passed 5-0.

Pending Application

Town of Washington/10-12 Blackville Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Facilities of the Town of Washington/Garage and Driveway Extension: Mrs. Friedman asked if buffering was a specific part of the application and Mr. Martin said it was. It was agreed the two conditions discussed at the public hearing were appropriate.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application:

Section 4.4.9 submitted by the Town of

Washington to construct a garage facility

and extend the driveway as submitted per

the map, "Public Works Garage Expansion,"

by Mr. Howland, revised to 5/17/05,

received 11/3/05 subject to the following

conditions:

1. the total vertical height of the garage

shall not exceed 30 ft. and

2. the roof of the structure shall be non

reflective.

By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman,

and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Regulations/Section 16/Signs: Mr. Martin noted the Commission is working to streamline Section 16 and guard against the proliferation of signs in Town without hindering businesses. The latest draft had been referred to Atty. Zizka, but his review had not yet been received. Mrs. Friedman, who had drafted the revisions, noted two issues had been brought to her attention and asked whether the Commission thought additional revisions should be proposed to address them.

o Washington Park and Rec Commission - Sign for the Pavilion at the Primary School: Park and Rec would like to place a 3' X 8' sign on the Pavilion, which is located in the R-1 District where a maximum size of 2 sq. ft. is permitted. The Commissioners agreed that the proposed sign would fall under Section 16.3.1 of the proposed regulations as it was a regulatory sign for the welfare of the general public and, therefore, would be permitted without a zoning permit once Section 16 has been amended.

o Business properties with frontage on two roads - Mrs. Friedman explained a New Preston business with a directory sign on Rt. 202 also wanted a sign on its Main Street frontage to attract pedestrian traffic from the village. She questioned why a portable sandwich board sign as proposed in the draft regulations would not be adequate. Mr. Ajello said there would be no room to put it; it would either be in the state right of way or blocked by the state road guard rail. The Commissioners thought that under the proposed regulations each business would be allowed three signs; one on the building, one free standing or directory sign, and one portable sign. It was felt this provided business owners with adequate flexibility and no further revisions were called for. Mr. Ajello was asked to explain the increased flexibility in the revised regulations to the business owner who wrote the letter.

Revision of the Regulations/Section 13.3: Effective Date: Mr. Martin explained a public hearing had been scheduled for 12/19/05 to update the language of this section pertaining to the effective date of Special Permits. He noted Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. COG, had recommended revised wording, which Mr. Martin read in Mr. McGuinness' 11/15/05 memo to the Commission. The Commissioners were given copies of the proposed amendment to review.

Revision of the Regulations/Ridgeline Protection: Mr. Martin said that at the last meeting the Commission had noted proposals to address this issue had gotten increasingly complicated despite attempts to try to simplify the process by narrowing sensitive vistas to ridgelines with high elevations and steep grades. He explained that the Commission wanted to protect ridgelines in a way that would regulate, not prohibit, development. The key is to identify a way to define the most sensitive areas without including too high a percentage of the Town. He said the Commission's highest priority was to protect public views, not views from private properties. He reported he had asked Atty. Zizka whether it would be legally feasible to limit ridgeline protection specifically to those ridges around Steep Rock and Lake Waramaug. He noted that the Conservation Commission was also interested in this idea. Atty. Zizka advised him this was a legally defensible limitation and, in fact, he preferred this approach of specifically designating sensitive areas to the approach of using elevations/slopes. Therefore, this information will be forwarded to the Conservation Commission with the request that Conservation suggest language for inclusion in the Zoning Regulations for the identification of specific geographic areas to be protected. Mr. Shapiro was concerned that the ridgeline views in Washington could be seen mainly from the roads, and so this approach might not cover most of the ridges viewed by the public. Mrs. Friedman noted Roxbury was working on the preservation of views from its most traveled arterial and collector roads. Mr. Martin stated this would be more difficult to do in Washington because the topography is so varied. He recommended the Commission start in this limited way, and possibly expand to other areas later. Mr. Ajello thought a Town ordinance might be a better approach because he thought it could be more easily enforced. Mr. Martin responded that ordinances were usually implemented when the activity being regulated went beyond land use, and this did not. This matter could be evaluated again once the specific language of a regulation amendment was created.

Affordable Housing Appeals Act: Mr. Martin stressed this would be a general discussion about public policy under section 8-30g of the state statutes and not about any particular application or site. He explained that when at least 30% of the units in a proposed development are to be certified as affordable housing according to the State of Ct. definition, the entire project may then supercede local zoning regulations. The only pertinent issues would be health and safety. Density, lot coverage, setbacks, and other zoning requirements could be superceded. He noted that the three affordable housing applications approved in the past had been in nonconformity with various sections of the Zoning Regulations, but following state law, the Commission had approved them with conditions and would follow the same procedures for future applications. If an application were to be submitted by a private developer, instead of the Town of Washington or a not for profit organization, this would just be one more zoning requirement with which the application would not comply. Mr. Martin also noted that in the past the affordable housing applications considered were for projects with 100% of the units being affordable. If an application were to be submitted for less than 100% but at least 30% of the units being affordable, as allowed by state law, the Commission would have to address for the first time the issue of a mix of market rate and affordable units on the same site. The Commission would then have to address the issue of comparibility of the affordable and market rate units. He said he had asked Mr. Shapiro to research this matter and referred the Commissioners to Mr. Shapiro's 11/26/05 memo, which indicated a lack of clarity of opinion on this subject. Mr. Martin noted there is no requirement for comparibility in the state statutes, however, there is ambiguity on this matter in case law.

Mr. Martin noted when the Commission reviews any application, it considers whether the activity proposed is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. He explained comparability would ensure harmony within the development as well. The key question, however, is, exactly what are the guidelines for comparability? For example, 1) comparibility could be viewed from the standpoint of simply the exterior of the buildings within the development; or 2) comparability could take into account the size, workmanship, and materials of the units from both an interior and exterior standpoint; and/or 3) comparability could be viewed from the standpoint of the siting of affordable and market units - must they be intermixed within the project or could they be clustered in one location. Mr. Shapiro stated his research indicated comparability had to exist only within each type of housing unit. For example, all detached units had to be comparable whether affordable or market rate, but they did not have to be comparable to any attached multifamily units proposed in the same development. On the other hand, he said Atty. Hollister had clearly stated that both affordable and market rate units had to be dispersed throughout the project. Comparability, he said, could also be applied to access to amenities and services such as a community pool or parking. Mr. Martin noted the criteria for comparability were not as precise as the affordability formula and so it would behoove the Commission to study this issue and to seek a written legal opinion from land use counsel. Mr. Martin said the Zoning Commission needed a practical definition of comparability that the Commission could readily communicate to an applicant. At this point Mrs. Andersen stated some of the requirements of the Affordable Housing Appeals Act. Mr. Sears asked whether the comparability standard must also be met for off site affordable housing. Mr. Martin noted off site housing to meet the 30% affordable units requirement is not permitted under the state statutes. The Commission had decided not to proceed at the present time with multifamily dwelling regulations until after the completion of the Depot study, so this was not now an issue.

New Application

Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Application Under the State Affordable Housing Appeals Act/10 Dwelling Units

Mr. Martin read the 11/28/05 ZEO Report, which stated the Health Department had not signed off on the application. He noted that typically, the Zoning Commission does not schedule a public hearing to consider an application until the Health Department has approved it. Mr. Boling, the applicants' representative, stated he had reviewed the application with the Town Sanitarian who had indicated it would be quickly approved by the State DPH. He thought if the public hearing were scheduled for 12/19 the DPH would have approved it by then. The unanimous consensus of the Commission was that it was uncomfortable breaking precedent. Therefore, to be consistent, the Commission scheduled the hearing for January 23rd, not December 19th .

Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/First Cut

Mr. Ajello reported there had been no Health Department approval, so the application had not been submitted.

Communications

Mr. Martin noted Ms. Page's 11/16/05 letter to the Commission had been circulated.

MOTION: Resolved: that Cecilia Page has served

the Town of Washington well and faithfully

as a member of the Zoning Commission for

the past six years. The Zoning Commission,

on behalf of the Town of Washington,

thanks her for her excellent service and

wishes her well in the future. By Mr.

Martin, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and

passed 5-0.

Approval of 2005 Calendar:

MOTION: To approve the 2006 Calendar as presented.

By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill,

and passed 5-0.

Enforcement

Mr. Ajello reported he had contacted several owners about sign violations and would soon address the sign at the deli at 210 New Milford Turnpike. He noted that Oliva's Restaurant had expanded without zoning approval. Mr. Martin said in the past when Doc's and the Chuck Wagon had tried to expand without permits, the Commission had adopted an aggressive enforcement policy. He requested that Mr. Ajello ask Oliva's to confine its operation to only its approved space until the required permits are obtained. Mr. Ajello stated the third matter he will investigate before the next meeting is a complaint that there is a junkyard in the R-1 District.

Commission Organization

Mr. Martin again welcomed Mr. Averill and Mr. Wyant and noted Mr. Shapiro would be on a three month leave of absence beginning in December.

Election of Officers

MOTION: To elect the following slate of officers for

a two year term:

Chairman: David Owen

Vice Chairman: Gary Fitzherbert

Secretary: Valerie Friedman.

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

passed 5-0.

Remarks from Outgoing Chairman

Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the provocative applications and proactive revisions to the Regulations that had been considered during his ten years on the Zoning Commission. He also noted three current trends in Town: 1) Whereas in the past Washington's remoteness has been an advantage as far as maintaining its rural character is concerned, the Town has become more accessible. Therefore the Town would have to be more vigilant and rely more on its land use regulations in the future. 2) There is increasing encroachment on the Town's autonomy by both the state and federal government. Free standing cell towers and affordable housing were cited as examples. 3) Serving the public has become more difficult for both the Commission and staff due to the more litigious nature of society. He said he enjoyed serving as Chairman and thanked the Commission for its support during his terms. Mr. Sears noted Mr. Martin had an incredible talent for steering the Commission toward its long term goals. On behalf of the Town, he thanked him for his six years as Chairman. Mr. Fitzherbert noted Mr. Martin had always attempted to get public input and knew how to take advantage of each member's expertise. Mr. Shapiro said he appreciated Mr. Martin's ability to educate the public about the issues involved with applications, the constraints under which the Commission must work, and the role of land use in the Town's decision making process.

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

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

October 24, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Abella
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Ensign, Mr. Tagley, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. Sears, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Andersen

PUBLIC HEARING

Ensign/50 Orchard Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/12 and 10/19/05.

Mr. Martin referred to the 10/24/05 ZEO Report, which stated the proposed apartment complied with all the zoning requirements except that the green certified mailing receipt cards had not been received for the four mailings sent by the applicant to adjoining property owners ten days prior to the hearing. The mailing receipts, however, showing that notice had been sent out 10 days prior to the meeting were in the public record. Therefore, it was the consensus of the Commissioners that the applicant had met the notification requirement.

Mr. Ensign presented the site plan, floor plans, and elevations all dated 9/21/05 by Mrs. Donnelly. He pointed out the location of the driveway and of wetlands elsewhere on the property. He noted the apartment would be 832 square feet with an unfinished attic. Most of the attic would not be "finishable" due to the use of collar ties, which would decrease headroom. He stated he did not plan to use the 312 sq. ft. in the attic that could be finished. It was noted that even if this space was finished in the future, it would not bring the size of the apartment over the 1200 sq. ft. permitted. It was also noted the apartment was much smaller than the 4800 sq. ft. primary structure on the same property. Mr. Ensign submitted a written statement that the owner would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. Ensign for a detached accessory apartment at 50 Orchard Lane. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.

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, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert.

Consideration of the Minutes

Mr. Shapiro made the following correction beginning in the 3rd line above the motion on page 6: Substitute "and that all our Regulations called for was" for the words, "said it had been noted the proposal was for."

MOTION: To accept the 9/26/05 Public Hearing/Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Ensign/50 Orchard Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Martin read the 10/24/05 statement by Mr. Ensign that the owner would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit and noted the proposed apartment complied with the Zoning Regulations.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. Ensign for a detached accessory apartment at 50 Orchard Lane. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

Town of Washington/10-12 Blackville Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Facilities for the Town of Washington/Garage and Driveway Extension

Mr. Sears explained the proposed garage on the upper level of the property would store equipment from the old Town Garage site on Titus Road. He said STEAP grant funds were available for the project. It was noted the Health Department had approved the application and the ZBA had granted a variance for coverage. Mr. Martin read from the 10/24/05 ZEO Report that elevations and floor plans were needed and also a valid engineer's plan. Mr. Sears said he would submit these prior to the public hearing.

The public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 28, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

Other Business

Multifamily Housing: Mr. Martin said the Commission has been working hard on this issue for one and a half years. The Commission had received input from Planimetrics, the Commission's attorney, and the public through an informational meeting. He thanked Mr. Shapiro for reviewing Atty. Zizka's draft regulations before they were sent to the Commissioners for review. He said that the Commission now had the input necessary to visualize what this regulation would look like, if enacted. Mr. Martin briefly reviewed the current proposal for limited multi family regulations to allow a limit of 50 units in the business districts, and in the R-1 district on properties that already have existing institutional uses. He noted the regulations would expire once 50 units had been approved. He asked the Commission to consider whether to:

A) proceed now with the draft regulations,

B) proceed now, but only for multi family units in the business districts,

C) delay proceeding until after the Depot study is completed.

Mr. Shapiro thought there was a need for multi family housing in Town, but that based on some of the reaction to the Depot study, there was perceived opposition to the multi family regs. Therefore, he opted for C.

Ms. Page agreed with option C.

Mrs. Friedman also chose option C and noted affordable units could still be built in Town under the State Affordable Housing Appeals Act even if the Commission decided not to go forward with multi family regulations.

Mr. Owen selected option C for all of the above reasons. He also stated that the existing multi family units have accounted for a significant per cent of the Town's growth since 1970. He thought that these units, and also accessory apartments approved over the years work against the preservation of the Town's character by allowing this growth. He suggested it might be time to prohibit accessory apartments unless the property on which they were proposed could support two density units.

Mr. Martin also opted for C. He noted the Zoning Commission had taken up this issue on a good faith basis as a result of recommendations in the Plan of Conservation and Development. He thought the Commission should wait for the completion of the Depot study before going forward and if it then appeared there was a role for multi family housing in the business districts, the Commission should address this at that time. He said he favored eliminating the R-1 District from consideration, but believed there was merit in focusing on the business districts and supporting the village concept.

Conclusion: The Commission has unanimously decided to delay proceeding until after the Depot study is completed.

Mr. Sears thanked the Commission for its efforts to address housing diversity, an important issue in the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development. He thought the draft regulations reviewed by Atty. Zizka were well done because they brought in the history of the Town. He expressed his hope that the Commission would, indeed, consider this matter again in the future. Mr. Martin stated the draft regulations could be used by the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission to illustrate what the Zoning Commission envisions as a scenario for housing in the business districts. Mr. Owen noted multi family housing was one of several changes that would have to be considered in light of Planning's recommendations for the Depot. He noted, however, the Commission has been applauded for its soil based zoning regulations and so should be careful not to undercut them. Mr. Federer thanked the Commission for its efforts to consider this complex and politically charged issue and Mr. Martin thanked him and Mrs. Federer for their input, which contributed to the quality of the deliberations. Mr. Charles made the following points: 1) He reminded the Commission that during its review of 16 Church Street, it had noted the need for limited equity stand alone single family dwellings in Town. 2) Housing diversity is needed to ensure the Town has volunteers and because it contributes to the security of the community. 3) "In law apartments" serve a valuable role, but they are not the solution to the lack of housing diversity. 4) He thought it was important to continue to pursue multi family housing regulations if a State moratorium is put in place because at that time the Commission could set much higher standards than those in the Affordable Housing Appeals process. Mr. Martin stated further discussion of multi family housing would be tabled until after the completion of the Depot study.

Viewshed Protection: Mr. Fitzherbert was not present to update the Commission on his and Mr. Ajello's recent meeting with the Conservation Commission's subcommittee. Mr. Martin noted in April the subcommittee had recommended regulations to govern elevations over 850 ft. and a complicated grid system. At that time the Commission had asked for a more simplified proposal with a higher elevation threshold. Since then Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Ajello met with the subcommittee, but Mr. Fitzherbert did not think the resulting draft reflected the discussion that had taken place at that meeting. Mr. Martin noted the Commission had delayed revisions to Section 14 in order to include the viewshed regulations. These were taking so long to draft, that he recommended the Commission resume its work on Section 14 without them. He said Section 14 could be revised to include them in the future when all parties were satisfied with the viewshed protection language. Mr. Martin indicated Mrs. Payne had asked if it would be legally feasible to govern only the ridgeline properties overlooking Steep Rock and Lake Waramaug as everyone agrees these are important areas to protect. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Martin should consult with Atty. Zizka to find out whether there would be a legal, non discriminatory, systematic, and structured method to preserve the viewsheds in these areas. Mr. Martin noted any proposed regulations would regulate, not ban, development on ridgelines in these areas.

Revision of Section 14 of the Zoning Regulations: Mr. Martin will get the latest draft out to all Commissioners for review. He noted it had not yet been sent to Atty. Zizka.

Revision of Section 16/Sign Regulations: The draft regulations and proposed sign application form had been referred to Atty. Zizka as had been requested at the last meeting. His evaluation has not yet been received.

Communications

Mr. Martin read the 10/15/05 letter of resignation from Mr. Brinton and noted Harry Wyant is running for his seat.

Organization

Mr. Martin announced that Mr. Owen has agreed to serve as the Commission's next chairman. He thanked Mr. Owen, pledged his support, and noted that he was glad that the next chairman would be from within the Commission. Election of Officers will take place at the end of the November meeting.

Enforcement

It was noted there were continuing complaints, including dissatisfaction expressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding sign enforcement. Mr. Ajello will be asked to attend the next meeting to discuss this matter and to address the complaints received about the large sign in Marbledale, signs put up without permits for new businesses throughout Town, and sandwich board signs on Rt. 202.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Martin acknowledged Mrs. Andersen who asked how the Zoning Commission would assess whether the Town is or is not at the moratorium level under the State Affordable Housing Appeals Act. Mr. Martin noted currently the Town is not at the level needed for a moratorium. He and Mr. Sears briefly explained the certification process, noted Washington has approximately 50 of the 70 points required for the moratorium level, and stated the Town may contact the state to add new affordable units to the count at anytime during the year.

At this point Mr. Martin asked Mr. Sears if the seven Ellsworth apartments had been deed restricted so they could be counted as affordable units by the State. Mr. Sears said he continues to contact the church about this matter, but it has not yet placed deed restrictions on them. It was the unanimous consensus of the Zoning Commission that if the owner did not place the appropriate deed restrictions on the Ellsworth units, the local property tax abatement, which had been approved at a Town Meeting based upon the units being affordable, should be overturned. The Commission thought that no property owner in Town should be able to have it both ways and that it would be unfair for this property owner to receive the property tax abatement while at the same time refusing to deed restrict the units as affordable. Mr. Sears said he has also contacted the heads of the private schools to ask for deed restrictions on faculty housing so that it can be counted towards the moratorium, but said the boards of trustees are reluctant to do so. Mrs. Anderson suggested that the deed restrictions required to count attached and detached accessory apartments towards the moratorium, 10 years and 12 months respectively, could be used as a tool to provide more local control over affordable housing applications. Mrs. Friedman suggested that property owners could possibly be incented to place them on their properties. Mrs. Andersen hoped the Zoning Commission would say no to the upcoming application to be submitted under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act based on her perception that use of these short term deed restrictions would enable the Town to reach the moratorium level soon. Mr. Martin said, if submitted, any application would be evaluated and a decision made by the Commission based on its own merits.

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

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

September 26, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert (Hearing only), Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen, Ms. Page

ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro

ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton

STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Swain, Atty. Shrub, Mrs. Condon, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mr./Mrs. Farmer, Mr./Mrs. Small, Mr. Reich, Mr. C. Miller, Mrs. Miller, Ms. Burton, Mrs. Andersen, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr./Mrs. Graham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kalluri, Mr./Mrs. Crumrine, Ms. Zelanko, Mr. Piscukas, Mr./Mrs. Auchincloss, Mr. Chute, Mr. C. Smith, Mr. Mnuchin, Mr. Owens, Mr. Hunter, Mrs. Payne, Ms. Anson, Mr. Gorrivan, Ms. Dyer, Mrs. Solley, Mr. Ensign, Mr. W. Smith, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARING

The Gunnery School, Inc./22 South Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Classroom Building and Driveway

Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert who had not attended the first session of the hearing or listened to the tape recording of that session.

Mr. Martin read the list of documents that had been submitted to the file since the 8/22 meeting and noted the 2003 Washington Plan of Conservation and Development was also entered as part of the record. Ms. Roberts read the 9/22/05 letter from the South Street Neighborhood Association, which represented the opinions of thirty residents who opposed the application. Mr. Martin then read the 9/26/05 ZEO Report and noted it was the Commission's intention to close the public hearing this evening. He also reminded those present the Commission could consider only the Special Permit application submitted and not any potential future development plans.

Atty. Andrews, representing The Gunnery, briefly addressed concerns that had been raised by the public at the first session of the hearing. 1) She submitted a list of specific conditions of approval to govern the use of the proposed classroom building with the understanding they would not apply to the entire 70 acre parcel. The conditions were a) the classroom building would be used no more than an average of once per week, b) it would not be used after 8:00 p.m. and c) it would not be rented out for commercial use. 2) Regarding the concerns expressed at the last meeting that the proposal would adversely affect property values in the area, she submitted a 9/23/05 letter from Mr. Hunter, a certified appraiser in Washington and Litchfield County, in which he concluded the proposed building and driveway would neither negatively impact property values nor the surrounding neighborhood. 3) To respond to concerns that the original traffic study had not been conducted during peak morning traffic, she submitted an additional traffic report by Mr. Kalluri, a traffic engineer from Wilbur Smith Assoc. Mr. Kalluri explained his 9/23/05 report, which concluded that a) the proposal would not create a significant traffic impact at the intersection of South Street and Rt. 47 because it would add only four trips in the peak hour and b) the level of service after development would be Level B - Good. 4) Regarding the proposed driveway, Atty. Andrews explained The Gunnery would not construct a driveway narrower than what was required by the Fire Chief and the school's engineering consultants. She also stated that while she understood any future uses for the property would require separate applications, the proposed paved 18 ft. wide driveway was appropriate and safe for school use and could also serve any future use without requiring additional disturbance to the wetlands. Mr. Smith, engineer, submitted a letter dated 9/26/05, which reviewed all the reasons why an 18 ft. wide driveway was required. He said he had met with the Fire Chief who wanted an 18 ft. wide driveway with 2.5 ft. wide hard shoulders to accommodate emergency vehicles and noted this width was necessary so that the 8 ft. 10 in. wide school busses could pass.

Mrs. Graham, head of the school, cited The Gunnery's credentials and accreditation by the state and entered these, the school's curriculum, and the spring 2005 issue of Independent School into the record. She noted sustainability and environmental awareness were an important part of the school's curriculum.

Mr. Martin read the 9/22/05 letter from Atty. Zizka, Commission counsel.

The Commission heard the following questions and comments from the public:

Mr. Swain, South Street, asked whether in his letter the Fire Chief had requested a driveway width of at least 18 ft. or whether he said 18 ft. was adequate. Mr. Martin read the pertinent section of the Fire Chief's 8/18/05 letter, which stated the proposed 18 ft. wide driveway would provide adequate access for emergency equipment. As the letter did not state this was the minimum required, Mr. Swain thought perhaps he might also find a narrower driveway to be adequate.

Ms. Zelenko, Painter Ridge Road, questioned the need for such a wide access. She thought the school could use the nearby wells to install a sprinkler system for the building and the land should be placed in total trust to preserve it for a total environmental classroom.

Atty. Strub, representing Mr. and Mrs. Stern, South Street, asked for a list of the documents submitted today. Mrs. Hill noted them for the record. He suggested pull offs to enable vehicles to pass so that the driveway could be narrower and more consistent with the surrounding residential character. He, too, thought the Fire Chief might find a narrower driveway adequate. Atty. Strub disagreed with the part of Atty. Zizka's 9/22/05 letter pertaining to the expansion of off site satellite schools. He said this was a unique situation that was not covered in the Zoning Regulations and that his interpretation that the proposed use was an accessory use was as reasonable an interpretation of the Regulations as was Atty. Zizka's.

Mr. Gorrivan, South Street, said his real estate broker had written him the proposal would decrease the value of his property and he offered to send a copy to the Commission. Mr. Martin advised him the hearing would be closed this evening so there would be no time to mail in information. Thus, Mr. Gorrivan summarized the letter verbally.

Mrs. Payne, South Street, read her 9/26/05 letter, which proposed the 30 acres owned by The Gunnery on Frisbie Road would be a more appropriate location for an environmental classroom building.

The Commissioners asked the following questions:

Mrs. Friedman thought the proposed driveway was a major concern. She said the idea of using the property for an environmental classroom and the construction of an 18 ft. wide driveway were inconsistent. She asked what other options had been considered. Mr. Smith said no other options had been considered because this was the width needed for emergency vehicles. He added that the traffic consultant from Wilbur Smith Assoc. concurred. Finally, he said the Fire Chief had personally advised him he wanted an 18 ft. wide driveway with 2.5 ft. wide hard shoulders, and the busses were 8 ft. 10 in. wide not including the mirrors.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if pull offs had been considered. Mr. Smith said, no, because the driveway had curves in order to avoid wetlands crossings and pull offs would not work with tight radius curves.

Mrs. Friedman referred to the 9/22/05 letter from the South Street Neighborhood Assoc. and asked whether the existing driveway to the well fields could be used for access; either going in all the way to the proposed building or bringing the students part way in and having them walk the rest of the way. On the map, "Phase I Plan with Topography," by Smith and Co., revised to 8/17/05 Mr. Smith pointed out the location of the well field driveway and said it could not be used to access the classroom building for the following reasons: 1) The driveway would be too close to the well fields. Buck and Buck Engineers had advised The Gunnery there could be no soil disturbance or installation of new drainage structures near the well fields. 2) If the existing driveway were extended to the new building, it would have to cross wetlands, an alternative already considered and rejected by the Inland Wetlands Commission. 3) The existing driveway would be a longer route to the classroom building. 4) The existing driveway tends to channel runoff, while the proposed drive would be constructed without a crown to allow sheet runoff flow. 5) The extension of the existing driveway would run over the recently installed water tanks.

Mrs. Friedman asked if the applicant had considered an oil and stone surface. Mr. Smith noted the driveway, especially the 10% grade section, required a stable surface to prevent washouts onto the well field. He said an oil and stone surface would meet that requirement.

Mr. Piscuskas, Painter Ridge Road, agreed with Mrs. Friedman's concerns about the driveway.

Ms. Kelly-Aquirre, Dean of Faculty and Curriculum, stated the school day is on strict time schedule and having the students walk to the classroom would waste learning time.

Ms. Payne stated the Town already has Steep Rock and Hidden Valley, which could be used as outdoor classrooms and where there is already adequate parking.

Mr. Miller, Wykeham Road, pointed out that last month the Zoning Commission had "easily" approved a Special Permit application for Rumsey Hall School on Romford Road where there is a major traffic problem. Mr. Martin stated the Rumsey Hall application was not relevant in this matter and that The Gunnery's application would be decided on its own merits.

Mr. Kinsolving, South Street, questioned whether such large vehicles were needed to transport only 16 students to the classroom building. He thought they could walk at least part of the way in. He did not think there was a need for the driveway to be wide enough for a bus and emergency vehicle to pass because in the event of a fire, the bus full of students would have left the site before the fire trucks arrived. He did not think such a "slight use" merited such a wide driveway.

Mr. Small, Green Hill Road, Gunnery teacher and coach, asked how many present had ever driven a bus and said 18 ft. might not be wide enough.

Mr. W. Smith, Golf Course Road, Gunnery teacher and coach, said having driven school vans, he agreed with Mr. Small.

Mrs. Friedman asked if pavers had been considered for the driveway. Mr. Smith stated the shoulders would be constructed over the extended sub base of the driveway and would be spread with top soil and grassed. They would be able to accommodate the weight of emergency vehicles. He did not think pavers were suitable for the road surface due to the 10% grade and because they would erode and cause ruts.

There were no further questions or comments.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by The Gunnery, Inc. to construct a driveway and environmental classroom building at 22 South Street. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro.

Before the close of the hearing Mr. Martin thanked both the applicants and the public for their civil and professional conduct throughout the course of the hearing.

Vote: 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Martin called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:58 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 8/22/05 Public Hearing -

Regular Meeting minutes as written. By

Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and

passed 5-0.

Pending Application

The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/ Environmental Classroom Building and Driveway: Mr. Martin noted the Commission had three options: 1) approval, 2) approval with conditions, either the conditions offered by the school or others drafted by the Commission, and 3) denial. He asked the Commissioners for their non binding opinions. Mr. Shapiro preferred option #2, approval with conditions. He thought the Commission would be remiss not to incorporate the conditions offered by the applicant into the approval motion. Mrs. Friedman also opted for condition #2, approval with conditions. She agreed with Mr. Shapiro's point of view and also thought the proposed driveway was a major concern and should be modified as an addtional condition of approval. She said she thought it was too wide, but would be willing to support it if an oil and stone surface was required so that it would blend in better with the natural environment. Mr. Owen, Ms. Page, and Mr. Martin preferred option #1, approval with no conditions. Mr. Owen did not support conditions that were stricter than the requirements of the Regulations. Ms. Page agreed and added, for example, she did not want to restrict the use of the classroom building to an average of once a week as offered by the applicant. Mr. Martin noted the small size of the proposed development and the low intensity of the proposed use. He asked if a condition that the building could not be rented out commercially would be acceptable. Mr. Owen and Ms. Page did not support this condition. Mr. Shapiro and Mrs. Friedman did. Mr. Martin thought this condition was appropriate because the Commission had in the past made this a condition of other approvals and commercial rental of the building would deviate from the approved school use. After brief further discussion, there was consensus that this condition become a part of the motion for approval. There was a brief discussion about whether there should be a condition that any further future development of the property would require an additional Zoning permit to make it clear this approval would be for Phase I only. It was decided this was not necessary because it was sufficiently clear in the Zoning Regulations themselves that this was the case. For the record, Mr. Martin stated the Commission would act only on the current Special Permit application and that any proposed future development would require a separate application, a subsequent public hearing, and a separate vote based on the merits of that future application. The driveway was again discussed. Mr. Shapiro thought since the Special Permit standards include safety considerations, the Commission should not require a narrower driveway because 1) the Fire Chief said 18 ft. was adequate and 2) Mr. Smith, engineer, said 18 ft. was necessary to navigate the tight turns. Mr. Owen thought the applicant had made its case for the 18 ft. wide driveway and noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the specifications and the route through a sensitive wetlands area. Ms. Page stated the school has a responsibility to build the safest possible driveway for its students and she did not think the Fire Chief's letter should be ignored. Mr. Martin said he had reviewed both the Zoning Regulations and the Town Driveway Ordinance and the proposed driveway complied with both. He did not think it would be appropriate to require a change. Mrs. Friedman said she could accept the 18 ft. width if the surface was changed to oil and stone so its appearance would be more suitable for the surrounding residential neighborhood. She noted there was a precedent because the Commission had directed the Housing Trust to change surface materials at 16 Church Street. Mr. Owen did not support such a condition. Mr. Shapiro noted the Driveway Ordinance did not specify a specific required surface material or a minimum width and said it had been noted the proposal was for an adequate all weather surface that would accommodate the safe movement of vehicles.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by The Gunnery, Inc. to construct an environmental classroom building and driveway at 22 South Street per the plan, "Phase One Plan (with topography,)" by Smith and Company, dated 7/12/05, revised to 8/17/05 with the condition that the building shall not be rented out for commercial use. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen.

The motion was briefly discussed. It was noted that the proposal had complied with all the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Regulations and that it complied with all the standards of Section 13.1.B due to its low intensity use. The definition in Section 21 of "school" was read and it was noted The Gunnery had submitted documentation regarding its state accreditation. Finally, it was noted Atty. Zizka had advised the Commission the decision had to be based on the proposed use, not the user.

Vote: 4-1.

Mrs. Friedman voted No. She said she had no objection to the educational classroom building, but wanted the access to that building to have less impact on the property and surrounding neighborhood.

Other Business

Multifamily Housing Regulations: Mr. Martin passed out to the Commissioners Atty. Zizka's recently drafted regulations based on the Commission's discussions. As no one had the opportunity to review them prior to the meeting, discussion was deferred to the next meeting.

Revision of the Regulations/View Shed Protection: Mr. Martin circulated an undated memo from the Ridgeline Subcommittee of the Conservation Commission regarding its thoughts on revisions to the Zoning Regulations to protect scenic ridgelines. He noted Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Ajello had met with the subcommittee to discuss specific language. The subcommittee will be invited to next month's meeting to discuss this subject with the Commission. Mrs. Hill will send copies of Roxbury's and Kent's draft regulations to each Commissioner to review.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Signs: Draft #8 of revisions to Section 16 and the draft sign permit application form had been mailed out for review prior to the meeting. After a brief discussion, some minor revisions were agreed upon. The proviso will be deleted from Section 16.3.7. The application form will refer to fixed and portable signs, not permanent and portable signs. The corrections will be made and the draft forwarded to Atty. Zizka for review. It was noted permits will be required for new businesses to use existing signs because that is the only means the Commission has to bring non conforming signs into compliance.

Fairfield land and Properties, LLC./116 Woodbury Road/Request to Amend Approved Special Permit Site Plan for Garden Spa and Inn/Decrease in Parking Spaces and Change of Parking Layout: Mr. Mnuchin, owner, and Mr. Owens, architect, were present. Mr. Owens reviewed the site plan that accompanied the 9/22/05 request. He explained less parking was needed than had been originally anticipated because 1) the number of rooms in the new inn had been reduced from 8 to 6 and 2) there would be fewer, but more versatile staff. Therefore, he proposed to decrease parking by four spaces. He pointed out on the site plan that the row of parking originally proposed over the septic area would be moved to an area along the service driveway and the parking near the inn reconfigured. He explained by moving the parking to lower areas on site, more effective screening could be accomplished. He also pointed out the proposed changes in parking would help to preserve green areas and would decrease coverage. Mr. Martin asked if the proposed parking would still be adequate to serve the facility. Mr. Owens said it would, but noted if it was determined in the future that more parking was required, there was plenty of room on site to add more spaces. Mr. Martin read the 9/26/05 Zoning Report, which found no problems with the proposal.

MOTION: To approve the request submitted by Mr. Owens on behalf of Fairfield Land and Properties, LLC. to decrease the required number of parking spaces to 30 and to revise the approved site plan for the Special Permit granted for the garden spa and inn at 116 Woodbury Road per the partial site plan entitled, "Mayflower Project," by Harper Owens Architects, LLC. dated 9/16/05. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Ensign/50 Orchard Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: The application had not yet been reviewed by the ZEO, but Mrs. Hill noted the Health Department had approved it. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Owen thought it would be helpful for the Commission to have a list of how many attached and detached apartments were now available and occupied in Town.

Communications

PA 05-124: The new state statute, PA 05-124 was briefly discussed. All land use and Health and most Building applications will have to be accompanied either by a statement that there are no conservation or preservation easements, restrictions, or deeds on the property or if there are, by either permission for the proposed work by the easement holder or proof that the applicant notified the easement holder of the pending woek by certified mail at least 60 days prior to the submission of the application. The form that will be used by all departments was reviewed. Mr. Martin thought this statute would cause a decrease in the number of conservation easements granted and so thought it was ill advised.

Commission Organization: Mr. Martin noted he is just completing 10 years of service on the Commission, including 6 years as chairman. He felt it was time to give someone else the opportunity to serve as chair. He said he would, however, serve out the remainder of his elected term as Zoning Commissioner. He noted he was advising the Commission in advance of his view with the hope that a current Commissioner would volunteer to serve as chairman. He hoped this would facilitate a smooth transition. If no one from the Commission volunteers, he noted there are precedents for appointments from outside the Commission. Ms. Page noted what a great job Mr. Martin has done as chairman and the rest of the Commission wholeheartedly agreed.

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

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

August 22, 2005

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

ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Abella

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert

ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Brinton, Mr. Shapiro

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. W. Smith, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Atty. Strub, Atty. Andrews, Mr. C. Smith, Mr. Ullram, Mr. Powell, Ms. Anson, Ms. Adams, Mr. Swain, Ms. Roberts, Mr./Mrs. Graham, Mr. Auchincloss, Mr./Mrs. Houldin, Mrs. Middlebrook, Ms. Raithel, Mrs. Raithel, Ms. Habib, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Washington, Mr./Mrs. Piscuskus, Mr./Mrs. Stern, Mr./Mrs. Crumrine, Mr. Kallluri, Atty. Kelly, Atty. Fisher, Mrs. Peckerman, Mr. Kinsolving, Mr. Miller, Mr. Ringel, Mrs. Andersen, Mrs. Dyer, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Revision to the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 12.1/ Wetlands and Watercourse Setbacks

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:37 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/10 and 8/17/05.

Mr. Martin reviewed the documents in the file. (See attached list.) He then briefly reviewed the proposed revisions, which listed the structures such as boathouses, docks, one municipal boat ramp, and structures for erosion control that would be exempt from the 50 foot setback from the shoreline of Lake Waramaug. He noted the proposed revision would facilitate the implementation of the Lake Waramaug Agreement, which had previously been approved at a Town Meeting. He read the 8/2/05 Planning Commission minutes, which stated that Commission had no objections to the proposed revisions, the 7/11/05 memo from Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. Council of Govt's, which found the proposed amendments did not conflict with any plan of policy of the NW Ct. COG, and a portion of the 5/6/05 letter from Mr. Sears on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, which stated the Board thought the proposed revisions would achieve the intended ends regarding the Lake Waramaug boat launch and related parking and storage. He noted previous input from both Mr. McGuinness and Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force had been incorporated in the proposed language and thanked them for their efforts.

Mrs. Anderson, resident, stated Lake Waramaug is a heritage lake and asked whether the implementation of the revisions would result in a change in the lake's status. Mr. Martin responded the Lake Waramaug Agreement supported the heritage lake by taking into account the maintenance of its health and added it made sense to recognize the existing boat launch in the Regulations. Mrs. Anderson asked if some of the lake would be filled with gravel to accomplish the boat launch improvements. Mr. Martin said he had not yet seen the final plans, but noted before the new boat launch could be built, an application for a Special Permit would have to be considered by the Zoning Commission. He explained the proposed revisions did not approve the boat launch; they would only allow a future application to be submitted.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider

revisions to the Washington Zoning

Regulations: Section 12.1/Wetlands

and Watercourse Setbacks. By Mr. Owen,

seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.

Milstein/36 Hinkle Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/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. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/10 and 8/17/05.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file and read the 8/22/05 ZEO report.

Mr. Washington, agent, presented the map, "Site Plan," by Mr. Bertaccini, dated April 2005. He explained the proposed accessory apartment would be an addition to the existing garage. The garage was within the side yard setback, but the addition would comply with the setback requirements. Mr. Ajello confirmed the addition would not increase the nonconformity of the building. The elevations and floor plans by Natale and Stoutenberg dated 6/28/05 were reviewed. Mr. Washington noted the apartment would not be visible from Hinkle Road.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider

the Special Permit application: Section

13.11 submitted by Ms. Milstein for a

detached accessory apartment at 36 Hinkle

Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page,

and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.

At this point due to the large number of people in attendance, the meeting was moved to the Main Hall.

The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School Use, Driveway, Classroom Building

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 8:04 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/10 and 8/17/05.

Mr. Martin reviewed the application and the documents in the file. He then explained the public hearing procedure, stressing that only the actual application that was submitted would be considered in the public hearing. If The Gunnery wished to apply for further development in the future, he said, that future application would be decided on its own merits and would require another public hearing.

The Gunnery made its presentation.

Mrs. Graham, Head of School, noted the project was essential to the school as it would enhance the environmental education program and keep it competitive with other private schools.

Mr. Graham, Associate Director of Development, gave a brief history of the property purchased by the school in 1958, which currently provides the school's water supply.

Atty. Andrews noted the application had all the perquisite approvals; Health, Inland Wetlands Commission, and Board of Selectmen for the driveway.

Mr. Smith, environmental engineer and surveyor, reviewed the map, "Phase One Plan with Topography," by Smith and Company, revised to 8/17/05. He noted the natural features of the property. Wetlands had been delineated mainly on the west side near the well fields, but also along the north boundary where the old hockey ponds are located, and the land slopes approximately 10% in the center, but up to 35% at the north end. He pointed out the location of the proposed 1100 ft. long, 18 ft. wide driveway with 2.5 shoulders on each side and the 816 sq. ft. classroom building. He noted 1) the driveway did not exceed the maximum 10% grade permitted, 2) the 18 ft. width was necessary to accommodate both auto and van access to the classroom building, 3) the Washington Fire Chief had recommended this width for fire and emergency access, 4) the traffic engineer also thought an 18 ft. wide travel way was needed, and 5) due to the wetlands and steep slopes that would require significant cuts and fills elsewhere on site, this was the only feasible and prudent location for the driveway.

Mr. Kaluri, traffic engineer, reported the proposed entrance would meet the sight line requirements when a mound near the entrance was regraded. He also stated 18 ft. with 2 ft. shoulders was the minimum width driveway recommended. He noted a traffic study had been conducted in February and it had been determined there was no traffic congestion and the traffic flow through the area had been given a good rating.

Mr. Smith submitted the 8/2/05 letter from Mr. Riefenhauser, engineer, regarding drainage and impact on down grade property owners. He noted the property is mainly Class A soils with some wetlands and Class C to the east so it was relatively well drained. He explained the driveway would be constructed so the surface flow would continue to flow to the north and with curtain drains on the uphill side so the driveway would not be undermined by groundwater. He reviewed the map, "Site Plan, Grading, Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," dated 7/12/05, which included curtain drain details and cross sections. Drainage calculations were submitted. Mr. Smith concluded that no water would be impounded and there would be no impact on downgrade properties from the proposed development.

Mr. Powell, architect, reviewed the plans for the 16.5 ft. tall, 34 ft. X 24 ft., 816 sq. ft., classroom building including porch. He said a total of 9.5 c. yrds. of material would be displaced with the nine 12 in. sonotubes required for the foundation. The structure would have a metal roof and cedar shingles.

Atty. Andrews stated the proposed classroom building would involve using the property for environmental education, which is a core part of the school's curriculum. She estimated there would be one van with two teachers and sixteen students once a week during the school day. She said late afternoon and evening use would be infrequent, and said the building would not be rented out or used commercially. She reviewed Section 13.1.B of the Zoning Regulations and explained how the proposed use would comply with each of the eight requirements. #1) She stated the small scale, low intensity use set deep inside the property was consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development's goal to preserve the rural character. #2) She stated the Inland Wetlands Commission had found the natural resources on site would be protected and had approved the application. The proposed low intensity use would not hinder the use of adjoining properties, and that a school was an appropriate use for a residential neighborhood. She stated the architectural design was in keeping with its rural surroundings. She had contacted Mr. Bellentoni, the state archeologist, who reported there were no archeological sites on the property. Finally, she noted the proposal would comply with all requirements of the Zoning Regulations and that no variances would be required. #3) She read the 8/18/05 letter from the Fire Chief, which stated the 18 ft. wide driveway would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. #4) She stated the classroom building would generate very little traffic. Mr. Smith reviewed the parking plans, which he said, required minimum regrading and would result in a minimum loss of natural features. #5) Atty. Andrews stated the property was 70 acres and the proposed structure would be 700 feet away from the nearest home and could not be seen from the nearest home. Also, it would not be lit when it was not in use. #6) Given the nature of the property, no additional landscaping was proposed, but she said the school would consider it if the Commission thought it was necessary. #7) She stated the driveway had been designed with respect to the preservation of natural features and that the IWC had approved it's location. The driveway would not require much maintenance and the school's staff would do all maintenance work. She submitted the 11/28/05 letter from the state DEP, which stated there were no known endangered, threatened, or species of special concern on the property. #8) Due to the small number of students who will use the classroom at any one time and the fact there will be faculty supervision, the proposed use will not create noise. Also there will be no fumes. The building will have lights per the state Building Code, but they will be turned off when it is not in use. There will be a locked gate at the entrance so the driveway will not create a nuisance. In addition, Atty. Andrews stated the Zoning Regulations listed no requirement that a school use must be within a specified distance of its main campus.

Mrs. Friedman asked if it would be possible to construct a narrower driveway considering the modest use proposed. Mr. Kaluri reiterated that 18 ft. is the minimum width required for two vehicles to safely pass, noting the paved portion is critical. Mr. Smith said the Fire Chief had stated a paved 18 ft. wide driveway was the minimum width for safe access by emergency vehicles, particularly because of the curves the driveway has.

Mr. Martin asked about hours of operation. Atty. Andrews stated the building would be used primarily in the spring and fall an average of once a week, usually during regular school hours, and rarely on weekends or during the evening.

The following public comments were received.

Mr. Swain, South Street, asked Mr. Martin to state for the record who had written letters for and against the application. Mr. Martin listed those names for the record.

Mr. Piscuskus, 15 Painter Ridge Road, thought the public should be able to address The Gunnery's future master plans since it had been discussed in an informational brochure circulated by the school. Mr. Martin responded the Commission could deal only with the current application, and again stated if additional activities were applied for in the future, the Commission would go through the entire process again and any future decision would be made on the merits, independently of the Commission's decision on the current application.

Mrs. Andersen, Blackville Road, asked 1) can you have a classroom without a bathroom and well and 2) why wasn't the engineering study done during morning hours? Atty. Andrews stated the classroom would have a bathroom using new "green" technology. It was noted the revised plans showed the classroom would have two bathrooms. It was also noted the project had received Health Dept. approval. Mr. Kaluri stated the traffic study had been conducted during peak traffic hours according to the state DOT and that the 125% figures used took into account seasonal adjustments.

Mr. Altschul, South Street, noted the applicant said the building would have a minimal use, but asked if there was anything to prevent it from being used all the time once built. Mr. Martin said that would depend on whether the motion of approval put any specific conditions on the use of the building.

Mr. Ringel, 33 South Street, noted the applicant had stated there would be minimal environmental impacts from the proposed development and asked if use of the remaining acreage would be restricted. Mr. Martin stated if a Special Permit for this application was granted, there could be no additional development on the site without Zoning Commission approval.

Mr. Kinsolving, 59 South Street, stated he had purchased his property because it was located in a residential district and he thought it was unfair that phase II and phase III of the master plan could not be considered on at this time. He complained the value of his property would decrease, that there was already too much traffic in the area, and that the Wetlands Commission had originally considered the driveway application and recently amended it without a public hearing. Mr. Martin noted the Inland Wetlands Commission operates under a different section of the state statutes and assured Mr. Kinsolving that Special Permit uses under the Zoning Regulations require public hearings. Mr. Owen noted schools are a use permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District.

Mrs. Peckerman, Sabbaday Lane, voiced her support for The Gunnery's plans. Mr. Martin noted the Plan of Conservation and Development encouraged the Town to support its schools, which are a key resource. He also noted nearly every school in Town is located in the R-1 District.

Mr. Farmer, 191 Popple Swamp Road, said while he was sympathetic with the neighbors, The Gunnery had owned this property for 50 years and should be allowed to use it. He asked how many houses would be allowed if it were developed residentially. Mr. Martin said the Commission would not consider hypothetical scenarios and would only evaluate future applications when they were actually submitted.

Mr. Swain, 8 South Street, opposed The Gunnery's application. His points included; 1) All the other schools in the R-1 District have consolidated campuses; the proposed secondary campus was different. 2) The traffic study should have been done in the morning as everyone arrives at Shepaug at the same time, but departure is staggered. 3) The traffic study by The Gunnery was biased and the present traffic on South Street is not safe due to speeding. 4) The Commission should consider the additional impact to South Street if a consolidated elementary school is built on the high school property. 5) Zoning minutes from 2002 stated that the Commission was concerned about the number, intensity, and nature of non residential uses in the R-1 District because these uses might threaten the residential character of neighborhoods. 6) Schools are large commercial enterprises with different objectives than the rest of the Town. 7) The Town does not need more school campuses.

Mr. Auchincloss, Bell Hill Road, spoke in favor of the application and testified the property was part of the school's heritage and had been used for hiking in the past.

Atty. Strub spoke on behalf of the Sterns who reside on South Street. While he said it was up to the Commission to interpret its Regulations, he thought the Regs permitted a centralized school campus on contiguous property and not a single school building on a separate, non contiguous parcel, which would be an accessory use to the main school. He asked the Commission to consult with its counsel on this matter and to continue the hearing to provide the public the opportunity to review all the information submitted tonight. He also noted that later on in the agenda, The Gunnery was scheduled to discuss its master plan, but suggested a better time for the presentation would be when there was no pending application. Mr. Martin responded that the Commission did not consider the South Street campus to be accessory to another campus a mile away and pointed out there were no specific standards for school use in the Regulations.

Mrs. Crumrine, 14 South Street, said the South Street neighborhood had no objection to The Gunnery's use of the property as long as that use complied with the Zoning Regulations, noted she was concerned about how the proposed use would change the neighborhood, and asked if the Special Permit would apply to the entire 70 acre parcel. She also stated that local customs had not been considered; that traffic counts taken in February were not applicable. She also thought it was unreasonable not to consider the master plan for the property at this time. Mr. Owen said, if approved, there would be a school use on a 70 acre parcel.

Mr. Miller, 9 Wykeham Road, said he understood how the neighborhood residents felt because he had been a South Street resident when Shepaug High School had been built. He noted, however, that if the Zoning Commission's charge was to preserve rural character, rural character was more than just the arrangement of homes in a rural setting. He urged the Commission to include community awareness and the responsibility we all have to one another when considering the application.

Mr. Kiiffner, 23 South Street, spoke against the application, was suspicious that the Zoning Commission had a hidden agreement with The Gunnery to approve soccer fields, and stated the current application before Zoning was not identical to the one approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission. He also thought that variance and Special Permit approvals diminish the value of Zoning throughout Washington.

Ms. Yurchak, Shinar Mountain Road, supported the small classroom building which would not be visible from the road. However, she questioned the need for an 18 ft. wide driveway to access it. She urged the community to work together to accomplish educational goals that are important to society.

Mr. D. Werkhoven, Old Litchfield Road, supported The Gunnery's plans. He thought approval of the application would be a positive and constructive effort to educate the children in Town and to improve the quality of life for all.

Mr. Ringel, South Street, said he was concerned that approval of this application would open the door to the development of the entire property and asked for a pledge from The Gunnery that it would not develop more of the 70 acres in the future. He argued The Gunnery could not use the 70 acres as an assurance there would be minimal impacts now and then propose to develop it in the future. Mr. Martin noted the Commission would not require any applicant to restrict itself regarding future activities. As an example, he said due to budget restrictions, many residential property owners begin with a modest project with plans to expand later.

Mrs. Dyer, Buffum Road, asked the Commission to approve the application.

There were no further questions or comments from the public.

The majority of the Zoning Commissioners thought the public hearing should be continued to the September meeting to allow the Commissioners and the public the opportunity to review the information submitted this evening.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider

the Special Permit application: Section

4.4.10 submitted by The Gunnery, Inc. for

school use, driveway, and classroom building

at 22 South Street to 9/26/05 at 7:30 p.m.

in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.

At 10:28 p.m. Mr. Martin continued the hearing to 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 26, 2005 in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

The Gunnery announced it would not make a presentation on its master plan tonight.

Rumsey Hall School/184-201 Romford Road/Section 4.4.10/ Gymnasium-Auditorium Addition

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 10:34 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/10 and 8/17/05.

Mr. Martin reviewed the documents in the file. (See the attached list.) He then read the 8/18/05 DEP letter of approval.

Mr. Farmen, headmaster, presented the May 15, 2005 master plan map. He explained the application was for a gymnasium and performing arts center addition to the existing "Big Top" building. Currently, the campus has only one small gym so the proposed addition, which also includes locker rooms and bathrooms, would double the gym facilities for the students. He pointed out the location was chosen due to the restrictions that the Bantam River and the location of the existing septic system, wetlands, and Romford Road place on the campus and because the school wanted the new facility to be centally located.

Mr. Weaver, architect, reviewed the plans in detail. He explained the location of the addition on the hillside would enable the gym to have its own entrance on the lower floor with the auditorium on the upper level. The total square footage of the two story addition was 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Weaver stated the building would have a low scale residential look, would have a clapboard exterior with columns to be compatible with the rest of the campus, the "Big Top" would be resided, and the two story portion of the structure would be hidden from view from the road due to the topography of the site. Pole fixtures for lights were proposed in front of the building and along the walkway. Mr. Weaving said the fixtures would direct the light downward and would be on a timer with manual over ride so they would not be on all night, but could be left on later when there are performances. Ms. Habib noted the existing lights along the driveway are turned off at approximately 10:30 - 11:00 p.m. It was also noted the lights along the walkway would be one foot candle. The addition would have a loading and receiving area and four handicapped parking spaces, but the parking area would be located across the road on the main campus. Those attending events would be busses up the hill as is done now. Mr. Farmen stated the school did not want to add a lot of pavement for parking because the facility would not be frequently used.

Mrs. Friedman asked how much the coverage would increase. Mr. Weaver said the coverage would be 6.2%.

There would no comments or questions from 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 gymnasium-auditorium

addition at 184-201 Romford Road. By

Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Abella, and

passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 10:51 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 10:51 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, Owen, and Page and Alternate Abella.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 7/25/05 Public Hearing/

Regular Meeting minutes as written. By

Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Ms. Page,

and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To add Seymour/79 Whittlesey Road/First

Cut to the agenda. By Mr. Owen, seconded

by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Milstein/36 Hinkle Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Martin noted there had been no issues raised at the public hearing.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application:

Section 13.11 submitted by Ms. Milstein

for a detached accessory apartment at 36

Hinkle Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by

Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.

The Gunnery, Inc./22 South Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School Use, Driveway, Classroom Building: It was noted the public hearing was continued to 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 26, 2005 in the Main Hall.

Rumsey Hall School/184-201 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Gymnasium-Auditorium Addition: It was noted there were no outstanding issues to be addressed. Mrs. Friedman stated a condition to govern the proposed lighting would not be necessary because the plans as proposed appropriately placed restrictions on the lighting.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application:

Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall

School for a gymnasium-auditorium

addition at 184-201 Romford Road. By

Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Page, and

passed 5-0.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.1/Wetlands and Watercourse Setbacks: Mr. Martin noted no issues of consequence had been raised at the public hearing and that approval of the revisions would enable the implementation of the Lake Waramaug Agreement.

MOTION: To approve revisions to Section 12.1,

Wetlands and Watercourse Setbacks, of

the Washington Zoning Regulations. By

Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and

passed 5-0.

It was noted an effective date had not been specified.

MOTION: To amend the previous motion to state the

revisions to Section 12.1 of the Zoning

Regulations will be effective as soon as

allowable by law once the legal notice has

been published. By Mr. Owen, seconded by

Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Seymour/79 Whittlesey Road/First Cut: Atty. Fisher represented the applicant. He presented Map #204A filed on the Town Land Records and "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, revised to 7/26/05, which showed the proposed 4.73 acre first cut parcel. He represented that the 335.90 acre parcel was made up of four separate parcels, which had never been joined or merged. The proposed first cut, he said, was from one of those separate parcels consisting of approximately 130 acres, which had not incurred a prior first cut. Mr. Fisher reviewed Mr. Alex's residential density calculations that showed the proposed 4.73 parcel met the soil based zoning requirements. He then asked that the residential density form requirement for the remaining 126+/-acre parcel be waived because there was nothing proposed on it and it had a conservation easement restricting its use. Mr. Martin asked Atty. Fisher if he was certain this was a first cut. Atty. Fisher submitted a letter dated 8/22/05, which, he said, was based on a title search that showed this was a first cut for the lot in question, which had never been merged with the other lots that are part of the Seymour property. An error in this letter was corrected and initialed by Atty. Fisher and he added a signed handwritten statement that confirmed that based on his research of the land records, the 130 acre parcel had never been divided after it had been created. Mr. Martin read the 8/22/05 ZEO Report, which stated all aspects of the application complied with the Zoning Regulations.

MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr.

Seymour for a first cut at 79 Whittlesey

Road. By Ms. Page, seconded by Mr. Abella.

and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Multi Family Housing: Due to the late hour a comprehensive discussion was postponed to the next meeting. Mr. Martin noted at the last meeting the Commission had been deadlocked about whether the maximum project size should be 25 units per site or per project. (To allow 25 units per project would mean that the total number of units would be 25 whether the affordable units were located on site or off.) Mr. Martin stated that after giving the matter more thought he had decided that setting the maximum at 25 per project would keep the projects smaller and more controlled.

Viewshed Protection Regulations: Mr. Martin noted the subcommittee to work on draft language would soon meet. He asked Mrs. Hill to contact the Roxbury Zoning Commission to obtain a copy of viewshed protection regulations being considered in Roxbury. The 8/17/05 Voices article about the ongoing work in Roxbury was reviewed.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Signs: Mr. Martin asked the ZEO and Land Use Coordinator to review the proposed revisions to Section 16 so they could be finalized at the next meeting. Mrs. Friedman reported she was working with Mrs. Hill on a new application form for signs as was discussed at the last meeting. It was agreed the sign permit fee would be $25 and would be waived for non profit organizations.

Eminent Domain Ordinance: Mr. Martin noted a Town Meeting had been scheduled for August 25 to consider the proposed ordinance. He urged the Commissioners to attend to voice their support.

Enforcement

Mrs. Friedman asked if the Klemm sign at the corner of East Shore Road and New Preston Hill Road had been turned off or taken down. Mr. Ajello said he thought it had, but noted the building had showcase windows that are very bright.

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

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

July 25, 2005

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Owen

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Brinton

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. Swain, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Charles, Mr. Worcester, Mr./Mrs. Payne, Mr. Bedini, Mr. Etherington, Mr. Washington, Mr. Fairbairn, Ms. Adams, Mrs. Condon, Mr. Finkler, Mr. Talbot, Ms. Baechle, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARING

Institute for American Indian Studies/38 Curtis Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Deck Addition to Museum

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Page and Alternate Abella for Mr. Owen. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/13/05 and 7/20/05.

Mr. Martin reviewed the list of documents in the file. He then read the 7/25/05 ZEO Report.

Representing the applicant, Mr. Worcester, architect, reviewed his 5/16/05 site plan and deck plan. The proposed deck would be located off the children's discovery room and would have benches around it. He stated the approximate size of the deck was 42' 8" by 17, handicapped ramps and rails would be installed per the State Building Code, pressure treated lumber would be used, and no trees would be cut. It was noted the deck would be at least 75 feet from the closest boundary line.

Mrs. Payne, a member of the Institute's Advisory Board, spoke in favor of the application, saying it would enhance the museum.

Mrs. Friedman asked where nearby residences were located and Mr. Worcester pointed them out on the map.

There were no further questions or comments from the public or the Commission.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the

Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10

submitted by the Institute for American

Indian Studies to construct a deck addition

on the museum at 38 Curtis Road. By Ms.

Page, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:43 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 7:44 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Page and Alternate Abella for Mr. Owen.

Consideration of the Minutes

The June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended. In line 2 on page 9 "provide" should be inserted to read, "...low enough to provide an incentive...."

MOTION: To accept the 6/27/05 Regular Meeting minutes

as amended. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by

Ms. Page, and passed 5-0.

Pending Application

Institute for American Indian Studies/38 Curtis Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Deck Addition to Museum

Mr. Martin noted there were no outstanding issues and Mr. Fitzherbert thought the design of the proposed deck was a good one.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application:

Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Institute for

American Indian Studies to construct a deck

addition to the museum at 38 Curtis Road as

submitted. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr.

Abella, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Preliminary Discussion/Les Amis/101 Wykeham Road/Multi Family Housing: Mr. Martin announced the owners had withdrawn from tonight's agenda.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.1/Wetlands and Watercourses Setbacks: Mr. Martin noted a public hearing had been scheduled for August 22, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.

Standards for Multi Family Housing: "Specific Multi Family (MF) Standards (in addition to those in 13.1.B)" was circulated. (See attached document.) Mr. Martin stated these standards were drafted based on the discussion at last month's meeting. He reviewed each of the proposed standards and most were briefly discussed. 2biii was corrected to read, "minimum ground floor area per Section 11." In response to a question from Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Martin explained the reason for 4iii was to prevent cars from backing out of garages directly onto any road. Standard 8: the maximum number of units allowed within any individual project shall be 25, was discussed at length. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Abella thought projects consisting of 25 units would be too large. They favored more projects with fewer units in each. They thought a limit of 20 units per development might be appropriate. The rest of the Commission was comfortable with 25 because 1) they did not want to establish an arbitrary lower limit when applications could be dealing with very large parcels and 2) they thought the dimensional requirements listed in 2a and 2b would help to control the number of units in each project. It was decided the maximum number of units would remain at 25 per project.

The Commission then considered whether this standard should allow 25 units per site or per project. To permit 25 units per project would mean there could be no more than 25 units in total, whether or not the affordable units were on site or off. To permit 25 units per site would mean there could be 25 market value units on site and the requirement for affordable units off site would be in addition. An informal poll of the Commission found it split 3-3 on this matter. Discussion will continue at the next meeting. Mr. Martin briefly provided the public with an overview of why the revision of the Regulations to permit a limited number of new multi family housing units was being proposed by the Commission and explained that 10% of the total number of units proposed would be required to meet the state definition of affordable, and that legal research had indicated the required affordable units would not have to be located on the same parcel as the market value units. Mr. Ajello had three technical comments: 1) in 4i "structures" should be changed to "buildings" so that fences and walls would not be taken into consideration, 2) in 6 the term, "utilities," should be more completely described, and 3) in 10g language to prohibit all night lighting should be clarified. Mr. Shapiro asked if there would be an open space requirement for multi family housing projects. Mr. Martin stated there was no such requirement in the proposed standards. He said the requirement to double the setbacks in residential districts would make it more difficult to preserve open space on these sites. More importantly, he noted the Commission was favoring development that was spread out to look more residential and village-like in character. Mr. Fitzherbert asked what would prevent a developer from constructing a single very large building. Mr. Martin said he would ask Atty. Zizka to include the Commission's intent to promote development that is spread out and village-like in introductory guidelines for the new regulations. It was the consensus that except for Section 8, which will be discussed again at the next meeting, the standards were ready to be forwarded to Atty. Zizka for a legal review.

Revision of the Regulations/Viewshed Protection/Section 14.3: Mr. Fitzherbert reported that the subcommittee had not yet met. He will meet with Mr. Sonder and Mr. Ajello prior to the next meeting. Mrs. Payne agreed to provide Mr. Fitzherbert with Mr. Sonder's email address.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Signs: Mrs. Friedman said she had spoken at a poorly attended meeting of the Washington Business Association and had received no constructive input on the latest draft regulations. The tag sale sign and permit procedure used in Bridgewater was briefly discussed and it was the consensus it would be too burdensome on the Town staff to implement in Washington. Mrs. Friedman will draft a simpler application form for sign permits. Mr. Martin thought that there should be a separate category in the fee schedule for sign application fees. The Commissioners will review draft #7 a final time and discuss it again at the August meeting. Mr. Ajello will work on a revised zoning application form.

Review of Zoning Fees: The Board of Selectmen asked all land use commissions to review their fee schedules. Mr. Martin circulated a chart from the NW Ct. COG, which compared the zoning application fees in area towns. It was generally thought the zoning fees should be increased as Washington was on the low end of the fee chart. Mr. Shapiro suggested a procedure similar to Warren's be adopted where simple zoning applications have a lower fee than do larger, more complicated applications. After a brief discussion it was the consensus to relate the fee to the complexity of the proposed work with an increase in the application fee to $45 for small projects and $90 for projects larger than 500 sq. ft. The Special Permit application fee will remain $150. A petition for the revision of the Zoning Map or Zoning Regulations will be increased by $25 to $200. Fees for sign permits will be discussed at the August meeting. A revision of the Town Fee Ordinance must be approved at a Town Meeting before the proposed increases in the zoning fees will become effective.

New Applications

Milstein/36 Hinkle Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Washington, agent, was present. Mr. Martin read the 7/25/05 ZEO Report, which stated there were no major problems and both Health Department and Inland Wetlands Commission approvals were expected by the next Zoning meeting. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, August 22, 2005; the second public hearing to be held that evening.

The Gunnery/ South Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/ Driveway and Classroom Building: A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, August 22, 2005; the third public hearing to be held that evening.

Rumsey Hall School/184-201 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Gymnasium Addition and Auditorium: A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, August 22, 2005; the fourth public hearing to be held that evening.

Communications

Proposed Eminent Domain Ordinance: Mr. Martin noted the Commission had expressed its disagreement with the 6/24/05 Supreme Court decision, which ruled against the property rights of individuals in New London, Ct. He said the Commission did not object to the use of eminent domain for traditional publicly owned uses or for blighted property, but did object to its use for economic development by private entities where property could be taken from one private owner and transferred to another private owner. He noted the Supreme Court decision encouraged state and local governments to more strictly regulate the use of eminent domain for private development. As he was authorized to do at the last Zoning meeting, Mr. Martin said he had discussed this matter with the Board of Selectmen. He reported Mr. Sears had been supportive and had asked him to work with counsel to draft a proposed Town ordinance. A copy of the proposed ordinance was circulated and the Commission unanimously supported it.

Enforcement

Mrs. Friedman said the Klemm Real Estate sign at the corner of East Shore and New Preston Hill Roads was internally lit and visible from the road. It had been reported at a previous meeting that this sign would be removed. Mr. Ajello said he had already spoken with Mr. Hammer, who said he would take down the sign. Mrs. Friedman asked that he notify Mr. Hammer in writing that the sign must come down.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Finkler asked if 10% affordable housing would be mandatory for all projects. Mr. Martin said it would. He then asked if the Commission had checked out whether allowing the 10% affordable requirement to be met off site complied with state law. Mr. Martin said the Commission had asked counsel for an opinion on this matter. The opinion was that the Zoning Commission has the authority to allow the affordable unit requirement to be met off site.

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

Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

June 27, 2005

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

ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro

MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Owen

ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Brinton

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Meeker, Mrs. Buziak, Mr. Etherington, Mr. Worcester, Mrs. Oetjen, Mr. Charles,Mr. Gugel, Mr./Mrs. Fedderer, Press

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Request to Amend 11/03 Special Permit for Outside Storage and Extension of Parking Area

Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Page and Alternate Shapiro. He then read the 6/27/05 ZEO Report.

Mr. Martin noted the hearing had been continued because there had been questions raised about the chemicals stored on the premises. He noted Mr. Etherington, Fire Marshal, was present and thanked him for attending.

Mr. Martin asked Mr. Etherington for his opinion about whether it was safer to store the pool chemicals inside the primary building or outside in the proposed plastic structure. Mr. Etherington stated he had asked that the chemicals be removed from the primary building because there had been an occupied apartment on the second floor. He stated they could be stored safely outside, either in a separate structure or in the open air.

The construction of the proposed storage structure was reviewed. Mr. Meeker described it as a "Cover-It" type of structure with a 20 mil polypropylene cover fabric that was waterproof, but breathable. He said it had zipper doors. Mr. Ajello noted a containment system was proposed for the floor to handle any spills of the liquid chemicals.

Mr. Martin noted the Commission's three areas of concern: 1) the storage of the chemicals on site, 2) the lack of security of the proposed structure, and 3) the visual impact from both neighboring properties and the road.

Mrs. Friedman said she had contacted other pool companies to learn how they stored their chemicals. Most said they stored all their chemicals inside and a few said they stored their liquid chemical containers outside. Mrs. Friedman said they also indicated the chemicals should not be stacked too high. Therefore, she questioned whether the storage structure was needed, but said if it was needed, it should be the smallest structure possible to do the job.

Mr. Meeker stated his request for the outside storage structure was in response to Mr. Etherington's request to move the chemicals out of the main building. Mr. Martin asked that since there was no longer an apartment in the building, could the chemicals continue to be stored inside. Mr. Meeker said he had proposed to move them outside because he had been told it was safer for firefighters. It was noted Mr. Brinton had informed the Commission that the Fire Dept. had no problem with the storage of chemicals inside as long as they were informed in advance so they could draft a "pre plan" in case of fire.

Mr. Etherington suggested he move the chemicals to a wooden storage structure with a lock. Mr. Meeker said that this type of structure was too expensive at this time.

Ms. Page asked if Mr. Meeker could keep a lesser amount of chemicals on site by making smaller, but more frequent orders. Mr. Meeker said that would not be possible during the busy summer season, but he would store less chemicals on site during the colder months.

Mrs. Buziak stated that based on the information presented, she thought the chemicals should not be exposed to high heat or humidity. She asked if Mr. Meeker could line his basement floor and store the chemicals there because it was cool, dry, and secure. She objected to the outside storage structure due to its appearance.

Mrs. Oetjen, a Marbledale business owner, said her property had been vandalized and so she was concerned about securing the chemical storage area.

Mr. Martin asked Mr. Etherington which of the following two storage options was superior: 1) a temporary plastic structure to store the chemicals outside until the pool company could build a more permanent wooden structure; or 2) the liquid chemicals are stored outside and the dry chemicals, properly separated, stored inside until the wooden structure could be built. Mr. Etherington stated that either option was satisfactory, but option #2 was preferable. Mr. Meeker said it was a bit tight, but they were spread out as much as possible. Mr. Shapiro asked if the second floor could be used for chemical storage, but Mr. Meeker said it was already used for two offices and to store plastic equipment.

The Commissioners voiced their doubts that an outside storage structure was needed. It would not substantially improve safety and 99% of the other pool companies had inside storage with no problems. Mrs. Friedman also noted the original Special Permit had specified no outside storage and the proposed storage structure was not appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Etherington stated that as long as the proper separation distances were maintained it would be safe and feasible to store the dry chemicals inside and the liquid chemicals outside. Mr. Martin thought this was a reasonable and prudent solution.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider

the request to revise the 11/03 Special

Permit: Section 9.4.1.a issued to Mr.

Meeker for a retail business at 269 New

Milford Turnpike. By Mrs. Friedman,

seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 4-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.

Attardi/75 West Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/ Detached Accessory Apartment/Con't.

Mr. Martin reconvened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Page and Alternate Shapiro.

Mr. Gugel represented the applicant. He presented a map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated March 2005 and pointed out the location of the proposed building within the lot's building envelope and said there were no wetlands or setback issues.

Mr. Martin read the 6/27/05 ZEO Report, which stated the application complied with all requirements.

The size of the apartment was discussed. The main house on the property is 4000 to 5000 sq.ft. and the proposed apartment was 1150 sq. ft. It was noted this would be the only apartment on the site. The elevations were reviewed.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider

the application for a Special Permit:

Section 13.11 submitted by Mrs. Attardi

for a detached accessory apartment at 75

West Church Hill Road. By Ms. Page,

seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 4-0.

At 8:20 p.m. Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.7.1 and 11.7.2/ Method of Measuring Maximum Vertical Height and Mean Height

Mr. Martin called the public hearing to order at 8:21 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Page and Alternate Shapiro. Ms. Page read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 6/16/05 and 6/23/05.

Mr. Martin explained the proposed revision would require, in most cases, the measurement of a building or structure to be taken from the average pre existing grade, not the finished grade as is currently done. This would close a loop hole that could allow taller buildings. Using the original grade was a fair method and better for the Town, he said. The exception would be when the original grade was higher than the finished grade. In those cases, the building would be measured from the finished grade.

Mr. Martin read the 6/7/05 Planning Commission minutes, which stated the Commission had no objection to the proposed amendments. He then read the 5/23/05 comments from Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. Council of Governments, who was concerned the proposed method of measurement might be time consuming. Mr. Martin then read the 6/27/05 ZEO report, which stated this method would take no more time than any other accurate measurement method and that benchmarks are already routinely used to determine the elevation of land.

Mr. Worcester asked if 35 ft. from the average grade to the midpoint of the highest roof was still the maximum height allowed. Mr. Martin said it was.

Mr. Martin read the definitions for Average Pre Existing Grade and Average Finished Grade, which were proposed for Section 21 of the Regulations.

Mr. Shapiro noted the current regulation called for the average grade to be taken 6 feet out from the building. Mr. Ajello explained it was worded that way to be consistent with the state building code. It was the consensus to retain that wording and remain consistent with the language in the building code. The definition of Average Finished Grade was revised to: The average of the highest point and the lowest point of land 6 feet outside the perimeter of a completed structure after final grading of soils has been completed.

There were no public comments for or against the proposed revisions.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider

proposed revisions to Sections 11.7.1 and

11.7.2 of the Washington Zoning Regulations

concerning the method of measuring maximum

vertical height and mean height of structures.

By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Ms. Page, and

passed 4-0.

Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Martin called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:34 p.m. and seated Members Friedman, Martin, and Page and Alternate Shapiro.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 5/23/05 Regular Meeting minutes were corrected by Mr. Shapiro as follows:

Page 8: 4th line: Insert "Housing" after "Affordable."

18th line: Change the sentence beginning in this line to: "It was noted Mr. Shapiro obtained his statistical information from Hartford land use attorney, Timothy Hollister, who has closely monitored the number of affordable housing appeals from 1991 -2004."

Page 9: 16th line: Change the sentence beginning in this line to: "Mr. Shapiro cautioned, however, that traffic safety might not be a valid ground for denial unless a zoning commission could prove that the unsafe traffic condition could not be remedied by making reasonable changes to the affordable housing plan such as traffic lights, road widening, and improved sight lines."

MOTION: To accept the 5/23/05 Minutes as corrected

by Mr. Shapiro. By Ms. Page, seconded by

Mrs. Friedman, and passed 4-0.

MOTION: To accept the 6/2/05 site inspection Minutes

as written. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Ms.

Page, and passed 4-0.

Pending Applications

Meeker/269 New Milford Turnpike/Request to Amend the 11/03 Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.a for Outside Storage and Extension of Parking Area: It was the consensus that since the original request from the Fire Marshal to stop storing pool chemicals inside the main building on the property was made because there had been an apartment on the second floor, and since the apartment no longer exists, the changes in the method of storage were no longer needed. The dry chemicals could be stored inside and the liquid chemicals outside. It was noted the Fire Marshal had indicated it was safe to do so and Mrs. Friedman had contacted several other pool companies who indicated this was how they stored their chemicals and there were no regulations against doing so. It was also noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had objected to the proposal to move the storage of the chemicals closer to the river. The Commissioners did not think the plastic storage structure was appropriate for the neighborhood and urged Mr. Meeker to work towards the construction of a wooden storage building in the future. Mr. Meeker said he planned to do so. Mr. Martin noted the Zoning Commission has supported local small businesses in the past because doing so was consistent with preserving the Town's rural character. In this case, however, he noted there was a reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed storage structure. This alternative was to store the liquid chemicals outside and the dry chemicals inside separated by an appropriate distance. He said this was OK from a fire code standpoint and the Fire Marshal had stated it was acceptable. He thanked Mr. Meeker for his cooperation.

MOTION: Regarding the request submitted by Mr. Meeker

to amend his 11/03 Special Permit: Section

9.4.1.a for a retail business at 269 New

Milford Turnpike, the 11/03 Special Permit

is amended as follows: 1) Outdoor storage of

unopened liquid chemical car boys in the rear

of the principal structure is approved as a

reasonable and prudent alternative to erecting

a plastic film based storage structure as

shown in the record of the public hearing and

confirmed by the Fire Marshal. Dry based

swimming pool chemicals will continue to be

stored inside the principal structure, which

is not being used as a dwelling per input from

the Fire Marshal. 2. The outdoor plastic film

based storage structure is denied because the

above reasonable and prudent storage alternative

is available to the applicant. 3. The extension

of the gravel parking area as shown on the

untitled, undated, site plan marked, "Considered

at 6/27/05 public hearing," is approved.

By Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Page, and

passed 4-0.

Attardi/75 West Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/ Detached Accessory Apartment: It was noted that there were no areas of non compliance identified and no objections presented at the public hearing.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application:

Section 13.11 submitted by Mrs. Attardi for

a detached accessory apartment at 75 West

Church Hill Road. By Ms. Page, seconded by

Mr. Shapiro, and passed 4-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.7.1 and 11.7.2/Method for Measuring Maximum Vertical Height and Mean Height: It was noted there had been no objections at the public hearing and that the revisions would include definitions in Section 21 for Average Pre Existing Grade and Average Finished Grade as discussed at the hearing.

MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning

Regulations to Sections 11.7.1 and 11.7.2:

the method of measurement of maximum vertical

height and mean height of structures and Section

21: definitions for Average Pre Existing Grade

and Average Finished Grade to be effective on

the earliest possible date after the publication

of the legal notice. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded

by Ms Page, and passed 4-0.

Other Business

Wright/14 Kinney Hill Road/Request to Renew Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Martin read the 6/27/05 ZEO report. It was noted Mr. Wright has operated under this permit since 1990 and that there were no complaints on record for the last two years.

MOTION: To approve the renewal of the Special Permit:

Section 13.16 issued to Mr. Wright for shop

and storage use by contractors and building

tradesmen at 14 Kinney Hill Road. By Ms. Page,

seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 4-0.

Multi Family Housing:

Mr. Martin noted Mr. Shapiro had written a memo dated 6/23/05 in response to Mr. Finkler's claims made at the last meeting that adverse impact on traffic could be a valid reason for denying an affordable housing application. He asked the Commissioners to review the memo and forward any questions to Mr. Shapiro.

Mr. Martin said he had researched Mr. Fitzherbert's question of whether the Commission could require a fee in lieu of affordable housing. The Commission had been interested in this possibility because it could be used to cut down the size of a multi family housing development on a particular site, while still getting additional affordable units to work towards the Town's 10% goal. Atty. Zizka had advised him the Commission has no authority under the state statutes to receive fees in lieu of affordable housing. However, in Atty. Zizka's opinion, the Commission could establish its own regulation, which could allow the affordable housing requirement to be satisfied on a different site. The applicant could work with the Board of Selectmen or Housing Trust to find a mutually agreeable site for either new or refurbished affordable units. The Town would gain affordable units and end up with less intensive development on site. Mr. and Mrs. Fedderer had several specific questions about this concept, which were premature for the Commission to answer since it had discussed it for only the first time this evening. Mr. Martin stated this concept could not happen under the state's Affordable Housing Appeals Act and thus it would be beneficial for the Town to adopt zoning regulations to allow multi family housing if it truly wants to keep multi family projects the smallest size possible. It was the consensus this was a creative and flexible approach that should be investigated further.

Standards for multi family housing were disc