The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2006
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2006 |
|
 |
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Zoning Commission
December 18 •November 27 •October 23 •September 25 •August 28 •July 24 •June 26 •May 22 •April 24 •April 18 •March 27 •February 27 •January 23 •Meetings in 2005 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
Posted: December 21, 2006 December 18, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Abella
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sears, Mr. Betolatti, Mr. Scully, Resident
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/27/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 8, under 12.15.1, "above eye level" was changed to at eye level.
MOTION: To accept the 11/27/06 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 4-0.
New Application
Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.4/Boat Ramp and Parking: Mr. Sears noted the application was for Phase I only and that the Health Department and the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved it. He said a variance for lot coverage was required, but he hoped that the ZBA would grant it prior to the next Zoning meeting. He asked that a public hearing be scheduled for the January meeting. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, January 22, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Residential Outdoor Lighting: Mr. Owen had circulated the 12/18/06 draft that had been revised per the discussion at the 11/27 meeting. He noted the other Town commissions and the Environmental Council had expressed their support for residential lighting regulations. He viewed the proposed regs as a first step because the Zoning Commission can not deal with all existing lighting in Town; a Town Ordinance would be needed to deal with existing dangerous and offensive lights. Also, commercial lighting would be considered in the future. Mr. Owen added that public education about lighting is essential. Much of the lighting installed for security, for example, actually works to make the building less secure because it is too bright and glaring and is directed away from the building instead of toward it. The public hearing on the proposed regulations will be used to educate the public and Mr. Owen suggested that local architects, electricians, contractors, realtors, etc. be invited to attend. It was noted the proposed regulations would only affect new construction and new light fixtures. Mr. Owen said when adopted, informational packets would be handed out with the application forms for new development, and proposed outdoor lighting would be included in the review of all sketch plans and site plans for residential development. Section 12.15.9 of the proposed regs includes a chart to illustrate for the public acceptable versus non acceptable types of light fixtures. Two minor revisions were made to the 12/18 draft: 1) In 12.15.1 "bulbs and other light sources" was changed to bulbs, lamps, and other light sources. 2) In 12.15.9 the spelling of Branford was corrected. A public hearing was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on February 26, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Mr. Sears announced Mr. Martin had submitted a letter of resignation and tonight's Zoning meeting would be his last. He recognized him for his 11 years of service on the Commission, which included 6 years as chairman. Mr. Owen thanked Mr. Martin for his dedication and noted he was leaving a strong Commission for those who follow. Mr. Martin stated he enjoyed serving on the Commission and was grateful to the staff for its help.
Pending Application
Betolatti/32 Flirtation Avenue/First Cut: Mr. Betolatti and Mr. Scully, engineer, were present. It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Health Department had approved the application. The map, "Property Survey Showing Proposed Parcel Line," by CCA, LLC., dated 10/19/06 was reviewed. Mr. Scully noted the 8.6 acre parcel would be divided into two approximate 4 acre lots. Mr. Owen read the 12/18/06 enforcement report. There was a brief discussion regarding whether the proposed lot was, indeed, a first cut. Mr. Scully and Mr. Ajello said to the best of their knowledge, it was; .024 acres had previously been transferred to an adjoining property owner and did not qualify as a first cut. Mr. Ajello amended the 4th line of his EO report to delete the word, "other" because the .024 acres was never a separate parcel.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Betolatti for a first cut at 32 Flirtation Avenue. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 4-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16: Signs:
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments in the Business Districts: Mrs. Friedman had volunteered to update these draft regulations. Since she was absent, discussion of both matters was tabled to the next meeting.
2007 Calendar: The proposed calendar was reviewed. It was noted the 2007 meetings would be held on the fourth Monday of each month except for May and December when the meeting would be on the 3rd Monday due to the holiday schedule.
MOTION: To approve the 2007 Calendar as presented. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 4-0.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 2.3.2/Prohibition of Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers: Mr. Owen noted the Commission had previously discussed the possibility of banning these boilers and said he had decided to bring up the issue again after reading an article in the New York Times about the problems they cause. The Commission considered whether they should be included in Section 12 with a provision they must be located at least 1500 feet from all boundary lines, banned outright in Section 2, or whether Zoning should recommend they be prohibited by Town Ordinance. It was agreed the Commission would propose to prohibit them under Section 2.3.2. whether they are powered by wood or any other fuel. Mr. Owen noted they were a nuisance and were not a clean energy source. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, February 26, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room, immediately following the hearing to consider residential lighting regulations.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello reported the Inland Wetlands Commission is still working with Mr. Moore to resolve the wetlands violations on the property. He listed the related zoning issues: 1) installation of a sports court without a zoning permit, 2) enlargement and then relocation of a barn without a zoning permit, and 3) shop and storage use in the Residential- Farming District without a Special Permit. Mr. Ajello said he had sent Mr. Moore a notice of violation. Mr. Owen asked if Mr. Moore was aware that under the new fine ordinance he could be fined up to $150 per day for these violations. Mr. Ajello said he would advise Mr. Moore to apply immediately for the Special Permit.
Other Business
Mr. Owen briefly discussed attendance at meetings. He noted he had recently written to Mr. Wyant to ask that he either resume attending the regular meetings or resign so that someone able to attend could become an alternate. Mr. Wyant had not yet responded. Mr. Owen will contact the Republican Town Committee.
White/6 Parsonage Lane/Garage: Mr. Ajello informed the Commission that his denial of Mr. White's zoning application to construct a garage had been appealed by Mr. White to the ZBA. He noted the reason for the denial was that a coverage variance was needed. The circumstances of this property, the denied application, and Mr. White's current ZBA appeal and simultaneous variance application were reviewed and discussed. Mr. Ajello noted he had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had advised him the application should be denied. It was the consensus of the Zoning Commission that Mr. Ajello has its full backing, that Mr. Ajello could not have acted in any other way, and that his action to deny the application was correct.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: December 6, 2006 November 27, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Martin
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Boling, Mr. Frank, Dr. Altorelli
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for all of the hearings.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 4.4.17: Accessory Structures Used to Operate or Maintain a Pre Existing Golf Course
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. He noted the list of documents, which had been submitted to the file since the last meeting and read the motion of support from the Planning Commission. While this motion referred specifically to the proposed amendments having to do with fences and docks on Lake Waramaug, Mr. Frank, a member of the Planning Commission, said Planning had no objection to any of the proposed amendments.
Mrs. Friedman asked why the proposed amendment did not include the Lake Waramaug Residential District. Mr. Owen responded the Commission had considered that, but had decided to include the Farming-Residential District only.
There were no other questions or comments.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: proposed Section 4.4.17: Accessory Structures Used to Operate or Maintain a Pre Existing Golf Course. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 6.6/Rowing Shell Docks
Mr. Owen reconvened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. and noted the same three new documents read at the last hearing had been submitted to each of the proposed revision files. He noted one of the reasons that this hearing had been continued was to receive additional information on rowing shell docks from Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank, president of the Lake Waramaug Association, said he had measured the existing rowing shell docks on the lake. He had found the height was approximately 5 inches above the water, the length was 20 feet, but the width had varied from 4 to 6 feet. Mrs. Friedman asked if a 100 sq. ft. maximum would be a reasonable requirement. Mr. Frank said it would. Mr. Shapiro asked if requiring these docks to be no more than 5 inches above the water would mean they could be used for nothing other than rowing shells. Mr. Frank said it would not; they could also be used for canoes and kayaks. Mr. Owen noted if the Commission drafted specific dimensional requirements for rowing shell docks, it would not matter what else they could be used for.
Dimensional requirements were discussed. Mr. Frank noted that according to the Canadian dock booklet, 6 ft. wide by 20 ft. long was the minimum recommended size for stability. Mr. Owen asked the Commissioners if they saw any other problems that would have to be addressed if rowing shell docks were not deleted from the Regulations as originally proposed. Mr. Frank suggested wording for several dimensional requirement options. It was the consensus that the following requirements for rowing shell docks should be added to Section 6.6: a maximum of 100 sq. ft. of total surface area, but in no event shall a rowing dock be more than 6 ft. wide or 20 ft. long, and in all cases the height shall be no more than 6 inches over the surface of the water. Mr. Frank suggested the dimensions should also be referred to in the definition section.
There were no additional questions or comments.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 6.6 concerning rowing shell docks. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section6.6.10/ Materials Permitted for Dock Construction
The public hearing was reconvened at 7:46 p.m. It was noted at the first session of the hearing, it had been decided that the reference to CCA treated wood would be deleted and that pressure treated wood could be used for the structural members, but decks and railings would have to be constructed with naturally rot resistant materials. Mr. Ajello noted that rot resistant materials included aluminum, plastic, etc.
There were no other questions or comments. The Commissioners agreed the proposed requirements were clear.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 6.6.10 concerning permitted construction materials for docks. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen adjourned the hearing at 7:47 p.m.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 6.4.6/ Clarification Regarding What Constitutes a Fence
Mr. Owen reconvened the hearing at 7:47 p.m. and read the language agreed upon at the last meeting; "Fences, walls, earthen berms, and hedges, including hedgelike rows of tightly spaced trees and bushes that have the visual effect of hedges, and other visual barriers or enclosures...." That wording will begin Section 6.4.6. Mr. Ajello asked if there was any interest in including other roads with vistas such as Tinker Hill Road and June Road. Mr. Owen said that would be a major addition that would require a separate public hearing.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 6.4.6 regarding clarification of what constitutes a fence. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 21.1.28/ Definition of Fence
Mr. Owen reconvened the hearing at 7:50 p.m. It was noted there had been no changes made at the last meeting. Mr. Shapiro read the proposed definition, "An artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination or materials which is erected to enclose, screen, or separate areas." Mr. Owen noted this definition had been taken from The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 21.1.28: definition of fence. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Washington Medical Management Co., LLC/125 New Milford Turnpike/ Special Permit: Section 7.6/Front Yard Setback
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:55 p.m. and read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/15 and 11/22/06. Mr. Ajello noted there had been no additional information submitted since the last meeting. Mr. Owen read the 11/27/06 enforcement report and the list of documents submitted for the file.
Dr. Altorelli, owner, briefly outlined the proposal to increase the enclosed part of the building by approximately 5 ft. in the front in the area where there is an existing porch and to add dormers. Other proposed changes included shake siding, architectural shingles, a new floor plan, and handicapped accessibility. There would be no change to the footprint of the building and the changes to the floor plan would make it possible for two physicians to share the building in the future. Photos of the existing structure were reviewed.
Dr. Altorelli explained the existing building did not meet the front yard setback requirements and pointed out its location on a portion of a survey map with the setbacks marked in green. Mr. Ajello noted the volume of the nonconforming area would increase.
Mr. Boling, New Preston resident, said the plans were a "nice improvement."
There were no other questions or comments from the commissioners or from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application submitted by Washington Medical Management Co., LLC./125 New Milford Turnpike/Section 7.6: front yard setback. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 8:09 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/23/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 2: 4th paragraph under Section 6.6: Delete the last phrase, "and also stated he did not want...into the lake."
Page 8: 1st paragraph, 4th line from bottom: Insert "in the adoption of" after Commissions.
MOTION: To accept the 10/23/06 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Pending Application
Washington Medical Management Co., LLC./125 New Milford Turnpike/ Special Permit: Section 7.6/Front Yard Setback: Mr. Ajello noted the application was for the setback only; the owner would submit a separate application for the use of the building and the sign.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit Application: Section 7.6 for front yard setback submitted by Washington Medical Management Co., LLC. for remodeling at 125 New Milford Turnpike. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Betolatti/32 Flirtation Avenue/First Cut: Mr. Owen read the 11/27/06 EO report, which recommended consideration of the application be tabled until the Inland Wetlands Commission acts. Discussion was tabled and it was noted this application will be on the next meeting's agenda.
Mr. Owen noted there were no new applications.
Other Business
Strawman, LLC./135 Juniper Meadow Road/Preliminary Discussion/ Affordable Housing Issues: Mr. Boling represented the property owner. He showed the location of the property on a portion of the Assessor's Map. He said the current plan was to develop 3 acres at the top of the hill in a village like cluster and to preserve the remaining 10 acres of the 13 acre parcel. 10 to 15 houses would be constructed; 30% of them affordable. Mr. Boling said the developer did not want to construct identical units and so asked the Commission for its opinion regarding what constitutes comparability. Mr. Shapiro responded that free standing single family houses were not comparable to attached units and although square footage does not have to be identical, it must be comparable. Mr. Boling asked if 10% variation in square footage for the purpose of design flexibility was reasonable. Mrs. Friedman said it would not be if only affordable units were 10% smaller. Mr. Shapiro said 10% variation was the maximum permitted according to Atty. Zizka. Mr. Owen agreed that Atty. Zizka did not insist that all the units had to be identical, but said the Commission would continue to take a hard line on comparability. Mrs. Friedman pointed out comparable units must have the same number of bedrooms and baths and from the outside it should not be apparent, which are the affordable units. She also noted the Commission preferred that all the units do not look the same. Mr. Boling said the developer wanted a unified architectural theme; houses, barn like structures, and caretaker's cottages that look like they have evolved over time. Mr. Owen said as long as each type has the proper mix of affordable to market rate units, there would be no problem with this type of variation. He noted the Commission must make sure the development meets the state requirements. Mr. Boling asked the Commission to make any other comments based on its experience with the Myfield development. Mr. Ajello preferred that the units not be lined up in a straight row. Mr. Boling pointed out the location of wetlands on the property and said the stream crossing would be the only regulated activity. He noted the property has a legal right of way over the Bee Brook Condo access. Mr. Owen asked if the development at the top of the hill would be visible. Mr. Boling said there would be no viewshed impact; that not all the trees would be cut and visually inert colors and materials would be used.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations
1) Section 4.4.17/Accessory Structures Used to Operate or Maintain a Pre Existing Golf Course: This would permit these structures by Special Permit in the R-1 District.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 4.4.17 to permit accessory structures used to operate or maintain a pre existing golf course by Special Permit in the R-1 District. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
2) Section 21.1.8/Definition of Fence: The definition read at the public hearing was adopted.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 21.1.8: definition of fence. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
3) Sections 6.6 and 21.1.19/Rowing Shell Dock: Mr. Owen noted the revisions pertained to both Section 6 and Section 21.1.19, the definition of rowing shell dock. The following revisions were agreed upon:
A) 6.6.1: Add: No rowing shell dock or float may be attached to a dock.
B) 6.6.6.B: Rowing shell dock: 100 square feet total surface area, but in no event more than 6 feet wide or 20 feet long.
C) 6.6.11: The height above the water of docks and floats shall be minimized. The height above the water for rowing shell docks shall be limited to 6 inches above the water line. Docks, rowing shell docks, and floats may not include appurtenances such as roofs, raised platforms, raised decks, etc. Removable fabric canopies or umbrellas and removable water slides are allowed.
D) 21.1.19: A dock oriented perpendicular to the shoreline and not attached to any other dock, the purpose of which is to berth a rowing shell or scull and with dimensions not to exceed 100 square feet in total surface area; 6 feet in width, 20 feet in length, and 6 inches in height from the surface of the water.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Sections 6.6 and 21.1.19 concerning specifications for and definition of rowing shell dock. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
4) Section 6.6.10/Construction Materials: The reference to CCA treated wood shall be deleted. The second sentence was changed to: Pressure treated wood shall not be used for decking or railings, but may be used for framing and structural supports.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 6.6.10 concerning permitted construction materials for docks. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
5) Section 6.4.6/Clarification Re: What Constitutes a Fence: It was agreed the beginning of the first sentence would be changed to: "Fences, walls, earthen berms, and hedges, including hedgelike rows of tightly spaced trees and bushes that have the visual effect of hedges, and other visual barriers or enclosures located...."
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 6.4.6 regarding clarification of what constitutes a fence. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Outdoor Lighting: Mr. Owen's revised 10/28/06 draft document was discussed. (See attached.)
12.15.1: Mr. Owen noted a poor example of exterior lighting was the lights outside the Town Hall, which are above eye level with bulbs that are not screened. He cited Gunn Library as a good example because the lighting there is low to the ground with the light source screened.
12.15.5: Outdoor security lighting was considered. It was suggested that it not be permitted unless it is on motion detectors. It was noted the Commission would have to assemble material about how most security lighting is ineffective. Mr. Averill pointed out that security lighting would have to be seriously considered as it affects insurance rates. Mr. Owen said most of the current lighting is directed outward, which does not improve security and, in fact, often casts a glare off site. Mr. Ajello recommended wording to state that in no case shall security lighting result in a safety risk to pedestrians and drivers. Mr. Owen suggested the light source could be unshielded only if it did not produce a glare or is motion activated.
Light fixtures: Mr. Owen suggested the Regulations include examples of acceptable and unacceptable light fixtures similar to the information sheet used by the Town of Branford and that outdoor lighting be added to the sketch plan and site plan requirements. Mr. Averill offered to contact electrical wholesalers to get the model numbers for acceptable fixtures. Once adopted, lighting designers and landscape architects could be sent copies of the new regs with the acceptable light fixture sheet and list of acceptable model numbers.
Commercial Lighting: Mr. Owen noted the issue is more complicated in the commercial districts and that education and dialogue with commercial property owners would be needed.
Simple solutions: Mr. Owen stated that just turning off unnecessary outdoor lights and lowering the wattage of bulbs would result in decreased light pollution.
Education: It was agreed there should be public education and discussion of the issue before the Commission schedules a hearing. Mr. Owen said he would contact the other commission chairmen to schedule an informational meeting, possibly in January. Mr. Frank suggested getting a speaker. Mr. Owen asked that the draft be put on the Town website.
Dark Skies International: Mr. Ajello recommended the commissioners view this website. He will ask Mr. Boling if he can download it to his lap top computer for a presentation at the next meeting.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations Concerning Restaurants and Eating and Drinking Establishments in All Commercial Disticts: Mrs. Friedman said the proposed revisions would make the restaurant regulations consistent throughout the business districts and would add a new Special Permit Section 13.20 for standards. She briefly reviewed the proposed revisions on the sheets entitled, "Draft 3, 11/22/06, Revised Restaurant Regulations for All Business Districts and Unlit Tennis Courts in All Districts." The draft standards required that eating and drinking establishments 1) be approved by the Health Dept., 2) not sell or serve food to people in vehicles, 3) be closed for at least 8 consecutive hours during any 24 hour period, 4) have no internally illuminated signs that are visible from outside the establishment, and 5) serve food and beverages on non disposable plates, cups, bowls, etc. Mrs. Friedman pointed out the last requirement was environmentally sensitive. Mr. Shapiro noted the draft did not ban outside seating. Mr. Owen suggested the Commission might adopt the first three standards, which are less controversial, while it considers the last two. Mrs. Friedman objected because the first three standards were not enough by themselves to keep fast food restaurants out of Town. She thought limiting retail chains, while permitting "mom and pop" businesses would help to preserve rural character. Mr. Ajello questioned why restaurants were not permitted in the Woodville Business District. There were several reasons: 1) The Commission was trying to avoid strip development all along Rt. 202, 2) Restaurants were permitted in the other commercial districts, 3) Woodville was more of a residential neighborhood that could be adversely impacted by restaurant traffic, and 4) the Woodville district was small with limited septic capabilities. The Commissioners will continue to consider these proposals and they will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Signs: Mrs. Friedman presented several proposed revisions on page 3 of her "Draft 3, 11/22/06" document, which she said were "stop gap measures" until a revision of the entire section could be undertaken. Mr. Ajello said he had recommended Section 16.5.1 state that no sign could be closer than 5 ft. from the road pavement, not the property line as proposed. Mrs. Hill pointed out that applicants could not make applications for activities on land they don't own and thought signs only 5 ft. from the pavement would interfere with road maintenance. Mr. Owen suggested the Commission let the state regulate its right of way. No decisions were made concerning revisions to Section 16. This will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Communications
Mrs. Hill noted letters dated 11/2/06 and 11/14/06 had been sent to the Historic District Commission and to the Town Clerk from EBI Consulting regarding possible cell tower sites at 167 New Milford Turnpike and 16 Mountain Road. Mr. Owen noted in the past the Zoning Commission stated it would prefer that these towers be located in the commercial districts. The Commission will wait for the Siting Council public hearing to comment.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Commercial Use of Residential Property: Mr. Ajello said he was working with the Inland Wetlands Commission to resolve wetlands violations on the property. Mr. Owen noted the Zoning Commission now has a fine ordinance that could be used to fine Mr. Moore. Mr. Ajello said he would send Mr. Moore a notice of violation prior to levying the fine, which would be $150 per day.
Denscot Pools/269 New Milford Turnpike: Mr. Owen noted Denscot Pools is a repeat violator. Mrs. Friedman pointed out that the Commission had tried to work with this business to resolve past violations. Mr. Ajello was asked to address the current problems on site.
Spring Hill Farm/Whittlesey Road: Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that farm structures were being erected without zoning permits because the property owner insisted that agricultural buildings did not require them. Having dealt with other farms in Town over the years, Mrs. Hill noted no other farms had ever been exempt from the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Ajello to consult with Atty. Zizka prior to taking enforcement action.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Draft for discussion onlyOutdoor Lighting
Revision of October 28, 2006
12.15 Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts. Nighttime darkness is a vanishing natural resource. The purpose of this section is to permit reasonable illumination of outdoor areas during their active use, and to prohibit lighting fixtures and practices that unnecessarily brighten the nighttime sky, emit objectionable illumination visible on other properties, pose a safety risk to pedestrians or drivers, or are not in keeping with the rural character of the Town.
12.15.1 All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that the bulbs or other light sources cannot be seen from beyond the property served. No exterior lighting shall be used in a manner that produces a bloom or direct glare visible beyond the property served. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be of the lowest reasonable wattage and shall be installed as close to the ground as is feasible. These requirements can be met by using "Dark-Sky friendly" exterior light fixtures approved by the International Dark-Sky Association, or fixtures similar to the "Acceptable" fixtures in chart 12.15.9.
12.15.2 Indiscriminate floodlighting of outdoor areas is prohibited.
12.15.3 Decorative lighting of trees, other vegetation, ponds, land forms, structures, and other property features is prohibited.
12.15.4 No light fixture may be directed toward the sky or toward any area, structure, or surface that is not situated on the property.
12.15.5 All night security lighting is permitted only if it provides the minimum effective level of illumination, and is directed toward structures, not away from them. When security lighting is necessary, the use of sensor-activated lights is encouraged; sensor-activated lighting, if used for this purpose, may be unshielded provided that:
a. it is installed in such a manner as to prevent direct glare and lighting into other properties or into any public right-of-way, and
b. the fixture is set to turn on only when activated and to turn off within five minutes after activation has ceased, and
c. the fixture is not triggered by activity off the property.
12.15.6 No exterior light source may be installed more than 12 feet above grade or more than 30 feet from the object or the area that it is intended to illuminate. Nighttime outdoor activities may be illuminated only during periods when the activities are underway.
12.15.7 Moving lights, lights producing varying intensities or changing colors, and search lights are prohibited.
12.15.8 Traditional decorative holiday lights may be temporarily installed and operated, without a permit.
12.15.9 (Lighting fixture chart adapted from Town of Bradford's "Examples of Acceptable/Unacceptable Lighting Fixtures.")
4.3.8 UNILLUMINATED tennis, basketball, and other outdoor sports courts.
5.3.6 UNILLUMINATED tennis, basketball, and other outdoor sports courts.
6.3.6 UNILLUMINATED tennis, basketball, and other outdoor sports courts.
7.3.18 UNILLUMINATED tennis, basketball, and other outdoor sports courts.
8.3.19 UNILLUMINATED tennis, basketball, and other outdoor sports courts.
9.3.6 UNILLUMINATED tennis, basketball, and other outdoor sports courts
10.3.5 UNILLUMINATED tennis, basketball, and other outdoor sports courts
14.2 Sketch Plans
e. Location and description of all exterior lighting fixtures. (See Section 12.15.)
14.3 Site Plans
l. Location and description of all exterior lighting fixtures. (See Section 12.15.)
Posted: November 1, 2006 October 23, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Arturi, Mr. Frank, Dr. and Mrs. Altorelli
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 4.4.17/ Request by the Washington Club to allow "Accessory Structures Associated with the Operation of an Existing Golf Course" in the R-1 District by Special Permit
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert. Mr. Martin recused himself because he is a member of the Washington Club. Alternate Shapiro was seated. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/11 and 10/18/06. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Arturi, president of the Washington Club, spoke on behalf of the proposed revision, noting that since the Club is a non conforming use in the R-1 District, every change now requires a variance. He said variance applications were not always appropriate for the Club since there was not usually a hardship involved. He also thought the Special Permit process would be more suited because it would take into consideration the effect the proposal would have on the surrounding residential neighborhood.
No one from the public spoke for or against the petition.
Mrs. Hill noted the proposed revisions had to be referred to the Planning Commission before the hearing could be closed.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: addition of Section 4.4.17 to permit by Special Permit in the R-1 District, accessory structures associated with the operation of an existing golf course to 7:30 p.m. on 11/27/06 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen continued the hearing to November 27, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Martin was reseated.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 6.6/Proposed Deletion of "Rowing Shell Dock"
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/11 and 10/18/06. Mr. Owen read the list of all the documents in the file and Mr. McGuinness's 9/15/06 comments on behalf of the NW Ct. Council of Governments and Mrs. Mestre's 9/15/06 letter to the Commission against the revision.
Mr. Frank, president of the Lake Waramaug Association, spoke on behalf of the Assn. and read the 9/20/06 letter from Mrs. Feldman, who was also against the proposed revision. He noted when comprehensive Lake Waramaug District regulations had been adopted in 2003, the rowing shell dock had been recognized as a necessary facility. He thought human powered vessels should be encouraged on the lake and so suggested that if the problem was the ability to attach a rowing shell dock to a regular dock, the solution was not to eliminate them, but to specify that they may not be attached to any other dock.
Mr. Owen asked if the definition of rowing shell dock could be narrowed by including a height specification. He thought it might be OK to continue to permit them if the definition made it impossible to use them for anything else. Mr. Averill noted that even if the term, rowing shell dock, was deleted, they could still be installed under the more general term, dock.
Mr. Ajello asked why rowing shell docks could not be attached to regular docks. Mr. Frank explained the rowing shells must be stabilized by extending the oars out; one side out over the low dock, and also stated he did not want docks to extend farther than 300 ft. into the lake.
Mr. Martin said the Commission's work with the Lake Waramaug Assn. in 2003 had been environmentally driven to draft regulations to protect the shoreline. He noted the property owners along the shore had been very cooperative in accepting the revised regulations. He then read a section of the brochure, "The Dock Primer," which had been consulted for guidance regarding how to construct docks that would not create massive dark spots where the sun would be blocked from the water and so would be harmful to the environment. Mrs. Friedman agreed the Commission should encourage the environmentally sensitive use of the lake, noting it would be better to have more rowing shells than motor boats.
Mr. Owen asked if a workable solution would be to retain the 360 sq. ft. maximum size, but to divide it between a regular dock and a rowing shell dock if a property owner wants both. It was noted rowing shell docks were approx. 4' X 25'. Mr. Martin thought the two maximum size requirements should be separate; 360 sq. ft. for a dock plus 100 sq. ft. for a rowing shell dock. Mr. Ajello, on the other hand, thought if the square footage requirement was combined, it would help to limit the size of the conventional docks.
Mr. Owen noted the public hearing would be continued and asked Mr. Frank to research what was the proper height above the water line and what an appropriate width would be for a rowing shell dock. Mr. Frank agreed to do so.
The commissioners agreed for environmental reasons that rowing shell docks should not be attached to regular docks and that revision should be adopted. The second revision needed was to define the rowing shell docks in a manner that would make it impossible to use them for anything else. Work on specific language will continue at the next meeting.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: deletion of "rowing shell dock" throughout Section 6.6 to 11/27/06 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall - hearings begin at 7:30 p.m., this is the second hearing. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to 11/27/06; the second hearing to be held that evening.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 6.6.10/Materials Required for Construction of Docks
Mr. Owen opened the public hearing and Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/11 and 10/18/06. Mr. Owen noted the list of documents in the file and referred specifically to the 9/15/06 comments from Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. COG, which he had read at the previous hearing and the 9/25/06 email to Mr. Ajello from Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank read his 9/25/06 comments and his suggested language, "Dock construction material shall be environmentally safe. Wood materials shall be naturally rot resistant such as decay resistant heartwood of redwood, black locust, cedar, or other similar lumbers. ACQ treated wood is permitted, but natural woods are preferred."
Mr. Owen noted rust resistant hardware was already required and that the reference to CCA treated wood had to be updated since it was no longer sold.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the use of pressure treated wood and what the specific construction material requirements should be. It was noted there could be a different requirement for the main frame versus the decking and that any proposed language should not rule out the use of aluminum for docks.
The commissioners decided on the following revisions: 1) the reference to CCA treated wood would be deleted, 2) a provision that wood decking materials shall be naturally rot resistant will be added, and 3) stairs and railings on the shore line should also be made of naturally rot resistant materials.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 6.6.10 re: materials permitted for dock construction to 11/27/06 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall - hearings begin at 7:30 p.m., this is the third hearing. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to the third hearing scheduled on 11/27/06 to allow an opportunity for minor editing and so that the proposed language could be referred to the Planning Commission for review.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 6.4.6/Clarification Re: What Constitutes a Fence
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order and Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/11 and 10/18/06. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and read the section of Mr. McGuinness's 9/15/06 memo, which pertained to fences. Mr. McGuinness objected to the use of the phrase, "tightly spaced," as it was too subjective. Mr. Owen thought tightly spaced rows of trees were already included in the current 6.4.6 as it applies to all fences and barriers listed and also to "other visual barriers."
Mr. Ajello explained the proposed revision was the result of his question, when does a row of trees become a fence? He asked the Commission for an interpretation so that any future decision he would make would be less judgmental.
Mr. Shapiro suggested the wording be changed to, "...hedges or tightly spaced rows of bushes or trees."
Mr. Frank and Mrs. Friedman were concerned about how trees and bushes might meet the Regulations when planted, but then grow to be a problem. Mr. Frank asked how the requirements would be enforced 30 years later when the trees had developed into a barrier.
Mr. Averill suggested that the following wording be added; "Vegetation shall be maintained in a way that does not obstruct the view."
The term, "unduly obscured" was briefly discussed. The current Section 6.4.6 states in part that no Special Permit may be issued for a fence or other barrier if it will unduly obscure the view of the lake. It was the general opinion of the Commission that the EO did not have to be concerned about the interpretation of this term, because it would be the Commission that would make the decision under the Special Permit process.
It was the consensus that the proposed language should be revised to: "Fences, walls, earthen berms, and hedges, including hedgelike rows of tightly spaced trees and bushes that have the visual effect of hedges, and other visual barriers....
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 6.4.6 re: what constitutes a fence to 11/27/06 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall - hearing begin at 7:30 p.m., this is the fourth hearing. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen continued the public hearing so that the proposed revision could be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 21.1.28/Definition of Fence
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order and Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/11 and 10/18/06. He noted the documents in the file.
Mr. Owen explained he had taken the proposed definition from the book, The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, by Moskowitz and Lindbloom. He said this would clear up the ambiguities of the current definition. He read both the current definition and the proposed definition.
The Commissioners were satisfied with the proposed language.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 21.1.28 re: definition of fence to 11/27/06 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall - hearings begin at 7:30 p.m., this is the fifth hearing. By Mr. Abella, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
At 8:44 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to
11/27/06 in order to receive a report from the Planning Commission.
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. Owen called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert.
Consideration of the Minutes
On page 7, in the third line above Enforcement: "education" was changed to "educate."
MOTION: To accept the 9/25/06 minutes subject to the edit on page 7. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Washington Medical Management Co., LLC./125 New Milford Turnpike/ Special Permit: Section 7.6/Front Yard Setback: Dr. and Mrs. Altorelli were present. Mr. Owen noted a public hearing was required and read the 10/23/06 ZEO report. Mrs. Altorelli presented photos of the existing building, elevations, entitled, "Medical Offices at New Preston Commons," by Mr. Nurnberger, dated 10/19/06, and the map, "Existing Conditions," by Mr. Howland, dated 9/12/06. Mr. Ajello stated there was adequate parking available for the proposed doctor's office and it was noted under the recently revised Depot and New Preston Business District Regulations parking requirements were no longer based on square footage. Since the regulations were now more flexible, there was the possibility in the future of a second doctor sharing the premises. Dr. Altorelli said he saw an average of four patients an hour, was in the office four days a week, and had 4 to 5 personnel on staff. It was noted there was also a possibility that parking spaces could be shared with the bank on the same property. A public hearing was scheduled for November 27, 2006; the sixth hearing of the evening.
Whitney/191 Roxbury Road/First Cut: Mr. Owen read the 10/23/06 ZEO Report and asked Mr. Ajello if he had any concerns. The map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Mr. Neff, dated 8/7/06 was reviewed. Mr. Martin asked if the Commission could be sure this was a first cut. Mr. Ajello said the owner had signed the Residential Density form and copies of deeds had been submitted, adding that if Mrs. Whitney signed the form and it isn't a first cut, the Commission's approval would be invalid under state law. It was the consensus that because the form had not been signed by an attorney or professional, approval should be conditioned upon a review by the Town Assessor.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mrs. Whitney for a first cut at 191 Roxbury Road subject to the condition that the Assessor confirm the proposed lot is a first cut. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin recommended in the future all first cut applications should include the results of a title search by an attorney. The Residential Density form will be amended to include the following statement to be signed by an attorney: I have performed a title search of this property and certify the proposed lot is a first cut.
Betalotti/32 Flirtation Avenue/First Cut: Mr. Ajello reported that the map submitted with the application showed an intermittent watercourse, so the Inland Wetlands Commission would have to act on it prior to Zoning. He noted the Zoning Commission would have 35 days in which to act after the Wetlands Commission makes its decision.
MOTION: To table further discussion of the application submitted by Mr. Betolatti for a first cut at 32 Flirtation Avenue until after it is acted on by the Inland Wetlands Commission. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Residential Lighting: Mr. Owen circulated his 10/23/06 discussion draft for Section 12.15: Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts. He noted he had reviewed regulations from other towns across the country and the Dark Sky International website and had selected enforceable provisions that were appropriate for Washington. Mrs. Hill presented an informational sheet regarding the types of light fixtures that should be prohibited and those that should be encouraged. It was the consensus that an illustrative sheet like this should be included in the proposed section. Mr. Owen noted that once residential lighting regulations are adopted the Commission will require a lighting plan with all site plans. Specific sections were discussed. In 12.15.5 it was decided to keep the following sentence, but delete the rest of the section: Traditional decorative holiday lights may be temporarily installed and operated without a permit. In 12.15.6 it was the consensus to change the provision that strongly discouraged the lighting of trees and other vegetation to one prohibiting it. Mrs. Friedman thought a town ordinance would be more appropriate than revisions to the Zoning Regulations because with an ordinance there would be no "grandfathering." Mr. Owen suggested provisions that would require that any premises for which a building permit is issued must bring its outdoor lighting up to date with the revised regulations. The lighting of outdoor tennis courts was discussed. It was the consensus that Sections 4.3.8, 5.3.6, and 6.3.6 should be amended to permit only unlit outdoor sports courts and this prohibition would also be added to Section 12.15. Mr. Owen noted the interest and support from both the Planning and Conservation Commissions residential lighting regulations and asked that when a public hearing is scheduled that those commissions be invited. Mr. Owen will make the revisions as discussed and this proposed section will be considered again at the next meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Restaurants: Mrs. Friedman passed out a summary of what is permitted and prohibited under the current Regulations. She recommended that in order to guard against "fast food" and "drive thru" establishments the regulations should be 1) uniform throughout the districts, 2) all restaurants should be subject to Special Permits, and 3) specific criteria should be listed in Section 13. The commissioners thought this approach was a good idea and asked Mrs. Friedman to write up specific proposed revisions to the Regulations to be discussed at the next meeting.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Ajello noted the Commission had dropped its work to revise the sign regulations. He suggested interim revisions to permit free standing signs 5 ft. from the front boundary line and temporary portable signs that would be brought in at night in the business districts. Mrs. Friedman will also work on these proposals.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Side Yard Setback and Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Moore constructed a new building too close to the boundary line and was operating a business from his residential property without the required Special Permit. He said he had sent Mr. Moore a letter, but had not yet received a response. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Ajello to include a copy of the new Town fine ordinance in his letter.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Friedman.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
September 25, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Martin
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. LaBella, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dugan, Mr. Neff, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Dobson, Mr. Fairbairn, Press
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Washington Cemetery Assoc., Inc./17 Parsonage Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.2/Storage-Administration Building
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/13 and 9/20/06. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 9/25/06 ZEO Report.
Mr. Mitchell, president of the Washington Cemetery Assoc., spoke of the cemetery's need for a safe and dry storage building for historical records, maintenance tools, and deliveries of plaques, stones, and remains.
The building elevation and floor plans were reviewed. A single story, 13 ft. X 30 ft. building set on top of the existing vault was proposed. It would have no plumbing. Electrical service was already available.
Mr. Mitchell stated there would be no overnight outdoor lighting.
There were no questions or comments from the commissioners or the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.2 submitted by the Washington Cemetery Assoc., Inc. for a storage-administration building at 17 Parsonage Lane. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Johnson/10 Lower Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/
Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:43 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/13 and 9/20/06. Mr. Owen noted the documents in the file and read the 9/25/06 ZEO Report.
Mr. Neff, engineer, noted there was an existing building on site with a garage below and a 1338.5 sq. ft. dwelling unit above. To decrease the dwelling unit in size to 1200 sq. ft. or less so it could qualify as an accessory apartment, he explained a partition would be erected at the top of the stairway to create an unheated area. The existing and proposed floor plans were compared.
It was noted the Special Permit application for the accessory apartment had been submitted along with an application for a single family dwelling on the same lot. Mr. Owen read the 9/25/06 statement from Mr. Johnson to the Zoning Commission that he would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit.
Also reviewed were the elevations and floor plans for the proposed 8265 sq. ft. house and the map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Neff, revised to 5/4/06, which showed both proposed dwelling units would share a single driveway. Mr. Neff also noted both septic systems had already been installed and there was an existing well.
There were no questions from the commissioners or from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Johnson for a detached accessory apartment at 10 Lower Church Hill Road. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Sections 9.5.1 and 9.4.1.j/Commercial Storage Building and Increase in Lot Coverage to 35.8%
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:49 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/13 and 9/20/06. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 9/25/06 ZEO Report. Mr. Ajello added that the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application.
Mr. Owen read the 9/16/06 letter to the Commission from Mr. Underwood, which stated the building was proposed in an area that may be needed for the repair of the existing failing septic system, and the 9/21/06 response from Mr. Dobson, which stated the area where the building was proposed could not be used for a septic system.
Mr. Dobson presented the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Cheney, revised to May 2006 on which he had sketched the approximate location of the existing septic system. He dated and initialed this addition to the map. Mr. Dobson said nothing was flowing from either the septic system or the catch basin to the river because the pipes for both were blocked. The location of the proposed 70 ft. X 40 ft. building was noted.
Photos of a building similar to the one proposed were circulated. The structure was a three bay steel building with overhead doors that would be used for the storage of equipment. Mr. Dobson was not certain about the exact height, but it appeared to be at least 16 ft. tall.
It was noted the building would be set back quite a distance from Rt. 202 and could not be seen from the highway.
Mr. Owen noted the Health Dept. had approved the application before Mr. Underwood's letter had been received and had not been available to review it again since then. Mr. Averill asked if the Inland Wetlands Commission and Health Dept. had approved a location for a reserve septic system. It was thought the Health Dept. probably had in its review of the proposed building, but Mr. Ajello noted Inland Wetlands had not. Mr. Owen noted the proposed building would be for storage only and that any change of use in the existing building would require another Health Dept. review.
Mr. Dobson was applying for an increase in coverage from 25% to 38.5%. While she thought the proposed structure would be functional, Mrs. Friedman did not think it met the criteria listed in Section 9.6 to qualify for the increase. She stated the intent of this section was to allow development that would enhance Marbledale. Mr. Shapiro noted there were other buildings in Marbledale similar to the one proposed. Mr. Owen noted it would be hidden behind the front building and Mr. Shapiro likened the application to Underwood's Special Permit for the self storage buildings, which were partially screened by a berm. Mr. Owen noted greater lot coverage would help make commercial enterprises functional in Marbledale, which was another intent of the regulation.
Mr. Ajello asked if the building could be seen from adjoining properties. Mr. Dobson said there was commercial property on both sides and the building could not be seen from Wheaton Road. He offered to change the design somewhat if there were objections. Ms. LaBella, owner of the adjoining property off Wheaton Road, said that the proposed building did not fit in with the community. She said she would be building a home in the future and she would be able to see the new structure if it were not screened. Mr. Dobson said the existing growth screens the property. Ms. LaBella feared a future owner would clear the area between the two properties, but Mr. Ajello pointed out this area is regulated by the Inland Wetlands Commission, so clearing would be unlikely. It was also noted that Mr. Dobson's building would be 70 ft. from the property line and any new house on the 4 acre LaBella property would be approximately 100 ft. back from the rear line to keep it out of the regulated wetlands area.
Mr. Ajello noted the photos of the proposed building showed outdoor lighting. Mr. Dobson said there was already a spotlight on the rear of the existing building and additional outdoor lights were not needed.
The septic issues were discussed in detail. It was noted the existing building is limited to low water uses and that all proposed changes of use had to be approved by the Health Dept. Mr. Dobson did not think Mr. Underwood's concerns were relevant to this application because 1) a septic system could not be installed where the building was proposed, 2) the proposed building would have no plumbing, and 3) the building would be used for storage only. Mr. Averill suggested that since the Health Dept. had approved the application prior to receiving Mr. Underwood's letter, that it make a second review to determine whether a septic issue remained.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Sections 9.5.1 and 9.4.1.j submitted by Mr. Dobson for a commercial storage building and an increase in coverage to 35.8% at 255 New Milford Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:29 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. Owen called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 8/28/06 Public Hearing- Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Washington Cemetery Assn., Inc/17 Parsonage Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.2/Storage-Administration Building
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.2 submitted by the Washington Cemetery Assoc., Inc. for an administration- storage building at 17 Parsoange Lane. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 4-0.
Johnson/10 Lower Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/
Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Ajello recommended a condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate the dwelling unit over the garage has been decreased to 1200 sq. ft. or less before a certificate of zoning compliance is issued for the main house.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Johnson for a detached accessory apartment at 10 Lower Church Hill Road subject to the following condition: before zoning compliance is issued for the new dwelling, it must be confirmed that in the detached apartment the space at the top of the stairs has been rendered uninhabitable by installing a partition and that this space has remained unheated. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 4-0.
Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Sections 9.5.1 and 9.4.1.j/Commercial Storage Building and Increase in Coverage to 35.8%
Conditions of approval were discussed. It was the consensus that since Mr. Underwood's concerns had been raised after the Health Dept. approved the application, it should review it a second time. It was agreed that since there was existing vegetation along the rear boundary line and the existing building was not visible from the LaBella property, a condition requiring screening in the rear was not necessary. The commissioners also agreed there should be no overnight lighting.
Mrs. Friedman noted the language in Section 9.6 was mainly aesthetic and so again stated the proposed building did not enhance the Marbledale Business District and did not comply with this section. She said she was conflicted, however, because the request to increase the coverage seemed reasonable. Mr. Owen noted the Commission had previously found elsewhere in Marbledale that self storage buildings met the objectives of this section and Mr. Shapiro stated one of the purposes of the revised Marbledale regulations was to promote the commercial aspect of the district. It was noted while the proposed building was not harmonious with its immediate surroundings, it would not be visible from the highway.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Sections 9.5.1 and 9.4.1.j submitted by Mr. Dobson for a commercial storage building and increase in lot coverage to 35.8% at 255 New Milford Turnpike subject to the following conditions: 1) the Health Dept. review the 9/16/06 Underwood letter and notify the Commission that there are no remaining Health concerns and 2) there shall be no overnight lighting. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 4-0.
Other Business
Residential Lighting Regulations: Mr. McGuinness had provided samples of lighting regulations from other Ct. towns. It was the consensus that just as the Commission had avoided having to measure decibels in its regulations governing noise generating equipment, it should steer clear of having to measure foot candles in any lighting regs. Mrs. Hill suggested a chart be used to illustrate the types of lighting fixtures permitted and not permitted. Light that can be seen from off the property was discussed. It was the consensus this meant the light source should not be seen from off site as it would be impossible to prevent all light from being seen from off site. Mr. Ajello noted Branford's regulations require that "sky glow" be minimized. It was agreed provisions for security lighting would have to be included and it was noted non glaring light directed toward the building to be protected had been proven to be the most effective. The lighting of sports courts should be addressed, also. Mr. Owen thought perhaps regulating the height of the light fixtures might be one way to control this type of lighting. Although it is commercial lighting, Mr. Ajello said overnight window display lighting had recently been a problem and should be addressed in the regulations. Mrs. Friedman pointed out that enforcement, especially being able to prove what type of lighting had existed on any property before adoption of lighting regulations, would be very difficult. Mr. Ajello noted that once regulations were adopted, lighting would be part of all site plan reviews. Mr. Averill suggested that standards for high pressure sodium, mercury vapor, and metal halite lighting be addressed, noting that while they might be overly bright or glow, they were more energy efficient. It was also agreed the shielding of entrance lighting and the environmental impacts of lighting should be addressed. Mr. Owen volunteered to work on a first draft.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations: It was noted public hearings to consider the following revisions were scheduled for October 23:
1) Section 4.4.17: accessory structures at pre existing golf courses, 2) 6.6: deletion of the term, "rowing shell dock," 3) 6.6.10: materials that may be used for the construction of docks, 4) 6.4.6: clarification re: what constitutes a fence, and 5) 21.1.28: revision of the definition of fence. Letters regarding rowing shell docks have been received and copies will be mailed to the commissioners prior to the hearing.
Privilege of the Floor
Residential Lighting: Mr. Dugan, Findley Road, and Mr. Papsin, Mygatt Road, voiced their concerns regarding excessive residential lighting in Town, especially overnight landscaping lighting. Mr. Papsin also urged the Commission to include stricter regulations for commercial lighting because, he said, the amber lights in New Preston light up the whole sky. Mr. Owen noted that darkness is a precious natural resource and the commissioners agreed wholeheartedly with the points raised by Mr. Dugan and Mr. Papsin. It was suggested that a Town ordinance might be a more effective way to deal with this matter because "grandfathering" would not then be an issue. Mr. Owen said he would consult with the Board of Selectmen. The need to education the public was also noted. Mrs. Hill suggested the Conservation Commission might have some ideas about how to do this.
Enforcement
Mr. Ajello noted the Aragi first cut approved at last month's meeting was invalid due to incorrect information, which had been provided with the application. He also noted there were several matters now being dealt with by the Inland Wetlands Commission that would soon progress to Zoning.
Mr. Owen noted the Zoning Fine Ordinance would be on the agenda for consideration at the next Town meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Friedman.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
August 28, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Martin
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Aragi, Press
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Martin.
MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: 1) New Applications: Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.5.1/Storage Barn and 2) Revision of the Zoning Regulations/ Section 6.6/Docks. By Mr. Owen, seconded By Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To add a discussion of outdoor wood boilers under Enforcement. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the July 24, 2006 Regular Meeting as written. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Washington Cemetery Association/17 Parsonage Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.2/Storage-Administration Building
A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, September 25, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Johnson/10 Lower Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Ajello noted the existing dwelling will be converted to the detached apartment and a new primary dwelling constructed. A public hearing was scheduled for September 25, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall immediately following the first hearing, which begins at 7:30 p.m.
Aragi/9 Wilbur Road/First Cut
Mr. Aragi, owner, was present. The application proposed a 3.073 acre lot containing the existing house and a remaining 31.53 acre parcel. It was noted he intended to subdivide the 31+ acres in the future.
Mr. Owen read the 8/28/06 ZEO Report and noted there were no outstanding issues.
MOTION: To approve the application for a first cut at 9 Wilbur Road submitted by Mr. Aragi. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.5.1/ Storage Building
It was noted this application had been withdrawn after the last meeting, but had since been approved by the Health Department and had been resubmitted.
Because he was asking for an increase in coverage to 35.8%, Mrs. Friedman asked if the applicant would address all of the criteria listed in Section 9.6. Mr. Ajello said these would be discussed at the public hearing.
The Commissioners will inspect the property on their own prior to the next meeting.
A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, September 25, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. It will be the third hearing that evening. The hearings begin at 7:30 p.m.
Other Business
Tracy/47 Rabbit Hill Road/Special Permit: 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen/Request for Renewal
Mr. Owen noted the applicant was faithful in reapplying for his permit as required. Mr. Ajello stated he found no problems on site when he inspected the property.
MOTION: To approve the renewal of the Special Permit: 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen issued to Mr. Tracy at 47 Rabbit Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Zoning Fine Ordinance
The draft Zoning Fine Ordinance, written by Mr. Shapiro and reviewed by Atty. Zizka, had been previously mailed to the commissioners. Mr. Owen noted that Washington had a similar ordinance for the Inland Wetlands Commission and that when adopted this ordinance would increase the effectiveness of the Town's zoning enforcement efforts.
Mr. Shapiro said he had used the Inland Wetlands ordinance as his model and he explained the significant changes he had made to it.
Mrs. Friedman asked if Section 19 of the Zoning Regulations should be deleted if the ordinance is adopted. It was decided to wait to determine whether this should be done until after the ordinance is approved at a Town Meeting.
Mr. Shapiro circulated his 8/28/06 memo to the Commission regarding how the ordinance would work. It was noted the maximum fine would be $150 per day, but that this would not be levied unless other attempts to resolve the violation had been unsuccessful and the violator had been clearly warned that the fine would accrue at $150 per day for as long as the violation continued.
Mr. Owen noted that due to the possibility of triple damages against the ZEO if he were to issue a frivolous fine, the Zoning Commission would adopt the policy that it would approve the issuance of fines and the ZEO would then act under its instructions. This policy had been OK'd by Atty. Zizka.
Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that when a fine was issued, the Enforcement Order would be attached to the Town Land Records.
Mr. Shapiro noted the state statutes allow fines of up to $150 per day. He asked the Commission if it wanted to impose the maximum fine no matter what the violation. Mr. Ajello thought the maximum fine would be justified because there would have been no results from the preliminary enforcement efforts and it would be difficult to differentiate between the severities of different types of violations. It was the consensus to keep the fine at $150 per day and to use it as a last resort.
Mr. Shapiro noted again that Atty. Zizka had approved the proposed language. The minutes will indicate that the Commission is requesting the Board of Selectmen to place the approval of the Zoning Fine Ordinance on the agenda of the next Town Meeting. The Commissioners thanked Mr. Shapiro for his work.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations
Ridgeline Protection: Mr. Owen noted it was easy to understand the theoretical desire to control ridgeline development, but difficult in a town with topography such as Washington's to actually draft regulations to do so. He read Mrs. Frank's letter dated 8/16/06, which stated the Conservation Commission had done all it could to promote ridgeline protection regulations and now urged Zoning to be proactive in implementing the recommended revisions. Mrs. Friedman noted the provisions, which had previously been discussed, would not prohibit the development of any parcel, but would regulate the location and materials used. She did not think this was too much regulation or that the demands on the applicant would be extreme. Mr. Owen thought the site plan requirement that had been previously discussed would be too expensive and time consuming for single family dwellings. He asked if there might be a way to accomplish the objectives without site plan review. It was noted survey maps are not currently required for zoning permits for single family dwellings. Mr. Ajello suggested that if the proposed house was set back from the precipice or from slopes exceeding 25% at least the same distance as its height, it would be barely visible from below. He said most of the public views in Town were from low lying areas looking up. Mr. Owen noted there are many hills that have no slope at the top. Mrs. Friedman thought the public was bothered by development where from a distance the outline was visible against the sky. Mr. Owen noted whatever standards were established, they must be logical and be universally applied throughout Town. Mrs. Friedman agreed to work on draft language in the future.
Residential Lighting: The discussion began with Mr. Martin's proposed revisions to Sections 4.3.8, 5.3.6, and 6.3.6 regarding lighting for outdoor sports courts. Mr. Martin was unable to attend the meeting, but Mrs. Hill reported he had welcomed comments, had noted there are currently strict regulations for accessory uses, but none for lighting, which he considered to be a loophole, and had urged the scheduling of a public hearing as soon as possible. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Shapiro thought the idea had been to allow only unlit outdoor courts because the lights would be too bright for residential districts and could be seen from both neighboring properties and from miles away, while Mr. Martin's proposal would have permitted associated illumination that did not extend beyond any lot line. Language that would include pool lighting and to allow it only when the pool or outdoor sports court was in use was considered, but the consensus was this would be difficult to enforce. The question was raised regarding how the Commission would differentiate between a basketball court and a hoop hanging on a garage, which could be a problem if it were lit. It was agreed that instead of proceeding with the sports court language, Mr. Owen would immediately begin work on comprehensive residential lighting regulations, which would include consideration of outdoor sports courts. Mrs. Friedman asked that landscape lighting be addressed, also.
Petition from The Washington Club to Revise Section 4.3 of the Zoning Regulations: It was noted the 8/25/06 letter from Mr. Schoon, president of the Washington Club, had been received asking the Commission to allow under Section 4.3, Uses Permitted, "accessory structures associated with the operation of an existing golf course." Mr. Owen noted golf courses are currently not a permitted use in the R-1 District and so each time The Washington Club wants to make a minor improvement at the golf course, a variance is required. He reminded the Commission the Club had previously petitioned to make golf courses a permitted use in the R-1 District, but the Commission had not thought this was necessarily a good idea. Mrs. Friedman suggested these accessory structures be permitted by Special Permit under Section 4.4. There was a lengthy discussion concerning what uses/structures were associated with a golf course because it was noted the Club had considered tennis courts and some kind of restaurant in the past. It was thought that the Special Permit process could eliminate those structures that were more country club oriented and less to do with the operation of the golf course. The proposed language was tightened up to state, "golf related accessory structures directly associated with the operation or maintenance of a pre existing golf course." There was a brief discussion on whether this Special Permit use should be included in the R-3 District where there is also a pre existing golf course. It was decided it would not be included at this time because the golf course on Lake Waramaug is more like a country club. Mr. Schoon will be sent a letter to ask if the revised wording for a new Section 4.4.17 is acceptable to the Club. If it is, the proposed revision will be forwarded to the surrounding COG's and a public hearing scheduled for the October 23rd meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Definition of Fence: Mr. Owen noted the current regulation for fences on the lake side of East and West Shore Roads states that the view of Lake Waramaug may not be "unduly obscured" by the proposed fence. It had been agreed during a previous discussion of a fence for the Ingrassia property that this term was too vague. The question had also been raised whether a row of trees would be considered a fence. He read the definition of "fence" listed in The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions by Moskowitz and Lindbloom and reviewed his suggestions for revisions in his 8/18/06 draft. Regarding proposed Section 6.3.5 it was agreed there should be a distinction between the 2 ft. high fences that are currently permitted and taller fences that do not block the view of the lake. It was also agreed that a tightly spaced row of trees or bushes should be considered a fence and that this should be added to the definition in Section 6.4.6. Although the phrase, "unduly obscured," was vague, Mrs. Friedman pointed out it did let the public know what the Commission's objective is. The commissioners decided not to adopt regulations that differentiate between closed and open fences at this time. The proposed definition for fence in Section 21.1.8 is, "An artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination of materials which is erected to enclose, screen, or separate areas." This matter will be considered at the second hearing scheduled for October 23, 2006; the first hearing of the evening begins at 7:30 p.m.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 6.6/Dock: The term, "rowing shell dock" will be deleted from the entire section. It was the consensus that 360 sq. ft. was large enough for docks and this figure did not have to increase. Mr. Ajello noted with this revision, Washington's regulations more closely matched those of Kent and Warren. The use of non pressure treated wood was discussed. It was debated whether to leave Section 6.6.10.c as written, to delete the reference to CCA treated wood, or to prohibit all pressure treated wood. The Commission will consult with the Lake Waramaug Association. A public hearing was scheduled for October 23, 2006. It will be the third hearing of the evening.
Depot Study: Mr. Owen gave a brief update on the recently held Planning Commission public forums, noting they had been process oriented. He stated the recently approved revisions to the regs governing the New Preston and Depot Business Districts would allow many of the ideas raised in the study to move forward.
Enforcement
Outdoor Wood Boilers: Mr. Ajello circulated a fact sheet from the DEP on these boilers and examples of how some other Ct. towns govern them. The Commissioners will study the information before deciding whether to adopt regulations that mirror the state's regulations or to prohibit the boilers in Town.
10 Main Street, New Preston: Mrs. Friedman asked if there was adequate parking available for the businesses on this site and whether the driveway entrance was safe. Mr. Ajello explained the parking would be on the upper level behind the barn and no parking would be permitted along the road.
Moore/Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello reported the violations on this property would soon come before the Commission.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Friedman.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
July 24, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Abella
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Dobson, Mrs. Frank, Mr. Markert, Mr. Charles, Mr. McQueen, Mr. Ficalora, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.17.4 and 15: Parking and Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 7.5, 7.6, 8.5, and 8.6: Setbacks and Coverage in the Washington Depot and New Preston Business Districts
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. and seated Members Fitzherbert, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella.
He noted due to technical problems, the last session of the hearing had not been recorded, but the members who had not attended the last meeting had all read the minutes, which were detailed.
At the last meeting it had been decided to refer the proposed revisions to a planning consultant. Mr. Owen said he had consulted with the Planning Commission chairman who had recommended Mr. Donovan of Wilbur Smith Associates, one of the firms that had worked on the Depot study. Mr. Owen had sent Mr. Donovan the proposed revisions, minutes of past meetings, and Mr. Owens' 6/17/06 letter to the Zoning Commission, which explained the rationale for the changes. He read Mr. Donovan's memo, which included a few suggestions for "fine tuning" the draft, concluded the proposed changes would be beneficial to the Town, and recommended they be implemented. His suggestions for improvements included; 1) a review of the sign regulations to ensure they would work well with the proposed changes, 2) the limitation or elimination of outdoor storage when either the coverage is increased or the setbacks decreased, and 3) a cooperative effort with the Board of Selectmen to specify what information will be required in order for property owners to receive permission from that Board to use municipal parking spaces to help meet the zoning parking requirements. Mr. Donovan also suggested several more minor changes such as 7.5.1 and 8.5.1: add "vehicular" traffic, 7.6.1 and 8.6.1: add consideration of streetscape elements, 15.3.1: change 500 feet to within 600 feet of the use, 15.4: delete the first sentence because it is redundant. 15.4: change the last sentence to: "If neither option is reasonable, the Commission may require that they be screened by other means," and 15.5.4: add the following phrase at the end: "or modify the current uses to reduce the parking requirement."
Mr. Owen reviewed the list of documents submitted to the file since the last meeting.
Mr. Owen read the 6/23/06 letter from Mr. Boling in support of the revisions.
The Commission discussed each of Mr. Donovan's main recommendations.
Review of the sign regulations: It was noted the Commission had begun working on revisions to Section 16 and agreed they should be reviewed to make sure they will work well with the new regs for New Preston and the Depot. Outside Storage: The commissioners agreed to add protective language by inserting Sections 7.5.4, 7.6.4, 8.5.4, and 8.6.4, which would state that outdoor storage would not be allowed on any lot whose coverage had been increased or setbacks reduced under Sections 7.5, 7.6, 8.5, or 8.6. Mr. Martin noted outside storage referred to inventory and did not mean that businesses could not have properly screened dumpsters. Letter from the Board of Selectmen re: granting permission to use municipal parking spaces: While it was thought this was a valid point, it was noted it was Board of Selectmen's responsibility to develop the criteria to be included in the letter. Deletion of the first sentence in Section 15.4: It was agreed to take it out because it was redundant. There were no questions or comments from the public.
Mr. Martin thought the Commission had done an outstanding job listening and responding to the public comment during the public hearing process, and that after receiving input from the public, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's consultant, it was now ready to close the public hearing and vote on the proposal tonight. The other commissioners agreed.
Mr. Charles said he thought Mr. Donovan's memo satisfied most of the public's concerns.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider Revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations - Sections 13.17.4, and 15: Parking and Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 7.5, 7.6, 8.5, and 8.6: Setbacks and Coverage in the Washington Depot and New Preston Business Districts. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 4-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:54 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. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
Mr. Owen said he had discussed the minutes with Mrs. Friedman, who had chaired the last meeting, and she had found them to be accurate.
MOTION: To accept the 6/26/06 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mr. Abella. (The other commissioners had not attended the meeting.)
Pending Application
Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.j/ Shop and Storage Use for Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Owen read the 7/24/06 ZEO report. Mr. Dobson noted no septic system was proposed and said his engineer would have plans ready in time for the Health Department to sign off prior to the next Zoning meeting. A public hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
Other Business
Ridgeline Protection Regulations: Mr. Owen noted the Commission had considered this matter before, but had backed away due to the difficulty in selecting the specific areas to be protected. Mrs. Frank and Mr. Markert of the Conservation Commission were present. Mrs. Frank circulated a photo of development on a ridgeline in Kent as an example of what should be avoided. She noted the Zoning Commission had previously adopted revisions recommended by the Conservation Commission regarding how the height of buildings are measured, said this had been a good first step, but added this had not been enough to protect the viewshed. She stated that due to Washington's complex topography, it was difficult to decide which areas to protect. She thought the current proposal was straightforward because it tied in with accepted maps in the Natural Resources Inventory. She read proposed Section 14.3, which would require a site plan for proposed development 250 feet or less from peaks and prominences as shown on the Inventory's GIS Peaks and Prominences Map, dated December 1999 and for proposed development on grades greater than 15 percent as shown on the Inventory's 1999 GIS Slopes Map. Mr. Martin asked if there was a single map that showed both areas within 250 feet of peaks and all areas with grades over 15 percent. Mrs. Frank said there was not. Mr. Markert noted the proposed regulation would not prohibit development in these areas, but would require that it meet higher standards, which were then reviewed. These would limit the disturbance to the canopy, require use of materials, finishes, and colors that would recede into the landscape, and restrict the quantity, type, and character of outdoor lighting fixtures. Mr. Martin applauded the concept and technique for ridgeline protection, but questioned how the Commission would ensure that only the most important areas would be regulated. He thought to regulate all areas within 250 feet of peaks and all areas with a greater than 15 percent grade would be too much, although Mr. Markert thought those areas would comprise only 25 percent of Town since they overlap. Mr. Martin also noted that Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct COG, objected to including single family dwellings and their accessory uses in any category of regulations requiring stricter standards. It was noted the Commission would have to know how much of Town would be involved before taking any further steps. Mr. Markert thought the Commission should review all development proposed in visually prominent areas to ensure that it would not change the character of the Town. Mr. Martin noted, however, that when this idea had been considered previously, the Commission's attorney had advised that the more selective the criteria, the less arbitrary the regulations would be and, therefore, the more likely to stand up in court. He asked if areas within 250 of a peak, but that no one could see, would be included, noting previously the Commission had been interested in protecting only the views from public areas. Mr. Owen thought the regulations would have to maintain a balance between the rights of private property owners and the interests of the Town in preserving views. Mrs. Frank suggested development at higher elevations and on steep slopes should have stricter review standards anyway to control runoff. Mr. Martin said the Commission's attorney had indicated regulations to manage runoff and erosion and other environmental impacts would likely stand up in court. Mr. Owen suggested a workable approach might be to start small by protecting the ridgelines surrounding important areas such as Lake Waramaug and Steep Rock and Mr. Martin pointed out Atty. Zizka had said this would be a workable approach. Mr. Martin said all land was not created equal and any regulations implemented would have to take into account the natural features of the land. It was also noted that all applications requiring site plans would have to be acted on by the Commission. Mr. Owen suggested Mr. Martin be appointed to work with the Conservation Commission to develop an acceptable approach, but Mr. Martin said he was not sure he would have the time. He thanked the Conservation Commission for its work to date and encouraged it to continue. Mr. Martin also suggested Mr. McGuinness be contacted. Mr. Markert said he had already talked to Mr. McGuinness and that he had recommended the proposed regulations be tied to existing Town documents. Mr. Owen thanked the Conservation Commission for its perseverance.
Preliminary Discussion/Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/Hedge: Mr. Bennett, landscape architect, represented the property owner and presented the plans, "Proposed Fence," fence elevation, and fence plan. He said the owners would comply with the previous approval for the fence in front of the house and the barn, but wanted to discuss the possibility of an evergreen screen between the house and barn. The Commission pointed out that per the Regulations, a row of hemlocks was a fence. Mr. Bennett said the proposed the hemlocks would be planted down the slope and so their tops would be no higher than the existing guard rail and they would not interfere with the view from the road. Mr. Martin said the ZEO could stipulate that the hedge be maintained so that it would not exceed a height of two feet measured from the crown of the road and if that was the case, no permit would be required. Mr. Ajello noted fences were limited to 8 feet in height or else they had to meet the setback requirements.
Zoning Fine Ordinance: Mr. Owen reported that Mr. Shapiro has been working with Atty. Zizka to draft the ordinance. When it is completed, the Commission will ask that it be put on the agenda of the next Town Meeting.
Residential Lighting Regulations: Mr. Owen suggested the Commission address this issue because the current Regulations deal with outdoor lighting only in Section 13. Illumination of tennis courts, the up lighting of trees for landscaping, and other non essential lighting are not covered, even though they affect the character of residential neighborhoods and also diminish the beauty of the night sky. Mr. Ajello noted there were also environmental impacts. Mr. Martin noted an easy first step would be to revise Section 4.3.8 to state that only unlit sports courts are permitted in the R-1 District. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Martin to draft a proposal for Section 4.3.8 to be discussed at the next meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Setbacks and Coverage in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts: It was noted that Sections 13.16.4 and 14.7.10 already deal with outside storage and that these sections would not be affected by the new regulations. It was agreed that outside storage should not be permitted on any property where the coverage has been increased or the setbacks decreased per the proposed new regulations. Mrs. Hill asked if there might be confusion about the difference between outdoor storage and outdoor displays. It was the consensus the ZEO would deal with any such questions. It was also agreed to implement all of Mr. Donovan's other recommendations as discussed at the public hearing except that the word, "relevant," would not be added to section 15.3.1.
MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations - Sections 13.17.4 and 15: Parking and Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 7.5, 7.6, 8.5, and 8.6: Setbacks and Coverage in the Washington Depot and New Preston Business Districts per the 7/24/06 draft with revisions and corrections as discussed at the 7/24/06 Zoning Commission public hearing and meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 4-0.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Charles said he thought the Town Atty. should have reviewed the revised draft before the Commission voted to approve it. Mr. Owen noted he had, indeed, reviewed a previous draft.
Enforcement
Mr. Ajello briefly reported on the following:
Moore/Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Moore is working with the Wetlands Commission regarding unauthorized activities on his property and will address zoning issues in the future.
Signs: Mr. Ajello said he has been taking down illegal signs throughout Town.
Outdoor Wood Boilers: Mr. Ajello noted the DEP regulates outdoor wood boilers, but the state building code does not enforce the DEP standards. He suggested the Zoning Regulations address them, noting that some towns prohibit them. Mr. Owen asked him to talk to Mr. McGuinness at the NW Ct COG to find out how other area towns handle them and report back to the Commission.
Motor Track: Mr. Ajello reported he had found a 2.5 mile ling motor track, which went through wetlands and caused a lot of environmental impact. He said such a track was not a low intensity recreational use permitted in the R-1 District. He will have an update prepared for the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
June 26, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Sedito, Mr. Charles, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sears, Ms. Nevel, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Talbot, Mrs. Pullaro, Mr. Lasar, Press
Mrs. Friedman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill and Friedman and Alternates Abella, Shapiro, and Wyant for Members Fitzherbert, Martin, and Owen.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Reid/287 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1/Small Scale Business Establishment
Mrs. Friedman commenced the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. She then read the legal notice published in Voices on 6/14 and 6/21/06 and the list of documents in the file.
Ms. Nevel, tenant, noted there was a change in the application. She submitted the 6/26/06 letter to the Commission, withdrawing request for the proposed sign and substituting instead two signs 7 to 9 feet tall by 4 feet wide to be placed on either side of the door on the front exterior of the building. She noted neither sign would project more than 12 ft. above the ground. Mr. Ajello stated the proposal complied with the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Reid, property owner, stated two bay windows, which would extend out from the building 2 ft. 6 in., were proposed.
Lighting was discussed in detail. Ms. Nevel proposed to have display lighting on all the time. Mrs. Friedman pointed out that display and window lighting has become a problem in New Preston because it is too bright and distracting when viewed from off site. Mr. Ajello thought soft light and security lighting would be OK and noted there were residences across the street from the Reid property. Mrs. Hill noted this was a Special Permit application and referred to the standards cited in Section 13.1.B, which refers to nuisance conditions at or beyond the property line. Mrs. Friedman pointed out the tenant intended for the light to extend beyond the property line so people driving by could see it. She suggested a time restriction on the proposed lighting, except for security lights, as a condition of approval. Ms. Nevel countered that this property differed from New Preston where there is a mass of stores and said she did not propose to light the signs. Mr. Shapiro noted lit signs are permitted, but not back lit signs.
Mr. Ajello advised the applicant he could apply for a directory sign since there would be more than one business in the building. Mr. Reid said he had no plans for a directory sign and that Ms. Nevel did not propose a free standing sign.
It was noted the new business would be a clothing store.
Mr. Ajello said there were no other issues; that there was plenty of parking available and loading would not be a problem.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1 submitted by Mr. Reid for a small scale business establishment at 287 New Milford Turnpike. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Friedman closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
Wodtke/155 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Dock
Mrs. Friedman called the public hearing to order at 7:52 p.m. and read the legal notice published in Voices on 6/14 and 6/21/06. She also noted the list of documents in the file.
No one was present to represent the applicant.
Mrs. Friedman noted the reason for the Special Permit application under Section 6.6.12 was that the dock did not meet the 25 ft. setback requirement from the side boundary lines as there was only 40 feet of shoreline.
Mr. Ajello said the proposed dock was a traditional dock that met all the other zoning requirements including size. He also noted Trooper Sordi, the lake safety officer, had approved it.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.6.12 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Wodtke for a dock at 155 West Shore Road. By Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Mrs. Friedman closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations-Sections 13.17.4 and 15: Parking and Sections 11.5.1, 11/5/2, 7.5, 8.6.6, and 8.6.7: Setbacks and Coverage in the New Preston
Mrs. Friedman reconvened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. and noted in his absence, Mr. Owen had submitted a letter dated 6/17/06. She noted that due to technical problems with emails and the copier there were only three copies of the 6/26/06 revised draft available. The main changes in the latest draft were: 1) references to zero setbacks and one hundred percent coverage were deleted, 2) applications under the new regulations would be by Special Permit, and 3) more descriptive and detailed criteria were added to the standards by which the Commission would judge the Special Permit applications.
Mr. Charles asked if he understood correctly that this type of Special Permit application would not be a ZBA issue. Mrs. Friedman said that was correct. The Special Permit applications would be submitted to the Zoning Commission who would conduct a public hearing.
Mr. Talbot supported the revision to require a Special Permit.
He asked if it would be required for all applications in the Depot. Mrs. Friedman responded, no, it would be required only for those applications proposing to exceed the current coverage or decrease the current setback requirements. She again explained the criteria to be evaluated by the Commission when considering a Special Permit application had been elaborated in the latest draft. Mr. Talbot noted, however, the criteria did not include density or FAR (floor area ratio) requirements, which might control the total square footage of a proposed building. Mr. Sears noted the proportion of the buildings on the surrounding properties would be considered. Mr. Talbot thought the draft was well thought out, but that questions remained about how the regulations would be administered. He noted both the intent of both the Planning and Zoning Commissions was to allow a slightly denser town center, but he did not think it was clear how the Commission would review each proposal and decide yes or no. Mr. Shapiro explained the process would be like the one already used by the Commission for Special Permits under Section 13 and that criteria such as size, alignment, and village character would be considered.
Mr. Talbot asked if the draft regs had been reviewed by a planning consultant. Mrs. Friedman said they had not, although the Commission's attorney had reviewed them. Mr. Talbot recommended they be referred to a consultant who specifically knows Washington to make sure they address all necessary issues. For example, he asked whether the Commission was confident the proposed regs would maintain the streetscape and if they included provisions for trees and "green lines" connected to buildings. He was concerned that new buildings would gradually create a new streetscape that could then be the standard for future applications. He also noted that septic approval was an essential part of the permit process and that the Health Dept. would actually maintain the density more than the Commission would.
Mr. Charles again made the points he raised at the last meeting; 1) He asked that a planning consultant review the draft regs, 2) He said a study showing the total build out that would be possible in New Preston and the Depot under the new regs should be done before the regs are approved, 3) He asked that all the resources in the village centers be studied, especially septic capabilities, prior to approval of the regs because it might be necessary to reserve some of the good soils for reserve septic areas should the systems for the existing houses fail, 4) He thought the Commission was moving too quickly to consider all of the implications the new regs would have, 5) He did not think the plans for the Texaco station property fit in with the street plan proposed by the Planning Commission, 6) In addition to a septic study, he asked that a study of the flood plain and traffic studies by both Wilbur Smith and the state DOT be completed prior to approving the regs, and 7) He noted the Planning Commission had promised the public that it would have an opportunity to discuss the Depot study prior to the implementation of any changes and said Zoning was moving forward before this had been done. Mr. Shapiro read a paragraph from Mr. Owen's 6/17/06 letter, which explained why, in his opinion, a build out study was not needed and that noted the Planning Commission had voted to endorse the proposed regulations.
Mr. Sears thought out of respect to the Planning Commission there should be an opportunity for public discussion prior to the implementation of the regs. Mrs. Friedman noted the Zoning Commission had begun discussing these revisions prior to the Planning Commission beginning the Depot study.
Mr. Sedito agreed that the draft regs should be referred to a planning consultant because they would have a major impact on the Town. He asked if in addition to the review of the criteria proposed for Special Permits, the site plan requirements in Section 14 would be reviewed. He worried about the Zoning Commission's ability to make judgments regarding the new standards and the possibility of lawsuits. Mr. Abella said the Commission might require that applications be reviewed by consultants and asked if the applicant could be charged for these reviews. Mrs. Hill thought this would be possible under the current Town ordinance regarding consultants fees. Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission had not assumed every application would require a review any more than it had when it had implemented the revised Marbledale regulations.
Mrs. Pullaro asked if the proposed regs would affect the ability of any of the residential properties in either business district to change to a commercial use. Mrs. Friedman explained the proposed regs would only come into play if the business use proposed either a decrease in the current setbacks or an increase in the current coverage requirements. Mrs. Pullaro asked if after a nonconforming building went through the Special Permit process it would still be non conforming. Mrs. Friedman said it would not.
Mr. Sedito said he was concerned what would happen should the revisions be approved and the Texaco, Supply, and Hickory Stick properties all proposed changes under the new regs. Mr. Averill replied he was more worried about what would happen if those three properties proposed redevelopment under the current regulations. He noted the proposed revisions would not throw out the existing regs. Although the proposed regs would not restrict the kinds of businesses allowed in New Preston and the Depot, he thought they would help the Town keep out automobile oriented, Rt. 7 type of businesses. He said he did not understand the public's fear of the proposed regs.
Mrs. Friedman thought the public was concerned about the make up of the Zoning Commission and whether future Zoners would interpret the regs as the current Commissioners would. Mr. Charles agreed.
Mr. Sedito voiced his concern about parking. If a property such as the Texaco station was approved for a specific use(s) with a specific number of parking spaces, he asked, how would parking be addressed if a change of use was proposed later. Mr. Ajello responded that a proposed increase in a Special Permit would require a Special Permit application and the parking would be reviewed as part of that process. Mrs. Friedman pointed out that the parking requirements don't differentiate between different kinds of office use. Mr. Sedito pointed out that real estate offices, for example, need many more spaces than other offices do.
Mrs. Friedman asked the Commissioners how they would feel about continuing the hearing and referring the draft regs to a planning consultant familiar with the Depot study. No one raised any objections.
Mr. Charles recommended the regs be referred to Wilbur Smith-Robert Orr Associates, Chris Wood, and/or Planimetrics.
At 8:33 p.m. Mrs. Friedman continued the public hearing to Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is available in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mrs. Friedman called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:34 p.m. and seated Members Averill and Friedman and Alternates Abella, Shapiro, and Wyant.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 5/22/06 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 6, near the end of the third paragraph, it should state that Mr. Shapiro suggested that any mention of a specific target number be eliminated.
MOTION: To accept the 5/22/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/18/06 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Reid/287 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1/ Small Scale Business Establishment: Mrs. Friedman noted the main issue voiced at the public hearing had been lighting. Mr. Ajello suggested approval be conditioned upon restricted hours for lighting and compliance with Section 16, sign requirements. It was agreed the display lights should not be on between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. It was noted the use as a clothing store was permitted under Section 9.4.1.a. It was also the consensus that the Commission should begin to work on specific lighting requirements for both the commercial and residential districts.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1 submitted by Mr. Reid for a small scale business establishment at 287 New Milford Turnpike subject to the following conditions: 1) no display lighting is permitted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and 2) the signs shall comply with Section 16 of the Regulations. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 5-0.
Wodtke/155 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Dock: Mrs. Friedman noted the public hearing had been closed and no issues had been raised. Mr. Averill stated he had spoken with a neighbor who had no objections.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.6.12 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Wodtke to install a dock at 155 West Shore Road subject to the condition that all the other requirements of Section 6.6 be met.
By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Ten Titus, LLC/10 Titus Road/Change of Use to Office-Retail: Mr. Ajello noted the existing barn at the rear of the building was now used for light manufacturing and it was proposed to convert it to office and retail space. He said there was plenty of parking on site, but wondered if there would be in the future if there were incremental increases in use. It was noted again that offices in general were covered in Section 16; there weren't different requirements for each type of office use. Mr. Shapiro asked what would happen if a change of use was proposed and there was not enough parking available. Mr. Ajello said the applicant could either apply for a variance or for a Special Permit under the proposed regulations if they were approved. It was the consensus that this was a use permitted by right in the Depot Business District and the ZEO should process the application.
Dobson/255 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.j/ Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Ajello explained a barn to house equipment for Mr. Dobson's pool business was proposed behind the existing building. However, the Health Department had not yet approved the application and so a public hearing was not scheduled.
Enforcement
Back Lit Real Estate Sign/New Preston: Mr. Ajello said this sign had not been lit lately.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello reported neighbors had complained about serious wetlands and zoning violations. Mr. Moore is operating his contracting business from the property without the required Special Permit and has expanded a paved driveway and enlarged a barn without zoning permits. Mr. Ajello said he had sent out an enforcement letter to Mr. Moore to ask that he apply for the required permits.
Bitar/36 Carmel Hill Road/Lighting of Tennis Court: Mr. Ajello noted last fall he had approved applications for sports courts without lighting, but the owner now wanted to install lights. Mr. Ajello had advised Mr. Neff, the applicant's engineer, to apply for a zoning permit as the poles the lights would be mounted on were considered structures. Since then Atty. Kelly wrote to Mr. Ajello asking him to correct his position regarding the lighting. Mr. Ajello thought perhaps Atty. Kelly misunderstood his discussion with Mr. Neff and will respond accordingly. It was again noted the Commission should draft specific residential lighting regulations. Mrs. Friedman noted, too, that the Conservation Commission wants Zoning to address ridgeline protection.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Averill.
Mrs. Friedman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
May 22, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Charles, Mr. Verrastro, Mr. Frank, Mr. Sears, Mrs. McDonald, Ms. Oetjen, Mrs. Buziak, Mr. Collum, Mr. Carey, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Condon, Mrs. Middlebrook, Mr. Sedito, Mr. Catlin, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. White, Mr. Lasar, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations-Sections 13.17.4 and 15: Parking and Sections 11.5.1, 11/5/2, 7.5, 7.6, 8.6.6, and 8.7.6: Setbacks and Coverage in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, Fitzherbert, Martin, and Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in the Waterbury Republican on 5/10 and 5/18/06.
Mr. Owen noted all the documents in the file. He read the staff comments from the 4/26/06 memo from the NWCt. Council of Governments, the 4/17/06 memo from the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, and the 5/1/06 memo the Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials and the 5/2/06 motion of approval by the Washington Planning Commission.
Mr. Owen summarized the revisions in the latest draft dated 5/22/06 (attached).
Mr. Owen briefly explained the rationale behind the proposed revisions, saying under the current Zoning Regulations neither the New Preston nor the Washington Depot Business District could be rebuilt as it exists. He said the proposed revisions were an attempt to make the Regulations reflect these two historic districts and to allow any new development within them to be consistent with what already exists in each. The revisions would permit the Commission to consider minimum parking requirements rather than the maximum/worst case scenario requirements, which are now in effect. He noted the revised Regs would give the Commission flexibility to determine parking, setback, and coverage requirements to permit new construction more like the charming development that is already here. Route 7 sprawl, he said, was the result of modern zoning regulations such as Washington's.
Mr. Shapiro asked if the proposed revisions were temporary. Mr. Owen responded that originally the Commission had discussed temporary regulations, but on the advice of counsel, had abandoned that idea. The current proposal had evolved from that one.
Mr. Carey read proposed Section 8.5 and asked for the definition of coverage. Mr. Owen noted the definition was included in Section 21 and included paved and traveled surfaces in addition to building footprints. He pointed out that most of the business properties in New Preston and the Depot were well over the 25% maximum coverage currently permitted. Mr. Martin read the definition, noting it had been a cooperative effort by the Zoning Commission and ZBA and would not change under the current proposal.
Mrs. Andersen asked why the revisions were proposed. She feared the changes in the parking and coverage requirements would result in large chain stores such as CVS and Friendly's coming into Town because business owners could argue that 100% coverage and off site shared parking were permitted. She said future Zoning Commissions might interpret the Regulations differently and allow larger or national chains.
Mr. White, Chairman ZBA, voiced his concern about the scope of the proposed revisions. He said the current Regulations were tight with adequate checks and balances. He preferred to handle development in these two districts by other means, possibly by Special Exception, which would not require proof of hardship. He thought under the proposed revisions, applicants would be more likely to apply for 100% coverage and it would be difficult for the Commission to negotiate with them. He thought development should be considered on each property rather than for an entire district because the implications of the revisions were not known.
Mr. Owen stated the draft revisions had been created with the help of the Commission's attorney who had advised it that although there were other procedures that could be implemented, this was the best way to move forward.
Mr. Martin read proposed Section 7.5, noting that although it states the Commission may approve 100% coverage under specific circumstances, the starting point would still be 25%. Mr. Owen agreed. He said the decision about how much coverage would be permitted would not be arbitrary and he reviewed the standards that would ensure development would be in keeping with what exists in the Depot.
Mrs. Andersen suggested the Commission "beef up" the language in Section 8.4, perhaps by adding a provision regarding maximum square footage of buildings.
Mr. Charles said his main concern was whether the revised regs were the correct method to reach the Commission's goal of permitting development that is consistent with what already exists in the two business districts. He said the possibility of the elimination of setbacks and 100% coverage was a dramatic increase over the current Regulations and he asked if a build-out had been done. He noted he was the only Planning commissioner who had voted against the revisions because the Planning Commission had promised there would be public discussions before the Zoning Commission implemented any changes and this had not yet happened. He noted Zoning had not contacted any planning consultants to review the proposal, which he thought would be wise to do so that any unanticipated implications would be known. In addition, he did not think due diligence had been done because septic and traffic studies had not been undertaken.
Mr. Fitzherbert noted that the Zoning Commission thought proposed Section 7.5 clearly stated the consideration of coverage would begin at 25% and could increase only if all of the specifications listed were met and proof was presented that the proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mrs. Andersen asked about "grandfathered" buildings. Mr. Owen noted that the Town thinks the current Regulations protect the non conforming buildings it has, but they actually don't. He said "grandfathering" preserves what is already here, but does not address changes to what exists or new development. Mr. Martin agreed, explaining that "grandfathering" puts significant constraints on changes to existing buildings and adaptations for current needs. He said the proposed revisions would provide flexibility to meet the needs of the business community that "grandfathering" could not provide.
Mr. Boling thought the proposed revisions were a positive step in the right direction. Although he thought it would be good to beef up the standards, he thought the proposal would give the Commission discretion in dealing with applications and would not "open doors" for developers. He suggested the standards include references to the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, the Depot Study, and historic, non suburban, rural character. Mr. Owen noted there had been a reference to the Plan in an earlier draft, but Atty. Zizka had advised the Commission to delete it. However, he agreed more descriptive language for specific standards could be included and the other commissioners agreed.
Mr. White again stated that since it would be unlikely that any future applicant would be able to prove a hardship associated with his property, he recommended that the establishment of the Special Exception procedure, which would focus on individual properties. He was concerned the revisions might not have "enough teeth" to stop development not in keeping with what exists in the districts if an appeal was brought to court. He thought the current system in Washington worked well and that more review of the proposed language was needed.
Mr. Owen responded the problem was not lot based, but was district-wide and was a developing issue as the Depot study progressed. He stressed that the most cherished structures in the New Preston and Depot business districts were now impossible to build under the current Regs and that once implemented, the revisions would make them conforming so they could be duplicated.
Mrs. Busiak, Marbledale resident, complained the Commission ignored Marbledale, which had the same problems as New Preston and the Depot. She said these included parking, traffic, coverage, and incompatible businesses.
Mr. Martin noted the Zoning Commission had been concerned about Marbledale and so had already revised its Regulations to allow the same type of development as was now being considered for New Preston and the Depot. He said Marbledale had not been deprioritized; that, in fact, these concepts had been implemented there first. Mr. Owen noted, too, that Marbledale differed greatly from New Preston and the Depot and so some of the proposed revisions would not be easily adaptable there.
Mr. Boling stated 100% lot coverage would be appropriate, even desirable, on some properties in New Preston and the Depot because it was consistent with what was already there.
Mr. Carey thought the proposed revisions did not address septic requirements, saying due to septic concerns, it would be nave to permit 100% coverage. Mr. Owen explained that septic system requirements were governed by the Health Dept. Mrs. Hill noted the application process would not change; all zoning applications would first have to be approved by the Health Dept. before action by the Zoning Commission was taken.
Mr. Verrastro asked for a concrete example of how the parking allocation would work under the proposed revisions; how many spaces an 8000 sq. ft. mixed use commercial building would require. Mr. Owen noted the reason for the proposed change in the parking regulations was that none of the businesses in New Preston or the Depot could meet them because they are unrealistic. He said they resulted in large empty paved lots such as the one on Rt. 47 for Jack's. The table on page 5 of the proposed revisions indicated 8 to 24 spaces would be required for an 8000 sq. ft. retail business. Mr. Verrastro asked if handicapped spaces were required. Mrs. Hill said that was a Building Code issue.
Mr. Sears noted there is a