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 common perception the Depot does not have enough parking spaces, but he thought the real issue was the utilization of the existing spaces. He thought there should be a carefully thought out off site parking plan for the Depot.
Mr. Fitzherbert pointed out that under the existing Regulations the Commission had no jurisdiction over what a building will look like, but under the proposed regs it would, in so far as it would have to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that applications proposing parking in the rear of commercial properties, architecture in keeping with the neighborhood, etc. would qualify for decreases in the setback requirements and increases in coverage. Mr. Owen noted the Commission would take into account building size, spacing, and proportion rather than specific architectural details.
Mrs. Andersen suggested the hearing be continued. She thought a parking study should be undertaken and the Depot study completed and approved at a Town Meeting before the Zoning Regulations were revised. She recommended in the interim that applications for new development in the two business districts be processed by the ZBA. Mr. Owen responded that there is currently no such procedure for applying to the ZBA and he pointed out that per the state statutes zoning boards of appeals have very specific powers.
Mr. Sedito, ZBA, thought the revisions were very broad and that a Town Meeting should be required to approve them. He said the Zoning Commission was trying to implement the Depot study without townwide discussion. Mr. Owen responded it was not the intent of the Zoning Commission to implement the Depot study.
Mr. Martin pointed out that several people had spoken about what a large change the revisions would be, when in fact, he said, if what the revisions would allow was compared with what already exists in these two districts, there would not be much of a change. He said the revisions would only ratify what exists. Mrs. Friedman said that many of the properties do not presently have structures that dominate the site and that a new building with a reduced setback might appear to be a major change. She thought the request for a build out was a valid one and said she wanted to study this matter before voting. Mr. Owen thought the map in Phase I of the Depot study would be close to a build out of the Depot.
Mr. Fitzherbert noted the proposed revisions say the Commission "may" approve decreases in setbacks and increases in coverage, not that it shall approve them, and it would do so only if all of the requirements were met. He said it was wrong to assume 100% of every property would be covered.
Mr. Catlin, ZBA, noted the Town already had a board to deal with variances and asked why the process had to be changed. He said the ZBA was experienced and already had an established process. He did not think this should be changed to enable developers to build to the maximum, which he said would be applied for rather than minor changes.
Mr. Abella agreed with Mrs. Friedman's comments above and said he wanted to be sure the Commission would be in a defensible position if its decisions were appealed.
Mr. Shapiro thought the proposed language included protection against many of the concerns raised by the public at the hearing, that the revisions would permit the Commission to exercise discretion, and that the proposal clearly cited the surrounding factors that would prevent excesses in that the Commission would have to be satisfied that all of the specifications were met before approving each application. Mr. Owen agreed, saying it would not be easy for an applicant to meet all of the specifications listed and that each proposal would have to fit into the existing context. He again stated the current Regulations provide the Town with a false sense of security as they require development totally inconsistent with what already exists. In response to the fears raised about the possibility of permitting coverage "up to 100%," Mr. Shapiro suggested amending that language to "to exceed 25%." It was the consensus to make this change throughout the text.
Mr. Averill stated he was comfortable with the proposed revisions and was ready to vote on them.
Mr. Martin said he was comfortable with the proposed revisions, but would be willing to insert additional specific language concerning the specifications that would have to be met in order for the Commission to approve decreases in setbacks and increases in coverage. He thought this would be a worthwhile improvement and that the hearing should be continued for the purpose of editing the text.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations concerning parking and setbacks and coverage in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts to Monday, June 26, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
At 9:15 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to June 26, 2006.
Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.13/Housing in the Business District/Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Mrs. Hill noted it had been continued because there had been no Health Department approval and the applicant had not notified his adjoining property owners of the hearing by certified mail, but noted both requirements had now been met.
Mr. Owen reviewed the 5/22/06 ZEO Report. Mr. Ajello said all of the requirements had been addressed.
Mr. Collum stated the apartment currently exists, but that he had to reapply for it due to a technicality in the Regulations.
No one from the public spoke and none of the commissioners had any questions or comments.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.13 submitted by Mr. Collum for housing in the business district at 70 Bee Brook Road. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 9:19 p.m.
Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/Special Permit: 6.4.6/Fence on the Lake Waramaug Side of E. Shore Rd./Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the hearing at 9:20 p.m.
Mr. Ajello showed photos of the height of the proposed fence and it was noted most of the commissioners had driven by the property to view it. Mr. Ajello noted his photos had been taken from his vehicle and showed the top of the fence would intersect the view of the water.
Mr. Owen advised the commissioners the regulation states a fence shall not unduly obscure the view of the lake. He noted it would obviously obscure some of the view and said it would be up to the Commission to interpret what "unduly" meant. He did note, however, that in this case the dwelling was very close to the road and there were no houses directly across the highway.
Mrs. Friedman thought the top of the fence bisecting the water interfered with the view from the road and noted the proposed fence was an enormous span that ran more than just the length of the house. She supported the idea that a higher fence be approved along the length of the house, but that it be lower elsewhere on the property.
Mr. Martin compared the proposed fence with the Madoff fence previously approved by the Commission. The Madoff fence had been mostly aligned with the house and had been noticeably high at 42".
Mr. Ajello agreed the Madoff fence was high and pointed out it was lower in elevation compared to the water level than was the proposed Ingrassia fence. Mr. Martin suggested the house could be protected by a 36" high fence that would not interfere so much with the view.
Mr. Frank, Lake Waramaug Assoc., asked the Commission to consider the height of the fence from both a pedestrian and biker's perspective as well. Mr. Ajello noted these were both a higher perspective than when looking from the seat of a car.
Mr. Martin suggested a 42" high fence be approved as proposed along the length of the house and extending only 25 feet on each side, north and south, of the house. This would protect the privacy of the house and protect it from the road, while preserving the public view from the road. It was the consensus this was a good idea.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by Mrs. Ingrassia for a fence on the Lake Waramaug side of East Shore Road at 135 East Shore Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing.
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 and seated Members Averill, Friedman, Fitzherbert, Martin, and Owen.
Consideration of the Minutes
Regarding the 4/18/06 Special Meeting minutes, Mr. Martin noted the motion of approval for the Myfield affordable housing application did not include the condition that the owner must gain state certification and maintain it. He asked if that had been the intent and understanding of the Commission, and whether it had not been included in the motion because the Commission had considered that it was implicitly included in the application. Mr. Owen said per the plan approved the owner had to report to the Commission once a year to confirm he had maintained state certification. It was the consensus this was, indeed, the intent of the Commission. Approval of the 4/18/06 minutes was postponed to the next meeting.
MOTION: To accept the 4/24/06 Public Hearing -Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence on Lake Waramaug Side of East Shore Road: It was the consensus to approve the fence with the restrictions discussed at the public hearing.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by Mrs. Ingrassia for a fence on the Lake Waramaug side of East Shore Road at 135 East Shore Road subject to the following condition: the 42 inch tall fence is approved along the front of the house and may extend no farther than 25 ft. beyond the house on either side, north and south, of the house and with the understanding that the applicant may apply for a zoning permit for a 2 ft. tall fence for the remainder of the linear length she desires and that the standard measurement shall be taken from the crown of the road to the top of the fence to measure the height of the fence. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.13/Housing in the Business District: It was noted there were no outstanding issues.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.13 submitted by Mr. Collum for housing in the business district at 70 Bee Brook Road. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Reid/287 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1/ Small Scale Business Establishment: Mr. Ajello explained the applicant proposed to add a second business in the existing building, increase the signage, and bump out two display windows. There would be no other change to the footprint. Mrs. Friedman noted there is significant parking on site. The site plan, "Parking Plan," dated 5/22/06 was reviewed. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 26, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
Wodtke/155 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Dock:
Mr. Ajello read Section 6.6.12 and noted the reason for the Special Permit application was that the entire length of shoreline was only 40 feet so the dock could not meet the side yard setback requirements. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 26, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. The hearings begin at 7:30 p.m.; this will be the second hearing.
Other Business
Organization/Administration: Mr. Owen noted the weakness of the Zoning Commission has been enforcement. He explained several changes that would be implemented to improve enforcement efforts: 1) A significant increase in the budget had been approved to increase the hours for the Enforcement Officer and hire a part time receptionist/clerk. 2) Work to revise the application forms will be resumed. Clearer, more detailed, application forms will improve compliance and provide applicants with a better understanding of what is required. Mr. Owen hoped to have the improved forms available on line and said when implemented, they would help to free up staff time. 3) Mr. Owen suggested the Town adopt a Citation Ordinance similar to the one the Inland Wetlands Commission uses. It would enable the enforcement officer to impose fines for violations. He explained the state statutes permit fines of up to $150 per day, which would get the attention of violators and provide the Commission with an additional enforcement tool. He had discussed the citation ordinance with Atty. Zizka who had suggested if the Commission were to vote to levy a fine on an individual, it would prevent violators from attempting to sue the enforcement officer for treble damages. Mr. Shapiro will consult with Atty. Zizka and will prepare draft language for the ordinance.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations: It was noted Mr. Owen would revise the May 22, 2006 draft as had been discussed at the public hearing. Mr. Martin noted the current Section 13.1.B already contained language that development must be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Enforcement
1) Mr. Ajello will write another letter to the New Preston real estate company with the back lit sign, although Mr. Averill said he had not noticed it had been turned on lately.
2) Mr. Ajello reported the state DOT has contacted Mr. Bolek and asked him to locate his fence on East Shore Road behind his property line.
3) Mr. Frank discussed the Commission's intent when it revised the dock regulations. He noted the Commission had intended that docks and rowing shell docks would be separate and that the maximum dock size was 360 sq. ft. The commissioners agreed this was their intent. Mr. Owen stated you could not expand a dock by adding another dock to it.
4) Mr. Ajello had contacted the Tulip Tree owners about the sign that was erected without a permit. He noted the owners have a contract with the state to place the sign in the state right of way.
It was noted neither Mr. Owen nor Mr. Fitzherbert would attend the next meeting. Mrs. Friedman will serve as chair.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Averill.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
April 24, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Kelly, Mr. Cass, Mr. Brinton, Ms. Habib, Mrs. Leab
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence of the Lake Side of West Shore Road
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert. It was noted there were no new documents submitted since the last meeting.
Atty. Kelly represented the applicant. He said he had hoped for approvals from the DOT, but that he had learned that four departments had to sign off, surveying, transportation, engineering, and legal, and also a deeded easement would be required to put the fence on state land. He presented enlarged photos of the property with the proposed fence sketched in as it would appear when viewed from eye level from the middle of the highway. Mrs. Hill noted you would see less of the view if you were seated in a car. Atty. Kelly agreed, but said the height of the fence would not affect the view of the lake for walkers or bikers.
Mr. Shapiro asked where the fence would be in relation to the existing guard rail. Atty. Kelly said it would be immediately behind the guard rail and attached to it if the state would permit.
Mr. Martin noted the Commission had previously approved a 42" fence (approximately at eye level when seated in a car) and it had interfered with the view. He asked if the applicant would consider lowering it. Mrs. Hill suggested it could be kept at 42" along the house for privacy, but lowered elsewhere to preserve the view. Atty. Kelly said he would try to take some photos from car level to illustrate what the view of the lake would be, but said his clients would not be comfortable with a fence less than 42" tall. Mrs. Friedman noted, too, that this fence was a very long one, not a short span like the one Mr. Martin referred to. She supported the idea of lowering the fence away from the house so that both objectives, protecting the house and preserving the view would be accomplished. Mr. Ajello suggested Atty. Kelly string a line on site at the height of the top of the proposed fence, so it would be clear as you were driving by exactly how much of the view would be obscured. Atty. Kelly agreed to do so.
Mr. Owen did not think a 42" fence would unduly block the view in this location due to the way the road curves in this area. Atty. Kelly noted there was also a lot of vegetation along this section of shoreline. The definition of "unduly obscure" in Section 6.4.6 was briefly discussed and Mr. Martin noted this language allowed the Commission to maintain discretion about which fences would impact the view and which would not.
Mr. Owen asked the commissioners to drive by the property before the next meeting.
Atty. Kelly submitted the 4/24/06 letter consenting to an extension of the public hearing, which was continued to Monday, May 22, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall immediately following the first hearing, which will begin at 7:30 p.m.
At 8:53 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to May 22, 2006.
Devereux-Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Additions to Maintenance Building, School Building, and Birchwood Dormitory
Mr. Owen opened the hearing at 8:53 p.m. and the same commissioners remained seated. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice, which was published in Voices on 4/12 and 4/19/06. Mr. Owen read the list of documents included in the file.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Cass summarized the application. 1) There would be a gambrel roof addition to the maintenance building that would house a 3 bay garage with 2 offices above. He said it would be 700 ft. from the nearest boundary line. 2) A science lab addition was proposed for the school building. This would be 28' X 55' and would contain two classrooms. It would have the same architectural style as the existing building and there would be no changes to any exterior lighting. 3) An addition to Birchwood Dormitory was proposed to add space to the existing living room. The existing exterior lighting would be moved to the corners of the building.
The site plan, "Devereux-Glenholme School," dated 3/1/06, an enlargement of a portion of that map, a floor plan of the science building addition, and elevations for the maintenance building addition were reviewed.
Mr. Ajello found no problems with the application and noted none of the construction would be visible from off site.
Mr. Martin asked if the number of students at the school would increase. Mr. Cass said it would not.
Mrs. Friedman noted the Health Department had not signed off on the application, but Mr. Cass said this was a formality because the state DEP had written in a letter dated 3/23/06 that it had no problems with permits being granted for the proposed additions.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Devereux-Glenholme School for an addition to the maintenance building, an addition to a school building, and an addition to a dormitory at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
At 8:01 p.m. Mr. Owen closed the public hearing.
Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.13/Housing in the Business District
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 8:02 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 4/12 and 4/19/06. It was noted the certified mailing to adjoining property owners to notify them of the hearing had not been done by the applicant.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.13 submitted by Mr. Collum for Housing in the Business District at 70 Bee Brook Road to Monday, May 22, 2006; the third hearing scheduled, the first begins at 7:30 p.m.; in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. because the applicant had not notified the adjoining property owners. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 8:04 p.m. and noted all the Regular Members and Alternate Abella were still seated.
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes had been circulated late and so it was decided to act on them at the next meeting.
Pending Applications
Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence on Lake Side of East Shore Road: The public hearing had been continued to May 22, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. immediately following the first hearing, which will begin at 7:30 p.m.
Devereux-Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Additions to Three Buildings on the School Campus:
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Devereux- Glenholme School for additions to the maintenance building, Birchwood Dormitory, and a school building at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/Request to Revise Special Permit for Gymnasium-Auditorium: Ms. Habib, Business Manager, read her 4/19/06 letter to the Commission, which explained an increase in the size of the building was needed to accommodate a regulation size basketball court instead of the junior size court drawn in the floor plans. The floor plan, Ground Floor Lighting Plan, EL 101," by the SLAM Collaborative, dated 8/23/05 and a plan, "Partial Foundation Plan - Gym Expansion," also by SLAM, dated 3/24/06 were reviewed. Mr. Ajello noted the proposal was to push the wall out 10 ft. on the east side of the building. Ms. Habib explained that due to the steepness of the grade in the area, 10 ft. was the maximum addition she could ask for. Mr. Martin asked if this was an amendment to the original Special Permit and if the coverage would still comply with the Regulations. Mr. Ajello responded, yes, to both questions. Mr. Ajello thought the revision was minor because there would be no increase in the capacity of the building due to the addition. Mr. Owen also noted that the dimensions of the building, setbacks, and coverage had not been issues when the application was first considered.
MOTION: To amend the Special Permit: Section 4.4.10 issued to Rumsey Hall School for a gymnasium - auditorium at 184 Romford Road to include a new wall with revised dimensions per the modified plan, "Partial Foundation Plan," dated 3/24/06. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Depot Parking: Mr. Sears advised the Commission that the Board of Selectmen would comment on the proposed revisions to the parking regulations at the May 22 hearing. He noted the Board had concerns about long term parking in the Depot. He questioned whether there was currently not enough parking or whether it was just poorly configured and/or not optimally utilized. Mr. Owen said he hoped the Commission would hear from the Washington Business Association at the hearing. It was noted one short term parking solution could be an employee parking area on the old Town Garage property.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Parking and Setbacks and Coverage in the New Preston and Depot Business Districts: Mr. Owen noted Atty. Zizka had attended the last meeting and had suggested worthwhile revisions, which were included in the updated 4/21/06 draft. He said issues that were not addressed in the proposed revisions were pervious/impervious surfaces for parking, shared parking, and fee in lieu of parking and that these matters required a thorough understanding before detailed regulations are proposed. He noted almost all the Depot parking is owned by the Town and suggested research into the legality of a fee in lieu of parking be carried out by the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Martin suggested a Town ordinance requiring employees to park at more remote locations to leave the spaces in front of businesses for customers. Mr. Owen thought this problem should be left to the business owners to solve. Mr. Sears suggested the Town might put up municipal parking signs to direct people to the more remote parking locations. Mr. Shapiro asked Mr. Owen if he had purposely left out a required size for parking spaces. Mr. Owen said he had because there was no scientific basis for the 300 sq. ft. now required and it would give the Commission the flexibility to determine in each case what an adequate size would be. Mr. Ajello noted so far the 300 sq. ft. requirement has worked well. Mr. Owen said he would do some additional research on parking space size. Mr. Shapiro suggested the requirement for an adequate all weather surface be retained until the Commission drafts a specific revision regarding parking surfaces. It was the consensus to leave it in for now and to further discuss it at the public hearing. It was noted the proposed revisions had been referred to the Planning Commission and that Mr. Owen would attend the next Planning meeting to discuss them.
Certification Issues: Mr. Martin noted the Commission had previously discussed the unfairness of the Ellsworth Apartments getting a tax abatement from the Town without being certified as affordable housing, and the two possible solutions to the problem would be 1) remove the abatement or 2) get the units certified. He said the Washington Housing Commission has the same concern and had already written the First Congregational Church about this matter. As the goal was to get the units certified, the Church was taking the request seriously, and the Housing Commission chairman was optimistic about the outcome, Mr. Martin recommended that the Commission hold off on any further action until October to give the Housing Commission the opportunity to work with the Church toward this goal. It was the consensus of the Commission to follow Mr. Martin's recommendation to delay any further action until October. Mrs. Friedman said the private schools had also been approached about certifying their staff housing units as affordable. The results here were not promising, however, as The Gunnery, for example, thought there would be a stigma if its faculty were to live in affordable housing units.
Enforcement
Mrs. Friedman reported the back lit sign in the New Preston real estate office was in use again. This was her third complaint. Mr. Ajello noted it was visible from the road. Mr. Averill said he had received several complaints from area residents. Mr. Ajello said he had spoken to the owner previously and would now issue a written notice of violation saying the sign must be removed or enforcement action would begin.
The Bolek fence on East Shore Road was briefly discussed. It was decided Mr. Ajello would report the illegal fence to the state DOT as it had been erected in the state right of way and enlist its cooperation in having the fence removed.
Fines and citations were discussed. Mr. Ajello noted the Inland Wetlands Commission's citation system works well. He said, however, that per state law ZEO's may be fined treble damages for unreasonable fines and so fines have not been widely used as a zoning enforcement tool. He said the current legislative session might amend this statute, and if it does, the Commission might want to consider a fine ordinance. He said it would be useful in cases where property owners ignore his orders, but the issues aren't significant enough to warrant going to court. Mr. Owen said he would discuss this matter with Atty. Zizka. Mrs. Leab suggested the Town web site be used to educate the public and to list current enforcement matters.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Martin.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 8:59 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
April 18, 2006
Special Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Martin
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Zizka, Atty. Ebersol, Mr./Mrs. Allen, Mrs. White, Mr. Boling, Mr. Gitterman, Mrs. Mathews, Mrs. Federer, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Condon, Ms. Stevens, Mr. Sears, Mr. Worcester, Ms. DeMeo, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/13 Dwelling Units/Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Wyant for Mr. Martin.
Mr. Owens noted the list of documents that had been received since the last session of the public hearing on 3/27/06, plus the 4/18/06 letter from Mrs. Mathews, which was submitted this evening. He also noted the 4/18/06 memo from Ms. Von Holt, Town Sanitarian, which stated she did not foresee any obstacles for State Health Department approval.
Mrs. Friedman asked how the Inland Wetlands Commission had conditioned its approval of the revised plans. Atty. Ebersol read the motion of approval, which required a review and approval by that Commission's engineer and if he raised any concerns, that they be addressed to his satisfaction by the applicant.
Mr. Worcester, architect, submitted his revised map, "Proposed Site Plan, 13 Detached 1904 Sq. Ft. Unit Scheme," dated 3/26/06 and revised to 4/4/06 (based on the January 2005 survey by Mr. Alex). Mr. Boling explained the only change was to more evenly space the 13 dwellings, which resulted in more space between the barn-garage structures. He said this provided more screening of the houses from the road. He presented the rendering, "13 Unit Front View," by Mr. Worcester, dated 4/18/06, which depicted red garages with white houses. He stated the houses would be identical basic structures, but would have varying doors, entries, and shutters for visual variety. Sections of fencing had also been introduced in the front yards for a "paddock area" effect in front of the parking courts. The parking courts would be made of pervious pavers. He noted that due to the position of the garages and the vegetation along Mygatt Road, it was unlikely the entire row of houses could ever be viewed at once from the Town road.
Mr. Worcester reviewed the floor plans, "Myfield Housing, Typical House," sheets A-1 and A-2, by Mr. Worcester, dated 4/2/06. It was noted each unit would have a rear deck. Changes made since the Commission had first seen floor plans included the elimination of the front "bump out" and a decrease in the number of bedrooms from 3 to 2. Mrs. Friedman asked if a future owner could add a bedroom. Mr. Boling said Health Dept. approval would be required to do so. Mrs. Friedman asked if owners would be permitted to expand their houses. Mr. Boling stated this would be an increase in a non conforming structure so both a zoning permit and a variance would be required.
Mrs. Friedman asked where the affordable units would be located. Mr. Boling said he did not know at this time, but that there would be one affordable unit built for each two market rate units sold. That way, at any one time one third of the units would be affordable. Mr. Boling thought the lowest priced house would be on Mygatt Road, but agreed to disperse the rest throughout the development.
The stockade fence shown between the dwelling units was discussed. Some commissioners favored removing it completely, while others favored a trellis instead. Mr. Boling noted the sections of fence provided some privacy and offered to vary the styles of fence.
Mr. Shapiro asked about the trees to be planted along the common driveway. Mr. Boling said they would probably be 6 to 8 ft. tall sugar maples.
Atty. Ebersol summarized the proposal. He said the issue of comparability had been satisfied because there was no distinction in the floor plans or look of the proposed units. In addition, he said the plan fit the rural character of Washington and the immediate neighborhood and satisfied the requirements of Section 8-30g of the state statutes. He noted there were no outstanding health or safety issues and asked the Commission to voice any concerns before the close of the hearing so the applicant would have the opportunity to respond to them. If there were no concerns, he said he hoped it would vote to approve the application tonight.
Mr. Owen read the 4/18/06 letter from Mrs. Mathews, Quarry Ridge, against the application.
Mrs. Allen, Quarry Ridge, was opposed to the proposed site plan. She said the site development plan was not in keeping with the rural character of the Town and that the proposed 13 units and the accessory buildings were too many buildings for that one property. She complained Quarry Ridge residents would be looking at a row of barns and asked why the garages couldn't be attached to the houses.
Mrs. White agreed with Mrs. Allen, saying 13 units was far too many and that the road would not be able to accommodate the additional parking. She, too, said the plan was not in keeping with the rural character of the area.
Mr. Allen, 40 Quarry Ridge, noted he was a advocate of affordable housing. He asked if the units would have a condo association. The answer was that they would. He asked how many bedrooms would be in each unit. He was told there would be 2 bedrooms in each. He asked how much the units would be sold for. Mr. Boling said the sale price had not yet been determined. Mr. Allen said he wanted to know how the sale price would compare with the Quarry Ridge units. Mr. Owen did not think this had any bearing on the application.
Mr. Papsin, 30 Mygatt Road, thought the project was too ambitious for such a small field. He complained the existing bad intersection at Mygatt and Scofield Hill Roads would not be able to handle the increase in traffic. He asked if a traffic engineer had reviewed the application. When Mr. Owen told him this had not been done, Mr. Papsin asked the Commission to look into this problem.
Mrs. DeMeo asked how many barns there would be. Mr. Boling said there would be 6 and one additional that would only be half the size of the rest.
Ms. Stevens asked if the barns would be located close to the road. Atty. Ebersol said they would be set back 12 feet from the private driveway. He also pointed out the open space/conservation easement areas.
Mrs. Friedman asked where the proposed units were in relation to the Quarry Ridge units. Atty. Ebersol pointed out the location of both on the site plan.
Ms. Stevens voiced her concern about such density of dwelling units on this small stretch of Mygatt Road. She noted that in addition to the units there would be deliveries, visitors, etc.
Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Sears, First Selectman, whether the Town had any plans to improve Mygatt Road. Mr. Sears said the Town had applied for a grant and would make significant improvements if it were granted. If not, he was not sure when any work would be done. Mrs. Friedman asked if visibility had been reviewed. Mr. Sears said Mr. Cannavaro inspected for visibility at the time the driveway cut was approved. Mr. Boling noted the driveway approval for the curb cut had been included in the application submitted and that the bad intersection referred to earlier was several hundred feet south of the proposed driveway entrance.
Atty. Ebersol pointed out: 1) Quarry Ridge was a greater density than the proposed development, 2) more than 80% of the property would be placed under a conservation easement, and 3) parking for the units would be in the barns and in the courts in front of each house and the overflow would be on hard shoulders along the driveway.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked how far apart the garage-barns would be. Mr. Worcester said they would be 80 to 90 feet apart.
Mr. Ajello thought snow removal could be difficult in the parking courts. Mr. Worcester said there would be border areas that could accommodate snow piles between the houses and the courts.
Mrs. Friedman asked about the absence of kitchen appliances, saying she wanted to make sure the units would stay affordable. Mr. Boling said each owner would purchase his own appliances. She asked how the Commission could be certain the cost of the appliances would not increase the cost of the units so they would no longer qualify as affordable. Atty. Ebersol noted a basic stove and refrigerator would total $1500, that most modular homes come without appliances, and that most first time buyers get a large enough mortgage to purchase appliances.
MOTION: To close the public hearing. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Wyant.
Atty. Zizka advised the Commission not to close the hearing until the applicant had the opportunity to respond to all concerns that it might raise.
Vote: 0-5.
Atty. Zizka noted the state Affordable Housing Appeals Act significantly shifts the burden to Zoning Commissions to put on the record any reasons for denial. He stated those reasons had to be within the jurisdiction of the Commission and had to be substantial enough that they would outweigh the need for affordable housing. Further, there would have to be sufficient information submitted for the record to prove that those concerns were grave enough to merit a denial. In response to some of the points raised earlier by the public, he advised: 1) The court had never allowed density as a valid reason for denial. In fact, he explained greater density was needed to make affordable housing viable. 2) Although traffic congestion and road capacity are factors to consider, bad conditions at an already existing intersection would not be a valid reason to deny the application. Also, there would have to be substantial information submitted for the record to prove there were substantial traffic problems. 3) Even if significant problems are determined to exist, the Commission must consider whether they could be reduced by conditions of approval. A denial can happen only when it is absolutely necessary because there are no possible conditions that will solve the problems. 4) There is no provision in the Affordable Housing Act that requires furnished units. 5) Regarding the appearance of the buildings, he explained there could be no conditions of approval that would affect the financial viability of the project, but he did not know whether the court would uphold conditions that did not affect the financial viability. 6) State law requires the developer to submit a financial plan to show how the requirements of the statute will be met. Atty. Ebersol noted a detailed plan had been submitted with the application. 7) The applicant is not required to specify the prices for the market rate units. 8) The proposed units meet the requirements for comparability, although they were not required to be identical. 9) Septic and water supply issues could be considered by the Commission but there would have to be substantial information in the record to show they would not be adequate. Concern was not enough, he said, there must be substantial proof. He noted, however, that the courts recognize those concerns are addressed by state agencies and the Affordable Housing Act does not trump the state health code.
The Commission commented and discussed its concerns.
Mr. Owen said it was important the affordable units be spread thoughout the development and not segregated in one area. Atty. Ebersol said the applicant was willing to so stipulate. Mr. Owen noted the applicant had addressed every concern raised by the Commission and he did not think there was any basis for a denial. Mr. Shapiro said some of the commissioners were concerned about the appearance of the units, but that this was not a legal basis for denial. Atty. Zizka agreed, but said the court might uphold conditions of approval regarding appearance if they did not affect the financial viability of the plan and if the Zoning Regulations contained such standards. Mr. Shapiro questioned why a line of houses was proposed. Mr. Boling explained they had been pushed as far from the wetlands as possible by the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Abella noted the Commission had reviewed a 10 unit application for months and now it had been increased to 13 units. He thought that was a large increase. Mrs. Friedman noted the number of bedrooms had decreased. Mr. Wyant said he was satisfied with the information presented. Mr. Averill stated on the advice of counsel, he could not justify a denial. Mr. Fitzherbert did not like that all the buildings would be identical. He said he expected some variations that would improve the character of the units and noted they did not have to be identical to be comparable. Atty. Zizka read the court decision regarding comparability and agreed the units did not have to be identical, but did have to be approximately equal. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the applicant would be willing to add 100 sq. ft. to some of the units to vary their appearance. Mr. Boling said it would be difficult to modify the modular construction and said the size of the affordable units could not be expanded. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if bay windows could be added to some of the units. Mr. Boling said the applicant had decided not to use bay windows because they were not used in traditional New England farmhouses. He offered to vary the color of the barns even though he did not think it would look good. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Owen agreed that was not a good idea. Mr. Fitzherbert objected to the straight driveway, saying people would drive faster because it was straight. Mr. Boling said there was a slight curve and that it would be a 12 ft. wide gravel lane with a narrow feel, which should discourage speeders. Mr. Fitzherbert asked what type of heat would be installed. Mr. Worcester said it would be forced air. Comments again were taken from the public.
Mr. Papsin asked if the plans included back up septic systems. Atty. Ebersol said there was a reserve system approved for each individual septic system.
Mrs. White asked that the size of the development be reduced. She said there were too many units and too many garages. Atty. Zizka again stated that density was not a reason for denial that would be upheld in court. Mr. Owen briefly explained how the state statute takes authority away from local commissions and provides developers with the tools to create affordable housing. Mrs. White assumed the Myfield septic systems were connected to Quarry Ridge, but Atty. Ebersol stated there were individual septic systems for Myfield and they did not connect with Quarry Ridge.
Mr. Allen thought the barns should be red because that was the traditional New England color.
Mr. Boling stated to preserve the character along the road and buffer the buildings the existing hedgerow along Mygatt Road would not be taken down. Mr. Ajello noted even with the hedgerow there were good site lines for the driveway cut.
Mr. Sears thanked the applicant for working with the Town commissions to draft the best plan possible, while working to meet the Zoning standards and Town goals, and preserve open space. He said this application would be a model for future applicants. Atty. Zizka noted cooperation and a collaborative effort between the Town and a developer was unusual for affordable housing applications.
Mr. Owen noted the current proposal would increase the affordable housing stock in Town, but noted, too, that moderately priced units were also needed in Washington.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Myfield, LLC. for 13 Dwelling Units at 7 Mygatt Road. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 5-0.
At 8:50 p.m. Mr. Owen closed the public hearing.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
Special Meeting
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/13 Dwelling Units
All the Members seated at the hearing remained seated.
Mr. Owen asked if there was any reason not to act tonight on the application. Mr. Ajello asked if the Commission should wait until the Inland Wetlands Commission's condition of approval was satisfied. Atty. Zizka responded that Zoning was not constrained by Inland Wetlands, which was advisory only.
The commissioners discussed possible conditions of approval, which resulted in the motion below.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Myfield, LLC. for 13 Dwelling Units at 7 Mygatt Road per the map, "Proposed Site Plan, 13 Detached 1904 Sq. Ft. Unit Scheme" by Mr. Worcester, dated 3/26/06, and revised to 4/4/06 subject to the following conditions:
1. No two affordable units shall be adjacent to each other in the row of units.
Vegetative screening of some kind shall be created and maintained on the Mygatt Road roadside at the end of the row of units between the driveway and the back line of the units to screen them from the road.
2. Fences between the units are optional.
Approval is granted based on the design presented, and any changes in design shall come back to the Zoning Commission for review.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Setbacks and Coverage in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts and Section 15: Parking
Mr. Owen noted the purpose for the proposed revisions was to enable the Zoning Commission to permit development, which is similar to that already existing in the business districts, but would not be permitted under the current Regulations. Opportunities for greater density and coverage and decreased setbacks would make possible development more in keeping with the existing village character. He noted the existing Regulations create sprawl to escape sprawl.
Atty. Zizka noted the second draft dated 3/27/06 addressed many of the concerns he had raised about draft #1 and he thought it was good that the parking revisions were based on the model regs written by area councils of governments. He made the following points:
Although he had no problem with flexible dimensional standards, he noted flexible standards would be tougher for the ZEO to use. The ZEO is supposed to apply the Regulations consistently, so flexible standards would have to be applied by the Commission. The proposed revisions give the Commission the ability to be flexible if certain specific standards are met. He thought this approach made sense and was consistent with the existing Regulations. Mr. Ajello thought the proposed regulations would be an impetus for taller buildings and thought height should be discussed in relation to parking, setbacks, and density. Mr. Owen noted the regulations for maximum height were not being revised and said he did not think there was a need to allow taller buildings. He said the purpose of the proposed regs was to make what was already existing "doable."
Mr. Owen explained one issue that had not yet been addressed was non conforming uses and structures. He noted when the Zoning Regulations were adopted it was the intent to phase out all non conformities, but that this was no longer the goal. He said the non conformities contribute to making the Depot and The Green charming and give them their unique character. He suggested the Commission should consider in the future the idea of extending flexibility to allow increased density in other parts of Town.
Mr. Owen briefly addressed parking. He knew of no guiding theory behind the current parking regulations, which require a huge number of spaces, and stressed the proposed revisions were based on the model regulations drafted by the area councils of governments.
Mr. Sears noted the Town's business owners were aware that parking is a serious issue and said he would speak at the Zoning 4/24 meeting about it. He suggested a joint meeting of the Planning Commission, Zoning Commission, and Board of Selectmen to conduct a comprehensive discussion about parking. He raised several issues including fees in lieu of parking, the Town's responsibility for public parking, possible reconfiguration of the existing parking spaces in the Depot, the Bryan Plaza parking plan, and employee vs. customer parking spaces. Atty. Zizka questioned whether a fee in lieu of parking could be implemented as the court has ruled that only fees allowed by state law may be allowed. He thought perhaps it could be made optional and recommended the Town consult with its state legislators.
Atty. Zizka reviewed the 4/21/06 draft and made the following recommendations:
Sect. 7.5: Add that site plan review will be the process for approval.
7.5.2: Add a sentence that if the applicant proposes to use this standard, then in addition to the other information required under Section 14.3, the applicant shall be required to provide any other reasonable information, such as graphic information on neighborhood buildings, on the site plan.
7.6.6: Add that site plan review will be the process for approval.
Mr. Owen asked whether the Commission could decide a formal site plan review by the Commission was not required. Atty. Zizka noted that the existing Section 14.5 provides the applicant the opportunity to request a waiver.
8.5 and 8.6: Again, the reference to site plan reviews should be added.
15.2: At the beginning add the phrase, "Unless modified by the Commission...."
15.3.1: A reference to site plan reviews should be added.
15.3.2: This section will be worded to make it clear the Commission has the flexibility to require more parking spaces if it decides it is necessary.
15.4: Mr. Sears asked if the term, unreasonable, was clear. Atty. Zizka noted it is commonly used in court.
15.5: A reference to site plan reviews should be added.
Conduct of Public Hearings
Mr. Owen noted the Zoning Commission usually does not deliberate during its public hearings and asked Atty. Zizka whether this was the correct procedure. Atty. Zizka responded that the courts address fundamental fairness by saying the applicant must be given reasonable opportunity to respond to any substantive comments the Commission may make. Therefore, he suggested that guidelines concerning the conduct of hearings be established to maintain the Commission's control over the proceedings, while allowing the applicant adequate time to address concerns. He also recommended that the Commission not take a straw vote while the hearing is open because commissioners are not supposed to make up their minds until all the information is in and the hearing is closed. Atty. Zizka reminded the commissioners they may not raise new issues after the close of the hearing, so when in doubt, they should keep the hearing open.
Mr. Owen thanked Atty. Zizka for his help and advice.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
March 27, 2006
Minutes not submitted to webmaster
February 27, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Boling, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Sears, Mrs. Condon, Ms. Mathews, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Charles, Mr. Ficalora, Mr. DeVries, Mr. Haber, Mr. McQueen, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mr. LaVoie, Mr. Horrigan, Mr. Brigham, Mrs. Federer, Mr. Rosenfeld, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/10 Dwelling Units/Continuation
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen. He then noted all the documents submitted since the last meeting.
Atty. Ebersol provided an update on outstanding issues raised at the first session of the hearing. 1) The additional perc tests required by the Health Dept. had been done on 2/1/06 and the results were satisfactory. 2) He submitted the 2/23/06 email from Mr. Black to Mr. Charles regarding approval of the Phase 1A for Myfield-Quarry Ridge by the DPUC and the 2/2/06 letter from Ms. Mathieu, Drinking Water Section of the DPH to Ms. Rickard, DPUC, re: issuance of the Well Site Suitability Certification. He then submitted his 2/24/06 letter to the Commission, which addressed the issue of comparability. He said there was nothing in the state statutes that defined comparability and there was only one court case that addressed affordable units with unfinished second floors. He said he had, therefore, consulted Mr. Santoro of the state Dept. of Community and Economic Development who had advised him that 1) in a development of different unit types and sizes, all unit types should include affordable housing, 2. there are no statutes or case law requiring that affordable units be distributed across unit types on a pro rata basis, 3) within unit types all units must be of comparable size and base construction quality, although unit owners are able to upgrade final finishes and amenities and 4) the Myfield plans as amended with one of the condo units as market rate and one of the houses as affordable met the state guidelines for comparability. Atty. Ebersol then stated there was nothing in the statutes that would require that 30% of each type of unit be affordable; only that 30% of the total number of units be affordable.
Mr. Boling, consultant, and Mr. Worcester, architect, presented the "Proposed Site Plan," revised to 2/20/06. The revisions included: 1) deletion of the separate driveway to the condo units, 2) reduction of the size of all the houses to approx. 2600 sq. ft. by leaving a second floor attic instead of making it finished living space, 3) addition of a foot path from the condo units to the open space area, and 4) change of the color of the building housing the condo units to white for visual cohesion. The floor plans, sheet A-2, were reviewed.
Mr. Boling noted the house nearest to Mygatt Road would be the affordable unit since there was a likelihood there would be children living there and this location would be closest to the bus stop. He reviewed the revised list of construction materials, "Specifications and Features of Proposed Units, revised to 2/14/06, noting that although the size of the condo units and houses differed, the construction materials were the same. Mrs. Friedman asked if it was OK that none of the units would be sold with appliances. Mr. Boling said it was and that the owners could install what they want. Mrs. Friedman asked how upgrades would be handled. Mr. Boling said once a unit is purchased, if the owner wants a different amenity, it will be deleted from the purchase price and the owner can then put in whatever he wants himself. Mr. Boling noted all the units would have two garage bays and additional parking areas were noted.
Atty. Ebersol said he disagreed with Atty. Zizka's statement that each type of unit had to include 30% affordable housing and that Mr. Santoro disagreed, also. He pointed out Mr. Shapiro's 11/26/05 memo to Mr. Martin in which Mr. Shapiro stated he had consulted both Mr. Santoro and Atty. Hollister who indicated affordable housing should be present in each type of unit within the development, but was not necessarily required to be evenly distributed among the different type units. Furthermore, Atty. Ebersol argued that the Commission could not require that a larger percentage of the houses be made affordable because this would adversely impact the economic viability of the development and so was not permitted under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act.
It was the consensus of the Commission to get more input from Atty. Zizka on these matters.
Mr. Boyer stated the Washington Community Housing Trust voted unanimously to support this project and to manage the affordable units. Mr. Owen suggested the Commission might require an annual report on affordability from the WCHT, and Mr. Boyer responded this would be possible.
The idea of limited equity and how it could create complications for affordable housing was briefly discussed. Mr. Boyer explained the government formula for resale prices. Mr. Martin noted the affordable formula is an obstacle preventing too much appreciation and Mr. Boyer responded that was what makes the units affordable to people of modest means.
Ms. Thomas asked if the units would be modular. Mr. Worcester said they would.
Mrs. Friedman noted 67% of the condo units were affordable, but only 15% of the houses. She thought this was a dramatic difference and she continued to view it as an issue. Mr. Abella agreed.
Mr. Boling explained that in the proposed development two units had to be affordable for those at 60% of the median income, while one unit had to be affordable for those at 80%. He said the affordable house would be constructed at a great economic loss and so having to make more than one of the houses affordable would not be economically viable.
After a brief discussion the applicant consented to a continuation of the public hearing to the March 27th meeting so that he would have the opportunity to respond to any additional input from Atty. Zizka.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Myfield, LLC. for ten dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Rd. to 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 27, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
At 8:12 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to March 27, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Allen/158 Popple Swamp Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order at 8:13 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/15 and 2/22/06. Mr. Owen noted for the record the documents in the file and read the 2/27/06 WEO Report.
Mr. Horrigan, contractor, presented the site plan, "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Mr. Neff, dated 12/23/05. He noted the proposed house was 5500 sq. ft. not including the indoor pool and the proposed apartment was 900 sq. ft. The floor plans and elevations were reviewed. Mr. Horrigan noted the plans showed the accessory building in which the apartment would be located would be 28 feet tall, two feet more than the maximum height permitted. He said this could be lowered 2.5 to 3 feet to comply with the Regulations. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Horrigan to make a hand written noted on the plans to state the height of the accessory building would not exceed 26 feet and he agreed to do so.
Mr. Ajello stated there were no issues with the driveway and that the owners had signed a statement they would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Allen to construct a detached accessory apartment at 158 Popple Swamp Road. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:20 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 Regular Meeting to order at 8:22 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 1/23/06 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/10 Dwelling Units: The public hearing was continued to Monday, March 27, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
Allen/158 Popple Swamp Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: It was noted that as long as the plans had been corrected to show the accessory building would not exceed 26 ft. in height, the application complied with the Zoning Regulations.
MOTION: To approve the application for a Special Permit: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Allen to construct a detached accessory apartment at 158 Popple Swamp Road subject to the condition that the plans be revised to reflect a maximum height for the accessory building of 26 feet measured from the pre existing grade. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Ingrassia/135 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fence on the Lake Waramaug Side of East Shore Road: No one was present to represent the applicant. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2006 immediately following the Myfield, LLC. hearing.
Greenfield/12 Ives Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2006 immediately following the Ingrassia hearing.
Leach/10 Main Street/Convert Barn to Produce Store:
Leach/10 Main Street/Special Permit: Section 13.13/Housing in the Business Districts: Mr. LaVoie, contractor, and Mr. Rosenfeld,owner, presented a photo board to illustrate the structures existing on the property and the type of renovation work proposed. It was noted a produce store was a use permitted by regular zoning permit in this district, but the applicant wanted the Commission to see the plans for the site and to consider how amendments to the business district regulations might affect development there. Mr. Rosenfeld stated the property is zoned for business, but is currently used as a single family residence. He noted the largest problem with converting the barn to commercial use is accommodating the required parking spaces and providing adequate space for maneuvering vehicles. The applicant said he had applied for a variance to move the existing structure back 10 feet and to construct a retaining wall to provide more room for parking at the street elevation. Mr. LaVoie proposed four spaces at street level and eight on the upper level. A second pending variance request is to increase the height of this non conforming building. It was noted the second application submitted was to convert the existing dwelling to a business use on the first floor with an apartment on the second floor. Mrs. Friedman asked if there would be any connection between the two operations and Mr. Rosenfeld said they would be independent. Mrs. Friedman asked if the produce store would be a seasonal use. Mr. Rosenfeld said it would operate nine months of the year and would support local farmers. Mr. Martin noted some of the activities proposed were on the Town right of was and so advised the applicant that written permission from the Board of Selectmen would be required. A public hearing to consider the Special Permit for Housing in the Business District was scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2006 immediately following the Greenfield hearing.
Ensign/199 Tinker Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2006 immediately following the Leach hearing.
Other Business
Certificate of Zoning Approval for Gas Station/7 Titus Road: Mr. Averill recused himself and Mr. Wyant was seated. Mr. Campbell briefly explained his plans to purchase the Titus Park Garage. He said he had no plans to change its operation. Mr. Sears asked if the fuel tanks would have to be changed. Mr. Campbell said per the DEP the tanks were good for another nine years. Mrs. Hill noted gas stations are a permitted use in the Depot Business District and although it would be very difficult to find the original permit, the current station had been operating for much longer than three years with no complaints on file. She had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had advised her that a public hearing was not required, but the Commission must act on the Certificate of Zoning Approval, not the ZEO. It was the consensus the gas station at 7 Titus Road qualified for the certificate.
MOTION: To authorize the Chairman to sign the Certification of Zoning approval and map as required by the State for the purchase of the gasoline station, Titus Park Garage, at 7 Titus Road by Mr. Campbell. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen signed the paperwork and map.
Mr. Averill was reseated.
Ficalora/1 Green Hill Road/Preliminary Discussion: Mr. Ficalora told the Commission he had followed its guidance from the last meeting. Mr. DeVries, architect, presented a site development plan and an overall site plan of the Depot center to show how the proposed development would fit in with the surrounding area. He stressed that the design was not arbitrary, but had been carefully drafted to fit in appropriately with the existing character of the Depot. The plans included a two story, L shaped building, which faced both Green Hill Road and Bryan Plaza, moved up close to the front property line. Parking was to the rear and on the River Road side. He pointed out that this structure would reinforce the corner, there were areas for plantings between the building and the property lines, and there were walkways to connect the building and the on site parking to Bryan Plaza where some of the municipal parking spaces would be shared. The architectural plans showed the two story structure would not overwhelm the parcel because although it would be two full stories in the center, it would have a wing on either side where the second story would be set into the roof line. He circulated photos of various buildings elsewhere in the Depot to show similarities in design and architectural features. Floor plans were reviewed. These indicated the possibility of two primary spaces for either retail or business on the first floor and three smaller spaces on the second floor. There would also be a partial basement area that could be a service area for the businesses above. Residential units were not considered for the second floor as they would require more expensive construction and the egress requirements would affect the exterior aesthetics. Mr. DeVries asked the Commission if the plans reflected the priorities discussed at the last meeting and the response was a resounding yes. Mr. McQueen, architect, researched the issue of parking to help the Commission with its eventual deliberations regarding the amount of on site parking that should be required under revised regulations. He reported the parking requirements in other towns such as Bethel, New Milford, Litchfield, and Kent differ from Washington because 1) they permit off site parking, 2) the number of spaces required is ultimately left to the discretion of the Commission, 3) they allow for shared parking to take advantage of off peak business periods, and 4) they require smaller parking spaces. He noted Bryan Plaza currently provides parking at the rate of one space for every 545 sq. ft., far below what is required under the Regs. The site plan under discussion called for 15 on site spaces, which was 1 per 367 sq. ft. Mr. McQueen thought this would be adequate due to the physical connection with Bryan Plaza where additional spaces would be available. He noted if the Plaza spaces were repainted 9 ft. wide as is done in other towns, instead of the current 10 ft. wide, the available parking would be increased by 4 spaces. Several voices in the audience did not support this idea. Mr. Owen thought shared parking would increase the likelihood of walking around the Depot. There was a brief discussion comparing the plan discussed at the last meeting with the current plan. The commissioners thanked Mr. Ficalora, Mr. DeVries, and Mr. McQueen for their efforts to be as responsive as possible to the concerns the Commission raised at the last meeting.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.12/Modification of Certain Requirements in Business Districts: Mr. Owen explained the basic idea behind the proposed revisions is that the Washington Depot and New Preston Business Districts can not be rebuilt as they are today under the current Zoning Regulations, which legislate sprawl rather than the compact, more rural, village type centers the Town values. He noted the current zoning regulations are a blueprint for the type of development found along Rt. 7. Therefore, he said he had discussed the proposed revisions with Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. Council of Governments, and with Mrs. Hill. The result was a proposal to allow the waiver by Special Permit of the requirements for coverage, setbacks, lot size, parking, landscaping, and increases in nonconforming structures as a temporary solution to the problem. More detailed, specific regulations would need to be drafted in the near future, he said. He said he was still waiting for input from Atty. Zizka. Mr. Martin said he favored the concept to enable property owners such as Mr. Ficalora to develop their properties in a more traditional manner, but said he would be more comfortable if the temporary regs had a time limit. It was generally thought 18 months would be required to do a thorough job. Mr. Martin thought the proposed Special Permit process was needed most for the Depot and New Preston and was not so pressing for Woodville or Marbledale, where the regs had been recently updated to permit more innovative development. Mr. Martin and Mr. Abella pointed out that due to its location, Marbledale would be most susceptible to pressures from New Milford and urged the Commission to be cautious about changes to that district's regs. Mrs. Friedman agreed, adding that Marbledale differed from the Depot and New Preston Business Districts because it had no center.
MOTION: To schedule a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 24, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct. to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: addition of Section 13.12 regarding the modification of certain requirements in the Depot and New Preston Business Districts. If approved, these revisions will be effective for 18 months to provide the Commission time to draft and enact permanent regulations for these two business districts. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Martin noted final language should be ready for the March meeting if a hearing is to be held in April.
Request by ZBA to Amend Section 12.14.5: The proposal by the ZBA (indicated in italics) that in order to obtain a Special Exception under this section, the applicant must demonstrate the placement of the noise generating equipment would have the same or less noise impact on neighboring properties was discussed. It was noted that similar language had been considered previously and it had been decided to adopt the stricter standards. It was the consensus that applicants should have to demonstrate that there would be a clear advantage of installing noise generating equipment in a location that does not comply with the requirements of Section 12.14. The commissioners thanked the Zoning Board of Appeals for its continued efforts to enforce the Regulations according to the strict established standards.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Ficalora asked when he would be able to submit an application for 1 Green Hill Road as presented in the preliminary discussion held earlier in the evening. He was advised that he must wait until revisions to the Regs are effective and that the best case scenario would be May.
Communications
Copies of the 2/2/06 and 2/13/06 letters from Mr. and Mrs. Gorrivan and Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell to the Commission were circulated. These South Street residents asked that a moratorium be placed on Special Permit applications in the R-1 District until the Zoning Commission considered what uses were appropriate for that district and amended its Regulations accordingly. The commissioners generally thought that Zoning has sufficient standards already in place to protect residential properties. It was also thought the request might be prompted by a desire to stop the development of schools in the R-1 District. It was noted that the deletion of schools as a use permitted by Special Permit would result in all of the existing schools in Town becoming non conforming and that this could mean difficulties for the construction required for whichever option, three primary schools or one consolidated school, approved in the March 7 referendum. The Gorrivans and Mitchells will be sent a copy of the minutes with a note thanking them for their input. It was noted they could formally petition for a revision of the Regulations if they want to pursue this matter further.
Mr. Owen noted several meetings ago Mrs. Andersen had complained the Town was not doing all it could to count faculty housing units as affordable housing to meet the Town's 2% goal; the threshold for a moratorium under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act. He said he had discussed this matter with Mr. Graham of The Gunnery, but had learned The Gunnery did not want to stigmatize its faculty housing by calling it affordable. Mrs. Friedman said she had discussed this issue with Mr. Holiman, who also said he had brought up this idea with the private schools and was getting resistance. Mr. Owen noted some of the schools have coverage problems and thought possibly the Commission could allow greater coverage on those campuses with official affordable housing units.
Enforcement
Mr. Ajello said he was making good progress with getting the property owner to clean up the junk on Dark Entry Road and with correcting the sign violation at the 202 Marketplace. He recommended that signs at gas stations be discussed in the future.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Martin.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
January 23, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Picton, Mr. Tagley, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Worcester, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Condon, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Charles, Mr. Sears, Mr. Wasserstein, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Boling, Ms. Stevens, Mrs. Andersen, Mrs. Mathews, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Boyer, Mr. Carey, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Carter, Mr. Owens, Mr. and Mrs. Wright, Ms. Campbell, Atty. Kelly, Mr. DeVries, Mr. Ficalora, Mr. McQueen, Mr. Horrigan, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Myfield LLC./7 Mygatt Road/10 Dwelling Units
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 1/11 and 1/18/06. Mr. Owen then read the list of documents submitted to the file to date.
Atty. Ebersol gave a brief introduction citing both the Inland Wetlands Commission and Health Department approvals, the 6/20/05 confirmation from Mr. Black of the Judea Water Company that it would be willing to provide water for the ten units, and the 1/10/06 letter from Mrs. Allen of the Washington Community Housing Trust, which stated that it had agreed to administer the three proposed affordable units.
Mr. Boling, agent, noted the application for 10 dwelling units, 7 market value single family homes and 3 affordable attached condominium units, provided Washington's first affordable housing that did not consist of rental units and was consistent with the Town's development and conservation goals. He said the application set high standards with the preservation of 78% of the property as open space, a compact building footprint that kept impervious surfaces to 8.56%, and a design consistent with rural character. He said the units were located on a 13.5 acre parcel near the village center. He noted a homeowners' association would be established for the maintenance of all the units and the affordable deed restrictions would be permanent, not just for 40 years as the state statute requires and would be administered by the WCHT.
Mr. Worcester, architect, addressed the architectural details. The three two floor condo units would have 1144 sq. ft. each. Those units and their garages would both be in barn like buildings. The units would have rear decks, views across the field, and parking areas screened from the road. The seven market rate single family dwellings would each have 3160 sq. ft. on two levels. They would each have their own garage and their facades would vary.
Mr. Boling pointed out the driveway and parking areas. He stated the driveways would be compact, narrow, and unpaved and that a groundwater infiltration system would be installed underneath to handle runoff. Twenty-five guest spaces would be provided and overflow parking could be accommodated along the driveway.
Other points included: the field where the septic system would be located would remain open, the conservation easement area would be permanent open space, lighting would be controlled by the homeowners' association, no floodlights would be permitted, all lighting would be directed downward and the light source shielded, and there would be no signs other than street numbers on the houses and a street sign at the end of the driveway.
Mr. Neff, engineer, briefly discussed the septic system and storm water management plan. Each building would have an individual septic system. No pumping would be needed. He noted the state health department had approved the application with conditions. All but one of the conditions had already been met, and the final one, additional perc tests, would be addressed on 2/1. Underground infiltration units would be installed behind each unit to handle the roof drainage. The driveways would be gravel and/or grass pavers so stormwater would be absorbed and the amount of runoff off site would be reduced. Post development runoff would be 10% less than predevelopment. He detailed the catch basin piping system that would collect the stormwater and carry it to a detention basin. That basin would collect sediment and would have a metered outlet to control the rate of flow as the water was released. The map, "Proposed Site Plan," by Mr. Worcester, (based on Mr. Alex's January 2005 survey) and revised to 11/21/05 was reviewed.
Atty. Ebersol stated per state law Myfield must tie into the public water supply, the Quarry Ridge system, because it is within 500 feet of the proposed development. He noted the 6/20/06 letter from Mr. Black of the Judea Water Company who agreed to service Myfield. An additional backup well will be installed for use by both Myfield and Quarry Ridge.
Atty. Ebersol noted the "Affordability Plan," unsigned, dated December 2005 had been submitted to show the proposed affordable units would comply with Section 8-30g of the state statutes. He stated these units would be constructed first. He said all Myfield residents would have the same rights and privileges and could use all the common facilities. He noted the enforcement of the requirements under the state statute was the responsibility of the Zoning Commission.
Atty. Ebersol addressed the issue of comparability. He noted there was no specific referral to this concept in Section 8-30g and the only court case ruled that all units had to be constructed of the same quality materials and finished to the same degree. He advised the Commission that Mr. Shapiro, in his 11/26/05 memo to the Commission, had found comparability was required within each type of unit. Atty. Ebersol noted all the Myfield units would be finished and referred to the comparison sheet submitted and the 12/12/05 letter from Mr. Segalla to show all units would be constructed of the same quality materials resulting in high quality affordable units. Mr. Owen asked if all units would have fireplaces and decks. Mr. Worcester responded that the affordable units would not have fireplaces, but would have larger decks than the market rate units. Mr. Martin did not think the affordable and market rate units were comparable due to their different sizes and different amenities, but Mr. Worcester said they all had the same design standards and quality materials. Mrs. Friedman asked if the countertops, for example, in the different type units would be the same. Mr. Worcester said they would. Mr. Boling warned that if the Commission insisted on identical units, the resulting plan would consist of a greater number of units and they would be lower quality. Mr. Owen asked why the market rate and affordable units had separate driveways. Mr. Boling said a physical separation was warranted due to the different life styles - retirement/young families - in the two types of units. Mrs. Friedman asked if the applicant would consider a single driveway if the Commission asked for one. Mr. Boling said it would. Atty. Ebersol stated that based on the state statutes and case law the proposal does have comparability within the different types of units and therefore, was comparable and in compliance with all the requirements of Section 8-30 and furthermore, was consistent with the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Boling said there was a general misconception that once the Town achieves 2% affordable units a moratorium goes into affect. He said, in fact, the greater of 2% or 75 equivalent points is needed for a moratorium, and in Washington's case, the 75 points is required. He said this means that Washington is currently vulnerable to affordable housing developments. He thought then, it made more sense for the Town to approve an application such as Myfield, which fosters community diversity and is consistent with the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development. He thought approval of this application would provide the Commission with a precedent to hold future applications to similarly high standards such as large open space set asides and low coverage.
Mr. Owen explained that usually the Zoning Commission judges applications based on their compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Since this is an application for affordable housing, however, the Commission can't do that in this case. Non compliance with the Zoning Regulations would not be a valid reason to deny the application; only public health, safety, and welfare could be cited as a basis for denial. And should the Commission deny the application, the applicant could appeal to the state under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act.
Mr. Tagley, president of the Quarry Ridge Condo Assoc., voiced his concern about what would get built and what it would look like. He thought compliance with the Zoning Regs was important because they determine what the Town will look like. He did not want New Preston to become a "dumping ground." Mrs. Friedman read the 1/20/06 letter he submitted from Atty. McTaggart, which was in response to the 12/11/05 letter from Atty. Zizka re: issues relating to affordable housing. In short, she stated the requirements for comparability were not met because 1) the application did not provide for comparable workmanship because it excluded specifications for custom finishes for both types of units and 2) the size and types of the units were not comparable. She suggested this could be corrected if the applicant would provide affordable as well as market rate condo units and affordable as well as market rate single family dwellings in addition to a more detailed specifications list on the custom finishes.
Mr. Carter asked for clarification regarding why the applicant was allowed to submit an application that did not meet the local Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen explained again the state of Ct. was working to prevent local municipalities from prohibiting affordable housing under their Zoning Regulations and that there were very few grounds on which a local board could deny such an application.
Mrs. Andersen read her 1/23/06 statement, which included the following points: 1) Section 8-30g of the CGS is an egregious unfunded state mandate, 2) it runs contrary to the Town's right to exercise local control of development, 3) it creates pockets of segregated communities, 4) other towns have managed to ignore this statute and maintain their local control over development, 5) this statute will be used by larger for profit developers in the future, 6) the housing stock in Town may already be at the moratorium level, and 7) the Commission should use every means available to deny the application.
Mr. Wasserstein agreed with Mrs. Andersen and said the Myfield application violates the law in fact and spirit. He thought the comparability standard was not met and that the proposal was socio-economic segregation.
Mr. Picton submitted a copy of the 1/6/06 letter he had written to the Litchfield County Times, which included the following points: 1) the need for affordable housing does not justify a state statute, which invalidates local zoning and enables rampant growth of 70% market rate and 30% affordable units at odds with town planning efforts, 2) under the statute the 30% affordable units are affordable for only 40 years, 3) using the 70%:30% ratio, Washington would have to grow by 43% to meet the 10% objective, 4) therefore, mixed development which bypasses local zoning needs a much higher component of affordable units than 30%, and 5) once the moratorium is reached the Town should attempt to require developments consisting of all affordable units, which are permanently deed restricted for that use.
Mr. Martin noted that the Zoning Commission was genuinely concerned about the comparability issue and said that the Commission always considers the harmony of design within both the neighborhood and within the site when it reviews applications. He said the current application differed from previous affordable housing applications because the others had been for 100% affordable units, while this one was for a mix of affordable and market rate units. He said the Commission would carefully review the application and come up with its own view of what's right and what's needed to meet the comparability standard.
Mrs. Andersen asked who was in charge of getting the Town to the point where the moratorium would start and said the Town should be talking to the private schools about registering their "affordable" units. Mrs. Friedman did not think private school housing could count towards the moratorium because it was not deed restricted.
Mr. Carey asked how the developer decided to focus on the Myfield location and asked if it was due to the transition zone recommended in the Plan of Development. Mr. Owen said that transition zone does not exist; the Zoning Commission had never implemented that recommendation of the Plan. Mr. Boling said it made sense for new development to be located near the existing village centers.
Mr. Owen said he did not see the proposal as a single development. He said the affordable and market rate units did not share real estate or driveways and that the affordable units did not have access to the open space. Atty. Ebersol stated it was a single proposal on a single parcel with one homeowners' association. He noted the applicant had originally applied to the Inland Wetlands Commission for three affordable single family dwellings, but that Commission did not want those units so close to the watercourse. As a result the affordable units had been moved to the present site, where there was not enough room for three stand alone houses. Mrs. Friedman asked if there were examples in other towns of affordable housing applications with such disparity between the affordable and market rate units. Atty. Ebersol stated he was not aware of any projects in other towns that were so tastefully done and in character with the community. Several Commissioners thought the application created housing opportunities for the affluent rather than affordable housing opportunities. Mr. Boling and Atty. Ebersol stated the point of the state statute was to link the creation of affordable to market rate units.
Mr. Tagley asked how the Quarry Ridge Condominiums had been approved by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Martin explained in the mid 1980's the Town had a multifamily zone, which had since been deleted.
Mr. Martin recommended the public hearing be continued to allow the applicant to address the points raised in Atty. McTaggart's letter. He also said he did not think the application met the comparability standard due to the difference in size, location, access, architecture, views, etc. between the units and asked the applicant to draft a variation of the site plan to address these concerns. The other commissioners agreed. Mr. Owen thought the market rate and affordable units had no relation to each other and that the affordable units looked like service buildings.
Mr. Tagley asked if the Commission vote would establish a precedent for future projects. Mr. Martin said he did not think so because each future application would be site specific.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Myfield, LLC. for ten dwelling units at 7 Mygatt Road to 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 2006 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
At 9:02 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to Monday, February 27, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Anderson (Devereux-Glenholme School)/77 New Milford Turnpike/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 9:07 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Wyant for Mr. Fitzherbert who left the room. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 1/11 and 1/18/06.
Mr. Ajello read his 1/23/06 report.
Mr. Owen read the list of all the documents in the file, noting there was no site plan or floor plan.
Representing the applicant, Ms. Campbell, Center Director, read the 1/23/06 statement regarding the proposed new transition program for Devereux students who would soon be attending college. The program would be off campus in a setting where independent living and self study skills would be taught. The program would have 5 to 6 students to start and would progress to a maximum of 17 students. No changes to the floor plan of the existing building were proposed and the only change to the site plan would be additional landscaping. The students would be at the main campus from 8:15 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. and would be transported to and from by bus. The students would reside at 77 New Milford Turnpike during the week, but would not be there over the weekends or over vacations. With a 10:1 student to adult ratio, the most people staying in the building at any one time would be 19. In addition to the one bus, Ms. Campbell stated that each of the adult supervisors would have one car parked on the property.
Mrs. Friedman asked what would happen if students were not able to go home over the weekend. Ms. Campbell said they would go to the main campus.
Mr. Martin noted the Special Permit application was for a change of use from rest home to school.
Mr. Martin asked if there would be an athletic field outside. Mrs. Johnson, adjoining property owner, asked if there would be outdoor activities. Ms. Campbell said the property would be used mainly for academics and there would be little outside activity. Mr. Martin said he would be more comfortable if the school would list in writing the activities proposed and the limits on them.
Mr. Wright, adjoining property owner, asked the reasons the students would be placed in this program. Ms. Campbell said they are socially withdrawn with an inability to interact and so many don't do well in college. Although most are very bright, they need to connect with smaller groups. She said the students would be graduates of the current Devereux-Glenholme program. Mr. Wright asked if all Devereux students would be eligible for this program. Ms. Campbell said, no, only those who would be successful in that setting would be admitted.
Mr. Owen asked how the supervision on the main campus compared to the supervision proposed off campus. Ms. Campbell said it would be the same, 10:1, and there would be staff on site overnight. Atty. Kelly asked if there would be any time during which the students would be unsupervised. Ms. Campbell said there would not.
Mr. Wright asked whether the school would have to come back to the Commission for any changes such as afternoon classes. Mr. Martin thought the Commission could make it a condition that if any intensification is proposed, approval by the Commission would be required.
Ms. Cappetta asked if there would be a sign on the property. Ms. Campbell said, no, there would be only a street number.
Mr. Martin noted the application stated there would be only low level residential lighting.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant had not been specific enough on the application and should submit a written statement regarding the constraints proposed on the operation.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Glenholme School to operate a school at 77 New Milford Turnpike to the end of the meeting. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
At 9:37 the public hearing was continued until later in the evening.
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 Regular Meeting to order at 9:40 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, Martin, and Owen.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 12/19/05 Public Hearing/ Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/10 Dwelling Units
Anderson (Devereux-Glenholme School)/77 New Milford Turnpike/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School
It was noted these two public hearings had been continued; Myfield to 7:30 p.m. on February 27th and Anderson until later in the meeting.
New Application
Allen/158 Popple Swamp Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Horrigan, contractor and authorized representative, was present. A public hearing was scheduled immediately following the Myfield hearing on Monday, February 27, 2006.
Other Business
Ficalora/1 Green Hill Road/Preliminary Discussion/Office Building
Mr. Ficalora, property owner, and Mr. DeVries and Mr. McQueen, architects, were present. Mr. Ficalora said he wanted to convert the gas station to an office building and wanted the Commission's guidance and feedback regarding the best possible way to accomplish this.
Mr. DeVries briefly reviewed the proposed site plan, which, he said, conformed to the current Zoning Regulations and coordinated as much as possible with the Depot Study. He proposed to maintain the existing structures, connect the shed to the main building so only one septic system would be required, install an 18 car parking lot in front of the building with limited planting along the existing sidewalk, convert the faade of the Texaco station to "village architectural quality," and install a walkway from the building to Bryan Plaza.
Mr. Owen asked what the owner would do differently if the Zoning Regulations were not a consideration. Mr. DeVries stated economics was an important issue in addition to zoning. He responded he would increase the square footage of the building to make it more economically viable. Mr. Owen asked if there were no parking requirements, how many spaces did Mr. Devries think would be sufficient. Mr. DeVries thought there would be three offices including a bank with a drive through teller in the building. Mr. McQueen thought 18 parking spaces to comply with the current Zoning requirements was too much for an 1800 sq. ft. building. Mr. Ficalora thought if anything were possible, he would build a two story building. Mr. McQueen noted the owner did not have many options for developing the property due to the current Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Owen noted the public likes the Depot the way it is, but the current Regulations prohibit people from constructing anything like it. He said the Commission understood its current Regulations stand in the way of the changes discussed for the Depot and that revisions are needed. Mr. Fitzherbert pointed out this property is the centerpiece of the Depot, is located at its major intersection, said this was a one shot opportunity to improve it, and therefore, he agreed with Mr. Owen's approach. Several commissioners noted a larger building with parking behind it would be more in keeping with the Depot than would the site plan under discussion. Mr. Martin suggested the Regulations could be revised similarly to the Marbledale regulations, which provide greater flexibility to achieve development more in keeping with the existing character of the village center. Mrs. Hill said moving the building to the front of the lot with parking to the rear would be ideal, but if economic considerations would not permit it, then changing the design of the building from modern suburban architecture to a two story building more in keeping with the character of the Depot like the existing surrounding two story buildings would help preserve the Depot's character. She also encouraged the Commission to decrease the number of parking spaces required and supported the owner's idea to connect this property with the available parking in Bryan Plaza. Mr. Owen asked if second story space could be used for dwelling units if the architects did not think it would be suitable for office space. They were not enthusiastic due to the increased building costs to meet the higher construction standards that would be required per the state Building Code.
Mr. Owen stated the Commission would begin immediately to review its Regulations to determine what revisions could be implemented quickly to allow the renovation of this property to be more in keeping with both the Town Plan and the desires of the property owner. In the meantime, the architects will work on an alternate plan and will present it to the Commission at another preliminary discussion. The Commission thanked Mr. Ficalora for his willingness to work with the Town.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Signs: It was noted Atty. Zizka had not yet sent his review of the proposed language. Atty. Kelly asked if there was still time to submit suggestions and he was told they would be welcome. Mr. Owen thought perhaps the draft could be sent to a professional sign company for comment as there had been no feedback received from the business community.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 15/Parking: Mr. Owen asked the commissioners to read the article, "Parking: How Much is Enough?" published in the Winter 2005 edition of Technology Transfer. He said planning for the maximum use was not always wise as the result could be a sea of asphalt parking spaces. He suggested the Commission work to limit the amount of asphalt required and to encourage businesses to share parking areas.
Depot Study: Mr. Owen said the ongoing Depot Study was so encompassing and abstract that he did not think the Zoning Commission should wait for a townwide consensus before beginning work to revise the Zoning Regulations. He suggested the Commission begin to draft regs that would allow development similar to what already exists in the Depot. He asked the commissioners to think about the issues of parking, setbacks, and coverage so they can be discussed at the next meeting. He also volunteered to serve as the Commission's liason for Planning's upcoming Depot discussions.
Best Management Practices Brochure: Mr. Owen reported the Conservation Commission is looking for volunteers to help write a best management practices brochure. There were no volunteers.
Pending Application
Anderson(Devereux-Glenholme School)/77 New Milford Turnpike/ Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School
MOTION: To reconvene the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Mrs. Anderson (Devereux Glenholme School) for a school at 77 New Milford Turnpike. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Martin, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen reconvened the hearing at 10:19 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, Martin, and Owen and Alternate Wyant for Mr. Fitzherbert who left the room.
Ms. Campbell submitted a signed written list to provide additional details and specifications about the proposal. These included: 1) no sign other than the street number, 2) use of the existing parking lot by normally not more than three vehicles, 3) no new lighting, 4) no increase in traffic, 5) neighbors will be consulted regarding landscaping improvements, 6) no changes to the existing driveway, 7) students to be transported to and from the main campus by bus, which will drive into the property to pick them up and drop them off, 8) no changes to the exterior of the existing structure, 9) student music to be limited to headphones only, 10) no additions are planned and the old shed will be removed, 11) the ratio of staff to students will not exceed 1:10 with one staff member awake through the night while the program is being established, and 12) no organized outdoor team sports.
The Commission then reviewed the Special Permit standards in Section 13.1.B and found the proposed use was in compliance with them all.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Glenholme School to operate a school at 77 New Milford Tunpike. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 10:29 p.m.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Glenholme School to operate a school at 77 New Milford Turnpike as specified in all of the written documents in the file. By Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Meetings in 2005