The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2007
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission, 2007 |
|
 |
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 17 •November 26 •October 22 •September 24 •August 27 •July 23 •June 25 •May 21 •April 23 •March 26 •March 5 •February 26 •January 22 •Meetings in 2006 •Meetings in 2005 •Meetings in 2004 •Meetings in 2003 •Meetings in 2002
Posted: December 27, 2007 December 17, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Wyant
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Boling, Mr. Hileman,
Mr. Papsin, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Ms. Zinick, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, 13.11.3 to Permit Only One Accessory Apartment per Property/Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Friedman and Owen and Alternates DuBois and Wyant. He noted there were two additions to the file and he read each for the record: 1) the 12/9/07 email from Mr. Grunberg and Ms. Stevens and 2) the 12/4/07 email from Mr. Cornet and Mr. Mustich; both against the proposed revision.
Mr. Owen noted that at the last meeting the Commission had discussed the possibility of modifying the proposed revision to allow one attached and one detached accessory apartment per property if one of the apartments qualified as a deed restricted affordable housing unit. He thought this would meet the most impassioned argument made at the last meeting that more accessory apartments were needed for parents and children. Mr. Ajello noted this would also address the concern expressed by the Averills that farms need apartment units to house farm employees.
Mrs. Friedman thought that was sensible and worth pursuing because it would help the Town reach its objective percentage of affordable housing.
Mr. Hileman, chairman of the Housing Commission, noted that property owners are loathe to put deed restrictions on their properties, and he thought this idea was a way to get around the problem rather than a solution.
Mr. Boling said it could be argued that if there was a single family home and two apartments on a property and one met the state definition of affordable, then 30% of the units would be affordable and all would be exempt from the local zoning regulations. He also noted that for high end houses, the 1200 sq. ft. maximum for accessory apartments is not large enough for a guest house. He said as a result, properties have been subdivided so that a larger guest house could be built. He thought the proposed revision would accelerate this process.
Mr. Owen thought this might lead to the creation of more moderate housing in Town, but Mr. Hileman pointed out that subsequent owners would enlarge them.
Mr. Hileman thought that the concept of apartments for profit might bother some residents, and so noted that if one was required to be affordable, then its motive would not be profit.
Mr. Owen noted that the Commission's ongoing concern was that the accessory apartment regulations not undermine the rest of the Zoning Regulations. He thought the reason why the proposed revision was controversial was because there aren't many accessory apartments in Town and said he was interested in hearing from the Planning Commission on the new proposal.
Mr. Ajello asked whether the state monitors deed restricted affordable housing. Mr. Hileman said the state requires that 1) the occupant meets the income requirements, 2) the deed restriction is filed, and 3) an affordability administrator is appointed. It was noted the minimum duration of the deed restriction for detached apartments is 1 year and for attached apartments it is 10 years. Mr. Boling said, however, that to qualify as state affordable housing under CGS 8-30g, the minimum is 40 years.
MOTION: To modify the proposed revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations, Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3 to state that a second accessory apartment may be permitted on a property if either of the apartments is qualified under the current state definition of affordable housing and that the permit or Special Permit will be valid for as long as one of the apartments is deed restricted and to refer the proposed language to the appropriate agencies for review. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the proposed revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations, Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3 to Monday, January 28, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall; the second hearing on the agenda. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 4-0.
At 7:53 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to Monday, January 28, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 7:53 p.m.
MOTION: To accept the 11/26/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 4-0.
Pending Applications
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Construct Dormitory and Hockey Rink: It was noted a public hearing would be held on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. unless the required coverage variance was not granted by the ZBA on 12/20. Mr. Owen read the 12/17/07 EO Report.
New Applications
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Affordable Housing Project: Mr. Owen read the 12/17/07 EO Report and scheduled a public hearing for Monday, January 28, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Owen read the 12/17/07 EO Report, which noted the Health Dept. had granted a conditional approval. Mr. Moore granted an extension so the public hearing could be scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Carusillo/204 Wykeham Road/First Cut: Mr. Owen read the 12/17/07 EO Report. It was noted that the application was incomplete because approvals from the Health Dept. and Board of Selectmen were missing. Density calculations and an attorney's affidavit that the proposed division is a first cut had been submitted for the file. Further discussion was tabled until the application is complete.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Inns/Section 13.9: At the last meeting Mrs. Hill had prepared sheets with Section 13.9's current language and proposed language and definitions to use as a basis for discussion. After a lengthy discussion it was evident that the two main issues to be resolved were: 1) Should inns be restricted to state roads or restricted in some other way? 2) How should inn be defined? It was noted that in the past the Zoning Commission had interpreted the Regulations to mean that inns were only allowed on state highways, but recently Mr. Owen and Atty. Zizka had pointed out that that this interpretation was incorrect. At that time the Commission had decided the language should be clarified and possibly revised. Mr. Owen noted that inns have a long history in Washington and residents have viewed them as a compatible use in Town. He favored their operation throughout Town. He said they were a low impact business, have been major employers and contributors to the Town's tax base, and that there have been no complaints against them. Mrs. Hill cautioned that there were no complaints on record because historically Washington has had smaller country inns rather than big chain operations like Best Western, so she felt the definition of inn was very important. Mrs. Friedman said most residents living on Town roads would not respond favorably to an inn moving in next door and so said she supported the proposed language restricting them to state roads and to Town roads located in the business districts. She thought if they were to be considered on Town roads, there should be a minimum acreage requirement over 5 acres. She noted many of Washington's historic inns were located on Lake Waramaug where there is a state highway. Mr. Owen noted the Commission does not make regulations with particular properties in mind, but noted the Wykeham Rise property, and asked whether the inn regulations could be used as a means to preserve its older structures. It was noted the section on Town Landmarks would also apply. Mrs. Friedman thought there was a major difference between the conversion of an existing property and the construction of a new building and business operation. Mr. Ajello noted many inns have restaurants and bars and generate traffic. Mr. DuBois said, then, that he agreed with the proposed language that they should be located on state roads. Mr. Ajello asked why the term, Tourist Home, had been deleted. Mrs. Hill responded that it was an outdated term for what is now called a Bed and Breakfast Establishment. She noted she had included a definition for Bed and Breakfast because the current regs do not provide one. Mrs. Friedman thought it would be important for the Commission to be able to restrict the number of rooms in a proposed inn. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Owen did not agree with the provision in the proposed definition of inn that would limit inns totally or in part to structures that had previously been private residences. Mr. Ajello noted that many of the criteria listed in the proposed language for inns were standard for Special Permit applications. Mr. Owen said this was true, but he thought that inns should be able to have signs, even if located in a residential district. Also, Mr. Owen questioned whether antique terms such as Room and Board and Boarding House should be deleted from the Regulations or retained because they would provide more flexibility. It was noted that this discussion had been generated by the Commission so there was no time deadline for a decision. It was the consensus that there was no rush to decide on new language and that further consideration would continue at the next meeting.
Privilege of the Floor
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Signs: Mr. Ajello noted that businesses on properties along state roads with wide right of ways encounter problems when trying to locate their signs so that they both meet the 10 ft. minimum property line setback and are still visible from the road to passers by. He noted, too, that it was difficult to obtain a variance from the ZBA under these circumstances. Ms. Zinick spoke on behalf of JD Tucker's on Bee Brook Road. On this particular property the state right of way line is located very near the existing building and the sign would have to be located in the middle of the black topped parking lot to meet the setback requirement. Ms. Zinick stated there is already a "grandfathered" sign and pole on this property and Mr. LaPan from the state DOT had granted permission for a sign to be added to the existing post. Mr. Ajello noted the Tulip Tree, also on Bee Brook Road, had a similar problem, which was resolved when it leased part on the state right of way so it could locate its sign there. He questioned, however, how a property owner could apply to erect a sign off his own property. The Zoning commissioners acknowledged this was a problem in areas of wide right of ways. Mr. Ajello said it was also a common problem in Marbledale. Mr. Owen noted that businesses need signs and suggested a revision to state that along state roads in the business districts, signs may be placed closer to the road than would normally be permitted if the state DOT signs off. Mrs. Friedman suggested instead either eliminating or reducing the front yard setback. After a lengthy discussion it was the consensus to revise Section 16.5.1 to state that no sign shall be closer than 10 feet to any side boundary line. This would permit signs to be erected close to the front property line in cases such as JD Tucker's. A public hearing was scheduled for the February meeting. Mrs. Hill will refer the proposed revision to the proper agencies.
Other Business
Special Meeting/January 7, 2008: Mr. Owen stated that he had attended the last Planning Commission meeting and the commissioners had been enthusiastic about meeting with the Zoning Commission. The goal, he said, would be to improve communication between the two commissions and to discuss issues of mutual concern. He noted that each Town commission has its own goals, which are not necessarily compatible with those of the other commissions and has its own understanding of the jurisdiction of the other commissions, which might not necessarily be correct. For example, he noted the WCHT had expressed frustration with the Zoning Commission, but upon further discussion it was evident the problems expressed were with the Town Road Specification Ordinance, which is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen, and the Subdivision Regulations, which are under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Another example he gave was cell towers. The Zoning Commission has no jurisdiction over cell towers, but Zoning is often blamed for both having them and not having them in Town. Mr. Owen thought the WCHT had been dismissive of the Depot Study because it was not interested in residential units in the village centers. Mr. Hileman noted the Housing Trust was now most interested in ownership of affordable housing, not rental units. Mrs. Hill will notice this meeting for approximately 8:30 p.m. (following the Rumsey Hall public hearing) in the Land Use Meeting Room on Monday, January 7, 2008.
Enforcement
Mr. Ajello said there were no important enforcement issues to discuss and that Mr. Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road would soon be resolving a violation on this property.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Friedman.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: December 5, 2007 November 26, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Dubois, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Campbell, Mr. Worcester, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Hileman, Ms. Habib, Mr. Smith, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Solley, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Frank, Mrs. Tagley, Mrs. Brown, Ms. Schaffner, Mrs. Gavenas, Mr. Charles, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Theatre Addition and Horse Barn
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert who had recused himself. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/14 and 11/21/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and it was noted that the list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners and their certified mailing receipts for their notification of the hearing had since been submitted.
Mr. Worcester, architect, presented the following maps and plans; "Property Plan and Aerial Survey," by Mr. Worcester, dated 8/19/07, and four sheets of floor plans he had drawn for the theatre, sheet A-2, "First Floor Plan," sheet A-8, "East Elevation," sheet A-9, "West Elevation," and sheet A-6, "North Elevation," all revised to 3/9/06. He read the building descriptions dated 10/22/07 for the theatre and 11/2/07 for the horse barn. The 312 seat theatre and the horse barn would be for use by the school only and their construction would not result in an increase in the number of students enrolled at the school.
It was noted that the school was an existing institutional use in the R-1 District and that both buildings were considered primary buildings. Mr. Ajello said this was consistent with how the Commission had treated similar buildings at other schools in the past. The height of the proposed theatre was 40 feet and the barn was 25 feet, both measured to the peak of the highest roof.
Mr. Owen asked if exterior lighting was proposed, noting that the existing outdoor lighting at Devereux is visible from all over Town. He recommended that all of the schools look at their nighttime lighting not only to cut down on ambient light, but also as a means to decrease both energy costs and vandalism.
Mr. Owen read the 11/26/07 ZEO Report.
The need for the horse barn was briefly discussed.
Mrs. Friedman asked if there were coverage issues. Mr. Worcester noted the school owns 93 acres and coverage was not an issue.
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 to construct a theatre addition and horse barn at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, 13.11.3/Accessory Apartments
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order at 7:51 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/14 and 11/21/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Owen read the proposed language. He explained that the current regulation permits one attached and one detached accessory apartment per property, while the proposed revision would limit a property to only one apartment.
Mr. Owen reviewed the responses from the surrounding councils of government who found that the proposed revisions were an issue of local concern with minimum impact on adjacent municipalities and not in conflict with any of their plans or policies. He then read the following letters to the Commission; all were against the proposal: 1) from Mr. Underwood dated 11/21/07, 2) from Mr. Fairbairn, President of the WCHT, dated 11/24/07, 3) from Mr. and Mrs. Averill, dated 11/26/07, and 4) from the Washington Planning Commission dated 11/26/07.
Mr. Boyer asked what the rationale was behind the proposed changes. Mr. Owen explained how the accessory apartment regulations had evolved since the early 1980's. He said this revision would work to uphold soil based zoning, adding that it never was the Commission's intent to allow two separate single family dwellings on a single property. He noted soil based zoning would be vulnerable to undermining if it was too easy to create two single family dwelling units on one lot. Mr. Owen said he disagreed with Mr. Fairbairn's assertion that the Town housing crisis that the Zoning Regulations first addressed over 20 years ago had not abated. He noted that Zoning had, indeed, taken measures to address the housing problem since 1983 by implementing regulations to permit accessory apartments, multifamily dwellings, housing in the business districts, and the conversion of older homes and later by making further revisions to permit non profit and Town of Washington sponsored affordable housing. He provided statistics on the Town's population growth, ratio of the number of homes to the number of accessory apartments, the number of new apartments since 2002, etc. (See attached summary.) He said the Commission felt that three dwelling units on one property was too many.
Mr. Boyer noted the Zoning Regulations had allowed the creation of ten times more affordable units than the WCHT had been able to provide in the past 30 years. Therefore, he felt the proposed revisions, if enacted, would seriously decrease the number of affordable housing opportunities and so he said he strongly opposed them.
Mrs. Gavenas asked in the last 10 years how many properties had had two accessory apartments approved. This was not known, but Mr. Owen did not think it was a large number. Mrs. Gavenas responded that the Commission was proposing to eliminate a housing option without knowing whether it had caused a problem. Mr. Owen said he did not think it unreasonable to limit properties to one apartment.
Mrs. Friedman said she had reviewed the accessory apartment regulations in other towns and had found many were more restrictive than Washington; limiting the number of bedrooms and/or the number of inhabitants, setting a smaller maximum square footage, requiring the buildings that house them to be on the tax rolls longer before they may be converted to apartments, etc. Mr. Charles noted that in Towns with smaller lot size requirements or that allow multifamily or two family dwellings, accessory apartments are not as important. He thought lot coverage and total number of bedrooms on a property should be considered when deciding how many apartments should be permitted on one property. He asked if very large houses with many bedrooms could have one accessory apartment, why couldn't a small house with only a few bedrooms have both an attached and a detached apartment. He thought the proposed revisions were exclusionary. He also thought the proposal would lead to larger properties subdividing in order to get both a guest house and a caretaker's apartment and that once subdivided, there would be no size restriction on the size of the dwelling unit.
Mr. Solley, former ZEO, agreed that the Zoning Commission had revised its Regulations in the past so there could not be two single family dwellings of comparable size on the same lot, but said most accessory apartments are clearly ancillary in size and function. He thought that problems with accessory apartments were rare relative to their benefits, and said he hoped the proposal was not in response to a single application. Mr. Owen responded that the proposed revision was not in response to a specific application, but it had been a recent application, which lead the Commission to begin a conversation about revisions to this section of the regs.
Mr. Owen agreed accessory apartments were a great benefit to the Town. He noted, however, that there were now 153 more than there were in 1983 and so it was reasonable to ask at what point they would begin to undermine soil based zoning. The soil based zoning regulations, he explained, generate many of the benefits enjoyed by the Town and the Regulations in general are in place to protect the rural character of Town. No one fully understands the "magic" that makes Washington what it is, he continued, so it is important to keep watch over how all of the pieces fit together, especially since the preservation of rural character is at least in part, dependent on the population. Therefore, an important question is, how will the housing units in Town be allocated to reach the Town's maximum population? No one sets out to become New Milford, he said, but it happens.
Mr. Boyer asked if there was public pressure for the revisions, noting he had heard only opposition. Mr. Owen said the proposal had been generated by the Zoning Commission.
Mr. Boyer said there are people who can't afford to move into Town and that accessory apartments provide both an affordable option for them and a modest income for older property owners.
Mrs. Boyer did not think that consideration of a population ceiling was relevant. She thought cluster housing could be instituted to preserve open space and rural character. She urged the Commission not to change the existing regulation.
Mr. Hileman, chairman of the Housing Commission, made a lengthy statement. He urged the Zoning Commission to table this matter for three reasons: 1) The adoption of the proposed revision could have a detrimental impact on the future availability of moderate and affordable housing in Town. He noted that at this point no one knew for sure and that his Commission had not been consulted. 2) The proposal appears to be in conflict with the Plan of Conservation and Development. He noted the Plan specifically recommends that the current regulations for attached and detached apartments be maintained and that further provisions for such housing be made. He said the Planning Commission did not support the proposed revision. 3) He said that no case had been made to justify the proposed revision. He noted the Commission had been unable to present examples of cases where the existence of two apartments on a single property had resulted in problems or was undermining soil based zoning. He thought the Commission should do more research before it approves any revision. He said he understood that Zoning has a greater mission and must consider many townwide issues, but said he thought the sentiments of the townspeople must count, too. He said that no letters or statements of support had been received.
Mr. Owen noted the proposed language deals with the regulation, not with any violations of the regulation. He also stated the Plan of Development does not override the Zoning Regulations, but that when the Planning Commission does not support a proposed revision, a two thirds vote of the Zoning Commission is needed to approve it.
Mr. Owen suggested that the public hearing be continued, noting that would give the Commission an opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Shapiro said he was not convinced that permitting two accessory apartments per property was a threat to soil based zoning and he did not think that the Commission knew how many properties had both attached and detached accessory apartments. Mr. Owen noted that the Zoning Commission had thought the proposed change would have little impact. He suggested the public hearing be continued. Mrs. Friedman noted the hearing could be continued indefinitely because its purpose was to consider the Commission's own proposal.
Mr. Averill thanked the public for attending and expressing its opinions.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations, Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3 to permit only one accessory apartment per property to December 17, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
At 8:45 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to 7:30 p.m. on December 17, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Byran Memorial Town Hall.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.6.4, 12.16, 21.1.12, 21.1.28, 21.1.65, 21.1.68/Fences and Walls
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 8:46 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/14 and 11/21/07. Mr. Owen then read the list of documents in the file.
Mrs. Friedman explained that the newer stonewalls in Town had concerned the Commission because they were generally too high, were squared off, built with non native stone, blocked the view from the road, etc. She noted Washington is special due to its rural character and beautiful vistas, which were being impacted by this type of "Fairfield County" wall. She noted that Mrs. Hill had measured the height of fences and walls throughout Town to help the Commission consider what was appropriate in Washington.
Mr. Owen stated the proposed revisions improved and consolidated definitions, established three categories of fence type, and required setbacks for walls depending on their height and type. All walls under 4 ft. high and open walls under 8 ft. high would be exempt from setback requirements; all others would have to meet the front yard setback. Mrs. Friedman noted the revisions regarding setbacks applied only to those fences and walls along roads; requirements for interior fences and walls would not change.
Mr. Owen noted that non binding guidelines for the construction of fences and walls would be included in the Regulations.
Mr. Owen read the proposed definition of fence and Section 11.6.4, which, he said, was the heart of the proposed regulations.
Mr. Frank reported that the Planning Commission had discussed the proposed revisions at its last meeting and supported them.
Mr. Ajello pointed out that the proposed definition of building included an unnecessary reference to poultry, which he thought could be deleted because it was a minor change from the language proposed.
Mr. Solley stated he was concerned that the Commission might be creating a regulation that it could not easily enforce. He also noted that on his farm there are old stonewalls more than 4 ft. tall. Mr. Owen responded that none of the proposed revisions would pertain to existing walls and fences, and that, in fact, only new walls and fences along roads would be affected. He noted the Commission had studied the height of fences and walls throughout Town before deciding on the 4 ft. height referred to in the proposal. Mrs. Hill said she would include the list of townwide stonewall and fence measurements in the file.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations, Sections 11.6.4, 12.16, 21.1.12, 21.1.28, 21.1.65, and 21.1.68 regarding fences and stonewalls. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the hearing at 9:02 p.m.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 6.6.14, 6.6.15, and 6.6.16/Non Conforming Docks
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 9:02 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/14 and 11/21/07.
Mr. Owen explained the proposed revisions were a response to an enforcement problem and attempted to incorporate existing non conforming docks that don't meet the current definition of dock into the Regulations and allow them to be improved without undermining the Regulations. He read the proposed language.
Mr. Frank noted the Planning Commission had no objection to the proposed revisions. He also noted as President of the Lake Waramaug Association that the Association supported the revisions because they were consistent with the concept of controlled development along the shoreline.
There were no other questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations, Sections 6.6.14, 6.6.15, and 6.6.16 regarding non conforming docks. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 9:07 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
The October 22, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 6 in the fourth line of the second full paragraph, change: "as had been endorsed" to: "...zoning, which had also been endorsed...."
MOTION: To accept the 10/22/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Fitzherbert left at this point and Mr. Shapiro was seated.
New Application
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Construct Two Dormitories and Hockey Rink
Mr. Farmen, Headmaster, Ms. Habib, Business Manager, and Mr. Smith, Surveyor, were present. Mr. Owen noted the discussion at this time would be to schedule the public hearing. He then read the 11/26/07 ZEO Report, which stated a variance for coverage was required; the proposed buildings would result in 13.9% coverage of the school's north parcel, although overall coverage of both of the school's parcels would total only 8.9%. It was noted in that case, the Commission could schedule the hearing for the next meeting on December 17, but would not be able to vote on that date because the ZBA would not act on the variance request until December 20. It was decided to hold a Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 7, 2008 to conduct the required public hearing. This will be cancelled if the coverage variance is not granted.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Revision of Approved Site Plan: Mrs. Hill noted that Mr. Fowlkes had called to apologize that he was not able to attend tonight's meeting. She also noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the revision of the site plan. Mr. Owen said a public hearing was required and reviewed the file to make sure that all of the information needed had been submitted. The items in the file were noted: 1) the 11/19/07 letter from Mr. Gitterman requesting that modification of the approved site plan be considered at the 11/26/07 meeting, 2) the $50 revision fee, 3) the site plan, and 4) elevations, . Mr. Owen noted the information submitted was insufficient. At the preliminary discussion the Commission had requested complete floor plans and construction specs for each unit. He noted the revision proposed was more than just a minor revision. Mr. Ajello suggested the request was actually a new application. It was the consensus of the commissioners that because significant changes were being proposed the request for revisions should be considered a new application. It was noted again that since the issue of comparability would have to be resolved, full drawings, specs, and floor plans for each unit were required. Mr. Owen said the Commission's attorney would attend the public hearing to consider the new application. Mrs. Friedman noted that the Commission was not bound to approve the proposed revisions just because it had approved the original site plan. Mrs. Hill noted that technically since a new application had not been submitted, a public hearing could not be scheduled at this time.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3/Accessory Apartments: The public hearing was continued to 12/12/07 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Pending Application
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Construct Theatre Addition and Horse Barn: Mr. Averill noted this was a positive proposal that would have no visual impact from the road. After a brief discussion on the importance of outdoor lighting, the commissioners decided to condition approval on compliance with Section 12.15.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Devereux Glenholme School to construct a theatre addition and horse barn at 81 Sabbaday Lane with the condition that all exterior lighting shall comply with the requirements of Section 12.15. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.6.4, 12.16, 21.1.12, 21.1.28, 21.1.65, 21.1.68/Walls and Fences:
MOTION: To approve revisions to Sections 11.6.4, 12.16, 21.1.12, 21.1.65, 21.1.28, and 21.1.68 of the Washington Zoning Regulations to provide non binding guidelines for fences and walls in keeping with the rural character of Washington, update and clarify the definitions of Building, Structure, Fence, and Wall, distinguish between open, semi- open, and closed fences, specify the method for measuring the height of a fence or wall, and change the setback requirements for fences and walls depending on whether they are open, semi-open, or closed. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 6.6.14, 6.6.15, and 6.6.16/Non Conforming Docks:
MOTION: To approve revisions to Sections 6.6.14, 6.6.15, and 6.6.16 of the Washington Zoning Regulations to define non conforming docks, specify how their surface area shall be measured, and specify under what circumstances they may be enlarged. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.9/Inns: At the last meeting it had been noted this section needed updating and clarification. Mrs. Hill circulated draft revisions upon which to begin discussion. Mr. Owen noted he would not be against the operation of inns in the R-1 District as they have a long history in Town and have provided significant employment opportunities. He also noted that the inns on Lake Waramaug had had no negative impact on surrounding real estate values. Definitions for "inn" and "bed and breakfast" were also drafted. Members were asked to review the proposed language so that it may be discussed at the next meeting.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Papsin asked if the Fire Departments had reviewed the proposed new buildings for Devereux Glenholme and Rumsey Hall Schools. Mr. Owen and Mrs. Hill stated that the Fire Marshall must approve the construction plans as part of the Building Permit process and Mr. Ajello reported that the proposed plans call for Rumsey to install two 20,000 gallon water storage tanks. The Zoning Commission will request comments from the Fire Dept. on similar future applications.
Mr. Papsin also thought that attached and detached accessory apartments could provide housing for firemen, noting the Fire Dept. currently needs manpower. He said he agreed with the WCHT's opinion that the Regulations should not be revised to permit only one apartment per property. He wished accessory apartments could be included in the Town's affordable housing stock, but Mr. Shapiro pointed out that they would have to be deed restricted before they could be counted. Mr. Charles said he considered apartments to be a stop gap measure with the goal being home ownership.
Communications
2008 Calendar: The proposed 2008 Calendar of meeting dates was approved by consensus.
Special Meeting: Mr. Owen reminded the commissioners of the Special Meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m. on January 7, 2008.
Mr. Owen reported that he had met with Mr. Hileman of the Housing Commission and will attend the next WCHT meeting. He thought it was a good idea to keep the lines of communication open between the Zoning Commission and these other agencies.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello said a Special Permit application for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen would be submitted for the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: December 6, 2007 October 22, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Carey, Mr. Allen, Mr. Smith, Mr. Weaver, Ms. Habib, Mr. Farmen, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Papsin, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Stiteler-Giddens/262 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.9/Boathouse/Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Shapiro and Wadelton for Mr. Abella and Mr. Fitzherbert. He then advised the Commission that the application had been withdrawn.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.9 submitted by Stitler-Giddens for a boathouse at 262 West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the hearing at 7:33 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Shapiro and Wadelton for Mr. Abella and Mr. Fitzherbert.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 9/24/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
There were no pending applications.
New Application
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Theatre Addition
Mr. Worcester, architect, represented the applicant. Mr. Owen read the 10/22/07 ZEO Report, which noted the proposal had been submitted to the State Health Dept., it was not in an area regulated by the Inland Wetlands Commission, and the theatre would be an addition to the existing maintenance building on the school property. Mr. Ajello read the 10/22/07 sheet, "Building Description," which specified the theatre would be used solely by students as a part of their educational experience, would have 312 seats, would include other areas such as control room, back stage, lobby, and gallery space, and would possibly be used for other functions such as art display, school ceremonies, and fundraising. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Other Business
Preliminary Discussion/Myfield, LLC./Possible Modifications to Approved Plan: Mr. Gitterman noted that the goal of this project was to provide improved residential housing opportunities for Washington residents and said that the creative adjustments in design and aesthetics, which would be discussed tonight, were the result of input from concerned residents and neighbors. Mr. Fowlkes presented two colored sketches of the proposed units; one as they would appear from Mygatt Road and the other a comprehensive end to end view. He noted 13 structures with one dwelling unit each had been approved in the original application. However, although the total number of structures and total number of bedrooms would not change, this preliminary proposal increased the number of dwelling units to 16. He noted some of the houses would be turned sideways, others attached or repositioned, and more trees would be planted to vary the look of the complex. Also, different types of units would be offered; "apartments," condos, and stand alone houses. All would have the same square footage. Mr. Fowlkes noted that there would be affordable and market rate units in each of the different types of units. The map, "Site Layout," revised to 10/22/07 was reviewed. He described the various unit types and pointed out their locations. Mr. Gitterman noted the units would be farther from the wetlands than the units originally approved, but that their roof area would be slightly larger. He said he had consulted with an engineer who had advised him this would not create a drainage problem as the increase was insignificant. Prices and the definition of "moderate" cost housing were briefly discussed. Mr. Gitterman said he would research the definition and provide a list of price differences for the Commission. He noted that none of the units would be rentals. Mr. Owen advised the owners that the proposal would require a new application and public hearing because it was not just a simple modification and he strongly recommended that they study the comments made throughout the first application process as the same issues would be raised by the Commission for any new application. Comparability was discussed at length. Mr. Owen said very specific information would be required in the new application including a floor plan for each unit. He said significant differences in the units such as floor and partition configurations, square footage, windows, and levels of exterior finishes would be reviewed by the Commission to ensure the units were comparable under the State Affordable Housing Appeals Act. Mr. Gitterman said it was never his intent to build identical units. He proposed to offer standard units of uniform quality and to let the buyers choose how to finish the interiors prior to the manufacture of each unit. Mr. Owen said there would be a problem if the exteriors of the affordable units were distinguishable from those of the market rate units no matter if this was due to design or to the buyer's choice. He said the units would not have to be identical, but must be comparable. He read the definitions of "comparable" and "equivalent" from the Oxford Dictionary. Mr. Fowlkes asked if he was saying that no diversity was allowed. Mr. Owen said diversity could be provided within each type of unit. It was noted the two houses already constructed were not the identical units that the applicants had applied for and so they did not satisfy the terms of the current permit.
Preliminary Discussion/Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/ Construction of Two Dormitories and Hockey Rink
Mr. Owen read the 10/22/07 ZEO Report. Mr. Smith, surveyor, Mr. Weaver, architect, Ms. Habib, Business Manager, and Mr. Farmen, Headmaster, presented preliminary plans, "Illustrative Master Plan," by the SLAM Colaborative, dated 5/15/2000, "Master Plan Update," by Michael Rosenfeld Architects, and "Overall Site Plan," by Smith and Co., dated 10/22/07. Mr. Farmen noted that the dorms and rink had always been included in the school's long range plans and their construction would consolidate the campus and bring together all the students and faculty currently housed off site. Floor plans, a rendering of the dorms, and elevations of the proposed rink were reviewed. The two dorms would be identical and would house faculty as well as students. The rink would be 200' X 85; a standard, no frills structure. Mr. Owen asked if the new construction would necessitate improvements to the existing driveway. Mr. Farmen said the driveway was widened and drainage improvements installed in conjunction with the newly constructed gymnasium, although a sidewalk would be included in this project. Mr. Owen noted that school campuses are the source of some of the most egregious lighting in Town and he recommended that Mr. Weaver consult the Zoning Regulations regarding outdoor lighting in residential districts. Mr. Farmen noted there were no plans to increase the student enrollment. Mr. Farmen asked if the cutting of trees could begin now without prejudicing the Special Permit application. Mr. Owen noted clearing was not regulated by the Zoning Commission, although excavation was. Mr. Ajello pointed out that excavation of the stumps would disturb the soil and so would require an erosion and sedimentation control plan and he recommended a review by the Conservation Commission, which might point out specimen trees or critical habitats that should be preserved. He also noted several neighbors had complained about the clearing done for the gymnasium. He did not think it was a good policy for the Zoning Commission to allow clearing prior to permit approval. Mr. Owen read Section 13.8 of the Regulations, which did not include the removal of surplus material from a construction site in the definition of "excavation." Mr. Smith stated that no material would be removed from the site and said he would submit an erosion control plan because an area larger than half an acre would be disturbed. Ms. Habib said it was crucial to get the clearing done now so that the project deadline to open the dorms in Sept. 2008 and the rink for the 2008 hockey season could be met. Mr. Ajello said this work could be quickly done in the winter months. It was agreed that Rumsey would submit an application for the November 26th meeting and that a public hearing would most likely be scheduled for December 17, 2007. It was noted the application should address outdoor lighting, drainage, septic approval, and erosion controls. Mr. Ajello thought there would be no wetlands issues.
Preliminary Discussion/Possible Revision of the Regulations to Permit Inns on Town Roads as Well as State Highways
Atty. Fisher explained he has a client who owns land on a Town road and wants to operate a country inn on the property. He said in reading Section 13.9 of the Zoning Regulations, it was not clear to him whether inns were required to be on state highways or not. Sections 13.9 -13.9.4 were reviewed. Although several of the commissioners noted the wording was "interesting," Mr. Owen stated the Regulations did not limit inns to state roads, but required 500 feet of frontage if they were located on a state highway. Mrs. Friedman was concerned that the Regulations did not include definitions for "inn" and "tourist home" so she did not think it was exactly clear what uses were permitted in the R-1 District. Mr. Owen read these definitions from The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions by Moskowitz and Lindbloom. Atty. Fisher suggested that the state health code distinguishes between inns, tourist homes, and bed and breakfast operations. It was noted all three of these uses were by Special Permit in the R-1 District and that no signs would be permitted in that district. Although she thought operating inns on properties that had been used previously for commercial or institutional uses might be appropriate, Mrs. Friedman expressed her concern about whether these were suitable uses to be permitted throughout the R-1 District. Mr. Owen invited her to work on revisions or clarifications to the Regulations.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Stone Walls and Fences: Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission had not decided whether or how to address pillars and gates, but said she was satisfied with the proposed language discussed at the last meeting. It was noted a guideline section for walls and fences is included in the proposed revisions. Mr. Owen noted that depending on the comments received at the public hearing the Commission may want to edit the definitions of semi open fences to address fences placed on top of stone walls.
Communications
Mr. Wadelton reported briefly on the NW Ct. COG seminar he recently attended regarding cell towers. He noted local zoning commissions have no jurisdiction over cell towers on the ground, but do over telecommunications facilities located in existing structures such as church steeples. He has a tape of the seminar for anyone interested in learning more.
Mr. Ajello asked if a commercial kitchen used to prepare foods to sell in another building on the same property as well as off site would be a permitted use in the New Preston Business District. It was the consensus this type of use would be covered under "retail business" and so would be permitted.
It was noted that the Planning Commission had sent a memo requesting an update on how the Zoning Commission was progressing with the implementation of the recommendations in the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development and the Depot Study. Mr. Owen noted he had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had informed him that the Zoning Commission does not report to the Planning Commission and that the Zoning Commission is not required to implement the Plan. He said he would call the Planning chairman to tell her he would send Zoning's annual report and that all Zoning minutes were available on the Town website. Mrs. Hill noted that even though it was not required to do so, the Zoning Commission had already implemented many of the recommendations in the 2003 Plan. Mr. Owen stated the 2003 Plan was and continues to be a useful document to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen noted he would attend the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss this matter further with that commission.
Mr. Owen reported that the First Selectman had asked him what Zoning's rationale was behind its proposal to limit properties to only one accessory apartment. Mr. Owen responded that Zoning was upholding soil based zoning as had been endorsed in the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mrs. Friedman noted this matter has been unresolved for more than a year. It was the consensus that Mr. Ajello should write to Mr. Moore to inform him that he will be fined if he does not apply for the permits required for both a structure and for shop and storage use by contractors and building tradesmen by the next Commission meeting. It was noted that Mr. Moore was sent a notice of violation last year and that fines may be as high as $150 per day for ongoing violations.
MOTION: To instruct the EO to deliver a warning to Mr. Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike that the Zoning Commission will levy a fine if he gives no satisfactory reply by the next Zoning Commission meeting on November 26, 2007. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Pappa Joe's/New Milford Turnpike: It was noted that Pappa Joe's has put up signs along New Milford Turnpike, none of which have permits. Mr. Ajello said he had previously removed some of these signs, but would discuss the matter again with Mr. Martin.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Friedman.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: September 30, 2007 September 24, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Freer, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Fairbairn, Press, Mr. Papsin
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Shapiro and Wyant for Mr. Averill and Mr. Fitzherbert.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Stiteler/262 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.9/ Boathouse/Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. He noted he had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had advised him that when a property is divided by a right of way, each piece is treated as a lot and each must meet all setback requirements, which meant that for this application for lake shore property, the front yard setback must be met. On behalf the the Stitelers, Atty. Kelly asked for clarification because he had understood that Atty. Zizka had the opposite opinion in a recent ZBA case. Mr. Ajello and Mr. Owen pointed out that there were differences between the two cases; one right of way split the lot, the other did not; one case was about setbacks, the other about coverage; and one involved a public right of way, the other a private right of way. Atty. Kelly noted that when it had approved the Stiteler-Giddins subdivision, the Planning Commission had specifically stated that the lake shore property was part of the 198 Tinker Hill lot and could not be considered a separate lot. He warned that if this was considered a separate lot, the owners would be able to get a variance to build a house on it. He asked for a response in writing from Atty. Zizka and submitted a written request for an extension of the hearing. It was agreed that Atty. Kelly would submit a concise letter detailing the issues he wants Atty. Zizka to address. Atty. Kelly submitted the following documents for the file: 1) the letter dated 9/24/07, which requested a modification to enlarge the building to 10' X 8' and noted that natural decay resistant wood would be used and 2) a photo of the proposed building with construction specifications. Mr. Owen read the 9/24/07 letter from Mr. Frank, President of the Lake Waramaug Association, which did not favor or oppose the application, but made several points including pointing out that historically only boathouses, not storage sheds, have been permitted within 50 feet of the lake. Atty. Kelly asked the Commission for feedback on this letter and for copies of all new documents in the file.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.9 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Stiteler for a boathouse at 262 West Shore Road to 7:30 p.m. on October 22, 2007 at the request of the applicants. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
At 7:42 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to 10/22/07 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Freer/246 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment/Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. He said he had discussed with Atty. Zizka the variance for the second driveway to serve the detached apartment. Atty. Zizka informed him that the ZBA had the right to grant this variance and that it was not a use variance. There were no other outstanding issues to discuss and no questions from the commissioners or from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. Freer for a detached accessory apartment at 246 Woodbury Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
At 7:45 p.m. 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 Regular Meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 8/27/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Freer/246 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Owen noted the public hearing had been closed and there were no outstanding issues.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. Freer for a detached accessory apartment at 246 Woodbury Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Stiteler/262 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.9/ Boathouse: The public hearing was continued to 7:30 p.m. on October 22, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Washington Community Housing Trust/16 Church Street/Request to Amend Special Permit: Mr. Fairbairn represented the Housing Trust. He submitted a letter dated 9/21/07 requesting permission to pave the driveway/parking area in front of the lower apartments. He noted the existing gravel surface erodes easily, causes dust, and is difficult to maintain. He also pointed out that paving this area would not result in an increase in coverage because it is already counted as traveled surface. The map, "Proposed Drainage and Grading Plan," by Mr. Howland, revised to 3/6/03 was reviewed. Mr. Fairbairn said the 3600 sq. ft. area would be paved with islands as shown on this site plan. It was the consensus that the request was a reasonable one.
MOTION: To approve the request to amend the Special Permit issued to the Washington Community Housing Trust for affordable housing units at 16 Church Street to allow the paving of the driveway/parking area in front of the lower apartments. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.11/Accessory Apartments: Mr. Owen noted the one point the Commission had agreed upon in previous discussions was to allow only one accessory apartment per property. He circulated a draft revision, "Accessory Apartment," dated 9/24/07, which is attached to these minutes. It was noted that Washington is the only town in this area that currently allows more than one apartment per property.
A public hearing to consider the proposed revision was scheduled for Monday, November 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Fences and Stone Walls: Mr. Owen circulated draft revisions, "Fences," dated 9/24/07, a joint effort by Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Hill, and Mr. Owen. Mrs. Hill had measured fences and wall throughout Town and passed out a sheet, which listed their heights. It was noted that basically the older walls met the proposed revisions, while the newly constructed fences and walls did not.
1) 21.1.28/Definition of Fence: Mr. Owen noted this definition included walls. Language had been added regarding how to measure the height of a fence. Three types of fencing; open, semi open, and closed were defined. He noted that hedges were dealt with separately in the Lake Waramaug District regulations.
2) 11.6.4/Setbacks for Fences: It was proposed that open fences up to 8 ft. tall would be exempt from the setback requirements because you would be able to see through them. Semi open and closed fences would be exempt if they were no more than 4 ft. high and if they do not run along a front line or a street.
3) 12.16/Non Binding Guidelines and Recommendations: It was thought that inclusion of this section would provide information regarding what types of walls and fences would be in keeping with the rural and historic character of the Town.
4) 21.1.65/Definition of Structure: This definition was brought up to date by adding examples of several types of structures such as air conditioning units, generators, and fences that require zoning permits. Also, a note was added that all structures are considered permanent.
5) 21.1.12/Definition of Building: This definition was also updated. Mr. Owen explained that since buildings and structures were now more specifically defined, fences and walls over 8 ft. high would no longer be considered as buildings.
6) 21.1.68/Definition of Wall: This will be a reference to the definition of Fence.
It was noted that more information will have to be submitted with fence applications than is now submitted because the EO will have to compute what percent of the fence is open to determine which, if any, setbacks must be met. Also, the commissioners will consider factors such as gates and pillars and address them at the public hearing. The public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 26, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room immediately following the hearing on revisions to Section 13.11: Accessory Apartments. The proposed amendments are attached.
Revisions to the Zoning Regulations/Docks/Sections 6.6.14-6.6.16: Mr. Owen noted the current Regulations fail to address structures that now serve as docks, but that were built prior to the adoption of the current definition, so are non conforming. It was agreed that in order to be considered a dock, the structure had to be able to function as a dock, that is, a boat could be pulled up to it and it must be able to be accessed from the water. Mr. Owen thought it was reasonable to let these non conforming structures be enlarged as long as they would not exceed the current regulations. For example, an existing concrete dock would be enlarged as long as it complied with the requirements of Section 6.6 and the combined square footage of the old and new sections did not exceed 360 sq. ft. There was a lengthy discussion regarding repairs to and resurfacing of non conforming docks. The resulting draft revisions are attached. The draft will be sent to Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force and Mr. Frank of the Lake Waramaug Association for review. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 26, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall; the third public hearing of the evening.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Papsin asked about several issues:
1) Denscot Pools/New Milford Turnpike: He complained that there is outdoor storage not approved under the Special Permit and that it is an eyesore. Mr. Ajello stated also that equipment is parked by the river beyond the area it was limited to. It was noted, however, that the pool chemicals were stored in the basement. Denscot also has a sandwich board sign and a banner on a fence for which there are no permits.
2) The sign at the 202 convenience store/New Milford Turnpike: Both Mr. Papsin and Mrs. Friedman complained that sandwich board signs placed out by the road were a safety hazard because they block the view of traffic as you try to pull out on to Rt. 202. Mr. Ajello noted this business also has a lighted sign that would have to be removed from the window.
3) Other signs such as Webster Bank, open banners, Papa Joe's, off the premises signs, non profit signs, etc.: Mr. Papsin and Mrs. Friedman noted there are many illegal off the premises signs in the Marbledale/New Preston area. Mr. Ajello noted that the Webster Bank sign had been approved. He said he was generally in favor of a revision to the sign regulation that requires signs to be placed at least 10 ft. back from the boundary line. He proposed to draft a letter to be hand delivered to sign regulation violators who would be fined if their signs had not been brought into compliance within 30 days and the fine doubled if there were still ongoing violations after 60 days. Regarding non profit signs, Mr. Ajello said he had taken many down, but it was noted that signs for out of town non profit events would be permitted for 2 week periods if a zoning permit was applied for. In Town non profits may put signs up for 2 weeks without a permit. Mr. Owen noted that while it was difficult for business owners in Washington and the Commission did not want to drive anyone out of business, the most serious sign violations had to be addressed. He asked Mr. Ajello to prepare a draft letter as had discussed earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Wadelton said he would attend the Cell Tower forum on 9/26 and would report back to the Commission at the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Abella.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Fences Draft 9/25/07CAPS = new
Underscore = delete
11.6.4 OPEN FENCES THAT ARE NO MORE THAN 8 FEET TALL ARE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 11.6.1, 11.6.2, AND 11.6.3. SEMI-OPEN FENCES AND CLOSED FENCES, INCLUDING PICKET FENCES AND STONE WALLS, are exempt from the above THE REQUIREMENTS OF 11.6.1, 11.6.2, AND 11.6.3 IF
A. THEY ARE NO MORE THAN 4 FEET TALL, OR
B. THEY DO NOT FACE A FRONT LOT LINE OR A STREET
11.6.5 setback requirements (Exception: See Section 21.1.10).
12.16 NON-BINDING GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FENCES. FENCES, INCLUDING STONE WALLS, SHOULD REFLECT THE RURAL AND HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF OUR TOWN. MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHOULD BE HARMONIOUS WITH THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN OUR REGION FOR GENERATIONS. STONE WALLS THAT USE NATIVE MATERIALS AND TRADITIONAL DRY CONSTRUCTION METHODS ARE ENCOURAGED; STONE WALLS THAT THAT USE NON-NATIVE MATERIALS, RECTILINIAR STONES, FORMAL DESIGNS, AND MORTAR-STYLE CONSTRUCTION ARE DISCOURAGED.
21.1.12 Building. Any structure having THAT HAS a roof and IS intended for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of persons, animals, poultry, or materials. Any other structure, including an accessory structure to a permitted use and including fences and walls, any of which are more than 8 feet high, shall be considered as buildings.
21.1.65 Structure. Anything THAT IS constructed or erected with AND HAS a fixed location on the ground, or IS attached to something having THAT HAS a fixed location on the ground. FENCES (INCLUDING STONE WALLS), CENTRAL AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS, GENERATORS, SWIMMING POOL FILTERS, ETC., ARE STRUCTURES. All structures, INCLUDING TENTS USED FOR STORAGE, ARE shall be considered permanent AND ARE GOVERNED BY THESE REGULATIONS.
21.1.28 Fence. An artificially A constructed barrier of WOOD, STONE, OR any OTHER material or combination of materials which is erected to enclose, screen, or separate areas. THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE IS MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING GROUND LEVEL, PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION OR FILLING, TO THE TOP OF THE FENCE. AN OPEN FENCE, SUCH AS A SPLIT-RAIL FENCE, IS ONE THAT OBSCURES LESS THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE VIEW DIRECTLY THROUGH IT. A SEMI-OPEN FENCE, SUCH AS A PICKET FENCE, IS ONE THAT OBSCURES 25 PERCENT TO 60 PERCENT OF THE VIEW DIRECTLY THROUGH IT. A CLOSED FENCE, SUCH AS A STONE WALL OR A STOCKADE FENCE, IS ONE THAT OBSCURES MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE VIEW DIRECTLY THROUGH IT.
21.1.68 WALL. SEE "FENCE."
Docks Draft 9/25/07Caps: New
6.6.14 Existing, nonconforming structures that extend beyond the shoreline and are used as docks or could be used as docks including concrete piers, overhanging boat-house decks whose upper surfaces are within three feet of the water's surface and are accessible from the lake, and similar structures shall be considered docks for the purposes of these regulations, and any part of such structures which extends beyond the shoreline shall be included in any surface-area calculations required under Section 6.6.
6.6.15 The existing, nonconforming structures described in 6.6.14 may be enlarged if:
a. the enlarged structure is to be used as a dock, and
b. the added portions meet the requirements of Section 6.6, and
c. the combined surface area of the original nonconforming structure and its extension meets the size requirements of Section 6.6.6.
6.6.16 Existing, non-conforming concrete piers that extend beyond the shoreline may be resurfaced with wood or masonry if
a. the new deck surface is no more than eight inches higher than the original surface of the non-conforming concrete pier, and
b. the new deck surface does not extent more than 1.5 inches beyond any edge of the existing, non-conforming pier.
Accessory Apartments Draft 9/25/07CAPS = new
Underscore = delete
13.11 Revision - entire Section 13.11, Accessory Apartments, effective 12/26/00; revision Section 13.11.2.e to reconcile 21.1.25 effective 4/22/02 Accessory Apartments.
13.11.1 Intent. It is the intent of the Zoning Commission to permit property owners to create accessory apartments to provide small-scale housing for a variety of possible occupants. Such occupants may include relatives of the property owners, caregivers, guests of the property owners, the elderly, individuals, couples, and small families with limited income or limited housing needs, and others. NO MORE THAN ONE ACCESSORY APARTMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED PER PROPERTY.It is not the intention of the Zoning Commission to permit property owners to use these Regulations to circumvent the Town's soil based housing density regulations by creating a second substantial dwelling on an undivided parcel.The requirements governing accessory apartments are more stringent for detached apartments than for attached apartments because the Zoning Commission believes that a property owner is more likely to maintain close supervision of an apartment that directly adjoins the property owner's own dwelling.
13.11.2 a. No more than one attached accessory apartment shall be permitted per property.
13.11.3 a. No more than one detached accessory apartment shall be permitted per property.
Posted: September 6, 2007 August 27, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wadelton
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henisz, Mr. Charles,
Atty. Kelly, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Matthews, Press
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Henisz/52 West Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.15/ General Home Occupation/Psychotherapy Office
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/15 and 8/22/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 8/27/07 ZEO Report.
Mrs. Friedman asked if any exterior alterations to the dwelling would be needed to put in the office. Mr. Henisz said, no, this section of the house was once a maid's quarters with a separate entrance.
Mrs. Hill noted she had a phone call from an adjoining property owner who complained that it would not be safe to have additional traffic on West Church Hill Road. Mr. Owen noted the applicant would have only two or three patients a day, two or three days a week.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.15 submitted by Mr. Henisz for a psychotherapy office at 52 West Church Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Stiteler.262 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.9/ Boathouse
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order at 7:37 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/15 and 8/22/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 8/27/07 ZEO Report, which noted Health and Inland Wetlands approvals were needed as well as a variance. Mr. Ajello noted the date given for the emails in the file was incorrect.
Mr. Ajello advised the applicant that an accurate map showing the exact the location proposed for the boathouse was required in order to resolve the setback issue.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding whether the setback should be measured from the property line or from the state right of way. Mr. Ajello pointed out that the definition of setback in Section 21.1.56 refers to the measurement from the property line or the right of way line and that since the property is only 40 feet wide, it could not meet the front yard setback requirement. That was the reason he thought a variance was required. Atty. Kelly noted the Stiteler property is one lot with frontage on Tinker Hill Road and so did not think the front yard setback requirement would apply. He questioned why the term, "right of way," had been inserted into the definition of setback. The map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, dated 6/07 was reviewed. Atty. Kelly noted the location of the lake shore portion of the property where the 8' X 8' boathouse was proposed and the state right of way, which he said the state did not own. Atty. Kelly also questioned whether the rear setback would be applied because he said the rear line was a point in the middle of the lake to which all the lake shore properties run. If the Commission holds that there must be a setback from the right of way, he continued, what setback would be applied since it would not meet any of the setback definitions. He asked the Commission to consult with its attorney. Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission had consulted about setbacks in the past and had been advised that when the road bisects a property, it is considered two separate parcels. Atty. Kelly stated he could draw up a construction plan that would satisfy the Building Dept. and could meet the setback from a rear boundary line if the Commission required it, but agreed if a front yard setback was required, he would need a variance. Mr. Owen said he would consult with the Commission's counsel.
Atty. Kelly circulated his 6/12/07 letter to the Inland Wetlands Commission with attached photo of the proposed shed and building specifications. He noted the beach property was a sensitive area and the proposed boathouse would be as non invasive as possible. He explained that the reason no specific location had been proposed was because the applicant was willing to be flexible and work with the Commissions to find the best location. He also noted that although the Building Dept. had informed him that anchoring the building with augers and a bike chain would be sufficient, the applicant would be willing to put it on cement blocks or on a wood frame.
Atty. Kelly noted he could immediately apply for a variance for front yard setback or wait for advice from the Commission's counsel. Mr. Ajello said a third option would be to petition for an amendment to the Regulations.
Mrs. Friedman read the 8/27/07 letter from Mrs. Weeks against the application.
No one from the public spoke for or against the proposal.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.9 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Stiteler for a boathouse at 262 West Shore Road to 7:30 p.m. on Sept. 24, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0
At 8:12 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to 7:30 p.m. on Sept. 24, 2007.
Freer/246 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order at 8:13 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/15 and 8/22/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 8/27/07 ZEO Report.
Mr. Freer, property owner, reviewed his application for a detached accessory apartment on the second floor of the existing barn. He noted currently there is storage above the lower level, which serves as a garage. The site plan was studied. He noted the barn does not now use the same driveway as the main dwelling; it has a separate existing driveway on the right of way to an interior lot. The ZBA approved a variance to allow the barn/apartment to continue to be served by this separate 700 ft. long driveway. Mr. Owen asked if there was a reason the driveway could not be connected to the main dwelling's driveway. Mr. Freer said it would be a steep grade.
Mr. Owen read Section 13.11.1, which states that the intent of the accessory apartment regulations is not to allow a second substantial dwelling on an undivided parcel. He noted that one purpose for the requirement that the dwelling and the detached apartment share a single driveway is to ensure their direct connection. He suggested that because a shared driveway is at the heart of the accessory apartment requirements and that no one is entitled by right to a detached apartment, the ZBA had, in effect, granted a use variance, which is not legally permitted.
Mr. Ajello stated the ZBA had been entitled to grant the variance, listed some of the factors he considered hardships, and noted the driveway exists; it was not being built specifically for the apartment.
Mr. Owen thought the separate driveway, in effect, resulted in the apartment functioning as a separate lot. He suggested the hearing be continued so that he could discuss the issue with Atty. Zizka. He also noted he would like to discuss which regulations the ZBA is allowed to vary and what protections the Zoning Commission might adopt to ensure the intent of its Regulations is carried out. Mr. Averill agreed that the Commission should do careful research in terms of policy.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. Freer for a detached accessory apartment at 246 Woodbury Road to Sept. 24, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room - hearings begin at 7:30 p.m.; this hearing is second. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
At 8:34 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to Sept. 24, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:35 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 7/23/07 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
P. 2: Under 2 Wheaton, LLC.: 7th line: "8 ft. further" should be "8 ft. closer."
P. 3: Under Revision of the Zoning Regs: 10th line: Add: "whichever is less" after "dwelling."
MOTION: To accept the 7/23/07 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Henisz/52 West Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.15/ Psychotherapy Office
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.15 submitted by Mr. Henisz for a psychotherapy office at 52 West Church Hill Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Freer/246 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment
Stiteler/262 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.9/ Boathouse
The public hearings to consider these two applications were continued to Sept. 24, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Stiteler will begin at 7:30 p.m. and Freer will begin immediately following.
Other Business
Final Report/2006 Senior Housing Survey: Mr. Hileman, Chairman of the Housing Commission, reported that the Housing Commission's purpose is to study and analyze the housing needs of the Town. To this end, it had conducted a townwide survey regarding senior housing with a good percentage of residents responding, although 82% were over the age of 50. Mr. Hileman determined from the survey that 1) there was broad support for more senior housing options in Town and 2) there was significant support for affordable units in any senior housing development. The Housing Commission report concluded that 1) no direct public funding is necessary for senior housing initiatives in Washington and 2) the Town of Washington needs to reexamine and revise its land use regulations to permit senior housing in the village centers. Mr. Hileman thought the land use commissions should take a more proactive approach. A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Owen pointed out that the Zoning Commission had to discuss other related issues, too, when it considers senior housing. First, there are other groups in Washington with other priorities and the Zoning Commission represents them all. Second, the Town must decide how much growth is acceptable before coming up with a housing plan. What target population is desirable? Third, the Zoning Commission is charged with preserving the rural character. Mr. Hileman said he did not mean to suggest hundreds of new units, but perhaps 12 to 20. And he thought a housing plan should be drawn up for the Depot first because due to its geographic constraints it could accommodate only a limited number of units. He said he would soon consult with the Planning Commission about drafting a housing plan. Mr. Owen was not sure that any new housing units should be built exclusively for seniors. He noted there is also a need for housing for young families and for people who would volunteer their services in Town. He thought there was already the necessary framework in place so that relatively simple changes could be made to the existing Depot Business District regs to allow some form of denser senior or other moderate priced housing if the public was receptive to the idea.
Privilege of the Floor
Mrs. Matthews asked if Myfield, LLC, would be discussed. She was informed that the applicant had withdrawn the request to modify its existing permit. It was noted Myfield had installed road shoulders of crushed stone instead of pervious pavers and should include this when it requests that its permit be modified.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations
Accessory Apartments: Mrs. Friedman noted possible revisions to the accessory apartment regulations had been discussed at the last meeting and the only point of agreement at that time had been that a property should be allowed either a detached or an attached apartment, but not both. She suggested that if the maximum size was to remain at 1200 sq. ft., that figure should include all decks, screened porches, etc. so it would be more difficult for ZBA to vary the size. Mr. Charles noted that just three years ago the Zoning Commission had studied this issue, which resulted in the adoption of the current regulations. He noted a single family house on a 10 acre lot could have many more bedrooms and much more coverage than a modest home with both a detached and an attached accessory apartment, and so he did not see the rationale for the proposed change. He also thought revising the accessory apartment regs in this way would encourage the subdivision of properties owned by the "rich," who needed both a guest house and a caretaker's house. Mr. Owen advised Mr. Charles that the Commission was discussing revisions to try to keep people from abusing the regulations, proposing apartments nearly the same size as the main dwelling, for example. Mrs. Friedman pointed out that when she studied the regs in other towns, she found that none permitted both an attached and a detached apartment on the same lot. Mr. Charles thought this might be because Washington is the only town with soil based zoning. Mr. Owen and Mr. Fitzherbert said Mr. Charles had raised interesting points, which would be considered during the ongoing discussion.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Papsin asked what was happening on Gunn Hill Road; the Cherniske house had been demolished. Mr. Ajello said the owner had permits for an addition and remodeling, but had found the foundation was unsound. He has plans to reconstruct it, possibly in a location where it will become a conforming structure. Mr. Papsin asked how this owner was allowed to construct 6 ft. high walls. Mr. Ajello responded the regs allow walls up to 8 ft. along property lines. He also noted that it is difficult to regulate the appearance of walls and fences.
Revision of the Regulations
Stone Walls and Fences: Mrs. Hill noted the current definition of Building states that any structure more than 8 ft. high shall be considered a building. She suggested that by revising this down to 3 or 4 ft. high, fences higher than 3 or 4 ft. would have to meet the setback requirements. The result would be that the out of character walls and fences that have been erected recently along the roads would have to be located at least 50 feet back from the front boundary line. The commissioners supported this idea and asked her to draft formal language to be considered at the next meeting.
Docks: Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that he was having a problem with the expansion of pre existing concrete docks on Lake Waramaug. Mr. Owen stated these docks were non conforming structures, which were not permitted to expand. Therefore, Mr. Ajello should order that any additions to these docks be removed. Mr. Ajello recommended that since the definition of Dock has been revised, the Commission should take another look at these regulations to make sure that they govern all docks and not just new docks that meet the revised definition. This matter will be discussed again at a future meeting.
Helipads: Mr. Ajello recommended the regs be revised to prohibit the activity of landing an aircraft in addition to the actual physical structure of a helipad. He said this would prevent one time landings at private residences. Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Owen thought currently the Selectmen's Office handled requests for permission for a one time landings. Mr. Fitzherbert noted helipads are regulated by the state. Mr. Owen noted that Helipad is not defined in the regs and asked Mr. Ajello to draft a regulation to be considered at the next meeting.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello reported that Mr. Moore is slowly coming into compliance with the order issued by the Inland Wetlands Commission. He will soon write to him regarding the ongoing zoning violations on the property.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Averill.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: July 30, 2007 July 23, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Bohan, Resident
Mrs. Friedman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, and Friedman and Alternates Shapiro and Wyant for Mr. Owen and Mr. Abella.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 6/25/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Henisz/52 West Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.15: Home Occupation - Psychiatrist's Office: Mrs. Friedman noted a public hearing had been scheduled for August 27, 2007.
Freer/246 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: Mrs. Friedman explained a public hearing had not been scheduled for this application because the Commission had been waiting to learn whether the ZBA would first grant a variance to allow the proposed apartment to be served by a driveway not shared with the primary dwelling on the property. Mr. Ajello noted that if the hearing was not scheduled for August, a request for an extension by the applicant would be required. Mr. Freer explained his ZBA hearing had been continued only because the adjoining property owner, who would share the driveway to the apartment, had not picked up his notification of the hearing. A public hearing was scheduled for August 27, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room. The hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. The hearing for this application will be the fourth on the agenda.
Stiteler-Giddens/262 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.9/Boathouse: A public hearing had already been scheduled for August 27th; the third hearing on the agenda.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Request to Amend Original Approval: It was noted discussion would take place at the public hearing on August 27th. Mr. Ajello noted that in addition to the issue of the building construction, the road did not appear to have been constructed as approved because it did not have pervious pavers along the shoulders.
2 Wheaton, LLC./2 Wheaton Road/Request to Revise 2-07 Special Permit: Professional Offices and Setbacks: Mr. Ajello compared the map approved in 2/07 with the proposed site plan shown on the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated June 2006 with hand drawn revisions dated 7/23/07. The handicapped ramp had been redesigned to include a gazebo. The proposed revision took the structure approximately 8 ft. further from the property line, decreased coverage, and tied together the two main buildings on the property. It was noted the Health Dept. had approved the revision. A rendering of the proposal was also reviewed.
MOTION: To approve a revision to the 2/07 Special Permit issued to 2 Wheaton, LLC. for professional offices and setbacks at 2 Wheaton Road per the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated June 2006, with hand drawn revisions, dated 7/23/07, to show a new size and location for the handicapped ramp. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.
Whitney/191/Roxbury Road/Rescind First Cut: Mrs. Friedman noted that new information had been brought to the Commission to show that this had not qualified as a first cut and should have been submitted to the Planning Commission for subdivision approval instead. Mr. Ajello said this kind of procedural error should not happen in the future because the Commission has since required a signed affidavit from an attorney that the proposed division of land qualifies as a first cut. He also circulated a sheet listing all of the information required for first cut applications.
MOTION: To rescind the 10/23/06 approval of the permit granted to Mrs. Whitney for a first cut at 191 Roxbury Road. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Accessory Apartments: Mrs. Friedman reported what she had learned from reviewing other towns'zoning regulations: 1) Most towns do not permit both a detached and an attached apartment on the same property. 2) Some limit the number of bedrooms an acc. apt. may have or the number of occupants. 3) Several required that a building be on the tax rolls for a specified period before a permit for an apartment could be approved. 4) Most towns have smaller maximum size requirements than does Washington. These were usually 300 to 750 sq. ft. or 25% of the gross floor area of the main dwelling. 5) Many require a new permit be applied for each time the property is sold. Mr. Ajello noted this is also a requirement in Washington's regs, but said Zoning has no way of knowing when properties are sold. 6) All towns require apartments to be subordinate to the main dwelling on the property. 7) Other towns require that the apartment use the same driveway as the primary dwelling. 8) Many towns specify for attached apartments that there may be no additional doors on the front faade of the house or any exterior alterations. She recommended that Washington consider: 1) allowing only a detached or an attached apartment per property, but not both, 2) limiting the number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms per apt., and 3) retaining the 1200 sq. ft. maximum size, but to include all interior and exterior spaces such as unheated utility rooms, decks, enclosed porches, etc. in that calculation or reducing the maximum sq. ft. of floor area to 950. A lengthy discussion ensued. There was a consensus that only one apartment per property should be permitted and that the provisions that require an accessory apartment to be subordinate to and share the same driveway used by the primary dwelling should be retained. There was no agreement about whether to limit the number of bedrooms or what the maximum size permitted should be. Some commissioners thought that limiting the number of bedrooms permitted might be viewed as discriminating against families and children. Regarding the size of accessory apartments, Mr. Shapiro suggested that perhaps the maximum size should be dependent upon the size of the primary dwelling, although he said that might be unfair to those with smaller dwellings. Mr. Fitzherbert noted that if a maximum of 1200 sq. ft. including all interior and exterior features was set, it would prevent larger older buildings from housing accessory apartments. Mrs. Friedman suggested there could be an exception for buildings that had been in existence for a specified period of time. Mr. Averill noted the Town needed affordable housing stock, but added that although there was the potential to use accessory apartments to achieve that goal, in reality most were not deed restricted and so do not officially count as affordable. Mr. Ajello asked if the reason for revising this section of the Regs was to prevent subdivisions and/or to limit the impact on the school population. He also said that larger estates need two, three, or more accessory apartments. Mr. Shapiro explained this discussion had begun with the McTiernan application because the primary house had been so small that the proposed detached apartment did not clearly satisfy the requirement that it be subordinate. Mr. Averill pointed out that subordinate did not only mean in size, but also in use and "connection" with the primary dwelling. Mrs. Friedman asked everyone to consider this issue for further discussion at the next meeting.
Multifamily Housing: Mrs. Friedman noted that Mr. Hileman, Chairman of the Housing Commission would attend an upcoming meeting to request that the Commission reconsider its decision not to revise the Regulations to permit multifamily housing.
Privilege of the Floor
Boathouses, Piers, Docks, Etc.: Mr. Ajello asked for an interpretation of the Regs concerning docks and boathouses. He asked if the Commission would object to the construction of a boathouse on an existing pier. He said the Regs do not state that boathouses may not be placed on piers, although they do state that they may not extend over the water. Mr. Fitzherbert thought the intent of the regulation was to protect the water from chemicals and other environmental impacts by requiring boathouses to be located back from the lake. Mr. Averill agreed since the Commission could not control what would be stored inside them and was also concerned about the height of a boathouse located on a pier. Mr. Ajello noted that the Regs fail to address docks on Mt. Tom Lake. Section 12.1.1, which states that "Boathouses shall not extend over or into Lake Waramaug," was reviewed. Mr. Fitzherbert thought this was straightforward and meant that boathouses could not extend past the shoreline. Mrs. Friedman agreed. Mr. Ajello said the existing concrete dock was an impervious surface and so a boathouse on top of it would not extend into the lake. He thought locating a boathouse on an existing pier would cut down on the amount of impervious surfaces built on land surrounding the lake and would solve any setback problems. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Shapiro thought this would not be permitted unless Section 12.1.1 of the Regs was revised. Because they are impervious, Mr. Ajello questioned where the shoreline was in areas where old concrete piers exist. Mr. Averill asked whether the definition of shoreline included man made structures or only natural land. A member of the public commented that if the pier did not already exist, there would be no question that the boathouse could not be placed in that location. Mr. Ajello noted that putting a boathouse on an existing pier could be considered an increase in the non conformity of a non conforming structure and would require a variance. Mrs. Friedman asked what the hardship would be to justify the variance.
Setbacks from Right of Ways: Mr. Ajello said he was researching this matter and would report about it at the next meeting.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mrs. Friedman asked when Zoning would begin serious enforcement efforts. Mr. Ajello said he would wait until there was progress with Inland Wetlands Commission enforcement orders. He said Mr. Moore would have to apply both for several structures on the property and for the business he is conducting in the residential district.
Ebner/Mt. Tom Road: Mr. Ajello reported the illegal structures had been removed.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mrs. Friedman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Posted: June 29, 2007 June 25, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE Absent: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. McTiernan, Mr. Lasar, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Boling, Mr. Gitterman, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Charles
PUBLIC HEARING
McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment/Con't.
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen. He read the list of documents that had been submitted since the last meeting and the 6/25/07 ZEO Report.
Mr. Lasar, architect, presented the site plan revised to 6/11/07 and reviewed his calculation sheet comparing the volume and square footage of the existing house and proposed apartment. He pointed out that the total ground floor area of the accessory apartment would be 20 sq. ft. less than 75% of the ground floor area of the house.
Mrs. Friedman asked for the difference in size of the livable areas of the units. Mr. Lasar said the house had 1288 sq. ft. and the apartment had 1198 sq. ft.
Mr. Lasar stated the requirement was that the accessory building not exceed 75% of the ground floor area and volume of the house (Section 12.5.2). Mr. Owen said the 75% requirement referred to accessory structures, not accessory apartments and it was not clear that that was the only standard that applied. Mrs. Friedman referred to Section 13.11.3.g, which states that the apartment must be "clearly subordinate" to the principal dwelling. Mr. Owen read the entire Section 13.11.3.g.
Mr. Lasar presented photos to show that the apartment was clearly subordinate, stressing that it could not be seen from the house. Mr. Owen noted that subordination was the issue and visibility was not relevant.
The floor plans of the dwelling and apartment were reviewed. It was noted that the garage and deck were included in the total sq. footage of the house.
Mr. Fitzherbert suggested that the Commission look at the scale and appearance of the proposed apartment to determine whether it met the intent of the Regulations. Mr. Owen stated that the intent was for a more significant difference in size between the apartment and the principal dwelling and that the Commission had not anticipated such a small principal dwelling.
Mrs. Friedman pointed out that it was possible for a detached apartment to comply with Section 12.5.2, but not be subordinate to the main dwelling and she said the apartment must comply with both. Mr. Owen agreed that there were more restrictive requirements for accessory apartments than for accessory structures.
Mrs. Friedman noted the habitable spaces of the house and proposed apartment were virtually identical. Mr. Lasar argued that the Regulations do not refer to habitable space. Mr. Ajello advised the Commission that they refer to size, scale, volume, and footprint. Mrs. Friedman noted that while the proposed screened porch was not habitable area, it did add to the scale of the building and significantly increased its size. Mr. Averill noted the regulation required the apartment to be clearly subordinate in size and scale to the principal dwelling, and so he agreed this was a concern.
Mr. Ajello thought the scale of the apartment was less because it was located so far from the house, but Mr. Owen did not agree that scale referred to location. Mr. Shapiro said the term, scale, referred to the relationship between the two structures.
Mr. McTiernan stated he had no close neighbors because Steep Rock has the land surrounding his property. He noted that if his dwelling were larger, he would have no problem applying for the apartment, but said he was satisfied with the size of his house and did not want to have to add onto it. He also noted the apartment could not be seen from off site. Mr. Owen noted the Regulations apply whether the building can be seen or not.
Mrs. Friedman asked how important the screened porch was to the application. The applicant did not respond.
Mr. Shapiro asked what the difference in height between the two buildings was. The elevations were reviewed. The peak of the apartment's hip roof was 13.5 feet and the peak of the house's gable roof was 18 ft.
Mr. Owen noted the size of the proposed apartment was reasonable, but the question was the ratio between the size of the apartment and the house. He said a maximum sized apartment was proposed for such a small house.
There were no other 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. McTiernan for a detached accessory apartment at 52 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
This hearing was recorded. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 8:03 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 5/21/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed 5-0.
Pending Application
McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Owen thought it would be difficult to defend a denial and suggested the Regulations be revised. Mr. Fitzhebert said the Commission had not anticipated such a small main house when the Regulation had been written. Mr. Shapiro had no problem with approval because he thought the apartment was both smaller than and subordinate to the house. Mr. Averill did not think Mr. McTiernan should have to add onto his small house in order to have the apartment approved. Mr. Shapiro noted he could propose a smaller apartment. Mrs. Friedman did not think the apartment was "clearly" subordinate to the main house. She noted applicants usually apply for the maximum size allowed, but said the Commission was not required to approve the maximum size. Mr. Abella thought the proposed screened porch made it more difficult to approve the apartment. Mrs. Friedman agreed.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. McTiernan for a detached accessory apartment at 52 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 4-1. Mrs. Friedman voted No because she did not think the proposed apartment was clearly subordinate and clearly smaller in size and scale than the principal dwelling per Section 13.11.3.h.
New Applications
Henisz/52 West Church Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.15/ General Home Occupation/Psychiatrist's Office: Mr. Owen read the 6/25/07 ZEO Report. A public hearing was scheduled at 7:30 p.m. on August 27, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Freer/246 Woodbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Owen read the 6/25/07 ZEO Report. It was noted a variance was needed because the proposed apartment would not use the same driveway as the main house.
Stitler-Giddens/262 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.9 Boathouse: Mr. Owen read the 6/25/07 ZEO Report, which stated both Inland Wetlands and Health approval were still needed. Mr. Ajello noted that in addition, a variance for front yard setback was required. He added that by state statute if the Inland Wetlands Commission had not approved the application prior to the end of the time period in which Zoning must act, Zoning would have an additional 35 days from the date of the Inland Wetlands approval in which to act.
Other Business
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Request to Amend Original Approval: Representing the owners, Atty. Ebersol said he was sorry that at the public hearing the applicant did not make clear that his intent had always been that the purchasers would customize their units. He agreed with Mr. Owen's 6/7/07 letter that the record makes it sound like all the units would be identical. He said standard units would be sold and nothing extra installed until the purchaser decides what he wants.
Mrs. Friedman noted the affordable units were required to stay affordable. Atty. Ebersol said the state statute allows the purchaser to recoup the purchase price plus the cost of improvements.
Atty. Ebersol stated the entire economic viability of the project hinged on the ability of the developer to customize to sell what the buyer wants. He said the four affordable units would be sold for $275,000 to $350,000 less than the market rate units and the only way to make up the cost was to customize the other units and sell them for more. He noted the Affordable Housing statute says that a Commission may not impose conditions that would threaten the economic viability of the project.
Atty. Ebersol passed out marketing information that he said had been available to the Commission 10 months ago. Mr. Owen disagreed, saying this information was nothing like what the Commission had been told or had received at the hearing. Atty. Ebersol explained that every buyer must purchase the standard model shown on the back of the brochure, but each would have the right to make changes. Mr. Owen noted the approval had been for 13 units, all with the same floor plan.
Mr. Averill said he had understood that after the unit had been sold it could be modified. Atty. Ebersol explained that the modular units are made in a factory so it would make sense to make any changes at the time they are manufactured. Mr. Owen noted he had said the exact opposite during the hearing. Atty. Ebersol again apologized and said he was here to apply for a modification of the original approval.
Atty. Ebersol briefly described the various amenities packages and price list. He said, however, that a buyer did not have to purchase any of the amenities.
Mr. Shapiro noted the original proposed standard unit had been 1904 sq. ft. and the fully finished Berkshire unit would be 2700 sq. ft.
Atty. Ebersol did not understand why the amenities could be installed only after the purchase. To install them beforehand at the request of the purchaser made the project economically viable. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Fitzherbert asked, if all of the purchasers of the 9 market rate units wanted the standard unit only with no upgrades, then the project would not be economically feasible? Atty. Ebersol confirmed this was so. Mrs. Friedman asked if the purchasers would be required to do upgrades through the developer. Atty. Ebersol said they would not.
Atty. Ebersol briefly discussed comparability. He said this was covered in case law only; not in the statute. He said it covers size and workmanship only and that two attorneys he consulted with said the proposal meets these standards.
Mr. Owen noted that all of the statements at the public hearing had indicated the units would be identical, so discussion of this issue with the public had never taken place. He did not consider the proposal to be a minor amendment and said a hearing to consider the modification would be required.
Mr. Owen noted the issue was whether the developer could build markedly different units. Atty. Ebersol responded that everyone would purchase the standard unit.
Mr. Owen requested full information regarding what the developer was proposing to build. Atty. Ebersol said this was not known yet.
A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, August 27, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Public hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. This will be the second hearing.
Mr. Shapiro asked how what would be done in the Berkshire package, finishing the basement, differed from the comparability case where the second floor had been unfinished. Atty. Ebersol responded that in the case because the second floor was not finished, the number of bedrooms wasn't comparable.
Atty. Ebersol again stated that if purchasers could not customize their units through the developer, the project would not be economically viable. Several commissioners thought this should have been figured out at the time of the original application. Atty. Ebersol noted that first the applicant had proposed two different sized units, but later changed them to all the same size with the possibility of customizing.
Mr. Owen noted the proposed modification was a complete change from the original proposal.
The material submitted tonight will be forwarded to Atty. Zizka for his review.
Review of First Cut Process: Mrs. Friedman noted she had discovered that the Commission had recently acted on an incomplete first cut application and she wanted to make sure this did not happen again. Mr. Ajello said that although the site development plan had not been available for the Commission to review at the meeting, it had been on file in the Health Department. The other item, driveway feasibility sign off was subsequently taken care of by Mr. Smith of the highway department. Mr. Ajello suggested amending the Regulations to include a list of all of the requirements for a first cut application. Mr. Fitzherbert thought that the process for first cut applications was simpler than that for subdivisions. Mrs. Hill responded that in Washington applications for first cuts are required due to the soil based zoning requirements and that the purpose was to ensure that the first cut was an approved building lot. Therefore, strict documentation was required. Mr. Owen suggested that Mr. Ajello draft a check list to use when reviewing these applications.
New Application
Stiteler-Giddens/262 West Shore Road/Spedial Permit: Section 6.4.9/Boathouse: Atty. Kelly arrived late and asked for an update. Mr. Owen explained the Commission had tabled the application because there had not been enough information to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Ajello noted that Heath Department approval, Inland Wetlands approval, and a setback variance were all required for the application to be complete. Atty. Kelly argued that the Regulations state that setbacks do not apply to boathouses. Mr. Ajello said he would research the matter further. Atty. Kelly asked that the hearing be held at the July meeting and said the Commission could not require wetlands approval before scheduling a hearing date. Mrs. Hill explained per state statute the Commission has 65 days from the receipt date of an application in which to schedule the commencement of the required hearing. Mr. Owen noted that due to vacation difficulties, no hearings had been scheduled for July. Atty. Kelly asked if his clients could put up some type of temporary storage for the summer. Mr. Ajello noted the Zoning Regulations do not recognize temporary structures. Atty. Kelly asked if a trailer could be used temporarily for storage. Mr. Ajello recommended he consult with the DOT and said the Wetlands Commission would be concerned about the creation of a parking space. A public hearing was scheduled for August 27, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. This will be the third hearing.
Revision of the Regulations/Section 13.11/Accessory Apartments: Mr. Owen noted several weaknesses had been found in this section of the Regulations. He thought, however, that the intent as written in 13.11.1 was strong. It stated that it was not the Commission's intent that this section be used to circumvent soil based zoning. It had been noted during the previous discussion of the McTiernan application that the Commission had not anticipated such a small primary dwelling. Mr. Abella suggested that the Commission could require primary dwellings to be twice the size of the accessory apartment on the same lot. Mr. Owen noted in the past the Commission had discussed the possibility of not allowing apartments on properties that could not accommodate a second dwelling per soil based zoning. Mr. Ajello noted that in Warren accessory apartments are required to be located within 50 feet of the main house. Mrs. Friedman stated the Regulations had not always permitted apartments as large as 1200 sq. ft. and recommended the Commission return to the maximum size of 950 sq. ft. She thought the current language requiring apartments to be clearly subordinate should be retained. Mr. Ajello noted that today's housing needs might require slightly larger units. Mr. Abella thought 950 sq. ft. was not large enough. He did not favor decreasing the maximum size from 1200. Mrs. Hill briefly told of the changes to this section over the past 18 years; from a maximum of 1350 sq. ft, to 950, increased from 950 per request of the ZBA who was receiving too many variance requests, to a formula based on 30% of the floor area of larger homes, not to exceed 1500, and back down to 1200 sq. ft. Mrs. Friedman asked why two apartments; one attached, one detached, should be permitted on each property. She recommended that only one apartment be permitted per property. There was a consensus that only one apartment per property should be permitted. Mr. Fitzherbert said that any new regulations should not discriminate against the owners of smaller homes. The definition of floor area was briefly discussed. Mr. Ajello suggested that the accessory apartment regulations be tied in with the 75% requirement for accessory structures. Mrs. Hill cautioned the Commission not to define accessory apartments so narrowly that they could not be put in larger buildings such as old barns. Finished vs. unfinished areas were discussed. Mr. Ajello thought perhaps there could be maximum sq. footage set for both in the accessory apartment regs. It was noted there were many factors to consider. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Abella to draft revisions to use as the basis for discussion at future meetings.
Communications
Mr. Owen noted that the 6/7/07 letter he had written to Atty. Ebersol about the issue of comparability had been reviewed and revised by Atty. Zizka. Atty. Zizka had not signed it because he had not had time to review the tapes of the hearing.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello said he would ask Mr. Moore to remove the concrete slab next to the barn that had been recently rebuilt. He said Mr. Moore was working on getting a survey of his property. It was noted he would either have to move his business to a commercial property or to obtain a Special Permit for shop and storage use by contractors and building tradesmen for his residential property.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: May 25, 2007 May 21, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Sherratt, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Tagley, Mr./Mrs. Parsell, Mr. T. Parsell, Mr. Lasar, Mr./Mrs. McTiernan, Atty. Federer, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Wadelton, Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. Ebner-Martin, Mr./Mrs. Ebner, Residents
Mr. Owen called the Meeting/Public Hearings to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen for all of the following hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Demolish Lodge, Construct Larger Classroom Building, Construct Additions to Dormitory, Etc.
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/9/07 and 5/16/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, "Proposed Site Development Plan," by Arthur H. Howland, PC, revised to 4/11/07. He noted that the Health Department and the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application. He pointed out which of the accessory structures would be demolished, the proposed location of the new classroom building, how it would be pulled back from both boundary lines and from watercourses, and the dormitory where additions were proposed on the southwest side. He said the school was working for LEED certification.
Mr. Talbot, architect, noted there 9 buildings currently on the property, 4 would be demolished, and the new classroom building and a new accessory building for utilities would be constructed.
Mr. Owen read the 5/21/07 ZEO report.
Mrs. Friedman asked if there were coverage issues. Mr. Szymanski said, no, the property had 160 acres.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the proposed improvements would increase the potential for the school operation to increase in intensity. Mr. Ajello noted there were no immediate plans for expansion, but said in the long term the larger classroom building would make expansion possible. Mr. Sherratt briefly described the programs offered by the Horace Mann School and the number of students using the facility, which he said was maxed out at 1200 per year and said there were only four teachers and no plans to increase that number. He said the proposed layout would provide the school with more flexibility. Mr. Szymanski noted, too, that handicapped access would be improved.
There were no other questions or comments from the public or from the commissioners.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by John Dorr Nature Lab to demolish the lodge, construct a larger classroom building, construct additions to the dormitory, etc. at 220 Nettleton Hollow Road. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
McTiernan/53 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/9 and 5/16/07. Mr. Owen noted all the documents in the file.
Mr. Lasar, architect, noted the location of the 14 acre property where, he said, there was an existing 700 sq. ft. detached accessory apartment. The owners proposed to expand it to 1200 sq. ft. and to add a screened porch. He said the existing house was 1288 sq. ft. not including the garage.
Mr. Owen read the 5/21/07 ZEO report.
Mr. Ajello noted a sheet comparing the sizes of the apartment and primary dwelling was included in the application. Mr. Owen noted the figures were confusing because on this sheet the square footage for the house included the attached garage, but the apartment figures did not include the attached screen porch.
Mr. Shapiro noted Section 13.11 of the Regulations requires accessory apartments to be clearly subordinate to and lesser in size and scale than the primary structure. Mr. Owen agreed that clear subordination was a requirement.
Mr. Ajello referred to Section 12.5, which, he said, allowed an accessory building to be up to 75% of the ground floor area and volume of the primary building on the same property. Mr. Owen noted Section 13.11 applied to accessory apartments and read the intent of this section that states a second substantial dwelling on the same property shall not be permitted. He noted the proposed apartment was the maximum size permitted and very close in size to that of the existing dwelling.
Mr. Lasar said the property was 14 acres; large enough to accommodate the two dwelling units, the apartment was in the rear of the property and hidden from view, the apartment was 5 ft. less in height than the dwelling and had no foundation, the volume of the proposed apartment was less than the dwelling, the apartment had a hip roof, while the dwelling had a gable roof, and said the Regulations never anticipated a primary dwelling of only 1288 sq. ft.
Mr. Fitzherbert noted the Regs state the apartment must be smaller in size and scale than the principal dwelling, but asked whether that included only living area or the entire structure and if decks counted. It was noted for accurate comparisons, either both the dwelling's attached garage and the apartment's proposed screened porch should be counted for the size of the entire structure or neither should be counted if only living area was considered. Mr. Owen stated the Commission considers the entire building when reviewing the footprint.
The floor plans and elevations were compared. It was noted that each building had a deck, but they were not indicated on the floor plans.
Mr. Wyant noted he had been on the property and verified the existing accessory apartment was smaller and lower than the house. Mrs. Friedman noted, however, the applicant was proposing to increase the size of the apartment.
Mr. Owen noted the Commission had to carefully consider the application because it was "enough like what we're trying to avoid." He asked for revised plans that accurately reflected exactly what exists on the site and what was proposed and suggested the hearing be continued. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed that all of the information should be submitted before the Commission makes any decision regarding the scope and the size of the project. Mr. Averill also thought the plans should be complete so the two structures can be accurately compared before any action is taken. He thought a precedent might be set.
Mr. Ajello asked the applicant to update the figures on the comparison sheet.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. McTiernan for a detached accessory apartment at 52 Calhoun Street to Monday, June 25, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
At 8:17 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to 7:30 p.m. on 6/25/07 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Parsell/13 Top Pasture Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 8:18 p.m.. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/9 and 5/16/07 and Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 5/21/07 ZEO Report.
Mr. Parsell presented the floor plans and elevations, no date, no signature and the map, "Proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System," by Civil C1, dated 2/9/07.
Mr. Parsell noted the remodeling proposed for his existing house would increase the floor area from 2600 to 3400 sq. ft. He said the 3400 sq. ft. did not include the proposed addition to the garage or the proposed breezeway. The proposed 1200 sq. ft. apartment would have two stories. Mr. Owen noted the proposed additions to the existing dwelling and the proposed apartment would be considered as one application.
It was noted the proposed apartment was clearly subordinate to the main dwelling.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Parsell for a detached accessory apartment at 13 Top Pasture Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m.
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 2.3.2.g/ Prohibition of Drive Through Eating and Drinking Establishments
Mr. Owen called the hearing to order at 8:31 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/9 and 5/16/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file.
Mrs. Friedman explained the proposed revision was one of many approaches the Commission had considered to regulate eating and drinking establishments. She noted earlier proposals had been pared down on the advice of the Commission's counsel and said this was only the first step in drafting regulations to control these establishments. She read the specific language proposed and explained it would be included in Section 2.3.2.g, which was a list of uses prohibited throughout Town.
Mr. Owen noted the comments received from the surrounding councils of government indicated the proposed revision did not conflict with regulations in adjoining towns.
Mr. Owen explained under the new regulation, the Coffee Express in Marbledale would become a non conforming use.
There were no comments or questions from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 2.3.2.g to prohibit drive throug