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 the Town Clerk. Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.

---

General information about the Zoning Commission

Jump down to: December 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 9/25/07

CAPS = 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 9/25/07

Caps: 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 9/25/07

CAPS = 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 through eating and drinking establishments. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:39 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 4/23/07 Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To add subsequent business not already posted on the agenda: Other Business/Discussion of Village District regulations. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

Tatetuck Farm, LLC./165-171 Sabbaday Lane/First Cut

Mr. Owen read the 5/21/07 ZEO report.

Atty. Federer stated a first cut was proposed because the property had been in its current configuration since 1946. She pointed out the proposed 6.26 acre lot on the map, "Property/Boundary Survey. First Cut," by Mr. Alex, revised to 1/25/07. It was noted the residential density calculations were included on the map.

Mrs. Friedman asked if the deeds had been checked to make sure this qualified as a first cut. Mr. Ajello said this had been done. He also noted the required form had been filled out and there were no conservation easements on the property.

MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Tattatuck Farm, LLC. for a first cut at 165-171 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Demolish Lodge, Build Larger Classroom Building, Additions to Dormitory, Etc.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by John Dorr Nature Lab to demolish the existing lodge, build a larger classroom building, construct additions to the dormitory, etc. at 220 Nettleton Hollow Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

The public hearing was continued to 7:30 p.m. on June 25, 2007.

Parsell/13 Top Pasture Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen noted for the record that the size and scale of the proposed apartment were not issues in this case; the apartment was clearly subordinate to the primary dwelling in all respects.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Parsell for a detached accessory apartment at 13 Top Pasture Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Preliminary Discussion/Ebner/Mt. Tom Road/Camp Expansion: Mr. Owen read the 5/21/07 ZEO Report. Ms. Ebner-Martin circulated a statement to the Commission and information from the American Camp Assn. She said they had purchased the adjoining 52 acres and hoped to expand the camp to this property and expand to a year round operation. Mr. Ajello noted camps are not a permitted use in the R-1 District and so expansion to the newly purchased lot would not be possible under the current Regulations. Ms. Ebner-Martin noted that the existing camp did not qualify as a school under Zoning's definition of school because it is not certified by the state Dept. of Education. Mrs. Hill suggested as a first step that the property owners combine the two lots. When Ms. Ebner-Martin said she planned to build a house and reside on the new property, Mr. Ajello suggested a lot line revision where just enough of the parcel needed to support a dwelling unit per soil based zoning would remain as a separate lot with the remainder joined to the existing camp property. Mr. Ajello explained the Ebners could not apply for a variance to expand the camp because there is no hardship. And he noted the Commission might not want to consider adding camps to the uses permitted in the R-1 District as that would then apply to the entire District and not just this property. It was thought then that perhaps the Commission could consider a revision of the Regs similar to the recent amendment for existing golf courses in the R-1 District, and revise the Regs to permit the expansion of existing non conforming camp use by Special Permit. There was general agreement that this would be the most efficient way to proceed. Mr. Owen recommended that the property owners consult with Mrs. Hill and Mr. Ajello about how to petition to amend the Regulations.

Wright/14 Kinney Hill Road/Renewal of Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: It was noted this was a two year permit that may be renewed without a public hearing. Mr. Ajello noted that in previous years complaints had been received about on street parking, but that the Wrights had moved employee parking to an area behind the barn. Mr. Owen read the 5/21/07 ZEO report. There were no questions or comments from the commissioners.

MOTION: To approve a two year extension of the Special Permit: Section 13.16 issued to Mr. Wright for shop and storage use by contractors and building tradesmen at 14 Kinney Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Discussion Re: Comparability

MOTION: To enter executive session at 9:05 p.m. to discuss Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/ Comparability. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To end executive session at 9:40 p.m. By Mr. Fitzpatrick, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 2.3.2.g/Prohibition of Drive Through Eating and Drinking Establishments

MOTION: To approve the revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations to add Section 2.3.2.g: prohibition of drive through eating and drinking establishments. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

Communications

Mr. Owen noted the Ct. Siting Council would conduct a public hearing on the Verizon cell tower application for two Marbledale locations at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in Bryan Memorial Town Hall on June 21, 2007.

Privilege of the Floor

Atty. Ebersol addressed the Commission about Myfield, LLC. He noted he had written to the Commission's counsel, Atty. Zizka, regarding the issue of comparability but had received no official response from the Commission. He noted 13 units had been approved that basically would look the same from the outside, but that could be customized by their owners on the inside. Units #5 and #6, he said, had been built; Unit #5 a standard unit and Unit #6 customized to illustrate what could be done with a unit. He said the owners had not realize the Commission wanted all of the units to be identical, noting at the March 2006 session of the public hearing, the Commission had suggested that when the units were done the architect certify they were of comparable size and workmanship. He submitted a copy of the March 2006 minutes. He also noted that Commission had asked that the units be comparable, not identical, and so it had been understood that customizing would be OK. He pointed out the fourth condition of approval, which stated that any design changes must come to the Commission for approval, and apologized if the Commission thought this was the type of design change that required further approval. He also stated the owners did not want to prolong this matter and would work with the Commission to resolve it.

Enforcement

Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello reported the Inland Wetlands Commission was making progress in resolving the violations on this property. He said Mr. Moore would soon apply for a zoning permit to bring two existing buildings into compliance with the Regs and for a Special Permit for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen.

Other Business

Village District Regulations: Mrs. Hill circulated draft regulations from Kent and the 4/25/07 draft regs by Mr. Boling, "Town of Washington Possible Village District Overlay Zone." Mrs. Friedman noted Atty. Zizka had suggested that enacting Village District regulations was a way to control the type of development done in the village centers. Mr. Owen noted the places in Town that are the most vulnerable seem to be the most difficult locations in which to control development. Mrs. Friedman was not sure whether Village District regs would be effective in Marbledale. Mrs. Hill thought they would work well in Marbledale if a description of the district such as the descriptions in the Kent draft were used as the basis for the standards that would be used to evaluate applications. It was also noted that Village District regs would add a layer of bureaucracy to the application process. Mrs. Hill noted, however, this would not mean more work for the Zoning Commission since an architectural review board or consultant would be doing the bulk of the added review. The commissioners were asked to study the drafts so the Village District concept could be discussed at the next meeting.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Plourde complained to the Commission that he was being singled out for several enforcement matters. He asked that the Regulations be administered fairly and equally. Mr. Owen asked him to put his complaints in writing and in the meantime to comply with the Regulations.

Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

Posted: April 26, 2007

April 23, 2007

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Papsin, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Boling, Ms. Dupuis, Press

Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 3/26/07 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14/ Renewal of Bed and Breakfast Establishment

Mr. Owen read the 4/23/07 ZEO Report, which stated the owner lives on the premises, the permit was first granted in 2001, and there have been no complaints received since it began operating. The Special Permit had been renewed once before in 2004.

MOTION: To approve the renewal of the Special Permit: Section 13.14 issued to Mrs. Murgio to operate a bed and breakfast establishment at 21 New Preston Hill Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

John Dorr Nature Lab/220 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Demolish Lodge, Construct Enlarged Classroom Building, Additions to Dormitory:

Mr. Owen read the 4/23/07 ZEO Report, which noted the improvements are in anticipation of expanded programs in the future. It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet approved the application. Mr. Ajello said he would ask the applicant to submit photos of the site for the public hearing. The hearing was scheduled for Monday, May 21, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

McTiernan/52 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: 13.11/Enlargement of Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen read the 4/23/07 ZEO Report, which noted the Health Department had not yet approved the application. A public hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room immediately following the John Dorr Nature Lab hearing.

Parsell/13 Top Pasture Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen read the 4/23/07 ZEO Report. It was noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet approved the application. A public hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room immediately following the McTiernan hearing.

Other Business

Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Discussion Regarding Comparability: Mrs. Friedman said it had come to her attention that the two units that have been constructed are comparable on the outside, but not on the inside. She suggested the Commission schedule a site inspection to compare them. Mr. Ajello said he had made an inspection and was told these were model units to show what it was possible to order. He said there was quality construction in both, but the market rate unit had granite tile, more wood floors, better light fixtures, a larger tub, etc. Mr. Owen reviewed the interior specs that had been submitted and noted the units were supposed to be identical, although he realized that once people move in they may make interior changes. Mr. Ajello also noted there were minor differences in the partioning; that the market rate unit had a smaller third bedroom to accommodate a larger bathroom. He said the major differences between the two units were 1) the large oval soak tub, 2) the French doors opening into the yard, and 3) the forced air furnace, which would be more easily adaptable for air conditioning in the market rate unit. Mr. Owen noted comparability was one area the Commission had some control over, and stated it was not the intent of the Zoning Commission to enable developers to use the Affordable Housing Appeals Act to build completely different units. He said they did not have to be identical, but had to be comparable. If the market rate unit were truly comparable, he said, then the developer should have no problem offering it at the affordable price. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Shapiro to discuss the comparability issue with Atty. Zizka and this matter will be discussed more fully at the next meeting.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments in All Commercial Districts: Mrs. Friedman noted that Atty. Zizka did not support the proposed language, which had been discussed at the last meeting, to ban formula restaurants. Mr. Owen said, therefore, the Commission was moving forward with a public hearing only to consider prohibiting drive-through establishments. Mrs. Friedman said Atty. Zizka had recommended the establishment of Village District regulations to regulate restaurants. She thought this was an important issue and so the Commission should reconsider Village District regulations. She thought that the proposed ban on drive through restaurants would not be adequate and that if a fast food restaurant moved to Washington the public would ask why the Zoning Commission had not taken any preventive measures in advance. Mr. Boling explained Village District regulations would enable the Commission to consider proposals in the context of what already exists in the district. He said the administration would not be difficult. Per statute, the Commission could hire a consultant, such as an architect or Planimetrics or Robert Orr, or establish an advisory panel who would determine whether the proposal fit the district or not. Mrs. Hill circulated copies of Section 8-2j of the state statutes, which governs Village Districts. Mr. Owen asked the commissioners to review it before the next meeting. Mrs. Friedman will study this issue and report back to the Commission. Mr. Boling offered to share a draft Village District regulation he wrote eight years ago to help her with her review.

Privilege of the Floor

Atty. Fisher appeared on behalf of the property owners of the Wykeham Rise School property on Wykeham Road to discuss possible uses for that property. He said such uses would have to be in compliance with the Regulations and good for the Town. He noted that the existing buildings were not suited for residential purposes and that while the property was suited for residential use, it was not suited for a traditional subdivision. An aerial photo and topographic map were reviewed. One possibility for the property was to sell it to another educational institution. He noted another of the possibilities being considered by the owners was cluster housing with a percentage of affordable units. He asked the Commission for its thoughts regarding locating the affordable housing off site and clustering higher end houses for older adults on this property. He said he understood that currently cluster housing is not permitted under the Zoning Regulations and so an amendment would be required. It was noted an amendment would not be required for cluster housing under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act. First, Mr. Owen advised Atty. Fisher to review the Myfield, LLC. file regarding the issue of comparability. Mr. Averill noted that in addition to the requirement that the construction of the units be comparable, he thought that even if the units were identical, that due to the real estate market, units in different locations would not be comparable. Mr. Owen agreed and advised Atty. Fisher the Commission had objected to an earlier plan for Myfield with the affordable units located to one side of the property with a separate driveway. Atty. Fisher asked whether there was a sense that the Commission would amend its Regulations if it received a petition to permit cluster housing. Mr. Owen said the Commission would review whatever petition it received, but had recently decided that to allow cluster housing would result in a significant increase in population and infrastructure, but would result in greater difficulty in reaching the state goal of 10% affordable units in Town. It was also noted that the construction of cluster housing would also change the character of Town. It was the consensus that the Zoning commissioners did not want to skew development in Washington so that it would become more "Heritage Village" like. Mr. Boling agreed, but noted Washington has many residents who want to stay in Town, but want some kind of cluster higher end units. He suggested the Commission might consider a transfer of development rights where, for example, if twenty cluster units were approved, the developer would have to preserve land with twenty density units elsewhere in Town or on the same property. Atty. Fisher said he had discussed the property with Mr. Sears who had asked if it would be suitable for an assisted living facility. It was noted there was an adequate septic system recently installed, but that it would require that the existing buildings be torn down. It was also noted that convalescent homes are permitted in the R-1 District, but not assisted living facilities and that any proposal to amend the Regulations would have to take the entire R-1 District into consideration, not just this property. Mr. Owen said he would look further into the definition of convalescent home and the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development.

Mr. Papsin, Mygatt Road, asked if there was a timetable for the completion of Myfield. He noted the constant noise from trucks and construction equipment is disturbing to the neighborhood. Mr. Ajello responded that there was no timetable, but that the bulk of the required site work would soon be completed and so the situation should improve. Mr. Papsin also noted the porches seem to be sagging in the middle. Mr. Ajello said that was a Building Department issue.

Mr. Ajello noted he had received several inquiries about wind turbines and that Section 12.5.4 is in place to govern them. Their height is limited to 70 feet, they require fencing and other safety measures, etc. However, Mr. Ajello pointed out that Section 12.1 regulates noise generating equipment and it might be difficult for property owners to prove to the ZBA that locating a windmill more than 25 feet from the principal structure it serves will result in less noise for adjoining properties. It was the consensus of the Zoning commissioners that there would not likely be many applications for windmills and that the ZBA could use its best judgement regarding whether to grant a variance in cases where property owners did not want the windmill to be located so close to their houses.

Enforcement

Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello reported recent progress by the Inland Wetlands Commission to resolve its enforcement issues with Mr. Moore. He listed the current zoning violations on the Moore property; none have zoning permits: 1) a building was enlarged and constructed too close to the property line, 2) a paved parking area/sports court was installed, and 3) a commercial landscaping business is operating in the R-1 zone. He noted he sent Mr. Moore a letter on 4/9/07 to inform him that enforcement proceedings would begin. Mr. Owen noted that if it became necessary to fine him, the Commission would vote to authorize Mr. Ajello to do so.

Outdoor Residential Lighting: Mr. Ajello noted the new regulations state that no light shall be directed towards the sky, but asked how the lighting of trees should be handled. Mr. Owen said the decorative lighting of trees was prohibited. It was noted the school campuses are offensive and it was hoped school officials or students working with the WEC would take it upon themselves to make improvements. Mr. Ajello said he would remind the Building Official that outdoor residential lighting now requires a zoning permit.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, LU Coordinator

---

Posted: March 30, 2007

March 26, 2007

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert

ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Wyant

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Rosiello, Mrs. Frank, Mr. Tagley, Mr. Hart Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Avery, Mrs. Hardee, Mr. Caroe Mr. Sears, Mrs. Payne, Mr. Bennett, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 12.15: Outdoor Residential Lighting and Related Revisions

Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Wyant for Mr. Abella. He noted the revised version of the proposed regulations had been posted last month n the Town website for public review.

Mr. Owen explained the proposal to regulate outdoor lighting in the residential districts. First he read the intent of the regulation, explained that outdoor lighting would be required to be shielded and aimed so that the light source could not be seen from beyond the property served, and noted a chart was included to illustrate the preferred types of outdoor lighting fixtures. He explained several of the proposed provisions; that night time activities shall be illuminated only when they are underway, that illumination of landscaping shall be prohibited (except for the lighting of the American flag), no lighting may be aimed at the sky or directed off the property, security lighting shall be directed downward and toward the structure to be protected, exterior lighting shall not be installed higher than 15 ft. above the ground or more than 30 ft. from the object being illuminated, and that temporary traditional holiday lighting would be permitted without a permit. He noted there were also non binding guidelines and recommendations that were included such as use of lamps of the lowest effective wattage, use of sensor activated fixtures, keeping outdoor lighting to a minimum, and turning off unnecessary exterior lighting. In addition, he stated requirements were proposed that outdoor sports courts in all districts shall be unilluminated, that the location and description of all exterior lighting fixtures shall be included on sketch plans and site plans, and Section 16.3.4 would be added to regulate the illumination of signs. The reasons he gave for the proposed regulations included to prevent lighting from becoming a nuisance to neighbors, to protect the view of the night sky, to preserve rural character, to protect our natural resources, and to increase the effectiveness of security lighting.

Mrs. Friedman noted the proposed regulations would not impact existing outdoor lighting and that the Commission might recommend to the Board of Selectmen that it write an ordinance that would govern both existing and proposed outdoor lighting throughout Town.

Mr. Owen noted the Commission had received several complaints about existing outdoor lighting.

There were no comments or questions from the commissioners.

Mrs. Frank thought the proposed regulations were a good idea, supported the adoption of a Town ordinance, asked that this subject be featured in the Town newsletter to remind residents to correct excesses, and asked that the Town Hall comply with the new regulations to set an example. Mr. Owen agreed the existing lighting at the Town Hall is a good example of bad lighting and explained several effective ways it could be changed to provide more effective illumination, while still meeting the building code requirements. He, too, hoped the Town Hall would become a leader and that also the schools, who are major contributors to night time lighting in Town, would take a leadership role to reduce light pollution.

Mr. Rosiello, a landscape designer, thought the Commission should address poorly designed and poorly aimed landscaping lighting rather than totally prohibiting it. He suggested neighbors should talk to their neighbors about nuisance lighting before complaining to the Zoning Commission and said proper outdoor lighting can help residents enjoy their properties and gardens at night. He noted Dark Skies International has acceptable light fixtures for outdoor sports courts and that all acceptable light fixtures are not included in the proposed chart. Mr. Owen said the chart was meant as a source of information and read from Section 12.15.1, which stated that fixtures similar to the ones shown in the chart could be used if they meet the requirements of 12.15.1. Mr. Rosiello noted most of the outdoor lighting regulations he had read addressed industrial areas and thought the Washington proposal was extreme for a residential area. Mr. Owen stated the Commission had attempted to keep the proposed regulations "vague" enough so there would not be any necessary lighting function that could not be done. Mr. Rosiello agreed improper outdoor lighting was a problem, but said the lighting of key landscaping features and lighting to get from one place to another should be permitted. Mrs. Friedman responded that it was not possible to propose a regulation that states, "Do it the right way and you're OK." She explained the Zoning Commission was handling the problem in the only way it is equipped to. Mr. Rosiello complained that staff comments noted the proposed regulations would be too vague to enforce and he asked how good vs. poor lighting would be determined. Mr. Owen said many of the staff comments had already been addressed in the revised proposal under discussion tonight and that the Commission had tried to focus on enforceable provisions. He, too, thought the Commission might recommend a simple townwide ordinance so that when the threshold of offense is met, the Town could ask that those fixtures be replaced. He said the Commission's immediate goal was to increase public awareness and that the next step would be regulations to govern outdoor lighting in the business districts.

Mrs. Frank suggested that the Washington Environmental Council become involved and work with the Commission to change the Town's culture so that residents turn off lighting two hours after sunset. She said this would save electricity and the night sky. Mr. Owen noted the 3/11/07 letter from Mrs. Arturi of WEC, which supported the proposed regulations and encouraged the adoption of similar outdoor lighting regs for the commercial districts.

Mr. Bennett of Kent Greenhouse asked what the procedure would be for the approval of residential lighting. Mr. Owen responded proposed fixtures would be shown on the sketch plans and site plans submitted with zoning and Special Permit applications.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the following sections of the Washington Zoning Regulations: 1) proposed Section 12.15: Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts, 2) Sections 4.3.8, 5.3.6, 6.3.6, 7.3.18, 8.3.19, 9.3.6, and 10.3.5: requirement that outdoor sports courts in all districts be unilluminated, 3) Sections 14.2.e and 14.3.l: requirement that all sketch plans and site plans submitted with zoning and Special Permit applications include the location and description of all exterior lighting fixtures, and 4) proposed Section 16.3.4: regulation of illumination of signs. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 4-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 13.20: Outdoor Wood Burning Furnaces and Related Revisions

Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. and noted since the last meeting the only new information to be submitted were the info sheets, "Outdoor Furnace Facts," dated 1/29/07 by Central Boiler, a furnace manufacturer.

Mr. Owen explained that at recent meetings the Commission had discussed banning outdoor wood burning furnaces, but after consulting with Atty. Zizka, now proposed to permit them by Special Permit. He noted the state empowered the Town to enforce the state regs; 1) that outdoor wood burning furnaces be located at least 200 feet from the nearest residence other than the residence being served, 2) the furnace chimney must be taller than the height of the roof peaks located within a specified distance of the furnace, and 3) only wood that hasn't been chemically treated may be burned in them. Mr. Owen proposed that they be permitted by Special Permit as long as they met the following criteria: 1) all applicable Ct. statutes are met, 2) the property owner signs a statement that all applicable Ct. statutes will be met, 3) an acceptable plan is submitted with the application, and 4) the permit would be good for three years and could be renewed without reapplication if it is found upon inspection that it remains in compliance with the state statutes. He said Atty. Zizka thought it would be difficult to use the Special Permit process to determine some proposed furnaces would be OK, while others would not, but Mr. Owen disagreed. He noted the Zoning Commission already regulates these furnaces because they are structures and said the Special Permit process would not impose stricter standards than those that already exist at the local and state level. He thought the public hearing requirement would provide neighbors the opportunity to voice their opinions and to see that the owner had agreed in writing to meet all applicable state laws.

It was noted any outdoor wood burning furnace already in existence would be grandfathered.

Mr. Ajello suggested outdoor wood burning furnaces be permitted to operate from November through March only. Mr. Owen read this portion of the 3/26/07 ZEO Report.

Mrs. Moriniere asked why these furnaces should be banned. Mr. Ajello said there had been complaints about smoky boilers, which send particulates and pollution into the air. Mr. Averill noted the physics involved in the operation of a furnace requires a maximum 10 foot smoke stack so the smoke stays low to the ground.

A Cook Street resident asked what the difference was between a wood boiler with a low stack and a wood stove chimney. Smoke comes out of both and would linger in a valley, he said. Mr. Ajello said the outdoor furnace would be much larger.

Mrs. Moriniere did not think the outdoor furnaces should be prohibited. Mr. Owen explained again that that had been the original proposal, but in response to comments made at the last hearing, the proposal had been revised to permit them by Special Permit. He said the Commission intended to affirm it would enforce the existing regulations and create a forum for neighbors, but would not ban them.

Mrs. Frank asked if the state has air quality measurement requirements. Mr. Ajello noted there was a DEP fact sheet, which stated pollution levels increased with outdoor wood burning furnaces.

The Cook Street resident said November through March was not a long enough operating season. Mrs. Moriniere agreed. Mr. Ajello stated a wood furnace sized to heat a house during the winter would be too large to use in the spring and the fall and also said the building code does not allow wood heat to be the only form of heat in a house, so the supplemental heating system could be used in the warmer months.

Mr. Owen noted the letter sent by Mr. and Mrs. Averill who supported the use of outdoor wood burning furnaces for agricultural properties and asked whether a farm would require a longer operational season for an outdoor furnace. After a brief discussion, the commissioners set the following limitation; they may not be operated between May 1 and September 30.

Mr. Sears noted those who install outdoor wood burning furnaces have made a substantial commitment to a life style favoring renewable energy and asked if it would be fair to limit those who use them to heat their hot water to the winter months only. Mr. Averill said idling the wood furnace to heat hot water only during the warmer months would not be using it efficiently and so said he favored a seasonal limitation.

Mr. Ajello suggested the proposed definition be amended to change the term, solid waste, to solid fuel. Mr. Owen agreed, noting the state statute does not allow the burning of solid waste in the outdoor furnaces.

Mr. DiBenedetto noted if a seasonal limitation were imposed, outdoor wood burning furnaces could not be used to heat swimming pools. Mr. Owen said that was correct. Mr. Ajello pointed out that an indoor boiler could be used for this purpose.

There were no other comments or questions from the public.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: 1) Section 13.20 to permit outdoor wood burning furnaces by Special Permit, 2) to add the definition of outdoor wood burning furnace to Section 21.1, and 3) to add Outdoor Wood Burning Furnace to the list of uses permitted by Special Permit in each district. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 4-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 8:41 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Wyant.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 2/26/07 Minutes were accepted as corrected.

Page 6: Change the last sentence in the next to the last paragraph to: An alternate approach would be a Town ordinance to prohibit them.

Page 9: It should be noted the Verizon cell tower application is to the Ct. Siting Council, not the Zoning Commission.

Page 9: Under Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Delete the sentence beginning in the 5th line, He stated the Town....

MOTION: To accept the 2/26/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 4-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.15/Outdoor Residential Lighting and Related Revisions

MOTION: To approve the following revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: 1) addition of Section 12.15: Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts, 2) addition of the requirement in Sections 4.3.8, 5.3.6, 6.3.6, 7.3.18, 8.3.19, 9.3.6, and 10.3.5 that outdoor sports courts in all districts shall be unilluminated, 3) addition of the requirement in Sections 14.2.e and 14.3.l that all sketch plans and site plans submitted with zoning and Special Permit applications shall include the location and description of all exterior lighting fixtures, and 4) addition of Section 16.3.4 to regulate the illumination of signs. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 4-0.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.20: Outdoor Wood Burning Furnaces and Related Revisions

It was agreed that the seasonal limitation, banning the operation of outdoor wood burning furnaces between May 1 and September 30, should be added as Section 13.20.3 and the original 13.20.3 changed to 13.20.4. Also, it was again noted that the definition of Outdoor Wood Burning Furnace should be amended to refer to solid fuel, not solid waste. There was a 5 minute recess from 8:45 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. to make copies of the proposal to facilitate the discussion. It was also noted this use should be added to the list of uses permitted by Special Permit in all districts.

MOTION: To approve the revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations as revised at the 3/26/07 Commission meeting to 1) add Section 13.20 to permit outdoor wood burning furnaces by Special Permit, 2) add the definition of Outdoor Wood Burning Furnace to Section 21.1, and 3) to add Outdoor Wood Burning Furnace to the list of uses permitted by Special Permit in each district. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 4-0.

Mr. Owen noted the order of the agenda would be altered to accommodate those present.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.19: Tele- communications Antennae, Towers, and Facilities and Verizon Cell Tower Application to the Ct. Siting Council

Mr. Owen read the following statement:

After consultation with our land use attorney, we decided to consider deleting our telecommunications regulations because their main effect has always been to confuse people, by suggesting that the Zoning Commission has regulatory powers that it does not, in fact, have. Despite what our comprehensive-sounding regulations suggest, municipalities in Connecticut have no regulatory power over free-standing telecommunications towers. Our proposal to delete these regulations was unrelated to Verizon's current proposal to the Connecticut Siting Council to place a tower in Washington, but because of its timing its main effect has probably been to confuse people even more. I therefore suggest that we withdraw our current proposal, and postpone any consideration of altering our telecommunications regulations until after the Siting Council has made its decision regarding Verizon's proposed tower.

I want to remind the Zoning Commission and all residents of Washington that Verizon has not applied for, and does not need to apply for, any sort of permit or approval from Zoning or any other Washington agency. Cell towers are governed exclusively by state and federal law, and decisions about their placement are made by the Siting Council. Municipalities can attempt to influence the Siting Council's choice of sites, but by both state and federal law they cannot simply impede the spread of the national telecommunications network, and the kinds of input they can offer are limited. (Connecticut state law does reserve for municipalities the power to regulate the placement of telecommunications facilities inside existing structures, such as church steeples and clock towers, but that is not what Verizon is seeking.) The Zoning Commission deserves neither credit nor blame (depending on one's point of view) for the fact that Washington has minimal cell service. The explanation for that is economic: we are too sparsely populated (and probably have too many large hills) to have been a priority for wireless providers.

The commissioners unanimously agreed with Mr. Owen's suggestion to withdraw the proposal to delete Section 13.19.

Mr. Owen invited Mr. Sears, First Selectman, and Mrs. Payne, Conservation Commission chairman, to discuss the Verizon cell tower application to the Ct. Siting Council. He briefly described the procedure the Town had followed when it had applied for intervener status during a similar application for a tower on a site along Rt. 109 in New Milford and he noted the Town is concerned about the health, safety, and welfare of its residents and about environmental impacts and adverse impacts to property values.

Mrs. Payne noted that she and the Conservation Commission's cell tower subcommittee had requested that the Board of Selectmen hire an RF engineer to assess the adequacy of telecommunications coverage along the Rt. 202 corridor and to hire an attorney to represent the Town as an intervener. Mr. Owen noted that if the Town wanted to tell the Siting Council that neither proposed tower site was OK, it would have to submit scientific evidence; testimony taken at the public input session would not be adequate.

Mr. Owen said the Washington Zoning Regulations do not apply to this application, but they could, perhaps, influence the Siting Council. He briefly reviewed the sections of 13.19, which were confusing and seemingly contradictory and noted there was no basis of support in the Zoning Regulations to support the Conservation Commission's suggested strategy.

Mr. Owen asked Mr. Sears what role, if any, the Board of Selectmen wanted the Zoning Commission to take in this matter. Mr. Sears responded the first step would be not to alter the Zoning Regulations at this time. Mrs. Payne agreed. Mr. Owen thought the Town's experience with the Siting Council regarding Verizon's current application would be a good guide as to whether the Siting Council would pay attention to the Town's regulations or whether Section 13.19 should be deleted in the future. He suggested another option might be the adoption of a provision in the Zoning Regulations to ban telecommunications facilities except as required by state and federal law. Mr. Sears stated the Town would apply for intervener status as recommended by the Conservation Commission, but had not yet decided whether to hire an attorney or an RF engineer.

It was noted that in 2002 when Washington made a case against the proposed tower on Rt. 109 in New Milford it had based its arguments on the Town Plan of Conservation and

Development, but that this had not changed the outcome. Mr. Sears asked if any towns had ever had an impact on a decision by the Siting Council, but this was not known.

Mrs. Payne noted there was another application pending for a tower at the Northville Firehouse and that many people thought the Siting Council should wait to see if that would increase coverage along Rt. 202 before acting on the application for Marbledale. Mr. Owen said he understood from Atty. Zizka that already having adequate coverage would be a legitimate argument to make to the Siting Council, but that the claim would have to be backed up with facts.

Mr. Owen suggested a Town meeting be held to discuss whether or not to hire an attorney and a consultant to oversee the cell tower application process and to consider how much each would cost the Town.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments and Related Revisions

Mrs. Friedman read two proposed bans, Section 2.3.2.g: Formula restaurants, which by the nature of their standardized appearance and operations undermine the unique rural character of the Town and 2.3.2.h: Eating and drinking establishments that serve customers who are in motor vehicles. She then read a proposed definition for Formula Restaurant: An eating and drinking establishment that is devoted to the preparation and offering of food and beverages for sale to the public for consumption either on or off the premises, and is required by contractual, franchise, or other arrangements to be closely similar to related establishments in other communities in regard to standardized menus, food preparation, dcor, architecture, uniforms, signage, trademarks, and the like. Other minor revisions proposed were to use the term, eating and drinking establishments throughout the Regulations because it is a broader term than restaurant and to change the language in Sections 9.4.1.d and 10.4.1.a to make it consistent. Mr. Averill said, and the other commissioners agreed, that this was a better approach than what had previously been considered. Mr. Owen thanked Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Boling for their research. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, May 21, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

Rural Roadscape Zone - 12/6/06 Draft: This document had been circulated at a previous meeting. It was the consensus that it was unfocussed and would be difficult to enforce and that the Town already had the Scenic Road Ordinance that partially addressed the concerns of the proposed Rural Roadscape Zone. The commissioners decided not to proceed with further discussion about this proposal, but instead to concentrate their efforts on lighting regulations.

Enforcement

Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Unauthorized Commercial Use of Residential Property: Mr. Ajello said he would remind Mr. Moore that he would have to apply for structures built without permits and for the ongoing commercial use of the property.

Mr. Owen asked Mr. Ajello to check to determine whether the signs at Marty's on Green Hill Road comply with the Regulations as the name on the awning makes it a sign.

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

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

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

Posted: March 13, 2007

March 5, 2007

Town Informational Meeting

Public Input Meeting

Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility Application

PRESENT: Verizon Representatives: Atty. Baldwin, Mr. Nolan, Ms. Carter, Mr. Crotty, Mr. Libertine, Mr. Centore

Moderator: Mr. Fairbairn

Town Staff: Mrs. Hill, Mr. Sears, Mr. Solley

Mrs. Buonaiuto, Mr. Cornet, Ms. Dupuis. Ms. Levitt, Mr. Mustich, Mr. Zinick, Mrs. Avery, Mr. Swain, Mr. Papsin Mrs. Matthews, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Tagley, Mrs. Payne, Mr. Finkler, Mrs. Sutter, Ms. Canning, Ms. Bachelier, Ms. Moliniere, Mr. Dean, Mr. Stange, Mr. Hardy, Mrs. Shepard, Mrs. Roth, Mr. Dutton, Mrs. McNamara, Residents - approx. 50 total, Press

Mr Fairbairn called the meeting to order and noted it would be conducted in two parts: 1) a presentation by the Verizon representatives and 2) public comment and questions. He noted full jurisdiction regarding telecommunications towers rests with the Ct. Siting Council and said a summary of all public remarks would be forwarded to the Council.

Mr. Swain raised a point of order that the Meeting had originally been noticed as a special Zoning Commission meeting, but there were no Zoning commissioners present. He also asked whether it was a meeting or a hearing. Mr. Fairbairn explained the meeting was being conducted as part of the cell tower application process to give the Town an opportunity to comment on the alternate locations proposed. He noted it was not a formal Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Swain asked who would prepare the summary to be sent to the Council. Mr. Fairbairn said Mrs. Hill would write it.

Verizon Presentation:

Atty. Baldwin from Robinson and Cole spoke on behalf of Verizon and introduced the other Verizon representatives listed above. He noted the Town had 60 days from 1/19/07 in which to comment to the Siting Council, the goal of Verizon's presentation was to increase public awareness of the proposal, and it was expected the application would be submitted to the Siting Council on 3/22/07. He described the two proposed alternative locations:

1) the Underwood property at 6 (or 16) Mountain Road and 2) the Waldron property at 167 New Milford Turnpike. He explained this was Phase II of Verizon's build-out plans and that any other suggestions from the public regarding other appropriate locations for cell towers would be considered and incorporated into the Siting Council application.

Mr. Centore, P.E., senior project manager, spoke on the infrastructure and specific sites. On the Underwood site, #1, the tower would be located at the NE corner of a 32 acre parcel requiring an approximate 1000 ft. accessway, 128 ft. of which would be new construction. 24 trees would have to be cut to construct the compound. The Underwood property is located in the Farming-Residential District. On the Waldron site, #2, the tower would be located at the NE corner of the 1.25 acre property. The access would be 350 ft. long, approximately 90 ft. of this would be new construction. Due to the grade of the property, the facility would be located on three tiers separated by retaining walls. The Waldron property is located in the Marbledale Business District. Both sites would have gravel driveways and compound sites to minimize drainage concerns. Each would have an 8 ft. high chain link fence surrounding a 157 ft. mono pine tower capable of accommodating four carriers. Both would be served by underground utilities from the street.

Atty. Baldwin noted the mono pine would not look like the one on the Mass Pike or the Hutchinson River Parkway. The new "pines" are better looking. He said the Siting Council would determine whether a pole or a pine would be the more appropriate for Marbledale.

Mr. Crotty said each of the proposed sites would provide coverage for approximately 3.5 miles along Rt. 202.

Mr. Libertine, Director of Environmental Services, assessed the year round visibility of each of the proposed towers, prepared simulated photos to show how visible the towers would be from some other areas of Town within 2 miles of the sites, and drafted a preliminary viewshed map. The Underwood site was visible from 48 acres within the study area, while the Waldron site was visible from only 26 acres. He noted each site would be backed by a hillside, so the combination of topography and foliage would work together to help make the towers less visible.

Atty. Baldwin explained the notice requirements Verizon would be required to fulfill when the application to the Siting Council is submitted and also the Siting Council's usual procedures for processing these applications.

Public Comment:

Mrs. Sutter asked why the existing high tension wires near Rt. 45 could not be used to mount the antennae so a new tower would not have to be constructed. Mr. Baldwin said this is possible to do when the existing poles are properly located to provide the coverage needed. He said the Siting Council requires that use of existing structures be considered first, that this had been done, and it was determined this would not provide the needed additional coverage along Rt. 202. In addition to the coverage along Rt. 202, he stated Site #1 (Underwood) would also provide coverage for 4.5 sq. miles and Site #2 (Waldron) would provide it for 3.6 sq. miles. He noted Washington was a difficult town to provide coverage for due to its topography, but said Verizon would take another look at the existing power lines.

Ms. Canning asked for clarification regarding what one of the Verizon representatives had meant when he used the term, "future expansion." Atty. Baldwin said this meant each tower was designed so other carriers could share it and that the compounds were designed so there would be enough room for the equipment and shelters for each of the other carriers.

Mrs. Bachelier asked if Verizon had signed a contract for the use of the Northville Firehouse property. Atty. Baldwin said it was true that Verizon was considering the use of this property, which is located 2.1 miles from the center of Marbledale. Mrs. Bachelier asked that plans for the Marbledale tower be postponed until the Northville tower is built and it can be determined whether that tower will improve the Marbledale coverage. She objected to the needless "destruction" of the Marbledale area if the Northville tower could provide sufficient service. She received a loud round of applause. Mr. Baldwin said the Northville site was just one of many being considered by Verizon to cover Rt. 202. He said coverage would not be duplicated, although there would be slight overlaps to ensure the goal of continuous coverage is accomplished. He stressed the Northville site would not provide all of the coverage needed for Marbledale because generally the towers are required every 1.5 miles or so. Mrs. Bachelier asked if there would be a tower every 1.5 miles along Rt. 202 between New Milford and Litchfield. Atty. Baldwin said this was possible, but that 1) existing structures would be used whenever possible and 2) coverage would be designed with as few facilities as possible. Mrs. Bachelier noted there is an existing tower in New Milford located 5.1 miles from Northville that covers the Northville Firehouse and beyond so said she did not understand why the Northville facility would not adequately serve Marbledale. Mrs. Bachelier continued that proposed Site #1 was in the residential district where the houses are close together and the tower would be visually offensive if the Siting Council did not approve the pine. She said Site #2 had more trees, which would screen the tower from the residential view. Atty. Baldwin encouraged her to write to the Siting Council to express her preference for the pine pole.

Mr. Swain asked whether the yellow areas on the coverage map represented all cell phone coverage or only Verizon coverage. Mr. Cotty said it represented Verizon coverage only, although there might be AT&T coverage in the area, too.

Mr. Dean said he has a Cingular cell phone and has coverage through Marbledale to the Meeker Swamp flats in New Preston, so his coverage was already adequate. He asked what the wattage of the proposed tower would be. Mr. Crotty said it would run at 100% all the time and would be 256 watts per channel.

A woman living on Pleasantview Drive near Site #1 said she had Verizon cell phone coverage and there was no interruption between Marbledale and New Milford. She said she had had "extremely good" Verizon coverage for 6.5 years. There was a round of applause.

Mr. Finkler noted Mr. Crotty specified there would be 250 watts per channel on the tower, but had not informed the public that there could be hundreds of channels on each tower. Mr. Crotty said Verizon bought 6 channels, which would total 1536 watts. He said 40 cell towers could be built and their total wattage would be below the maximum limits set by the FCC. Mr. Finkler asked who monitors the towers to make sure they are operating below the limits. Mr. Crotty again stated the wattage would fall well below the federal limits.

Mr. Finkler thought a 25 ft. tower on either hillside, as opposed to a 150 ft. tower, would have less of an impact on the surrounding residences. Mr. Crotty noted the antennae had to be above the tree line, which was usually 75 ft. high, or the signal would be smothered. He also said "a million" 25 ft. towers would be needed to provide the same coverage as 150 ft. tall towers. Mr. Finkler voiced his concern about maintaining the quality of life in Marbledale and preserving the trees, which contribute to it. There was a round of applause. Mr. Finkler said the residents do not want the clutter of unsightly cell towers and urged Verizon to cooperate better with other carriers. Mr. Finkler then asked what had happened to the proposal to install the cell tower at the New Preston Firehouse on Rt. 202 so that the Town could get the rental money rather than privileged landowners. Mr. Crotty responded the "Marbledale Firehouse" had been considered early in the process, but the First Selectman had been concerned about visibility and had asked Verizon to look elsewhere. That site was no longer under consideration.

Mrs. Tagley asked if the Siting Council was aware of the existing towers and transmitters in both the Town and the region and would it consider pending facilities such as the one in Northville before acting on the Marbledale application. Atty. Baldwin said the applicant was required to include existing, approved, and proposed facilities on the plans presented to the Siting Council so it could consider the overall network design. He said this would definitely be part of the Council's discussion. Mrs. Tagley asked if the Northville facility would only transmit over a 2 mile radius. Atty. Baldwin said this would depend on several factors such as topography, but that the radius distance was usually 1 to 1.75 miles. He noted both of the proposed towers would cover 3.5 miles. Mrs. Tagley said the Northville location would overlap with the proposed Marbledale locations. Atty. Baldwin said, yes, it was designed so there would be a slight overlap.

An unidentified person complained there was no cell phone service at his home at 59 New Milford Turnpike and so said he was looking forward to the increased coverage. He asked if there would be internet service, too. Atty. Baldwin said there would be an EDO wireless card available for internet access.

Another unidentified person said there was existing Verizon coverage between New Milford Hospital and her house in Marbledale. She asked why Verizon was trying to duplicate its efforts. Mr. Crotty stated Verizon wanted to provide its own services.

Ms. Dupuis, Cell Tower Subcommittee of the Conservation Commission, referred to page 6 of Robinson and Cole's 1/19/07 letter to Mr. Sears, which stated the proposed cell tower might reduce or eliminate the need for other towers in the area in the near future. Atty. Baldwin said that this statement referred to Marbledale only and that other carriers would apply for other towers in the area. He said Verizon tries to get other carriers to locate on its facilities. Ms. Dupuis noted the Town's firemen had asked for cell tower service for use in emergency situations and asked if satisfying that request would mean 10 more towers in Town. Mr. Crotty explained the firemen use a different frequency and that Verizon was looking for other sites to connect with in order to provide the service the firemen would like. Ms. Dupuis noted there was a public misconception that the proposed tower would provide coverage for all of Washington. Mr. Crotty agreed this was a misconception.

Ms. Levitt, attending on behalf of the Conservation Commission, asked how many carriers were licensed by the FCC for this area. Atty. Baldwin said there were 5. Ms. Levitt noted the proposed Verizon tower would accommodate 4, so that meant the 5th carrier would have the right to build another tower. Atty. Baldwin thought the Siting Council would force Verizon to accommodate the 5th carrier.

Ms. Levitt asked how far above the existing tree tops the tower would extend. Mr. Libertine said on average the towers extend double the tree height. Ms. Levitt asked if Site #2 (Waldron) was more tucked in to the hillside. Mr. Libertine said both sites were tucked in, but Site #2 was closer to Rt. 202. Ms. Levitt asked if Site #1 (Underwood) would be at the crest of New Preston Hill, on the level with the Tollman property at the top of the hill. Mr. Libertine researched this and answered later in the meeting that New Preston Hill is 1000 ft. in elevation, while the proposed facility would top at 850 ft. so it would be below the crest.

Ms. Levitt asked what the time line was for the Northville application. Atty. Baldwin said there was no time line and that the search for an alternate location was progressing.

Ms. Levitt asked whose antennae were located on the high tension lines in the Northville section of New Milford by Sullivan Farm. Mr. Crotty said it was a Sprint facility and the existing structures in the Northville area had already been analyzed. Ms. Levitt asked why they had been eliminated. Mr. Crotty responded because they did not provide the coverage needed to the north.

Ms. Levitt noted she had a map for the proposed AT&T tower in Warren, which showed coverage would be provided for a significantly larger area than what Verizon was showing on its map. She asked whether Verizon had compared its information with AT&T's. Mr. Crotty agreed the AT&T coverage shown was a bit larger, but said this was because Verizon used a tower height of 140 ft. vs. the 150 ft. tower used for AT&T's calculations. Ms. Levitt noted she has Cingular and Verizon coverage at the corner of Tanner Hill Road and Rt. 45, where Verizon was showing it has no coverage. She said the tower on Rt. 109 in New Milford was providing more coverage in New Preston than Verizon thought it did and suggested it already had the minimum coverage it was looking for. Mr. Crotty noted the coverage was not good and was not seamless. Ms. Levitt said the computer models that calculate coverage are conservative, but Mr. Crotty said Verizon supplements the computer data with drive test data, which improves accuracy.

Mr. Hardy asked if was true that PCS systems only go 2 miles, but other systems go double that. Mr. Crotty said it depended on a lot of factors. Mr. Hardy said that PCS had the shortest range, however, and Mr. Crotty said that was true.

Mr. Stange voiced his concern about the long term health affects on his children from electromagnetic fields. He asked what the highest power levels/amount of wattage would be from 5 carriers all pointed in the same direction. Atty. Baldwin said each carrier would operate at 2.46% of the maximum allowable dosage, so cumulatively the worse case scenario would be 10% to 15% of the SEC standard. Mr. Stange asked for the maximum wattage per square centimeter. He said lives at 270 New Milford Turnpike, did not use a cell phone, but would be "radiated" when the tower was in operation. He asked the public to show how many were interested in health concerns. Many hands went up. He then asked how many had attended the meeting because they wanted better phone coverage. Five hands went up.

Mrs. Shepard said she wanted improved cell phone service for emergency use in the Depot and asked if the proposed tower would be used for this. Atty. Baldwin said the proposed sites could not be used for coverage in the Depot. Mrs. Shepard again cited the need for emergency cell phone coverage, but said she did not want the coverage to threaten anyone's health.

Mrs. Roth asked if Wheaton Road and Christian Street already receive service, why not invest in a location further north on Rt. 202, which might be able to overlap with Bantam's coverage and supply some coverage for the Depot. She added that she, too, was concerned about jeopardizing the health of residents.

Ms. Moliniere asked what other technologies Verizon might be using elsewhere that could be used in Washington so that towers would not be required every 2 miles. Atty. Baldwin stated the proposed cell tower is the best technology for Washington's topography. In some downtown areas, like Greenwich, for example, shorter towers might be appropriate, but with Washington's hills and trees and the coverage needed, shorter towers were not appropriate here.

Ms. Dupuis noted the Washington Zoning Regulations require that towers be set back at least 1500 ft. from residences. She asked if the two proposed towers met this requirement. Mr. Crotty provided the distances from several existing houses to the proposed tower locations. The closest house to Site #1 was 17 Mountain Road; 1035 ft. and the closest to Site #2 other than the house on the same property was 260 ft. Ms. Dupuis asked if there were houses located within the fall zone. Mr. Crotty said the towers can be designed to be collapsible to decrease the fall zone. The towers would not fall from their bases, but would fall in on themselves. Ms. Dupuis asked if winds could push a tower into a house. Mr. Crotty explained the towers' design that enables the bottom half to withstand 5 times as much wind as the top half, which reduces the possibility of collapse. Ms. Dupuis asked if the location at Site #1 could be moved to meet Zoning's usual 50 ft. boundary line setback. Mr. Crotty said there was some room, maybe 25 to 30 ft., in which to relocate the tower, but that it had been positioned in the back corner of the property to minimize the required earthwork and number of trees that would have to be cut.

Mr. Dutton said he was torn between his concern about health issues and the safety needs of the community. He was concerned the general public did not know the difference between analog and digital service and coverage. Mr. Crotty said the proposed site was digital only.

Mr. Dutton asked if coverage would be extended as far north as Rabbit Hill Road if Site #1 was used. Mr. Crotty said it would not. Mr. Dutton said he is currently a Verizon customer and that he now gets satisfactory and continuous coverage at his house on Rabbit Hill Road. Mr. Crotty said Verizon has a roaming agreement with AT&T to provide that coverage. Mr. Dutton asked if that was also true for the Marbledale area. Mr. Crotty said it was possible that AT&T had a larger coverage footprint due to the frequency it uses. Mr. Dutton said Verizon did not realize how well it was already covered with roaming service in this area. Mr. Crotty said Verizon was planning another tower in the Rabbit Hill area.

Mr. Dutton asked when satellite coverage would make the cell tower issue moot. Mr. Crotty said it would be at least 25 years and maybe never since hundreds of satellites would be needed to provide equal coverage. Mr. Crotty noted Verizon would post a removal bond to ensure the tower would be taken down if it would no longer be used.

Mrs. Avery asked about Verizon's statement to the Security and Exchange Commission in 2005 that it had not been proven that wireless phones were absolutely safe. Mr. Crotty explained the issue was not with the cell towers, but with the phones when they are held close against the head. Mrs. Avery disagreed, saying there were studies done in Europe that said otherwise. She asked how Verizon could file such a statement with the SEC and then push for proliferation. She said Verizon did not believe the technology was safe, but expected the public to believe so. Atty. Baldwin agreed with Mr. Crotty that it was the phone use itself, not the facility, that was referred to in the statement and he noted the government had established safety standards for emissions. Mrs. Avery asked how the public could be sure Verizon would comply with those safety standards. Atty. Baldwin stated the company must demonstrate it can comply and conduct on site readings. Mrs. Avery asked if this meant Verizon would check itself once the facility was up. Atty. Baldwin said, yes.

Mrs. McNamara said her property abuts Site #2 and she asked what she would see when she looked out her window. She worried about how this would affect her property values and her ability to sell her property. She asked if anyone wanted to buy her house. Atty. Baldwin said the company has no power of eminent domain and so must rely on the willingness of landowners when selecting sites. He again stated existing structures were considered first and new towers were the last choice. Mr. Libertine said there was 200 ft. with evergreens between the McNamara property and the proposed facility, but she would likely see 30% to 40% or more of the tower.

Mr. Finkler asked if the FCC requires seamless coverage along vehicular routes. Atty. Baldwin said the only FCC requirement is that specific percentage of the area your license covers is covered. He said that did not equate with seamless coverage, although that is a Verizon goal. He noted the initial plan for Phase II was coverage along the major travel corridors, not expansion into residential areas. Mr. Finkler noted Rt. 47 is a major route, but would not be covered by the tower now proposed. He thought there should be a comprehensive coverage plan for all of Washington including the Green. Atty. Baldwin said there were now three major search areas; Marbledale, northeastern Washington, and the Depot, although no Depot sites had been identified yet.

Mr. Finkler asked if it was true that Cingular GSM service doesn't require antennae so close together as Verizon's PCS service. Mr. Crotty said it depends on the frequency band.

Mr. Finkler stated Verizon did not want to provide roaming service on another company's coverage because it looses revenue and did not want to have to pay another carrier. Mr. Crotty said that was correct, but also said the roaming coverage was an older and not so reliable technology.

Mr. Finkler noted poles and "phony" pines were being considered by Verizon, but asked why a lattice type structure was not being considered because he thought it would blend in better with the forest background. Atty. Baldwin said the pines are the most costly to install and maintain. He said the lattice structures require so many cables for each carrier that they look solid and that a larger area must be cleared to install them. He thought the mono poles blended in better from a visibility perspective.

Mr. Finkler complained the Verizon representatives had the "effrontery" to appear neighborly, but to propose the location of the towers in residential neighborhoods. He also said they can locate the towers by contacting the most desperate property owners. Atty. Baldwin said the company preferred to find community areas in which to locate towers, but noted some residential areas are more suitable. He said the Siting Council makes that determination on a case by case basis.

A woman noted that several other sites are pending and asked if as an effort to show good faith, Verizon could present its master plan to the public. She noted corporate entities always have master plans. Atty. Baldwin said this could not be done. He said all Verizon could do would be to submit a map showing additional existing sites. He said Verizon planned to fill in as many of the coverage gaps along the travel corridors as quickly as possible and that this would take many towers. The woman stated not everyone is interested in continuous coverage.

Mr. Cornet asked why Verizon does not purchase the properties on which it installs towers and if the property owners renting out the properties would be held harmless. He also asked for comments about decreased property values. Atty. Baldwin said those renting to Verizon would be held harmless for any damage to adjoining properties and that studies have shown that towers do not decrease property values. Mr. Cornet asked who had done the study. Atty. Baldwin said the Siting Council does not consider impact to property values. Mr. Cornet asked if Verizon or the property owner would be liable for health issues. Atty. Baldwin said Verizon has an obligation to comply with the FCC standards and does so.

Mr. Stange complained that the US did not take into account more recent findings concerning the effects of emissions on brain activity and chromosomes. He questioned what kind of future his children would have after being exposed.

Mr. Dutton asked Atty. Baldwin to confirm the First Selectman had rejected the use of the New Preston fire house property by the cell tower company. Atty. Baldwin said that was correct.

Mr. Dutton asked how the pine design would compare to the one on the Hutchinson River Parkway. Atty. Baldwin said the newer pines look better and showed a photo of a pine pole in Coventry, Vermont as an example.

Mrs. Roth asked if Verizon could prepare a map showing not only Verizon coverage, but all existing coverage since other companies already have coverage in the area Verizon proposes to cover. She suggested Verizon should try to provide coverage for areas not already covered by other companies. Mr. Crotty said Verizon could not submit coverage maps for the other companies because it did not have all of their information. He said, however, Verizon would be willing to evaluate other recommended coverage areas. Mrs. Roth said a more important area to cover than along Rt. 202 was Rt. 47, which is adjacent to Steep Rock and where there have been serious vehicular accidents.

Mr. Dutton asked if the public could get comprehensive coverage information from the Siting Council. Atty. Baldwin said the Council only had information regarding applications submitted by other companies. He noted Verizon is a competitive company with a license to build new facilities that is trying to provide the most reliable service to its customers.

Ms. Moliniere asked if only cell phone service would be provided. Atty. Baldwin said data service for emergency service data transmittal and internet service would be available. Ms. Moliniere said AT&T was already providing this for this area. Atty. Baldwin said Verizon also offers this service elsewhere in the state. Ms. Moliniere noted cell phone service does not guarantee 911 access.

Mr. Mustich asked why the First Selectman had turned down the New Preston fire house site for a cell tower, which meant the Town would not receive the related revenue. Mr. Sears said the matter had been discussed with others and that at that site the aesthetics of the valley was compelling. He also noted there was a higher density neighborhood near the fire house and that the company had approached the Town before there had been any discussion about alternative sites.

M. Sears asked why micro technology, which would be smaller, less obtrusive, closer together facilities could not be used in rural areas. Atty. Baldwin said they were not appropriate for rural areas because they had to be above the tree line, which averages 65 to 70 feet high, and so were not practical. He also noted one macro cell tower would cover a much larger area. Verizon's goal, he said was to cover the maximum area with as few sites as possible. Mr. Sears then asked if an alternate technology such as an amplifier system was possible. Atty. Baldwin said repeaters, as they are called, connect with a macro cell tower, and are not the preferred technology when a macro cell is available.

Atty. Baldwin noted a balloon test had been conducted at both sites, but since the public had not been made aware of it, a second one would be done, most likely on 3/17 or on 3/18 if the weather is bad on the 17th. He said notices would be placed on the Town website and in local papers.

Mrs. Bachelier asked if the proposed tower would require warning lights. Atty. Baldwin said it was not an FAA requirement.

Mrs. Bachelier said she was not satisfied that existing houses would be less than the 1500 ft. required by the Zoning Regulations from the proposed tower sites. Atty. Baldwin said Verizon would confirm the measurements of existing houses to the tower sites, but added that the Siting Council has exclusive jurisdiction and it preempts local zoning regulations. Verizon is not required to comply with local zoning. He noted that use of existing structures was not under the Siting Council's jurisdiction and under the current Zoning Regulations the Town Hall cupola could not be used to provide coverage for the Depot.

Mrs. Levitt spoke of standards and liability issues. She said the FCC had a two tiered standard for controlled vs. uncontrolled environments. She noted the cut off date for the list of studies on professional exposure was 1985, and for civil exposure, 1982. Since that time, 70% to 80% of the studies that have been done cite biological effects. She also noted there are 6 to 8 lawsuits regarding health issues making their way through the courts. She noted that insurance companies were refusing to indemnify telecommunications companies for adverse health and environmental effects. Currently there is a petition before the US Supreme Court to try to get the FCC to update its regulations, but the FCC continues to assert that it is not a health agency. This petition is supported by Ct. Atty. General Blumenthal. Ms. Levitt read a portion of the opinion written by Atty. Blumenthal, which called the FCC refusal to update its standards as arbitrary and capricious.

Ms. Levitt asked if Verizon expected property owners to indemnify Verizon. Atty. Baldwin said, yes. Ms. Levitt spoke of the blanket liability coverage for the operators of telecommunications systems under the E91 Act, adding that liability was being shifted downward so the public had no recourse but to go after the landowner or the Town. Atty. Baldwin said he was not sure he agreed and asked why the court would find a landowner liable for the technology. Ms. Levitt responded the landowner had willfully leased the property to the company to install the technology. Atty. Baldwin noted Ms. Levitt disagreed with the industry regarding RF emissions and said Verizon would comply with the federal standards. Ms. Levitt complained about attempts to make the standards more lenient even with all the new information coming out. She asked who ultimately was liable for health and environmental effects. Atty. Baldwin said Verizon would comply with the established standards and he knew of no case law regarding liability.

Mr. Stange asked where he could get the answers to his questions about the total maximum power levels possible from the proposed tower. Atty. Baldwin took his name and address and said he would send it to him.

Mr. Cornett said the main and most pertinent issue is health. He asked why all the companies don't have to work together to provide the best total coverage, noting that many residents are very satisfied with their current AT&T coverage. He said there should be an "overall look" at how to have the least amount of cell towers, resulting in the least amount of health concerns.

Ms. Levitt noted the NW Ct. Council of Governments could do a telecommunications coverage overlay map and stated a comprehensive regional plan was needed.

Ms. Dupuis stated there was no such thing as seamless coverage in New England and it was unrealistic to try to provide it. She asked why there was such an emphasis on covering Rt. 202 when seamless coverage is not available on Rt. 684. Atty. Baldwin noted she would think coverage along Rt. 202 was important if she had an accident there.

Ms. Dupuis stated Verizon was merely interested in real estate deals to make money, while the Town paid the price. She said because Washington is a scenic town, its natural viewshed is its industry.

A woman noted again that she and others have reliable cell phone coverage and so asked why that coverage should be duplicated by Verizon. She thought Verizon should focus on areas where there was now no coverage what so ever. She asked why anyone would sign on with Verizon if they already have coverage. Atty. Baldwin said roaming coverage costs more and is not as good. He noted Verizon does not make a significant amount of money from leasing towers, but does make money from providing service. The woman again protested that Verizon was not opening up new areas that were not already covered. Atty. Baldwin disputed her contention that Rt. 202 is already covered because cell phone users were at the mercy of the other carriers. He said the service is needed and Verizon would try to provide it in as unobtrusive way as possible. Reliance on the roaming service of other carriers was not good enough for Verizon, he said.

Ms. Dupuis said she has had good Verizon service for years.

At 10:17 p.m. Mr. Fairbairn thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

Posted: March 1, 2007

February 26, 2007

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Buonaiuto, Mrs. Arturi, Mr. Ross, Mr. Sommerset, Mr. Distel, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Waterhouse

Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Abella for Mr. Fitzherbert and Shapiro for the open seat. He informed the public that the Commission was now posting relevant documents on the Town web site, noting that the text of the proposed revisions to the Regulations and comments both for and against them were now available on line for review. He also said the full Verizon report on the cell tower application submitted to the Ct. Siting Council would be posted on 2/27.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2 Wheaton Road, LLC./2 Wheaton Road/Special Permit: Sections 9.4.1.f and 9.5.3/Professional Offices and Relaxation of Setback

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:39 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert and the vacant seat. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/14 and 2/21/07. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 2/26/07 ZEO Report.

Mr. Distel, property owner, was present. He reviewed the map, "Property/Boundary Survey," by Mr. Alex, dated June 2006, revised to 1/22/07. He pointed out the location of each of the three buildings on the parcel and noted employees would use only two of the existing six parking spaces. He described the renovations underway to the inside of the "house" and said a handicapped access ramp was also required. Mr. Distel noted the ramp would be built in the least obtrusive location, which was to the side and rear of the building, and that it would be partially screened by an existing tree. He said the height of the professional office building, would be raised by one foot to allow room for the additional insulation required as a result of the preservation the existing timber frame roof.

Mr. Ajello explained a section of the raised roof and parts of the proposed ramp for the non conforming building would not meet the minimum setback requirements and so a Special Permit to relax these setback requirements had been applied for.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Sections 9.4.1.f and 9.5.3 submitted by 2 Wheaton, LLC. for professional offices, handicapped ramp, raised roof, and relaxation of the setbacks at 2 Wheaton Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.

Sachs/104 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

It was noted the same commissioners, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro were seated. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in the 2/14 and 2/21/07 Voices. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 2/26/07 ZEO report.

Mr. Ross, contractor, reviewed the plans; elevations and floor plans, for the proposed garage-barn by Mr. Nurnberger, sheets A1-A7, dated 4/25/05 and 10/30/05. He noted the application was to include a detached accessory apartment on the third floor of the barn to be constructed this spring. The apartment would not exceed 1200 sq. ft. Mr. Ajello noted the barn would not exceed the maximum 26 ft. permitted, measured to the peak from the average grade.

Mrs. Friedman asked if the apartment would include the entire third floor. Mr. Ajello did not know, but said he had requested that a note be added to the plans to state the livable floor area as defined by the state building code would not exceed 1200 sq. ft.

It was noted the primary dwelling on the property was 5500 sq. ft. and the barn would not exceed 75% of its footprint or volume.

There were no further questions from the Commission.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Sachs for a detached accessory apartment at 104 Kielwasser Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.

At 8:05 p.m. Mr. Owen closed the public hearing.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Residential Outdoor Lighting/ Sections 12.15: New Section Re: Outdoor Residential Lighting, 4.3.8, 5.3.6, 6.3.6, 7.3.18, 8.3.19, 9.3.6, and 10.3.5 Re: Requirement that Outdoor Sports Courts in All Districts Be Unilluminated, and 14.2.e, and 14.3.1: Requirement that All Sketch Plans and Site Plans Submitted with Zoning and Special Permit Applications Include the Description and Location of All Exterior Lighting Fixtures

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 8:06, noted the same Members and Alternates were seated, and read the list of documents in the file. He noted the same list would apply for the hearing to prohibit outdoor wood and other fuel burning furnaces.

Mr. Owen explained the Zoning Commission had worked on several drafts; the latest being his 2/22/07 revision, which had been posted on the Town web site. He noted that his revisions were in response to feedback from Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. Council of Governments.

Mr. Owen read the 1/21/07 letter to Mr. Martin from Mrs. Roberts, Planning Commission chairman, which commended the Zoning Commission for its plans to implement the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development and address the issue of outdoor lighting and the 2/23/07 memo to the Zoning Commission from Mrs. Roberts, which voiced the unanimous support of the Planning Commission for the above referenced proposed revisions to the Regulations. He then read the 1/8/07 staff comments from Mr. McGuinness. Mr. Owen explained these comments pointed out aspects of the proposed regulations, which would be difficult to enforce, and said in response, he had included these as non binding recommendations. He said the Commission aimed for a useable document; not one that would be unenforceable. Mr. Owen also addressed holiday lighting exceptions and the illumination of American flags. He explained the Commission proposed to add the requirement that the type and location of lighting fixtures be included on both the sketch plans and site plans submitted with zoning and Special Permit applications.

At this point Mr. Averill conducted a brief lighting demonstration that showed how bright unshielded light fixtures result in glare rather than improved visibility. Mr. Owen noted high powered lights seldom accomplish safety or security and more often create a visual nuisance and increased night time illumination and sky glow. He noted, too, that bright glaring security lights create shadows for criminals and make it difficult for the police to monitor properties.

Shielded light sources were briefly discussed. It was noted these types of fixtures produce less glare. The lights along the Town Hall walks were noted as examples of poor lighting because the bulbs are not shielded, the fixtures are mounted at eye level, and circles of darkness are cast below each lamp in the area that should be illuminated.

Mr. Owen explained the proposed regulations would help to stem the spilling over of decorative residential lighting from one property to another and that because outdoor residential lighting is affecting adjoining properties, it has become a zoning issue. The outdoor decorative lighting of a Findley Road property was cited as an example of excessive landscape lighting that lights up the Marbledale sky, blocks out the stars, produces glow, and can be seen from all over Town.

Mrs. Waterhouse complained about the orange lighting at the Montessori School on Rt. 202. She said the neighbors in this residential neighborhood had tried to impress upon the school that the lighting was intrusive, but although some corrections had been made, there was still too much lighting there. Mr. Owen noted this lighting was grandfathered and would not be affected by the proposed regulations. He said he hoped the new regulations would be the first step in building public awareness about lighting issues. He suggested that perhaps the Washington Environmental Council could approach the schools about voluntarily reducing the amount of light emitted from their campuses. Mrs. Waterhouse stressed that the orange colored lighting was "awful." Mr. Owen explained that even in areas such as parking lots that must be illuminated, there are ways to install lighting to reduce glare and impacts to adjoining properties. These include lower poles, lower wattage, redirecting the light, and shielding light sources. He added that he hoped the Town would adopt an ordinance that would give it the authority to correct existing outdoor lighting situations that result in safety problems and nuisances. He noted in the past the Commission had contacted CL&P to improve its lighting on the poles along Rt. 202 in Marbledale and said it could send a blanket request that CL&P do the same throughout the entire Town.

Mr. Owen stated outdoor residential lighting regulations were a first step and commercial lighting would be addressed next. He said safety, security, and liability issues in the commercial districts would require additional consideration by the Commission.

Mr. Buonaiuto asked why the first round of revisions was limited to residential districts when municipal uses and parking lot lighting are some of the biggest offenders. Mr. Owen pointed out that the schools in Town are all in residential districts and the commercial districts would be addressed next. He again stated he hoped the Town would adopt an ordinance governing lighting as a third step.

Mrs. Buonaiuto said she works for a company that manufactures residential lighting and asked if the Commission would recommend appropriate bulbs. Mr. Averill said it was not so much the light source as the lack of shielding, which results in problems. Mr. Ajello recommended a frosted bulb if the bulb was completely visible and that the wattage of the bulb be decreased. Mrs. Hill noted the proposed revisions include a chart of appropriate and inappropriate fixtures. Mr. Owen said it was not the Commission's intention to come after reproduction lighting, but to improve blinding and unnecessary fixtures and to address those that illuminate beyond boundary lines. He noted, too, that the proposal included the rewriting of Section 16.3.4 to require that lighting for signs be installed on top of the sign and directed downward and toward the surface of the sign.

Mr. Papsin asked if the proposed regulations would provide any relief for the residential properties bordering commercial districts. Mr. Owen said commercial lighting would be addressed next. Mr. Papsin said the orange glow from Marbledale businesses was a nuisance on the neighboring residential properties. It was noted the CL&P light near Dowler's Garage on Rt. 202 is aimed toward Mygatt Road. Mr. Owen again said the Commission would attempt to deal with the CL&P lighting along the roads. Mr. Papsin asked if those who already have offending lights up would be grandfathered. Mr. Owen said they were, but that with the adoption of the proposed outdoor residential lighting regulations, there would be a basis for property owners to discuss lighting problems with their neighbors. He said the Zoning Commission and Planning Commission would need to persuade the Board of Selectmen to draft a Town lighting ordinance, because if such an ordinance were adopted, existing lighting could be effectively dealt with.

Mr. Owen stressed the proposed regulations were only the beginning of the whole process to address problem lighting and to educate and make the public aware of the lighting issue.

Because Mr. Owen's revised draft had been available at Town Hall and on the Town web site for public review for only a short time, it was decided to continue the hearing.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revisions to the Zoning Regulations to address outdoor residential lighting to Monday, March 26, 2007. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

At 8:47 Mr. Owen continued the hearing to March 26, 2007.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 2.3.2/Prohibition of Outdoor Wood and Other Fuel Burning Furnaces

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 8:47 p.m.. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/14 and 2/21/07. Mr. Owen read the list of additional documents in the file and noted the articles for and against outdoor wood and other fuel burning furnaces had been posted on the Town web site. He noted the email he had received from the Commission's attorney was also on the web site. He read the 2/26/07 letter to the Commission from Mr. and Mrs. Averill against the proposed prohibition and the undated memo from Mr. McGuinness, NWCCOG, regarding outdoor wood burning furnace regulations in other Ct. towns. Mr. Owen noted the state statutes, which govern these furnaces; when there is a house within 500 feet, the furnace must have a chimney that extends higher than the roof of the neighboring dwelling and that no material other than non chemically treated wood may be burned in them. State fines for violations are up to $90 per day. He said Hebron had banned the furnaces because that town did not think 55 ft. tall smoke stacks were compatible with residential neighborhoods and the furnaces were a significant source of air pollution. A furnace manufacturer subsequently appealed the ban and the suit is pending.

Mr. Owen noted the Commission's attorney advised him that the state statutes did not specify that the outdoor furnaces must be permitted, only that if permitted they must meet the state standards. Therefore, he thought the Commission could ban them. Mr. Owen said the Commission would also support a town ordinance to prohibit them.

Mr. Buonaiuto noted he uses an outdoor wood burning furnace and said he was familiar with the manufacturers' specifications and the state statutes. He thought the outdoor furnaces were beneficial because they conserved the consumption of oil, which is a non renewable energy source. He said the furnaces were better operated outdoors so the homeowner did not have to deal with creosote build up and other fire hazards. He noted there were no final test results for emissions, which vary according to the manufacturer, but said the emissions could be regulated by the height of the smoke stack. He thought it would be discriminatory if the Commission did not also ban indoor wood burning furnaces. Mr. Owen said the Commission's concern was with the outdoor furnaces because their smoke is generally lower to the ground and has more of an effect on neighboring properties. Mr. Ajello stated the DEP fact sheet specified that boiler smoke contains more particulates than that from other furnaces. He feared improper use of outdoor wood burning furnaces would further increase the particulates. Mr. Owen agreed and said, while these furnaces are not now much of a problem, when oil prices rise and many more are in use, there will be a need to protect neighbors from their misuse. Mr. Buonaiuto thought the industry would regulate this problem, probably by requiring catalytic converters. Mrs. Buonaiuto noted the emission testing was still evolving and said there was no way at this time to know whether boiler smoke was more or less polluting than smoke from indoor woodstoves.

Mr. Owen suggested instead of a prohibition the Commission might want to consider adopting the state statutes and requiring Special Permits for outdoor wood burning furnaces. Mr. Ajello was concerned about whether an outdoor wood furnace could handle the state smoke stack height requirement. It was noted that permitting the use by Special Permit, would allow the outdoor furnaces on larger lots in uncongested areas like the farms the Averills were concerned about in their letter that had been read earlier. Mr. Ross noted in certain areas even a high smoke stack could not limit the smoke on adjoining properties due to congestion and topography.

Mr. Sommerset thought this was a non issue because not many of the people who could afford to move to Washington would want outdoor wood fired furnaces. He did not think they should be banned, however, since they might help young families and seniors to keep heating costs down.

Mr. Ross asked for the definition of wood burning furnace. Mr. Owen read the state definition and noted this would be used in the Washington Zoning Regulations if the revision was adopted.

The Commissioners decided to continue the public hearing to March 26th to allow additional time to review all of the information available.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the revision of the Zoning Regulations: proposed Section 2.3.2 to prohibit outdoor wood and other fuel burning furnaces to March 26, 2007. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

At 9:23 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to March 26th.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 9:24 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 1/22/07 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.

Page 12: 27th line: Proposed Section 13.20.B should be ...no less than 10 consecutive hours....

Page 13: 2nd line: Should read, ...asking him to resign or attend meetings....

Page 13: 6th line: R should be Republican Town Committee.

MOTION: To accept the 1/22/07 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

2 Wheaton, LLC/2 Wheaton Road/Special Permit: Sections 9.4.1.f and 9.5.3 for Professional Offices and Relaxation of Minimum Setback

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Sections 9.4.1.f and 9.5.3 submitted by 2 Wheaton, LLC. for professional offices, renovations including raising the roof and installing a handicapped ramp for the office building and relaxation of the setback requirements at 2 Wheaton Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Sachs/104 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Sachs for a detached accessory apartment at 104 Kielwasser Road. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations: It was noted the public hearings for outdoor residential lighting regulations and the prohibition of outdoor wood and other fuel burning furnaces were continued to March 26, 2007.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.20: Eating and Drinking Establishments in All Commercial Districts: The public hearing to consider the adoption of this section is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on March 26, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Mr. Owen suggested that the Commission should not make the requirements so limiting that it would be impossible to conduct a profitable business.

Verizon Cell Tower Application: Mr. Owen noted the entire Verizon report would soon be on the Town web site. He said he would be unable to attend the Special Informational Meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on March 5, 2007 in the Main Hall of Bryan Memorial Town Hall, but thought it would be appropriate for the Selectmen to chair the meeting as there were no zoning issues.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Deletion of Section 13.19: Telecommunication Antennae, Facilities, and Antenna Towers Including Personal Wireless Service Facilities and Towers: Mr. Owen proposed to delete the entire section since the state siting council supersedes local zoning. He stated the Town, not the Zoning Commission, may express a preference for a tower location and for a stealth (pine tree) a pole tower. Mr. Ajello noted the proposed site on the Underwood property will be very visible in comparison to the Waldron site. He noted, however, that the Conservation Commission preferred the Underwood site because it was further from residences should these facilities pose health problems. Mr. Owen will consult with Atty. Zizka regarding whether provisions should be retained to govern telecommunications facilities located in existing buildings, towers, steeples, silos, etc.

Communications

Rural Roadscape Zone - 12/6/06 Draft: The commissioners will take one more month to review the proposal and will discuss it at the next meeting. Related to this matter, Mr. Owen said he had received correspondence from Mr. Sears regarding the preservation of stone walls along the roads in Town. Mr. Owen felt this would be more appropriately addressed by a town ordinance.

Enforcement

Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Shop and Storage Use in Residential District: Mr. Ajello reported there had been no progress with this matter. It was noted there was a possibility the Commission would fine Mr. Moore under the zoning fine ordinance.

There being no further business, Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

---

Posted: January 26, 2007

January 22, 2007

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Cornet, Mr. Mustich, Mr./Mrs. Buonaiuto, Mrs. Wildman, Mr./Mrs. Fraley, Ms. Levitt, Ms. Dupuis, Mr. Ross, Mr. Carey, Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mrs. Mestre, Mr. McGowan, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Kozak, Mr. Carlson, Mr./Mrs. Weber, Mr./Mrs. Sarjeant, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Solley, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Boucher, Mr./Mrs. Tagley, Mr. Canal, Mrs. Andersen, Mrs. Condon, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Distell, Mr. Piscuskas, Mrs. Bouquillion, Mr. Bouquillion, Mr. Robinson, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARING

Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.

Boat Ramp and Parking

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on January 10 and Janaury 17, 2007. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file. Mr. Abella arrived and was seated.

Mr. Solley, Selectman, introduced Mr. McGowan, Director of the Lake Waramaug Task Force.

Mr. McGowan provided the background regarding all of the work done by the three towns and the state since 1995. He stated it had taken nine years to reach an agreement with the state and another year and a half to draft an acceptable design for the boat launch. He noted the state had originally proposed a new 40 space parking lot, 45 slips, and a new boat launch at the state park, but that due to safety concerns, environmental impacts, and the dangerous conditions of the existing state road, the towns of Kent, Warren, and Washington had opposed it. Testimony by Dr. Kortmann regarding the adverse environmental impacts of such a facility was provided for the file and Mr. McGowan detailed the dredging and continued maintenance that would be required for a launch at the shallow end of the lake. He presented the map, "Day Use Boat Launch, Lake Waramaug State Park," to illustrate the scope of the work required at the state park versus what would be required on the Town property and explained the proposed plan was the agreed upon alternative to locating the launch at the park. He stated the Lake Waramaug Agreement had been signed in September of 2004, the rights of the Town had not changed, and the Town beach would not be affected. He explained a maximum of 20 non resident boats would be permitted on the lake per day; 13 for those registered for at least two nights at the state park and 7 for day boaters. Car top boats and boats with motors under 12 hp would have no limit, but would have to be inspected for invasives. He distributed the document, "Town of Washington Proposed Boat Ramp Improvements - Review of Applicable Sections of the Zoning Regulations," undated, unsigned and he reviewed how the application met each requirement of the Regulations. He briefly reviewed the drainage plans, which included catch basins and a natural plant buffer that would trap sediments before they reached the lake. He noted these proposed protective measures would improve the quality of the lake. Mr. McGowan noted there had been public concern about traffic safety in this limited sized location, but he assured the Commission that both the state boat unit engineer and the Town's engineer had worked together on the plan, which met the acceptable limits for safety. He also noted Mr. Payton of the DEP had written to Mr. Sears to confirm the plan as proposed had been approved by the state.

Mr. Wilson, engineer, first presented a topo map, which was an overview of the existing site conditions, and noted the narrow ramp and most of the parking located in the state right of way would no longer be permitted. He pointed out the proposed location of the ramp had been selected after considering the topography of the bottom of the lake because the ramp requires 4 ft. of water at the deep end and a slope no greater than 15%. He noted the lake drops off rapidly at the Washington end. The proposal would leave the Town beach "untouched" and all boat traffic would be kept to the east of the police dock. The second map reviewed was, "Boat Ramp," by Mr. Wilson, revised to 1/19/07. Mr. Wilson explained how the project would proceed so that there would be continuous access to the lake while the new ramp was being constructed. In response to the concerns raised by Mr. Kozak in his 1/2/07 letter, Mr. Wilson said the state requires 7 parking spaces, plus one for handicapped parking and 9 are proposed. Each space would be 10.5 feet wide and 40 ft. long. He said the state organization for boating access, the DOT, and the Army Corps of Engineers had been consulted about the parking plan and noted the design standards were included with the application. He discussed maneuvering the angled parking spaces and stated the most difficult space to use would be at the east end of the site. Next he briefly reviewed the construction technique whereby the ramp would be made in sections on the staging area on site and then slid down into the lake. Once completed, the necessary regrading would be done. He noted a segmented retaining wall with a planting shell would be constructed along the shoreline. The landscaping notes were included on the plan. Native plants such as fescues and low blueberry bushes would be planted to provide a buffer that in addition to trapping sediment, would keep trash and people out of the lake. Drainage was briefly reviewed. Mr. Wilson said the runoff from the state road would remain in the state system and would not affect the Town property. The on site drainage system would contain three catch basins, each with a slotted insert to slow the velocity of the runoff so that sediments would be dropped before they reached the lake. They would also contain material to absorb petroleum based wastes so they would not reach the lake. This spongelike material would be removed at the end of each season. Mr. Wilson also noted that: 1) the entrance and exit would be gated, 2) the hours of operation would be the same as they are now, 3) there would be a walk through access to the lake to maintain the rights of nearby property owners, 4) the work would affect 220 ft. of shoreline, 5) the size of the property would increase by 3300 sq. ft., 6) 240 cubic yards of fill would be deposited, 7) the driveway would be 24 ft. wide with a 9% grade, 8) the ramp would be attended whenever open, and 9) a sign would be posted with boating regulations, operational information, and instructions regarding permits. He briefly reviewed peak use based on last season's numbers.

Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Frank to explain how the ramp would be monitored. Mr. Frank noted that although once the ramp is completed a maximum of 20 non resident boaters a day would have access to the lake, during construction only 5 campers from the state park and no day boaters would be permitted. He explained state park campers would have to present an ID certificate from the park to use the ramp and pay both a registration and inspection fee. The boat and trailer would be inspected at this point. Once the boat was in the water, the camper would be required to drive his vehicle and trailer back to the state park because campers would not be allowed to park on Town property. He said the 9 parking spaces provided would be used on a first come/ first served basis. There would be no limit to the number of car top boats or boats with motors under 12 hp that could be launched at the state park or at the ramp, but they would all have to be inspected. He said currently there are no DEP funds for inspections at the state park, but he hoped to have volunteers inspecting at the park. Mr. McGowan noted negotiations were currently underway to eliminate the need for the trip to the state park to pick up the ID certification.

Mr. Owen read the 1/22/07 ZEO Report.

Mrs. Friedman asked about the Inland Wetlands Commission's condition of approval recommending mitigation in Phase II of the project. Mr. Ajello explained this was due to the filling required in Phase I.

Mr. Owen asked for public comments.

Mrs. Bouquillon was concerned about 1) what the area would look like, 2) whether her existing right of way to the lake would remain, and 3) that parking be kept off her property. Since the picnic area would be removed she feared she would see only blacktop from her home. She noted currently vehicles park on her lawn and asked that this be monitored. She said she would be satisfied with the proposal if her 24 hour access to the lake would be maintained. Mr. Wilson submitted photos to show what the Town property looks like now and said the chain link fence would be replaced with a 2 ft. tall single rail fence and the gravel area would be planted with grass to create a green border along the road. Mr. Owen noted the state would not allow parking along the state road once the parking lot had been installed.

Mr. Carlson asked 1) wouldn't the boats using the proposed ramp also dredge up sediment, 2) what would happen when there were no parking spaces left for "wannabe" boaters, and 3) would Town residents be permitted to park in the 9 designated spaces? He also noted that with the number of trips between the state park and Town ramp required for permits and parking there would be almost as many vehicle trips on the dangerous roads as if the state had installed the launch as originally proposed at the state park. Mr. Frank responded there would be no dredging required for the ramp at the Washington end of the lake and that the churning up of sediment would not be an issue for the mooring of boats. He also stated that negotiations were underway and he hoped the state eligibility form could be available at the Town launch to eliminate trips back and forth between the park and the ramp. In response to what would happen to the waiting boaters, Mr. Owen noted there is no available parking now and so this was not a new issue.

Mrs. Friedman asked if when a boater could not prove Town residency and the maximum 20 non resident boats were already in the lake, would the boater be turned away. Mr. Frank said he would.

Mrs. Weber noted the boathouse would be demolished and the plans did not show where the caretaker's cottage and boathouse would be rebuilt. She did not want any of the existing Town beach or surrounding park to be lost. She received a round of applause from the audience. Mr. Solley responded the rebuilding of these structures was not included in Phase I, the boathouse would be rebuilt in some configuration, and the Town beach was "sacred." He indicated there was a possibility the large building might be replaced with several smaller ones to house police equipment and the lake compressors. Mr. Owen noted at this time the Zoning Commission was considering the current application for Phase I only.

Mrs. Weber noted what was approved in Phase I may affect future plans, which was a concern of the townspeople who were paying for the project. Mr. Owen said their concerns were legitimate, but that the Zoning Commission had no authority to deal with future hypothetical applications. He added the beach could not be eliminated without a public hearing.

Mrs. Andersen had procedural questions; 1) had there been a review under Section 8-24 of the state statutes and 2) did the proposal comply with the 1999 Heritage Lake Act? She thought there might be new ways to accomplish the goals of the three towns and that the introduction of power boats to the lake would be detrimental. Mrs. Hill responded that the Planning Commission minutes regarding its review of the proposal under Section 8-24 were in the file. Mrs. Friedman noted there are already motor boats of all sizes using the lake.

Mr. Kozak gave a lengthy presentation regarding how the proposed facility was not large enough or designed properly to accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated or the size of the boats and trailers that would use the facility. (His 1/2/07 letter is attached.) Though he noted the DEP had done a good design considering the small size of the property, he said it did not satisfy "form or function." He discussed the difficulty boaters would have maneuvering the driveway/parking area and feared there would be lines out in the road of boaters waiting to enter the facility. He suggested several possible changes, but found none of them to be totally satisfactory. 1) Change the angle of the parking spaces from 60 to 40 degrees.. This would make the spaces easier to pull in and out of, but 2 spaces would be lost. 2) Have someone on site to direct traffic. This would not be adequate to help someone back out of the parking space. 3) Bring in additional fill so the parking area could be larger. He said the Selectmen had declined to discuss this option with him. Mr. Kozak was also concerned there would be early morning lines outside the facility waiting for it to open as there were only 9 parking spaces and they would be used on a first come/first served basis. He thought this would be a dangerous situation on East Shore Road since the existing gravel pull off area would be grassed and fenced off. He said he believed out of towners should be able to boat on the lake, but that the Washington taxpayers had to get a workable plan for their money. He also noted there are no other parking areas within 600 ft. as required by the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen responded that particular parking requirement was for the commercial districts only. Mr. Owen thanked him for his thoughtful letter and his investigation of the problems and said it was a model that could be used by the public in the future. In response, Mr. Wilson read Mr. Payton's 1/19/07 email, which stated the plan had been approved by the DEP. Mr. Wilson noted that larger rigs could hang over the curb when pulling out of a space and said this was the best design possible for such a small area. He said the state would not have approved it if it would not work. He explained the standards that both he and the state had used to calculate the space needed and to draft the proposed layout. He then reviewed the number of vehicles that had used the launch the previous year and the busiest times of the year. The busiest day last year had been 16 vehicles and the busiest 2 hour period had 7 vehicles. As to whether enough parking had been provided, he stated that based on the agreement with the state, more parking had been provided than was required. Mrs. Friedman asked if there had been any discussion about limiting the size of the boats or trailers that could use the ramp. Mr. Wilson said there had not and that the proposed facility met the state standards for access.

Ms. Linda H_____ thought the public should have access to all future plans before Phase I was acted on. She objected that the overall goal for the entire beach was not known at this time. She thought a garden designer should review the landscaping plan, especially for the areas near the road where she thought fescue grasses were inappropriate because they were too tall. She also asked about the proposed "sump." Mr. Owen responded the site plan for Phase I was on file and that all the information required by the Washington Zoning Regulations had been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Wilson explained the sumps were located in the catch basins and would trap sediment before it reaches the lake. He also noted the grass near the road would be kept mowed because it could not obscure the sight lines.

Ms. Dupuis stated she had a problem with Phase II, which, she said, included plans for a 30 ft. X 50 ft. structure in the beach area. She noted the picnic area had already been lost so it was essential to save the beach. She asked if the Commission could not consider Phase II at this time, that it act on Phase I including the condition that any building in Phase II must be constructed on the existing footprints. Mr. Owen responded that the Commission could not prevent an applicant from applying for what he is legally allowed to. He said Phase II would be a separate application process and noted the Commission could not judge hypothetical issues.

Ms. Dupuis noted her concern about the impact of traffic on New Preston and asked that a DOT traffic study be conducted before the Commission acted on the application. She also wanted information on what impact use of the new ramp would have on air quality. Mr. Owen said air quality was not governed by the Zoning Regs and Ms. Dupuis responded health and safety were under the Commission's jurisdiction. She said there would be smog and noise from high powered boats and asked the Commission to make sure that all concerns were addressed before acting.

Mrs. Friedman asked if there had been any proposal to limit the horsepower permitted on the lake, both for residents and day users.

At this point Mr. Owen called a five minute recess.

Mr. Frank responded to Mrs. Friedman's question that the Lake Waramaug Assn. had been discussing a limitation for a long time and would examine it again when the boat launch issue had been resolved. He noted the DEP would have to approve any such limitation and also that public input would be sought.

Mr. Frank asked the Commission to keep in mind that the alternative to approving the application for the new boat launch would be a major state boat launch at the park, which would destroy the balanced recreational use of the lake.

Mr. Mustich said he agreed with the statements by Mrs. Weber and Ms. Dupuis that the Commission should have all the facts about Phases II and III before acting on Phase I and submitted a letter, which, he said, raised many questions about the proposal.

Mr. Cornet thought there was a conflict of interest because a Town commission would act on the Town's application. He asked about the funding for Phase I and Mr. Owen said this was not a zoning issue. Mr. Cornet asked if Phase I would be fully completed before Phase II was approved and said the public had the right to know what the future plans would be. Mr. Owen noted the Commission was concerned only with Phase I at this time and Mrs. Friedman agreed.

Mr. Cornett stated many townspeople were upset with how the application was being presented because there was no place where they could go to see the entire picture. He asked that the Commission not approve the application until the public was satisfied with the cost of the entire project and how it would look.

Mr. Nicholas thought the proposed boat launch was the "lesser of two evils," but said Phase II was implied. He noted the proposed site was an environmentally sensitive area and that potential demolition and reconstruction could impact the lake and so must be considered. He feared a year from now the Town would find out that Phase I was inadequate.

Mrs. Mestre stated the alternative to the proposed boat launch was much worse as there would be 80 more boats permitted if the ramp was located at the state park. She said this would result in much more noise and pollution than the current proposal.

Mr. Fraley urged the commissioners to lay out the proposed parking so they could see for themselves that it would not work. He said 6 additional feet of the lake would have to be filled to properly accommodate the vehicles using the ramp. He said there would be accidents if the proposed layout was implemented.

Mr. Robinson of Warren stated if the ramp was constructed at the state park there would be bass tournaments held on the lake and the boats used in these fishing tournaments were very fast and high powered.

Mr. Canal stated the most important consideration should be the health of the lake and its ecosystem. Without the proposed launch, he said, the condition of Lake Waramaug would deteriorate resulting in costly maintenance so it could continue to be used recreationally. He said not only was the lake an important resource to protect, but it contributed to tourism and the high property values in the area. He received a round of applause from the public.

Mr. Cornet noted in the 12 years since plans for the boat launch were first debated there has grown an overwhelming public environmental awareness. He thought it was inconceivable that the DEP could ignore this and construct a ramp at the park that would destroy the Town's natural asset. He urged the three towns to continue to fight against it.

Mrs. Bouquillon noted a right of way had been reserved for those property owners entitled to it, but asked if they would be given a map or literature to show them where it is located. Mr. Wilson said the Town would support the existing rights of access as shown on a map from 1964. He said the access would be next to the driveway. Mrs. Bouquillon wanted to be sure her right of way was protected, she could use it whenever she wanted, and she wanted assurances in writing. Mr. Frank stated the Town would provide her with whatever she was legally entitled to. Mr. Wilson said the pedestrian gate would not be locked.

Mr. Frank submitted the 1/19/07 letter from the Lake Waramaug Authority in support of the application.

Ms. Linda H___________ asked if the picnic area would be replaced. Mr. Solley stated if after the work was completed a suitable location was found, the Town would consider it.

Mr. Abella asked Mr. Wilson if he had considered decreasing the number of parking spaces from 9 to 7 to increase maneuverability. Mr. Wilson stated 1) 7 was too few spaces, 2) many factors such as getting all parking out of the state ROW, sizing the spaces according to DEP and Army Corps of Engineer standards, and general traffic safety guidelines figured into the design, and 3) many configurations had been considered and this was the one that worked the best. He stressed that the DEP was contributing $100,000 for construction and had approved the plan.

Mr. O'Lear noted the state would not conduct inspections at the park and asked why the Town could not do them instead. Mr. Owen responded inspections by the Town were included in the proposal.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit Application: Section 6.4.4 submitted by the Town of Washington to construct a boat ramp and parking at 59 East Shore Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen thanked the public for attending. He closed the hearing at 10:00 p.m.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:00 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates Abella and Shapiro.

MOTION: To add the following subsequent business to the agenda: 1) New Application: Sachs/104 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment, 2) Other Business: Scheduling of Verizon Telecommunications Tower Public Comment Session, 3) Communications: Circulation of Proposed Rural Roadscape Zone, and 4) 12/22/06 Letter and Brochures from HVA re: Protecting Water Quality. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 12/18/06 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.

Page 2: Mr. Shapiro pointed out minor corrections that would have to be made to the proposed lighting regulations, but Mr. Owen said these would be addressed during the public hearing.

Page 4: White/Parsonage Lane: The original paragraph was deleted and the following sentences substituted: "Mr. Ajello had informed the Zoning Commission that Mr. White had appealed the ZEO's decision, but actually, no action had been taken on the application. The appeal was premature and Mr. White subsequently withdrew it."

MOTION: To accept the 12/18/06 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

2 Wheaton, LLC./2 Wheaton Road/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.f/ Professional Offices: Mr. Distell, owner, was present. Mr. Ajello reported the coverage would depend on the amount of on site parking required. He said he had asked the applicant to attend to address the office use and the number of spaces that would be required. He noted there was no sign off from the Health Department. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, February 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.

Sachs/104 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Ross, contractor, represented the property owner. A public hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room immediately following the 2 Wheaton, LLC. hearing.

Other Business

Preliminary Discussion/Piscuskas/New Milford Turnpike/Light Manufacturing: Mr. Piscuskas was interested in purchasing the property at the corner of Mygatt Road and Rt. 202. Mrs. Hill explained the issue was that Mr. Piscuskas proposed a commercial building larger than the maximum 7500 sq. ft. allowed in this district and he was looking for direction from the Commission regarding whether it would consider a revision to the Marbledale District regulations. Mr. Piscuskas presented photos of the existing large structures in this section of Marbledale to show that the size building he proposed would be in keeping with the immediate surroundings. He said he was aware of the Commission's goal to preserve the Town's rural character. Mr. Owen advised Mr. Piscuskas that he could petition to revise the Regulations, but this would be unrelated to the specific project he would propose if the revisions were approved. The revisions would apply to the entire district, not just the property Mr. Piscuskas was interested in. Mrs. Friedman advised him that any petition had to be specific. Mr. Owen noted a public hearing would be required and the proposed language would be referred to the Planning Commission and surrounding councils of government.

Pending Application

Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.4/Boat Ramp and Parking: The Commissioners expressed their views about the application. Mrs. Friedman thought the public had raised valid points, but thought the Commission had to consider the alternative in the broader context. She noted it had taken years to reach the current Agreement and she feared if the application was not approved, a far less satisfactory project would result. Mr. Shapiro noted the Commission had been presented with contradictory evidence regarding the feasibility of the proposal, but that the Town had made convincing arguments that had been backed by the state that the plan would work. He thought it was feasible. Mr. Abella said he understood Mr. Kozak's concerns and he knew the property was limited in size, but he accepted Mr. Wilson's explanation that the number of parking spaces could not be decreased. He thought the Commission should "deal with the bigger picture" because approval of the application would be a major step to protect Lake Waramaug. Mr. Averill was in favor of the plan as presented. He said the issues raised about the proposed launch were minor compared to the bigger picture of saving the entire lake. He also noted the purpose of the ramp was not to make the lake more accessible to more and larger boats, but to control what happens to the lake and to protect it. Mr. Owen stated that considering Dr. Kortmann's review of the alternatives, he did not see a feasible alternative to the application presented. He agreed the proposed parking was a difficult situation, but did not necessarily think that was a bad thing. He thought perhaps if traffic got backed up the boaters would go elsewhere and that the Town could never increase the capacity enough to solve all of the problems raised. He thanked the public for its intelligent and forcefully made objections, but noted again the Commission could consider only Phase I at this time.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.4 submitted by the Town of Washington for a boat ramp and parking at 59 East Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Regulations/Outdoor Residential Lighting: It was noted the public hearing would be the third hearing on Monday, February 26, 2007.

Revision of the Regulations/Prohibition of Outdoor Wood and Other Fuel Burning Furnaces: This revision will also be considered at the public hearing on February 26. Mr. and Mrs. Buonaiuto asked the Commission why it was concerned about outdoor wood furnaces. Mr. Owen said the Commission had based its proposal on the nuisance to neighbors caused by these furnaces. Mrs. Buonaiuto submitted the article, "Emission from Outdoor Wood Burning Residential Hot Water Furnaces," by Valenti and Clayton, dated February 1998. Mr. Buonaiuto also asked if the Commission was aware that the Ct. legislature had tried unsuccessfully to regulate their use. Mr. Owen advised them to attend the public hearing.

Revision of the Regulations/Restaurants and Eating and Drinking Establishments in All Commercial Districts: Mr. Owen suggested the Commission move ahead now and schedule a public hearing for the provisions it had already agreed upon, while continuing to work on those that do not yet have a consensus. It was agreed to schedule a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 26, 2007 in the Land Use Meeting Room to consider the following revisions:

New Section 13.20: Eating and Drinking Establishments.

13.20.A Food and beverages shall not be sold or served to customers while customers are in motor vehicles.

13.20.B The establishment shall be closed to the public for no less than 10 hours during any 24 hour period.

Communications

Application for Verizon Telecommunications Tower: A public informational and comment session was scheduled for Monday, March 5, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.. It was noted this was not a Zoning application and the Zoning Commission would have little input other than perhaps expressing a preference for one of the two sites proposed.

Rural Roadscape District: Proposed language to create a rural roadscape district with regulations to help preserve the rural character along the Town's roads was circulated. At its next meeting the Commission will discuss whether it would like to pursue this matter.

Commission Vacancies: Mr. Owen noted Mr. Abella would be moved up as a Member to replace Mr. Martin and so an Alternate would have to be found for his seat. Also, he noted Mr. Wyant had not responded to his letter asking him to resign due to poor attendance. Mr. Owen said he had discussed the need for new members with the chairman of the Republican Town Committee. Mrs. Friedman suggested that unaffiliated voters also be considered if the R was having difficulty recommending replacements.

HVA - Protecting Water Quality Information: Copies of brochures for applicants and land use commissions were distributed for review.

Enforcement

Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Ajello reported that enforcement procedures by the Inland Wetlands Commission were not progressing well. He noted there are several zoning violations on this property including shop and storage use on a residential lot without a Special Permit. Mr. Owen advised Mr. Ajello that if it becomes necessary to fine Mr. Moore, the Commission will vote to do it.

Denscot Pools/269 New Milford Turnpike: Mr. Ajello noted much of the material had been cleaned up and said he would continue to monitor the property.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

---

Meetings in 2006