Seal: Washington, Connecticut; Founded 1779 www.WashingtonCT.org
The Town of Washington, Connecticut

Minutes: Zoning Commission		 Home
Search
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 15 • November 24 • November 10 • October 28 • October 27 • October 20 • September 22 • August 25 • July 28 • June 23 • May 19 • April 28 • March 24 • February 25 • January 28 • January 7 •

Previous years: 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002

Posted: December 24, 2008

December 15, 2008

Public Hearings – Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m.
Land Use Meeting Room

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

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

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr./Mrs. Peacocke, Mr. Carey, Papsin, Mr. Carey, Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Wildman, Mr. O’Neill, Mr. Harris, Mr. Worcester, Mrs. Hardee, Atty. Fisher, Mrs. Solomon, Mrs. McDonald, Mr. Mustich, Mr./Mrs. Rickert, Atty. Strub, Atty. Hill, Mr. Charles, Ms. Zinick, Residents, Press

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

At 7:30 p.m. Mr. Owen reconvened the Public Hearing.

Mr. O’Neill, architect, reviewed the revisions to the plan that were made in response to the discussion that took place at the last session of the Hearing. The floor plans, A1.01, by Steven Harris Architects, revised to 12/15/08 were studied. 1) The porch between the main dwelling unit and the larger of the apartment units was enclosed with glazed panels. That accessory apartment could then be considered attached because it shared a wall with the main unit. 2) A kitchenette and mud room were added to the guest quarters to bring this unit over the 400 sq. ft. minimum size requirement for an accessory apartment. Because the porch connecting this area with the attached apartment would be screened, it was considered a detached apartment.

It was noted that all of the units share a single driveway.

There were no questions or concerns raised by the commissioners or the public.

MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Donovan for a detached accessory apartment at 53 Kinney Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.

Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Performing Arts Center
Mr. Owen called the Public Hearing to order at 7:36 p.m. He then read the 12/15/08 ZEO Report, which noted the application proposed a redesign of the arts center originally approved in 2007.

Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/3 and 12/10/08.

Mr. Owen read the list of the documents in the file.

Mr. Worcester, architect, reviewed the site plan, “Property Plan,” PP-1, dated 8/19/08, the elevations, A-2 and A-3, by Mr. Worcester, dated 11/24/08, and the floor plans, A-1, dated 11/24/08. He noted the theater would be moved to the existing soccer field near Holly House where the parking would be separated from the road by the existing treed buffer. He pointed out the existing parking areas that would be used. He said the proposed building was slightly smaller than the one approved previously and that it measured 34 ft. to the highest peak.

Mrs. Friedman asked what materials would be used to construct the building. Mr. Worcester said it would be stucco to match the surrounding structures.

Mr. Owen asked if the proposed lighting met the residential lighting requirements. Mr. Ajello said it was not shown on the plan, but it was detailed in the text submitted, and it did meet the Regulations. Mr. Worcester said the outdoor theater lights would be on only when the theater was in use and that the lights on the building would be laterally shielded sconces.

Mr. Ajello said access by the Fire Dept. was not an issue.

There were no questions from the public.

MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Glenholme School for a performing arts center at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.


REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 7:47 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes
The 11/24/08 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 7: Sentence beginning in the first line should be: “Mrs. Friedman stated that even if the applicant’s numbers for the main building were cut in half; 238 spaces reduced to 119, the 56 spaces provided near the main building by the applicant would still be inadequate.”
Page 9: 10th line: Insert: “stone” before “balustrades.” 10th line from bottom: Delete: “driveway is at a right angle to the road and the….”
Page 15: Under Privilege of the Floor: Last sentence should be: “Mr. Owen noted this matter would be taken up at a different time.”

MOTION: To accept the 11/24/08 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0

Pending Applications

Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Donovan for a detached accessory apartment at 53 Kinney Hill Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Preforming Arts Center
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by the Devereux Glenholme School to construct a performing arts center at 81 Sabbaday Lane. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed 5-0.

Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
It was noted the Public Hearing is scheduled for January 26, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.

Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 4.4.1 and 10.9/Inn:
Mr. Owen read a statement for the record. It concluded with a motion to deny the application. (See attached Addendum.)

MOTION: To deny the Special Permit application: Sections 4.4.1 and 13.9 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman.

The commissioners gave their reasons in support and against the application.

Mr. Shapiro stated that he agreed with Mr. Owen’s remarks and had been troubled by many aspects of the application as reflected in Mrs. Friedman’s memo submitted at the last meeting. He said he was still troubled by the lot coverage issue and read from Atty. Zizka’s 11/24/08 letter. He said the applicant had added parking spaces on the grass because there was reason to believe these spaces would be needed to accommodate additional vehicles from time to time and that the more he reviewed the record, the clearer it was from the evidence that these additional spaces would, indeed, be needed. This being so, he said, according to Atty. Zizka’s letter these spaces had to be counted as lot coverage and so the application violated the lot coverage regulations.

Mr. Fitzherbert disagreed. He referred to the past history of the property. He said it was not unusual for the Zoning Commission to work with an applicant who revised his application with the intent of meeting the Regulations. He also thought it was unfair that the newspapers had focused on the opposition to the application. He stated the proposed inn would be extremely good for Washington’s economy, that it was a good use of the property, that 250 letters in support had been received, that it would provide needed jobs, and that it would be an asset the community could be proud of. He also thought that a 44 room inn was not that large. He agreed with Mr. Owen that some of the applicant’s statements had been unclear. He thought the proposed Overflow Parking Plan was an over reaction by the applicant and that the additional cars could have parked on the grass as is done at many other places in Town. He thought the denial of the application would be a huge loss for the Town and said he would worry about potential future uses of the property.

Mr. Averill agreed with many of Mr. Owen’s points. He said the application had evolved so much that it would now be difficult to know what to enforce. He said he had a problem with the intensity of the proposed businesses associated with the inn; the restaurant, bar, health club, and spa, and asked if a bowling alley would be OK in this district if it was associated with an inn. He noted the uses associated with the inn would not be allowed on their own in the district. He did not think the inn would be economically viable and that the enterprise would actually result in a restaurant/bar/spa with an associated inn rather than vice versa. He said that too much was proposed for the particular location and that it was not in keeping with the scale and size of the neighborhood. He said that it had been the original intent of the Regulations to allow inns only on state roads and that he had agreed this had been the intent when the Commission had discussed it. He said he could vote against the application on this issue alone. In conclusion, he stated that he could not in good conscience vote for the application.

Mr. Abella said that Mr. Owen had given a good summary and that it was a very complicated application. He agreed with Mr. Fitzherbert, however, saying this was a quality product proposed in a location where there was already a school. He thought its proposed size pushed the limits, but that it was still within the Zoning Regulations, especially with the buffering proposed. He said the inn would be good for the Town and would qualify for approval under the Regulations.

Mrs. Friedman disagreed with Mr. Fitzherbert. She stated that the Commission had been instructed by its attorney that economics and the number of letters in support were not Zoning’s concerns and that the Commission must apply its Regulations. She said she had written her memo with 14 reasons to deny the application based on the Zoning Regulations and she stood by these reasons. She said the proposal was inappropriate for this location and she would vote to deny the application.

Vote: 3-2. (Motion approved, Application denied)

Mr. Owen noted that the commissioners had adequately stated their reasons for their votes and he thanked everyone who had taken part in the zoning review process.

New Application

Moore/127 Blackville Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen read the 12/15/08 ZEO Report. Mr. Ajello said the application was not complete at this time; that the elevations and the affidavit from the owner that he would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit were needed before the legal notice was published. He also said the applicant would have to convince the Commission that the apartment would be subordinate to the main dwelling, which would be set back further from the road and at a lower elevation than the apartment. Ms. Zinick stated the DOT had no problem with the proposed driveway and that she would get written confirmation for the hearing. The Public Hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2009.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Uses Permitted in the Woodville Business District/Addition of Restaurants:
Mr. Owen read the current section 10.4.1.a. As had been discussed at the September meeting, he proposed that the last phrase, “but excluding restaurants and fast food establishments” be deleted and “eating and drinking establishments” be added to the list of uses permitted by Special Permit. Mrs. Hill had researched the 2000 minutes and had found that back then the Commission had thought that restaurant traffic, parking, and late business hours would not be compatible with the neighborhood. However, the current commissioners no longer had those concerns because there had always been a restaurant in this district and there had never been any complaints about it. Mrs. Friedman agreed that eating and drinking establishments should be permitted by Special Permit in Woodville and recommended that the Regulations be revised so that they would also require Special Permits in the New Preston and Depot business districts. Mr. Wyant thought the existing regs worked well, but Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Abella, and Mr. Averill agreed that restaurants should be a Special Permit use in all of the business districts. Mr. Fitzherbert thought the Commission had been considering changes to the Woodville District and should work now on that one topic. Mr. Owen had no problem proceeding with both. Mrs. Friedman noted that how the Regs deal with eating and drinking establishments is only one example of the inconsistencies between the districts, and added this was a problem that must be addressed. Mr. Owen asked her to bring a list of her concerns to the next meeting. It was the consensus to schedule a public hearing in February to consider the change to Section 10.4.1.a. Referrals will be made to the Planning Commission and COG’s.

MOTION: To proceed with the noticing and scheduling of a Public Hearing to consider the following revision to the Woodville Business District regulations: Section 10.4.1.a: Add: Eating and Drinking Establishments. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

The 2009 Calendar of Meeting dates was approved.

MOTION: To approve the 2009 Calendar. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Possible Revisions to the Regulations/Priorities:
1) Noise Generating Equipment: Mr. Owen thought the Commission should either go back to the original language or create actual standards or procedures the ZBA can follow when determining whether to grant a Special Exception for noise generating equipment. He explained that because the current language states that a Special Exception may be granted if the proposed location would create less noise impact than the conforming location, the regulation as written could not be applied by the ZBA. It was noted it had been decided previously that a) Mr. Owen would discuss this matter with Mr. Sedito, ZBA Chairman, and b) the Commission would go back to the original language, which required this equipment to be placed closer to the principal structure served than to any setback lines. Mr. Owen said he would have draft language for the January meeting.
2) Business Signs in Residential Districts: Mr. Owen noted the current Regulations state that there may be no business signs in residential districts, but he thought there were some businesses that need signs. Mrs. Friedman thought that most of these were institutional uses. Mr. Owen suggested that the uses allowed to have signs be listed and that the size of the sign be limited to 4 sq. ft. He said the current reg that residential lots may have only one non commercial sign not over 2 sq. ft. would remain as would the requirements for temporary signs. Size and time limits for temporary signs were discussed. While most favored allowing only one contractor’s sign per property and requiring that it be removed after one month or when the work is completed, whichever comes first, it was agreed it would be an enforcement nightmare. Mr. Owen asked the commissioners to review for the next meeting the draft list of businesses that would be permitted to have signs in the residential districts.
3) Preservation of Stonewalls: This was an issue that Mrs. Hill had added to the list in response to a call from a newspaper reporter and because she had learned several other towns had enacted regulations to preserve existing stonewalls as one way to preserve rural character. It was the consensus this was not a priority at this time.
4) Dance Studios in the R-1 District: It was noted that Mr. Owen and Mr. Ajello had not met with representatives from Pilobolus.

Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Papsin agreed with the Commission that noise generating equipment should be kept close to the house it serves.

Mr. Papsin asked if changing restaurants to a Special Permit use would keep Dunkin’ Donuts out of the residential zones. Mrs. Friedman noted restaurants are only permitted in the business districts. Mr. Owen explained that the Regulations could not distinguish between a specific business use and the owner of that use. He noted, however, that the Commission had forbidden drive-through restaurants in Town and said that should eliminate some of the attractiveness of fast food ventures. Mrs. Friedman noted that other restaurant restrictions, such as no disposables, had been considered, but none had been agreed upon. Mr. Papsin asked if the proposed scenic road designation for Rt. 202 in Marbledale would have any affect on restaurants. Mr. Owen said it would not.

Communications
Mr. Owen noted that Mr. Talbot’s 3/3/08 letter to Mrs. Hill about the creation of parcels was still pending and would be discussed at the next meeting.

Enforcement
Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Ajello to contact Washington Pizza about its backlit signs.

Mr. Ajello circulated a photo of the stairway constructed within 75 ft. of the lake shore by Mr. Liljequist. He will contact the owner about the Special Permit requirements.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the Meeting at 9:06 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator



ADDENDUM

I am a strong believer in the place of inns in Washington, both historically and potentially. The hospitality business has been a big part of the town’s economic and civic life for more than a century, just as schools and farms and shops and weekenders have been. I am convinced that inns were very much in the minds of the authors of our zoning regulations, back in the nineteen-thirties, and that they have been in the minds of subsequent zoning commissioners, at least until very recently. One of the things that struck me in reading Janet’s excellent summary of the history of the commission’s treatment of inns is the extent to which parts of our regulations seem to have evolved almost by random mutation. Even so, inns have always been included, and have, therefore, always been part of the town’s conception of “rural character” — the indefinable but cherished local quality that we are charged to protect. Rural character, in my view, is not strangers living in widely separated houses on seldom-traveled roads. Rural character is, more than anything else, a spirit of community and interdependence. It’s the town hall and the grocery store and the firehouse and the nursery school and the library and the Gunnery and the pizza place and the town beach and Devereux-Glenholme and the Mayflower, along with all the residents and visitors who regularly come together in those places. The rural character of Washington would be terminally diminished if such places were replaced with empty fields, even though local decibel levels and traffic counts would decrease.

Nevertheless, the regulations require us to consider not inns in general but specific applications for specific locations. That’s what we have been doing since we began, back in July. And the result of that long process, for me, has been the unhappy but inescapable conclusion that I cannot support this application.

My first main concern regarding the Wykeham Rise application has to do with a realization I began to come to terms with shortly before our meeting last month, when I was rewriting Valerie’s list of possible conditions of approval. I was able to identify a number of issues that continued to trouble me, but, in the end, I have been unable, even with help from Janet, Mike, and Attorney Zizka, to persuade myself that it would be possible to create plausible, enforceable conditions by which the commission could be assured of resolving all of them.

The most important of those remaining issues, in my mind, have to do with the requirements of Section 13.1.b.2 of the special permit regulations, and specifically with the size, scale, proportion, and appearance of the proposed use, and with Section 13.1.b.5, which concerns the size and other characteristics of the lot. Unlike some, I believe that inns belong in the R-1 zone, as our regulations state; yet I have, finally, been unable to assure myself that this particular inn would be appropriate for this particular site. The proposed plan in its final form comes very close to the absolute limit of what the regulations allow, in terms of lot coverage, yet in order to keep the plan within that limit — while also addressing other concerns of various commissioners and neighbors, as well as ensuring that the proposed inn would remain a viable business — the applicant had to be aggressive in removing, shrinking, and modifying structures, driveways, parking areas, and other features. This process improved the proposal in many ways, by correcting serious flaws in the original plan, but it harmed it in others, and it also left an extremely narrow margin of error, both for the applicant and for the commission. It also raises finally unanswerable doubts in my mind regarding precisely what the town might reasonably expect of the inn as a functioning enterprise.

The submission of the applicant’s 55-space “Overflow Parking Plan,” at the final session of the public hearing, contributed to making this issue irresolvable for me. I agree strongly with Attorney Zizka’s reading of our parking regulations, and with his opinion that the occasional parking of cars on grass should not be considered to constitute lot coverage by the town’s definition, but I also heed his remarks, in his letter of November 6, 2008, about “conditions that do not allow for easy enforcement” yet are essential to approval. To me, the “Overflow Parking Plan” unavoidably suggests that the applicant anticipates the possibility of large parking shortfalls, and this in turn raises a clear danger that the likely actual use of the property is understated by the rest of the proposal. The existence of the “Overflow Parking Plan” as an element of the proposal, furthermore, makes this problem permanent. I don’t believe that this difficulty can be removed with an enforceable condition of approval, or even a series of conditions of approval.

This leads directly to another major concern, which is that the proposal raises what might be called a meta-enforcement issue, since the commission and its staff, if the application should be successful, would face not only the difficulty of holding the applicant and his successors to the terms of the approval but also the difficulty of determining precisely what those terms had been. As Janet has pointed out, the applicant’s proposal is not contained in a single, comprehensive document; it is spread through two large storage boxes and several additional thick file folders, as well as numerous tape recordings and many pages of meeting minutes and a large assortment of drawings and superseded drawings. To determine the precise final form of what has been proposed — and therefore what must be required of the applicant, should the project be approved — would necessitate an almost archaeological study of a large collection of materials, and, even then, achieving absolute certainty would be impossible, since a number of the apparently relevant items are confusing or contradictory. An approval, in my opinion, would require the commission to be able to agree on which statements and documents and concepts provided by the applicant are still current, and therefore part of the proposal, and which are not, and then to resolve any differences among those. Even now, when the file and the testimony are relatively fresh in everyone’s mind, I am unable to do that for myself. The applicant’s letter of October 17, 2008 — the one that contains, among other things, the statement about use of the inn and the swimming pool by children, a statement that seemed to baffle even the applicant and his advisers — is an example. Are the conditions described or offered in that letter to be treated as a part of the proposal, or are they something else? It is notable that even such a relatively simple question as whether or not the main building is intended to contain a swimming pool was not resolved until near the end of the public hearing and, even then, required discussion.

My other principal remaining concerns are closely related. They have to do with the very large size of the proposed main building, the large number of proposed guest rooms, the possible impact on parking requirements of the use of the function room by patrons other than overnight guests, the minimal adequacy of the main entrance/exit, what I believe to be the inferiority of the current single-access driveway scheme to either of its one-way predecessors, and the arbitrary-seeming or deadline-driven nature of a number of later modifications to the plan. If almost any of these concerns had been the only concern, the dilemma, for me, would have been reduced; but all of these concerns, taken together, add up, in my mind, to a problem too large to be either overlooked or solved with enforceable conditions of approval. I deeply respect Gary’s contrary view regarding this application, and not only because I agree with almost all of it. In the end, though, the arguments I have found the most affecting have been concerns that Janet expressed as we discussed possible reasons for approval or denial, and that Ralph expressed at our November meeting, as well as further contemplation of our correspondence from Attorney Zizka and my own brooding about the proposal and the file.

All of this makes me unhappy for many reasons. I am disappointed that the applicant did not begin with a smaller, more complete proposal, on a scale that I could have voted confidently to approve. But I don’t see any way around that, and I move that we deny the application.

David Owen
December 15, 2008

Posted: December 12, 2008

November 24, 2008

PLEASE NOTE:
When these minutes were originally posted on Decenber 5, 2008, three attachments were inadvertently left out. They have now been added.

Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

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: Mr. Klauer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Wildman, Mr. Worcester, Mr. Surnow, Mr. O’Neill, Mrs. Hardee, Mrs. Addicks, Mr./Mrs. Peacocke, Mr. Appleyard, Mr. Adams, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Condon, Mrs. Weber, Atty. Hill, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Ms. Giampietro, Mr./Mrs. Rickert, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Charles, Residents, Press


PUBLIC HEARING:
Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 11/12/08 and 11/19/08.

Mr. Owen read the 11/24/08 ZEO report and listed the documents in the file.

Mr. O’Neill, architect, was present. He noted that site constraints and environmental issues had generated the proposed pod construction and floor plan. He presented floor plans, A1.01, revised to 9/10/08 and a model of the proposed dwelling. Both a 1000+ sq. ft. accessory apartment and an approximate 400 sq. ft. guest quarters were proposed. These were connected to the main portion of the house by open screened porches with radiant floor heat. Mr. O’Neill thought this should qualify as one house as all of the components were connected by one continuous roof. He also thought the guest quarters should not qualify as an apartment because no kitchen was proposed, although it had a full bath and separate entrance. He stated, too, that Mr. Donovan had submitted a letter that he would not rent out either space while he owns the house.

Mr. Ajello did not think the guest quarters could be considered an accessory apartment because it was less than the miniumum required size of 400 sq. ft.

Mr. Owen questioned whether it was possible to have a detached accessory apartment in the middle of a house.

Mr. Ajello read Section 21.1.2, the definition of attached accessory apartment, and said he did not think the proposed apartment met this definition because it did not share a common wall with the main dwelling. Mr. O’Neill said it did because the screened porch was heated space. Mr. Owen disagreed because the screened porch was open.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the guest quarters could be used as a separate residential unit. Mr. O’Neill said it was a caregiver space with no kitchen and that it was separated from the apartment by the screened porch to provide some privacy.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked for the combined sq. footage of the guest quarters and apartment. Mr. O’Neill responded it was 1700+ sq. ft., which was too large for a single accessory apartment.

Mr. Fitzherbert and Mrs. Friedman thought the plans represented a 1700+ sq. ft. apartment. Several alternate reconfigurations that might comply with the Regulations were noted. These included enclosing the screened porch between the house and apartment with glass so it would qualify as an attached apartment and including the second screened porch in the sq. footage of the guest quarters so it would be large enough to qualigy as a detached apartment, relocating the guest quarters to the porch area between the house and apartment, and detaching the guest quarters from the rest of the building.

Mr. O’Neill said the applicant wanted to keep the house as designed, but Mr. Owen noted the Regulations had to be applied. Mr. Ajello did not think a variance could be applied for as there was no hardship.

Mrs. Weber, adjoining property owner, asked to see a map that would show the location of her property in relation to the proposed house. The map, “Site Plan,” AO.01, dated 8/9/08 was reviewed. Mr. O’Neill noted the proposed house was only 17 feet tall and Mr. Ajello said it would not be seen from the Weber property.

Mrs. Friedman stated she was not ready to vote as the proposal was unlike anything the Commission had ever seen.

Mr. Averill did not understand how the guest quarters could not be considered part of the accessory apartment.

Mr. Abella did not think the Regulations allowed the house as proposed.

Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Owen thought that Mr. Ajello’s suggestion to enclose both porches so that 1) the apartment could be considered attached to the house and 2) the second porch could be added to the guest quarters to bring it beyond the minimum sq. ft. for a detached apartment could work. As proposed, the Commission did not think there was sufficient attachment without enclosing the porches and so the current proposal could not be approved.

Mr. O’Neill said he would consult with the owner and with Mr. Ajello to try to resolve the problems.

MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Donovan for a detached accessory apartment at 53 Kinney Hill Road to 12/15/08 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

At 8:10 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to 12/15/08.

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 8:11 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes
The 10/27/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. The date on the header should be 10/27/08 throughout. On page 5, the 2nd line from the top should read, “…referral had been made, and the report received….”

MOTION: To accept the 10/27/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.

The 10/28/08 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 1: 7th line from bottom: Change “transfer pads” to “transformer pads.”
Page 2: First word: Change “he” to “ Mr. Szymanski.”
Page 2: 2nd paragraph from bottom: Add sentence: “Mr. Etherington had judged the 16 ft. driveway width as sufficient for equipment access.”
Page 3: 2nd paragraph, 2nd line: Clarke is the correct spelling.

MOTION: To accept the 10/28/08 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

The 11/10/08 Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected.
Page 11: 1st paragraph under Section 13.9: End of 12th line: Add: “the only affected applications in memory concern the Mayflower Inn.”
Page 12: 1st paragraph: last line: Delete the entire last sentence.
Page 12: 2nd paragraph: 2nd sentence: Change it to: “He said that Atty. Zizka had told him that he was drawn to Atty. Hill’s interpretation, but could not say that Atty. Fisher’s interpretation was wrong.”

MOTION: To accept the 11/10/08 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.


New Applications
Devereux Glenholme School/81 Sabbaday Lane/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Performing Arts Center:

Mr. Owen read the 11/24/08 ZEO Report. Mr. Worcester, architect, showed on the map, “Property Plan,” by Mr. Worcester, dated 8/19/08, where the art center addition had been previously approved and where a new separate art center was now proposed. It was noted the proposed location was hundreds of feet from any property lines.

MOTION: To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Devereux Glenholme School for a performing arts center at 81 Sabbaday Lane on December 15, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall; immediately following the first hearing, which begins at 7:30 p.m. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen read the 11/24/08 ZEO Report and noted that the applicant had requested the public hearing be scheduled for the January meeting. Mrs. Friedman noted that the required variances and Inland Wetlands Commission approval had not yet been obtained and that the Commission normally waits until the application is complete to schedule a hearing. She recommended that the Commission wait until its December meeting to determine whether the application was ready for a hearing. Mr. Owen noted the hearing could be scheduled at the applicant’s risk.

MOTION: To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mrs. Conlon for a detached accessory apartment at 6 Valley Road on January in the Land Use Meeting Room Bryan Memorial Town Hall; immediately following the second hearing; hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 4-1. Mrs. Friedman voted No because the required variances and Inland Wetlands permit had not yet been granted.


Pending Application
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn:

It was noted that all of the commissioners had read Atty. Zizka’s 11/24/08 letter received this afternoon. Mr. Owen said his goal was not to vote on the application at this meeting, but to have an idea by the end of the meeting which way the Commission would vote so that a draft motion could be reviewed by Atty. Zizka before the next meeting. He asked the commissioners for their thoughts about the application.

Mrs. Friedman had circulated her reasons for denial at the last meeting, but said she had revised it and had added reason #14. She passed out the revised document. (Attached-Addendum 1) Lot coverage was discussed. 1) Use of Flexi-Pave: Mrs. Friedman read #13 from her document, in which she state that the applicant had not informed the Commission until 10/28 that he proposed to use Flexi-Pave for the walkway surfaces, that the Commission had not determined that this material fit its regulatory language concerning pervious materials, those walkways, then, should count as coverage, and therefore, the application exceeded the maximum 10% lot coverage allowed. Mr. Owen thought that Flexi-Pave was a pervious material that should not be counted as coverage due to the phrase, “such as” in the definition of lot coverage, meaning that not every material that could be exempt was listed. . Mr. Owen asked what evidence was there in the record to show that Flexi-Pave was not similar to the materials listed in the definition. Mrs. Friedman said its porosity, look, feel, appearance, and the fact that it was not a natural material made it different. Mr. Shapiro agreed, saying that it might be a better, even more porous material, but it was different than the natural materials listed. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed with Mr. Owen and said a porous material that is good for the environment should not be excluded from the list. Mr. Abella suggested a condition of approval could require that natural materials such as pea stone or gravel be used for the walkways. Mrs. Friedman did not think the Commission should be pressured into making an 11th hour determination about whether Flexi-Pave qualified as a material appropriate to exclude from the lot coverage calculations. Mr. Averill agreed. 2) Overflow Parking: Mr. Owen noted that whether the 55 overflow parking spaces should count as lot coverage was a “huge” concern for him and he summarized Atty. Zizka’s comments in his 11/24/08 letter. He asked whether the purpose of the Overflow Parking Plan was to demonstrate there would never be any parking along Wykeham Road or if it more accurately reflected the intensity of the proposed use. He noted that according to Atty. Zizka, the Commission would have to determine whether those parking spaces would likely be needed on a regular basis because Zizka did not think that grass surfaces that were used only during “unusual circumstances” should count as lot coverage. Mr. Shapiro thought that due to the capacity of the proposed facility there was reason to believe that extra spaces, maybe not 55, but a “good number,” would be necessary to accommodate vehicle parking. He thought there that absolutely there would be more vehicles using the facilities than could be handled by the minimum 103 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Owen thought the Mayflower Inn was a similar use with a similar number of parking spaces, which have adequately served it, and so asked what would be the basis for requiring more parking at Wykeham Rise. Mrs. Friedman objected to the comparison to the Mayflower because she said that the Commission had been advised not to compare them. Mr. Owen noted that when figuring the number of required parking spaces for the various functions proposed, Mrs. Friedman had used more seats than the applicant had specified. Mrs. Friedman said she had used the capacity numbers that were determined by the Health Dept., Fire Dept, and Building code; sources, she said, that could not be discounted. Mr. Owen asked if she had used comparable numbers when reviewing the Mayflower parking. Mrs. Friedman said the current application had to be considered on its own. Mr. Owen thought the number of parking spaces would be a natural limit for the number of vehicles. Mrs. Friedman disagreed, pointing out, for example, that both the GW Tavern and Rumsey Hall School have a limited number of parking spaces and rather than limiting the number of vehicles, it just moves the parking out along the roads. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Health Dept. computes the maximum capacity, but this is seldom reached. He said the business plan itself, not the Health Dept. maximum figures should be used to compute the number of parking spaces required. Mrs. Friedman stated that even if the Health and Building code numbers for the main building were cut in half, 238 spaces reduced to 119, the 56 parking spaces provided near this building by the applicant would still be inadequate. Mr. Shapiro said these figures suggest that the overflow spaces would be used on a regular basis. Mr. Averill questioned per Zizka’s letter, what the dividing point was for parking from time to time vs. on a regular basis. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed there would be overflow parking at certain times, but said it was not possible to determine how often. Mr. Shapiro noted that according to Zizka’s letter, the Commission could not limit the ownership of the property to a single entity and suggested that if there were separate owners in the future, the number of parking spaces needed could increase. Mr. Owen said the Commission could not speculate on future use. Mr. Fitzherbert said it would be a future enforcement issue. Mrs. Friedman pointed out that the Commission had been counseled in Zizka’s 11/6/08 letter to be careful about approving anything that would rely on enforcement to make it work. Mr. Ajello noted that the current lot coverage is .2% under the maximum allowed, so if they were found to be needed, 7 to 12 spaces could be added within the allowable limit. Mrs. Friedman stated that her concerns about the inadequacy of the parking provided would not be resolved with the addition of only 12 spaces. It was agreed there was a dramatic difference of opinion regarding the adequacy of the proposed parking.

The scale and intensity of the proposed use were discussed. Mr. Owen and Mrs. Friedman thought the key question to be addressed was whether the proposed size, scale, and intensity of the proposed use were appropriate for the proposed location. Mr. Averill said that even though the size of the operation had been reduced three times, it was still very large. He questioned whether it was an appropriate use for a country lane and noted that many trees along Wykeham Road would have to be cut, which would work against the preservation of the area’s rural character. He did not think the scale of the main building was appropriate for the area, calling it “Six Flags Over Washington,” and said it was not a country inn, but a destination resort. He also did not think the parking and entrance were adequate. Mr. Abella said he was comfortable with the proposal, noting that buffering was proposed. Mrs. Friedman stated there was too much development on too small a site. She did not think the coverage numbers provided were credible. She said the proposed use did not meet the residential district definition in Section 4.1 and noted that if approved, the property values in the area would go down. She said the Town’s citizens were counting on the Commission to uphold its Regulations; an enormous responsibility that should be taken seriously. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the overall project met the 10% lot coverage standard. He agreed with Mr. Averill that the main building was very big, but said that it and the other buildings proposed were positioned so that they would not be as visible as the existing buildings. He said that the purpose of Zoning is to encourage the most appropriate use of land in Town and he could not imagine a more appropriate or less intensive use than that proposed. He noted the applicant had addressed concerns as they had been raised and that 250 letters of support had been received. He said the proposal meets the criteria for a low intensity use as an inn and that it is not a destination resort. Mr. Owen again stated that he was concerned with the size and the scale of the proposal. He referred to a 2003 ZEO Report regarding the Mayflower spa, which called the Mayflower a relatively low intensity use that was screened from the road and did not generate much noise or traffic. He compared this to The Gunnery School, which he considered to be a high intensity use generating both noise and traffic. He stated that since there had previously been a school at 101 Wykeham Road, the neighbors knew when they purchased their properties that there was the potential for another high intensity use on this property. Mr. Owen noted that the Zoning Commission had approved larger buildings in the past. He said the proposed main building would be sited and landscaped in such a way to reduce its visual impact. Mr. Shapiro stated that it was not just the one large main building that was large, but also pointed out that the other buildings proposed were larger than most of the existing buildings in the neighborhood. Mr. Owen agreed, but said they would be set back from the road. Mr. Owen suggested an inn would be self regulating because patrons would not stay at an inn that generated nuisances. Mrs. Friedman noted that the Regulations state there shall be no nuisances such as noise or light at or beyond the property line and the applicant had not demonstrated that this would be accomplished. Mr. Owen said there was a difference between a nuisance and noise. Mrs. Friedman thought this was not relevant because the Regulations state there shall be no noise at or beyond the property line. Mr. Fitzherbert did not think this matter should be considered, saying the Commission had never discussed it before. Mrs. Friedman cautioned the Commission not to interpret the Regulations differently than they are written. For example, she said the Regs state that the existing rural road network must be adequate to accommodate the proposed traffic; not that the town road should be improved to accommodate it. Regarding property values in the area, she noted the Commission had received three reports from appraisers that they would decrease, and she did not see how these could be ignored.

The existing rural road network was discussed. Mr. Owen referred to Atty. Zizka’s 11/24/08 letter, which cautioned the commissioners against using personal experience to judge road capacity, but said it could be used when considering congestion and safety hazards. He then read Section 13.1.B.4 of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen noted that the issues of congestion and traffic hazards had been brought up when the proposed entrance-exit had been discussed. Mrs. Friedman noted the 17.5 foot wide driveway had been one way, but was now proposed for two way traffic, that it had balustrades along both sides, and that it entered Wykeham Road at a sharp angle that made entering and exiting even more difficult. Mr. Shapiro said this was especially true when driving down the hill and trying to make a left turn into the property. Mr. Owen noted there was a diagram from the applicant’s traffic consultant, which showed the turn could be maneuvered with two vehicles in the driveway. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Shapiro noted this report referred to passenger vehicles only. She said the turn into the driveway was impossible if one of the vehicles was a truck or a van; that the vehicle would have to exit into the oncoming traffic before the truck could make the turn in. Mr. Owen noted the conflict of opinion and said the proposed entrance-exit was less than ideal. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed the proposed entrance-exit was not ideal, but said he was not concerned about delivery trucks because since they would make a wide turn, they would have to wait until there was no vehicle stopped in the driveway, waiting to exit. He stated that the sight lines were adequate. His one concern was the 3 or 4 nights a year when there would be icy conditions on Wykeham Road, which would make it dangerous for vehicles coming down the hill to stop to wait for vehicles to pull out of the entrance before turning in. Mr. Shapiro thought there could be traffic backed up on Wykeham Road. Mr. Owen noted that the traffic engineer had said that even during the peak hour, two vehicles trying to pass on the driveway would be an infrequent occurrence. He noted that he had never seen traffic back up at the Mayflower entrance even though the state road carries more traffic than Wykeham Road. Mrs. Friedman did not think this was a fair comparison because the Mayflower driveway is at a right angle to the road and the entrance is much wider. She stated the proposed entrance-exit was dangerous. Mr. Ajello asked Mrs. Friedman why she had not considered the driveway unsafe when the property was used as a school. Mrs. Friedman responded that it had been for one way traffic at that time. Mr. Wyant thought that both entrances had accommodated two way traffic. Mrs. Friedman said the Commission’s goal should be not to create a problematic situation. Mr. Fitzherbert thought there was no traffic congestion on Wykeham Road. He said it would be good if the entrance could be improved, but it was manageable as is. Mr. Owen stated that the proposed tree cutting and sight line improvements along Wykeham Road were necessary to correct an existing situation and would be required whether or not the application was approved.

Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission had not yet addressed the inadequacy of the proposed loading dock. She said its driveway was very narrow, there was no room for vehicles to turn around, delivery trucks would be required to turn around to back in to use it, and if two delivery trucks showed up at the same time, one would have to back into the parking lot and wait there.

At 10:01 p.m. the Commission took a short break. Mr. Owen Reconvenend the Meeting at 10:12 p.m.

Discussion of the loading dock resumed. Mr. Ajello pointed out there was another loading dock near the kitchen at the other end of the building that would also be used. Mrs. Friedman again stated that delivery trucks would be driving into and/or backing into the parking area to be used by guests and this was not a safe situation.

Mr. Abella said again that he thought landscaping and buffering were very important and that a condition of approval to require it was necessary to protect the neighbors. Mr. Owen noted that the Commission had not yet reviewed the landscaping plan.

Mr. Averill said that after listening to the discussion this evening, he had the same concerns as he stated earlier; he thought the nature of the proposed establishment was too much for this location. Mr. Owen responded that inns were not alien to Washington, that they were addressed in the Plan of Conservation and Development, that they had a long history in Washington, and that the Mayflower Inn and other inns had been considered good for the Town and consistent with rural character. Mrs. Friedman noted that it would be unrealistic for the Commission to approve this application with the Mayflower Inn in mind, because if approved, there would be nothing to prevent it from becoming a standard Holiday Inn and no guarantee that it would become Mayflower II. She said the question to consider is whether the proposed use is appropriate for this location. Mr. Shapiro agreed with Mr. Owen that inns have a long respected and friendly history in Washington, but shared Mr. Averill’s reservations about the size of the proposed inn. He said he would feel differently if only 20 rooms were proposed, but that this inn was 50% larger than the Mayflower and is not situated on a state road with institutional uses around it like the Mayflower. The proposed inn, he said, would be built to a scale that was hard to comprehend and would be placed in the middle of a residential area. He did not consider it to be a compact and quiet country inn. Mr. Owen said there were arguments to be made for both points of view, especially considering that the applicant had tried to conceal the inn and make it fit in.

Mr. Owen again brought up the issue of the overflow parking, which he said at first he considered to be a “fatal blow,” but after reading Atty. Zizka’s letter, he was rethinking this matter. Mr. Shapiro noted that Zizka’s letter addressed Section 15; Parking, but that lot coverage was a separate issue. He referred to the definition of lot coverage, which includes all parking areas whether paved or not. He noted that in this definition there is no such thing as overflow parking, so regardless of the requirements of Section 15, the overflow area would count as coverage. He noted the final plan shows 158 parking spaces. He said the definition of lot coverage does not address how often they are used or whether they are only for overflow; all parking spaces count as lot coverage, if only because the Regulations say they do. Mr. DuBois stated that an intense commercial use had been applied for and the Commission should not make any excuses that would allow it in this residential neighborhood where it doesn’t belong. Mrs. Friedman explained that the overflow parking discussion is not about pavement as everyone on the Commission agrees that additional pavement should not be required. She said that the 103 parking spaces proposed were not enough and it did not matter whether the overflow spaces were used weekly or monthly, the Regulations state that they count as coverage. She thought that the fact that the applicant submitted the overflow parking plan at the 11th hour was proof that he did not think the proposed 103 spaces were adequate. She agreed with Mr. DuBois that all kinds of compromises had been made to squeeze the proposed facility in on this site. Mr. Owen said it was disturbing that the overflow parking was located on the part of the property that was most visible from Wykeham Road. Mr. Abella noted the overflow parking plan had been submitted in response to the Commission’s concern that there would be parking along Wykeham Road. Mr. Owen noted that if the overflow parking plan had been presented to prove there would never be parking on Wykeham Road, that was one thing, but if it was a better representation of the intensity of the proposed use, that was another. He again read the portion of Zizka’s 11/24/08 letter regarding parking determination. Mr. Shapiro again objected that Atty. Zizka referred only to Section 15 and did not consider lot coverage. Mr. Owen said Atty. Zizka did refer to Section 21.1.37, Lot Coverage, in the beginning of his letter. Mrs. Friedman questioned what Atty. Zizka meant by “during unusual circumstances.” How do you measure that, and how do you enforce what you can’t define, she asked. She said Zizka had made it clear in his 11/6/08 letter that this kind of reasoning would not hold up if it could not be verified. Mr. Shapiro noted that this question should be considered in the context of this application. He said an established use was not being discussed; the Commission was trying to decide within its regulatory framework whether the proposed parking was adequate. Mr. Owen agreed that the commissioners must judge whether the proposed parking spaces were adequate for the proposed use. Mr. Abella said there had never been a parking problem at the Mayflower. Mrs. Friedman said the two could not be compared because valets could triple park at the Mayflower, whereas, the proposed parking for Wykeham was all along the driveways where it was not possible to double park. She also suggested that if the Commission were to receive the application from the Mayflower today, more spaces would be required. She said that when the spa had been added, ultimately 31 parking spaces were added. She noted, too, that the parking at the Mayflower had been grandfathered; the Commission had never approved the existing number of spaces for the inn. She agreed that the Commission must decide whether the proposed parking is adequate for the proposed use. Mr. Fitzherbert said it had been a mistake for the applicant to come back with a revised plan for more parking. He said when there are special occasions the inn would take care if it by offering valet parking or by parking cars off the premises. Mr. Abella agreed that many high end inns use valet parking.

Mr. Fitzherbert thought the applicant had responded to 95% of the concerns raised and that the proposed use was the best possible use for the property. He said the inn would be an outstanding asset to the Town, that 250 people had written to support it, that it would provide 60 career and entry level jobs, and had the economic support of all of the businesses in Town. He did think the driveway could be improved, but suggested that once approved, the applicant could apply for changes to the plan. He did not think the overflow parking was a reason to deny the application.

Mr. Abella agreed. He stated the proposed inn fit in and was in character with the area and with the community. He said again that landscaping and buffering were key. He said he had looked at other large facilities in Town, this one was not unique, and this one would have less impact than the others.

Mr. Wyant agreed with Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Abella. He noted that the Fire Dept. and Ambulance Service had approved the driveways, and that based on his experience in the excavation business this looked like a good plan. He did voice his concern about buffering, however.

Mr. Owen stated that parking had not been an issue for him until the overflow parking plan had been submitted. He believed it had been submitted in a misguided attempt by the applicant to respond to the problem of parking along the street. He said that Atty. Zizka’s letter was helpful, but if approved, a condition regarding parking would have to be included and the Commission would have to be vigilant in enforcing it. He noted that every application has enforcement issues, although with this application there would be a critical mass at a point when there would be too many cars. Mr. Ajello said he would be comfortable with a condition of approval that the .2% of coverage remaining be reserved for future parking so that it could not be used up with additions during construction. He said he had faith in the applicant’s parking numbers. Mr. Owen stated there was extensive documentation in the file about the applicant’s intent regarding parking and he agreed that since the coverage was now .2% below the maximum permitted, there was room to add more parking spaces. Mr. DuBois thought the Commission had to work with the plan submitted, and noted that that plan included overflow parking. Mr. Owen said there were different interpretations of that plan and if the application were approved, it would have to be made clear in the motion how that plan was to be viewed. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed and said if it was made clear how the overflow parking plan should be viewed, the applicant would have to come up with a specific plan for extra parking, adding that the whole driveway could be used for parking for special events. Mrs. Friedman thought this line of thinking was absurd, that Atty. Zizka’s letter was being misinterpreted, and that this concept was being used to justify inadequate parking. She thought that the parking regulations were being manipulated to rely on double parking in the driveways and/or taking cars off site. She said the Regulations state there must be adequate parking on site.

Mr. Owen passed out his paper, “Possible Conditions of Approval.” These were briefly discussed. (Attached – Addendum 2) Condition #1: Mr. Ajello thought this one was great. Mr. Owen noted there was a document in the file from the Selectmen that they would prefer more modest improvements to Wykeham Road than those asked for by Mr. Goodin. Condition #5: Mr. Owen said this was a trade off; that allowing construction work on Saturday would shorten the overall duration of the project. Condition #8: Mrs. Friedman complained that this condition contained no guidance. Mr. Owen said the application would still have to comply with the Zoning Regulations and the Commission would make the determination whether it did comply or not. Condition #9: Mr. Owen said this condition was offered by the applicant, but he thought it was unusable. Condition #11: Mr. Owen said this language was taken directly from the Regulations. Condition #12: Mr. Owen said this condition was taken from Atty. Zizka’s letter. Mrs. Friedman thought it was difficult to understand. Mr. Owen said that the Commission could not legally require that the property never be subdivided because it can not lawfully prescribe the ownership of any property. Mrs. Friedman asked why the condition that no mechanical equipment be allowed on any roof had been omitted. Mrs. Hill explained that this had been a condition of approval for the Montessori School Special Permit and that she thought it would help to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. She suggested it could possibly be reworded to say no equipment would be allowed on the highest roofs. Mr. Abella suggested mechanical equipment be required to be placed behind bushes. Antennae, ventilation ducts, kitchen vents, etc. were discussed. Mr. Ajello said the applicant specified that the buildings would be “green” and have a country look so he trusted that the mechanical equipment would not be placed in viewable areas. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if this condition would mean that solar panels could not be placed on the roofs. Mr. Ajello said that if the roofs were covered with unsightly equipment, fewer people would come to the inn. Condtion #3: Mrs. Hill voiced her concern that before this condition could be implemented, the Commission would have to review the landscaping plan to ensure it was adequate. Mr. Owen noted that Atty. Zizka had written that approval of the landscaping plan could not be delegated to the neighbors. Condition #12: Mrs. Hill asked Mr. Owen to check again with Atty. Zizka as she remembered there had been a condition that a deed restriction be filed to require that all of the components of the Mayflower Inn remain under one ownership. Mrs. Friedman agreed that this had been so and said it was an important issue, especially since the applicant was dependent on “crossover” parking and if the different functions were owned and operated by different owners, it would undermine this concept. Mr. Owen said he would ask Atty. Zizka to elaborate on his response. Conditions #2, #4, #6, and #9: Mr. Ajello said these were not needed because they were well described in the application. Mrs. Hill said it would do no harm to include them because 1) the applicant had not submitted a single form on which all of the proposed activities were listed, 2) the application documents filled two storage boxes, making it difficult to find specific provisions of the application, and 3) having these conditions detailed in the motion of approval would make it easier for future staff and owners to know what requirements were part of the application. Mr. Owen agreed. Condition #11: Mr. Ajello questioned whether a bond was needed as he knew of no reasons other than environmental concerns for the posting of a bond. Mrs. Hill noted the Zoning Commission had required a $75,000 bond for the Montessori School in addition to the bond required by the Inland Wetlands Commission. She noted the Inland Wetlands bond would cover only those matters under that Commission’s jurisdiction and said there were other matters such as demolition, erosion outside of wetlands, and landscaping that should be covered by a bond.

Mr. Owen asked if all of the Commissioners were available to attend the December 15th meeting, at which time he intended the Commission would vote on the application. All said they would attend. Mr. Owen said he would send Mrs. Friedman’s revised reasons for denial to Atty. Zizka for review and asked Mr. Fitzherbert to draft a motion of approval that would also be reviewed by Atty. Zizka.

Mr. DuBois circulated a paper he had written with reasons to deny the application. (Attached – Addendum 3)

Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Owen asked that only matters having nothing to do with the Wykeham Rise, LLC. application be brought up at this time.

Mrs. Federer asked if the Mayflower spa permit restricted spa use to guests of the Mayflower Inn and said she believed the answer was, yes. Mrs. Hill said she thought this was not a condition of the spa’s approval because the applicant had specified it would be used only by guests of the inn as part of his application. Mrs. Federer noted the Mayflower is soliciting members for the spa. Mr. Owen noted this is an enforcement issue and asked Mr. Ajello to enforce the Special Permit.


Enforcement

Mrs. Friedman noted the signs, including internally lit signs, at the Citgo Station and Deli in Marbledale are still a problem. Mr. Ajello said he had spoken to the owner previously about signs, but would do so again.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the Meeting at 11:28 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator



*************************************************


ADDENDUM # 1

To: Members of the Washington Zoning Commission
From: Valerie Friedman, Washington Zoning Commission
Re: Reasons for voting against the application for the Wykeham Rise Inn
Date: November 10, 2008 (revised November 24, 2008)

I have spent significant time evaluating the changing applications for the Wykeham Rise Inn. I conclude that there are at least fourteen (14) compelling reasons why this application should be denied.

[1] The application exceeds 10 percent lot coverage.
The applicant’s addition of 55 parking places to its site plan reflects a much more realistic appraisal of the applicant’s parking needs. It adds almost a third of an acre to lot coverage. That pushes the previous 9.8 percent coverage above the permitted maximum of 10 percent. Therefore, the application must be denied.

On 10/28/08, at the end of the final extension of the public hearing, the applicant submitted OSD.1 dated 10/16/08, labeled “Overflow Parking Plan.” This plan adds 55 parking spaces. It disperses them across a grassy area on the eastern portion of the property, without delineating any driveway(s), which will obviously be needed for cars to access these spaces.

Both these 55 parking spaces and the necessary access to them qualify as lot coverage. Our regulations state: “Driveways, parking areas, and parking lots are included in the lot coverage calculation, whether or not they are paved.” (21.1.37).

Not to count these parking areas, as well the access to them, as “lot coverage” would require the Commission to read into the language of Section 21.1.37 an unstated and unquantifiable exception for overflow parking, which expands or contracts at the whim of the applicant. This is not what the plain language of our regulation permits; it makes no reference to the frequency with which a “parking area” is used. Even if overflow parking were permitted, there would be no realistic way for the Commission to monitor or control it.

The applicant’s addition of 55 parking spaces is an acknowledgement of the inadequacy of its prior provision for 103 parking spaces. While 103 spaces did satisfy the Commission’s minimum parking requirements (15.2), it was never realistic. The original plans should have veered much closer to the 146 spaces permitted by Section 15.2.

That is so because the capacity and likely usage of the applicant’s facilities far exceeds its understated estimates of proposed usage. For example, the restaurant/bar has 92 seats according to the Health Department (see 10/27/08 letter), not 78 as claimed by the applicant.. The function room that the applicant says it will limit to occupancy of 50 has a maximum occupancy, based on its size (2067 square feet), of 137 seated or 295 standing (see letters of 10/20/08 and 10/22/08 from the Fire Marshal and Health Department).

The applicant’s self-imposed limitations on occupancy are not credible. Nor is it credible to believe that future owners of the property will adhere to them. And it is unrealistic to expect the Commission to enforce them or to revoke the special permit should they be violated. So much more parking was needed. Its addition, however, pushes the application over the maximum 10 percent lot coverage.


[2] The proposed use is not located on a state highway, as was required by Section 13.9.3 when the application was then filed.
When this application was filed, Section 13.9.3 required that an inn be on a state highway and have 500 feet of frontage on it. The application does not meet that requirement and, therefore, should be denied.

It is now time for the Commission to go on record regarding what Section 13.9 meant before June 23, 2008. On that day, we voted 4-1 (Owen dissenting) to clarify 13.9 to explicitly require that an inn or tourist home be (1) located on a state highway and (2) have 500 feet of frontage on it. If that action truly clarified what had always been the Commission’s regulatory intent, the current application does not satisfy Section 13.9.3, because it is located on a town road.

Chairman Owen believes the old 13.9 was ambiguous and required only that, if an inn was on a state highway, it needed to have 500 feet of frontage. Our counsel has advised us, “When courts look at ambiguous language in a regulation, they indicate that they are, generally, seeking to determine the intention of the commission or board that drafted it.” (Attorney Zizka letter dated 7/28/08). Former Zoning Chairman Henry Martin’s reply to Attorney Zizka stated that there was, in fact, evidence of a consistent intent on the Commission’s part:

“The fact that the Zoning Commission has consistently applied the more restrictive interpretation [i.e., as embodied in the 6/23/08 clarification] over the years has some relevancy here…. I continue to believe that even though an ambiguity had been identified in the language of the regulation, it does not mean that the zoning commission must abandon the way it has interpreted this regulation. I agree with you that the issue of original intent is important here. The fact the zoning commission, when confronted with this ambiguity, implemented corrective action to eliminate it so that the more restrictive interpretation would clearly be operable is revealing. It sheds light on what the zoning commission that was in effect when the original regulation was adopted may have been thinking.” (Hank Martin e-mail dated 7/28/08)

In 2003 the Commission demonstrated its intent when it decided the application of the Mayflower Inn to add spa facilities. The applicant was required to state that access to the inn and spa would be only from the adjoining state highway (Route 47), and not from the adjoining town road, Wykeham Road.


[3] The proposed use is not located on a state highway, as is now required by Section 13.9.

Even were the Commission to decide that the prior version of Section 13.9 did not require an inn to be located on a state highway, the applicant would be required to limit its inn to a state highway. That is because the application is governed by the current Section 13.9, which requires frontage on a state highway.

The application does not qualify to be “grandfathered” under the prior Section 13.9. State law allows such grandfathering only if an application “is in conformance with the applicable zoning regulations at the time of filing” (CGS Sec. 8-2h). The application was not in conformance, since it exceeded maximum lot coverage (by 76%) at the time of filing and needed a variance in order to be approved. Therefore, it is subject to the current 13.9, which requires frontage on a state highway.

Counsel has advised the Commission that it is “most likely” that Connecticut courts would follow the “plain language” of Section 8-2h. Since the original application was not “in conformance,” it would not be grandfathered. However, for practical, procedural reasons, counsel cautions that we not deny the application “solely” on the grounds of Section 8-2h (see Attorney Zizka’s letter of 10/20/08),.

Therefore, we should ascribe as just one of several reasons for denying the application the fact that it was 1) not “in conformance” with applicable zoning regulations (like 10 percent lot coverage) when filed; 2) thus, the application was not grandfathered under any prior interpretation of Section 13.9; and 3) and it is, therefore, subject to the current language of Section 13.9, which its location on Wykeham Road clearly violates.


[4] Wykeham Rise is not a use permitted in the R-1 district.
By special permit, an “Inn or Tourist home” is allowed in the R-1 district. Wykeham Rise is neither. It is more of a destination resort than the kind of inn intended by section 4.4.1. Since Wykeham Rise does not qualify as a permitted use, the application should be denied.

Our zoning regulations do not define “inn.” So, the Commission must decide whether the use proposed in this application is consistent with what section 4.4.1 intends. It helps to put this decision in a larger regulatory context:

All four business districts currently allow, by special permit. a “Room and Board or Bed and Breakfast establishment.” A room and board establishment is not defined. A bed and breakfast is limited to three guest rooms (13.14.6).

Three of our business districts allow, by special permit, a “Boarding house,” which is defined as an owner-occupied structure that accommodates no more than ten persons (21.1.10).

No business district permits anything on a larger scale e.g., hotel, motel, resort, or, for that matter, inn. (Until 1972, hotels had been allowed in the business districts; and motels were allowed in the Marbledale and Woodville districts until 1978.)

Thus, in all business districts, no large-scale high-intensity accommodations are permitted. This limitation is instructive when we seek the intent behind section 4.4.1. It is improbable that our regulatory intent was to allow, in a residential district, a more intensive, commercial, larger-scale use than was allowed in a business district.

Janet Hill reported that it is not known why the definition of “tourist home” was deleted from our regulations in 1978. She goes on to point out, however, “It would seem logical that since inns are now included in the same Special Permit category with the same restrictions as tourist homes, they must have been considered operations of a similar size and intensity; the last definition of Tourist home being ‘a private residence in which overnight accommodations are offered or provided for not more than ten transient guests” (see J. Hill’s e-mail of 10/20/08).

All of these factors strongly suggest that what is intended by “inn” is a small-scale hotel, not unlike - in terms of accommodations - New Milford’s Heritage Inn (20 rooms) and Homestead Inn (14 rooms). or New Preston’s Hopkins Inn (13 rooms) and Boulders Inn (20 rooms), or Litchfield’s Tollgate Inn (20 rooms), or Salisbury’s White Hart Inn (26 rooms), per T. Peacocke’s letter of 8/29/08.

Even the Mayflower Inn in Washington has only 30 rooms. True, it also has a spa, restaurant, bar, and tea room (restricted to guests of the inn). But those arguable expansions on the traditional notion of a small country inn are by no means determinative of the current application for several reasons:

Washing and toilet facilities. Adequate washing and toilet facilities shall be provided. If individual toilet and washing facilities are not provided in each rental unit, central facilities shall include separate toilets for men and women with at least one toilet seat for each fifteen men or fraction thereof, and at least one toilet seat for each fifteen women or fraction thereof….

If nothing else, provisions like this, adopted as part of our zoning regulations, suggest the basic rustic kind of accommodations that the Zoning Commission contemplated when it regulated tourist homes and inns.

If permitted, Wykeham Rise, under the guise of an “inn,” would drop a stealth resort (an amalgam of a 44 room hotel, 92 seat restaurant/bar, 137/295 capacity function room, 11,000+ square-foot spa/fitness center, outdoor swimming pool with bar and grill, plus retail space) in the heart of a quiet residential neighborhood.


[5] Wykeham Rise Inn is inconsistent with both the objectives of the 2003 POCD and the intent of the Zoning Regulations.
Section 13.1.B.1 requires the Commission to make a finding that the proposed use is “consistent with the objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development … and the intent and requirements of the Zoning Regulations….” But the proposed use detracts from both the preservation of “rural character” and the main regulatory purpose behind the R-1 district. Therefore, the application should be denied.

It is true that Zoning Commission decisions are not dictated by the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). Our regulations, however, require us to make a finding that a special-permit use conforms to certain “general standards.” One of these is consistency with the objectives of the POCD as well as the intent of our own regulations (13.1.B.1).

There are three objectives in the current POCD: (1) preserve Washington’s rural character; (2) enhance the community’s village centers; and (3) guide and manage housing development (2003 POCD, pg. 2-6).

“Rural character,” according to the plan, “is identified as being the Town’s farming heritage, pastures, stone walls, fields and barns, single family residences dispersed through Town, pastoral open spaces, rural road system, lack of suburban style subdivisions, identifiable community centers…” (2003 POCD, pg. 3-1). “Residential development must be guided in ways to retain as much of our rural character as possible (2003 POCD, pg. 5-1).” Furthermore, according to the POCD’s Existing Land Use Map, as well as its Conceptual Future Land Use Map, the Wykeham Rise property is to be for community facility/institutional uses (2003 POCD, pg. 1-7, 8-3).

The objectives of the POCD are preserved in our Zoning regulations, most prominently in the purpose for the R-1 Farming and Residential District: “It is intended that development in [the R-1] district, which covers most of the Town of Washington, will consist primarily of scattered residential, agricultural and related uses, open space, low intensity recreational activities, and other uses that will retain the rural character and natural beauty of the Town” (4.1)

This application is inconsistent with both POCD objectives and our regulatory intent because:

The POCD’s objectives do reflect many of Washington’s most carefully considered and cherished values. Zoning Commissioners are guardians of these values—the last line of defense for preserving a communal identity, which can be steadily encroached upon by granting applications like Wykeham Rise’s. “The next ten years,” warns the POCD, “may prove crucial for the longer term preservation of Washington’s rural character” (2003 POCD, pg. 3-1).


[6] The proposed use is not “in harmony with” nor does it “conform to the appropriate and orderly development of the Town and the neighborhood.”
Section 13.1.B.2 requires us to make a finding about “the location, type, character, size, scale, proportion, appearance and intensity” of the proposed special permit use and buildings associated with it: namely, that they are “in harmony” with their surroundings and conform to the “appropriate and orderly development” of both the Town and the neighborhood. The application does not meet this test and should be denied.

The “character” of the proposed use is clearly commercial—not residential or institutional. Its “intensity” exceeds what one associates with a typical country inn (see Points 3 and 4 above). It will generate a parade of trucks bearing daily deliveries and workers needed to clean the rooms, prepare the food, remove the trash, service the pool, maintain the spa, pick up and return the laundry, and groom the grounds, et cetera.

The size and scale of the buildings associated with the proposed use are striking:
one main building of 22,000 square feet (footprint) and another 13 buildings with footprints ranging from 1000 to 2400 square feet—larger than many of the homes in the neighborhood (see Teresa Peacocke’s letter of 8/30/08). The main building is one large structure over 400 feet long and at the maximum height permitted by the zoning regulations. The main building has been aptly compared to the entire complex of buildings in the Depot from the bank on the west to Route 47 on the east. They are about equal in length (400 feet); however, Wykeham Rise’s main building is one long continuous mass, while the buildings in the Depot are broken up by open spaces and, at the highest point, are only about half the height of the main Wykeham Rise building (see Eric Federer’s letter of 10/20/08).

The character of the proposed use, as well as the size and scale of the buildings, will thrust a commercial enterprise into the midst of the surrounding homes, and disrupt the orderly development of this residential neighborhood. Wykeham Rise is also inappropriate for the orderly development of the Town. It opens the door for growing commercialism in the heart of Washington, the R-1 district. If the R-1 district suffers, the Town changes - for the worse.


[7] The proposed use will hinder the appropriate use of adjacent property and substantially impair its value.
Section 13.1.B.2 obligates Zoning Commissioners to take special care to preserve and protect the value of properties adjacent to the proposed use. This application should be denied, because there is substantial evidence that granting it will impair value.

The applicant’s appraiser, Bruce Hunter, admits that he has no objective sales data to support his position that there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties (see Hunter letter of 9/22/08).

However, neighboring property owners, Eric and Wendy Federer, as well as the Estate of Virginia Risley, have submitted appraisals (The Landmark Appraisal Group, Andrew O’Hazo, Kloss Appraisal Services) to demonstrate that property values will be negatively impacted. According to Mr. O’Hazo’s appraisal of the Federer property dated 10/17/08): “This development would substantially impair the value of your property located at 27 Bell Hill Road, Washington, CT….My opinion is based on the value of privacy to participants within the market for the value range of your property….This proposed commercial use will create noise levels and, notwithstanding the proposed screening, views which would not be consistent with the privacy desired by buyers within the upper-mid priced segment for this market area.”

From the Kloss Appraisal Service 10/16/08 appraisal regarding the Federer property: “Given the fact that this facility will offer services during both the daytime and evening hours, traffic and related noise will be increased along Wykeham Road…. The valley location will exacerbate the projections of the sounds of the pool use and other outdoor activities…..Clearly, these impacts will adversely affect the quality of life of the current residents off Wykeham Road and Bell Hill Road….The impact of neighboring commercial development is an issue for prospective buyers…the prospective seller must discount selling prices…. Professionally I have found that 20% discounts to value are not uncommon to offset for these adverse influences….The proposed development will substantially and permanently impair the marketability and values of other properties in this area.”


[8] The critical issue of adequate access for fire and emergency services remains unresolved.
Section 13.1.B.3 requires adequate access to all buildings “for fire protection purposes and other emergency services.” The Fire Marshal’s approval occurred a week before the applicant’s submission of final plans. Those plans, both in appearance and effect, significantly narrowed roadway width. Under these circumstances, relating to the critical question of fire truck access, passage, and maneuverability, approval of this application would run an unnecessary risk.

In a letter dated 10/22/08, the Washington Fire Marshal approved the applicant’s plan: “The site development plans (revised to 10-15-08) show all roadways and driveways to have adequate width and turning radii.”

Since then, however, the plans on which the Fire Marshal based his approval have been significantly altered. The plans reviewed by the Fire Marshal (OSD.1 revised 10/15/08) show a contiguous walkway and driveway, both made of the same material, both at the same height, with no curbing to differentiate them, at a width of 21 feet (16-foot driveway joined seamlessly to a 5-foot walkway).

Following that approval, the applicant submitted plans on October 28, 2008, in which the walkway is no longer contiguous to the driveway. The applicant’s October 28 revisions, which separate walkways from driveways, could negatively impact emergency access, given that the driveways are now narrower - 16 feet wide for two way traffic, with parking on one/both sides. This is narrower than the 18 feet that the Fire Commissioner has required in other recent applications.


[9] The rural street network cannot safely carry prospective traffic because of inadequate sight lines.
Section 13.1.B.4 requires, among many other things, that “the existing rural street network” have “adequate … sight lines to carry prospective traffic” generated by the proposed use. The record is replete with testimony from Wykeham Rise neighbors, as well as Zoning Commissioners, regarding the hazards created by poor visibility at the many turns and intersections along Wykeham Road. The application should be denied because of inadequate sight lines.

At the Zoning Commission meeting of October 20, 2008, Commissioner Valerie Friedman submitted photographs of sight lines at intersections along Wykeham Road (at Old North Road, Sabbaday Lane, Golf Course Road, Bell Hill Road, and Old Litchfield Road), which demonstrate poor visibility at all intersections. At that time, Friedman noted that there are also 29 driveways and 41 places for cars to enter and exit Wykeham Road on the 1.2 mile stretch between Route 47 and Old Litchfield Road.

The only attention to this important subject by the applicant is in Hesketh’s letter (10/28/08), which states “there may be some isolated cases (along Wykeham Road) where sight lines are substandard,” though the letter fails to include any specifics.

As our Commission Chairman and our counsel have advised, Commissioners are free to rely on personal experience and judgment in evaluating this application. Commissioners have been aided in this endeavor by testimony from Wykeham neighbors regarding their experiences in navigating the limited, and often deceptive, sight lines around each bend on Wykeham Road and the surrounding roads. Their testimony and personal experiences from years of driving these winding country roads teaches us that limited sight lines are inadequate to safely carry the prospective 500 to 700 daily car trips that Wykeham Rise will add to the rural street network.


[10] The rural street network is not adequate to carry the greatly increased volume of prospective traffic.
Section 13.1.B.4 requires, among many other things, that “the existing rural street network” have “adequate … capacity … to carry prospective traffic” generated by the proposed use. That network, including Wykeham Road and Bell Hill Road, is inadequate to carry the additional daily volume of 500 to 700 car trips that Wykeham Rise would generate. Therefore, the application should be denied.

Reports submitted by Arthur Howland (8/14/08) and Wykeham Road neighbor Arthur Miller (10/20/08) yield similar findings to the Hesketh report (10/20/08) regarding traffic volume: There will be a 50 percent increase in daily traffic - an additional 500 to 700 trips - along Wykeham Road due to the proposed use.

Hesketh’s report (10/20/08) states, “The question of daily traffic is not considered relevant by traffic engineers for the purposes of determining impact of a development’s traffic on the surrounding roadway system.” So the two issues of most importance to those who utilize the road network around Wykeham Rise – sight lines and additional daily traffic – are given scant attention by the applicant’s traffic engineers. They concentrated instead on “level of service” calculations, which estimate how many extra seconds a vehicle might have to wait at an intersection.

These sorts of calculations, however, are more appropriate for an urban area than for Washington. Here, our focus is more on the capacity of our winding country roads, with their blind driveways and inadequate sight lines, to accommodate 500 to 700 more car trips daily. Can Wykeham Road and Bell Hill Road do that? And, if they are forced to, will they lose forever their identity and appeal as country roads? Commissioners know these roads well, have driven them often, and are in the best position to judge whether “the Town’s existing rural street network…are adequate… (in) capacity and sight lines to carry prospective traffic….”


[11] The property’s entrance/exit creates “undue hazard to traffic” and “undue traffic congestion.”
Section 13.1.B.4 requires the applicant to make adequate provision for ingress and egress from the property so that “no undue hazard to traffic or undue traffic congestion is created.” The narrow two-way entrance/exit at the westerly end of the property creates just such a hazardous bottleneck. Therefore, the application should be denied.

In its effort to reduce lot coverage below 10 percent, the applicant eliminated the easterly exit from the property and converted the westerly entrance to two-way traffic. No doubt, out of the same concern over lot coverage, the applicant chose not to widen the westerly entrance/exit to accommodate two-way traffic.

That entrance/exit is only 17 ½ feet wide and abutted on both sides by stone retaining walls. The natural tendency of entering/exiting drivers will be to veer toward the center in order to avoid scraping their vehicles against these stone walls According to Marc Goodin’s report of 10/27/08, “It is ‘practically’ impossible for a car to enter the site when a car is leaving the site within that space. It is unsuitable and unsafe. In addition, the angle of the entrance/driveway access is 40 degrees from perpendicular to Wykeham Road, making it that much more difficult for traffic entering from the east.”

Applicant’s engineer states that the entry/exit can “handle vehicles up to 7 feet wide” (10/28/08 minutes, page 4). However, the obstacle to two-way passage is insurmountable if one or both of the vehicles is a garbage truck, UPS truck, or other commercial truck. As a result, cars or trucks trying to enter the property will be forced to stop on Wykeham Road; there they will wait for the car or truck leaving the property to exit onto Wykeham Road, before they can then enter. Cars or trucks stopped on Wykeham Road run the risk of getting rear-ended by oncoming drivers with inadequate sight lines. Traffic hazard and congestion that may result from this bottleneck will likely worsen at the dinner hour, check-out time, or whenever there is an event in the Function Room. Hesketh’s claim that this turn “is not all that horrible” (10/28/08 minutes, p. 8) is not reassuring to a Commission obligated to prevent “undue hazard to traffic.” (13.1.B.4)


[12] The applicant has not confirmed that all nuisances will not extend beyond the property line.
Section 13.1.B.8 requires that the proposed use “will not create a nuisance such noise … odors, bright lights [and] glare … at or beyond the property line.” There is insufficient evidence in the record that such nuisances will be abated. Therefore, the application should be denied.

Glare from auto headlights is concern for neighbors, given the level of night-time activity (e.g., restaurant and bar patrons, function room events) that is likely. Both Wykeham Road neighbor John Ewing and Commission alternate Andy Shapiro spoke of the intrusion of auto headlights shining into their homes from Wykeham Rise (Ewing) and the Mayflower Inn (Shapiro).

Neighbors (Ewing, Parker) and past neighbor Karen Silk spoke of the property’s amphitheatre-like terrain that enhances the transmission of sound. Ms. Silk commented (meeting 10/28/08) that although her current home is separated by 1000 feet of Steep Rock property, she still hears the children playing at Washington Primary School, and no one should underestimate the extent to which sound travels over long distances.

Noise from the pool area is of special concern to the neighbors. Mr. Klauer stated at the 10/28/08 meeting that “sufficient existing buffers will eliminate all noise from the pool,” and that “he believed that the distance coupled with the buffer was adequate,” but provided no support for these claims. The applicant has offered to limit use of the pool by children under the age of 14 (letter dated 10/27/08), but the letter is confusing about how the limitations would work. The Zoning Commission should not be involved with restrictions that are confusing and cannot be enforced, since the authority of the commission is undermined when enforcement cannot be guaranteed.

The applicant is relying on landscaping to minimize the nuisance impact on surrounding properties, but has not demonstrated that nuisances such as noise, lights and odor will not extend beyond the property line.


[13] The applicant’s proposed use of porous pavement for pedestrian walkways does not qualify for exclusion from lot coverage. Since the application, counting walkways, exceeds 10 percent lot coverage, it should be denied.
At the last minute, the Commission was presented with the applicant’s plan to use Firestone’s Flexi-Pave, a porous pavement made from recycled tires, for all pedestrian walkways. While this apparently is a “pervious material,” it has never been officially adopted by the Commission as fitting within our regulatory language, despite repeated opportunities for the Commission to do so. It should not be adopted now as merely an incidental part of this proceeding. Because Flexi-Pave walkways do not qualify for exclusion from lot coverage and bring lot coverage above 10 percent, the application should be denied.

Our regulations include pedestrian walkways in lot coverage “unless they are made of pervious materials such as gravel, pea stone, or randomly spaced stones set in grass” (21.1.37). Although Flexi-Pave would seem to be a pervious material, there is a legitimate question as to whether it is a pervious material that falls into the same category as gravel, pea stone or randomly spaced stones set in grass.

According to the product specs, Flexi-Pave is a “pour-in-place pavement system made from recycled tires,” installed over a 4-inch base of graded aggregate. Suggested uses for Flexi-Pave include: dams, levees, canals, bridge embankments, traffic islands, noise barriers, median strips, courtyards, driveways, and sidewalks.

Such material appears to differ significantly from gravel, pea stone, and random stones set in grass, both in terms of appearance as well as utility. Ribbons of, say, “cypress brown” Flexi-Pave looping across Washington lawns will look and feel different from gravel, pea stone, or random stones. Nor will Flexi-Pave act like these rustic materials, considering that it is made of recycled tires, can be used for bridge embankments, dams, and other heavy duty uses, and its porous properties are not permanent. Given its look, feel, and life expectancy, Flexi-Pave has more in common with the pedestrian walkways that count as lot coverage under Section 21.1.37.

Most importantly, this proceeding is not the most appropriate one in which this Commission should decide whether or not to adopt “porous pavement” like Flexi-Pave as an acceptable pervious material that does not count as lot coverage. That decision should come only after a full consideration by the Commission of the pros and cons of “porous pavement.” We should not act now on the mere say so of a single engineer who, of course, happens to represent the applicant.

Do we want to see “porous pavement” proliferate in Washington? What impact will allowing “porous pavement” have on the size of developments that seek to maximize lot coverage? These and other questions deserve much fuller consideration than has been given, at the last minute, in this proceeding.

If we decide to approve the use of “porous pavement,” that decision is important enough to merit amendment to our regulations (21.1.37) so as to include specific mention of “porous pavement” along with “gravel, pea stone, or randomly spaced stones set in grass.” The Commission rejected the opportunity to do just that on past occasions, most recently earlier this year, raising issues of installation, maintenance and enforcement to justify that decision. We should not accomplish it now through the back door of reading into the phrase “pervious materials” a substance that we do not know enough about.


[14] The need for copious “conditions of approval,” many of them difficult to enforce, raises serious doubt about the appropriateness of this use for this location.
  Two and a half pages of conditions have been proposed, most provided by the applicant. Many of these conditions seek to ameliorate problems related to the specific location on Wykeham Road and Bell Hill Road. Some of the conditions are not only difficult to enforce, but are also extremely important to making the proposed use acceptable. Because of these obstacles, the application should be denied. 

Drawn largely from offers and promises made by the applicant, Commissioner Valerie Friedman has compiled a list of 28 “conditions of approval” (see 11/10/08 memo). A number of these conditions are extremely important to making this special permit use acceptable.

For example, several conditions relate to limiting occupancy levels for various facilities (restaurant, function room, etc.) within constraints self-imposed by the applicant. If such conditions are not met, there could be a cascade of adverse consequences - related to parking, traffic congestion, noise, etc. - that would make the use unacceptable in this location.

Similarly, the applicant’s self-imposed limitation on children under 14 using the pool for only three weeks, if not met, could result in a noise nuisance that would make the use unacceptable.

Conditions like these are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. We have discussed at length how unrealistic it is to expect our ZEO to police room occupancy levels or pool attendance. Practically speaking, we might as well forego these important conditions, because they are simply not susceptible to being monitored and enforced.

Some Commissioners have stated that it is the Commission’s problem - not the applicant’s - if conditions of approval are not enforceable. They contend that lack of enforceability is not adequate reason for denying the application.

Our counsel Michael Zizka disagrees: “The Commission should always be wary of conditions that do not allow for easy enforcement….[I]t is our recommendation that the Commission balance the need for the condition against the potential difficulty of enforcement when deciding whether to allow any special permit use. If a particular condition is considered desirable, but not essential, then the difficulty of enforcement may not be a valid reason to deny the application. However, if a difficult-to-enforce condition is deemed to be extremely important to make a special permit use acceptable, then the Commission should give more thought to the question of whether the use itself is truly appropriate at the particular location” (see letter of 11/6/08).

The sheer number of conditions necessary to make this application acceptable, as well as the likelihood that the conditions are unenforceable, should give all Commissioners pause. What are we letting ourselves in for, if it takes so many precautions to make this project work? Given enforcement concerns, how can this Zoning Commission and all future Zoning Commissions insure that this applicant and all future owners will comply with these conditions forever? Concerns raised by the numerous conditions of approval necessary to make this use acceptable require that the application be denied.



*************************************************


ADDENDUM # 2

Possible Conditions of Approval

1. Before construction may begin, safety improvements to Wykeham Road, as described in an undated letter from the Board of Selectmen, included in the file, shall be made at the applicant’s expense. The safety improvements shall be those described by the Selectmen’s letter as requiring “less disturbance in the Town right of way.” These improvements shall create a 250-foot sight line in each direction from the entrance to the property — the Town’s normal requirement for new driveways.

2. Before construction may begin, the applicant shall have received approval of its septic plan from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

3. Before construction may begin, all landscaping shall be staked in the field for approval by the Zoning Commission, per the statement of Mr. Beaver, the applicant’s landscape architect, at the public-hearing session of October 27, 2008.

4. The existing access to the property from Bell Hill Road shall be eliminated and landscaped to prevent any vehicles from entering or exiting through it.

5. Outside construction shall take place only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.

6. The abandoned Wykeham Road entrance at the northeastern end of the property shall be used as emergency access only and shall be kept chained and locked at all other times.

7. The applicant shall submit as-built drawings, certified by a surveyor or an engineer, at the end of each of the four major construction phases enumerated in the proposal.

8. The “Overflow Parking Plan” in the proposal is understood by the Zoning Commission to demonstrate only that vehicles connected with the inn will never under any circumstances need to park on Wykeham Road, Bell Hill Road, or Golf Course Road, and not to represent the anticipated actual parking needs of the approved use.

9. Occupancy of the restaurant/bar shall not exceed 80 patrons; occupancy of the function room shall not exceed 50 patrons.

10. The grass pavers (shown on the site plan) creating an accessway to Detention Pond No. 1 shall be deleted from the site plan and shall not be installed.

11. A cash performance bond of [amount] shall be required, per Section 13.4, to cover the cost of site plan improvements. Details of the posting of this bond shall be coordinated with the First Selectman, and the money shall remain on deposit with the Town of Washington during construction and for one year after construction has been completed.

12. The Commission finds that the uses approved herein are acceptable solely because of the distances maintained from properties containing residential uses. Any change in the boundaries of the parcel may have the effect of allowing residential uses to be placed closer to the uses allowed herein, a result that could vitiate the factual bases upon which the uses were found to be acceptable. Therefore, this special permit is conditioned upon the maintenance of the parcel boundaries in their current location. Any change in those boundaries, whether by reconfiguration, lot line revision, or division (including subdivision) of the parcel, shall cause the special permit issued herein to terminate automatically unless, prior to such change, the applicant or its successor applies for and receives a modification of this special permit. The application for such modification shall be processed in the same manner as an application for a new special permit.

13. These conditions of approval shall be listed in the notice filed in the land records pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-3d.

*************************************************


ADDENDUM # 3

TO: Members of the Washington Zoning Commission
FROM: A. J. DuBois, Jr., Alternate to the Washington Zoning Commission
DATE: November 23, 2008
RE:Wykeham Rise Application

Let me say first, for the record, that I have reviewed carefully the minutes of each meeting regarding this application and have listened to the tapes of the meetings I was unable to attend.

People for whom I have the highest respect have said to me that this project is good for Washington, represents the highest and best use of the property and should be approved. They may well be correct, but we are each elected to these land use commissions to exercise our own best judgment about whether applications before us comply with the applicable regulatory provisions. In this instance, it is my opinion that this application does not meet the requirements for a Special Permit. I can not, in good conscience support putting this intense commercial use in this peaceful residential neighborhood. To do so would fundamentally alter the character of this neighborhood.

My opinion is based upon the following:

1. The application does not comply with Section 13.9 because it is not on a State road. Mr. Martin, prior Chair of the Zoning Commission has stated that the language of this section was consistently interpreted and applied to require tourist homes and inns to be on State roads. The current chair found the language ambiguous and the commission voted to clarify it, not to change it.

2. With the addition of the overflow parking spaces, the lot coverage likely exceeds the limitation of 10% found in Section 11.5.1.c.

3. Inns and tourist homes are permitted in the R-1 district by special permit. Although “Inns” are not defined, it is clear to me that the intent was that they be small scale country inns. Hotels and motels are not permitted in business districts. If a facility of this scale would not be permitted in a business district, then how could a reasonable person think that it should be built in a residential district?

4. This proposal is inconsistent with the Washington Plan of Conservation and Development objective of preserving our rural character. Section 13.1.B.1.

5. This proposed intense commercial use, and the size and scale of the buildings, is not in harmony with this peaceful residential neighborhood, and we have heard testimony that it will impair the value of adjacent properties. Section 13.1.B.2.

6. Despite the approval of the Fire Marshall, serious questions remain about the adequacy of emergency access. Section 13.1.B.3.

7. The increased volume of passenger and commercial truck traffic will create safety hazards due to volume and sight lines on these narrow winding country roads. Section 13.1.B.4.

8. Modification of the one way driveway to create one narrow two way entrance and exit is likely to create a traffic hazard on Wykeham Road. Section 13.1.B.4.

9. Despite the conditions reluctantly offered by the applicant, conditions which would be nearly impossible to enforce, I believe that there remains a significant likelihood of nuisance noise, lights, and odors extending beyond the Wykeham Rise property line. Section 13.1.B.8.

10. Finally, there is the issue that Selectman Nick Solley may have had in mind when he used the term “buffoonery”. Intentionally or not, the applicant has provided this commission with revision after revision of his plan. It is my understanding that the plan approved by Inland Wetlands is not the plan which is before us today, if for no other reason, than because of the change for overflow parking. The sum of these changes lends credence in my mind to the proposition that the original application was not in conformance with our zoning regulations at the outset and, therefore, that the applicant should not be entitled to the benefit of Section 8-2h.

Posted: November 18, 2008

November 10, 2008

Special Meeting
7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

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: Mr. Adams, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Atty. Hill, Atty. McTaggart, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Clark, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Hardee, Mrs. Addicks, Mr. Charles, Mr. Doherty, Mr./Mrs. Rickart, Mr. Miller, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Ms. Giampietro, Residents, Mrs. Peacocke, Press


Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen.

Mr. Owen said that after consulting with Atty. Zizka, he would suggest that the Commission not vote tonight on this application, even if after discussion there was a clear consensus. He said this would give Atty. Zizka the opportunity to review either the reasons for denial or conditions of approval for whichever decision the Commission would make.

Mr. Owen explained how he would proceed with the deliberation of this application. He thought the issues most important to the Commission should be identified and prioritized so that time was not spent on those that were not important.


Legal Issues
Mr. Owen noted there had been three legal issues raised; 1) the conservation easement, 2) CGS 8-2h, and 3) interpretation of Section 13.9 of the Zoning Regulations. He said that Atty. Zizka had advised him that the first two issues were beyond the Commission’s ability to resolve and so should be excluded from the deliberations. Mr. Shapiro said he had understood that the Commission should not base a decision solely on any one of these matters, but could reference them in its motion. He thought it was within the Commission’s rights to consider them since the Special Permit criteria in Section 13.1.B would not necessarily touch on these issues. Mr. Owen said this was correct, but he preferred to discuss these legal issues later.

Mrs. Hill encouraged the commissioners to use the Special Permit process to focus and organize their consideration of the application. She stated that inns are permitted in the R-1 district only by Special Permit and that Special Permits are site specific. She stated that since only uses that are suitable and appropriate for the location and property where they are proposed may be approved by Special Permit, the Commission should examine each of the criteria in Section 13.B.1 and determine whether the proposed inn complies with each.


Definition of Inn
Mr. Owen noted the definition of “inn” was an issue. He asked, is this an application for an inn?

Mr. Averill noted the Commission had an open ended definition of inn. He was bothered that the proposed inn would include a retail outlet in the main building because retail sales are not permitted in the R-1 district. While it was not known exactly what would be sold there, Mr. Owen thought it would be a retail space like those typically found in hotels and inns.

Mrs. Friedman asked why he thought the retail outlet was a concern, but not the proposed spa, restaurant, or fitness center, none of which are uses permitted in the R-1 district. Mr. Averill said he was concerned about all of these uses because the applicant had stated they would be open to the public, not just to guests of the inn. Mr. Fitzherbert noted the Mayflower Inn has a retail area.

Mr. Shapiro referred to the 11/10/08 letter from Atty. Zizka, which, he said, helped him to put in context the question of whether the proposed establishment is an inn. He said many comparisons had been made to the Mayflower and in light of those, it would be difficult to say this application is not for an inn. However, according to Atty. Zizka’s letter, because this is a Special Permit application, whatever the Commission may have allowed at one site sets no precedent for any other site. He said the Mayflower Inn was a different case with different circumstances than the current application. Mr. Owen pointed out that if it was determined that the two sites were similar, he would worry if the Mayflower was treated as an inn, but the proposed inn was found to be something beyond the definition of inn. He noted the Commission had accepted a spa, tennis court, restaurant, and bar at the Mayflower, although this did not mean that the Mayflower would be permitted anywhere in the R-1 district. Mr. Shapiro said the two sites were not substantially similar and that was an important consideration. Mr. Owen agreed that an inn could be acceptable in one location in the R-1, but not another and that inns had to be judged in the context of the site for which they were proposed. He said he believed the current application was for an inn as the Commission has interpreted its Regulations since the early 1990’s and that a retail use was included at the Mayflower.

Mrs. Friedman noted that however “inn” was defined, it had been considered in the same category as tourist home and it had not been deleted from the regs along with hotel and motel. She thought since hotels and motels had been deleted from even the commercial districts, it made no sense to think a use more intense than a hotel or motel would now be permitted in a residential district. She read the definition of tourist home, which last appeared in the Regs in 1978 and she referred to Mrs. Peacocke’s 10/27/08 letter in which she addressed the definition of inn. Mr. Owen said it could be argued that the definition of tourist home had been removed because no inns met that definition. Mr. Shapiro noted that the uses left in the business districts, room and board and bed and breakfast establishments were relatively less in scope and scale than the inn now proposed in the residential district. He did not think it probable that the Commission would allow a more intense use in the R-1 district than in a business district. Mr. Fitzherbert noted that Washington’s inns are country inns and they could not be expected to be located in a business district. Mr. Owen agreed that throughout the Town’s history, inns had not been located in the business districts.

Mr. Fitzherbert thought the proposed establishment was an inn under the Regulations. He said he had researched resorts and had found they offer more amenities and have many more rooms than the proposed inn. Mr. Owen noted that if the Commission did not consider this to be an inn, there was no need for further discussion.


Lot Coverage
Mr. Owen asked if the commissioners were satisfied that the plans received are within the 10% maximum lot coverage allowed under the Regulations.

Mr. Owen said he viewed the access with grass pavers going down to the detention pond as an extension of the driveway and said it should be counted as lot coverage. Otherwise, he noted there had been an independent evaluation of the plan and lot coverage under 10% had been confirmed.

Mr. Shapiro said a more significant issue was the final plan, “Overflow Parking,” which showed an additional 55 parking spaces. He read from the definition of “Lot Coverage” in Section 21 and said it did not differentiate between parking on pavement or on grass or how often it would be used; that it all counted as lot coverage. He asked why these spaces had not been included in the coverage calculations.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the Commission required overflow parking. Mrs. Friedman said the applicant had chosen to apply for it. Mr. Shapiro said it was the applicant’s final plan. Mr. Wyant thought an overflow parking area was better than overflow parking along Wykeham Road.

Mr. Owen did not think the Commission treated overflow parking as lot coverage anywhere else in Town. He gave The Gunnery School and private homes that have parties as examples.

Mr. Shapiro thought the overflow parking was a welcome addition because the 103 parking spaces originally proposed had not been a realistic number and their inclusion had been an acknowledgment that there was, indeed, a need for additional parking. He guessed it would be used more often than not. Mr. Owen noted the applicant did not expect to use all of the spaces. Mr. Shapiro thought the applicant’s expectations were not credible given the proposed scope of the project. Mrs. Friedman noted that parking considerations should be site specific and she questioned why the applicant proposed to put limits on some of the proposed uses such as the function room, if he thought he had provided adequate parking spaces. Mr. Owen asked if there was evidence the maximum number of parking spaces should be provided, noting the fire and health codes would control the number of patrons. Mrs. Friedman asked, since the applicant said the function room would be limited to a capacity of 50, why the room wasn’t decreased to a size that would be limited to 50 per the Fire Marshal. Mr. Fitzherbert noted there could be many uses for the function room that might require the larger size. Mr. Owen said he would consult with Atty. Zizka regarding how the Commission should treat the capacity of this facility.

Relating to parking demand, Mrs. Friedman listed the number of non handicapped parking spaces near the main building: 56, and the capacities of the uses which they were to serve: 24 guest rooms, 92 seat bar-restaurant, 38 person capacity spa, 50 person capacity function room, and fitness center. She noted these figures did not include staff and thought that even assuming there was some overlap of patrons, the 56 spaces provided were not adequate to handle the 204 person occupancy. Mr. Fitzherbert pointed out that not all of the uses would be at full capacity at the same time of day. He thought it was unreasonable not to take the applicant at his word regarding occupancy. Mrs. Friedman noted the number of self imposed limitations by the applicant in order to justify the number of proposed parking spaces. Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Owen said those were examples of the applicant’s responsiveness to the Commission’s concerns. Mrs. Friedman noted that when the Commission had decided not to hire a consultant to review the application, the commissioners had been told they could use their good judgment and common sense to do so.

Mr. Shapiro stated that the Zoning Commission has a range of discretion in its parking regulations and noted that the applicant had originally chosen to base the number of parking spaces on the minimum requirement per square footage, which was 103. He noted that what is now proposed exceeds the maximum per the Regulations, which is 146. He thought 146 seemed like a more realistic number based on occupancy rates, public use of the spa and restaurant, employee shifts, etc. and so was glad to see the number of spaces had been increased.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if anyone in Town had ever been told he could not park on grass. It was agreed the answer was, no. Mr. Owen noted the intent of the parking regulations was to urge applicants to pave as little as possible rather than to create impervious surfaces to accommodate infrequent maximum uses. Mr. Averill said he had understood the overflow parking plan was to alleviate fears that there would be parking along Wykeham Road. Mrs. Friedman stated that the current definition of lot coverage has nothing to do with whether or not there is pavement, but only whether or not there is parking there. She said it was parking no matter how often it was used, that it was necessary overflow parking, and that it should be counted as lot coverage.

Mrs. Friedman noted there was no driveway to get to the overflow parking and asked how it would be accessed considering the east entrance was supposed to be for emergency vehicles only. Mr. Ajello said the area was a grassy meadow with a hard base.

Mr. Fitzherbert was satisfied there was adequate parking without the overflow and suggested the Commission condition approval on the removal of the overflow parking area.

The access to the detention pond was again briefly discussed. Mrs. Friedman noted that Mr. Goodin said the slope down to the pond was 17% and that pavers were necessary to stabilize it. Mr. Owen said this was a wetlands issue and that the applicant had told the Commission the pond could be serviced without the pavers. Mr. Ajello noted that pavers are shown on the plans for this access. Mr. Owen said if the access to the pond had definite edges and pavers it would be an extension of the driveway and count as coverage. Mr. Owen read a portion of Atty. Zizka’s 10/20/08 letter, which stated a grass access to be used for annual maintenance would not count as lot coverage. Mrs. Friedman stated this did not change her view because to be consistent with the definition of lot coverage, it did not matter whether it was paved or not, it counts as coverage.

Mrs. Friedman discussed the walkways, which would be composed of porous pavement. She said she understood from reading the definition of lot coverage that only those walkways constructed of the porous materials listed would be exempt from lot coverage. Mr. Owen disagreed, saying the use of the phrase, “such as,” meant there were porous materials other than those given as examples that would exempt walkways from coverage. The maintenance of permeable walkways was briefly discussed, although Mr. Owen noted that the Regulations did not address this matter. It was also noted that the Regs do not address the width of walkways, but Mr. Owen thought that 4 feet wide was reasonable.


13.1.B.1: Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).
Mr. Shapiro noted that the POCD and the Zoning Regulations are consistent regarding the goal of the R-1 district and he read Section 4.1 of the Zoning Regulations, Purpose. R-1, Farming and Residential District. He thought it could be argued that the purpose stated in 4.1 was one of the three key goals of the POCD; to preserve the rural character of the district. While Atty. Zizka did not think the POCD was a controlling factor, Mrs. Friedman thought it should be an important consideration since Washington residents had put so much effort into it. She read the definition of rural character from the POCD.

Mr. Owen stated that inns were permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 district and the framers did not find that inconsistent. Mr. Shapiro said that revived the question in his mind of scope, scale, and size and what an inn is. Mr. Owen thought the POCD could be used to support anything and so recommended it would be a stronger case to cite the Zoning Regulations. Mrs. Friedman read Section 4.1 again and said it should take precedence.

Mr. Owen noted this section would be discussed again later.


13.1.B.2: Location, Type, Character, Size, Scale, Proportion, Appearance, and Intensity
Mr. Shapiro noted the applicant claimed that the type and character of the proposal was institutional and so consistent with the POCD, but he thought it was decidedly commercial and not in keeping with the R-1 district. Mr. Owen thought this area of the POCD was vague because institutional uses were referenced on maps, but not defined. Mr. Shapiro thought the proposed use was so intensely commercial that it raised questions about its appropriateness for the orderly development of the neighborhood and the Town. Mr. Averill agreed, saying size, scale, and proportion were his main concerns. He did not give much weight to arguments that the Wykeham Rise School was grandfathered. He noted it was questionable whether it could have been built under the current Regulations because it is out of scale and proportion with everything else on Wykeham Road. Mrs. Friedman shared Mr. Averill’s concern. She said the comparison made to Bryan Plaza put the size of the proposed main building in perspective and it was difficult for her to accept a 20,000 sq. ft. footprint and thirteen other buildings, many of which were larger than the moderate sized homes nearby, as fitting in with the existing neighborhood.

Mr. Owen noted that the Commission had approved other larger buildings, for example, at Rumsey Hall School. Mrs. Friedman asked why that was relevant and thought the question the Commission must consider was, is this location appropriate for all of the buildings proposed. Mr. Shapiro noted the Rumsey buildings were located in the context of a huge campus. Mrs. Friedman said in Rumsey’s case, fewer neighbors were impacted.

Mr. Owen asked what the Commission thought about the argument that the large buildings would have little visual impact, and in fact, would be less visible from the road than the existing buildings on site. Mrs. Friedman stated it was not only the size, but the intensity of the use and the activity it would generate that were concerns.

Mr. Shapiro again compared the size of the proposed building to the Depot and then to the Montessori School. He noted that the Commission had required the Montessori building to be lowered, that no one really knows what a building will look like until it is up, and that he is aware of its “hulking presence” over the moderate houses in the area whenever he drives by. He said he would not like to see that happen again. Mr. Owen asked if the proposed building would be visual in the same way. Mr. Shapiro was not sure, but noted the building should be harmonious and fit in with the context of the existing residential neighborhood of moderate houses. Mr. Owen noted that the Zoning Commission had no concern about the construction of the Mayflower spa, which, he said was equally close to a neighborhood of small residential houses. He asked how the current application was different and if it mattered. Mrs. Friedman said this was a different application and Mr. Owen responded that the Commission could not be arbitrary. Mr. Averill noted that it is not just the size of the building, but the intensity of the use that must be considered.

Mr. Fitzherbert agreed that it was difficult to judge beforehand what the impact of the proposed building would be, but said he had reviewed the plans and was impressed by the use of the land and how the building would be set into the hill. He also thought that the applicant had put a lot of effort into giving the main building a rural appearance. He said that the character and appearance of the building were OK in his opinion, but that the size was questionable. Mr. Shapiro agreed there was no particular problem with the appearance, but he thought the size and scale were key, especially in the context of what surrounds it.

Mrs. Friedman noted that Section 13.1.B.2 also addresses the impairment of property values. She said there was one report from Mr. Hunter, which stated there was no objective data upon which to base a conclusion about the potential impact to neighboring properties, but there were three reports from other appraisers who found that the surrounding property values would be substantially negatively impacted. She read excerpts of the reports from Mr. O’Hazo and Mr. Kloss. Mr. Fitzherbert noted that this argument comes up all of the time, but asked if there were any actual examples in Town where approval of a project actually resulted in decreased property values. Mrs. Friedman thought this issue went beyond this particular property and neighborhood. She thought it was “crucial” because the people who move to Washington for tranquility believe the Commission will protect their residential neighborhoods from adverse impacts. Mr. Fitzherbert pointed out that tastes differ, and not everyone is attracted to Washington for peace and quiet. Mr. Owen thought the neighbors would endure more noise from a school than from the proposed inn and noted any use would be louder than the existing buildings. Mrs. Friedman stated the Regulations should be taken seriously. Mr. Owen said again that the Commission could not act arbitrarily. Mr. Shapiro stated that the file has three or four letters from appraisers who say the property values will decrease, and so thought the Commission could be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

Mr. Owen said the Commission would return to this subject.


Nature of Location, Fire and Emergency Services Protection
Mr. Owen noted that the Fire Marshal and Emergency Services had OK’d the application and said the Commission had no basis to disagree with them. Mr. Shapiro questioned whether Mr. Etherington had reviewed the final plans. Mr. Ajello and Mr. Owen both stated they had spoken with Mr. Etherington, who had based his evaluation on 16 ft. wide driveways. Mrs. Friedman said it was important to note that the plans he reviewed showed the 16 ft. wide driveway with adjacent 5 ft. wide walkways of the same material and at the same height as the driveway so they could have been used for emergency access. Mr. Ajello noted Mr. Etherington and the Fire Dept. had reviewed the plans twice; once before and once after the east entrance had been eliminated. He said a turning template had been provided that showed the fire trucks can maneuver the turns and the bridge would not be taken out at the east entrance so that it could be used as an emergency access. Mr. Owen asked Mrs. Friedman if she had any issues with the Emergency Services report. She did not.


Adequacy of Existing Rural Road Network
Mr. Owen read Section 13.1.B.4.

Mr. Ajello stated that adequate off street parking and loading facilities had been provided. Mrs. Friedman disagreed, saying she had issues with the proposed loading facility.

Mr. Owen noted that it was clear from the testimony at the public hearing that traffic, adequacy of the proposed entrance-exit, and congestion were significant issues.

Mr. Shapiro suggested the east entrance had been eliminated due to lot coverage concerns. Mr. Owen said, no, this had been done to address sight line and safety issues raised at the public hearing. Mr. Shapiro questioned whether the proposed 17.5 ft. wide, two way west entrance with its stone balustrades on both sides was adequate. He thought that especially during peak hours it would create a bottleneck in the driveway and a backup on Wykeham Road for vehicles that would have to wait to turn in until cars in the driveway had exited. He thought the problem would be worse when two trucks attempted to use the entrance due to its narrowness, balustrades, and the entrance angle. Mr. Owen agreed the entrance was constricted and at a difficult angle. Mrs. Friedman noted it was true this entrance was existing, but said it had previously been for one way traffic only.

Regarding the capacity of the rural road network, Mr. Averill thought this would be one reason why a facility of this size should be on a state highway; a better road with better sight lines.

Mr. Owen noted the traffic consultant had found the inn would cause no change in the level of service rating for Wykeham Road. Mr. Shapiro did not think this was a relevant issue. Mr. Averill agreed.

Mr. Averill thought the capacity of Wykeham Road was a concern because the inn would generate an increase in traffic, including delivery trucks. Mr. Shapiro agreed, saying it had been estimated there would be 500 to 700 additional car trips per day and that increase in the volume of traffic would impact the capacity of the road as well as sight lines.

It was the consensus that congestion was a key issue, especially at the west entrance-exit. Mr. Owen questioned whether the road was adequate to accommodate the increase in traffic. He said, however, that issues raised such as dangerous intersections elsewhere on Wykeham Road have no bearing on this application, whereas whether the intensity of the proposed use would impact the rural road network was a relevant issue.

Mrs. Friedman said the existing rural road network includes the sight lines along Wykeham Road and that this concerned her because the intersections with poor sight lines would become more dangerous as the volume of traffic increased. She also noted that Section 13.1.B.4 required that the application be evaluated in the context of the existing road and was not about changing the road to meet the needs of the application. Mr. Owen said the sight line problems on Wykeham Road were not due to the proposal.

Mr. Fitzherbert noted the Board of Selectmen preferred a lesser upgrade to Wykeham Road than the sight line work proposed by the applicant. Mrs. Friedman read a section of the Selectmen’s undated letter, which stated it supports a more moderate plan that would be less destructive to the rural character of the road.

Mr. Owen said the Commission would return to this topic later.


Sufficiency of Lot
Mrs. Friedman thought it was difficult to separate this requirement from the others.

Mr. Ajello suggested that noise could be a problem. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the amphitheater-like terrain could increase the impact of noise on the surrounding properties. Mr. Owen noted there were no expert opinions on the acoustic properties of the site.

Mr. Owen did not think the size of the property was an issue as the Regulations require 5 acres for inns and this site is well over that and has approximately the same lot coverage as the Mayflower.


Landscaping
Mr. Owen suggested that this requirement be discussed later.


Conservation of Natural Features
Mr. Owen noted there was no information in the file to support objections to the application based on this requirement.


Nuisances
Mr. Owen thought there were generally fewer nuisances associated with an inn than with any other use because so much of what the inn patrons seek depends on the absence of nuisances. He said it was self regulating in a way that schools were not. Mr. Shapiro said the exception was that inns have nighttime activities, which generate a significant volume of headlights. Mrs. Friedman noted the applicant proposed a “family friendly” inn, which might be noisier, and said the pool was an issue for some neighbors. She noted that the applicant’s 10/17/08 letter dealt with the use of the pool, but said she could not understand what the applicant was promising. Mr. Owen said the applicant had offered a potential condition to address concerns that had been raised, but he did not think such a vague offer should be made a condition of approval. Mr. Ajello noted there were residential pools in the neighborhood. Mrs. Friedman said the proposed pool was not residential. Mr. Owen stated he was not concerned about noise from the pool, which he did not think would be a threat to the neighborhood. Mrs. Friedman noted that in his 10/28 letter, the applicant proposed buffering to eliminate all sounds from the pool, but she saw no evidence to support that claim.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if lighting had been addressed. Mr. Owen noted the lighting was governed by the outdoor residential lighting regulations and that the application proposed all dark sky lighting.


Section 13.9
Mrs. Friedman thought it was time the Commission went on record about what this regulation meant before it was amended in June 2008. She said because that action had clarified that inns must be located on a state highway, a requirement that had always been the Commission’s intent, the current application did not comply with 13.9.3 because it is proposed on a town road. She read a portion of Atty. Zizka’s 7/28/08 letter regarding intent and Mr. Martin’s 7/28/08 email, which she thought was instructive. Mr. Owen said that although Mr. Martin says the Commission consistently interpreted its Regulations to require that inns be located on state highways, there is nothing on record to support that. Mr. Owen noted that even if 13.9 is interpreted to require that inns be located on state highways, it does not say that inns can not be accessed from town roads.

Mr. Shapiro stated the purpose of allowing inns only on state highways would be since they are busy commercial enterprises, they would generate traffic, and larger state highways would be better able to accommodate them than would narrow, windy country roads. He said there would likely be less traffic congestion and fewer safety hazards because state highways have greater capacities and better sight lines. Mr. Owen thought there were other sections of the Regulations to address this issue and so recommended that any denial be based on the Special Permit criteria and not on this ambiguous language alone. Mrs. Friedman noted that some of the commissioners felt this matter should have been addressed first, but agreed that Atty. Zizka had advised that a decision should not be based entirely on this point.

Mr. Owen noted that Section 13.1.B applies whether or not an inn is located on a town road or state highway.

Mrs. Friedman pointed out that although Atty. Fisher claims the revision of this section was not a clarification, those on the Commission see it as a change to clarify the original intent and to make the language less ambiguous.


CGS 8-2h
Mr. Shapiro noted the Commission had been presented with different legal views regarding this matter. He said he leaned to the view that the applicant was not in compliance at the time the application was submitted since the use he applied for was not grandfathered and a variance was required before approval could be granted. He thought according to the plain meaning of the statute, the applicant had not been in conformance with the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen referred to Atty. Zizka’s letter dated 10/20/08, which disagreed with this view.

Mr. Owen then read Section 8-2h. He said he was drawn to Atty. Hill’s interpretation, but could not disregard Atty. Fisher’s points. Therefore, he recommended that the Commission not rely solely on this matter in any action that is taken. Mr. Shapiro said this was a serious statutory concern about how the application was handled, and he did not think it should be left out of any motion.

Mr. Owen asked the Commission how it wanted to proceed. Mrs. Friedman responded that conditions of approval had not yet been discussed. It was noted the Commission had 65 days from the close of the Public Hearing in which to refer a motion to Atty. Zizka for review and then make its decision.

At 10:30 p.m. the Commission took a 10 minute recess.

Mr. Owen noted that Mrs. Friedman had worked on two documents; reasons to deny the application and conditions of approval. He said he would refer these to Atty. Zizka, suggested they be used as the basis for discussion at the next meeting, and passed them out to the commissioners. He asked everyone to review them and the file, to consider the conversation held tonight, and to come to the 11/24 Meeting prepared to discuss a decision and the basis for it. He thought it would be helpful if the commissioners put their thoughts in writing. He hoped a motion would be drafted at the next meeting so it could be referred to Atty. Zizka for the possibility of a vote at the December meeting.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the Meeting at 10:45 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

Posted: November 8, 2008

October 28, 2008

Public Hearing
7:30 p.m. Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Wyant

ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Shapiro

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. Goodin, Atty. Hill, Dr. Ewing, Mrs. Hardee, Mrs. Addicks, Mr. Adams, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Doherty, Mr. Carey, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Wildman, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Szymanski, Mr./Mrs. Rickart, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Solley, Ms. Giampietro, Mr. Pappas, Mrs. Silk, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Greene, Mr. Talbot, Residents, Press


Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn/Continuation

Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen. He stated the purpose of the final session of the hearing was to give the applicant the opportunity to make a final statement, allow the commissioners to ask questions, and receive final submissions to the file. Any other matters, he said, would be reviewed on a case by case basis. He then read the list of all of the documents that had been submitted since the 10/27/08 session of the hearing.

Atty. Hill asked if the coverage calculations by Mr. Smith were included in the file and he submitted a copy to make sure they were.

Mr. Szymanski submitted his 10/28/08 letter written in response to the points raised by Mr. Goodin in his 10/26/08 letter. 1) He said Mr. Smith concurred with the applicant’s lot coverage calculations, except for the addition of the transfer pads, bringing the total figure to 9.8%. 2) The plans had been revised to move the sidewalks 4 ft. from the driveways and their width had been reduced from 5 ft. to 3 ft. On the downhill side of the driveways the curb would separate the driveway from the sidewalk. 3) Regarding the definition of lot coverage, Mr. Szymanski stated that Mr. Goodin had misquoted the regulation and he argued that porous walkways were more pervious than gravel or stones set in grass.

Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission had previously expressed its concern about the maintenance of pervious materials. Mr. Szymanski remembered that concern had been raised at the June 2008 public hearing and he submitted data from the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center entitled, “About Porous Asphalt.” He said porous asphalt was self cleaning and would last without maintenance.

Regarding access to the pump house, 4) Mr. Szymanski said that maintenance is required only a couple of times per year and that electrical generators would be located between the main building and the access drive. 5) Mr. Szymanski noted there had been concerns raised that the size of the approved buildings could not be enforced because no dimensions had been provided. He submitted plans with specific dimensions for all structures, including terraces. 6) Mr. Szymanski said the location of the lower driveway was set into the hillside to make it less noticeable and to position it half way between the wetlands and Kirby Brook.

Mr. Szymanski noted that the landscape architect had also responded to points raised by Mr. Goodin and submitted a set of revised landscaping plans. 1) He provided minimum sizes for all proposed plant material. 2) He clarified which trees would be removed. 3) He submitted the 8/28/08 letter from Mr. Branson, forester, re: removal of dying trees and shrubs. 4) He noted the wooded areas to remain as buffers were generally at least 30 ft. wide and as much as 50 ft. wide. 5) A note was added to the plans that the proposed landscaping would be staked in the field so that the ZEO and/or a neighbor could judge whether it would be sufficient, and if not, additional plantings would be added. He said the goal was to provide a solid conifer buffer.

Mr. Szymanski stated his letter covered Mr. Goodin’s points re: the proposed septic system and water system design in great detail. He noted a 50,000 gal. underground water tank would be installed and that it would be filled during the night when there was less water demand. Mr. Szymanski noted the Commission had been concerned that Mr. Etherington, Fire Marshal, had referenced two swimming pools in his letter of approval. Mr. Ajello said he had asked Mr. Etherington if it mattered whether a second pool or a cistern was provided for fire protection and his response had been that it did not matter. He also said that Mr. Etherington had not been aware that a sidewalk was proposed. Mr. Szymanski stated a 20,000 gallon cistern and a dry hydrant had been added to the plans.

Other points briefly covered by Mr. Szymanski included the following. 1) He discussed building height and provided a table for review. Mr. Goodin advised the Commission to review Section 11.7.1 and said the proposed silo should be included in the average height. 2) He said his letter also addressed the access to the upper cottages, which the Fire Marshal and emergency services had signed off on. 3) Mr. Szymanski attached Land Tech’s 9/25/08 letter, which in part, addressed rain garden methodology. Land Tech found the rain garden design was acceptable and that the soils found on site were capable of the necessary infiltration. 4) Mr. Szymanski stated that although Mr. Goodin complained that he had not followed the guidelines in the DEP stormwater manual, the guidelines for design that he did use, the Ideal method, would result in greater than the 80% renovation that would be accomplished per DEP guidelines. 5) He stated the proposed stormwater management system had the potential to reduce thermal impacts on Kirby Brook. 6) He noted the recommendations that Mr. Goodin had made concerning lawn maintenance had now been incorporated in the plans with the exception the applicant did not agree that no phosphorous fertilizers would be used. Instead he stated that soil testing would be required prior to fertilization so the area would not be over fertilized.

Mr. Szymanski spoke at length about the overall character, scope, and size of the main structure. He said Mr. Clark, adjoining property owner, supported the application. He stated the overlays comparing the building to Bryan Plaza were misleading because 1) the proposed building would be built into the hillside and 2) the overlays had not included landscaping, which would “break up” the building. He showed on OSD.1 how the applicant had attempted to move the building back into the vegetation to minimize its impacts and so it would be less visible from the road than the existing school buildings. He noted, too, that the proposed landscaping had been supplemented so that more screening would be provided.

The development envelopes and building sizes of the Mayflower Inn and the proposed inn were briefly compared.

Mr. Mitchell responded to the traffic concerns raised by Mr. Goodin. He stated the driveway would safely accommodate the expected traffic volumes and the worst case scenario of 30 vehicles entering and 30 exiting during the peak hour. He also said that Mr. Goodin’s opinion that the inn would generate a 322% increase in traffic over the Swiss Hospitality Inst. was incorrect. Mr. Mitchell said the proposed sight lines and stopping distances met the standard design guidelines and he could not respond to other points raised as they were unclear as Mr. Goodin had not used standard CT DOT terminology. Mr. Mitchell stated that the police data provided to Mr. Goodin was inadequate data upon which to base his conclusions.

Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Mitchell if he had considered the ability to turn into the entrance driveway from Wykeham Road. She said it was extremely difficult to stay in your own lane and avoid hitting the pillars. Mr. Szymanski said he had showed it would work for passenger vehicles. Mrs. Friedman asked if it would handle SUV’s. Mr. Szymanski said he had shown it would handle vehicles up to 7 feet wide.

Mr. Mitchell objected to Mr. Goodin’s claim that the “quality of service” on Wykeham Road would be negatively impacted. He responded that per DOT guidelines for a rural road with less than 1500 average trips per day, the state standards of 20 ft. minimum travel width, 30 mph speed limit, 200 ft. stopping distance, 14% maximum grade, and 4 ft. offset from the travelway to any barrier would continue to be met more often than not. He noted that Bell Hill Road is much wider and so is of less concern. Mr. Mitchell said he did not think the bulk of the traffic would use Bell Hill Road as Mr. Rickart suggested, but said even if it did, its intersection with Wykeham Road would remain at the level A service rating. He did not think residents would perceive any increase in the volume of traffic as a result of the inn.

Mr. Szymanski said he had provided turning templates for passenger cars to show they could maneuver the turns and parking spaces along the 16 ft. wide driveways. He noted he had previously submitted his 10/27/08 letter to the Commission comparing driveway widths for other uses in Washington and noting whether they function adequately. He said the approval of the Mayflower spa driveway in 2003 was comparable to the proposed driveway, noted that the Fire Dept. found the current Mayflower access to be OK, and said the Mayflower driveways were as narrow as 12 to 14 feet wide. Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission had not approved the narrow driveways; they had been existing. Mr. Szymanski agreed, but said they function successfully. He also compared the proposed driveway to the GW Tavern, which is as narrow as 11 feet, but which, he said, operates without incident.

Mr. Klauer stated that Mr. Goodin had not provided comparable analysis so his conclusion that the proposed parking is inadequate was only an opinion. He submitted industry data, which, he said, proved sufficient parking was proposed for the normal course of business and he compared the proposed parking with the existing parking at the Mayflower Inn. Mrs. Friedman noted the Mayflower function room is never open to the public and that the Health Dept. computed the number of seats in the proposed restaurant at 92. She disagreed with Mr. Klauer’s count of the parking spaces at the Mayflower, saying she had counted them and had come with a different number. The estimated number of employees and level of service rating based on the ratio of the number of employees per room was discussed.

Mr. Szymanski stated there might be a rare event when more than the 103 proposed parking spaces would be needed. He submitted the map, “Overflow Parking Plan,” by Arthur H. Howland & Associates, dated 10/16/08 that showed 55 additional parking spaces in the field in the eastern part of the property, the area that was formerly a driveway and the main school building. He said this would increase the parking total to 158 spaces and that no parking along Wykeham Road would then be necessary. He agreed that under the Regulations, the Commission has the right to require additional spaces, but said the proposed overflow spaces provided more than the 146 total spaces that would be required for the maximum use of the business.

Mr. Klauer further reviewed the parking requirements, stating the average annual occupancy for a N. England inn is 62%; 70% during the high season. Mrs. Friedman asked if this included the gym, which would be open to the public. Mr. Klauer said his maximum parking figures were for evening use. He briefly described how most employees are on site from 12:00 to 5:00 after the guests check out. Mrs. Friedman noted that no parking spaces had been allotted for the function room. Mr. Klauer said it would not be used during the normal business day, but even if it was, there would be 28 “shared” parking spaces available.

Mr. Szymanski stated the 30 mph limit recommended by Mr. Goodin would encourage speeding and said 15 mph design standards would result in less impact on the neighborhood and to the environment. He said the driveway was designed for 15 mph.

Mr. Szymanski recommended that an as-built for the entire site including driveways be required. He said the applicant would certify that the construction was completed as designed.

Atty. Fisher stated two of the most important issues were engineering and traffic and he thought it necessary to respond to Atty. Hill and Atty. McTaggart. 1) He stated the previous wording of Section 13.9.2 had been logically and consistently interpreted to allow inns on either town or state roads; that the wording did not lend itself to the interpretation that inns were allowed only on town roads. 2) Regarding CGS 8-2(h), he stated that the interpretation being urged by Atty. Hill and Atty. McTaggart differed from the plain reading of this section. He urged the Commission to follow Atty. Zizka’s advice not to deny the application on this point alone. 3) He disagreed with Atty. McTaggart that the use as an inn with lot coverage under 10% differs from the intensity of the previous uses. 4) Atty. Fisher stated the Plan of Conservation and Development was advisory only and is not binding on the Zoning Commission. He said that although Section 13.1.B specifically states the Special Permit use must meet the objectives of the Plan, he thought those objectives were over simplified and needed to be reworded and revised. He thought it was clear that since inns are only allowed in the R-1 zone, if designed properly, they should be allowed within the framework of the Plan of Development. 5) He disagreed with those who think the proposed inn does not fit in with the definition of inn. He said the only comparable inn was the Mayflower, which the Zoning Commission had allowed to expand. He noted the definition of inn read by Mr. Owen had a broad interpretation beyond just an overnight facility and said amenities and entertainment for those who lodge there were included. He said the Commission could not have a different set of rules for what was proposed here. 6) He briefly gave the history of the restriction on the southern part of the property, said he did not believe Mrs. Federer had the right to enforce that restriction, and said the matter would be settled in court. 7) Atty. Fisher noted that he had found Mr. Hunter’s previous testimony concerning how the appraisals of adjoining properties would or would not be impacted by the inn confusing, so he had asked him to submit a second letter dated 10/28/08. He said it would be difficult to overcome the perception that the new use would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties, but pointed out that Mr. Hunter said there was no quantifiable objective data upon which to base that conclusion. 8) Atty. Fisher said the Commission would have to make a determination that the proposed use would not cause pollution, nuisances, etc. and said he was not aware of any information that this project would cause an unrealistic impairment of the public trust. 9) He said that Mr. Mitchell, traffic consultant, had set the record straight concerning traffic and all requirements had been satisfied. He said the driveway had existed for over 100 years, there has always been traffic coping with the Wykeham Road conditions, and Mr. Goodin was not a professional traffic consultant, so more confidence should be placed with Mr. Mitchell. 10) He stated that the question about whether lot coverage had been correctly computed had been satisfied by Mr. Smith who had calculated it to be under 10%. 11) Atty. Fisher asked the question, what would become of the property if it was not approved as an inn. He answered his question by saying it could be left to deteriorate, it could be subdivided into four residential lots, which he did not think was realistic, or it could be used for an institutional use as endorsed by the Plan of Conservation and Development. He also noted that affordable housing would be an attractive alternative for any developer because the existing septic system could handle 69 bedrooms and local standards could be ignored. 12) Atty. Fisher said Mr. Klauer proposes an environmentally sensitive, quiet, upscale inn that will be a credit to the community and he asked the Commission to approve it.

Mr. Owen gave the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions.

Mrs. Friedman noted Mr. Klauer’s 10/27 letter about his restriction for the use of the pool by children and asked him to explain it. Mr. Klauer said that while he thought there would be adequate buffering between the pool and adjoining properties to muffle the noise and that he proposed to make his inn distinct from the Mayflower by making it family oriented, he proposed to keep noise down by limiting the use of the pool by children to only three weeks from the Monday before Memorial Day through the last week in Sept.

Mrs. Friedman noted that Mr. Klauer said the function room would be restricted to use by guests only during the high season. Mr. Klauer said this was so and that it would be up to the Commission to determine whether any other restrictions were needed.

Mrs. Friedman noted that Mr. Federer had asked whether there would be a bar and grill at the pool. Mr. Klauer said this was covered in his 10/27 letter. He stated the Federer’s house would be over 500 feet from the pool and that cottages would be situated between them to deflect the noise. He said he believed that the distance coupled with the proposed buffer was adequate, but would leave it up to the Commission to decide.

There was further discussion between Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Klauer regarding his proposal to limit the use of the pool by children. Mrs. Friedman thought the proposal was confusing; were the children allowed at the inn but not in the pool or would they not be allowed at the inn for all but the three weeks; and she did not see how this could be enforced.

Mr. Owen asked if the conditions suggested by the applicant were part of his application or whether they were possible conditions he would agree to abide by. Mr. Klauer said he had offered them as conditions and if the Zoning Commission thought they were necessary, he would abide by them. Atty. Fisher said that the ZEO would not want to enforce pool restrictions and that the inn would have public policies and rules that would be noticed at the pool.

Mrs. Friedman noted that any conditions of approval would apply to all future owners.

Atty. Hill stated that the applicant had submitted 16 pieces of new factual information and the sixth redesign of the project. He said with the redesign it did not now conform with the Inland Wetlands application and so should be withdrawn. He said it was not fair that the applicant had submitted the dimensions for the floor plans at the last minute so that it could not be confirmed that lot coverage had been correctly computed. He said that time and time again those against the application had demonstrated there were errors in the plans. He said that all of the implications involved in moving the sidewalks had not been considered.

Mr. Owen briefly referred to Section 13.9 and the 500 ft. minimum frontage requirement, explaining that one reason the frontage requirement may have been increased along state roads was to prevent driveways from being dangerously close together. He noted that Atty. Zizka had hypothetically agreed. He also noted that Mrs. Hill had researched some of the history of how inns had been addressed in the Regulations and had found that first 500 ft. of frontage had been required and later “on a state highway.” had been added. He said this supported this interpretation.

Mr. Owen stated that the Special Permit regulations give the Zoning Commission broad authority under Section 13.1.B. He briefly addressed several of the criteria in this section. 1) He noted impact on property values was not an exact science and that proximity to the Mayflower Inn had been used positively in the past. 2) He noted that the claim made at the hearing that the proposed inn would be the second largest building in Washington was not accurate. He said the combined Big Top/auditorium building at Rumsey Hall School has a footprint of 38,000 sq. ft. and the Rumsey rink 34,000 sq. ft. compared with 20,000 for the proposed main building for the inn. He noted this was not the only factor the Commission should take into account.

Mrs. Solomon submitted a letter dated 10/28/08 from Mrs. Cooper who could not attend the hearing. She noted that at the previous session of the hearing Atty. Fisher had stated there would be an emergency access available except during mud season and she thought this violated Section 13.1.B.3. Mrs. Solomon said she remained concerned about traffic issues and was critical of Mr. Mitchell’s report citing his use of technical terms instead of common sense and noting that the map he submitted showed the property in the wrong location. She disagreed with his assertion that an increase to 2 cars per minute during the peak hour was not significant and she questioned what he meant when discussing the difficulty for cars making a right turn into the property, he said that it was “not all that horrible.”

Mrs. Silk said she disagreed with other realtors who wrote in support of the application. She did not think being located near an inn was a selling point because people usually do not want to live close to a commercial facility. She noted that once approved, the Town could never go back and it was truly unknown what the impact of the new inn on the Town would be. She thought it was an inappropriate use for this section of Town and for Wykeham Road, and she thought the noise that would be generated should not be underestimated.

Mr. Rogness pointed out that at a previous session of the hearing it had been noted that the ZEO would not be able to enforce many of the conditions offered by Mr. Klauer. He was “blown away” that this responsibility to report violations would fall on the neighbors and said it would impact the value of his property across the street.

Mr. Szymanski said that opponents had already verified lot coverage with Mr. Smith’s review and report.

Mr. Klauer submitted revised drawings from Moisan Architects showing details and all dimensions and the boards used throughout the hearing. He read a closing statement regarding how the application meets the Regulations and why it is the best use for the property. His points included 1) it is a sensitive proposal, 2) the existing buildings are ugly and out of character, 3) indisputable evidence had been submitted that the inn would generate less traffic than the previous school, 4) the property could again be used as a school, which would be more noisy than an inn, 5) the main building will be less visible from the road than are the existing buildings, 6) extensive buffering would be added to protect the community, 7) Washington realtors promote the Mayflower Inn to help sell properties, 8) there is no evidence that the proposed inn would have a negative impact on the surrounding property values, 9) the property could be used for another school, 10) the proposed inn is an improvement over what now exists on site, and 11) approximately 250 letters of support had been submitted.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application:
Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 10:21 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

Posted: November 7, 2008

October 27, 2008

Please Note: This is a revised posting of the minutes originally posted November 5th. One word, initially omitted, was added back into to the text and is shown in bold italics. I apologize for any confusion, or misunderstanding this may have caused.
Steve Wadelton - Webmaster

7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. DuBois

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Federer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Atty. Hill, Atty. McTaggart, Mr. Goodin, Ms. Giampietro, Mr./Mrs. Rickart, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Wildman, Mr. Carey, Mr. Long, Mrs. Addicks, Mrs. Hardee, Mr. Surnow, Mr. Showalter, Mrs. Peckerman, Mrs. Materne, Mrs. McDonald, Mr./Mrs. Peacocke, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Collum, Mr. Rogness, Mrs. Minor, Mr. Whalen, Mr. Mustich, Dr. Ewing, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Payne, Mr. Solley, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Greene, Mr./Mrs. Lasar, Mrs. Clarke, Mr. Pappas, Press, Residents

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Geurts/46 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 10/15 and 10/22/08. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file.

Mr. Ajello noted that the applicant had not affirmed in writing that he would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit, but said this could be made a condition of approval.

Mr. Owen read the 10/27/08 ZEO Report.

Mr. Szymanski, engineer, circulated photos of the existing building and submitted a letter dated 10/27/08 from Ms. Castagnetta to Mr. Owen re: the application’s compliance with Section 13.11.3. He explained the existing dwelling on the property would become an accessory apartment and a new dwelling would be constructed. Floor plans were reviewed to show the existing dwelling was less than 1200 sq. ft. and would have an unfinished basement.

Mr. Owen asked if the apartment would use the same driveway as the principal dwelling. Mr. Szymanski said it would.

Mr. Ajello said the Special Permit would not become effective until a C of O was issued for the new dwelling.

There were no comments or 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. Geurts for a detached accessory apartment at 46 June Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.


Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 4.4.1, 13.9/Inn/Continuation

Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. He explained that the first part of the 10/20/08 session of the hearing had not recorded. On the advice of the Commission’s counsel and in an attempt to ensure there would be an accurate record of that hearing, he said he would go through the minutes and give each person the opportunity to comment on their completeness and to made corrections. He noted, too, that all of the documents submitted at the 10/20/08 hearing remained in the file. The review of the minutes follows.

Mr. Owen had first read Atty. Zizka’s 10/20/08 letter, which is in the file.

Mr. Owen suggested the Commission focus its discussion on 1) the definition of inn. 2) traffic, 3) parking adequacy and design, and 4) lot coverage and this was followed except for inclusion of additional topics raised by Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Shapiro: driveways and average trips generated per day.

Mr. Owen read his statement re: the definition of inn, which is in the file.

Next the past actions of the Commission regarding inns, creation of an operative definition of inn, and the question of whether the Commission had erred in the past were discussed. All of the commissioners cited in the minutes said their statements were accurately reflected. The public was asked if it agreed, and there were no objections raised.

Mrs. Peacocke read her 10/27/08 letter regarding the Special Permit application and the definition of inn and it is in the file.

Mrs. Peckerman objected to the use of the word, transient.

Mrs. Cooper was not present to confirm that the minutes accurately described her statements, but no one in the public had any corrections.

Mr. Owen asked Mr. Federer if the next paragraph about his presentation was correct. Mr. Federer said it was. His letter submitted that evening is in the file.

Mrs. Andersen was not present to confirm the minutes accurately reported her statements, but those in the public who had attended the last meeting had no objections.

Atty. McTaggart said at this point she had made several statements from a letter that she had not submitted, but said she would submit it tonight and it would cover the issues she had raised.

Next, Mr. Shapiro had asked Atty. McTaggart some questions, including what she thought of the Commission’s decision regarding the Mayflower spa. Mr. Owen read the minutes and Atty. McTaggart said they accurately recorded her response.

Mr. Owen stated the paragraph covering his comments on traffic was accurate.

Mrs. Friedman said her question and Mr. Owen said his answer about sight lines were accurate.

Mrs. Friedman’s statements about the sight lines along Wykeham Road were accurate.

Mr. Collum stated his mother’s statement about traffic was accurate, but that she had also said that the Mayflower Inn was originally a school, another similarity with the proposed inn.

Mrs. Friedman had then summarized Mr. Fore’s 10/10/08 letter, which is in the file.

Mr. Owen said his statements about living next to The Gunnery School and to the Mayflower Inn were correct.

Mr. Fitzherbert said the minutes had his statements about traffic backwards. He said he was not concerned about traffic congestion. He said the minutes accurately reported that he had said the Town had improved the sight lines at the Sabbaday-Wykeham intersection.

Mr. Shapiro said his statements about living across from the Mayflower Inn were accurate.

Mr. Owen said his comments about headlights shining into the Ewing’s bedroom windows were accurate and noted then Dr. Ewing had corrected him as stated in the minutes.

Mr. Owen read the minutes concerning Ms. Giampietro’s remarks and she stated they were accurate.

Mrs. Friedman next asked if Wykeham Road is a scenic road, the answer was that it is not, and she said this was accurate.

A copy of Mr. Miller’s complete remarks and traffic analysis were in the file.

Ms. Forese was not present to verify her remarks, but no one from the public had any corrections.

Next, the minutes accurately stated that Mr. Doherty said speeding on Wykeham Road is a problem and Mrs. Cooper was concerned about the dangerous sight lines and the safety of all who use the road, and the loss of the rural road network.

Mrs. Friedman stated the information she had provided on entrances and exits on Wykeham Road was correct.

The points raised by Mrs. Solomon are included in her letter submitted to the file.

Mr. Goodin stated that his statement that the inn would impact the quality of service on Wykeham Road was correct and that the next few pages appeared to adequately address his remarks, but that if he found any mistakes, he would address them later in the meeting.

Mr. Fitzherbert and Mrs. Friedman said the questions they asked Mr. Goodin were accurately reflected.

No one was present from the Selectmen’s Office, so Mr. Owen read Mr. Solley’s remarks on sight lines and noted the letter from the Board of Selectmen was in the file.

Next, there was more discussion between Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Gooding about traffic and Mr. Goodin said it was accurately reported.

Regarding his lengthy statements on pages 9-10, Mr. Szymanski stated they were correct for the most part. He added to #7 that he had also stated that it was typical for drivers to use their low beams at intersections. He corrected #12 to state that if once the trees were removed the sight lines still needed improvement, and it was necessary to do so, then the applicant would be willing to remove the pillars and the 24” tree. At this time, however, it was not proposed to remove either the 24” tree or the pillars.

Mr. Owen noted Mr. Hunter, appraiser, was not present, but his letter was in the file. He read Mrs. Friedman’s statement that the Commission should use its best judgment regarding property values and Mr. Hunter’s response concerning the run down state of the property. Atty. Fisher said this portion of the minutes was OK, but he would compare it with his notes and let the Commission know if corrections were needed.

Mr. Rogness said, yes, he did say the inn would have a negative impact on surrounding property values.

Mr. Owen read the remarks by Mr. Parker and for clarification, changed “amphitheatre” to “amphitheatre-like terrain.”

Mr. Owen noted that next there was a lengthy exchange between Atty. Hill, Mrs. Friedman, and Mr. Szymanski regarding the lot coverage calculations and whether they should be sent to an impartial expert for review. He noted this was now moot because the referral had been made and report received concluded that these calculations were substantially correct. There were no comments made about the accuracy or inaccuracy of this section.

Atty. Fisher stated he had no problem with the summary of Mr. Hunter’s statement, but he disagreed with Mr. Owen’s statement at the beginning that the Mayflower Inn was situated on 30 acres. Mr. Owen stated, yes, that figure was in his document that had been submitted for the record. Mrs. Friedman stated that she would make a correction about the Mayflower acreage later in the hearing.

It was noted that from this point on, the hearing had been recorded. Mr. Owen said if anyone thought of something that should be added or corrected, he could bring it up later. And he asked Mr. Goodin to write down any comments he might want to add. New testimony begins at this point.

Mr. Ajello reported there was a new document from the Fire Marshal with the wording adjusted to say the road width and turning radii had been taken into consideration. Mr. Owen noted he had spoken with Mr. Etherington who said he had no concerns about the application.

Mr. Owen read the list of documents submitted at and since the last session of the hearing. It was noted the 10/22/08 letter from Mr. Smith, surveyor, regarding the lot coverage analysis should also be listed. He found the proposed lot coverage was 9.8%. Mr. Ajello said that Mr. Smith had found a spring that had not been accounted for and had added the coverage for some minor utilities.

Regarding the grass pavers to the detention pond, Mr. Owen thought that the passage of annual maintenance vehicles was not counted as coverage under the Regulations and he would reserve judgment about whether pavers should be installed there.

Atty. Hill said he did not understand why the Fire Marshal had no problem with the proposed 16 ft. wide driveways. He also noted that the proposed driveway of porous pavement was actually 21 feet wide because there was a 5 ft. wide porous pavement walkway running along side it that could not be distinguished from the driveway itself. He said that when the 8000 sq. ft. for the walkway was added to the coverage calculations, it increased lot coverage to 10.5%. Atty. Hill said the applicant achieved lot coverage of less than 10% by a distorted reading of the Regulations.

Mr. Goodin, engineer, pointed out on the “Lot Coverage Map” what he found as three problems with the applicant’s lot coverage calculations and driveway-sidewalk layout. 1) He stated that the sidewalk pavement was at the same elevation, looked the same, and was a contiguous part of the driveway pavement and that the sidewalk followed the driveway except where there was parking. He said the Fire Marshal would have looked at the plans and would have thought the sidewalk could be driven on. He said it was not a safe layout for a sidewalk to extend partly into a parking area. Mrs. Friedman asked if the parking areas had been included in the lot coverage. Mr. Goodin said they had, but the walkway along the edge of the parking had not. 2) Mr. Goodin read the part of the lot coverage definition pertaining to pedestrian walkways and noted porous pavement was not listed as one of the more natural materials that when used, exempted these walkways from counting as coverage. 3) Mr. Goodin noted that the driveway for the maintenance of the detention basin has a 17% grade and also serves as the maintenance access for the pump house for the wells. He thought that the steep grade was the reason the pavers were proposed, noting that usually when the grade exceeds 10-12% pavement is installed. He said the pump house would require routine, not annual, inspections. Mr. Goodin also stated that no sizes were included on the architectural plans so he was not able to confirm the sizes of the buildings, patios, and terraces proposed. He stated that any one of these three points would bring the lot coverage over the 10% maximum permitted.

Atty. Hill again stated that if the sidewalks along the driveway were included as lot coverage, it would be 10.57%. As a legal point he noted that the Zoning Regulations define lot coverage in terms of structures or anything manmade placed on the ground, which would include pavers. He also stated there was no exception given for anything used only once or twice a year, and that Atty. Zizka’s opinion that the maintenance driveway should not count as coverage because it would be used only once a year was for a grassed access, not for pavers. Mr. Owen said this was correct.

Mrs. Friedman asked for the exact measurements of the proposed buildings. She said they had not been provided and she had not been able to confirm the proposed building height. Mr. Averill asked how the lot coverage calculations could have been done without the exact measurements of the proposed buildings.

Mr. Szymanski said the sidewalks should not count as coverage. He said there was no intent to use the sidewalk as part of the driveway. He said the sidewalk would be a light brown rubber based porous material and the driveway would be black porous asphalt. He said he could move the sidewalk 3 ft. from the driveway on the upper side and that there was a curb separating them on the lower side.

Mrs. Friedman noted there had been a previous revision re: sidewalks. Mr. Szymanski said north of the proposed main structure they had been moved to run along the driveway rather than through the landscaped area, but said he could change it back.

In response to a question by Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Goodin pointed out the areas where he had concerns about the sidewalk, which was generally all areas where there was no curb between it and the driveway.

Mr. Szymanski complained that Mr. Goodin didn’t bring up his concerns earlier in the process. Mr. Goodin responded that he had asked for all materials, labels, and dimensions at the first meeting, but this information was submitted piecemeal.

A lengthy discussion followed about the specifications of the materials proposed for the sidewalks and driveways, how they differed from natural materials such as gravel and pea stone, comparison of infiltration rates, etc.

Mr. Szymanski addressed the access to the detention pond and pump house with its associated underground storage tanks. He said he inspects the Candlewood pump house daily on foot. It was noted, however, that pump house is 30 ft. from the driveway, whereas, the proposed pump house is 220 ft. from the driveway. Mr. Szymanski assured the Commission that the detention pond would only need maintenance once a year because he had shown that only 2 c. yards of material would need to be removed from it each year. He said this would be accomplished with three trips up and down the slope and that after the work was done a couple of shovels of top soil and seed could repair any disturbed areas.

Mr. Owen asked if the grass pavers were necessary. Mr. Szymanski said they were not and could be deleted from the plans.

Mr. Averill asked why the sidewalk followed the driveway up the hill, disappeared in the parking area, and then reappeared on the other side. Mr. Szymanski said the idea was not to add any unnecessary sidewalk. He said there was a shoulder so that pedestrians could walk behind the parked cars and that the driveway width itself could safely accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians.

Mr. Owen thought it was a problem that the sidewalks were contiguous and indistinguishable from the driveway. Mr. Szymanski said he would separate them if that’s what the Commission wanted.

Mr. Szymanski discussed the architectural plans. He said he had sent Mr. Smith the autocad with all dimensions, including the architectural measurements, so that he could accurately verify the lot coverage.

Atty. Hill called the plans a “stream of consciousness design.” He noted that if the sidewalk was separated from the driveway, the grading would change and it would be a different plan submitted just before the close of the hearing. He said that the applicant had told the Inland Wetlands Commission that the grass pavers were needed to stabilize the slope down to the detention pond, but he had told the Zoning Commission he would remove them. He said that nothing in the record established what the building coverage was supposed to be and there was no design for the porous pavement; only generic information. He said there was no specific landscape screening proposed, no dimensions for the footprints of the proposed buildings given, and that the plans did not show how large the proposed buildings would be so it would be impossible to enforce an approved plan.

Mr. Owen asked if the building dimensions were on the plans. Mr. Szymanski said the plans were drawn to scale.

Mr. Owen thought Atty. Hill’s concern about enforcement was a valid one, noting the staff doesn’t use autocad. Mr. Szymanski said as part of the construction process the applicant would have to provide as-builts for both the buildings and for lot coverage.

Atty. Hill said this was absurd because the Commission would not know if the buildings had been constructed as required if their specifications weren’t provided beforehand.

Mrs. Friedman noted that the architectural plans stated that the drawings were not necessarily drawn to scale. She read this note on the plans. She said she could not confirm Mr. Federer’s statements made at the last meeting because the applicant had not submitted accurate measurements. Mr. Szymanski stated there was an autocad to scale by Moisan Architects, revised to 9/22/08. He also noted the buildings were to scale on the Site Development Plan and that although the actual elevations of the proposed structures were not shown, their heights were given.

Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Ajello if he had confirmed the height of the proposed buildings. He said he had to the best of his ability.

Mrs. Friedman asked for the dimensions of the main building. Using the scale, Mr. Szymanski gave the following: entire building is tiered into the hillside so that the total height does not exceed 40 feet, restaurant: 108’ deep, 140’ long, section with 14 rooms: 26’ deep, 115’ long, spa: 80’ deep by 145’ long. He said the total length across was 385 ft. He described how the main building would be screened from view from the road and said it would be less visible than the existing 220 ft. long main structure.

Mrs. Friedman asked if the applicant had considered entirely closing off the east access. She thought if it was closed off and a buffer planted in this area, it would provide additional screening. Mr. Szymanski said the proposed site development would have less impact than what exists today and he did not want to remove a potential access. Mrs. Friedman said there were letters from both the emergency services dept. and the Fire Marshal saying that the proposed access was OK, so she did not understand why the east entrance was necessary. She again said this area could be used for more screening. Mr. Szymanski stated this would be OK with the applicant if it was OK with the Fire Marshal who had reviewed plans which did not indicate this area would be a vegetated buffer. Mrs. Friedman asked if an emergency access had been shown on the plans the Fire Marshal had reviewed. Mr. Szymanski said, no, but that the Marshal had understood that area could be used for an emergency access.

Mr. Fitzherbert noted that in most places a second emergency access is mandated.

Mr. Owen asked what would be seen from Bell Hill Road. Mr. Szymanski described the proposed buffering in that direction and said it would be more difficult to see the inn from Bell Hill.

Atty. Hill asked if the screening renderings were in the record. Mr. Szymanski said they were.

Using the landscaping plan, sheet EL.2, Atty. Hill pointed out the lack of specific details including specific varieties of trees and shrubs were not cited and the size and number to be planted were not cited. Again he stated that the Commission could not enforce what it couldn’t describe.

Mr. Owen noted the Commission typically leaves the applicant and neighbors to work out a suitable agreement regarding landscaping details.

Mr. Beaver, landscape architect, said that at the first session of the public hearing he had stated that 2.5”-3” caliper trees and 3 ft. tall shrubs would be planted. He said screening for neighbors would be composed of a mix of evergreens, deciduous trees, and flowering shrubs that would provide variety and seasonal colors. He pointed out that all landscaping would be staked in the field for approval prior to installation, offered to let a Town official inspect the stakes prior to planting, and offered to plant additional plants if the Commission thought it was necessary.

Mr. Szymanski stated the buffer along the Federer property would be installed prior to the start of construction.

Mr. Owen asked if the public hearing file from the proposed revision to the Regulations regarding porous pavements should be added to this file. Both Atty. Hill and Mr. Szymanski objected.

Mr. Solley commented on the east access. He noted that if the asphalt was removed and the area top soiled and seeded so that it would not count as coverage, it would not be usable during the spring thaw. He thought either it should be grassed and not considered an emergency access or considered an emergency access and counted as coverage.

Mr. Goodin reviewed the landscaping plans, pointing out that there were many conflicting aspects. 1) One plan shows all trees to remain, while another shows the removal of 35 trees along Wykeham Road. 2) In some areas the applicant would be cutting down more trees than he would replace. 3) The landscaping plan does not specify that the area where the driveway would be removed will be top soiled and seeded. He noted the plans are the record that the Commission must act on, not what is stated at the hearing.

Mr. Goodin spoke about the architectural plans, which in his experience, he said, were very incomplete. Mr. Owen noted that they had been reviewed by the impartial expert, but Mr. Goodin said he had not confirmed the square footage of all buildings. His concerns included that one plan showed an indoor pool and another plan didn’t, that building dimensions were not provided, and only one elevation was submitted so that whether the building height met the Regulations could not be confirmed.

Mr. Goodin stated normally building heights are measured from multiple points, Mr. Szymanski stated this was not required by the Regs, and the method of measurement was briefly discussed. Mr. Ajello noted the buildings would be built into the hillside to minimize grade changes. Mr. Goodin objected to the use of the 470 elevation as the average elevation and he stated the silo portion of the building was 42 feet tall from the average grade to the maximum height. He said an as-built as Mr. Szymanski suggested be required would be no good after the construction of the building had been completed.

Mr. Szymanski noted sheet OSD.2 has a table regarding the height calculation and he explained how the height had been determined using the more restrictive grades. He also noted that although he did not consider the cottages and quads to be accessory buildings, none exceeded the 26 ft. maximum height. He also noted the architect’s floor plans are to scale.

Mr. Owen asked if there would be a pool in the main building. Mr. Szymanski said there would not and that the only impact to the plan by removing it was regarding fire protection and that underground storage tanks had been provided as compensation.

Mrs. Friedman noted that both letters from the Fire Marshal state that the plans include two swimming pools. She asked when the pool had been deleted. Mr. Szymanski said it had been deleted when the applicant had first met with the Fire Marshal, prior to submission of his first letter and that the area where the pool had been removed would be unexcavated floor area.

Mr. Szymanski stated the report by Mr. Branson, forester, confirmed that the 35 trees to be removed were diseased or dying.

Regarding the deletion of the service driveway, Mr. Szymanski said that details for the restoration of this area had been submitted.

The height of the main building was discussed. Mrs. Friedman pointed out that Mr. Goodin did not think there was adequate documentation submitted to determine its actual height or the average grade from which that is measured. Mr. Szymanski disagreed, reviewed the table on height, explained his method of calculation, and said that with the help of Mr. Ajello the Commission could determine the height of the proposed building.

At 10:07 p.m. the Commission took a brief recess. The hearing was reconvened at 10:18 p.m.

Mr. Averill expressed his frustration with the ever increasing rounds of conflicting opinions presented by the experts for both sides.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked if Mr. Owen thought the issue of the sidewalk contiguous to the driveway had been resolved. Mr. Owen responded that the applicant had offered to remove it if the Commission so requested, but, no, the matter had not been resolved. Mr. Ajello noted the colors of the driveway and walk would differ and asked if the Commission wanted more separation. Mr. Owen said he wanted a physical separation. Mr. Fitzherbert noted this could raise problems with grading. Mr. Szymanski stated that even with a 3 ft. separation there would be the same ultimate cross section.

Atty. Hill noted the plans approved by the Fire Marshal differed from those now being discussed because 1) a pool had been deleted and 2) the driveway width would be narrower if the sidewalks were moved. He added that the sidewalk changes had both drainage and inland wetlands implications.

Mr. Owen asked if the grass pavers were included in the plans now before the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Szymanski said, they were.

Dr. Ewing asked if it was possible that the Fire Marshal had reviewed the plans thinking a 20 – 21 ft. wide driveway had been proposed. Mr. Szymanski said this was not possible.

Mrs. Friedman pointed out that at the time the Fire Marshal submitted his second letter of approval, there were no turning templates in the file.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked why Mr. Owen objected to the sidewalks being contiguous to the driveways. Mr. Owen looked up the definition of lot coverage and said he did not see how one could be treated as a driveway counting as lot coverage and the other as a sidewalk not counting as coverage if there was nothing to distinguish the two surfaces and no physical separation. Mr. Szymanski said he would revise the plans by including a separation, and again said that there would be no drainage implications.

Mrs. Peacocke expressed her concern about how lot coverage was being computed said she thought the Commission was making an operative definition of walkway that would be precedent setting and that would result in enforcement problems. She referred at length to Sections 11.5 and 21.1.37 of the Zoning Regulations and to the July 28, 2008 Zoning minutes. She argued that the use of wheeled housekeeping trolleys, golf carts, etc. would make the walkways traveled surfaces, which should count towards lot coverage. Mr. Owen disagreed, saying that no court would treat luggage carts as vehicles, the term, traveled surface, did not appear in the definition of lot coverage, and that the Commission could deal with this issue later.

Mr. Federer noted that experts can disagree on dimensions and so to illustrate the size of the proposed main building he asked Mr. Talbot, architect, to provide a graphic illustration of its overall scale. Mr. Talbot presented both an elevation of the existing buildings along Bryan Plaza and an aerial photo of the Plaza and overlays of the proposed main building that compared their length, height, and mass. Mr. Federer described the proposed main building as a “mini Depot.” Mr. Talbot said the overlays addressed how the proposal does not comply with Section 13.1.B.2 of the Regulations and he pointed out how the proposed building was significantly larger than the Depot buildings. On a second board, he presented overlays to show that the other proposed buildings were larger than the existing houses on the properties surrounding the site.

Atty. McTaggart said she assumed the hearing would be closed this evening and so made the following concluding points: 1) She stated that Section 13.9.2 did not permit inns anywhere other than on properties with 500 feet of frontage on a state highway. She asked the Commission to be consistent in its interpretation and noted that the past chairman had submitted two communications stating that in the past, state highway frontage had been required. 2) She agreed with Atty. Hill regarding his arguments concerning CGS 8-2h. 3) She stated that the proposed 9.8% coverage was not in harmony with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood and that per the Special Permit standards in Section 13.B.1, the application could be approved only if it were determined that the proposed inn/restaurant/bar/spa/fitness center fits in with this particular neighborhood. She thought even if the lot coverage was reduced, the use would still be too intense to be in harmony with the neighborhood. 4) Atty. McTaggart argued that the access for the inn was not safe. Among the concerns she listed were a) only one point of ingress-egress was proposed for an establishment of this size, b) the driveways were only 16 ft. wide, c) there were walls on both sides of the driveway at the entrance-exit, and d) the minimum driveway plan proposed to get the plan below 10% lot coverage did not work well, nor did it provide safe emergency access for the remote cabins. 5) She stated that the massive building proposed looked like a commercial complex that was not in keeping with the residential neighborhood and that the commercial nature of the use; the large building serving many people and generating many vehicle trips per day was also not in keeping with the neighborhood. 6) She thought that if better plans had been submitted, it would have been easier to compute the lot coverage and it would have been found to be over 10%. 7) She pointed out the Zoning Regulations require the proposed use to be consistent with the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development, which are primarily to preserve the rural character of Town and also to preserve the existing commercial areas and the existing rural road network. She read the definition of rural character from the Plan and Section 4.1, the purpose of the R-1 District. 8) Atty. McTaggart stated the proposed inn was beyond the normal concept of an inn in this community and that due to its scale, intensity, public use, etc. it could not be approved under the Special Permit criteria.

Atty. Fisher addressed Section 13.9.2, saying the revision to this regulation had not been a clarification. He disagreed with Atty. McTaggart’s interpretation of this section and said under the old language it had been clear that inns had been allowed on both Town and state roads. Regarding Section 8-2h, he stated he had already submitted a letter on this matter and that his interpretation was key because the statute referred to all applicable regulations, not to all regulations. He noted this question would be decided in court. Atty. Fisher disagreed with Atty. McTaggart’s statement that the proposed lot coverage was out of harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. He said that inns are allowed only in residential districts and that its design and landscaping make it compatible with the neighborhood. He said the existing school building would be removed, and the portion of the new main building that could be seen from Wykeham Road would be consistent with the rest of the Wykeham Road area. He noted that Mr. Klauer had submitted a detailed letter, which described how the application met all of the Special Permit criteria. Regarding Atty. McTaggart’s claim that the one proposed entrance-exit was not safe, Atty. Fisher responded that the east entrance would remain as an emergency access, that this access would be suitable for emergency vehicles except during mud season, and that the Mayflower Inn has only one narrow access that had been approved by the Commission for the spa without a requirement for a secondary access. He stated that the Plan of Conservation and Development is advisory only, so said he was not prepared to address this matter. He noted that inns are uses allowed by Special Permit in the R-1 District.

Mr. Rickart passed out his 10/27/08 statement to all commissioners and then summarized it. His points included: 1) the proposal was ill conceived and that its approval would do irreparable damage to the neighborhood. 2) Some of the data submitted by the traffic expert was not entirely accurate, such as the statement that school traffic does not impact Wykeham Road, so the Commission should rely on its common sense to judge traffic concerns. 3) The proposed entrance-exit worsens the sight line issues and the applicant was not proposing to widen it as he thought should be done for two reasons; a) Inland Wetlands approval would be required and 2) lot coverage would be increased. 4) Parking was being understated to hold down the lot coverage. 5) The service entrance/dock had been poorly designed to keep lot coverage down and would result in traffic back ups. 6) Previous approval of the Mayflower spa does not require approval of this application because there are distinguishing factors; a) the Mayflower has access from a state highway, b) the Mayflower Inn is a less intensive use, c) the Mayflower spa application had been related to an existing ongoing commercial enterprise that was already a part of the community. 7) The nature and scale of the project are not appropriate for the neighborhood. 8) The applicant has offered restrictions to the proposed inn that would be impossible to monitor in an attempt to make an incompatible project less objectionable to the Commission. 9) There were less objectionable alternatives that could have been proposed by reducing the size and scope of the project. 10) This is a large scale commercial operation that would impact any commercial district, let alone this residential district. 11) The application does not meet the criteria required in Section 13.1.B.

Mr. Solley, Selectman, made three points. 1) Fire safety: He read the 10/22/08 letter from the Fire Marshal, which OK’d the proposed 16 ft. wide driveway. He said this was inconsistent with what the Town and the Fire Marshal had previously required for The Gunnery School classroom on South Street, the Rumsey Hall hockey rink, and the Housing Trust units, all of which were required to have 18 ft. wide driveways. He noted the Fire Marshal requires 18 feet for the passage of emergency vehicles. He thought the applicant must have promised some additional water storage facilities in exchange for the Marshal’s approval of the 16 ft. wide driveways. He cautioned the Commission that if it approved the application, it should require all infrastructure to be installed first as there are many fires at construction sites and often these are not installed at the end of a project because there are no funds left. He noted that Mr. Etherington referred to two swimming pools in his second letter, but that one had been deleted from the plans. 2) Conditions of approval offered by the applicant: Mr. Solley stated that based on his experience as the Town’s ZEO for 18 years, it would be impossible to enforce the conditions that Mr. Klauer offered in his 10/17/08 letter. In particular, he stated that deliveries could not be controlled as Mr. Klauer proposed. 3) Appearance of main building: Mr. Solley noted how the middle-high school building looks out of character with its neighborhood and hoped the Commission would fully consider the scale of the proposed building and make itself familiar with all of the information in the file.

Atty. Hill noted that Mr. Klauer had submitted a letter today, which had proposed additional impractical, and unenforceable conditions of approval. For example, keeping track of the high season, controlling which weeks children were allowed in the pool, and controlling the number of guests using the function room were not possible. Atty. Hill noted that Mr. Hunter, appraiser, had found there would be no adverse impact to the surrounding property values even though the landscaping plan was inadequate and noise had not been considered. He submitted the opinions of three appraisers who said the inn would have a negative impact on property values in the area. Atty. Hill stated the Commission could not approve the application because it was incomplete and did not meet the Special Permit standards.

Mr. Goodin submitted two reports; one addressed traffic and the second addressed all other issues, and plans for the record. He urged the commissioners to review the plans to see that intersection sight lines and stopping distances had not bee adequately addressed. His criticisms of the site development plan included: 1) it did not show the sewage system and water lines as required, 2) a driveway runs over the primary and reserve septic system areas, 3) the size of the water lines is not specified, 4)drainage problems due to the 2:1 slope behind the proposed buildings had not been addressed, 5) site lighting was inadequate, 6) the proposed 16 ft. wide driveway was very narrow and there was not adequate width provided for turning into the parking spaces, 7) the pedestrian walkways proposed in the parking areas behind parked cars were not safe, and 8) the architectural plans for the proposed 35,929 sq. ft. main building were not adequate.

Mr. Szymanski clarified that the footprint of the main building was 19,900 sq. ft.

Mr. Goodin stated that the proposed water lines and sewer system were within the 50 ft. setback required from wetlands. He also noted there were several areas where the proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures do not meet the state guidelines.

Mr. Parker submitted a letter that due to the late time, he said he would not read. He said the letter pointed out flaws in Mr. Klauer’s letter concerning compliance with the Special Permit criteria and he noted that the majority of the surrounding property owners had spoken out thoughtfully against the application.

Mr. Solomon submitted a letter about noise and the outdoor community pool to be used for commercial purposes. He said it would not be possible for the Commission to enforce the restrictions offered by Mr. Klauer. He said approval would set precedents for commercial developers who would then draft plans that minimize lot coverage by ignoring safety and common sense. He asked the Zoning Commission to uphold its regulations and deny the application.

Dr. Ewing stated that several months ago the Commission had clarified its regulations to require that inns have 500 ft. of frontage on a state road, noted that the vote had been 4-1 at that time, and said he would expect those four commissioners to vote against the current application. He also noted that the requirement to preserve the rural character of the area required the Commission to vote against the application.

Atty. Fisher complained that so much information had been submitted at the last minute and the applicant did not have time to study it and to respond. He said he would request that the hearing be continued.

Mr. Peacocke stated it was impossible for both sides to have the last word and he thought further debate back and forth would have no great value.

Mr. Szymanski requested the opportunity to respond to Mr. Goodin’s comments point by point tonight.

Mr. Averill said he did not think it was necessary to continue the public hearing as it was turning into more of a debate than a hearing.

Mr. Shapiro said he would not like to deny anyone an opportunity to speak, but echoed Mr. Averill’s point of view.

Mr. Fitzherbert agreed with Mr. Shapiro, but noted the Commission had a long history of not cutting anyone off.

Mr. Ajello stated that legally the applicant gets the final word.

Mrs. Friedman was concerned as she had never heard that before and noted the commissioners already had a lot of new material to try to absorb.

Mr. Abella agreed with Mr. Fitzherbert that the applicant should be allowed to continue with his response.

After a very brief discussion, it was agreed to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Sections 4.4.1 and 13.9 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road to Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Atty. Fisher submitted his 10/27/08 letter requesting an extension of the hearing. At 12:14 a.m. Mr. Owen continued the public hearing per the motion above.

These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tapes are 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 12:16 a.m.

Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 9/22/08 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 4.4.1 and 13.9/Inn:
This public hearing was continued to 10/28/08 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. Mrs. Friedman noted she had a minor correction to Mr. Owen’s statement regarding inns made at the beginning of the 10/20/08 session of the public hearing. On page 7 she noted that the Mayflower Inn acreage was incorrectly given as 35.4 acres. She said it is actually 45.4 acres.

Geurts/46 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11 submitted by Mr. Geurts for a detached accessory apartment at 46 June Road subject to the condition that the owner submit an affidavit that he will reside on the premises for the duration of the permit. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed 5-0.

Donovan/Kinney Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/ Detached Accessory Apartment:
A letter from Mr. Harris, architect, was circulated. The commissioners were asked to review it before next month’s public hearing. Mr. Ajello also recommended that they come into the office to review the floor plans.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the Meeting at 12:20 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

Posted: October 27, 2008

October 20, 2008

Public Hearing

7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Averill

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. DuBois

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Klauer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Clark, Mr. Payne, Mr. Fowlkes, Mrs. Cooper, Mr./Mrs. Peacocke, Mrs. McDonald, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mrs. Wildman, Mr. Carey, Atty. Hill, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. Miller, Mr./Mrs. Showalter, Mr. Long, Mr. Surnow, Dr./Mrs. Ewing, Atty. McTaggart, Mrs. Addicks, Mrs. Hardee, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Goodin, Mr. Collum, Mrs. Peckerman, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. Solley, Mr. Picton, Mr. Charles, Mr. Hill, Mr. Doherty, Ms. Giampietro, Mrs. Greene, Mrs. Collum, Mr. Talbot, Ms. Forese, Mr. Parker, Mr. Rogness, Residents, Press


Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn/Continuation

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

Mr. Owen read the list of documents submitted since the last meeting, noted the 10/20/08 email from Mrs. Caroe, and read the 10/20/08 letter to the Commission from Atty. Zizka regarding section 8-2h(a) of the state statutes, liability issues, and lot coverage.

Mr. Owen stated the Commission would focus on unaddressed issues including 1) the definition of inn, 2) traffic, 3) parking adequacy and design, and 4) lot coverage and asked the commissioners to add any other topics they thought it necessary to discuss. Mrs. Friedman added driveways. Mr. Shapiro said his question of how many trips per day the inn would generate had not been answered.

Mr. Owen read his statement, “What is an Inn?” attached as addendum A, which was followed by comments from the commissioners.

Mr. Fitzherbert said that at the time the Mayflower spa was approved, the Zoning Commission had ensured the Darlow property would be separate from the Mayflower operation. He said he no problem with the Commission’s approval then or now.

Mr. Shapiro said he would not question the Commission’s decision made five years ago to approve the Mayflower spa, but said if it were reconsidered, he might have a different opinion of what an inn is. He thought it was currently coupled with Tourist Home for good reason, and that this suggested that inns were considered a smaller scale operation, but added there was not much of a legislative record to research.

Mrs. Friedman also said she would not second guess the Commission’s Mayflower spa approval as at the time it had seemed like a modest request, but noted the Commission had required that it be accessed from Rt. 47 so there would be no access from Wykeham Road. She agreed with Mr. Shapiro that there seemed to be a reason that inns had been included in the same category as tourist homes, and not with hotels and motels.

Mr. Abella said he would not second guess past actions.

Mr. Fitzherbert did not recall any discussion about restricting the spa’s access to only the state highway, but he did recall that the Commission had been concerned about how the use of that property could affect the surrounding neighbors.

Mrs. Friedman said again that she remembered that all access had to be through the main property so there was no access from Wykeham Road.

Mr. Owen stated that the Commission had feared that the inn and spa could be separated some time in the future and so required that they would always be a single operation. He also noted that the entire Mayflower spa file was included in the record of this application.

Mr. Owen asked the public for comments relating to the definition of inn.

Mrs. Peacocke noted that in a previous letter she had referred to definitions of inn and resort from a book of development definitions by Moskowitz and Lindbloom and she read the definitions from the updated 2004 addition for inn, resort, and hotel, and concluded the proposed inn more closely met the definition of hotel or resort than inn. She stated that in Washington, inns are permitted by Special Permit in this district, but spas, function rooms, retail outlets, restaurants, and bars open to the public are only permitted in business districts. To answer the question, can a spa be incorporated into an inn, she said that the grounds for a condition of approval must be found in the Regulations; you can’t make a use permitted by attaching a condition to it. She argued that the proposed business was commercial, not institutional, and read the definition of institution from the 2004 edition by Moskowitz and Lindbloom. Lastly, she compared the Mayflower and other area inns with the proposed inn: 1) the Mayflower’s buildings were all at least 200 ft. from property lines, 2) the Mayflower has 30 rooms (compared to the proposed 44) on more acres than the proposed inn, and 3) the average number of rooms in area inns is 15.25. Mrs. Friedman asked Mrs. Peacocke to submit her letter for the file.

Mrs. Peckerman stated her objection to the term, transient,” just used by Mrs. Peacocke, but Mr. Owen explained that she had only been reading a definition as it had been written.

Mrs. Cooper stated that no matter what it was called, the proposed inn would be the largest in Litchfield County south of Lakeville and would be urban in nature. She noted the proposed operation would be on a town road in a residential neighborhood.

Mr. Federer said anything could be called an inn, which is a marketing term, and that more important, a determination should be made about whether it would fit in with the context of the Town. He illustrated the size of the proposed main building by comparing it with the length of Bryan Plaza, saying it would be a continuous solid wall almost 50 ft. tall and 420 ft. long, running the entire length of the Plaza. He said the existing post office building was half the height of the proposed main building. He also noted the main building accounted for 19% of the total proposed lot coverage. He described the scale of the project as a mini Depot placed in the residential district. He thought the inn would have a negative impact on the area’s rural character. He complained that the busiest time at the inn would be after normal business hours and since this was in the middle of the residential neighborhood, it would adversely impact property values. He said he hoped this provided a meaningful perspective regarding the scale of the project. He also noted that the travel guide that Mr. Owen had referred to in his statement on inns had stated that location was a critical function and that this one would be in the middle of the residential neighborhood.

Mr. Owen noted that the reference to location had referred to tennis facilities and golf courses.

Mrs. Andersen stated it was too late in the process for the Commission to take up the question of what is an inn. She said at the time the applicant had applied, inns were permitted on all roads and the definition of inn had been nebulous.

Atty. McTaggart represented Dr. and Mrs. Ewing. She pointed out that both maps in the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development showed this property as institutional, but said the proposed use was commercial. She said the Commission did not have to define every term in its Regulations, that institutional and commercial were defined in Webster’s Dictionary, and that the Commission could consider normal uses and interpret these terms itself. She read Webster’s definition of institution and stated it did not include a hotel/spa/restaurant operation. She noted that Section 4.4.10 of the Regulations lists institutional uses, that inns were not included in this section, and that there was a separate Section 4.4.1 for inns. She stated that zoning regulations throughout Ct. do not include for profit uses under the heading of institutional use. She then read Webster’s definition of inn, which mentioned inns being in the country and/or along highways, and said the proposed use went beyond the scale of that definition. She noted that Washington coupled its inn and tourist home regulations and she thought one reason for this was to preserve the rural character of the community.

Mr. Shapiro said he appreciated Mrs. Andersen’s remarks and asked Atty. McTaggart what she thought of the Commission’s decision regarding the Mayflower spa and what it said about the working definition of inn, even though that definition is not written.

Atty. McTaggart responded that the Mayflower Inn has 500 feet of frontage on a state highway, that there was an old inn in a small private setting on the large property before the Mayflower, and that the Mayflower Inn is very rural per the Webster definition. She stated that Ct. inns are more “bed and breakfast like” and that the quaintness of the Mayflower and its location on a state highway made it a different situation.

Mr. Owen moved to the issue of traffic. He said the proposed inn differed from the Mayflower in that it would be in a more residential area. He said although he was concerned about traffic, he did not want imaginations to run wild. He noted he lives 350 ft. from the Mayflower entrance and said he had never observed much traffic there. He said he had notes from a conversation he had with Atty. Zizka who advised him that there were three traffic related issues for the Commission to consider: 1) Congestion: He said non experts can made judgments from their personal experience about unwanted congestion, but these must be on the record before the hearing closes. 2) Sight distances: The Commission has received testimony from opposing engineers and must decide for itself when there is conflicting testimony whether the sight lines are adequate. 3) Carrying capacity: This matter would not be much of a concern in this case because it would take a lot of traffic to move the service rating up to the next category.

Mrs. Friedman asked whether the adequacy of the sight line distances pertained only to the entrance/exit for the inn or for all of the roads and driveways on the nearby rural road network.

Mr. Owen said he had not discussed this with Atty. Zizka.

Mr. Shapiro stated the sight distances and capacity of the entire road, not just the inn entrance, should be considered.

Mrs. Friedman said she often drives on Wykeham Road and found the inadequacy of the sight lines at all intersections to be dangerous and said this had not been addressed by the applicant’s engineer. She submitted for the record photos she had taken of all of the sight lines at the intersections along Wykeham Road and said they illustrated how much could not be seen.

Mrs. Collum said she has lived across from the Wykeham property for 44 years and that an inn would have less traffic than a school, housing, or condos.

In response, Mrs. Friedman summarized the information in Mr. Fore’s 10/10/08 letter, which concluded that a high end inn would generate more traffic than the previous school use had. She noted the letter was in the file for all to review.

Mr. Owen noted that he also lives near The Gunnery School, which is larger than the school on the Wykeham Road property, and he can often hear noises from The Gunnery, but not from the Mayflower Inn. He said he can hear noise from the Mayflower air conditioning/ventilation equipment, but that with revisions to the Zoning Regulations that have been implemented since its installation, this is not a problem that should occur at any new establishment.

Mr. Fitzherbert said he was most concerned with traffic congestion. He noted his experience as director of Glenholme School on Sabbaday Lane, the Town’s largest employer, and said that the Town had improved the sight lines at Sabbaday and Wykeham and had widened Sabbaday down Gooseneck Hill to address dangerous road conditions for the school. He said the Town was very responsive, had not allowed unsafe road conditions in Devereux’s case and would not for any other future use, and would take care of the sight line problems at the dangerous corner of Wykeham Road above the proposed entrance. He did not recall any accidents in this area and thought most of the dangerous situations were the result of excessive speed.

Mr. Shapiro said he had lived across from the Mayflower entrance, had been aware of headlight glare in the evening, and noted several accidents at that intersection, although he said they were due to the blind exit from Ferry Bridge Road. He said he had actually discussed with the Town and the Mayflower the possibility of installing a traffic light at this intersection.

Mr. Owen responded to remarks Atty. McTaggart made at the last session of the hearing that headlights from cars exiting the inn would shine in the Ewing’s bedroom windows on the NW corner of the Golf Course Road intersection. He said that the driveway had been there when the Ewing’s bought their house and due to the topography and siting of the house, he did not see how headlights could shine in the bedroom windows.

Dr. Ewing stated that the bedroom faces Wykeham Road, high beam lights shine into the windows, the existing driveway for the school had been an entrance, not an exit, and it is a very dangerous turn onto Wykeham Road from Golf Course Road. He also stated that the school had not generated much traffic, although noise had echoed against the hill in the back.

Mrs. Giampietro stated that Devereux had generated many cars and that gradually the road had to be changed to accommodate them. She said the character of Wykeham Road should not be changed to accommodate the inn and that was the reason inns were to be located on state highways.

Mrs. Friedman asked if Wykeham Road was a scenic road. It is not.

Mr. Miller, a Wykeham Road resident, conducted his own traffic study and submitted his findings for the record. These included: 1) the proposed “resort” would generate 4 times the traffic that the Swiss Hospitality Inst. had, an additional 470 cars and trucks a day, every day of the year, 2) the resort would be marketed, so the traffic generated would be higher than the model predicted and there would be many more trips in and out because patrons would not just drive in and stay there; he estimated the “back and forth” traffic could be as high as 8 times that generated by the Swiss Hospitality Inst. and 9 times that of the purely residential area. In brief, he found traffic from the proposed inn would not be comparable to that generated by the school, the amount of traffic generated would not be in keeping with maintaining the character of the residential neighborhood, and the inn would be an “extraordinary” increase in the scale, proportion, and intensity of the use of the property, contrary to the requirements under the Special Permit section of the Regulations.

Atty. Hill asked if the applicant intended to comment on the traffic issue because if not, Mr. Goodin would address it now.

Mr. Szymanski stated he intended to answer all questions raised.

Ms. Forese did not see the relevance of comparing the proposed inn with the previous school as the next school on the property could be much larger and the roads made more dangerous like Whittlesey and Romford Roads. She also stated she saw no problem with the volume of traffic on Wykeham Road, although she thought speeding was a problem. She said she had worked at the Mayflower and did not think it possible that the proposed inn could generate 750 cars per day.

Mr. Doherty agreed speeding on Wykeham Road is a problem.

Mrs. Cooper said that sight lines are very dangerous on Wykeham Road and that it is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure the safety of all who use the road and live in the area, not just inn patrons. She said she was also concerned that the rural road network would be lost if the inn required road improvements.

Mrs. Friedman noted that in addition to road intersections there are 29 driveways and 41 places of entrance and exit in this 1.2 mile stretch of Wykeham Road.

Mrs. Solomon thought the inn would generate many more trips per day than anticipated by the applicant because patrons would travel in and out for school events if visiting Gunnery students, for example, and to see the sites and participate in local activities if traveling with family. She gave various scenarios. She noted all of these trips in and out would be from the inn’s one access point and that the restaurant and bar would contribute to more intoxicated drivers on the road.

Mrs. Peacocke asked if she could make a remark about parking.

Mr. Owen asked her to wait until that topic was discussed.

Mr. Goodin, engineer for the Federers, stated the inn would not impact the level of service, but would impact the quality of service. He stated that the application did not meet all of today’s traffic design standards. Problems cited included the following: 1) Intersection sight line distances: He stated that sight lines should be designed for 85th percentile speeds and submitted a police report, which, he stated, showed that the 85th percentile speed was higher than the 35 mph used by the applicant. He said that at 40 mph, 445 feet was required for a single unit car. 2) Single unit trucks need 100 ft. longer site lines than cars do and this was not considered. 3) The cutting of additional trees along Wykeham Road will be required to improve the sight lines and this has not been shown on the plans. 4) The sight line distances on the plans do not take into account that vehicles driving down the 10% grade on Wykeham Road will take longer to stop. 5) The road grade and angle of the driveway weren’t taken into consideration when designing the turn into the driveway from Wykeham.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked Mr. Goodin to explain the concept of 85th percentile speeds. Mr. Goodin said engineering standards in Ct. require roadway and intersection designs for the 85th percentile speed and that he had calculated this speed was 40 mph, not 35 mph used by the applicant.

Mrs. Friedman asked if the design standards were legally required or only guidelines.

Mr. Goodin said they were not law, but were engineering design standards and he submitted written information, “Intersections At Grade,” dated December 2003 and “Smart Survey Info,” dated 10/20/08 for the file.

Mrs. Friedman asked if this was a problem that could be resolved by doing more work.

Mr. Goodin noted sight line improvement work was required on the north side of Wykeham and that it was an issue that had to be resolved.

Mr. Owen said the Commission would have to satisfy itself that safety issues were addressed.

Mr. Goodin said that even if the Board of Selectmen approves the improvements to Wykeham Road, the Zoning Commission must make its own decision regarding road safety.

Mrs. Friedman asked what the status was of the Board of Selectmen’s review of the proposed improvements to Wykeham Road.

Mr. Solley, Board of Selectmen, stated there was a letter in the file indicating that it would approve the proposed sight line improvements to be paid for by the developer, but suggested that that lesser improvements resulting in less disturbance to Wykeham Road would be favored. He noted the Town of Washington only requires a 250 ft. sight line and that to achieve 390 ft. a fair amount of excavation would be required.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked which numbers the Selectmen had used to compute the sight lines.

Mr. Solley said they were determined prior to obtaining the information on speeds from the police dept.

Mrs. Friedman asked if the traffic designs took into consideration the increase in the number and size of vehicles that would use Wykeham during construction. She noted that the sight lines increase to 680 ft. for large vehicles.

Mr. Goodin replied that it did not because per traffic guides, the construction period was only temporary. He stated if designed properly, there should be sight lines of at least 445 ft. He said the Board of Selectmen have a different authority, but that the Zoning Regulations require the applicant to prove there will be safe ingress and egress, and this had not been done.

Mrs. Friedman said she understood Mr. Goodin to say that the Board of Selectmen could approve lesser standards, but the Zoning Commission could not.

Mr. Goodin discussed the problems associated with the proposed 16 ft. wide two way traffic driveway over the 17.5 ft. wide access, which is bounded on both sides by a stone barrier. He said this was not wide enough to accommodate both a car stopped waiting to exit and a car turning in from Wykeham, and therefore, cars would have to stop on Wykeham and wait to turn in. He said this situation was worse due to the 60 degree angle of the driveway at this intersection. He said that no more than a 15 degree angle is usually permitted. He noted that the Mayflower and proposed inn accesses had been compared by the applicant, but were not comparable because the Mayflower Inn driveway is 22.5 feet wide with no barriers at the entrance.

Mr. Szymanski, applicant’s engineer, responded. 1) Regarding Mr. Fore’s 10/10/08 letter, he said the Swiss Hospitality Inst. was a “finite use” compared to other previous uses of the property and he would review the letter further. 2) There were letters from the Fire Marshal and Emergency Services approving the plans. He said the upper driveway would be removed and grassed over, but would remain open for emergency access. 3) Regarding traffic volume, it had been shown at the last session of the hearing there would be a negligible increase over the volume when the school was in operation. 4) The level of service calculations had been redone and there was no change. 5) He reviewed accident data from the police department, which included 24 accidents since 2003 due to inclement weather, trying to avoid animals, and driver error, and concluded there was no pattern. The sight lines had not been a factor and he did not expect this would change. 6) To answer Mr. Shapiro’s request for the estimated traffic volume increase assuming a 60% shared use, including staff and deliveries, and not including the use of the function room, he first stated that the issue of daily traffic is not considered relevant by traffic engineers for determining the impact on the surrounding road system. He noted there were currently 1250 trips per day on Wykeham Road and that the inn would generate 528 daily trips using the above parameters. 7) He agreed that high beams could be a problem for the Ewings across the street. 8) He stated the function room would not be open to the public during the high season and spa bookings would not be available to the general public when the inn was full.

Mrs. Friedman noted this was new information that had only been submitted by the applicant on Friday and she would discuss it under the topic of parking.

Mr. Ssymanski thought an estimate of 435 trips per day would be more reasonable and compared this figure to the 520 trips and up that would be generated if the property was used as a school. 9) Mr. Szymanski stated he had researched the records and had found that no traffic studies had been required for the school and so argued the applicant was not receiving fair and equitable treatment because he had been asked to provide one as well as make sight line improvements on Wykeham Road. “Where does it end?” he asked.

Mrs. Friedman stated that no one expected the applicant to redesign Wykeham Road, but the Zoning Commission required information to deal with the Special Permit criteria.

Mr. Szymanski noted that all noise generating equipment would be located a minimum of 50 ft. from all property lines and that there would be no grill or bar on the hill near the pool.

Mr. Owen asked that he stay with topic of traffic.

Mr. Szymanski continued with his responses to the traffic concerns raised. 10) He stated his 85th percentile data differed from Mr. Goodin’s because the police dept. machine had only been used on Wykeham for a few hours, well under the minimum 24 hours of data that is required to make this computation. He said the applicant’s data had been obtained over 20 days. 11) The design standards for sight lines followed the Ct. Highway Transportation Design Manual. 12) Trees to be removed for sight line improvements were shown on Sheet RM.1 of the plans. The existing stone pillars were not seen as a hazard at this time. 13) The Board of Selectmen would like to limit the amount of excavation required to improve the sight lines along Wykeham; the cuts would vary from 6 ft. to 2.5 ft., but the Selectmen would like less. He noted there is an existing stonewall built in the Town right of way in front of the Mayer and Giampietro properties and said this wall would be photographed, disassembled, and reassembled 4 ft. further back from the road. 14) He had taken the 9% road grade into consideration. 15) Regarding the width of the entrance, he said it was sufficient for the required maneuverability and that flag men could be present to direct traffic during the construction process. 16) Also regarding driveway width, he said the Fire Marshal had approved the plans and that the Mayflower driveway width near the gate was 16 ft. Mrs. Friedman noted the Mayflower driveway had been existing and had not been approved by the Commission.

Mr. Szymanski said the Commission would not have permitted a more intensive use of the property if the driveway width had not been adequate.

At approximately 10:09 p.m. Mr. Owen called a brief recess. At 10:19 p.m. the Public Hearing was reconvened.

At this point Mr. Owen took up the issue of property values.

Mr. Hunter, appraiser for the applicant, submitted his letter dated 9/22/08 and explained in detail the criteria used for his report; neighborhood, physical, and ecological impacts. The report concluded that the “application for a special permit will neither adversely affect the property values of the adjacent residential properties nor the character or development of adjoining properties.” He noted that the 8/08 report from the Landmark Appraisal Group concluded that the operation of an inn would result in a 25% decrease in the value of the surrounding properties, but that this determination should be disregarded because there was no evidence provided to prove it was true. He said his statement that in his opinion it would be “unlikely” that the inn would impact the adjoining properties was not equivalent to the Landmark Appraisal Group’s statement because he was familiar with this area.

Mrs. Friedman thought the Zoning Commission should use its best judgment because neither appraiser had sufficient data upon which to base his conclusion.

Mr. Hunter said there was no technique or data available to prove there would be an impact either way.

Mr. Rogness said it was common sense that there would be a negative impact on the value of the adjoining properties during construction and during the years it would take the landscape buffer to mature.

Mr. Hunter noted the current run down state of the property, said the buildings were past their economic life, and said any impacts to the value of adjoining properties during construction would be temporary.

Mr. Rogness asked what was meant by “temporary.”

Mr. Parker noted that Mr. Hunter’s analysis failed to consider the noise generated by the inn, because the “amphitheatre” increases the noise in the area. He noted that the weekend and evening business noise would negatively affect the surrounding properties and asked why that factor had not been included in the report.

Mrs. Friedman said she had questions concerning lot coverage, noting sheets of differing unsigned coverage data had been submitted and the coverage map she requested did not show all of the features proposed for the inn.

Atty. Hill stated it was not clear how the percentage of lot coverage had been computed and so asked that the Commission allow his client to pay Mr. Smith, a local surveyor, to take Arthur Howland and Assoc.’s latest plans and autocad files to do an independent coverage analysis. He said his client would pay the cost of this analysis up to $1000. He noted if the coverage was over 10%, the Commission could not approve the application.

Mrs. Friedman said she had two sets of unsigned lot coverage figures; one at 9.99% and the other at 9.78% and that there were discrepancies between the numbers provided on these sheets. She thought it very important that an expert review the figures to ensure their accuracy.

Mr. Szymanski stated the lot coverage spread sheets were unsigned, but the lot coverage map had been certified.

Mr. Owen asked if all of the numbers were provided on the map.

Mr. Szymanski said they were in the upper left hand corner.

Atty. Hill said there was no raw data to use to verify the figures provided.

Atty. Fisher had no problem with Mr. Szymanski providing this information, but questioned how often the Commission asked that it be provided.

Mr. Owen stated that it had never been provided before.

Mrs. Friedman thought that if the application had continued before the ZBA, a survey map would have been required. She thought this kind of review should be required on a routine basis when dealing with lot coverage issues.

It was noted that this was the largest application considered by the Commission in recent years and the lot coverage was very close to the maximum permitted in the district. After a lengthy discussion between members of the Commission, Atty. Hill, Atty. Fisher, Atty. McTaggart, Mr. Szymanski, and Mr. Klauer it was agreed that the attorneys for the applicant and for the “opposition” would, on their own, send the necessary data to Mr. Smith for his review, but the Commission would not require it and would not set a precedent by requesting the independent review. It was also agreed that Mr. Smith’s analysis should be submitted as soon as possible so that the applicant and Commission would have time to review it before the next meeting.

Mr. Fitzherbert the flaw in the review process would show if the two sides argued about what should be included when calculating lot coverage. He thought the agreed upon review by Mr. Smith was “ridiculous.”

Atty. McTaggart said she did not see anything unusual about getting a review from another expert. She said it was routine to have certified plans reviewed, especially in this case, not because any lies were expected but because sometimes there are errors and in this case the lot coverage figure was so close to the maximum permitted. She also thought the 16 ft. wide accessways had been kept to the minimum to ensure the coverage would comply.

Mr. Owen stated that the Commission’s attorney had no problem with the lot coverage verification.

Mr. Talbot noted that Washington’s method of calculating lot coverage is specific and differs from most other towns and so he thought a review by an independent consultant was reasonable.

Mrs. Friedman noted that the proposed driveways were an important factor in the lot coverage calculations. She said she did not think that a 16 ft. wide driveway was adequate for two way traffic, especially since parking was proposed along its sides. She noted that the letter from the Fire Marshal approving the project did not address the driveway width and that 18 ft. wide driveways had been required in the past for less intensive uses such as The Gunnery nature classroom, 13 dwelling units in Myfield, the 16 Church Street affordable housing units, Rumsey Hall School’s hockey rink, and the Mayflower Inn spa. She said the original Mayflower Inn did not have 18 ft. wide driveways, but the new sections of driveway to service the spa were 18 ft. wide. She asked several questions including: 1) Considering the bridge over Kirby Brook, is the proposed width of the driveway entrance adequate? 2) Are 12 to 16 ft. wide driveways adequate with parking on one or both sides, for service vehicles, considering curves and gradients? 3) Are turning radii adequate given curves and gradients, especially at the first right turn? 4) Is the cul de sac for driveway #2 adequate for emergency vehicles to turn around? 5) Given there is no turnaround for the 14 ft. wide service drive, what happens when several trucks need to back up? 6) Do all driveway grades meet the 10% maximum grade requirement? She thought these were important issues that should be referred to a consultant for review.

Mr. Ajello said that the Fire Marshal’s review had included turning radii and two way traffic and had addressed all of the issues raised.

Mrs. Federer asked if Mr. Etherington had reviewed the latest plan. Mrs. Friedman said he had.

Mr. Shapiro said Mr. Etherington should specifically address the adequacy of the proposed driveway widths in his report. Mr. Owen thought this was a reasonable request and said the public hearing would be continued so this review could be received.

Mr. Fitzherbert explained how the Fire Dept. would draw up written plans to handle any emergency that might arise at the inn, and that these would be tested and revised if found to have flaws. He also said that the emergency vehicles could use the driveway shoulders to pass if necessary.

Mr. Shapiro noted the Commission has specific criteria relative to fire protection and safety and so a clear finding must be made that this requirement is met. He read Section 13.1.B.3.

Mrs. Friedman said, again, that The Gunnery’s infrequently used classroom had required an 18 ft. wide driveway and so to be consistent the Fire Marshal should require the same width for this more intensive use. Mr. Fitzherbert responded that per the state fire code, local fire marshals have leeway to make their own interpretations. Mrs. Friedman did not think this should be acceptable to the Commission.

Mrs. Peacocke thought the driveway widths had been paired down without regard for safety and instead the emergency services staff was being depended on to cope as best it could.

Mrs. Friedman asked how the Commission would get an answer to whether the entrance was wide enough to accommodate two way traffic. Mr. Owen said the Commission had heard from both engineers and would decide based on their reports.

Atty. Fisher submitted a letter to the Commission requesting an extension of the hearing to 10/27/08.

The next topic that was discussed was parking.

Mrs. Friedman noted that the issues of driveway width, parking, and lot coverage were related.

Mrs. Friedman pointed out that the upper cottages were up to 450 ft. from the nearest driveway. She questioned whether this was adequate access for patrons during inclement weather and how contractors would service these units. She thought whether the access was paved or not, that eventually both patrons and contractors would drive over it and that just because a feature was not shown on a map, it did not mean that it shouldn’t be counted as coverage. Mr. Klauer responded that there would be staff to help the patrons to these units, the access was flat, he had stayed at places with longer walks, and that patrons would make their own decisions regarding whether they wanted remoteness or accessibility. Mr. Fitzherbert did not think this was a matter to be addressed by the Zoning Commission.

Mr. Talbot again said he thought the definition of lot coverage was a problem. He suggested that the Commission clarify why it has lot coverage regulations, why features count or don’t count as coverage, and why 10% was set as the maximum. Mr. Rogness asked what material would be used for the walkway to the upper units and how it would be maintained. Mr. Szymanski said it would have pervious pavers that allow infiltration as detailed in the landscaping plan.

Mr. Goodin noted that the latest plans showed pea stone walkways in some places and porous pavement in others. Mr. Szymanski said he would re-label the pea stone walks. Mr. Ajello said pervious surfaced walkways of any kind were not included as coverage. Mr. Owen noted, however, that these surfaces were counted as coverage if used for driveways.

Atty. Hill stated that in order to keep under the 10% maximum coverage allowed the applicant had to make the driveways as narrow as possible and provide as little parking as possible. He gave specific examples of what he considered to be parking deficiencies including inadequate spaces for the function room, which the applicant said would never hold more than 50 people, but which the Fire Marshal and Building Official said could hold up to 295.

Atty. Hill questioned how the applicant’s self imposed limit of 50 could be enforced.

Mr. Owen explained the parking regulations did not require that spaces be provided for the maximum use; the Commission was more concerned that the smallest number of spaces needed for adequate service be provided. He also said that limiting the number of spaces would limit the number of users.

Atty. Hill stated there would be parking along the sides of the 16 ft. wide driveways because sufficient parking spaces were not provided.

Mrs. Friedman compared the proposed parking spaces to those at the Mayflower, which, she said, has valet service and stacked parking. She said the Fire Marshal and Building Official said the capacity of the function room was 137 seated and 295 standing and the Health Dept. said it had no way to control its capacity. The applicant had stated it would be limited to 50 and would only used by guests in the high season.

Regarding parking in general, Mrs. Friedman agreed that there should be no more parking spaces than necessary. She pointed out, however, that there were only 60 spaces proposed near the main building to serve the 60 employees the applicant said there would be, the 50 person function room, the 14 bedroom units in the main building, the 78 person capacity restaurant/bar (she said the Health Dept. listed this capacity at 92), the 38 people using the spa and fitness center, and any staff shift overlap. She said the proposed plan had zero spaces allocated for the function room and restaurant/bar and no place available for the doubling up of parking along the driveways. She thought the parking needs had purposely been understated. She also thought comparisons to parking at the Mayflower were unfair because its tea room was never open to the public and it had no parking along driveways. She asked the Zoning Commission to use logic and common sense when considering the proposed parking plan.

Atty. Fisher voiced his concern that Mrs. Friedman had demonstrated her outright opposition to the project. Mrs. Friedman responded that she was trying to get reasonable answers to her questions.

Atty. Fisher stated the applicant was applying for a Special Permit and would have to comply with all of the conditions of that permit. He said the number of cars on site would be very noticeable, that neighbors could complain it there was a problem, and the enforcement officer could then investigate. Mrs. Friedman said the permit would be granted in perpetuity and the Commission did not have the manpower to enforce this. Mr. Fitzherbert noted that the Town’s enforcement limitations were not the applicant’s problem. Mr. Owen stated the Commission has enforcement procedures.

Atty. Hill noted material submitted by the applicant limited the number of employees, required its employees to carpool, and restricted deliveries to 8:00 a.m. – noon on Monday through Saturday. He asked how the Commission would be able to enforce this. He advised the commissioners that if something proposed did not make sense, they did not have to accept it.

Use of the pool and the applicant’s proposal to restrict families with children from the inn from all but three weekends in the summer was briefly discussed.

Mr. Federer asked that the applicant state in writing that there will be no bar or grill located at the pool.

Mr. Owen read the 10/20/08 letter requesting an extension from Atty. Fisher.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road to Monday, October 27, 2008 immediately following the two public hearings scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

At 12:05 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to Monday, October 27, 2008 in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

Posted: September 30, 2008

September 22, 2008

Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m. Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall

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: Mr./Mrs. Talbot, Mr. Brown, Mr. Mustich, Mr. Ross, Mr. Cornet, Mrs. Greene, Mr./Mrs. Kaylor, Mrs. Addicks, Mrs. Hardee, Mr. Solley, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Goodin, Mr./Mrs. Tagley, Mr. Field, Mr./Mrs. Haas, Mr. Showalter, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. Parker, Atty. McTaggart, Atty. Hill, Ms. Giampietro, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Horan, Mrs. Talbot, Mr. Carey, Ms. Rodin, Dr. Ewing, Mr. Picton, Mrs. Wildman, Mr./Mrs. Condon, Mr. Miller, Mr. Peacocke, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Collum, Mrs. Collum, Mr. Moore, Mr. Adams, Mr. Caroe, Mr./Mrs. Minor, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Wool, Mrs. Duus, Ms. Forese, Mr./Mrs. Rickart, Mr. Behnke, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Beaver, Mr. Huneter, Mr. Doherty, Mr. Clark, Press, Residents

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen for both the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING

Thorn/228 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/Addition and Renovations to Existing Dwelling

Mr. Owen called the Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 9/10 and 9/17/08. Mr. Owen then listed all of the documents in the file.

Mr. Talbot and Mr. Brown, architects, presented the map, “Addition and Renovations to the Residence of: Weston and Karen Thorn,” by Peter Talbot Architects, Mr. Neff, Mr. Bertaccini, and Mr. Sabin, revised to 8/12/08.

Mr. Wyant arrived at this point.

Mr. Talbot reported that the Health Department, Inland Wetlands Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals had approved the plans and he noted the Special Permit was a requirement to ensure the water quality of Lake Waramaug would be preserved.

The existing conditions were compared with the proposed renovations.

Mr. Talbot addressed the requirements of Section 6.5 and 13. 6.5.1 a and b: Landscaping and Stormwater Management:
Two large Norway spruce, several other trees, and invasive barberry would be removed and the cut trees replaced. Mr. Talbot stated that the installation of a level spreader or infiltration system would result in more impact to the site than if it continued to use the existing sheet flow to handle runoff. The natural buffer would be maintained between the house and the lake. Using the site plan, he described Mr. Sabin’s landscaping plan.
6.5.2 a and b: Minimizing Impervious Surfaces and Post Development Runoff:
Mr. Talbot noted the proposed addition was only 104 sq. ft.
13.1.B 2 and 3: Harmony of Development with Neighborhood:
Mr. Talbot noted the residential use of the property had not changed for 127 years and that the proposed design would retain the building’s lake cottage character.
13.1.B 3 and 4: Fire Access and Rural Road Network:
There would be no changes concerning fire access or the existing road.
13.1.B.5:
The renovation resembled the existing structure as closely as possible. Mr. Talbot pointed out on the site plan, which section would be added and what work was renovation.
13.1.B.7 and 8: Preservation of Natural Features, Nuisance:
Mr. Talbot noted that the natural features of the property would be protected, down lighting would be installed, lighting would not be placed in trees, and there would be no nuisances.

Mr. Owen read the 9/22/08 ZEO Report.

Mrs. Friedman asked about post development runoff.

Mr. Talbot noted that Mr. Neff, engineer, and Mr. Sabin, landscape architect, had addressed this requirement. He said a silt fence would be installed, part of the footprint of the house nearest to the lake would be eliminated and the addition would be built on the side away from the lake, and since only 104 sq. ft. would be added, any additional runoff would be minimal in terms of flow across the property and impact to the lake and wetlands.

There were no comments from the public.

MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application: Section 6.5 submitted by Mr. Thorn for an addition and renovations to the dwelling at 228 West Shore Road. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.


Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn/Con’t.

Mr. Owen reconvened the Hearing at 7:46 p.m. He read the list of documents submitted at the last session of the Hearing and since then, noted two faxes that were received late and were not on the list, and said that all documents were available for review by the public.
Mr. Owen read a statement summarizing the issues before the Commission, clarifying the Regulations, explaining the Commission’s jurisdiction, etc. His complete comments are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Mr. Owen asked Mr. Szymanski, engineer, to summarize the revisions, except those pertaining to the Wetlands Commission, made to the plans since the last meeting.

Using the colored map, “Presentation Map,” dated 9/22/08, he briefly outlined several changes. The application to the ZBA for a variance for lot coverage was withdrawn and a corresponding decrease in the proposed coverage to 9.99% was made.

Mr. Szymanski stated this had been possible by reducing the proposed intensity of the use. The number of rooms was decreased to 44, six buildings were removed, the two main buildings, spa and restaurant, were connected by a corridor, and 14 rooms were included as part of the main structure. He noted that Mr. Hunter, appraiser, Mr. Beaver, landscape architect, and Mr. Mitchell, traffic engineer, were present to answer questions.

Questions and comments from the public were taken.

Mrs. Talbot did not think that consideration of the application should continue because “resorts” can not be legally built without 500 ft. of frontage on a state highway and the proposal does not comply with the eight Special Permit criteria. She was also concerned that due to the current economic crisis, the applicant would apply for changes such as condos. She stated there would be a quantifiable increase in the traffic using the unsafe road and she did not think that the proposed cutting of trees to improve the sight lines at the exit would address the problem of the dangerous curves on Wykeham and Bell Hill Roads. She also noted that approval would mean two years of construction in the residential neighborhood, would reduce property values in the area, and that the inn would not be in harmony with the character of the neighborhood.

Mrs. Hardee stated that bad traffic is a fact of life throughout Washington and she supported the proposal.

Mr. Tagley noted that he was familiar with the safety hazards along Wykeham Road especially the turn from Town onto Sabbaday Lane, and asked if there were Zoning Regulations that would require that the dangerous curves be addressed. He noted his concern about additional traffic on the road, its speed, the steep grades, and the dangerous curves. He asked how the Town regulations compared with the state regs for sight lines and asked how the Commission would alleviate these problems if the project goes forward.

Mrs. Wildman voiced her support for the application, saying it is a permitted use. She also compared it with previous controversial applications such as Devereux School and Washington Pizza, noting it would prove good for the Town just as each of these previous uses had been.

Mr. Wool noted that the increase in tax revenues generated by the new inn would be offset by the decrease in the surrounding property values and the increase in Town services. He did not think it right that the applicant was applying to the Town commissions simultaneously. He questioned why the issues of whether an inn was allowed on this property and whether the deed restrictions would prohibit it had not been addressed first.

Mr. Cornet asked if it was known what amount of traffic would be generated if the property reverted to a school. He said it might be the same as for the inn. Mr. Owen said this was not known.

Mr. Behnke opposed the application. He said the applicant had filed an incomplete application in an attempt to rush through the Town commissions before ambiguities in the Regulations were resolved. He urged the Commission to deny it because it is incomplete and require that a new complete application be submitted. He said the applicant did not listen to the neighbors’ concerns about traffic, noise, and lot coverage. He urged the Commission to hold the applicant strictly accountable to all of the requirements of the Regulations.

Mr. Clark, an abutting property owner, said the applicant was addressing the concerns of both the neighbors and the Town and recommended approval.

Mr. Doherty read a letter from Mr. Fore, former manager of the Wykeham Rise property, who was unable to attend the hearing. Mr. Fore wrote that the proposal was a significant commercial operation that was incompatible with the surrounding residential district. He was concerned about the decrease in the nearby property values that would result if the application was approved. He asked for a conservative interpretation of the Regulations, saying that approval would set a dangerous precedent that could affect all residential properties in Town.

Mr. Peacocke said the proposed 103 parking spaces was an unrealistically low number, noting the function room had only 7 allotted spaces. He thought there would be parking overflows and asked how these would be handled as there could be no parking along Wykeham Road. He also noted there was no separate parking lot for the restaurant. He pointed out that fire access, especially for cottage #1, which was at least 350 ft. from the driveway, had to be addressed.

Ms. Forese said the proposed inn would improve the Town’s economy as the Mayflower Inn had by increasing tax revenues and providing jobs. She was not concerned that the proposed inn would detract from the Town’s rural character. She defined that character as the community of people who come together to help one another and said these were the people who support the application

Atty. McTaggart represented the Ewings. She noted she had previously submitted an opinion letter regarding Section 13.9 and wanted to make sure it was included in the record. She reviewed several sections of the Zoning Regulations: 13.1.B.1, which states the Special Permit must be consistent with the objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development, 13.1.B.2, which gives the Commission the authority to look at the intensity of the use, and 4.1, which lists the kinds of development intended for the R-1 District that retain the rural character and natural beauty of the Town.
Atty. McTaggart noted the proposed coverage was below 10%, but said that given the location of the property, the Commission should consider whether this was too much. She also urged the Commission to consider whether the size, scale, and proportion of the proposed development would impact the neighboring properties. She noted the plans had not been available when she had checked on Friday afternoon and so asked that additional time be granted so they could be properly reviewed and responses submitted for the record. Having briefly reviewed them today, she noted that the size, scope, and intensity of the uses accessory to the proposed inn take up so much square footage, that they could be considered primary uses. She noted that many traditional New England inns have small restaurants, but the other associated uses are supposed to be accessory to the inn. She thought the public use of some of the proposed facilities would “outweigh” the primary use of the operation as an inn.

Mr. Tagley asked what the difference was between an inn and a resort, what the restrictions were for each, and at what point an inn would become a resort.

Mr. Owen said that those questions were a concern of the Commission. He noted the Regulations list inns as a permitted use, but do not provide a definition.

Mr. Miller noted that because the Regulations allow inns only in residential areas, to him that implies that they must be moderate, small scale operations suitable for a residential area. He said the proposed use was anything but modest. He noted that tourist homes (Section 13.9 governs tourist homes and inns) have no bars, restaurants, or fitness centers. He asked the Commission to consider what the Regulations mean by “inn” and whether the proposed use is consistent with what was intended.

Atty. Hill noted the revised plans had not been submitted in time to allow him to review and comment on them. Mr. Owen said the revisions were made in response to questions and criticisms made by the public at the last meeting.

Mrs. Friedman stated the plans were also revised because the applicant had decided not to apply for a lot coverage variance. She said that she, too, found the plans had not been available for review as the applicant had promised they would be.

Mr. Owen said that the applicant had nothing to gain by delaying submission and that the public hearing would be continued so that everyone would have an opportunity to submit comments.

Atty. Hill gave examples of what he said was a “credibility gap” in statements made by the applicant. He also stated that he had previously raised objections to the application under Section 8-2h of the state statutes and advised the Commission that it had to settle that matter; it could not ignore it. He said the statute compels the Commission to deny the application.

Mr. Owen said the Commission was continuing to consider the application on the advice of its attorney and the question would not be resolved this evening.

Atty. Hill asked Mr. Owen to consult again with the Commission’s counsel.

Mr. Mitchell, traffic engineer, gave a lengthy presentation on his peer review of Arthur Howland & Assoc.’s previously submitted traffic study. He submitted his report, “Wykeham Rise Traffic Impact Study,” dated 9/20/08. He explained several reasons why his findings differed from the original report submitted. These included
1) the number of proposed rooms had decreased and
2) the first report had considered all of the proposed uses as though there would be no interaction, when in fact, many users would come to the inn and use more than one of its facilities.
He briefly explained how he used traffic counts, data bases, and statistical projections to formulate his reports. He determined that all levels of service for Wykeham Road would be at level A or B and that the proposed inn would cause no decrease in the service ratings. He said he had considered impacts on road capacity, the ability of the roadway to handle traffic, etc. and said Wykeham Road was not close to capacity in any instance.

Mr. Owen noted that almost all roads in Washington would probably be at the A or B service level. He said it would be interesting if Mr. Mitchell could compare the level of expected traffic use for the inn with school use or other use of the property.

Mrs. Friedman pointed out that the proposed function room had not been included in the study and that the Commission had been told it would be used by the public as well as people staying at the inn so that would add to the peak hour traffic.

Mr. Mitchell responded that events in function rooms typically happen after peak hours and that a room with a capacity of 50 would not have much impact on traffic.

Mr. Owen asked what the function room would be used for.

Mr. Klauer said for meetings and retreats, but not necessarily for weddings.

Mrs. Friedman asked how the capacity of the function room had been computed and whether the 50 person capacity was a reliable figure.

Mr. Szymanski stated that the function room complements the restaurant and that the two function as one unit. He also stated that the 50 person capacity was what the applicant was proposing and there weren’t any enforceable criteria for establishing that number.

Mrs. Friedman noted the maximum capacity of the function room was an important consideration because it would affect the number of parking spaces required.

Mr. Szymanski circulated his 9/22/08 letter to Mr. Owen. It compared the capacity and the number of parking spaces at the Mayflower and the proposed inn. He argued that the Town had approved less than 100 spaces at the Mayflower, while Wykeham, with significantly less sq. footage, was proposing 103.

Mrs. Friedman pointed out that the Mayflower spa had been approved for guests only, not for use by the general public.

Mr. Szymanski stated that whether the Mayflower spa is open only to guests or not, the parking functions without complaint and can be used for comparative data.

Mr. Mitchell addressed questions about the sight lines, noting that the one way traffic had been reversed to enter at the east and exit at the west. The advantages were that the exit would now be more aligned with Golf Course Road, creating more of an intersection and the sight lines would improve. He said the Town would have to regrade in the right of way on the opposite side of Wykeham Road to establish the proper sight lines.

Mrs. Friedman asked how the regrading would impact Kirby Brook. Mr. Mitchell said it was on the other side of the road. Mrs. Friedman asked who would approve the work.

Mr. Szymanski said he had met with Mr. Smith of the Town Highway Dept. and since it would be in the upland review area, the Inland Wetlands Commission would have to approve the regrading.

Mr. Owen asked for a written report from both the Board of Selectmen and the Highway Dept.

Mr. Averill asked who would maintain the sight line.

Mrs. Federer asked whether any use of the property would require a sight line.

Mr. Owen thought there would be a sight line requirement for any use.

Mrs. Federer asked him to clarify “any use.”

Mr. Owen said the sight line requirement could apply to other applications.

Mr. Mitchell explained sight line requirements are not dependent on the volume of traffic, but apply when more than two houses are served by an entrance/exit.

Mr. Mitchell submitted a letter dated 9/22/08 in response to the comments made by Mr. Rickart at the last meeting.

Mr. Shapiro asked if Mr. Mitchell could supply the number of average trips to/from the inn on a weekday vs. on a Saturday. Mr. Mitchell said he would submit this at the next meeting.

Mrs. Friedman stated that the issue of sight lines was not only relevant at the access, but also for the numerous roads and driveways off Wykeham Road.

Mr. Mitchell said the amount of traffic that would be added by the inn would be so small that it would not impact those situations. He said the existing sight lines along Wykeham Road weren’t wonderful, but that it was not the applicant’s responsibility to rebuild the road.

Ms. Rodin noted that Mr. Mitchell had stated that the traffic generated by the inn would have no impact on Wykeham Road. She disagreed, saying that incremental increases would have dangerous impacts. She pointed out there would be an impact to the area due to the type of vehicles serving the inn such as delivery, garbage, and maintenance trucks, their large size, and noise from service trips made in the early hours.

Mr. Owen explained that the traffic report did not claim there would be no impact to the area, only that there would be no change in the level of service rating.

Atty. McTaggart noted that headlights would shine into the bedroom windows of the Ewing house as cars used the revised exit. She thought if the sight lines could be improved for the previous plan, there would be less impact on the neighborhood.

Mrs. Talbot noted the left turn onto Wykeham Road from Bell Hill is dangerous and that there had not been much traffic when Wykeham Rise was a school with six teachers and boarders.

Mr. Peacocke said he was shocked that the level of service rating addressed only delays. He said the type of traffic must be considered because the number, noise, and size of the vehicles would change the character of the neighborhood.

Mrs. Minor noted that all vehicles traveling on the narrow roads in the area exceed the maximum speed limits.

Mr. Rickart said that he had not had time to review the newly submitted materials. He noted that two major changes had been made to address concerns raised at the last meeting. These were the reversal of the direction of the one way traffic and the work to improve the sight lines. He asked the Commission to carefully consider whether these were, indeed, improvements. He noted the volume of material to be excavated to improve the sight lines had not been provided and suggested that it might require a separate Special Permit and the consent of the adjoining property owners. He thought the applicant still had not provided sufficient data to resolve the sight line problems at the Golf Course Road intersection where, he said, there was no sight line. He did not think it made sense to put the entrance at the upper/north end because traffic coming down the hill would have to stop before making the left hand turn into the inn and the traffic traveling at normal speeds would come down around the corner and have no time to avoid hitting the stopped vehicle from behind. He did not think the size and scope of the proposed improvements adequately addressed the problems. He concluded that per Section 13.1.B.4 the existing Town roads must be adequate in width, grade, alignment, capacity, and sight lines to handle the proposed traffic and said anyone who drives these roads knows they are not appropriate for the proposed commercial enterprise. He said this section alone provided ample grounds for denial.

Mr. Collum stated that he grew up on Wykeham Road, was very familiar with the traffic on it, and said there would be no greater problem with traffic for the inn than there had been for the school.

Mr. Owen asked what the rationale was for the reverse of the one way traffic. Mr. Szymanski responded that in considering Mr. Goodin’s review he felt it was prudent to “flip” the traffic direction to provide better sight lines with less impact to the road. He said he would provide additional analysis about queuing on Wykeham Road for the next meeting.

Mr. Parker asked the commissioners to drive down Bell Hill and make the left turn onto Wykeham before the next meeting and then consider the back up of cars as they stop to turn left into the inn, deliveries, employees, increase in the volume of traffic, and poor sight lines.

Mrs. Friedman noted the most recent data submitted by the applicant listed the proposed lot coverage as 6.65%.

Mr. Szymanski said that figure did not include pervious surfaces, which would bring it to 9.99%.

Mrs. Friedman strongly recommended the Commission hire a professional to confirm what had been calculated as lot coverage and that everything that should be included had been included. She said she had asked for a list of everything that was and was not included and for a colored map to make it clear, but this had not been provided. She said the questions of whether the access to the detention pond should count as coverage, whether there was enough parking provided, and the proximity of the parking spaces to the facilities served, etc. were critical because the coverage was 9.99%.

Mr. Szymanski agreed to submit the list of what was and what was not included and to provide a map showing what was being counted as lot coverage.

Mrs. Friedman asked how the cottages not served by the driveway would be accessed in winter. She thought there could be liability issues.

Mr. Szymanski said he had met with individuals from the fire dept., the Fire Marshal, and would soon meet with the emergency services coordinator regarding emergency access. He said the cottage farthest from the driveway was approximately 450 ft. away, but that was only one unit out of 44. He said it would be quite a walk to the four cottages, but that the permeable paver walkway met ADA standards.

Mrs. Friedman asked how these cottages would be accessed by emergency vehicles.

Mr. Szymanski stated they have four wheel drive and that an ambulance could either jump the curb or wheel in a gurney.

Mrs. Friedman asked if a written approval of the most recent plans had been received from Emergency Services.

Mr. Szymanski said it was expected soon. Also regarding emergency preparedness, he said there was a stair chair available, all of the buildings would be “totally sprinklered,” and there would be a 45,000 gallon storage tank on site, dry hydrants in the ponds and Kirby Brook for water supply to fight fires.

Mr. Szymanski noted that concerns about the capacity of the Judea Water Company system had been raised, but that Mr. Black had stated there would not be an adverse impact on this system due to the installation of the 45,000 gal. storage tank. One or two new wells would be drilled in the Judea well field to increase the capacity for domestic use.

Mrs. Friedman asked if the access to the detention pond was included in the lot coverage calculation.

Mr. Szymanski said it was not, but if the Zoning Commission thought it should be, the grass pavers would be deleted from the plans.

Mr. Owen said he had discussed this matter with Atty. Zizka who did not think this access would be included in the definition of coverage, but if the Commission had a problem with grass pavers, which had been added at the suggestion of Mr. Goodin, they could be removed.

Mrs. Friedman said traveled surfaces count as lot coverage and frequency of use is not addressed.

Mr. Owen read the definition of “lot coverage” and “driveway” and noted “traveled surface” was not defined.

Mrs. Friedman asked for a breakdown of the square footage of all of the areas used to calculate the number of parking spaces required. She noted that in the previous plans there had been 18 spaces for patrons and staff for the 3000 sq. ft. restaurant and bar. An enlargement of OSD.1 was reviewed.

Mr. Szymanski stated that the combined area of the bar with portion of the balcony, restaurant lobby, mezzanine, and restaurant was 4800 sq. ft. and 29 parking spaces had been provided. It was noted the function room was 2090 sq. ft. and 7 spaces had been provided. Mr. Szymanski explained that the spa would have 6875 sq. ft. with 2 spaces required for every 1000 sq. ft. He said he was comfortable with the low number of spaces provided because people already staying at the inn would be using the spa. He noted the fitness center would have 3,055 sq. ft.

Mrs. Friedman noted there were also many offices proposed and asked where the parking for those employees was located.

Mr. Szymanski stated that at the Mayflower spa, the offices had been included in the total sq. footage.

Mr. Owen stated that the parking regulations took into account both users and staff. He said their goal was to move away from the old philosophy of providing asphalt parking for the maximum conceivable use and to design instead for normal usage. He said it was assumed that at times there would be parking overflow on the grass areas.

Mr. Szymanski said he had been conservative when he computed the required parking and had provided 42 spaces for the main building.

Mrs. Friedman was concerned that the function room would not be limited to 55 and that there would not be adequate parking when the restaurant was full.

Mr. Szymanski said the worst case scenario would not often occur.

Mrs. Friedman asked where busses would park; the response was that busses would not be allowed. It was noted there would be a limo service drop off.

Mrs. Friedman asked about the driveway width. Mr. Szymanski said it would be 12 ft. wide in the sections that were one way and 16 to 18 ft. wide elsewhere. He said the Mayflower has driveways the same width.

Mrs. Friedman noted that parking was proposed along some of the driveways so she did not know if the proposed widths were adequate.

Mr. Szymanski said the Fire Marshal would review the driveway widths.

Regarding the reversal of the one way traffic, Mr. Fitzherbert said he was concerned about headlights shining into the Ewing’s bedroom windows and about the Bell Hill turn onto Wykeham and the left hand turn into the inn when traveling down Wykeham. He noted this area is very slippery in the winter. Mr. Szymanski said he would examine these concerns.

Mrs. Greene reported that contrary to the traffic consultant’s view, there is a “huge” increase in the volume of traffic when school is in session and evenings when there are activities at the high school.

There was a brief discussion about what date the hearing would be continued to. Atty. Fisher submitted a written request that the Public Hearing be continued to October 20, 2008.

Mr. Szymanski noted Mr. Mitchell could not attend on 10/20 and asked the commissioners to submit questions in writing as soon as possible so that Mr. Mitchell could have responses prepared ahead of time.

MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road to Monday, October 20, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

At 11:11 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the Public Hearing to Monday, October 20, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

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


REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 11:12 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 8/25/08 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as submitted. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, passed 5-0.


Pending Application

Thorn/228 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/Addition and Renovations to Existing Dwelling:
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit Application: Section 6.5 submitted by Mr. Thorne for an addition and renovations to the dwelling at 228 West Shore Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.


Other Business

Ross/24 Wilbur Road/Preliminary Discussion/Clarification of Uses Permitted in Woodville Business District:
Mr. Ross noted that the Zoning Regulations state that no restaurants are permitted in the Woodville Business District. He asked what the definition of “restaurant” was and whether he would be permitted to have a market-deli in his new commercial building. Section 10.4 of the Regulations was reviewed. It was noted that 10.4.1.a excludes restaurants and fast food establishments and that there was one existing restaurant that pre existed the regulation located in this District. The commissioners briefly discussed the possibility of amending the Regulations to permit restaurants in the Woodville District and it was the consensus to do so. Mrs. Friedman will draft specific language to be discussed at the next meeting.


New Applications

Geurts/46 June Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment:
A Public Hearing was scheduled for October 27, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room.

Donovan/53 Kinney Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment:
The commissioners briefly reviewed the floor plans, “Proposed Plan,” Sheet A1.01, by Steven Harris Architects, LLP., revised to 9/10/08. One 1104 sq. ft. detached apartment connected to the main part of the dwelling by an unheated breezeway was proposed. A separate bedroom with full bath and a separate entry was connected to the proposed apartment by another unheated breezeway.
The commissioners questioned whether this bedroom could become a second detached apartment and whether the proposed 1104 sq. ft. apartment was subordinate in size and scale to the rest of the dwelling.
A public hearing was scheduled for October 27, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room.


Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14, 12.14.3, 12.14.5/Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
The revisions agreed upon at the last meeting will be sent to the local councils of government and to the Planning Commission to review along with the proposed revisions regarding restaurants in Woodville when that language has been finalized.

Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Business Signs in Residential Districts:
There was nothing new to report. Mr. Ajello stated that Wykeham Rise, LLC. had agreed to post a 2 sq. ft. sign and would apply for a larger sign later if the Regulations were amended. He noted that additional traffic signs would also be needed there.

3/3/08 Letter from Mr. Talbot/Creation of Parcels:
Mr. Ajello reported that research is pending.

Administrative Procedures/ZEO Reports:
Due to the late hour Mrs. Friedman said she would not discuss this in detail, but said she would bring up at a future meeting the lack of detail in the ZEO reports.
Mr. Ajello said the Commission should instruct him about what it wants included in these reports.

Mayflower Spa:
It was noted that the Mayflower is actively promoting a public health club, while the application approved stated it would be for use by guests only.
Mrs. Friedman read sections of the 7/23/03 letter to the Commission from Mr. Owens that is in the Mayflower Spa file.
Mr. Ajello did not think this letter was clear and said just because there were no parking spaces for “outsiders” it did not mean the applicant had agreed there would be none.
Mr. Fitzherbert remembered that the Commission had asked the Mayflower if the spa would be open to the public and had been told it would not, but that the Commission had not been concerned about this issue at the time.
Mrs. Friedman said it was clear the spa was to be used exclusively by guests of the Mayflower Inn. She said she would research the file and listen to the tape of the hearing before the next meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Averill.

Mr. Owen adjourned the Meeting at 11:40 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator


ADDENDUM

Mr. Owen's statement summarizing the issues before the Commission, clarifying the Regulations, explaining the Commission’s jurisdiction, etc.

I’d like to begin this session of the Wykeham Rise public hearing by attempting to summarize, organize, and frame some of what we’ve heard so far. I’d like to highlight what a few key issues, and I’d like to do it now, before we go any further, so that commissioners, the applicant, and members of the public can have a chance to amplify, add to, or correct my impressions, either tonight or at the likely further continuation of this hearing.

First, we’ve received an unusually large number of letters in support of the application, and a smaller but still unusually large number of letters in opposition. These letters, along with comments made orally during the public hearing, have contained quite a bit of useful information, and I’m going to cite some of that information as I proceed, but I want to remind the commission and the public that zoning meetings are different from town meetings and that we make zoning decisions by applying our regulations and not by asking the audience for a show of hands.

This public hearing has been long and has covered a lot of ground, but the tone has been very civil. Nevertheless, there have been occasional lapses. For this application, as for all applications, I would urge the public and the commissioners to assume what is usually the case, which is that people don’t invest large amounts of time, money, and personal aggravation in the hope of ruining the town. Furthermore, Washington is so small that neighbors can’t cease to be neighbors simply because they disagree. It is possible to move toward a fair resolution without saying the kinds of things that can’t be unsaid, especially when the people you say them to are people you are likely to run into at the grocery store several times a week for the rest of your life. I also want to disagree with those who have questioned the motivation of various neighbors in fighting the current application. Even if their objections are entirely personal, “Not in my backyard” is not a dishonorable position to hold, and there isn’t anyone in town who doesn’t hold it in one form or another on some issue or other, or wouldn’t hold it if his or her backyard were the one in question. In fact, the zoning regulations themselves are really a compendium of not-in-my-backyard rules. If none of us cared about what went on in our backyards, we wouldn’t have or need zoning regulations.

Mainly, I want to urge everyone, including the commission, to have faith in this process — or, if not faith, at least patience.

Certain of our regulations could probably use some explanation — for the benefit of myself and my fellow commissioners, as well as for the public. One opinion that has been expressed in this hearing, as well as elsewhere in town over the past few months, is the idea that inns have no place in a residential neighborhood in Washington. It is entirely reasonable to hold that opinion. It’s even reasonable for a member of the zoning commission to hold that opinion, personally. But it is not possible for a member of the zoning commission to act on that personal opinion, in response to an application. That is because, according to our regulations, a residential zone is the only place in Washington where inns are permitted. Regulation 4.4.1 lists “Inn or Tourist home” as a use permitted by special permit in Washington’s R-1 zone, which is the principal farming and residential district and which covers the vast majority of all the land within the town’s borders. Not only are inns permitted in the R-1, they are not permitted in any of the town’s six other zones, two of which are residential and four of which are commercial. Therefore, according to our regulations, a residential zone is where an inn does belong.

The fact that inns are permitted only in the R-1 zone does not mean that every application for an inn in the R-1 zone must be approved, however. An inn is what is called a “use permitted by special permit.” That means that an applicant must satisfy a number of requirements, enumerated in Section 13 of the regulations, that go beyond the requirements for what are called simply “uses permitted.” If you want to build a house in Washington — a use permitted — you need to file an application and satisfy the zoning enforcement officer that you have complied with the town’s requirements, but you don’t have to make your case at a public hearing. If you want to build an inn, by contrast, you have to meet the additional requirements I mentioned, and you have to endure a public hearing, and the decision must be made by the commission itself rather than by the zoning enforcement officer.

Several people have suggested during the current public hearing that the Wykeham Rise LLC application requires the zoning commission to “waive” its regulations. That is not the case. First of all, the zoning commission is not allowed to “waive” its regulations. Second, an inn is a permitted use, and is mentioned specifically in the regulations. What is true, however, is that special permits are one of a very few instances in where commissioners are allowed — in fact, required — to make discretionary judgments regarding appropriateness and compliance. Regulation 13.1.b.2, for example, states that an applicant seeking a special permit, in order to receive an approval, must satisfy the commission
that the location, type, character, size, scale, proportion, appearance, and intensity of the proposed use and any building or other structure in connection therewith shall be in harmony with and conform to the appropriate and orderly development of the Town and the neighborhood and will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent property or substantially or permanently impair the value thereof.
There are no formulas, measurements, percentages, or other hard numbers listed in that requirement. Commissioners must make their own judgments as to whether or not an application meets those standards. Making such judgments does not constitute a waiving of the regulations; it’s exactly what the regulations require. The regulations give the commission some guidance concerning how to do that, but commissioners still have to make a judgment.

Lawyers for various neighbors have raised a number of legal arguments suggesting that the commission was wrong to accept this application in the first place, and that it has been wrong to continue considering it. Most of those arguments concern interpretations of state law and therefore go far beyond the jurisdiction of any zoning commission, but I can tell you that it is the opinion of the commission’s attorney — and therefore also the opinion of the commission’s chairman — that the commission was correct to accept the application, and that the commission is correct in continuing to consider it. Unresolved legal issues, if any remain at the end of this process, will be settled elsewhere. The commission must focus on the regulations.

It has been suggested several times by representatives of the neighbors that the commission should deny this application on the grounds that the applicant has made significant changes to the plan since the original filing. I want to remind everyone that the great majority of these changes have been made in response to criticisms offered by the same neighbors and representatives, or in response to questions raised by members of the commission. It would hardly be reasonable for a commission to raise questions about an application — especially a special-permit application — and then deny that same application on the grounds that the applicant had responded to the questions. One important purpose of any public hearing is to improve whatever plan is under consideration, by bringing it, in public, under the scrutiny of the commissioners, subjecting it to public criticism and comment, and giving the applicant opportunities to revise or remove elements that may be objectionable or noncompliant.

Nevertheless, the special-permit process is not open-ended. The applicant, during tonight’s session, can request another continuation, but the public hearing cannot, by state law, be extended beyond the end of October. Thus, the applicant has nothing to gain by dragging things out or by being incomplete. On the contrary. One way or another, by approximately a month from right now the public hearing will be over, and no further public input will be possible after that point, and the commission will then have 65 days in which to make a decision — unless the Inland Wetlands Commission has not acted by that time, in which case the time limit will be extended to 35 beyond the day when the decision of the Inland Wetlands Commission is made.

It has been stated by neighbors’ attorneys, both here and before Inland Wetlands, that the zoning commission’s decision to accept the Wykeham application was in violation of its own rules, since regulation 2.3.6 states
A zoning application, which involves the installation or modification of a subsurface disposal system shall not be accepted nor shall a zoning permit or Special Permit be approved unless it has been reviewed by the Town Health Officer, or his authorized agent and if required, the appropriate State Dept. and certified that the land is suitable for an on-lot sewage disposal system and that the proposed system is suitable to accommodate the proposed activity.

The town’s land-use attorney and one of his associates have confirmed to me that the commission can’t legally refuse to accept an application simply because it is incomplete. And the second requirement, that the state must act first, cannot be followed by this or any other applicant, because the state has made it clear to us, repeatedly, that it won’t fully evaluate a septic plan until a final land-use decision has been made at the local level. That is doubly true in this instance, because, I believe, the state has now been contacted by two different sets of attorneys, for the applicant and for the some of the neighbors, and is now certain to wait and see what happens locally before taking up the file. The DEP won’t act until we have acted, no matter what our regulation says.

An attorney for one of the neighbors argued during the opening session of the public hearing that the proposed project is at odds with certain objectives enumerated in the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development, and noted that the zoning regulations require special-permit proposals to be consistent with such objectives. I have discussed this issue at some length with our attorney, and would like to relay several points that he made to me. The first is that the role of the Plan of Conservation and Development in land-use matters is established by state law, but is also tightly circumscribed by it. The state requires every municipality to create and regularly update a Plan of Conservation and Development, but the state is far from clear or specific about how that plan is actually to be used, other than as a document to be regularly revised. The Zoning Commission must consider the Plan when adopting or revising regulations but is not in any way bound by it — and if it were so bound it would often face an irresolvable dilemma because the Plan includes many that are or can be mutually exclusive, such as the desirability of maintaining the town’s much-discussed rural character and the desirability of enhancing its tax base and local employment opportunities. The Plan also makes reference to a number of land-use concepts that do not, in fact, exist in the Town of Washington, either in its Zoning Regulations or in its local ordinances. For example, Washington has never adopted a demolition delay ordinance or created so-called gateway districts or commercial-district transition areas, even though those things are discussed at some length in the Plan. The usual practice by the parties in land-use matters, including not only applicants and their supporters and opponents but also members of the Zoning Commission, including myself, is to cite those parts of the Plan which support their own position and to ignore those parts which don’t.

At the first session of the public hearing, a useful point was made by Valerie Cooper, a resident, who said — and I’m paraphrasing and editing a little — that the task of the commission regarding this application is not to solve the problem of the Wykeham Rise property —which is a large lot with numerous derelict buildings — but to weigh the merits of the application at hand. The merits of that application are not wholly unrelated to the nature of the property, because the special-permit regulations require us to consider any proposal in the context of “the appropriate and orderly development of the Town and the neighborhood” — but Ms. Cooper’s point is still a very good one. By now, several years after the closing of both Wykeham Rise School and the Swiss Hospitality Institute, there are more than a few Washington residents, I suspect, who feel that just about any use of that property would constitute an improvement over the decaying mess that is there today. But the regulations are still the regulations. A desire to do something, however understandable that desire may be, does not outweigh the necessity to follow the rules — and that, I think, is one of the points that Ms. Cooper was making.

It is also a fact, nevertheless, that “large derelict property” is not a desirable use in the town of Washington, and certainly not a use listed in the zoning regulations. The Wykeham property was used, and relatively intensively, for more than a century, and sooner or later, one way or another, it will be used again, whether as an inn or as something else. Large derelict properties add no cars to local roads, and they use very little water, and they are extremely quiet, but they don’t contribute to “the appropriate and orderly development of the Town and the neighborhood.” Just as it is not the job of the zoning commission is not to find a (merely) better use for the property than the current one, it is also not the job of the zoning commission to hold out for whatever its members might consider to be the best use. The responsibility of the commission is to determine whether the proposed use, the plan on the table right now, is allowed under the regulations.

Posted: September 5, 2008

August 25, 2008

Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
August 25, 2008
7:30 p.m. Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Shapiro

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Federer, Atty. Hill, Atty. McTaggart, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Caroe, Mrs. Minor, Mrs. McDonald, Mr./Mrs. Kaylor, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Ms. Klauer, Mr. Goodin, Mr. Carey, Mr. Parker, Mr./Mrs. Peacocke, Ms. Connolly, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Charles, Mr. Solley, Mr. Surnow, Mrs. Cooper, Ms. Forese, Mr. Picton, Mr./Mrs. Ullram, Mrs. Greene, Mr. Mnuchin, Mr./Mrs. Talbot, Mr./Mrs. Benn, Mr./Mrs. Rickart, Mr. Thorne, Residents, Press

Mr. Owen briefly remembered John Allen, past Zoning Commission chairman, who died on August 21, 2008.

PUBLIC HEARING

Wykeham Road, LLC./101 Wykeham Rd/Special Permit: 13.9, 4.4.1/Inn

Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternates DuBois and Shapiro for Mr. Abella and Mr. Fitzherbert. He then read the list of documents that had been submitted since the last meeting and noted the file was available for inspection by the public.

Mr. Owen asked for comments and questions from the public.

Mrs. Talbot read her 8/25/08 letter, which included the following points: The R-1 district where the property is located is intended for residential and agricultural uses, not a commercial use that will impact the rural character of the Town. The Zoning Regulations require, and have required in the past, inns to have 500 ft. of frontage on a state highway. The application does not meet the standards of Section 13.1.B of the Regulations.

Atty. Hill, representing the Federers, noted the list of documents read by Mr. Owen included only one of the letters he had submitted at the last meeting. It was noted the letter had, indeed, been received and would be added to the list.

Ms. Connolly read portions of her statement dated 8/25/08. She noted that the Special Permit application may not be approved unless all of the provisions in Section 13.1.B.2 of the Zoning Regs are met and she explained how it does not comply with the standards for location, type, character, size, and intensity of use. She said that Wykeham Road was not designed to handle the proposed increase in traffic. She said the intensity of use of the Wykeham Rise School could not be compared with the inn proposal because the school had 100 acres when it was operating, whereas the proposed inn has far less. She also noted that when compared to the existing Mayflower Inn, the proposed inn would have double the number of rooms on half the acreage.

Mr. Rickart spoke in opposition to the application and read his statement dated 8/25/08, which addressed traffic concerns and the 8/14/08 Traffic Study by Arthur Howland and Assoc. He included these points. In order to approve the application, per Section 13.1.B.4, the Commission must find that the existing rural street network is adequate in width, grade, alignment, capacity, and sight lines to accommodate prospective traffic. He said although the Traffic Study concludes there will be no traffic impacts resulting from the proposed development, the study relies on data that is not representative of the traffic that is generated during the school year, accident data cited is incomplete, it is not known whether the formulae used in the study take into account the traffic patterns that result from events, the capacity analysis incorrectly maintains there will be no increase in traffic volume traveling onto Wykeham Road from Bell Hill Road, and the local roads are inappropriate for the nature of traffic that would be generated by this project. He also pointed out that the Traffic Study did not address the change in the nature of the traffic that would use the Town roads should the inn be approved. He found the proposal inappropriate for the Town’s existing street network.

Ms. Brooks spoke in favor of the application, urging the Commission to look at its “macro cosmic effects” such as keeping local farms in business. She thought the Town needs a balance of commerce and rural so that the downtown businesses are supported.

Mr. Surnow supported the application, saying that the applicant has been willing to address concerns that have been raised, the project would be LEED certified, the existing buildings are in decay, existing impacts to the wetlands would be corrected, the tax base would be increased, and there would be employment opportunities created for residents.

Mrs. Benn read her 8/25/08 letter against the application. She said the operation of an inn on a Town road digressed from the historical interpretation of the Zoning Regulations, the proposal was a commercial use that included a restaurant and bar in the residential zone, the inn would increase noise, density, and traffic, and it had not been established there would be an adequate water supply. She noted that questions had been raised about the proper planning and design for access by emergency vehicles. She thought that approval of the application would establish a precedent for commercial uses in residential zones and would result in a decrease in property values and would compromise the quality of life in the neighborhood.

Mrs. Peacocke stated she had not received notification of the application per Section 2.3.4 of the Regulations. She referred to the uses permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District and noted that the business uses listed were all small scale. She said that a country inn or tourist home differed from the proposed spa/resort. She pointed out that fitness centers and function rooms were not listed as permitted uses and that the proposal did not comply with the spirit of the Regulations. She also stated the proposed inn would detract from the Town’s rural character, which the Commission had the duty to preserve.

Mrs. Cooper noted the proposed inn would not be affordable nor would it provide jobs for residents. She said the Commission had always interpreted its Regulations to require that inns have frontage on state roads and so did not think the application should be grandfathered. She noted that the Swiss Hospitality Institute had not been permitted to open a restaurant on this property and that if the application was approved, the Mayflower Inn would apply for Wykeham Road access, too. She said the proposed inn would be the largest in Litchfield County and would change the character of the area. She advised the Commission that there are poor sight lines all along Wykeham Road and said she knew of four accidents there that were not included in the Traffic Study.

Ms. Forese spoke in favor of the application. She said if another school used the property it would generate a lot of traffic and it would be tax exempt. She did not think it fair to compare the bar proposed at the inn with J.D. Tucker’s because the guests staying at the inn would not drink and drive. She informed the Commission that she has been an EMT for 17 years and that the accidents she had encountered were due either to inexperienced drivers or poor weather conditions; not poor sight lines. She thought the proposed inn was the best case scenario for the property.

Mr. Caroe heartily endorsed the application and spoke briefly about the traffic generated by the Wykeham Rise School from 1966 to 1972.

Mr. Parker spoke against the application. He stated the firm that did the Traffic Study has a financial interest in the application and that the study considered the proposed operation a hotel, not an inn. He said that the three hours covered in the Traffic Study do not correlate with the hours for peak hotel traffic. He thought the operation of an inn at this site would impact the value of the surrounding homes. He suggested that once the inn was approved it could be sold to a national restaurant or hotel chain. He asked that construction vehicles be banned from Wykeham Road as they had been during the construction of the Mayflower spa. He concluded that the Commission should deny the application because it should protect the residential districts.

Mr. Owen noted that the amended regulation, which was effective on 7/15/08, requires frontage on a state highway, but still allows inns in the residential districts.

Mrs. Peacocke noted that an inn, a place to stay and have a meal, is permitted in the residential districts, but a resort with a spa and leisure facilities is not. She opposed a large scale commercial development in the residential district because it was not in keeping with the neighborhood or the Regulations.

Mr. Benn made five points. 1) He suggested the Town would be better served if the property were subdivided; the taxes would be nearly the same, but the impacts to the neighborhood would not be as great. 2) He agreed the existing buildings were going to ruin, but pointed out it was the property owners who had neglected them and that the property owners could restore them. 3) He thought the new resort would be a competitive threat to the Mayflower. 4) He said the property owner had invested a lot in the property, but only 5% to 10% of the total cost of the project. 5) He expressed his concern about the adequacy of the water supply in the area and asked if any engineers had researched this matter.

Ms. Rodin read portions of her letter dated 8/25/08 in which she urged the Commission to look at how the applicant had reduced lot coverage; not by reducing the number of buildings, but by removing the tennis court, decreasing the width of the driveway, eliminating walkways, etc. She also noted that a section of the driveway has a 12% grade, which exceeds the 10% permitted for commercial driveways.

Atty. Fisher noted that the applicant would request an extension of the hearing because the ZBA had not yet acted on the lot coverage variance request.

Mr. Ajello announced that the date for the continuation of the Inland Wetlands public hearing had been changed to Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Goodin, engineer, spoke on behalf of adjoining property owners who oppose the application. In short, he stated the plans submitted were incomplete and did not comply with the Regulations. His lengthy presentation included the following points. 1) On site traffic, quality of service, and sight line safety had not been addressed in the Traffic Study. 2. On map NG-2, dated 8/18/08 he pointed out that the grade for a 300 ft. section of the driveway was 12% and would require 6 additional feet of cuts and fills to bring it to the permitted 10% and short vertical curves, sight lines, and speeds should be covered. 3. On map NG-3, dated 8/25/08 he found there were no signs to direct one way traffic and no safe sight lines. 4. He found the two way driveway was unsafe because it was only 16 ft. wide with parking along both sides.

Mrs. Friedman asked how wide the driveway should be.

Mr. Goodin responded that state standards specify 24 ft. wide, although 22 ft. would be possible if there was no parking along the sides. He also questioned the safety of a 1500 ft. long cul de sac with a smaller than typically sized turnaround at its end.

Mrs. Friedman asked for comments from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Goodin said there was no report from the Fire Marshal.

Mr. Goodin reported there was no handicapped parking for the units; only for the restaurant and bar, and no parking lot for the spa. He recommended that a summary of all the uses and their sq. footage and the number of parking spaces proposed to serve each be submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Averill asked if the safety of the 16 ft. driveway could be improved by increasing its width. Mr. Goodin said it could be improved by either increasing the width or by decreasing the development.

Mr. Goodin continued. 6. He was concerned about many aspects of the plans such as the downhill slope of the driveway and the possibility of runoff freezing on the surface, the 300 to 400 ft. distance from the upper units to the parking lot and the grass path to this lot, which could not be served by golf carts in the winter, and long stairways and sidewalks elsewhere on site that were too long for reasonable emergency access. 7. The septic design was missing so many details that it was conceptual only and could not be reviewed at this time. He also stated that the existing leaching fields were not grandfathered by the state. 8. Regarding the proposed water system, he stated that the water lines “criss cross” underneath the rain gardens, the plans for the water pump house did not provide the needed pressure, the design was for domestic use, no emergency or backup information had been given, and there was no specific information in the letter from the water company. 10. He noted that according to the definition of “structure,” there were many structures proposed within the 50 ft. wetlands setback, but no variances requested. 11. He thought the 26 rain gardens proposed as part of the stormwater management plan was a good idea, but said no calculations had been provided for size, depth, or water velocity and that soil permeability tests were needed in order to know if the gardens would function properly. He also stated that the small rain gardens required outlet pipes and that the gardens had not been properly designed to support plants. 12. He was concerned about the design for the two proposed detention ponds saying there were no back up plans and soil permeability testing was required to determine whether they would be wet bottomed as planned. He said the plans did not indicate whether they would hit the water table or be constructed with a clay layer. He recommended that Ms. Chase further review the planting plans. 13. He recommended that the state erosion and sedimentation control guidelines be followed, noting the plans did not require an adequate number of inspections. He submitted his review, dated 8/25/08, noting he had too many comments to address them all at the hearing.

Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Ajello if the paths to be used by the golf carts had been included in the lot coverage calculations. Mr. Ajello said that had not been addressed by the applicant and he was waiting to hear from the Fire Marshal. Mrs. Friedman asked if there had been a review by the Public Works Dept. Mr. Ajello said there was no written report. Mr. Goodin recommended this department and a traffic engineer be asked to review the plans because there are state Dept. of Transportation guidelines that must be met.

Mr. Goodin recommended that all of the engineering and design information be included on the plans so there will be no surprises.

Atty. Fisher stated that Mr. Szymanski, engineer, would respond to all of Mr. Goodin’s concerns in writing and submitted a request that the hearing be continued.

Mr. Szymanski made two comments. 1. He had difficulty reaching the Fire Marshal, but now had an appointment to meet with him to discuss emergency vehicular access and fire protection. 2) He had met with Mr. Smith, Public Works Dept., who had required that some trees be cut to improve the sight lines at the entrance and exit. Mr. Branson, forester, is working on a report regarding which trees should be removed.

Mrs. Friedman asked for the width of Wykeham Road at its narrowest point. Mr. Szymanski said he would look into this.

Mrs. Friedman asked what the difference was between the terms, “peak hour” and “peak period” referred to in the Traffic Study. Mr. Szymanski said he would provide the Commission with ITE guidelines and briefly explained the terms.

Mrs. Friedman noted the Traffic Study did not address construction vehicles. Mr. Szymanski stated they are not typically covered in this kind of report. Mrs. Friedman stated she was concerned because construction would be a lengthy process and poor sight lines and safety were problems on Wykeham Road. She thought the Commission should hire its own traffic consultant to deal with all the issues raised. Mr. Szymanski stated the inn would be no more of a traffic concern than Wykeham Rise School with 120 students, teachers, and visiting parents had been.

Mrs. Friedman noted the Traffic Study had been conducted when schools were not in session. She also noted the use of the inn would vary with the season. Mr. Szymanski agreed, saying that typically the summer months have the highest occupation.

Mr. Talbot questioned why the Commission was considering an incomplete application, saying both he and the Housing Trust had been advised that they could not submit their applications until they had Health Dept. approval. Mrs. Friedman read Section 2.3.6 and agreed that the Zoning Regs state applications shall not be accepted without Health Dept. approval. Mr. Ajello noted that this application requires approval by the DEP who will not begin its review until the local authorities approve it. Mr. Owen said that Atty. Zizka had advised the Commission that it may not refuse to accept an incomplete application, although it may not approve an incomplete application. He will consult further with Atty. Zizka before the next meeting.

Mr. Talbot noted he had been advised regarding another proposal that nothing could be constructed in the septic reserve area, but that the current application proposed buildings in this area. Mr. Szymanski stated he had held preliminary discussions with the DEP and was preserving the septic reserve area.

Mr. Talbot again stated he thought it was a waste of the Commission’s time and resources to review a site development plan that was not possible.

Mrs. Talbot said in her experience of driving on Wykeham Road, all of the trees could be cut down and there would still be problems with hills and speeding vehicles. She also stated she did not think the proposal, which includes a commercial bar, should be compared to use by a school.

Mrs. Friedman did not think Mr. Smith’s (Town Highway Dept.) study of the entrance and exit addressed the whole Wykeham Road safety issue. She noted the Traffic Study concluded the operation of the inn would result in an increase of more than 600 trips per day, which she thought was an enormous increase. She thought the information before the Commission was inadequate and recommended it seek its own professional guidance.

Mr. Shapiro pointed out that one of the Special Permit standards the Commission must determine is met is whether the existing network of Town roads surrounding the project is adequate to safely carry the increase in traffic. He agreed with Mrs. Friedman that the Commission should hire its own consultant.

Mr. DuBois questioned whether the Commission should spend the taxpayer’s money to review an incomplete application.

Mr. Averill read the last sentence of the report, that the anticipated increase in traffic would have no adverse impacts, and questioned the validity of this conclusion. He stated that his personal experience driving on Wykeham Road was valuable, that based on it he could come to a different conclusion about the impact. Mr. Averill also pointed out there were unresolved questions about deed restrictions on the property and so questioned whether the Commission was wasting its time reviewing an incomplete application.

Ms. Rodin asked the Commission to acknowledge that the application was incomplete.

Mr. Owen stated that the deed restrictions were not under Zoning’s jurisdiction and should not hold up Zoning’s review of the application. He also stated that the application was incomplete when it was submitted, but that Atty. Zizka had advised the Commission it could not refuse to accept an incomplete application.

Mrs. Friedman stated again that she thought the Commission should hire its own traffic consultant. She asked Mr. Owen if the Commission could vote tonight on the application and what would happen if the Commission did not grant the extension requested by the applicant.

Atty. Fisher asked the Commission to do what was fair and to allow the applicant an opportunity to address Mr. Goodin’s report. He said it would be unfair to close the hearing and to vote to deny at this point. Mr. Owen and Mrs. Friedman agreed that both sides should be heard.

Mrs. Peacocke stated the burden of proof should be on the applicant. She said the application should have been complete at the time it was submitted and she objected to the back and forth arguments going on indefinitely.

Mr. Owen explained by state law there are time limits for the consideration of applications.

Atty. Hill noted that Mr. Szymanski had stated he would submit a written response within ten days and asked that Mr. Szymanski also provide him with a copy.

Mr. Parker noted that at the last meeting a copy of Mr. Goodin’s letter to Mr. Etherington, Fire Marshal, had been submitted and he asked why the issues raised in it had not been addressed. Mr. Szymanski stated he had scheduled a meeting with Mr. Etherington.

Mrs. Cooper stated it was the consensus of the Commission that the traffic study did not address the sight line and safety issues along Wykeham Road and that these were significant problems. She noted that alone was a reason to deny the application and so asked why the hearing should be continued.

Mr. Owen stated the Commission wanted to hear the applicant’s response.

MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.9 and 4.4.1 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road to 7:30 p.m. on September 22, 2008 in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 3-2. Mr. DuBois and Mrs. Friedman voted No because they thought there was sufficient information on the critical issues to make a decision.

At 10:40 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the public hearing to 7:30 p.m. on September 22, 2008 in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

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


REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:48 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes

On page 2 of the 7/28/08 minutes, under Nichols Hill Group, 3rd paragraph, 4th and 5th lines, the volumes should be “cubic” feet, not “square” feet.

MOTION: To accept the 7/28/08 Public Hearings – Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, passed 5-0.

Pending Application

Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 13.9, 4.4.1/Inn: The public hearing had been continued to 9/22/08 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

New Application

Thorne/228 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/ Renovations and Addition to Existing Dwelling:

Mr. Owen read the 8/25/08 EO Report. Mr. Talbot, architect, presented the map, “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,” by Mr. Neff, revised to 6/12/08 and gave a brief review of the proposal. He noted the Inland Wetlands Commission had approved the application and the ZBA had granted variances for both the front yard and wetlands setbacks for the 104 sq. ft. addition. He explained that the existing encroachments would be reduced and there would be no increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on the property. He noted, too, that he had submitted a letter to address each requirement of Section 6.5. A public hearing was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on September 22, 2008. The continuation of the Wykeham Rise, LLC. hearing was moved to the second item on the agenda.

Other Business

Tracy/47 Rabbit Hill Road/Request to Renew Special Permit: Section 13.16: Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Owen read the 8/25/08 EO Report. It was noted no complaints had been received about this business.

MOTION: To approve the request by Mr. and Mrs. Tracy to renew their Special Permit: Section 13.16 for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 47 Rabbit Hill Road to September 23, 2010. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

Possible Revision to the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Owen said he had discussed this matter with Mr. Sedito, ZBA chairman. He explained the problem is that Section 12.14.5 allows noise generating equipment to be located farther from the structure principally served than is specified in the Regulations if it can be demonstrated to the ZBA that doing so will have less noise impact on adjoining properties. However, the Zoning Regulations do not provide standards by which the ZBA can make this judgment. Mr. Owen said the ZBA had created its own standard that if the equipment was enclosed, it was OK, but said fences did not effectively block noise and this standard was not authorized by Zoning. He recommended that the Zoning Commission amend the Regulations to either provide standards the ZBA can use or go back to the original language that this equipment must be installed within a specific distance of the structure served. After a discussion, it was the consensus that the regulation should require noise generating equipment to be located within 25 ft. of the principal structure served and closer to the principal structure served than to any building line and pool equipment to be located within 50 feet of the pool and closer to the principal structure served than to any building line. Mr. Ajello asked in the case of generators, what was considered the principal structure. Mr. Owen stated it was the dwelling on the property as “principal” means “main.” It was noted that if generators and other noise generating equipment were required to be located within 25 feet of the dwelling served, the homeowner would have an incentive to find a way to deaden the sound. Anything else would make it worse for neighbors who would hear the noise. Mr. Ajello pointed out that some homeowners prefer to locate the generator in the garage with the meter box and if the language were revised, it would mean a lot of wire would have to run between the two buildings. Mr. Owen said it was not the intent of the Zoning Commission to create loopholes and under the current regulation it clearly could not be demonstrated that allowing noise generating equipment farther than 25 ft. from the dwelling or 50 ft. from the pool would be less of a nuisance to neighbors. Mr. Ajello asked if the entire piece of equipment must be located within 25 or 50 feet of the structure served. Mr. Owen said, yes. The following revisions were agreed upon:
12.14.1: Change pool filters to pool pumps.
12.14.2: Change pool filters to pool pumps.
12.14.3: Change pool filters to pool pumps.
12.14.5: Eliminate the entire section.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Business Signs in Residential Districts:
At the last meeting Mr. Owen had circulated a sheet comparing the current Section 16.4 with proposed revisions. He thought businesses such as the Mayflower Inn and institutions such as the library need signs even though they are located in a residential district. He questioned what purpose would be served by prohibiting a narrow list of uses to have signs. Mrs. Hill made several recommendations, which she thought would help to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods. 1. Lighted signs should be prohibited. 2. She was not convinced that 4 sq. ft. signs were needed and suggested other hanging type signs in Town be measured to determine whether a smaller size would be reasonable. 3. She thought only the business name should be permitted on the sign; for example, “Smith Bed and Breakfast,” not “Need a Room? Call 868-0000.” This matter will be discussed again at the next meeting.

Due to the late hour, it was decided that all of the other possible revisions to the Regulations would be discussed at the next meeting.

Communications

The 3/3/08 letter from Mr. Talbot regarding the creation of parcels that had been discussed at the last meeting was briefly discussed again. Mr. Ajello said he had spoken with Atty. Zizka and would consult with other attorneys.

Enforcement

Commercial Lighting: Mr. Ajello said it was tough to control lighting in commercial districts under the current Regulations.

Meltzer/Rabbit Hill Road: Mr. Ajello noted there were four violations on this property; 1. an air conditioning unit had been installed in the front yard setback, 2. a shed had been rotated, 3. a stone patio had been constructed without a permit, and 4. a temporary construction access was being used permanently, which resulted in an increase in lot coverage. Atty. Kelly represents Mr. Meltzer. Mr. Ajello will continue to work on enforcement.

MOTION: To go into Executive Session p.m. to discuss a potential law suit. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

MOTION: To end the Executive Session. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the Meeting at 11:38 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted, Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

Posted: August 7, 2008

July 28, 2008

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: Mr. J. Picton, Mr. Solley, Mr. Bedini, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Wildman, Mrs. Addicks, Mrs. Hardee, Atty. Fisher, Ms. Klauer, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mrs. Silk, Ms. Connolly, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Brinton, Mr./Mrs. Ullram, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Hinkel, Mrs. Greene, Ms. Forese, Mrs. Talbot, Mrs. Condon, Mr. Long, Mr. Caroe, Mr. Hunt, Atty. McTaggart, Atty. Strub, Mr./Mrs. Minor, Mrs. Clark, Mr./Mrs. Ewing, Mr. Parker, Mr. Titmann, Mr. Owens, Mr. Adams, Mr. Mustich, Atty. Rybak, Mr. Charles, Ms. Giampietro, Mrs. Sadler, Mr. Beaver, Atty. Hill, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Peacocke, Press, Residents

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Hedley/214 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

At 7:34 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/16 and 7/23/08.
Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 7/28/08 ZEO Report.
Mr. J. Picton, agent, explained an existing barn would be converted to a detached apartment by adding a kitchen and installing a septic system. He noted the septic system had been designed by Mr. Neff, engineer, and approved by the Health Department. It was noted that the proposed apartment was 1,031 square feet and that the owner had submitted a statement that she would reside on the property for the duration of the permit.
Mr. Shapiro asked how large the primary dwelling on the property was. Mr. Picton did not know exactly, but said it was several thousand square feet.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the dimensions of the building would change. Mr. Picton said they would not.
There were no comments from the public and no further questions or comments from the commissioners.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mrs. Hedley for a detached accessory apartment at 214 Nettleton Hollow Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m.

Nichols Hill Group, LLC/6 Bee Brook Road/Section 8.3.9 and Special Permit: Sections 8.5 and 8.6/Office Expansion and Renovation of Existing Commercial Building

At 7:39 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/16 and 7/23/08.
Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 7/28/08 ZEO Report.
Mr. Hinkel, architect, presented photos of the existing building and summarized the proposal to tear down the rear wing of the existing commercial building, renovate it, and “reassemble the volume.” He noted the volume of the existing building was 12,103 sq. ft. and the proposed volume 12,015 sq. ft. and that the non conforming footprint would be reduced to make it less non conforming. Lot coverage would be reduced from 9,080 sq. ft. to 8,590 sq. ft. The map, “Proposed Site Plan,” by Hinkel Design Group, LLC., dated 6/20/08, the “Elevation Comparison,” EL-1, also dated 6/20/08, and floor plans were reviewed. Mr. Hinkel stated there would be no change to the existing parking on site and noted the existing 14 spaces fell between the minimum 10 and maximum 25 required per Section 15. In case of parking overflow, the adjoining Town lot would be available and/or staff could be asked to park at the old Town Garage property. Traffic flow was briefly discussed. A handicapped ramp would be constructed, but would be partially hidden behind a fence with a “topper.” Landscaping plans were reviewed. It was noted the existing sign would remain and that lighting would be kept to a minimum. Although the Commission does not yet have commercial outdoor lighting regulations, Mrs. Friedman pointed out that the applicant could consult Section 12.15 of the Zoning Regulations for the Commission’s outdoor lighting recommendations.
Mr. Owen noted the Commission had revised its Regulations so that under specific circumstances more coverage and smaller setbacks could be allowed for commercial buildings in the Depot, but in this application the lot coverage was decreasing.
Mr. Carey, property owner to the east, said the plan was a sensitive one and he supported the application.
There were no other comments from the commissioners or the public.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application: Section 8.3.9 and Special Permit: Sections 8.5 and 8.6 submitted by Nichols Hill Group, LLC. for office expansion and renovation of the existing commercial building at 6 Bee Brook Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 7:59 p.m./p

Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn

At 8:00 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/16 and 7/23/08.
Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 7/28/08 ZEO Report
. Mr. Klauer gave a brief history of the property, noting that when it operated as Wykeham Rise School there were 120 students with supporting staff on site and most recently, under the Swiss Hospitality Institute the state had approved a septic system with a 10,500 gallon per day capacity. He said the proposed inn would benefit both the land and the Town. Benefits to the land would be: 1) It would seek LEED certification with environmentally sustainable construction, 2) the existing buildings impacting the wetlands would be removed and the wetlands would be restored to their natural state, and 3) the development would not be obtrusive, with one story buildings throughout and designed to reflect the characteristics of Washington. He said the Town would benefit because 1) jobs would be created both during construction and for the operation of the inn, 2) the inn would support local agriculture, 3) the Town’s tax revenues would increase, and 4) the inn would provide locally sourced meals to guests and the community at a reasonable price. He submitted 41 letters in support of the application, which, he said, brought the total number in support to 108. He said the property had been left in a dilapidated state for too long and he submitted his letter to Town Officials dated 7/28/08 to address neighbors’ concerns about trash removal and odors.
Atty. Rybak submitted a letter to the Commission dated 7/28/08. He stated that his client had consulted with the Commission prior to his purchase and had closed on the property based on the October through December 2007 Zoning Commission discussions and Mr. Owen’s and Atty. Zizka’s interpretation of Section 13.9 that state road frontage was not a requirement for an inn. In his opinion, at the time the property was purchased and when the application was submitted, Section 13.9 did not limit the location of a country inn to a state highway. He advised the Commission to rely on the counsel of its attorney and said it could not change its interpretation in the middle of a Public Hearing.
Atty. Rybak agreed there was no guarantee of approval, but said if the property had been ineligible for an inn due to its location on a town road, Mr. Klauer would not have proceeded with the application.
Mr. Owen said the property had been purchased even though the regulation had been ambiguous and the interpretation cited was his and Atty. Zizka’s, who were the minority. He noted the question had remained open.
Atty. Rybak said it would be inappropriate for the Commission to reverse its interpretation at this time, adding that the matter would ultimately be decided by the court.
Mrs. Sadler, architect, presented elevations, floor plans, and material and color samples for the proposed buildings. She stated their design would be in keeping with the aesthetics of Washington and the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development. The appearance and volume of the buildings would be barn-like and residential. She reviewed the streetscapes within a mile of the property and said the inn’s design would be appropriate to its surroundings, although she noted that most of the proposed buildings would be set back and buffered so they would not be visible from the road. She presented photos of the present views from the road and from other properties and renderings depicting what they would be post development. She explained the proposed location of the buildings was to keep them out of the wetlands and in part to deal with the challenging grades on site.
Mrs. Sadler discussed the two main buildings, showing how the architects had tried to work with the site and break up the design of these large scaled, multi-leveled structures. She said they would be built into the hillside to give them a smaller appearance. Stonewalls in keeping with the area’s character, vertical siding, copper roofs, and traditional colors were proposed. She also reviewed the plans for the cottages, which would range in size to accommodate one to four units. These would have either wood siding or shingles and wood trim. “Night friendly” traditional lighting, which would comply with the Zoning Regulations, would be installed on all buildings and parking areas In the spa building, the fitness center on the first floor would be open to the public, the spa would be on the second floor, there would be no indoor pool, and the building would have its own area under cover for garbage. The second main building would contain a lobby area and function room on the first floor and a restaurant and bar on the second.
Mr. Shapiro asked how much of the facility would be open to the general public. Mr. Klauer responded the restaurant and bar would be open to the general public, the function room would be used by the public on a limited basis, and there would be limited public membership to the gym. He noted the outdoor pool would not be open to the public.
Mrs. Friedman asked how many seats the restaurant/bar would have. Mr. Klauer stated there would be 80 seats plus 55 maximum in the function room, and 54 double capacity guest rooms.
Mrs. Sadler noted the outdoor connector between the two main buildings. She stressed the inn would be quiet and tranquil with no noise or odors. She added that each visitor would have a private garden area and there would be walkways and gardens throughout the property.
Mr. Owen asked if the inn would be economically viable with fewer rooms. Mr. Klauer said the 108 guest capacity was needed.
Mr. Owen asked what would be deleted if the ZBA did not grant a variance for lot coverage. Mr. Klauer noted he had first proposed 17.6% coverage and had reduced it to 11.99%, so he was putting “his best foot forward.”
Mrs. Friedman asked why the walkways were not included in the coverage calculations. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, explained they were not included because the definition of lot coverage does not include pervious surfaced walkways. He went on the say that the application kept coverage down, but to decrease it further would mean that the buildings would have to be massed closer to Wykeham Road and he did not think that would be in keeping with the character of the area. In addition to aesthetics, he noted that locating the buildings farther from the road would allow for more screening and would reduce noise. Mr. Szymanski stated when the existing tennis courts and dorms were demolished and the main buildings located farther from the road, the property would have a more residential appearance.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked what was the diameter of the proposed silo on the restaurant building. Mrs. Sadler said it would be 25 ft. with a maximum height of 40 ft. She also noted that any cupola more than 25 sq. ft. would be included in the total height calculations.
Mr. Abella asked if all of the bedrooms would be in the cottages. Mrs. Sadler said they would.
Mrs. Friedman asked why “quads,” four unit cottages, were proposed. Mrs. Sadler said this would keep the total number of buildings down and Mr. Klauer said they could use the natural topography of the land without having to do excessive regrading.
Mrs. Friedman asked for the square footage of the main buildings. Mrs. Sadler said the restaurant building would be over 15,000 sq. ft. and the spa building would be 12,660 sq. ft. She noted the original proposal had one massive main building, but the two proposed now fit in better with the neighborhood.
Mr. Beaver of Didona Associates, spoke about the proposed planting plan. He said the plantings would match the overall character of the area and that native plants and shrubs would be planted for variety, seasonal interest, and as a sound buffer. He stated that along Wykeham Road the existing 30 to 90 ft. wide buffer and along Bell Hill Road the existing 40 to 60 ft. wide buffer would remain and would be supplemented. Most of the supplemental planting was proposed along the east boundary line, especially in the SE corner where there was now little vegetation. A 30 to 50 ft. wide tightly spaced evergreen buffer was proposed there. Along the south and west boundaries the existing vegetation would remain.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the proposed grassed areas would be fertilized. Mr. Beaver said the project would seek LEED certification so organic fertilizer would be used and kept to a minimum. Mr. Szymanski noted that at the Inland Wetlands hearing the applicant had received a request to limit the use of fertilizers by restrictive covenant and he said this would be looked into.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, summarized the proposal for the 26.9 acre property on Wykeham and Bell Hill Roads. He noted the access on Bell Hill would be removed due to safety concerns and would be planted out. He then reviewed how the application complied with the Special Permit standards in Section 13.1.B of the Regulations. He made the following points: 1) He said the inn would be consistent with the objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development because the stonewall could be preserved and the buildings set back and screened from the road to preserve the rural character of the area. Also, the dilapidated buildings would be removed and the building on Bell Hill Road that is listed on the historical resource map would be moved elsewhere on the property and preserved. 2) He said natural resources would be protected by fully protecting the wetlands and watercourses, moving the buildings further from them, and increasing the width of the vegetated buffers along them. 3) Water quality would be maintained because the proposed stormwater management system would be consistent with the state’s 2004 Stormwater Management manual. He noted that currently stormwater flows directly into Kirby Brook, but post development it would be treated by several methods prior to discharging into the brook. He said the drainage improvements would also lessen downstream erosion problems. 4) He noted the property was not located in a proposed open space greenway. 5) He stated the proposed architecture would help to protect the scenic assets of the community because it would not appear institutional, but would strive to look both residential and barn-like as the structures on the surrounding properties do. 6) He said the inn would not be heard or smelled off site. All refuse would be enclosed. 7) He stated the plans met all Fire Dept. requirements. 8) He noted increased traffic was a concern to many. He reported that a traffic study had been conducted and that in 8 hours only 4 pedestrians and 8 bikers had been on Wykeham Road. He said there would be no decrease in the level of service of Wykeham Road due to the operation of the inn and that he would demonstrate there would be no adverse impacts to the road. 9) He said the lot was sufficiently sized for the inn. In response to concerns previously raised that the inn would have twice as many rooms as the Mayflower Inn on half the land, he noted that a lot of screening was proposed and that the total impervious surface proposed was only 63% of the impervious surfaces at the Mayflower. 10) He stated that some of the existing lawns would be removed and buffering added to improve water quality. 11) Mr. Szymanski again stated that the stormwater management plan was consistent with the state’s 2004 guidelines,and added that the six pages of proposed sedimentation and erosion control plans conformed to the state’s 2002 guidelines.
Mr. Owen asked where the air compressors would be located. Mr. Szymanski said they would be adjacent to each building and that he would add them to the site plan. He said there would be one generator for the entire site.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked if there was an internal traffic flow plan. Mr. Szymanski said the entrance and exit would remain one way, but there would be two way traffic elsewhere on the property. He noted all driveways would be wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the sight line was adequate at the existing exit. Mr. Szymanski did not know.

Mr. Owen recessed the Public Hearing for 10 minutes to give the public the opportunity to study all the maps and plans that had been facing the Commission during the presentation.

At 9:40 p.m. Mr. Owen reconvened the Public Hearing and asked for public questions and comments.
Atty. Hill represented Mr. and Mrs. Federer. He noted his clients had not had adequate time to review the plans revised to 7/23/08 and asked that the Hearing be continued so they could submit specific comments. He raised several issues. 1) He cited Section 2.3.6 of the Zoning Regulations, which states that an application involving the installation or modification of a septic system shall not be accepted nor a zoning permit issued until the septic plans have been reviewed and certified suitable by the Town Health Officer. He noted there was no sign off from the Town Health Officer in the file and so the application requirement had not been met. He said he had also contacted the DEP because Section 22a 430-3i of the Health Code requires the DEP to approve a change of use, but said this had not yet been approved. 2) Atty. Hill noted the proposed lot coverage was 20% over the maximum allowed and a variance had not been granted. He noted Mr. Klauer had not answered the questions when asked what he would do if the variance application was denied. 3) He circulated copies and read Section 8-2h of the state statutes for the record. He said although the Commission assumed the application was governed by the previous Section 13.9 because it had been submitted before the revisions to clarify that 500 feet of frontage on a state road is required became effective, he said this was not so. He argued that unless the application complied with all sections of the Zoning Regulations at the time it was submitted, it was not grandfathered. Since a variance for lot coverage had not been granted as of the date of submission, he said the application did, indeed, require 500 feet of frontage on a state road. He submitted his letter dated 7/28/08 for the record. 4) He passed out copies of the A-2 survey filed with the application and a deed restriction on file in the Town Land Records, which states that nothing may be constructed within 330 feet of the field where the tennis court is now proposed. He presented a site plan with this restricted area colored in yellow. 5) He also submitted a copy of Section 47-42d of the state statutes regarding the 60 day notification requirement to the holders of conservation easements on properties with pending projects and said his clients had not been notified. He then referred to the Town’s mandatory conservation easement signoff sheet and noted it had not been submitted with the application as required.
Atty. Strub represented Dr. and Mrs. Ewing. He noted that when he reviewed the Revision of the Regulations/Inns/Section 13.9 file on 5/19 there had been no written communication from Atty. Zizka in it. He said there was now acknowledgement from Atty. Zizka in the file that there are two reasonable interpretations of the previous Section 13.9.3. Atty. Strub stated that the current application should not influence the Commission’s interpretation. He read into the record the 7/27/08 email to Mrs. Hill from Mr. Martin, former Zoning Commission chairman, and urged the Commission to be consistent and logical in its interpretation, to read Mr. Martin’s email, and to consider its source. He submitted a summary letter dated 7/28/08 for the file. He then asked that both entire files for the Revision of Section 13.9 and for the Mayfair Properties First Cut and Mayflower Spa, where, he said, Section 13.9 had previously been interpreted, be incorporated into this record.
Atty. McTaggart also represented the Ewings and submitted two letters dated 7/28/08 to the Commission. Points she summarized from the first letter included: 1) She agreed with Atty. Hill that to be grandfathered under the previous Section 13.9 the application had to comply with all of the Zoning Regulations, which it does not. 2) She also agreed with Atty. Hill that the Zoning Regulations state that an application shall not be accepted until the proposed installation or modification of the proposed septic system is approved by the Town Health Officer. 3) She did not think the application would qualify as adaptive reuse as all of the existing buildings would be torn down. 4) She noted that three of the existing buildings were listed on the Town’s historic resources map, but only one would be preserved. 5) Atty. McTaggart stated that the application conflicts with Section 13.9.1 and she stated several reasons why the interpretation that 500 ft. was required on a state highway was the correct interpretation. 6) She stated that the property had previously been an institutional use, whereas, the current application was for commercial uses in a residential district. She read an excerpt from the Zoning Regulations, which states the intent of the Farming-Residential District is to allow low intensity residential and agricultural uses that retain the rural character and the natural beauty of the Town. In the second letter she stated that every Special Permit must be in compliance with the goals of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and she reviewed some of those goals. She said the main goal was the preservation of rural character and enhancement of village centers and argued that if a commercial use such as the proposed inn were allowed in a residential area, it would detract from what makes Washington special. She maintained that the intensity of use of this property and the traffic it would generate could change the rural character of the area. She stated that to allow the proposed commercial use of this property would require an amendment to the Zoning Regulations. She also stated the proposed use was dense compared to other Ct. inns and she reserved the right to comment further on the final plans.
Mrs. Silk spoke of the Wykeham Rise School in the 1980’s, noting it generated little traffic and cautioning that noise carries in this neighborhood.
Mr. Caroe voiced his support for the application, saying the deteriorating buildings would be cleaned up, visitors would have a place to stay, and the inn would contribute to the Town’s tax base.
Mrs. Cooper expressed her concerns about the possible increase in traffic on the curvy, narrow neighborhood roads if the application was approved. She noted that both the volume and speed of vehicles on these roads are a danger to pedestrians, bikers, and to the residents who use them. She asked if the Commission would consider approving a bar and restaurant on any other residential Town road and said she thought it was spot zoning.
Mrs. Solomon asked who were the principals of Wykeham Rise, LLC. She said Mr. Klauer had told her they might be uncomfortable to have this be public knowledge, but she thought the Commission should know so that it could determine whether there were any conflicts of interest.
Mr. Peacocke found the proposal to be inconsistent. He did not think the tranquil nature of the property could be preserved with the operation of an inn with the capacity for 108 guests plus function room, restaurant, bar, and staff, which could bring the total number of people using the facility to 200. He asked for the business plan, saying the public needed more information regarding the economic feasibility of the proposal. It would be a catastrophe for the Town, he said, if the project started and then failed.
Mr. Minor urged the Commission to make sure the proposed intensive use of the property would not diminish the water supplied by the Judea Water Company to the homes it already serves in the area. He noted there are already problems in the summer months and that the water system is antique and leaking.
Mr. Hunt noted that Special Permit applications must meet all of the requirements of Section 13.1.B. He said he was concerned about nuisance conditions beyond the property line. He described how noise carries in this area and thought the guests and functions at the inn would be noisy and would be heard off site.
Mr. Parker said he did not support the application for reasons listed in the letter he submitted to the file. Also, he asked if the inn were approved, what would stop a separate business from taking over any aspect of it? For example, what would prevent a chain company from taking over the inn’s restaurant in this residential zone?
Due to the late hour, Mr. Owen suggested that the Public Hearing be continued to the next Meeting date.
MOTION: To continue the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. to 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 25, 2008 in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

At 11:02 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the Hearing to August 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 11:04 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 6/23/08 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications
Hedley/214 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mrs. Hedley for a detached accessory apartment at 214 Nettleton Hollow Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Nichols Hill Group, LLC./6 Bee Brook Road/Section 8.3.9 and Special Permit: Sections 8.5 and 8.6/Office Expansion and Renovation of Existing Commercial Building
MOTION: To approve the application: Section 8.3.9 and Special Permit: Sections 8.5 and 8.6 submitted by Nichols Hill Group, LLC. for office expansion and renovation of the existing commercial building at 6 Bee Brook Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Sections 13.9 and 4.4.1/Inn
Mr. Owen noted the Public Hearing had been continued to August 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.

Other Business
Possible Revision of Regulations/Sections 12.4, 12.14.3, 12.14.5/ Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment: Mr. Owen reported that he had discussed this issue with Mr. Sedito, ZBA Chairman, who described to him the standards used by the ZBA when it deliberates whether to grant a variance for any of these sections. Mr. Owen pointed out, however, that there was no basis for these standards in the current Regulations. He noted the surest way to ensure that noise generating equipment is quiet is to require it to be located close to the structure it serves. The commissioners will discuss possible revisions at the next Meeting.
Possible Revision of Regulations/Section 16/Business Signs in the Residential Districts: Mr. Owen circulated a sheet, “Business Signs in Residential Zones,” which will be used as the basis for discussion at the next Meeting.
Possible Revision of Regulations/Preservation of Stonewalls and Dance Studios in the R-1 District: There was nothing to report on either topic.

Communications
3/3/08 Letter from Mr. Talbot re: Creation of Parcels: Mr. Ajello said the Mr. Talbot was waiting for a response on how to prevent the type of loop hole he discusses in his letter. This matter will be referred to Atty. Zizka.
6/26/08 Letter from Mr. Owens re: Conditions of Mayflower Spa Special Permit: Mr. Ajello said the question was whether the access was permanently restricted to the state highway or whether the restriction was just during the construction period. Mrs. Friedman said she had reviewed the files and had found a letter from Mr. Owens, which he submitted with the application, stating that the access for the spa would be only from the state highway.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

Posted: June 27, 2008

June 23, 2008

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

MEMBER ABSENT:  Mr. Fitzherbert

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Shapiro

ALTERNATE ABSENT:  Mr. Wyant

STAFF PRESENT:  Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT:  Mr./Mrs. Frank, Mr. Klauer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Szymanski, Atty. Strub, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mr. J. Picton, Mr. M. Picton, Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Hinkel, Mr. Parker, Mr. Ullram, Mr. Solley, Mr. Hunt, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Talbot, Mrs. Corrigan, Mr. Lines, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Greene, Residents, Press

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37: Lot Coverage and to Create New Section 11.5.3: Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces and Add a New Definition in Section 21 for “Pervious Traveled Surfaces”/Con’t.

Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert. 

Mr. Owen read the list of documents that had been submitted since the last session of the public hearing.  He then read the 6/5/08 Planning Commission minutes, which raised many concerns and recommended the petition be denied subject to further investigation by the Zoning Commission.  Mrs. Friedman read the 6/11/08 Inland Wetlands Commission minutes, which also raised many questions and concerns.  Mr. Owen then read the last sentence from the 6/2/08 letter from Mr. Picton in opposition to the petition.

No one was present to speak on behalf of the petition.

Mrs. Friedman said she had grave concerns about the proposal.  She thought there could be maintenance problems with pervious surfaces and that many aspects of the proposed revisions were prone to problems.  She noted that Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force had made a thoughtful presentation at the last meeting.  She asked what would happen when a pervious surfaced driveway was paved over after a larger structure had been built on the property as a result of the lot coverage incentive.  She favored following the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the petition, but added that if the installation of pervious surfaces made sense, the Zoning Commission should consider making them a requirement in sensitive areas without a lot coverage incentive.

Mr. Ajello said there was a lot that was not known about pervious surfaces, but urged the Commission to keep an open mind about this new technology.

Mr. Averill was opposed to “trading off” pervious surfaces for an increase in lot coverage.  He stated that if lot coverage increased, it would visually impact the Town.  He said he would encourage the installation of pervious surfaces, but without the lot coverage incentive.

Mr. Abella agreed with both Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Averill.  He thought the current 15% maximum lot coverage was more than sufficient and that the incentive proposed would be difficult to control.

Mr. Shapiro said the petition did not take into account adequate maintenance, installation, and enforcement standards.  He also agreed with Mrs. Friedman’s statements.

Mr. DuBois agreed with Mrs. Friedman.

Mr. Owen was also concerned about the maintenance of the pervious surfaces and what would happen if they were paved over after a larger structure had been built.  He didn’t know how the Commission would be made aware that this had happened.  He also said that he did not know enough about the specific situations where pervious surfaces would be desirable due to their permeability.

Mr. Ajello noted the Regulations already permit pervious surfaced walkways and do not include them in the lot coverage calculations.

Mr. Frank, president of the Lake Waramaug Association, encouraged the Commission to continue its study of pervious surfaces because they offer a potential improvement around the lake. 

Mr. Owen urged the Lake Waramaug Assoc. to continue its study, too, as the Commission often looks for guidance from the Association regarding lake issues.

There was no further discussion.

MOTION:  To close the Public Hearing to consider the petition submitted by Atty. Kelly and Kent Greenhouse for revisions to the Zoning Regulations concerning lot coverage and pervious surfaces.  By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.

Bixler/49 Ferry Bridge Road/Special Permit:  Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:48 p.m.  Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 6/11 and 6/18/08.  Mr. Owen read the 6/23/08 ZEO Report and noted the applicant had withdrawn the application.

MOTION:  To close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application:  Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Bixler for a detached accessory apartment at 49 Ferry Bridge Road.  By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 7:49 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 7:49 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION:  To accept the May 19, 2008 Public Hearing – Regular Meeting minutes as written.  By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0

Pending Application

Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit:  Section 13.9, 4.4.1/Inn:  Mr. Owen read the 6/23/08 ZEO Report. 

MOTION:  To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application:  Sections 4.4.1 and 13.9 submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. for an inn at 101 Wykeham Road on Monday, July 28, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.  By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Szymanski submitted a letter dated 6/23/08 requesting a 6 day extension of the time period in which to commence the public hearing.

New Applications

Nichols Hill Group, LLC./6 Bee Brook Road/Section 8.3.9 and Special Permit:  Sections 8.5 and 8.6/Office Expansion and Renovation of Existing Commercial Building:  Mr. Hinkel, architect, represented the applicant.  Mr. Owen read the 6/23/08 ZEO Report, which noted that Health approval was expected in July and that the applicant had requested that the public hearing be scheduled for July 28.  Mr. Hinkel presented the plans, “Washington Mews,” 7 pp., by Hinkel Design Group, LLC., dated 6/20/08.  Preliminary elevations and floor plans and the proposed site plan were included.  Mr. Hinkle also circulated photos of the existing building.  He noted the new site plan would reduce the building’s encroachment into the side yard setback and the proposed work would improve both the building’s appearance and functionality.  He said he would have renderings of the building ready for the public hearing.

MOTION:  To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the application under Section 8.3.9 and Special Permit:  Sections 8.5 and 8.6 submitted by Nichols Hill Group, LLC. for office expansion and renovations to the existing commercial building at 6 Bee Brook Road on Monday, July 28, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.  By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

MOTION:  To add the following subsequent business to the Agenda:  Hedley/214 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Special Permit:  Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Hedley/214 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit:  Section 13.11/ Detached Accessory Apartment:  Mr. Owen read the 6/23/08 ZEO Report.  Mr. Picton, contractor, stated the existing barn has an exercise room and bedroom and the property owner proposes to add a kitchenette to convert the finished space to an apartment.  Mrs. Friedman asked if there was another detached apartment on the property.  Mr. Picton said there was not.

MOTION:  To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application:  Section 13.11 submitted by Mrs. Hedley for a detached accessory apartment at 214 Nettleton Hollow Road on Monday, July 28, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.  By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.9: Tourist Homes and Inns:  Mr. Owen noted the public hearing had been closed in May, but a vote had not been taken at that time so that Atty. Zizka could be consulted about the proper wording for the motion.  He read the text of the proposed revision that would be voted on by the Commission.  It clearly stated that inns and tourist homes shall be required to have frontage on a state highway.  He reviewed the recent history of this matter and read an excerpt from the October 2007 Zoning minutes.  He said because the commissioners had disagreed about the interpretation of the current language in Section 13.9, he had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had agreed with him that, as written, the regulation does not require inns and tourist homes to have frontage on a state highway.  Mr. Owen noted that all of the commissioners had agreed the existing regulation was poorly written and so had considered various revisions of this section.  However, the only revision the majority had agreed upon was the current proposal.  A public hearing had been conducted and closed in May and no further comments from the public could be heard.  Mr. Owen explained that the application for an inn submitted by Wykeham Rise, LLC. had been submitted at the May meeting under the current Section 13.9, and it would continue to be governed by the existing language whether or not the proposed revision was approved.  If the proposed revision was approved, he said, it would affect only future applications.  He noted that at the upcoming Zoning public hearing to consider the Wykeham Rise, LLC. application, the Commission would still face the task of interpreting how the current regulation applies to that application.  At that hearing, he explained, the Zoning Commission would hear many arguments regarding the interpretation of the current Section 13.19.  If after considering them all, the Commission decides that the existing regulation prohibits inns on lots that don’t have 500 feet of frontage on a state road, the application would end there.  If the Commission decides that the regulation does not prohibit such inns, consideration of the application will continue under the Special Permit section, 13.1, Section 14, and all other pertinent regulations.  Regarding the proper wording of the motion to approve or deny the proposed revision, Mr. Owen reported that Atty. Zizka said it did not matter what term; amendment, revision, clarification, etc., was used to describe the change or which of the terms had been used in the various notices and discussions.  Atty. Zizka said the wording of the proposed revision was clear and if adopted, its meaning would be clear.  He reminded those present that a vote to approve the revision would not retroactively change the meaning of the existing regulation.  Mrs. Friedman read the proposed revision with the minor changes in wording that had been agreed upon at the last meeting. 

MOTION:  To approve the proposed revision of Section  13.9 regarding Tourist Homes and Inns.  By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 4-1. Mr. Owen voted No because he was not convinced that a requirement for frontage on a state highway for inns is in the best interests of the Town or that making such a distinction is a good way to control the intensity of any use, because inns would be the only use permitted in the Regulations for which frontage on a state highway is required, and because he believed the Special Permit requirements and other regulations provide enough protection against undesirable impacts.  Also, he did not think the proposed change was an improvement.

Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/ Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment:  Mr. Owen will discuss possible revisions with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Petition to Amend Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37/Lot Coverage and to Create New Section 11.5.3/Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces and Add a New Definition in Section 21 for “Pervious Traveled Surfaces”:  Mr. Owen noted that at the public hearing closed earlier this evening the commissioners had cited the reasons why they did not support the petition.

MOTION:  To deny the petition submitted by Atty. Kelly and Kent Greenhouse to amend Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37/Lot Coverage and to create new Section 11.5.3/Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces and add a definition in Section 21 for “Pervious Traveled Surfaces.”  By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0. Motion approved, Petition denied. Mrs. Friedman:  She had concerns about maintenance, noted the issues that had been raised by the Planning and Inland Wetlands Commissions and by Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, and she did not know how the Commission could prevent owners from paving over their driveways after they had built larger structures allowed as the incentive for the pervious driveways. Mr. Averill:  He opposed trading pervious driveways for additional lot coverage, noting that if lot coverage increased it would visually impact the Town. Mr. Abella:  He agreed with both Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Averill and said the current maximum 15% lot coverage was sufficient and that the Commission would not have the ability to control pervious surfaces. Mr. Shapiro:  He agreed with the points made by Mrs. Friedman and said the proposed revisions did not take into account maintenance, installation, and enforcement standards. Mr. Owen: He agreed it would be very difficult to enforce maintenance and to control or even know when pervious surfaced driveways had been paved over.  He also thought the Commission did not know enough about the specific circumstances under which the use of pervious surfaces was desirable.

Possible Revision of Regulations/Signs in Residential Districts:  Mr. Ajello said there had been recent interest in signs for schools, inns, the Washington Club Hall, and Myfield and for businesses in residential districts.  Mr. Owen noted that many pre existing uses had signs and these were useful.  Mr. Ajello said currently, the size of residential signs is limited to 2 sq. ft.  Mr. Averill questioned why any residential signs other than address and street number were needed.  He thought the business permitted in residential districts did not depend on passers-by and so did not need signs.  Mrs. Hill noted that business signs in residential districts are not permitted under the current regulations.  She thought these signs should continue to be restricted to preserve the residential character of the neighborhoods.  Mr. Owen and Mr. Ajello thought there were a limited number of business uses that need signs and that these could be listed in the Regulations.  They will draft such a list, which will include maximum sizes for signs, for discussion at a future meeting.  Mrs. Friedman recommended that the list be kept to a minimum.

Possible Revision of Regulations/Outdoor Commercial Lighting:  Work to draft regulations had not yet begun.

Possible Revision of Regulations/Preservation of Stonewalls:  Mrs. Hill explained that she had a conversation with a reporter investigating this matter who told her that only one town in Ct. prohibited the dismantling of stonewalls and that the state did not have a law prohibiting the removal of walls that serve as boundary lines.  She thought perhaps the Zoning Commission might draft a regulation to preserve them.  Mr. Ajello noted the existing stonewalls are a part of the local culture and contribute to rural character.  Mrs. Friedman said the Conservation Commission supports the preservation of stonewalls.  Mr. Ajello stated that towns normally deal with this issue by town ordinance.  There was general support for a town ordinance.  This matter will be referred to the Conservation Commission.

Possible Revision of Regulations/Dance Studios in Residential Districts:  Mrs. Hill explained that Pilobolus had asked about the possibility of purchasing a lot in Town for the purpose of constructing a rehearsal hall/dance studio and education center.  It did not plan to use the studio to hold public performances.  It was noted it has outgrown the Washington Hall Club and would like to remain in Washington.  She said that under the current regs studios, workrooms where art is produced, are permitted as accessory uses to the primary use on the property.  Pilobolus, however, wanted to construct a studio as the primary use.  Mr. Owen noted that Washington is fortunate to have two national dance companies as local industries and it would be a “tragedy” if either had to leave Town.  He said he was interested in finding a solution and also noted that both had been operating in Washington for years and the Commission had never received a nuisance complaint.  Mr. Barnett, representing Pilobolus, said the company had no plans yet and so could design to accommodate the Regulations.  Mr. Ajello asked if the office would be moved to the new studio.  Mr. Barnett said he liked the Depot location.  Mrs. Friedman asked what educational activites would be conducted.  Mr. Barnett said Pilobolus has a relationship with ASAP and holds summer day camp for kids, adult non dancer classes, etc.  Mr. Abella and Mr. Shapiro thought amendments to allow the type of studio discussed would be appropriate.  Mrs. Friedman noted that any amendments would have to include protection of the residential neighborhood.  Mr. Ajello said noise and traffic would be concerns.  Mr. Barnett said the company had envisioned a single building with two studios, which would have to be well insulated so the sound from one would not disturb the other.  Mr. Barnett reiterated that this would not be a performance hall or theatre, although the company does hold an annual open rehearsal.  Mrs. Friedman suggested that the company could continue to use the Club Hall for such performances.  Mr. Ajello said he thought a commercial district would be a more appropriate location for the studio due to traffic concerns.  Mr. Owen disagreed, saying dance studios were a low impact use that had existed in Town for years.  The possibility of including a dwelling unit in the structure was also considered.  Mr. Owen will meet with Mr. Ajello and Mr. Barnett before the next meeting to discuss this further.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Ajello recommended to the Commission that it resume work on a definition of inn.  Mr. Owen noted the Commission had gotten “stuck” when it attempted to do so in 2007 and said he did not think it was an urgent matter.

Mr. Owen spoke in general about the purpose of public hearings, which, he said, was to give the public the opportunity to present information and opinions to the Commission.  He explained that the Commission did not take a vote of how many speakers were for or against a proposal, but made up its own mind based on what was the right thing to do and what complied with the Regulations.  He urged the commissioners to keep that in mind during all public hearings.

Communications

Mrs. Hill noted that copies of all letters submitted to date regarding the Wykeham Rise, LLC. inn application had been given to the commissioners to read before the public hearing.

Mr. Shapiro asked if Atty. Zizka’s opinion on Section 13.9 was written.  Mr. Owen stated there was an email in the file and he could be asked to attend the public hearing if necessary.  He added that he had not discussed the letter from Atty. Strub with Atty. Zizka.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,  

Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

Posted: May 31, 2008

May 19, 2008

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Abella

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

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Atty. Olson, Mr. Todorski, Mr. Papsin, Mrs. Auchincloss, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Hileman, Mr. Szymanski,

Mr. Cornet, Mr. Mustich, Mr. Owens, Mr. Boyer, Residents, Press

Mr. Owen called the Public Hearings/Regular Meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Wyant for Mr. Abella.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 13.11.1/ Accessory Apartments

Mr. Owen noted this Public Hearing had been continued from January and he read the documents in the file, which had been submitted since then. He noted the surrounding councils of government reported that the proposed revision would not affect them and that they had no further comment.

Mr. Owen summarized the proposal to limit the number of accessory apartments per property to one; either attached or detached, unless one of them was deed restricted as "affordable housing." (Reference to state definition of "affordable housing" in quotations, to affordable housing in general, no quotations) He read the definitions of "affordable housing" and median income. He briefly reviewed the intent of the Commission when it first adopted this section of the Regulations and said it had been effective in increasing the number of accessory apartments in Town. He explained the reasons for the proposed revision were to address the Commission's concern that property owners were now using this section to get around the Town's Zoning Regulations and to increase the Town's stock of "affordable housing" per the state definition.

Mr. Owen asked for comments from the public.

Mr. Hileman read his 3/24/08 letter to the Zoning Commission on behalf of the Housing Commission against the proposed revision, which concluded that it was well intentioned, but would do little to promote "affordable housing."

Mr. Mustich he basically agreed with Mr. Hileman's statements.

Mr. Cornet stated that that state regulations for "affordable housing" were a "sham;" that under the current Zoning Regulations actual affordable housing in Town had been created, and the proposed revision was an "onerous" regulation.

Mr. Boyer stated that the Washington Community Housing Trust agrees with Mr. Hileman and the Housing Commission that the existing regulation should be supported. He noted that property owners would not deed restrict their apartments and so the revision would actually limit the number of "affordable" units.

Mrs. Frank noted the existence of several large apartments throughout Town and questioned what the term, "accessory," means. Mr. Owen noted this section of the Regulations had been amended previously to state that an accessory apartment must be subordinate to the primary structure when apartments had begun to look like separate houses on the same lot.

Mr. Owen noted that at a previous session of the hearing residents had talked about the housing needs of the elderly, relatives, farm help, etc. and said under the proposed revision, these people would still have accessory apartments available to them plus the second apartment on each property would serve the goal of providing "affordable housing."

Mr. Charles said that the Open Space Steering Committee Report had recommended that both open space and housing issues be addressed and that what was needed in Town were "affordable" stand alone privately owned single family dwellings. He asked the Commission to direct its efforts to encourage "affordable" single family houses instead of accessory apartments, which, he said, were only a "stop gap" measure.

Mr. Owen read a portion of a statement on housing needs in Washington, which he had presented at a previous hearing. It summarized the history of the Zoning Regulations regarding housing and the adoption of regulations that permit affordable units to be constructed. It noted the effect these regulations have had on the Town's housing stock since they were adopted. He noted again that the Commission does not want the accessory apartment regulations to be used to circumvent Washington's strict Zoning Regulations and that the intent of the proposed revision was not to reduce the number of apartments, but to make them consistent with the goal of providing "affordable" housing.

Mr. Solly, Selectman, spoke against the proposed revision on behalf of the Board of Selectmen. He noted the accessory apartments permitted under the current regulations have provided needed housing opportunities for caretakers, in-laws, etc. and continue to provide affordable housing.

Ms. Gager spoke for the Washington Planning Commission, which

declined to comment on the proposal until after it meets with the Zoning Commission to discuss the issue of accessory apartments. Mrs. Friedman thought Planning's renewed request to meet with Zoning was reasonable.

Mr. Hileman gave some examples of how difficult the proposed regulation would be to enforce. Mr. Owen responded that difficulty of enforcement was not sufficient reason for deciding against a regulation. He noted the Commission has enforcement tools such as fines and would enforce its Regulations.

Mr. Charles asked if the Zoning Commission had investigated how much could be charged for rent for an "affordable" apartment, noting that the cost can be very high.

Mr. Cornet stated that many in Town were opposed and that this issue should be voted on at a Town referendum.

Mr. Shapiro agreed with Mr. Boyer that as a practical matter, property owners would not want to deed restrict their apartments. He stated he did not favor the proposed revision.

Mr. DuBois and Mr. Wyant stated they, too, did not support the revision.

Mrs. Friedman supported the revision, but noted her concern about the Commission's ability to effectively monitor the deed restricted apartments.

Mr. Owen noted that when considering amendments to this section, the only point the Commission could agree on was the current proposal to allow two apartments per property only if one was deed restricted as "affordable" housing per state statute. He said if that was no longer the case, the hearing could be closed.

Mr. Ajello noted the discussion to revise this section had begun because the Commission had to deal with a large accessory apartment with large appurtenances and he thought other revisions might better address this problem. Mrs. Friedman noted that was a separate, unrelated issue.

Mrs. Friedman recommended that the Public Hearing be continued until the Commission has discussed accessory apartments with the Planning Commission.

Mr. Owen noted the alternative would be to drop the proposal and asked the other commissioners for their opinions. Mr. Shapiro, Mr. DuBois, Mr. Wyant, and Mr. Averill favored dropping the matter. Mr. Averill noted that Town agencies and the public did not support it. Mr. Owen and Mrs. Friedman welcomed all public comments, but noted the Zoning Commission was bound to vote for whatever it felt was right.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations Section 13.11.1: Accessory Apartments. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 8:09 p.m.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 12.15.4, 12.15.9/Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts

Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/7 and 5/14/08.

Mr. Owen noted that the Commission had previously adopted regulations governing outdoor residential lighting said they had been in effect for some time now. (Effective date: 12/17/07) He read the list of all of the documents in the file. He then read the introduction to Section 12.15 and the two proposed revisions. The first, he said, was to correct an error in Section 12.15.9, the non binding recommendations, so that the regulations would now state that walkway lighting should be mounted close to the ground. He noted walkway lighting was most effective when mounted close to the ground and not at eye level and cited 16 Church Street as an example of effective walkway lighting. Secondly, he proposed to delete the phrase, "or because it helps criminals" from the proposed revision to 12.15.9. The most significant revision, he explained, was that proposed in Section 12.15.4 to prohibit light fixtures mounted or attached to trees or other vegetation. Mr. Owen noted some of the lighting in Town that is most contrary to the intent of the lighting regulations is in trees. He said this lighting often reduces visibility, is seldom shielded, shines off site, and lights up the night sky.

Mr. Averill noted that it is a violation of the National Electrical Code to mount lighting fixtures in trees.

Mr. Owens, architect, said to the extent that a tree is in a location where a light is needed, he assumed that putting the light in the tree would be better than erecting a new pole. Therefore, he recommended regulations to govern what type of light fixtures may be used in trees rather than an outright ban. Mr. Owen did not agree and said in places where lighting is needed, a pole could be installed. He noted, too, there was already a height limit of 15 feet for light fixtures.

Mrs. Friedman noted that the current outdoor residential lighting regulations are not retroactive and said the Commission might recommend a Town ordinance so that obnoxious existing outdoor lighting can be controlled.

Mr. Cornet asked if motion sensor lighting was included in the regulations. Mr. Owen said it was. He added that although it would not be permitted in trees, it was encouraged elsewhere.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations Sections 12.15.4 and 12.15.9 Re: Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 8:21 p.m.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 13.9/Tourist Home or Inn

At 8:22 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/7 and 5/14/08.

Mr. Owen read the list of all of the documents in the file. He read the current language of Section 13.9 and noted the question had arisen as to the meaning of Section 13.9.2 regarding the minimum frontage requirement. He explained the majority of the Commission had thought the required frontage must be on a state highway and in a recent application had acted accordingly. However, he and the Commission's attorney believe that the current language does not prohibit the creation of inns on roads other than state highways. He said that the existing regulation was poorly written, and that the Commission, believing that inns should be restricted to state highways, proposed to amend this section to state clearly that 500 feet of frontage on a state highway is required. He read the proposed language.

Mr. Owen noted that later on the agenda, the Commission would receive an application for an inn under the existing Regulations. He said the Commission could proceed simultaneously with both the consideration of the revision and of the application or could table consideration of the revision to eliminate any potential difficulty the Commission might have in considering the two matters at the same time.

Mr. Shapiro noted the majority of the Commission had held the view that frontage on a state highway was required.

Mrs. Friedman stated that the Commission had begun work to revise Section 13.9 long before the application was submitted. She said she understood they were two separate issues and that she wanted to proceed with the revision so that the section would require what the Commission had previously thought it required. She asked if Atty. Zizka had an opinion regarding whether the Commission should proceed with both. Mr. Owen said Atty. Zizka saw no reason not to proceed. Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Wyant, and Mr. Averill said they thought the Commission should proceed with consideration of the proposed revision.

Mr. Owen asked for comments from the public.

Mr. Solley, Selectman, asked if there was a written opinion from Atty. Zizka regarding the interpretation of Section 13.9.2. Mr. Owen said that the only written opinion was the email he had received from Atty. Zizka in response from his question.

Atty. Olson, representing property owners Risley and Federer, spoke in support of the proposed amendment. He said that it was important that the Commission make it absolutely clear and state for the record that the proposed revision is a clarification of its previous interpretation. He said that the Zoning Commission has the right to interpret its own Regulations.

Atty. Fisher objected, saying that the proposed revision was not just a clarification. He noted the current Section 13.9.4, which referred to setbacks from town roads, and which, he said allows inns to have frontage on both state and town roads. Mr. Owen said that Atty. Zizka had agreed with this interpretation.

Mr. Buonaiuto asked why 500 ft. of frontage was required. Mr. Ajello said this would not allow inns on smaller properties where they might have more impact on their neighbors. Mr. Buonaiuto said he did not see the difference between frontage on a state or town road. Mrs. Friedman said his point was well taken, but explained the Commission had always thought the regulation required frontage on a state highway.

Regarding precedent, Mr. Owen said that, insofar as he was aware, the Mayflower Inn's application for its spa was the only one the Commission had received for an inn that potentially had frontage on a town road.

Mrs. Ewing asked when the current application for the inn had been submitted. Mr. Owen said the Commission would receive it at tonight's meeting. He noted, however, that Atty. Fisher had questioned the Commission about this section of the Regulations last fall. Mrs. Friedman agreed, noting the discussion had begun in October 2007.

Mr. Owen read the entire proposed revised Section 13.19 and proposed to add "in addition" to the end of the first paragraph.

Mr. Hunt asked if the application would be considered under the original language even if the proposed revision was approved. Mr. Owen said that was correct; the application would be considered under the regulation in effect on the date it was submitted.

Mr. Lines asked if the Commission was, indeed, proposing to clarify the existing regulation. Mrs. Friedman suggested the interpretation of the existing regulation should be discussed later when the application is considered.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations Section 13.9: Tourist Home or Inn. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 8:46 p.m.

The Commission recessed briefly at 8:47 p.m.

Petition to Amend the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37/Lot Coverage and to Create New Section 11.5.3/Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces, and Add a Definition in Section 21 for "Pervious Traveled Surfaces"

Mr. Owen reconvened the Public Hearings - Regular Meeting at 8:53 p.m.

Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/7 and 5/14/08.

Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file.

Atty. Kelly, petitioner, introduced Mr. Matson from Kent Greenhouse, and a certified installer of pervious surfaces. He noted that pervious surface technology had been around for a while and worked well. He said his petition was triggered by the issue of lot coverage and shared driveways on smaller lots. He said he would present his petition in parts. The first would be to educate and/or convince the Commission that pervious surfaces could be effectively used so that stormwater falling on them does not flow off the property. He provided details about pervious surfaces. These included; there are many types, some are made with recycled materials, all require significant preparation for installation, a certified installer is needed to ensure the installation is done properly, when properly installed they create a basin, which holds runoff and allows it to infiltrate into the ground, and the cost of installation is $8 to $12 per sq. ft. compared to $3 per sq. ft. for pavement.

Mr. Owen asked Atty. Kelly to present his proposed regulation before proceeding further. Atty. Kelly proposed to 1) in Section 11.5.2 to include only paved and impervious traveled surfaces in the computation of maximum lot coverage, 2. in Section 21.1.37, the definition of Lot Coverage, to delete the sentence that driveways, parking areas, and parking lots are included in the lot coverage calculation whether or not they are paved, and to add a sentence that "Impervious traveled surfaces include all driveways, parking areas, and parking lots except those which qualify as "pervious traveled surfaces" as defined hereafter (within this Section 21.)", 3. to add the following definition for "Pervious Traveled Surfaces" in Section 21: "Driveways, parking areas, and parking lots constructed using pervious paving materials designed to meet or exceed the requirements of CSI 32 12 43 and installed by an approved installer or certified by a licensed engineer, 4. to create a new Section 11.5.3 to require that maximum lot coverage for pervious traveled surfaces shall not exceed 10% of the total land area. Atty. Kelly noted that the 10% cap could be changed by the Commission. He also said that eventually he would like to see walkways constructed of pervious materials removed from the coverage calculations, but said he wanted to begin with driveways and parking areas.

Mr. Owen briefly explained the concept of lot coverage to the public.

Atty. Kelly advised the Commission that industry standards had been developed for pervious surfaces. He then submitted a 9/18/07 memo from Mr. McGowan to Atty. Fisher, which stated that he thought the regulations for the Lake Waramaug Residential District should provide an incentive for common driveways and those that incorporate modern technology. He also submitted Zoning Commission minutes from August 2007 that indicated the Zoning Commission was willing to consider recommendations by Mr. Hackney that it differentiate between pervious and impervious surfaces in its regulations governing the Lake Waramaug District.

Mr. Shapiro asked Atty. Kelly to explain what he felt was the hardship for property owners who have their driveways counted as lot coverage. Atty. Kelly stated that driveways can use up much of the lot coverage allowed on smaller lots and/or interior lots. He agreed that if pervious surfaces were not counted as lot coverage that slightly larger houses could be built, but said if the driveway did not count as coverage, the house would be set back farther from the property line where more effective stormwater control would be possible.

Speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission, Ms. Gager stated that at its last meeting Planning had unanimously agreed to issue no opinion about the proposed petition at this time because it is a significant revision and Planning wanted to discuss the matter in detail with the Zoning Commission prior to making its report.

In response to a question regarding how much credit a property owner would get for installing a pervious surfaced driveway, Atty. Kelly noted the proposed revision limited pervious surfaces to 10% of the lot so that 10% lot coverage as well as 10% pervious surface coverage would be permitted on each lot.

Atty. Olson asked whether the CSI specifications apply to runoff coefficients. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, said he had dealt with this matter at the John Dorr Nature Lab. He compared the .9 asphalt runoff coefficient to the .2 pervious surface coefficient when properly installed.

Mr. Owen noted the petition did not concern any particular product. Atty. Kelly stated that was correct and offered to send a PDF to anyone wanting information on the various types of pervious surfaces.

Atty. Olson said he was concerned that there were many different types of pervious surfaces and all have different ways and efficiencies for handling stormwater runoff. He said since he did not know what the CSI specification said, he was not sure that all products would deserve a 100% credit.

Mr. Charles did not agree that the Zoning Commission should address the hardship of small or interior lots with driveways, which count for lot coverage. He said those property owners may appeal to the ZBA. He feared that if the petition was approved, there would be less incentive for property owners to compact and contain their construction, which would result in more sprawl.

Mr. Cornet advised the Commission to stick with the heart of its Regulations.

Mr. Owen commented that permeability was not the only reason for lot coverage requirements.

Mrs. Frank noted that many lots are very small, less than an acre, and if approval of the petition would result in property owners constructing larger houses, the Town would not be well served. She noted larger houses are not environmentally the way to go.

While Mr. Fitzherbert said the concerns raised were valid, he thought there were many good points about using pervious surface materials. He noted that several years ago Mr. Potter had encouraged the Zoning Commission to address the management of stormwater runoff.

Mrs. Friedman suggested if this was a good idea, the Commission should consider the areas of Town that are the most vulnerable such as those around the lake and with steep slopes and require pervious surfaced driveways and parking areas without offering an incentive. She recommended that Zoning ask the Inland Wetlands Commission what areas it considered to be vulnerable or sensitive. She did not recommend a rewrite of the lot coverage calculation, which, she thought, would be opening Pandora's box.

Mr. Averill did not think it was proper for the Zoning Commission to promote any products. He was concerned about the Commission offering a trade off. If larger houses were possible, he said, then larger houses would definitely be built. He agreed with Mrs. Friedman that the fundamental lot coverage calculation should remain as it is.

Mr. Ajello thought that the Commission should consider not counting pervious surfaced walkways, pool surrounds, and patios as lot coverage.

Mr. Fitzherbert asked for examples of pervious surfaced driveways in Ct. The certified installer noted they had been installed in NJ, NY, and at NASA.

Mr. Owen noted that maintenance could be an issue. He asked how sand would affect the function of a pervious surfaced driveway. The installer said his product required only sweeping and running water over it. Mr. Averill asked about repairs needed due to frost heaves, snow plows, root damage, etc. The installer said the repairs needed would depend on the substrata and that the products had the same freeze/thaw ratio as the ground. He also said that his product would not crack.

Mr. McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force noted that this was an important issue to consider for the Lake Waramaug Residential District. He said the average lot size there is under 2 acres so the average lot coverage permitted there now is 15%. He noted, too, that when coverage exceeds 10% to 15% the result is the degradation of water quality. He noted the simplicity of the current 15% maximum coverage was a "tremendous advantage," but recommended that the petition be discussed. He made the following points: 1) the ZEO would have to monitor all installations because the proper sub base and installation was essential to the proper function of the driveway, 2) the effect on the residential district must be considered. He noted the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development recommended that Zoning consider house sizes in relation to lot sizes by implementing a floor area ratio requirement. He said that larger houses on small lots would affect the aesthetics of the district. He recommended the commissioners drive around Bantam Lake in Morris, a town where impervious surface does not count towards lot coverage, to see what could result, 3) he recommended a more holistic approach like that taken in Coventry, Ct. where, he said, the entire watershed and the development potential for each lot was considered and then capped. In Coventry a property owner may develop as he wants as long as he stays under the runoff ratio. He noted this is only one approach of many and urged the Commission to conduct a thorough study of other methods before taking any action, 4. the capacity for reviewing work and monitoring/enforcing is needed. He said a binding agreement and a bond must be held by the Town to ensure proper care of the driveway once it is installed. He asked how the Commission could prevent people from paving over their pervious surfaces, 5. he noted that if the surface does not cure properly, its function deteriorates rapidly. He asked what would happen after the normal life of the pervious surface when the property owner has already been granted his increased lot coverage. What would the incentive then be to properly maintain it?

Mr. Owen suggested the Public Hearing be continued to give the Planning and Zoning Commissions the opportunity to meet to discuss this matter. Atty. Kelly objected, saying the Planning Commission should come to its own independent conclusion. Ms. Gager noted this is a significant proposal and the Planning Commission wants to discuss it thoroughly. Mr. Owen said he understood this matter should be discussed only at the Public Hearing and invited the Planning Commission to attend the next session. It was noted public hearings must be concluded within 35 days and it was exactly 35 days to the next Zoning Commission meeting.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider the petition to amend the Washington Zoning Regulations, Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37 Re: Lot Coverage, to Create New Section 11.5.3 Re: Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces, and to Add a Definition in Section 21 for "Pervious Traveled Surfaces" to Monday, June 23, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

At 9:59 Mr. Owen continued the hearing to June 23, 2008.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 21.1.8, 21.1.9, and 11.7.2.3: Method for Measuring Average Finished and Pre Existing Grade

Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/7 and 5/14/08.

Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file. He read the proposed language and explained that it would provide a second alternate method for measuring average pre existing and average finished grade. He noted that currently the highest and lowest points are averaged and that the proposed method would be to average all points around the perimeter of a structure.

Mr. Ajello noted that averaging all the points was a more accurate method.

Mrs. Friedman said that it was unlikely an applicant would choose to use the proposed alternate method unless he would benefit. She asked how much additional height the proposed method would allow. She also noted that Mr. McGuinness of the NW Ct. Council of Governments had written that it was unusual to have regulations where the applicant chooses the method of measurement.

Mr. Ajello briefly described situations when the averaging of the highest and lowest points did not represent a true average. He also noted that if the regulation was amended to require the averaging of all points, it would be more expensive for the applicant because many property owners would have to hire a professional to do it.

Mr. Owens, architect, explained that conventionally the average height measurement had been computed differently for many years, but had been recently revised, based in part on recommendations from the Conservation Commission. The result, he said, was that a traditional two story house with a conventional roof line would not comply with the height requirement if it had a walk out basement.

Mrs. Frank, Conservation Commission, stated that Conservation had been concerned about the height of structures on ridgelines and had asked that the regulation be revised to require that measurements be taken from the existing grade prior to the start of any construction. Mr. Owens noted that under the proposed alternative method of measurement, the measurements would still be taken from the undisturbed grade; that would not change. Mrs. Frank said that the Conservation Commission thought the proposed revision was "fine" and that the goal was to keep roof lines hidden in the tree lines.

Mr. Solley, Selectman, stated that he thought giving applicants a choice of the method of measurement was a bad idea. Mrs. Friedman agreed.

Mr. Owens thought that if the Commission was going to offer only one method of measurement, it should choose the more accurate method and the one that would be more representative of the actual site and building

Mrs. Friedman asked how other towns measure height. Mr. Ajello guessed that they do not look for as accurate a measurement as Washington does.

Mr. Shapiro asked if requiring the more accurate method would be a greater cost to the property owner. Mr. Ajello said, yes, because it could require professional help.

Mr. Owens said that the proposed method existed for years before the regulation was last amended and said the current method was over simplified.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations Sections 21.1.8, 21.1.9, and 11.7.2.3 Re: Method for Measuring Average Finished and Pre Existing Grade. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 10:18 p.m.

Reynolds/44 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Dock

Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/7 and 5/14/08.

Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 4/28/08 ZEO Report, which stated that the dock had been approved by the Lake Waramaug Authority.

Mr. Ajello explained that the existing dock is off center, but the proposed replacement would be in the middle of the existing concrete pier. He noted that the square footage of the proposed dock was less than the maximum permitted.

There were no questions or comments from the public.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.6.12 submitted by Mr. Reynolds for a Dock at 44 West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the Public Hearing at 10:23 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 10:24 p.m. and noted he had already seated Members Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Wyant.

Consideration of the Minutes

MOTION: To accept the 4/28/08 Public Hearing - Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Reynolds/44 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Dock

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.6.12 submitted by Mr. Reynolds for a dock at 44 West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

Bixler/49 Ferry Bridge Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen read the 5/19/08 ZEO Report, which noted that the Health Department had not yet approved the application, a side yard setback variance was required, and that the applicant had asked that a Public Hearing be scheduled for June 23.

The application proposed demolition of the existing barn, its reconstruction in a slightly different configuration and location, and conversion to a detached accessory apartment.

Mr. Ajello briefly explained that because this was an interior lot with less than 200 ft. of frontage, the increased setbacks for interior lots applied. The definitions of "lot width" and "frontage" were read and discussed.

Mr. Owens, architect, argued that Section 17.2 provided relief for lot width and he read this section to the Commission. He said it stated that non conforming lots are entitled to single family dwellings and customary accessory structures even though they don't meet the requirement for lot width. Mr. Owen, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Ajello discussed the details regarding setback, frontage and lot width requirements. Mr. Owen and Mr. Ajello did not agree with Mr. Owens' interpretation of Section 17.2. Mrs. Hill stated that she had discussed this matter with Mr. Ajello and agreed with his decision that a variance was required.

The map, "49 Ferry Bridge Road," by Halper Owens Architects, dated 5/15/08 and based on a survey by Mr. Alex, was reviewed.

Mr. Owen advised Mr. Owens that either a variance was required for the side yard setback or the building could be moved to the rear portion of the lot where it would comply with the Regulations.

Although Health Department approval and a variance were still needed, it was the consensus of the commissioners to schedule a Public Hearing as the applicant had requested.

MOTION: To schedule a public hearing on June 23, 2008 to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Bixler for a detached accessory apartment at 49 Ferry Bridge Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Rd./Special Permit: Sections 13.9, 4.4.1/Inn:

Mr. Owen read the 5/19/08 ZEO Report, which stated the Health Department had not yet approved the application, a lot coverage variance was required, but not yet granted, the Inland Wetlands Commission had not yet received an application, and that the applicant had asked that the Public Hearing be scheduled for the July meeting. Atty. Fisher briefly explained the Special Permit application was to convert the Wykeham Rise property to an inn. The alternative, he said, would be an affordable housing project, but added that the Zoning Commission had told him that concept would not be well received. Mrs. Friedman clarified that Atty. Fisher had asked if the affordable housing units could be located off the property elsewhere in Town and that is what the Commission had objected to. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission supports "affordable housing." Atty. Fisher said the proposed inn would have few of the problems associated with affordable housing and would be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Klauer, property owner introduced himself and said he intended to operate a LEED certified, environmentally friendly inn. Mr. Szymanski, engineer, presented the map, "Site Development Plan for Wykeham Rise", by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 5/7/08. He pointed out the location of the property and the existing septic system, which had been approved by the DEP. He said the inn would be serviced by the Judea Water Company public water supply and that the state's 2004 Erosion Control Guidelines would be adhered to. He also stated that the proposed improvements would be farther from the brook and wetlands than the existing buildings are. He pointed out the main building, spa, and individual one and four bedroom cabins and noted landscaping was proposed to provide a buffer from the roads and nearby properties. Mr. Szymanski said he understood the Town would send the plans to Land Tech for review. Atty. Fisher stated that he would provide additional information to residents upon request.

Other Business

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 13.11.1: Accessory Apartments: It was noted that the Public Hearing had been closed and that the public and Town officials had spoken against the proposed amendment.

MOTION: To withdraw the Zoning Commission's proposed amendments to Section 13.11.1 of the Washington Zoning Regulations Re: Accessory Apartments. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Wyant, and passed 5-0.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Section 13.9/Tourist Home or Inn: Mrs. Friedman remarked that the Commission had begun work on this amendment months ago and she saw no reason to delay action.

MOTION: To approve the proposed revision to Section 13.9: Tourist Home or Inn to require frontage on state highways. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill.

Mr. Shapiro asked if the Commission should go on record to state that this is a clarification of what it had understood its interpretation was. Mr. Owen said the Commission had proposed a revision of its Regulations and there was no need to call it anything other than that. Mr. Ajello noted that the legal notice had referred to it as a clarification. Mr. Owen again explained the reason for the proposed revision; to change the wording of the regulation because it was clear there had been a difference in its interpretation. Mr. Ajello worried that since "clarification" had been referenced in the legal notice that this could have legal ramifications. There was a brief discussion about the correct terminology. Mrs. Friedman considered the revision to be a clarification. Mr. Ajello suggested it was an amendment, but Owen did not think that was the appropriate term. Mr. Ajello thought Atty. Zizka should be consulted about whether it was OK to notice a proposed revision as a clarification, but to approve it as an amendment. (Note: The legal notice published on 5/7 and 5/14/08 listed the proposal as both a "revision" and a "clarification.") Mrs. Friedman withdrew the motion and Mr. Averill withdrew his second. Mr. Owen will discuss the matter with Atty. Zizka prior to the next meeting.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 12.15.4 and 12.15.9/Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts: It was noted that the Public Hearing had been closed and that the commissioners were comfortable with the proposed revisions. The one change made to the proposed language was the deletion of the phrase, "or because it helps criminals" in Section 12.15.9.

MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations Sections 12.15.4 and 12.15.9 Re: Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts as amended at the 5/19/08 Zoning meeting to prohibit light fixtures in trees or other vegetation and to clarify the non binding recommendations. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 12.14, 12.14.3, and 12.14.5: Generators, Pool Filters, and Noise Generating Equipment, Possible Revisions to Section 16: Business Signs in Residential Districts, Possible Regulations to Govern Outdoor Commercial Lighting, and Possible Regulations re: Preservation of Stonewalls:

Due to the late hour, these matters were not discussed.

Petition to Amend Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37/Lot Coverage and to Create New Section 11.5.3/Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces, and Add Definition in Section 21 for "Pervious Traveled Surfaces": It was noted the Public Hearing was continued to June 23, 2008.

Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 21.1.8, 21.1.9, and 11.7.2.3: Method for Measuring Average Finished and Pre Existing Grade: Mrs. Friedman again stated that she was against giving the applicant the choice of the method of measurement. Mr. Owen asked how this section had previously been worded. Mr. Ajello responded that it had been deficient because it had not required that the measurements be taken from the pre existing grade. He thought either method was acceptable, but the proposed alternative was more accurate. Mr. Owen had no problem with the proposed revision if the ZEO had no problem with it. Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Averill thought both methods were OK. Mrs. Friedman and Mr. Wyant thought the Commission should specify either one or the other method was required. Mr. Shapiro noted the proposed method was more accurate.

MOTION: To approve revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations Sections 21.1.8, 21.1.9, and 11.7.2.3 Re: Method for Measuring Average Finished and Pre Existing Grade to allow an alternate method of measurement. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 4-1. Mrs. Friedman voted No because she did not think a choice should be given.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Charles said he had been involved with the creation of the Bixler lot on Ferry Bridge Road and at the time, the Zoning Commission had considered it an interior lot. He was not sure, however, whether at that time Zoning had considered the setbacks for the existing buildings.

Enforcement

Mr. Ajello reported on the progress he was making with the removal of signs at 210 New Milford Turnpike. Photos were circulated.

Mr. Ajello said he had not yet discussed the lighted sign on River Road with the owner of Washington Pizza.

Mr. Ajello also noted that he had discussed the CL&P lights in Marbledale with the Selectmen, but it was not yet known how the Town would proceed to attempt to get CL&P to make improvements.

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

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

Posted: May 13, 2008

April 28, 2008

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Owen

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

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Szymanski, Mr./Mrs. Tagley, Mr. Papsin,

Mr./Mrs. Johnson, Ms. Stevens, Mr. Armstrong,

Mrs. McNamara, Mr./Mrs. Sebihacric, Mr. Bohan

Mrs. Friedman called the Public Hearings to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Averill and Friedman and Alternates DuBois, Shapiro, and Wyant for Members Abella, Fitzherbert, and Owen.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16.5.1/Non Residential District Signs

Mrs. Friedman called the Public Hearing to order and seated Mr. Abella, who arrived at 7:35 p.m., for Mr. DuBois. She then read the legal notice, which was published in Voices on April 16 and 23, 2008 and the list of documents in the file. She read the 3/17/08 comments from Mr. McGuinness, Director of the NW Ct. Council of Gov'ts, which warned that allowing signs to be erected at the property lines might result in unsafe sight lines.

Mrs. Friedman explained to the public that the reason for the proposed amendment was that in several areas of the business districts the state right of way along the state highway was so wide that business signs posted 10 feet back from the front boundary line were not visible to passers by.

Mr. Shapiro asked why the amendment addressed only the front boundary line. Mr. Ajello responded that commercial signs shouldn't necessarily be permitted right next to adjoining properties. Mrs. Friedman asked if rear property lines should be added, but Mr. Ajello could not think of an example where a rear boundary line would apply and said the purpose of the amendment was to alleviate the problem of visibility when due to a wide state easement, the sign would have to be posted too far from the road.

Mrs. Friedman asked who would deal with the safety issues raised by Mr. McGuiness. Mr. Ajello said it would be his responsibility to check them out as part of the application process.

Mr. Shapiro clarified that the proposed language was: 16.5 Non Residential District Signs. The following signs are permitted in non residential districts: 16.5.1 No sign shall be closer than 10 ft. to any side property line.

There were no questions or comments from the public.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Section 16.5.1 regarding non residential district signs. By Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.

Mrs. Friedman closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.

Vincent/181 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.i/ Storage Facility and Small Scale Business Establishment

Mrs. Friedman called the Public Hearing to order at 8:46 p.m., read the legal notice published in Voices on April 16 and 23, 2008, and the list of documents in the file. Mr. Ajello noted that he had also received a list of 11 adjoining property owners with addresses and 11 white certified mailing receipt cards.

The map, "Site Development Plan," with 5 attached sheets, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., revised to 4/28/08 was reviewed.

Mr. Szymanski, engineer, noted the property was 2.8 acres in the Marbledale Business District with an existing house and barn. He proposed to rebuild the barn on the same footprint and to use it for a 900 sq. ft. office and for contractor storage. He said the applicant was concerned about preserving the character of the neighborhood and presented architectural plans, "Proposed New Elevations,"and "Proposed New Floor Plans," by Mr. Bowman, dated February 2008. The architectural features of the barn were detailed. Mr. Szymanski then pointed out the screening proposed along Mygatt Road and the parking areas. Roof runoff, he said, would be run from the barn into three in ground infiltrators sized for a 100 year storm. He concluded by saying there would be no change in the existing curb cuts and there would be a small dumpster on the west side of the site, screened, and as far from Mygatt Road as possible.

Mrs. Friedman read the 4/28/08 ZEO Report.

Mr. Szymanski noted the proposed lighting complied with the Town's outdoor lighting requirements for residential districts and said that notes regarding the lighting were included on the "Site Development Plan." He said that no sign was proposed at this time.

Mrs. Friedman asked what hours the outdoor lights would be on. Mr. Szymanski said they would be on from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. and that the security lighting would be on sensors.

Mrs. Friedman asked which of the curb cuts would be used by the business. Mr. Szymanski said commercial traffic would primarily use Rt. 202.

Mr. Averill asked if the owner of the business would reside in the existing dwelling. Mr. Szymanski said, no, it would be rented.

Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the application included the expansion of the existing barn from 5000 to 5300 sq. ft. and noted that had to be applied for separately. Mrs. Friedman and Mrs. Hill agreed that 5000 sq. ft. was the maximum size permitted for a commercial building in the B-3 District unless a separate Special Permit was granted per Section 9.5. Mr. Szymanski stated that the lot coverage would not change and he and Mr. Ajello argued that the criteria listed in Section 9.6 applied to all Special Permits, not just those under Section 9.5.

Questions and comments were taken from the public.

Mrs. Johnson asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Szymanski said there would be between 6 and 10 employees. Mrs. McNamara asked if every employee would have a vehicle. Mrs. Johnson asked if the employee vehicles would access the property from Mygatt Road. Mr. Szymanski said they could use either entrance, but knowing the sensitivity of the neighbors, he said Rt. 202 was the intended entrance. Mr. Johnson noted that because Rt. 202 has more traffic and a steeper driveway, the employees would use Mygatt Road because it would be more convenient. The other members of the public agreed. Mrs. Johnson stated the traffic and lighting were the main concerns of the neighboring property owners and she asked how large the vehicles would be that would be entering and exiting the site. Mrs. Friedman thought the Commission might require access from Rt. 202. Mr. Szymanski stated the curb cut on Mygatt Road was existing and would not be used for more than 35 total trips per day.

Mr. Tagley spoke of the poor condition of Mygatt Road and his concern about an increase in traffic using it. Mr. Szymanski had previously said there would be no retail use on the property so the traffic increase would be modest, by Mr. Tagley noted that once approved, the business could be sold and since it was commercially zoned, there would be no control over whether a retail business went in. He asked the Commission to restrict the entrance from and exiting of traffic onto Mygatt Road. Mr. Ajello noted that any future proposed business expansion would require another public hearing.

Mr. Szymanski said the nature of the contractor business going into the barn was that 98% of business would be conducted at the clients' homes. Mrs. Friedman, then, asked what the hardship would be if the Commission were to restrict access to Rt. 202 only. Mr. Szymanski said the Mygatt Road curb cut was existing and the applicant had the right to use it.

Mrs. Johnson said she had no objections to the renovation of the barn or the commercial use of the property, but did not want access from Mygatt Road as that would, in effect, make her residential property commercial. Mr. Papsin agreed, saying the properties across Mygatt Road are residential and so the Mygatt Road curb cut should be eliminated. Mr. Johnson noted the Mygatt Road curb cut for the New Preston Firehouse had been eliminated.

Mrs. Sebihacric feared there would be more traffic using her driveway as a turnaround, asked that the access be limited to Rt. 202, and expressed her concerns about the proposed outdoor lighting.

Mrs. Tagley noted the property had previously been agricultural, and the Mygatt Road curb cut had been for agricultural use. She said the application was for a change of use and so the curb cut did not have to remain.

Mr. Averill said he was familiar with electrical contracting businesses and noted most of the traffic generated would be first thing in the morning and at the end of the work day. He was not sure which access would be safer. Mr. Shapiro thanked the members of the public for their comments noting that although there was no scientific data on how much traffic the business would generate, the Commission could take their comments into consideration because this was a Special Permit application.

Mr. Averill asked if the Mygatt Road exit could be limited to left turns only. Mr. Papsin and Mr. Johnson thought improvements to the Rt. 202 driveway would be a better solution. Mr. Szymanski said the improvements would be possible, but would necessitate the cutting of 10 trees and cutting the bank back 25 feet to improve the sight lines.

Mrs. Hill noted the character of this residential neighborhood had experienced many incremental changes such as increased traffic, noise, commercial uses, and lighting that had adversely impacted it over the years and she thought since there was a relatively simple way to address the concerns of the neighbors by prohibiting the commercial use of the Mygatt Road access, the Zoning Commission should do so.

Mr. Armstrong noted that traffic often speeds on Mygatt Road.

Mr. Johnson stated that Rt. 202 is commercial so the access should be made to work there. He urged the Commission not to let the applicant use Mygatt Road just because it would be easier for him to do so. Mr. Ajello noted there would be no way to enforce an agreement that 90% of the traffic had to use the Rt. 202 access and said he agreed with Mr. Johnson that if it was there, the majority of the traffic would use the Mygatt Road curb cut. Mr. Bohan agreed and said the Commission should not confuse safety with convenience.

Mr. Ajello noted there was a precedent with the Mayflower Inn because the Commission had prohibited it from using its Wykeham Road access.

Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission had also restricted commercial traffic to the Rt. 202 access for the Ross property on Wilbur Road.

Lighting was again discussed briefly. Mr. Szymanski stated the security lighting would be on motion sensors with a 10 minute shut off. Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission did not want commercial lighting on all night. Mr. Szymanski stated it would not be on all night and referred to the notes on the plan, which he said called for lighting that would maintain the character of the adjoining residential neighborhood. He said there would be no floodlights at the corners of the building and all light fixtures would be pointed down and would have shields. Mrs. Friedman noted the Commission did not yet have outdoor commercial lighting regulations and so appreciated the applicant's efforts.

A woman asked if work would be conducted on the weekends, noting there are many children on Mygatt Road on weekends.

Mrs. Friedman noted there was a sight line issue and asked whether the Zoning Commission was knowledgeable enough to address it. Mr. Shapiro asked if entering onto Rt. 202 was unsafe. Mr. Averill said it was not, but he thought entering onto Mygatt Road might be safer. Mr. Shapiro noted the existing berm that obscures the sight line could be removed. Mr. Szymanski said it could, but the vegetative buffer along Rt. 202 would also have to be removed. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson noted that both the nearby Aspetuck Gardens access, which is steeper, and the grade of the Firehouse driveway "work" and are "very useable."

Mrs. Friedman agreed with Mrs. Hill that the adjoining residential neighborhood had had many intrusions and so if it was possible to accommodate the neighbors it was her inclination to do so. She said as long as it was safe there was no compelling reason not to limit the access to Rt. 202. She noted this would not restrict the commercial use of the property. Mr. Szymanski said this access could be made to work. Mr. Ajello suggested that the planting of a vegetative screen across the Mygatt Road access would prevent its use.

Mrs. Friedman asked how many trucks would be parked on the property. Mr. Szymanski thought perhaps one truck would be parked on the downhill side and that possibly a tractor and an excavator might be parked there in the future. Mr. Papsin asked if the Commission could prohibit the parking of heavy equipment on site. Mr. Ajello said the lower parking area would be well screened. Mr. Szymanski noted that the applicant was aware of the neighbors' concerns. He added a row of screening along Mygatt Road on the south side of the barn to the "Site Development Plan." He noted, too, that much of the storage on site would be inside in the lower level of the barn. Mr. Ajello noted a condition of approval would be that the applicant would be required to maintain the vegetative buffer.

Mr. Szymanski thanked the neighborhood for its input, noting he felt that it improved the application process.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.i submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Vincent for a storage facility and small scale business establishment at 181 New Milford Turnpike. By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mrs. Friedman closed the public hearing at 8:47 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

Mrs. Friedman called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:50 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, and Friedman and Alternates Shapiro and Wyant.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 3/24/08 Public Hearing/Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 10 the correct spelling of "egregious" was noted.

MOTION: To accept the 3/24/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

The 4/14/08 Public Hearing/Special Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 2 the correct spelling of "McDermott" was noted. On page 3, in the bottom motion, the correct address is 159 South Street, not 59 South Street.

MOTION: To accept the 4/14/08 Special Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Vincent/181 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.i/ Storage Facility and Small Scale Business Establishment: Mr. Abella said he supported a condition to require access from Rt. 202 only. The map, "Site Development Plan" was reviewed again. Mr. Ajello drafted the condition of approval below. Mrs. Friedman noted that the proposed lighting was detailed on the plan so a condition regarding lighting was not necessary. It was also the consensus that a condition to limit the hours of operation was not necessary because the business had no noise generating equipment. Mr. Ajello did note, however, that in the case of an emergency, electrical trucks might be called out. Mrs. Friedman stated that with the access limited to Rt. 202 she was not very concerned about the hours of operation.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.i submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Vincent for a storage facility and small scale business establishment at 181 New Milford Turnpike with the condition that a substantial buffer of vegetation shall be maintained from the south corner of the property on Mygatt Road to the old foundation as shown on the map, "Site Development Plan," by Arthur H. Howland & Assoc., dated 4/15/08 and revised to 4/28/08 to act as both a screen for the nearby residential properties and as a traffic barrier to prevent commercial access from Mygatt Road. By Mr. Wyant, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

New Application

Reynolds/44 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Dock: Photos of the proposed location for the dock were circulated. Mr. Ajello explained that the property was only 21 feet wide and so the dock could not meet the setback requirements. He noted the dock would be centered on the existing concrete and two 4' X 8' sections would be installed in a T shape. A pubic hearing was scheduled for May 19; the sixth hearing of the night.

Other Business

Revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations: Mrs. Friedman briefly reviewed the list of proposed revisions scheduled for public hearings on May 19.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16.5.1: Signs in Non Residential Districts: It was noted the language that Mr. Shapiro had read at the public hearing was being considered.

MOTION: To approve the revision of Section 16.5.1 of the Washington Zoning Regulations regarding non residential district signs as proposed. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 12.4, 12.14.3, 12.14.5 Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment: It was noted that Mr. Owen will discuss this regulation and possible revisions with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations Sections 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37 re: Lot Coverage and to Create New Section 11.5.3 re: Maximum Lot Coverage for Pervious Surfaces and Add Definition in Section 21 for "Pervious Traveled Surfaces": Mrs. Friedman thought the Commission should be very cautious about changing the definition of "Lot Coverage." She suggested that if the pervious surfaces being promoted in the petition were so beneficial, the Commission should require their installation in specific areas such as those surrounding the lake, on steep slopes, etc. If done this way it would not be necessary to monitor the trade-off or the maintenance and preservation of the pervious surfaces. She added that enforcement of these revisions would be very difficult. Mr. Averill agreed. Mrs. Hill noted that there are many kinds of pervious surfaces and said the Commission should make sure that any revisions to the Regs are not tied in with only one particular type. Mr. Averill asked if loose stones now count as lot coverage. Mrs. Hill said they do because they are a traveled surface. Maintenance of the pervious surfaces was discussed. Mr. Wyant thought the length of time they would last would depend partly on a proper base and Mr. Shapiro noted that if necessary repairs weren't done or if the pervious surface was paved over, by that time the lot coverage would have already been expanded.

Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 16/Business Signs in Residential Districts: It was noted that while signs for inns, bed and breakfast establishments, or organizations such as the Washington Club may be appropriate for residential districts, commercial signs were not. Mrs. Hill pointed out that one of the criteria for the approval of the few business uses permitted in residential districts was that the property look residential; that there was no evidence of the business from outside.

Revision of the Regulations/Outdoor Commercial District Lighting: Work has not yet begun on this revision.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Papsin asked if there were size limits for signs in residential districts. Mrs. Friedman said there was, but that the Commission had discussed the possibility of increasing the maximum size to 4 sq. ft. She noted signs must be unlighted and modestly sized to fit in with residential neighborhoods.

Enforcement

It was noted that the signs at 13 River Road and 210 New Milford Turnpike were still a problem. Mr. Ajello said he had not yet sent letters to property owners with problem lighting as the Commission had requested. 210 New Milford Turnpike was discussed because it had recently extended the hours its outdoor lighting is on. Mr. Ajello pointed out that the Zoning Regs don't address hours of operation. Mrs. Hill asked if the section on nuisances could be used. Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Ajello to contact the property owner regarding this excessive lighting.

Mr. Papsin asked if the Commission had written to CL&P to complain about its lighting fixtures in New Preston. Mr. Ajello said he had not. Mrs. Friedman noted these lights are an important aspect of the commercial district lighting and she suggested the letter should be sent by the Board of Selectmen as other towns in the NW corner have done.

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

Mrs. Friedman adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator

Posted: October 27, 2008

March 24, 2008

Public Hearings – Regular Meeting

March 24, 2008

7:30 p.m. Land Use Meeting Room

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert

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

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Habib, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Smith, Atty. Coploff, Mr. Tittmann, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Hileman, Mr. Lyon, Mr. I. Shapiro, Mr./Mrs. Markert, Ms. Canning, Mr. McGowan, Mr. Bennett, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Barnum, Press


PUBLIC HEARINGS

Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Construct Second Dormitory, Extend Driveway

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert.

Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice that was published in Voices on 3/12 and 3/19/08. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 3/24/08 ZEO Report.

Mr. Farmen, Headmaster, presented the map, “Illustrated Master Plan,” by SLAM Collaborative, dated 5/15/2000. He pointed out where the dormitory and driveway were proposed and said that this was the only area available because the use of the campus on the other side of the road was restricted by the river and the regulated area along it. He noted the school’s enrollment would not increase; that the new dorm would consolidate the campus by bringing in students currently housed off site. A rendering of the proposed building was shown and Ms. Habib noted it was identical to the first dorm previously approved by the Commission.

Mr. Smith, surveyor, reviewed the map, “Site Grading and Utilities Plan,” by Smith & Company, dated 2/12/08 and pointed out the proposed driveway loop and the walkways that would link the dorms. He noted the proposed coverage was 13.7% as had been approved by the ZBA. He then briefly discussed the stormwater management system. One portion of the runoff would flow to a recharge system, some of it would be directed to catch basins and then into the ground, and the remainder would drain down to Romford Road. Smith & Co.’s “Landscaping and Lighting Plan,” dated 2/12/08 was also reviewed. Five “Dark Sky” wall mounts were proposed for the building and literature on both the wall mounted lighting and pole lighting was submitted. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed landscaping was minimal; Norway spruce, dogwood, and American elms were proposed.

Mr. Averill asked if the outdoor lighting would be on all night.

Ms. Habib responded that the new lights would be turned off at 11:00 p.m. as is currently done with the other campus lighting and said the school would look into installing motion sensor lighting.

Mrs. Friedman asked what the timing was for the construction of the proposed faculty house.

Mr. Farmen stated that the faculty house had been withdrawn from the ZBA variance application and was not included in this application.

Mr. Ajello noted he had not received a report from the Fire Dept., but advised the Commission that an appropriate location for a second hydrant would be in the vicinity of catch basins #20 and #21. He noted there is an 8” water line in this area and that a hardened road shoulder near the hydrant for use by emergency vehicles should also be required.

Mr. Ajello advised the applicant that the variance granted would have to be filed on the Land Records before the Special Permit would be effective.

Mr. Owen reviewed the conditions of the hockey rink/first dormitory approval and possible conditions of approval for this permit were discussed.

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 Rumsey Hall School for a second dormitory and extension of the driveway at 200 Romford Road. By Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

At 7:52 p.m. Mr. Owen closed the hearing.


Laffont/128 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/12 and 3/19/08.

Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 3/24/08 ZEO Report.

Mr. Ajello noted that 5 certified mailing receipts and 5 green certified mailing receipt cards had also been submitted.

Mr. Tittmann, contractor, presented the plans, “Proposed Septic System Plan,” by Mr. Neff, dated 1/8/08 and “Garage Floor Plan and Elevations,” by Tittmann Design and Consulting, dated 11/21/07. He said the dwelling unit proposed in the existing structure would be for a caretaker.

Mr. Shapiro asked how large the primary dwelling was.

Mr. Tittmann said it had seven bedrooms.

Mr. Ajello said there were no outstanding issues.

Mr. Ira Shapiro, adjoining property owner, asked if the apartment could be rented, why a Special Permit was required, and if the owner could put in another bedroom.

Mrs. Friedman responded that yes, it could be rented out, a Special Permit was required by the Zoning Regulations, and that a second bedroom could be added as long as the apartment still met the size limitations. She explained the apartment must be clearly subordinate to the primary dwelling and could not exceed 1200 sq. ft. She noted that once approved, the Commission had no say in how the apartment was used. She also noted that the property owner was required to reside on the premises so there would be a link with the tenant if the apartment was rented.

Mr. Owen stated that the primary dwelling and the apartment could not both be rented out and that there was a letter in the file from Mr. Laffont stating that he would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit.

Mr. Tittmann asked if the Special Permit would be void if the property was sold.

Mrs. Friedman said it would be void.

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

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Laffont for a detached accessory apartment at 128 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.

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


REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:04 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 2/25/08 Public Hearing – Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 8, 4th line down, it should state “pervious”, not “impervious driveways.”

MOTION: To accept the 2/25/08 Public Hearing – Regular Meeting minutes as revised. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.


Pending Applications

Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Construct Second Dormitory, Extend Driveway:

Mr. Abella thought the proposed driveway loop was an improvement. Mr. Owen pointed out that by concentrating student activities, school generated traffic would be decreased. He also noted the proposed dorms with attached faculty units were examples of cluster housing that was advantageous for both the school and the Town. Mr. Ajello explained that the proposed lot coverage was 13.7% because only the separate property on one side of the road was counted. The conditions of approval were discussed in detail.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School to construct a second dormitory and extend the driveway at 200 Romford Road per the map, “Proposed Dormitory No. 2,” 9 sheets, by Smith & Co., dated 2/12/08 subject to the following conditions:
1. approval does not include the “proposed future faculty house” shown on certain other maps,
2. approval is specific to the lot coverage variance #ZBA 0801 granted on 3/20/08 and shall not be in effect until that variance has been filed on the Town Land Records, and
3. one additional fire hydrant and hardened road shoulder for emergency use shall be installed in the vicinity of the new driveway intersection designated by catch basins #20 and #21.

By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.


Laffont/128 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment:

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Laffont for a detached accessory apartment at 128 Calhoun Street. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, and passed 5-0.


New Applications

Region #12 School District/159 South Street/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Reconstruct Track:

Mr. Harlow, landscape architect, presented an enlarged aerial photo of the site and the map, “Existing Track Overlay Plan,” by Milone and MacBroom, dated 3/19/08. He noted that the new track would include a perimeter walkway and that the ZBA had granted the required lot coverage variance.

MOTION: To schedule a Special Meeting and Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2008 to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Region #12 School District to reconstruct the track at 159 South Street. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.


Vincent/181 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.i/ Small Scale Business Establishment:

Mr. Ajello noted the application was not yet complete, but asked that a public hearing be scheduled for April 28th.

Mr. Owen read the 3/24/08 ZEO Report. It was noted the property is located at the corner of Mygatt Road and Rt. 202 and the map, “Existing Conditions Map,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 3/24/08 was reviewed. It was noted the existing house would be maintained as a residence, but the existing barn would be torn down and rebuilt for commercial use. “Proposed New Elevations,” by Mr. Bowman, dated 2/2008 was also reviewed.

MOTION: To conduct a public hearing on April 28, 2008 to consider the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.i submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Vincent for a small scale business establishment at 181 New Milford Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed 5-0.


Town of Washington/59 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.4/Construct Compressor Building:

Mr. Owen read the 3/24/08 ZEO Report.

Mr. Lyon, First Selectman, noted the ZBA had granted a variance for only the compressor building because the plans were not yet complete for the renovation of the beach house and the reconfiguration of the parking area. It was noted then that the Zoning Commission would consider only the compressor building at this time. The plans, “Compressor Building for the Lake Waramaug Task Force,” by Mr. Lasar, dated 3/20/08 were reviewed. Mr. Lyon noted the foundation will be below the frost line and will have a common wall with the retaining wall shown on the plan. The ground floor will be raised above flood level. He stated that the building will be located between the realigned ramp and the existing beach house, which will eventually be rebuilt and decreased in size and that an A-2 survey showing this location would be done. He noted, too, that the service lines were already in place.

Mr. McGowan, Director of the Lake Waramaug Task Force, said he understood that the Commission wanted to review the compressor building in the context of the entire Phase II plan, but that due to the need to get the compressor operating by June 1, this was not possible.

MOTION: To schedule a public hearing on April 14, 2008 to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.4 to construct a compressor building at 59 East Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.


Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations

1. Section 13.11.1/Accessory Apartments:
The public hearing has been scheduled for May 19, 2008. Mr. Owen noted that a letter dated 3/21/08 from Mr. Hileman had been received and that it would be read at the public hearing.


2. Section 13.9.1/Tourist Home or Inn:
Mr. Owen reviewed the proposed revisions that had been decided upon at the last meeting. The main revision was clarification that inns and tourist homes shall have frontage on state highways. Other minor revisions include clarification of the setback requirements for structures other than fences: 100 feet from any street and 50 feet from any lot line. This public hearing has also been scheduled for May.


3. Section 16.5.1/Signs:
The proposed revision would require signs in non residential districts to be placed at least 10 feet from side boundary lines, but would not require a setback from the front boundary line. The public hearing will be conducted on April 28th.


4. Section 12.14/Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Owen proposed revised language after consulting an acoustic engineer. He noted the reason for the revision is to provide the ZBA with a standard it can apply when considering Special Exception applications to vary the location requirements for noise generating equipment. He noted applicants are now asked to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the ZBA that the proposed location would decrease the noise impact on neighbors, but said that the Zoning Commission had not included guidelines on how this should be proven. Mr. Owen read the proposal.

Mrs. Friedman said that the acoustical consultant referred to should be a professional certified in his field.

Mr. Ajello did not see the need for the owners of large properties to provide proof there would be less noise for neighbors since often their generators were so far away from adjoining properties that there was no noise off site. He recommended the applicant be required to prove there would be less or equal noise beyond the boundary line.

Mr. Owen noted, however, that factors such as topography and vegetation affect the noise level, not just distance.

Mrs. Friedman noted that the reason for the wording of the current regulation was that it required property owners to keep their noise generating equipment as close as possible to the structure served, which served as an incentive to them to keep it operating as quietly as possible. She did not think this should be changed.

Mr. Hileman, audio engineer, agreed that how sound travels is more complicated than just distance; it varies depending on other factors such as wind, topography, and vegetation. He thought that measuring fractions of a decibel was pointless as that difference could not be detected by the human ear and warned that screening devices can sometimes act as resonators, making the noise worse. He also pointed out that how offensive a noise is depends partly on the normal amount of noise in the vicinity.

Mr. Ajello said that sometimes the Special Exception requests are to put generators in accessory buildings that are more than 25 feet from the structure served and that so far he had not had any complaints about these.

Mr. Owen said he had not yet discussed this proposal with the ZBA, but it was the consensus of the commissioners that he should do so before the discussion continues.


5. Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations/Section 21.1.37/ Definition of Lot Coverage:
On behalf of Kelly and Trevenen, LLC. and Kent Greenhouse, Atty. Kelly submitted a revised proposal dated 3/24/08. He said that based on last month’s discussion he had determined that more thorough revisions were needed in addition to the change in the definition. He proposed to revise Sections 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 and to add a new Section 11.5.3. Section 11.5.3 would create a new category of lot coverage; pervious traveled surfaces, for which the maximum lot coverage could not exceed 10%. Also, in addition to revising the definition of “Lot Coverage,” he proposed a new definition for “Pervious Traveled Surface.” Atty. Kelly said the proposed revisions were needed because the current method of calculating coverage puts interior lots that often need long driveways at a disadvantage. Atty. Kelly was asked to be prepared to discuss the following issues at the public hearing: how the increase in coverage permitted on each lot could change the character of the Town by allowing inappropriately larger houses on small lots, how the pervious surfaces hold up after use, how the pervious surfaces should be maintained and how they function if they are not maintained, what happens when a property is sold and the new owner paves over the driveway, etc.

Mr. Ajello asked if the proposed 10% coverage allowed for pervious surfaces was flexible. He noted than many towns allow up to 25% coverage and that the proposed 10% for structures plus 10% for pervious driveways would approach that.

Mr. Owen suggested that perhaps there could be a sliding scale depending on lot size. Atty. Kelly noted the revision would not just allow additional coverage, but would also improve stormwater management, a concern discussed in the Plan of Conservation and Development.

MOTION: To schedule a public hearing on May 19, 2008 to consider the petition submitted by Atty. Kelly to amend the following sections of the Washington Zoning Regulations regarding lot coverage: 11.5.1, 11.5.2, and 21.1.37 and to create new sections 11.5.3 re: maximum lot coverage for pervious surfaces and a new definition in Section 21 for “Pervious Traveled Surfaces.” By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.


6. Section 16.4/Residential District Signs:
At the last meeting it had been agreed that commercial signs in residential districts should be considered.

Mr. Owen submitted draft language for Sections 16.4 -16.4.3. Mrs. Hill pointed out that the proposal would be a major change because it would permit signs for all business uses in the residential district; not just inns and bed and breakfast operations as had been discussed at the last meeting. She also suggested that a new category for institutional signs in residential districts be permitted to allow signs for churches, museums, schools, etc. Mr. Owen pointed out that this would not be easy to do because institutions would have to be defined.

Mr. Ajello suggested that non profit institutions as well as inns, bed and breakfasts, and pre existing non conforming uses be permitted signs in the residential districts.

Mr. Abella thought the proposed 8 sq. ft. sign in Section 16.4.3 was too large.

Mr. Ajello suggested a double sided 4 sq. ft. sign.

Mr. Averill asked if the signs would be allowed to advertise.

Mrs. Friedman said the regulation should allow one sign “for identification purposes only” per lot. It was noted that under the current regulations home occupations and shop and storage use by contractors may not have signs and it was generally thought that this should not be changed.

Mr. Owen said he would like to see a list of all the uses for which signs would not be permitted.

Mr. Averill asked if the signs could be lit. Mrs. Friedman and Mrs. Hill said, no, lighting in the residential districts could be a problem. Discussion of this matter will be continued at the next meeting.


7. Outdoor Commercial Lighting:
At the last meeting the Commission had agreed that outdoor lighting regulations for the commercial districts should be drafted. Work on these regulations has not yet begun.


8. Sections 11.7.2, 21.1.8, 21.1.9/Method for Calculating Average Grade:
It was noted a letter dated 3/4/08 from Mr. Owens asked for clarification on how to determine the average grade from which the building height is measured. The current regulations specify the average of the highest and lowest point is taken, but Mr. Owens argued that using the average of a continual line grade around the entire structure was a more accurate method to calculate the average grade. None of the commissioners objected to the addition of this second method as an option in both Sections 21.1.8: Average Finished Grade and 21.1.9: Average Pre Existing Grade. Mr. Ajello pointed out that a corresponding revision should be made in Section 11.7.2.3. Mr. Owen will draft the final language and send it to Mrs. Hill as soon as possible.

MOTION: To schedule a public hearing on May 19, 2008 to consider revisions sections 21.1.8, 21.1.9, and 11.7.2.3 of the Washington Zoning Regulations to clarify the method for measuring the total height of buildings. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.


9. Possible New Zoning District for the Calhoun-Ives Historic District/Preliminary Discussion:
Mrs. Canning, a resident from the Calhoun-Ives Historic District, expressed her concern about the large size of both the new and added onto houses in this historic district, noted that this is inappropriate for the historic agricultural character of the area, noted there are many more potential building sites in the district, making this a pressing issue, and said she hoped to make the Zoning Commission aware of the potential threats to the character of the district. She suggested a “communal” approach to guard against inappropriate development here.

Mr. Owen noted that Mrs. Hill had contacted the Director of the NW Ct. Council of Governments for advice and input about the potential role of Zoning in this matter and that he had responded that the Historic District Commission has more authority than does Zoning to regulate the size of houses due to the way it is set up to make determinations about appropriateness. Mr. Owen noted that the Zoning Commission can conceivably get involved with the size of structures, but has less jurisdiction over what they look like.

Mrs. Canning said she thought that the Historic District Commission was becoming more aware of the problem, especially after having approved the Laffont house and having reviewed an “aggregious” proposal for 132 Calhoun Street. But she hoped that establishing Zoning regulations would put enforcement in the hands of the Town rather than under the vigilance of militant neighbors.

Mrs. Friedman noted that the Zoning Commission has always avoided size and aesthetic guidelines, even in The Green Residential District.

Mr. Shapiro explained that if Zoning created a Village District it would then be required to establish architectural design standards, but short of that it had no authority over design.

Mr. Hileman asked if there was a difference between an historic district and a Village District.

Mr. Owen explained the difference, noting that Village Districts were more likely to be established in business districts to control the appearance of the commercialization of an area. He thought it was unlikely that the Zoning Commission could create a zoning district within an historic district for the purpose of keeping out certain kinds of houses.

Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Friedman, and Mr. Owen all thought that it was up to the Historic District Commission to take stronger stands on inappropriate proposals for the historic districts and that the historic district residents should support its efforts to do so.

Atty. Kelly noted that the Historic District Commission is limited in that its jurisdiction is
1) what can be viewed from the public way and
2) does the fenestration match that section of the district.
He thought the Zoning Commission could help with specific revisions to the Regulations. For example, he cited the Surnow swimming pool, which had been installed in the front yard of this historic district property. He said the Historic District Commission had not been able to deny it because it was hidden behind a stone wall. A zoning regulation that prohibited swimming pools in the front yards in historic districts or which required them to be located behind and/or screened by the primary structure would have helped the Historic District Commission to preserve the character of the area.

Mr. Owen urged the concerned residents to ask the Historic District Commission to come up with a list of potential revisions to the Zoning Regulations that would help it to preserve the historic districts.


10. Section 11.1/Soil Table and Map:
Mr. Ajello reported that the state had changed the way it handles soil classifications and so the references in this section were outdated.

Mrs. Hill noted that Planimetrics had written this section and suggested that it be contacted to provide an update.


Privilege of the Floor

Mr. Papsin briefly discussed the problem of generators. He thought the Zoning Commission was right to require that they be placed close to the structure to be served and did not think the ZBA should vary this unless there was an extreme hardship. Most property owners, he said, do not want to look at their generators and he did not think that was reason enough to grant them permission to move them farther from the structure served.

Mr. Hileman noted that most large generators serve part time residents who don’t want their pipes to freeze, that applications to allow them to be located farther from the structure served frequently tie up the ZBA, and that he thought there was no reason to ease up on this restriction.

Mr. Hileman thanked the Zoning Commission for its diligence and said he hoped it would be proactive on the issue of housing. Mr. Owen noted that after Mr. Hileman had addressed the Commission on housing he had attended WCHT, Planning Comm., and Board of Selectmen meetings and had found that they all had priorities and viewpoints that differed from that of the Housing Commission. He said he had recommended to the Board of Selectmen that it conduct a meeting with representatives from all of these groups to discuss housing. Mr. Hileman thought a land use summit to look for consensus on this issue was a good idea.

Mr. Owen also suggested to Mr. Hileman that the Housing Commission could propose specific revisions to the Zoning Regulations.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator

Posted: March 5, 2008

February 25, 2008

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert

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

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Papsin, Atty. Coploff, Mr. Moore, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Bohan, Mr. Federer

Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Wyant for Mr. Fitzherbert.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

James/79 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 13/11/3/Detached Accessory Apartment

Mr. Owen called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/13 and 2/20/08. Mr. Owen then read the list of all the documents in the file and the 2/25/08 ZEO Report.

Atty. Fisher submitted an affidavit signed by the prospective owner of the property that he would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit and a photocopy of the certified mailing receipt cards. He then read his 2/25/08 letter to Mr. Owen, which specified how the proposed apartment would comply with each provision in Section 13.11.3 and he noted the apartment would be 1000 sq. ft.

Mr. Shapiro asked how large the primary dwelling was. Reading from the Assessor's field card, Atty. Fisher said it had 4649 sq. ft. above grade, which would make the proposed apartment less than 25% the size of the house. The apartment floor plan was reviewed.

Mr. Ajello noted it had been the future owner, not the present owner applying for the permit, who signed the affidavit. The Commissioners did not think this was a problem because he would be the one residing on the property when the apartment was in use.

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. and Mrs. James for a detached accessory apartment at 79 West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:44 p.m.

Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 8:45 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/13 and 2/20/08. Mr. Owen then read the list of documents in the file and the 2/25/08 ZEO Report.

The map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 11/16/06 and the portion of this map with proposed screening and the buildings and outside storage area labeled by Mr. Moore were reviewed.

Mr. Moore stated that he had not submitted the certified mailing receipts, but would bring them in the next day. Mr. Ajello noted that the two neighbors most concerned about the ongoing operation had received their notification. Mr. Griffith sent an email and Mr. and Mrs. Updegraff were present. It was noted that none of the green certified receipt cards had been received.

Mr. Owen read Mr. Moore's statement regarding how the proposed landscaping business would comply with each requirement of Section 13.16. Several of the points were briefly discussed. 13.16.3: Mr. Moore had submitted a list of eight commercial vehicles that would be used and said no additional off street parking would be created. Mr. Ajello noted there would also be employee vehicles parked on site during the day. 13.16.4: It was noted that a maximum of 5000 sq. ft. of outside storage was allowed and that no storage was allowed within the setback and that this had been properly indicated on the map. Mr. Ajello also noted there would be no outside storage in wetlands, that potentially hazardous materials such as muriatic acid and fertilizers would be stored inside the storage shed, and that materials such as bricks, gravel, stone, and sand would be stored on site. 13.16.4.e: It was noted that Mr. Moore had proposed a row of evergreens to screen the outside storage from the Updegraff property, but that he had offered to erect a fence along that portion of the property line if the Updegraffs preferred.

Mrs. Friedman read the 2/22/08 email from Mr. Griffiths in which he expressed concerns about any activities that could adversely impact the residential character of the neighborhood and about business activity in the early morning, evening, and on weekends.

Mr. Shapiro asked if the proposed use was clearly subordinate to the residential use of the property. Mr. Ajello responded that approximately an eighth of an acre of the 6.2 acre property would be occupied by the business and that the owner resided on the property with his family.

Mr. and Mrs. Updegraff noted their concerns were similar to Mr. Griffiths'. They thought the use of natural screening would be more effective than a fence. Mr. Moore said he planned to plant Norway Spruce, hemlocks, or a combination of 7 to 8 ft. tall trees, approximately 10 ft. apart. He noted that until they grew, you would be able to see through them. Mr. Owen said that in the past the Commission had conditioned approvals upon the installation of natural screening that was satisfactory to the abutting neighbors. Mr. Ajello noted that the area in front of the garage doors would be used commercially and so requested that the screening be extended to buffer this area as well.

Mr. Ajello noted that Shop and Storage Use Special Permits must be renewed every two years and so said that if the neighbors experience any problems they should file their complaints on record so that they can be considered when the permit is up for renewal.

Hours of operation were discussed. Mr. Moore said his normal hours vary depending upon the season and that during the summer he sometimes works seven days a week.

Mrs. Friedman noted she had observed a plastic shed when she had inspected the property. Mr. Moore said this was temporary and would be removed upon the completion of the barn.

It was noted that any outdoor lighting must comply with Section 12.15. Mr. Owen said that flood lights should be shielded so the bulbs are not visible from the road, directed downward, and ideally, on timers so they are not on all of the time.

MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.16 submitted by Mr. Moore for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 25 Litchfield Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:17 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

REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 8:18 p.m.

Consideration of the Minutes

The 1/28/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 2, the sentence beginning, "He noted an additional...." in the 5th line from bottom was changed to: He noted that one proposed building had been relocated to the north of the existing driveway entrance.

MOTION: To accept the 1/28/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.

Pending Applications

Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 13.16: Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Conditions of approval were briefly discussed. It was the consensus that screening agreeable to both parties and a limitation on the hours of operation would be appropriate. It was also noted that the list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners, the proof of certified mailings, and the green certified mailing receipt cards had not been received. It was noted that a condition regarding outdoor lighting would not be necessary because any outdoor lighting for the barn would be covered under the zoning permit issued in December 2007.

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.16 submitted by Mr. Moore for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 25 Litchfield Turnpike subject to the following conditions:

1. the hours of operation shall be limited to

7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,

2. the applicant shall plant and maintain a

vegetative buffer to create a reasonable

barrier between his and the Updegraff

property, the buffer shall be to the

satisfaction of the Updegraffs, and if

the applicant and neighbors are not able to

come to an agreement on the buffer this

matter shall be brought back to the Zoning

Commission, and

3. proof of the required certified mailings to

adjoining property owners shall be submitted

to the Land Use Office before the Special

Permit is issued.

By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed 5-0.

James/79 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:

MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. James for a detached accessory apartment at 79 West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.

New Applications

Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Second Dormitory, Faculty House, Extend Circular Driveway: Mr. Owen read the 2/25/08 ZEO Report. He noted that a variance for coverage was required for the proposed buildings and driveway and that the Zoning Commission's standard practice was to wait until the variance had been granted to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Farmen, Headmaster, explained that the information that had been missing from the variance application had already been submitted to the ZBA and said that the school was pressed for time since it wanted to have the dorm ready for the opening of school the September. Mr. Ajello noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission had requested that Zoning refer the stormwater management plans for this application to a consulting engineer for review. He said that all of the documentation supplied by Smith & Co. was very good, Rumsey had been cooperative, and that the construction site was under control. Mr. Owen said then that a referral to the Town engineer was not necessary. The map, "Compilation Plan for ZBA Application," by Smith & Co., dated 2/7/08 and revised to 2/25/08 was reviewed and it was noted there were steep contours from the construction site down to Romford Road. Regarding the proposal to extend the circular driveway, Mr. Ajello said the Fire Marshal had recommended the driveway loop. The drainage system was discussed. Mr. Farmen said a separate drainage system was proposed for these proposed buildings. It was the consensus to schedule the public hearing for the

March 24th meeting, but Mr. Owen advised the applicant that if in the meantime the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, the Zoning Commission would deny the Special Permit application without prejudice. The public hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

Laffont/128 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Owen read the 2/25/08 ZEO Report. The Public Hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.

Other Business

Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Sections 13.11.1.A, 13.11.1.B Accessory Apartments: Mr. Owen circulated language he had drafted after receiving input from Atty. Zizka. Under the proposed revision, two apartments would be permitted per property by Special Permit only if one was attached and one was detached and one was deed restricted to preserve it as affordable housing. (See attached document for the specific language.) Mr. Owen noted that at the previous public hearing to consider revisions that would have restricted accessory apartments to only one per property, the public had not been supportive because it thought there was a need in Town for more affordable housing units. Mr. Owen said that the situations described at the hearing; housing needed for family members, the elderly, farm workers, etc., could qualify as affordable housing and that per the proposed regulation, a second apartment could be used as affordable housing without undermining soil based zoning. It was not thought that adopting the proposed revisions would result in a big change in the number of apartments in Town. It was the consensus of the commissioners to schedule a public hearing in May.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 13.9: Inns: Mrs. Friedman noted that until recently the Commission had interpreted the Regulations to mean that inns were permitted only on state highways, but that Mr. Owen had pointed out that this was not what was actually written. She said that at the last meeting the Commission had discussed a compromise to permit inns on state highways and on Town roads within the business districts. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Averill thought this was a reasonable approach as inns could have restaurants or taverns, which could generate traffic. Mrs. Friedman asked whether revisions concerning architecture, the number of rooms permitted, or the deletion of the reference to tourist homes should be considered. Mr. Owen did not think that inns were a pressing matter and so recommended that the Commission make only one revision at this time; to require inns to be located on state highways. In addition, 13.9.1 will be included in 13.9 and the following sections will be renumbered. 13.9.3 will read, "The frontage shall be on a state highway and shall be a minimum of 500 feet." Mr. Federer asked what could be done to prevent an inn from acquiring additional parcels and then evolving into a much larger, multi faceted operation. Mr. Ajello suggested this could be controlled with a specific definition of "inn." A public hearing was scheduled for May to consider only the clarification that inns shall be located on state highways. Mr. Owen recommended that a subcommittee of interested commissioners tackle the remaining issues.

Revision of the Regulations/Section 16.5.1: Signs: It was noted that several meetings ago the Commission had agreed to revise Section 16.5.1 to state, "No sign shall be closer than 10 feet to any side property line." Mr. Owen pointed out that this would help to resolve the problem of wide right of ways along front boundary lines. A public hearing was scheduled for April. The current request by the Washington Club for a sign in The Green District, a residential district, was discussed. Currently, Section 16.4.1 permits one sign on residential lots only in residential districts. It was the consensus that the Commission would pursue revisions to permit limited signage for specific uses by Special Permit in residential districts. Inns and bed and breakfast establishments were two such uses given as examples.

Washington Club/92 Green Hill Road: Mr. Ajello presented a newspaper ad for renting out the Washington Club Hall and asked whether a private club hall in the residential district could be rented out to the public. Mr. Owen said that the club had been rented out for functions for years and this was a grandfathered use predating Zoning. He also said he thought it was good for the Town because there were few buildings here with the potential to be used in this way. Mr. Ajello asked if there was any question about whether the Club was a non profit organization. Mr. Owen responded that it was a non profit social club. It was the consensus that the renting out of the Club hall was not an issue because this activity predated Zoning.

Privilege of the Floor

Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations: Section 21.1.37/ Definition of Lot Coverage: Atty. Kelly, representing Kent Greenhouse and Kelly and Trevenen, submitted the letter dated 2/25/08, which requested that Section 21.1.37 be amended by adding the following sentence, "Notwithstanding, driveways, parking areas and lots, and walkways, which are constructed of engineered pervious materials systems are exempt from this definition, provided that certification installation in accordance with manufacturer's standards is provided by a certified installer or licensed engineer." He said that not counting them in the lot coverage calculation would provide property owners with an incentive to install pervious driveways and walkways. He presented several samples of pervious engineered materials that could be used. He also submitted some past Zoning Commission minutes, which indicated that in 2003 the Commission had discussed possible incentives for impervious driveways. Mr. Owen said this was a good issue to consider, noting that he had attended an environmental seminar on this topic and had brochures on the subject. He noted, however, that the Commission would carefully study the matter to be sure that granting an increase in coverage would not result in a problem. For example, he cited the dust problem in the parking lot at 16 Church Street, which resulted in its being paved. Mr. Ajello noted the downside would be maintenance problems; the installed surfaces would have to be maintained so they would continue to function properly. Mr. Owen and Mr. Ajello will meet with Atty. Kelly to discuss the petition before the next meeting. It was noted the petition would be officially received at March 24th meeting.

Mr. Papsin, Mygatt Road, voiced his concern about the increased hours of operation at the Citgo Station at 210 New Milford Turnpike, because its excessively bright lights were now on from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Mr. Averill agreed that the lighting was "obnoxious." Mr. Ajello noted there were also mercury vapor lights with no shields on poles at the storage facility and at Dowler's Garage that are excessively bright and shine toward Mygatt Road. Mr. Papsin asked the Commission to contact CL&P as it did several years ago to ask again that these lights be lowered, shielded, and directed downward. Mr. Papsin also asked if there was any provision in the Regulations that would protect nearby residences from businesses expanding their hours. He said this was a problem both along Rt. 202 and elsewhere in Town and so asked for revisions to address it. Mr. Owen agreed that the canopy lights at the gas station were a nuisance because they light up the whole area, and a safety issue because it takes a long time for a driver's eyes to recover from their glare. He also agreed the CL&P lighting was inappropriate and dangerous because it shines in your eyes as you drive west on Rt. 202 as well as incredibly inefficient as it does not do the job that its intended to. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Averill to research the CL&P lighting. Mr. Papsin also complained about the 150 watt flood lights on Dr. Kane's office and the lights at the state DOT property, which are on all day as well as all night. Mr. Owen thought that it was time the Commission tackled the problem of outdoor lighting in the commercial districts. While it was noted that the existing lighting would be grandfathered, it was thought that the Commission would persuade some of the business owners to install more appropriate lighting, especially if there was support from the Board of Selectmen. Mrs. Hill suggested that Section 13.1.b.8 regarding nuisances be used to control existing lighting. Mr. Ajello was directed to send a letter to the owners of properties with problem outdoor lighting to inform them that complaints have been received and to persuade them to take corrective measures.

Mr. Papsin expressed his concern about drainage for the Moore Special Permit for Shop and Storage Use should Mr. Moore wash his vehicles on site. Mr. Ajello said there would be no plumbing in the building.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.15.4, 12.15.9/ Outdoor Residential Lighting: Mr. Owen proposed to add to Section 12.15.4 that no outdoor lighting may be mounted on trees or other vegetation. He noted this had been in the original draft, but had been deleted. Since then he noticed that a number of the worst examples of outdoor lighting in Town are mounted in trees. In 12.15.9 there had been a typo and the word, "not," had been omitted. He read the proposed revised language for the non binding guidelines. All of the commissioners agreed to proceed with the proposed revisions. A public hearing was scheduled for May. Mr. Averill noted that the lights in the J.D. Tucker parking lot are on all night. Mr. Ajello will contact the owners.

Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment: Mr. Owen noted when it had dealt with the Rumsey Hall School request for a variance for noise generating equipment, the ZBA had suggested that a stockade fence be built around the generator. Mr. Ajello pointed out that in that case there was no significant impact to neighboring properties. Mr. Owen responded that the Regulations state that there must be less impact to neighbors if the equipment is to be moved farther than 25 feet from the structure principally served. He said the intent of the Regulations was to require this equipment to be close to the homeowner so that he would keep it quiet. Mrs. Friedman noted that the ZBA had granted many variances of this requirement. Mr. Owen reported that he had spoken with an acoustical engineer who advised him that there is a small device, a broad band noise generator, which can be used so that you can measure the noise generated with a decibel meter. He proposed to retain the requirement that in order to be moved farther than 25 feet from the principal structure served the equipment must have less impact on the neighbors and to add a provision regarding how this must be proven. Mr. Owen noted that the Zoning Regulations had not stated that less impact had to be proven, which resulted in the ZBA loosely interpreting this section. The commissioners thought the proposed language was an improvement because it would require applicants to use a specific method to prove that there would be less impact to neighbors if the equipment was moved and also thought that there would probably be fewer variance applications under this section. (The proposed language is attached.) This will be discussed again at the next meeting and Mr. Owen will ask Mr. Sedito, Chairman of the ZBA, for his input.

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

Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Hill

Land Use Coordinator

CAPS = new

13.11 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 ALLOWED PER PROPERTY, EXCEPT THAT BY SPECIAL PERMIT A SECOND APARTMENT MAY BE ALLOWED IF:

A. ONE OF THE APARTMENTS IS ATTACHED AND THE OTHER IS DETACHED, AND

B. ONE OF THE TWO APARTMENTS IS DEED-RESTRICTED SUCH THAT IT MUST BE RENTED AT A PRICE THAT WILL PRESERVE IT AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" IS DEFINED AS HOUSING FOR WHICH PERSONS AND FAMILIES PAY THIRTY PERCENT OR LESS OF THEIR ANNUAL INCOME, AND SUCH INCOME IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO EIGHTY PERCENT OF MEDIAN INCOME. "MEDIAN INCOME" IS DEFINED AS THE LOWER OF THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE STATE OR THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE AREA IN WHICH THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON IS SITUATED, AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FOR FAMILY SIZE. SUCH PERMIT SHALL BE VALID FOR AS LONG AS THE DEED RESTRICTION REMAINS IN EFFECT.

13.11.2 Accessory Apartment, Attached.

a. No more than one attached accessory apartment shall be permitted per property.

13.11.3 Accessory Apartment, Detached.

a. No more than one detached accessory apartment shall be permitted per property.

16.5. Non Residential District Signs. The following signs are permitted in non residential districts:

16.5.1 No sign shall be closer than 10 feet TO any SIDE property line.

12.15 Addition of Section 12.15 re: outdoor lighting in residential districts effective 4/14/07 Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts. Nighttime darkness is a vanishing natural resource. Excessive or poorly designed outdoor lighting unnecessarily brightens the nighttime sky, emits objectionable illumination visible on other properties, poses a safety risk to pedestrians and drivers, disturbs natural habitats, and is not in keeping with the rural character of the Town. The purpose of these regulations is to permit reasonable illumination of outdoor areas during their active use, while reducing negative impacts.

12.15.1 All exterior lighting shall be shielded and aimed so that the lamps (bulbs) or other light sources cannot be seen from beyond the property served. No exterior lighting may be used in a manner that produces a bloom or a direct glare visible beyond the property served. These requirements can be met by using "Dark-Sky Friendly" exterior lighting fixtures approved by the International Dark-Sky Association, or fixtures similar to the "Fixtures that do meet the requirements of 12.15.1" in the chart in 12.15.10.

12.15.2 Nighttime outdoor activities may be illuminated only during periods when the activities are underway.

12.15.3 Decorative lighting of trees, other vegetation, ponds, land forms, steeples, structures, and other property features is prohibited. (See traditional holiday exception, 12.15.8). American flags and their flagpoles may be illuminated; no flagpole may be illuminated when its flag is not flying

12.15.4 No light fixture may be aimed at the sky or toward any area, structure, or surface that is not situated on the property. NO LIGHT FIXTURE MAY BE MOUNTED IN, OR ATTACHED TO, A TREE OR OTHER VEGETATION.

12.15.5 Security lighting is permitted only if it is directed toward the structures being protected, not away from them. This requirement can be met by wall-mounted fixtures only if the wall-mounted fixtures are aimed directly downward and properly shielded.

12.15.6 No exterior light source may be installed more than 15 feet above grade or more than 30 feet from the object or area that it is intended to illuminate.

12.15.7 Moving lights, lights producing varying intensities or changing colors, and search lights are prohibited.

12.15.8 Traditional decorative holiday lights may be operated temporarily, without a permit, between Thanksgiving and January 31.

12.15.9 Non-binding guidelines and recommendations. Residents are encouraged to use lamps (bulbs) of the lowest effective wattage, and to use sensor-activated fixtures whenever practical. Studies have shown that most security lighting is self-defeating because it creates deep shadows and blinding glare, OR BECAUSE IT HELPS CRIMINALS BY ILLUMINATING REMOTE AREAS OR STRUCTURES THAT CANNOT BE OBSERVED BY PASSERSBY OR PATROLING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Walkway lighting usually works better when it is mounted CLOSE TO THE GROUND RATHER THAN at the eyelevel of pedestrians. EMPTY PARKING LOTS DO NOT NEED TO BE ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT. Turning off unnecessary exterior lighting reduces energy consumption and saves money. Keeping exterior lighting to a minimum is neighborly, and it helps to preserve the rural character of our town.

12.15.10 Lighting Fixture Chart.

12.14 Addition of Section 12.14, Noise generating equip., effective 11/26/99; revision of 12.14 - 12.14.3; add purpose, increase setback distances, effective 11/18/02 Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment. The purpose of this section is to limit the impact of noise generating equipment on neighboring properties and to give the owners of noise generating equipment an incentive for reducing the noise produced by equipment they own and operate for their own benefit. THE REQUIREMENTS OF 12.14 ARE MEANT TO BE CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND TO BE COMPREHENSIBLE TO NON-EXPERTS; TO THIS END, COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 12.14.1, 12.14.2, AND 12.14.3 CAN BE DETERMINED WITH A MEASURING TAPE.

12.14.1 All generators, air conditioners, and other noise generating equipment installed in a fixed location (except pool filters and related equipment; see 12.14.2) shall be situated within twenty-five (25) feet of the structure principally served.

12.14.2 All pool filters, pool heaters, and related equipment shall be situated within fifty (50) feet of the pool served. Addition of 12.14.5 re: Special Exceptions for noise generating equipment effective 2/12/05

12.14.3 All generators, air conditioners, pool filters, and other noise generating equipment shall be situated nearer to the structure principally served than to any building line (defined in Section 21) ON ANY ADJACENT LOT.

12.14.4 All noise generating mechanical equipment and the structures that enclose them are considered structures under the definition of structure in Section 21 of the Zoning Regulations.

12.14.5 By Special Exception application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, a request may be made for generators, air conditioners, pool filters, and other noise generating equipment to be situated, under certain circumstances, farther from the structure principally served than is specified under Sections 12.14.1, 12.14.2, and 12.14.3. In order to be granted such a Special Exception, an applicant must PROVE demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Appeals that placing the noise generating equipment in the proposed location would have less noise impact on neighboring properties than would placing it in accordance with Sections 12.14.1, 12.14.2, and 12.14.3. THE APPLICANT SHALL MAKE THIS PROOF BY EMPLOYING AN ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER, ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT, OR CIVIL ENGINEER TO MEASURE THE DECIBEL LEVELS OF A TEST NOISE THAT IS PRODUCED BY A BROADBAND NOISE GENERATOR OR COMPARABLE DEVICE AT BOTH THE PROPOSED SITE AND A SITE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 12.14.1, 12.14.2, AND 12.14.3. DECIBEL READINGS OF THE TEST NOISE PRODUCED AT EACH SITE SHALL BE TAKEN, AT INTERVALS OF NO MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET, ALONG ALL BULIDING LINES ON ALL ADJACENT LOTS, AND THESE READINGS SHALL BE RECORDED ON A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS WHERE AND WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN. THE TEST NOISES GENERATED AT THE TWO SITES MUST BE IDENTICAL AND MUST BE LOUD ENOUGH TO BE DETECTED BY A DECIBEL METER AT ALL THE REQUIRED MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS. IN ORDER FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER 12.14.5, THE DECIBEL READINGS AT ALL MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS MUST BE LOWER FOR THE TEST NOISE GENERATED AT THE PROPOSED SITE THAN FOR THE TEST NOISE GENERATED AT THE SITE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 12.14.1, 12.14.2, AND 12.14.3. AN ASSURANCE BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE PROPOSED NOISE GENERATING EQUIPMENT WILL BE ENCLOSED IN A SOUND-DEADENING STRUCTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 12.14.5.NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT WHEN THESE NOISE READINGS ARE TAKEN. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to send written notification of the pending noise test to all neighboring property owners. Neighboring properties shall include all adjoining properties plus any properties located across the street which, except for the street, would also be adjoining. Notification shall be by certified mail/return receipt requested, on forms provided by the Land Use Office. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Board of Appeals a list of the names and addresses of all neighboring property owners and all certified mail receipts prior to the HEARING AT WHICH the APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED. Certified letters sent to adjoining property owners to inform them of THE NOISE TEST shall be postmarked no later than ten days prior to the test. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not consider the application complete, nor may it approve such application, if the list and the receipts have not been submitted.

Posted: February 7, 2008

January 28, 2008

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Wyant

ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro

STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Boling, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Sears, Mr. Williams, Ms. Stevens, Mrs. Arturi, Mrs. Ward, Mr. Hileman, Mrs. Condon, Mrs. Matthews, Mr. Tagley, Mrs. Watkins, Mr. Allen, Mrs. Brown, Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Charles, Atty. Fisher, Atty. Zizka, Atty. Pocius, Mr. Papsin, Ms. LoPresti, Mr. Rinaldez, Mrs. McDonald, Ms. Curtis, Mr. Kiss, Residents, Press

Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen. He noted the order of the agenda would be changed to give anyone who wanted to speak about the proposed revisions to Section 13.11 regarding accessory apartments the opportunity to do so prior to the Myfield public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. He noted the hearing would be continued to Monday, March 24, 2008 and that the proposed revisions would be referred to the Planning Commission and councils of government as required by the state statutes.

MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3 to permit only one accessory apartment per property to Monday, March 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.

At 7:32 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to 7:30 p.m. on March 24, 2008.

Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Affordable Housing Per CGS 8-30g

Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 1/16 and 1/23/06. Mr. Owen read the list of all of the documents in the file and the 1/28/08 ZEO Report, which stated that the certified mailing receipts had not been submitted. Mr. Boling submitted 36 certified mailing receipts.

Mr. Gitterman read his introductory statement dated 1/28/08.

When Mr. Boling began to speak on behalf of the applicant, Atty. Zizka, Commission counsel, noted he had previously represented Mr. Boling on another matter, and although this was not a traditional conflict of interest, he thought he should note it for the record. He asked then if either the applicant or the Commission objected to him continuing to represent the Commission. Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Boling, and the Commission said they had no objections.

MOTION: The Washington Zoning Commission has no problem with Atty. Zizka continuing to represent it regarding the Myfield, LLC. affordable housing application given that he has represented Open Space Equity in the past and may do so in the future. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.

The map, "Site Layout," by Mr. Worcester, revised to 12/16/07 was reviewed.

Mr. Boling noted the previous application had been approved for thirteen identical units. The current application, he said, would introduce enhancements to make the project more aesthetically pleasing. He pointed out how the orientation and placement of some of the buildings changed, that more landscaping buffers were proposed, and that there were now a greater variety of unit types He noted an additional building was proposed to the north of the existing driveway entrance. He also stated that the conservation easement area on the property had been increased to include 80% of the site and the proposed impervious surfaces would decrease to 9%.

Mr. Boling provided details about the different types of units. Buildings #1 - #3 would each have two 940 sq. ft. apartments, one per floor. The apartments would vary slightly due to variations in the ingress and egress of each; the ground level units would have access to the basement, whereas the upper units would include the unfinished area over the garage. Two of these six units would be affordable; one on the first floor of Building #2 and one on the second floor of Building #1, so that there would be an affordable unit for each floor plan. These units would have one bedroom. Mr. Owen noted each unit would have access to unfinished space and asked if this was included in the square footage. Mr. Boling said it was not. The rest of the buildings would be 1980 sq. ft. single family dwellings, each with two bedrooms. Buildings #5, #7, and #9 would be affordable. Mr. Boling stated that all of the units would be fully finished and functional and that the purchasers could select from available options. Mr. Owen asked if all of the options were detailed in the material submitted. Mr. Boling said that standard unit specs for purchasers who did not want to make their own decisions had been submitted. Mrs. Friedman asked if purchasers could choose finishes and make changes to the floor plans. Mr. Boling said they could, but the choices had to be within their construction budget and any changes to the floor plans could not decrease the number of bedrooms or the sq. ft. of the finished floor area. Mr. Gitterman added that interior changes could be made, but no change that would affect the footprint of any building.

Mrs. Friedman asked if any moderately priced units would be offered. Mr. Boling said the smaller sized market rate units might qualify for CHAFA mortgages, but that was not known at this point and the owners would have no control over this matter.

Mr. Boling noted the two buildings proposed along Mygatt Road would screen the rest of the development behind them.

Mr. Boling reviewed the floor plans, Sheets A-1 - A-12 by Mr. Worcester, revised to 12/16/07. He noted subtle differences between each proposed building that provided architectural variety, but said each unit type would have essentially the same sq. footage. Mr. Owen noted that in previous promotional material market rate buyers would have the opportunity to increase their living area by finishing the basement. He asked if this was still an option. Mr. Boling said that buyers of both the affordable and market rate units could do so. Mrs. Friedman asked if the option was still available to locate the master bedroom on the first floor. Mr. Boling said that the modular construction made this a possible option. Mr. Gitterman briefly detailed the modular construction technique.

Mrs. Friedman noted that changes could be made within the budget for each unit, but asked how future buyers would be kept within the affordable guidelines when they make further changes. Mr. Gitterman said that for the affordable units, the owner would be able to recoup only a percent of his investment set by state statute.

Mrs. Friedman asked if interior floor plan changes that would affect exterior features such as doors and windows would be allowed. Mr. Gitterman said that window changes would not be permitted on certain walls due to privacy concerns. Mr. Boling thought the most likely window changes would be on the side or back of the units or that due to the change in the location of the kitchen, the front windows might be lengthened.

Mr. Owen asked if there could be changes that would alter the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. Mr. Boling said that the number of bedrooms could not be increased in any of the units and could not be decreased in the affordable units.

Mrs. Friedman asked how the budget for the affordable units would be determined. Mr. Boling said it would be determined by Myfield, LLC. He noted that no unit owner would be able to make modifications that would result in an affordable unit becoming uninhabitable or not fully finished.

Mr. Abella noted the current application was for three more units than the number originally approved. Mr. Boling said this was true, but that the total number of bedrooms was the same.

Mr. Ajello asked if air conditioning would be advertised as an option. Mr. Boling said it would. It was noted it would be difficult to install air conditioning in existing unit #5 because it has no duct work, but Mr. Boling stated that the rest of the units would not be built until there was a buyer who would choose his own options.

Atty. Zizka asked if it had been decided which of the units would be priced at 60% and which at 85% and if of the five affordable units, three would be priced at 60% and two at 80%. Mr. Boling said this had not yet been determined.

Atty. Pocius said he had been asked to summarize his correspondence to Atty. Zizka and made a lengthy statement on behalf of the applicant. He included the following points: 1) Regarding the issue of customization, in this case reasonable profit comes from a few extra units and the custom options. He said that the state favors this approach. He noted that customization allows the developer to compete in the market place. 2) The law does not state that identical units must be offered and that the diversity of unit types would lead to a diversity of buyers, which is one goal of the law. 3) State statues state only that the units must be comparable in size and workmanship and that the proposed units would have a very high standard of workmanship in both the affordable and market rate units. 4) Per the Wisniowski case, affordable housing projects could not discriminate against larger families and interior improvements could be added to affordable units as long as by doing so the affordable price cap was not exceeded. 5) Although he said he was hoping to avoid a lawsuit, he described the circumstances under which his client would sue the Commission.

Mr. Owen clarified the statement made by Atty. Pocius in his 1/11/08 letter to Atty. Zizka that the Commission had taken the position that all of the units had to be made comparable by being "essentially identical." Mr. Owen pointed out that the idea of building "absolutely identical" units had been proposed not by the Zoning Commission but by the applicant in its first application, which had been subsequently approved by the Commission with only minor conditions, one of which was that any changes in the approved design would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Commission. When Myfield then built units that were different from each other and from the single set of plans in the approved application, Mr. Owen had informed Myfield's attorney that the applicant would have to seek a revised approval, and that the Zoning Commission could not issue certificates of zoning compliance until this matter had been resolved. Mr. Owen noted that Atty. Pocius's points about identical units were not relevant to the current application, which would be judged on its own merits. Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Owen briefly gave the background of the first application to make it clear that the concept of building "identical" units came from the applicant and not the Commission. Mr. Owen noted that the Commission, before approval, had asked the applicant if modifications could be made to individual units so that the units would not all be identical, and that the applicant had told the Commission that such variations would be impossible because the units would be factory-built. Mr. Owen said the current application included many features that improved the appearance of the development by introducing variety.

Questions and comments were taken from the public.

Mr. Fairbairn read his 1/26/08 letter on behalf of the Washington Community Housing Trust in support of the application.

Ms. Stevens, Mygatt Road, asked what the front yard setback requirement was. Mr. Owen noted that because this application falls under the state Affordable Housing Appeals Act, the developer could circumvent local zoning regulations if 30% of the units proposed were "Affordable" under the state definition. Ms. Stevens stated that Mygatt Road was slated for improvements and widening by the Town and so said the applicant must take this into consideration when siting the buildings. Mr. Sears, former First Selectmen, said there were no plans to widen the road. Mr. Owen said he did not see this as a safety issue because the proposed units would not signific