The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Commission - 09
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission - 09 |
|
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Zoning Commission
December 28 •December 8 •November 23 •October 26 •October 26 •September 21 •August 24 •July 22 •June 22 •May 18 •April 27 •March 23 •February 23 •January 26 •Previous years: 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 31, 2009 December 28, 2009
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, Alt., A.J. Dubois, Alt., Harry Wyant Alt.
Absent:
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Wendy Federer, Valerie Anderson, Harold Tittmann, Architect, Attorney Rob Fisher, Dick Carey, Bob Papsin, Holly Flor, Justin Gabrenas, Residents, PressMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella
Revision of Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on December 16 and December 23, 2009 and the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Owen read a memo, dated 12/24/09 from the Planning Commission that contained the motion made by the Planning Commission to approve the proposed amendments to Sections 7.3.7, 7.14.17, 8.3.7, 8.4.20 and 9.4.1.d. Mr. Owen read a letter from Dan McGuinness, Director of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments, dated 11/19/09. Mr. McGuinness stated that 1)“restaurant” and “eating and drinking establishment” should be defined. 2) The existing regulations contain parking requirements for restaurants but none for eating and drinking establishments and that the “Commission should clarify how many parking spaces will be required for an “eating and drinking establishment” and 3) There are no unique standards for eating and drinking establishments other than the standard special permit requirements and Mr. McGuinness questions why the Commission is not “considering imposing additional requirements on eating and drinking establishments” which is a business use in a business district. Ms. Valerie Friedman reiterated why she thought it important to revise these regulations. She stated that the Special Permit Requirement already exists in the Marbledale and Woodville Business Districts but not in Washington Depot or New Preston. She stated that revising these sections would make the language uniform throughout and requiring a Special Permit for an eating and drinking establishment would give the Zoning Commission some control over the way a business would operated and discourage inappropriate uses. There was a brief discussion as to whether the language in the regulations distinguishes between a restaurant and an eating and drinking establishment. Susan Bishop Wrabel of Baldwin Hill Road, requested the differentiation between a restaurant with a certain amount of seating and parking as opposed to a counter service or as opposed an eating and drinking establishment that serves it’s patrons through drive thru. Mr. Owen read definitions of a restaurant, take out restaurant, and eating and drinking place from The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. He stated that he agreed with Mr. McGuinness that the terms need to be defined. There was a discussion regarding whether or not to proceed with approving the revisions before or after the terms are defined. The majority of the Commissioners agreed that they should proceed with the revisions and define the terms later. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he disagreed because he did not see the purpose of the revision and that the existing regulations have been working. He stated that he thinks that this revision would add extra expense and time for the applicant. Ms. Hill stated that she thought the benefit of the revision would be that the business that is being applied for would have to conform to what already exists in the neighborhood. Mr. Reich stated that he was not clear as to the advantages of the revisions but would like to hear more before making his decision. Mr. Averill stated that he could see both sides and would like to see consistency in the regulations but feels the terms need to be defined.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 7.3.7, 7.4.17, 8.3.7, 8.4.20, 9.4.1.a, 9.4.1.d to require a Special Permit for eating and drinking establishments in all business districts and minor revisions to make the language uniform throughout
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.Mahan/54 Sunny Ridge Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on December 16 and December 23, 2009 and the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Harold Tittmann, Architect, was present to represent Mr. Mahan for this application. Mr. Tittmann first presented the Property/Boundary Survey, prepared for Christopher Mahan, 54 Sunny Ridge Road, dated June 2009, by T. Michael Alex, which had been reviewed at the previous Zoning Meeting, but when it became clear that the Commission did not think the driveway shown complied with Section 13.11.3.h, he presented a revised Property Boundary Survey (rec’d 12/28/09). Mr. Tittmann explained that the driveway would serve both the main house and the garage/accessory apartment. He stated that the wetlands were considered when locating the shared driveway. There was a discussion regarding the distance of the house to the garage/accessory apartment. Mr. Tittmann stated that the garage was approximately 120 feet from the main house. It was the consensus of the Commission that the opening in the rock wall adjacent to the garage, which is currently being used by construction vehicles, should be closed as a condition of approval. There were no comments from the public.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Mahan, under Section 13.11.3 for Detached Accessory Apartment at 54 Sunny Ridge Road,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.13/ Construct Storage Shed:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on December 16 and December 23, 2009 and the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Justin Gabrenas was present to represent Lake Waramaug Country Club for this application. Mr. Gabrenas explained that the shed is an approximated 500 square foot, prefabricated, self contained, storage building that will be used to store pesticides for the golf course. There were no comments or questions from the public.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Lake Waramaug Country Club, under Section 6.4.13 to Construct Storage Shed at 22 Golf Links Road,
by Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Owen, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the regular meeting to order at 8:22 pm.
Consideration of the Minutes
The November 23, 2009 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:
Corrections:
Page 2: under Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads:, 2nd sentence, should read: Both Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Reich said they had no reason to recuse themselves.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2009, as amended,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Mahan/54 Sunny Ridge Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
There was a brief discussion regarding closing the rock wall by the garage as a condition of approval.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mahan at 54 Sunny Ridge Road for Detached Accessory Apartment, based on the revised Property Boundary Survey, prepared for Christopher Mahan, by T. Michael Alex, dated June 2009, with the condition that the opening in the stone farm wall next to the accessory garage be closed,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 voteLake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.13/Construct Storage Shed:
There were no further comments from the Commission.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application: Section 6.4.13 submitted by Lake Waramaug Country Club at 22 Golf Links Road to Construct a Storage Shed,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Special Permit: section 6.4.6/Fences on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road: Mr. Bob Papsin was present to represent this application. He submitted pictures of the property and the two separate types of fences the property owner would like to install. He explained that he has consulted with the Department of Transportation and has met their setback requirements. Ms. Hill stated that the proposed picket fence is 42 inches above grade and that the proposed split rail fence along the side of the property is 48 inches high to the top of the posts and that a gate across the driveway is also being proposed.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on January 25, 2010 to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Section 6.4.6/Fences on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to add subsequent business to the Agenda, under section V. Other Business as item E. Election of Officers,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Revision of Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:
Mr. Owen suggested that the Commission revisit the issue of defining the terms of “Eating and Drinking Establishments” and “Restaurants” at a later date.Motion:
to approve the Revision of Zoning Regulations Sections/ 7.3.7, 7.4.17, 8.3.7, 8.4.20, 9.4.1.a, 9.4.1.d to allow Eating and Drinking Establishments in New Preston and Depot Business Districts by Special Permit,
by Mr. Owen, Seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Possible Revision of The Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14 Re: Special Exceptions for Generators and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission would wait for the Zoning Board of Appeals to respond.Preliminary Discussion re: Lighting of St. John’s Church – application and possible revision of the Regulations:
Ms. Holly Flor was present to represent St. John’s Church. She stated that the sign located at the front of the Church is on State property and has been grandfathered in. The lighting of the sign has been adjusted and she submitted a photo of the lighting approved by the Historic District Commission. She stated that the church is looking to light the property for security reasons. She stated that it would be beneficial to have a better definition of what “security lighting” means. There was a discussion regarding insurance. Ms. Flor discussed the different options of lighting the outside of the church. Mr. Owen explained that the lights must be dark sky friendly and must light the church only. Ms. Hill asked if the unauthorized lighting already installed would be removed. Ms. Flor said it had been turned off.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads:
Mr. Owen stated that Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Averill had a subcommittee meeting in an effort to draft a definition for “inn” in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Shapiro summarized his Memorandum to The Washington Zoning Commission, regarding Definition of “Inn”, dated December 28, 2009 (attached), which he had written in response to Mr. Fitzherbert’s 12/8/09 statement. Mr. Shapiro stated that about 70% of uses in the R-1 district are defined in the Town of Washington’s Zoning Regulations. He stated that not all definitions are in the formal definition section of the regulations but are defined within the regulations. Mr. Shapiro concluded that the question should not be ‘Why are “inns” being singled out for definition” but why is “inn” “undefined and unregulated”? Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he does not have a problem with defining “inn”. He stated that the existing regulations do give Z.C. the authority to review the location, type, character, size, proportion, appearance and intensity and that Mr. Averill wanted to include these items in the definition and he did not. Mr. Owen suggested that looking at the Mayflower Inn could be a starting point. Mr. Averill stated that he didn’t agree because, in his opinion, the Mayflower Inn is a resort. He stated that he thinks the difference in defining terms such as Bed and Breakfast, Inn, Hotel, Motel, or Resort is size. Mr. Reich stated that there should be a working definition for an “inn” and does not agree that a number could be part of the definition and that it would not be possible to include all that an inn encompasses in the definition of an inn. Mr. Owen stated that there is an obvious difference in understanding as to how “inn” is defined. He stated a definition of “inn” is necessary because it would provide guidelines, which would benefit the Zoning Commission and applicants. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he found that many definitions of “inn” are unclear because they use the other words, such as hotel, in the definition. He stated that the existing regulations include requirements for health, septic, density & size of the land, town variables and neighborhood variables and he feels this is why a definition of “inn’ has not come up until now. He stated that these tools have been used to make decisions that are nondiscriminatory to this date and that defining it by size would affect many other things and could limit inns on large parcels. Mr. Owen stated that he did not feel that it would be discriminatory to set a size limit. Mr. Averill stated that the fact that the word “inn” is in the title of a business doesn’t make it an “inn”. He suggested a definition for “resort” be added and resorts be permitted in appropriate locations in Town. Mr. Fitzherbert talked about the history of inns in the Town of Washington. He stated that, in his opinion, the Zoning Commission could not determine whether inns on town roads would be good for the Town and its future. Mr. Averill stated he is not opposed to having the hospitality business in the Town of Washington, but that it is necessary to define the terms. Mr. Dubois stated that he did not think the definition of an “inn” should be based on the Mayflower Inn because he feels that it is a “destination resort”. He stated that he did not feel that a “destination resort” should be put on a Town Road. Mr. Shapiro noted the Zoning Commission had approved the addition of a spa to the Mayflower Inn in 2003, but he questioned whether the Commission considered the future impacts this would have on both the Town and the definition of “inn”. He did not think the existing Mayflower Inn should “hem in” the Commission when it defined “inn”, and he reminded the Commission that the definition of “inn” has grown to include uses that would not otherwise be allowed in residential areas. Mr. Owen stated that the Town or State road was not the issue at the moment but an inn in a R-1 District. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that Zoning has approved the Mayflower Inn’s various stages of expansion, which has helped them stay in business and stay competitive. Mr. Fitzherbert asked what parts of the existing regulations are not working. Mr. Owen stated that they do work but they could be refined to make it easier and reduce ambiguity for the applicants and Zoning Commission. He suggested the Commission study Mrs. Peacock’s research on inns as part of the process of drafting a definition. Mr. Reich stated that the revision of a regulation proceeded without a definition of an “inn” and he feels that the regulation could be revised further without defining “inn”. Mr. Shapiro stated that it is important for the Zoning Commission and the applicants to know the parameters of what an inn is. Mr. Abella stated that he agreed with Mr. Owen that the Mayflower encompasses the Town of Washington’s meaning of an inn. He believes that quality, size and proportion to the environment is important and that it should be big enough to be economically viable as well as fit in with the Town. Mr. Shapiro stated that the Commission should be mindful when defining “inn” for the Town, that some of these amenities would not be allowed in an R-1 District. There was a brief discussion regarding State Roads and Town Roads. It was the consensus of the Commission that a definition would not be resolved at the moment and that they should continue to work on it.
Election of Officers:
Mr. Owen appointed Mr. Abella and Mr. Reich as the nominating committee and asked that they recommend a commissioner for Secretary. It was the consensus of the Commissioner that Mr. Owen would remain Chairman and Mr. Fitzherbert would remain Vice Chairman.
Privilege of the Floor
Ms. Peacock asked why the Zoning Commission is looking to revise Zoning Regulation Section 13.9 now. Mr. Owen stated that the subject was brought up in October and that there is time to address it now.
Communications
Ms. Hill Submitted the proposed calendar for Zoning Commission Meetings for 2010.Motion:
to approve the Zoning Commission 2010 Meeting Dates Calendar as submitted,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Enforcement
Mr. Owen stated that there were no pressing issues on Mr. Ajello’s ZEO Report dated 12/28/09 and he asked that the Commissioners look of the report.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:50 pm
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
12/31/09
ATTACHMENT #1
Memorandum
TO: Washington Zoning Commission
FROM: Andy Shapiro, Zoning Alternate
RE: Definition of “Inn”
DATE: 28 December 2009Misconception about defining “inn”: I wish to comment on what seems to be a misconception afoot in the Zoning Commission’s current consideration of whether or not to define an “inn.” The misconception is that in defining an “inn” we would somehow be singling “inns” out for undeserved special attention, which is not accorded to the other uses in the R-1 district. Given that misconception, the very act of defining an “inn” becomes somehow suspect, raising questions about why some commissioners may be motivated to define this particular use but not all of the others permitted in the R-1 district.
The facts are quite to the contrary: Far from singling “inns” out for special attention, defining them would actually be much more in keeping with how our regulations treat most of the other uses in the R-1 district. To leave “inns” undefined would actually single them out for special treatment.
Subcommittee on Defining “Inn”: This whole issue arose at the Dec. 8, 2009, meeting of the subcommittee on defining inns, composed of Commissioners Ralph Averill and Gary Fitzherbert. The minutes of that meeting reflect that Commissioner Fitzherbert rejected Commissioner Averill’s contention that “inn” should be defined: “[Commissioner Fitzherbert] did not think a definition of ‘inn’ was needed because historically, Zoning has always worked well without one. He also noted that few of the uses permitted now under the Regulations are defined and he saw no need to make an exception in this case.”
Commissioner Fitzherbert submitted a seven-page defense of his position, which stated: “My very strong feelings are that isolating out Inn for more specific black and white regulations is the wrong direction to move in, eliminating the historical common sense approach to making the right decisions for the community. The horror would be to do the same for all 44 uses in the R-1 district and then for all the other districts.”
70 % of R-1 ‘uses’ have definitions: The fact is that the clear majority of uses (about 70 percent) in the R-1 district are already defined in our regulations—and with good reason in each instance. It is, therefore, a misconception to regard the potential definition of an “inn” as some sort of a departure from the Zoning Commission’s long-standing regulatory structure.
Not all of these definitions of R-1 uses show up in the formal definition part of our regulations, Section 21. But they are well defined, nonetheless. Take “shop and storage use” as an example. It is a special-permit use in the R-1 (sec. 4.4.11). True, there is no formal definition of this use in Section 21. But it is elaborately described and controlled in three pages of subsequent regulations (sec. 13.16), far more detailed than any succinct formal definition might have been.
In fact, the easiest way to appreciate which R-1 uses are defined in our regulations is to come at it from the other direction—namely, which uses are not defined—because so few R-1 uses are not defined. The following nine use categories in the R-1 district (out of a total of 31 categories of use) are the only ones not defined in our regulations:
>4.3.4: Swimming pools, ponds [I have deleted “fences” from this list, because it is defined in 21.1.28].
>4.3.5: Public dump, sanitary landfill, and other facilities for the disposal of sewage, garbage, and waste materials only if operated r controlled by the Town of Washington [arguably, this use contains its own definition].
>4.3.7: Patios.
>4.3.8: Unilluminated tennis, basketball, and other sports courts.
>4.4.1: Inn or Tourist home [actually, this use is partially defined in sec. 13.9, which also incorporates extensive details from state statute on motels and overnight cabins].
>4.4.2: Cemetery.
>4.4.3: Commercial horseback riding establishment.
>4.4.9: Buildings, uses, and facilities of the Town of Washington.
>4.4.10: Church, parish house, school, library, museum [I have deleted “registered group day care home” from this list, because it is defined in sec. 21.1.16(c)).All of the other 22 use categories in the R-1 district are defined uses—that is, defined formally in sec. 21 (“Definitions”) or through specific regulations governing the particular use (as in the case of “shop and storage use”). That includes all of the R-1 uses such as: home office, home enterprise, single-family dwelling, farming, farm stand, registered family day care homes, generators, accessory buildings, accessory apartments, convalescent home, kennel, B & B, room and board, residential conversion of an older home, shop and storage, affordable housing, landmark site, boarding house, general home occupation, cell towers, golf course accessory structures, and outdoor wood-burning furnaces.
So, clearly, the norm is to define most R-1 uses. It is the exception to leave them undefined. The same norm seems to be true of the other residential districts (R-2 and R-3). Definition of uses is the rule, not the exception.
Definition of R-1 Uses Protects Residential Values: The greatest concentration of undefined uses in our Regulations comes not in our residential districts but in our business districts (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4). So, for example, we have no definition in the Depot Business District for uses like grocery store, drug store, variety store, eating and drinking establishment, antique shop, retail lumber yard, etc.
Perhaps that lack of definition indicates a recognition that definition of uses is less important in the business districts than in the much more sensitive residential ones. For example, there is no definition of business or professional offices in the business districts. But when similar services (e.g., legal, insurance, real estate, accounting, medical, theraputic, engineering, etc.) are provided out of the home in the residential districts, they are subject to over three pages of regulations (sec. 12.6 on “Home Occupation”). These regulations, not surprisingly, are “designed to maintain the residential character of the lot and the neighborhood, minimize the conflict of the home occupation use with surrounding residential uses and protect residential property values” (sec. 12.6.1(c)).
That same reasoning that justifies definition and regulation of business uses in a home could apply as well to inns in a residential district. Inns, like “Home Occupations,” represent an undeniable commercial intrusion in an otherwise residential zone. They are permitted, absolutely. But, like home occupations, they ought to be defined in terms of their size, scope and, hence, potential impact on the surrounding residential environment.
Conclusion—Why Define a ‘B & B’ but not an ‘Inn’? At a minimum, the Zoning Commission should not shy away from defining “inn” under the mistaken notion that other uses in the R-1 district are not defined. The question should not be, Why are “inns” being singled out for definition (because they’re not). The burden should shift to those who oppose any such definition: Let them come explain why this particular use (“inn”) deserves to be treated differently than 70 percent of the other uses in the R-1 district. Let them justify giving preferential treatment to the use “inn” and insulating it from the clarity that a definition would bring. Let them explain why it is rational for us to define and regulate a relatively simple use like a B & B in the R-1 district, but then let a much larger and more intrusive commercial use like an “inn” go completely undefined and unregulated.
Posted: December 11, 2009 December 8, 2009
Subcommittee Meeting
9:30 a.m., Land Use Meeting RoomCOMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Adams, Mr. Bedini, Mrs. Canning, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Rogness, Mrs. Solomon, PressMr. Fitzherbert handed out a seven page document, dated 12/8/09, (attached) which he said responded to points raised by Mr. Averill at the last Zoning Commission and included a statement at the end. Mr. Averill took a few minutes to read it.
In response, Mr. Averill made several points including:
1) Regarding Section 4.4.1, he stated the purpose of the meeting was to define “inn” as opposed to “resort,” “hotel,” and “motel,” which are prohibited uses. He recommended these prohibited uses be defined as well. He said these definitions were needed if the Commission was to retain control rather than letting developers define the terms for it.2) He noted he had previously submitted his recommended definition for “inn.”
3) He agreed with Mr. Fitzherbert that the Town Plan changes and so, too, the Zoning Commission should review and update its Regulations.
4) He said the Zoning commissioners had taken an oath to uphold the Regulations and when they had not been clear, they had sought to clarify them.
5) It was Mr. Averill’s opinion that if the Town wanted to allow inns on Town roads, regulations written specifically for that purpose should be adopted to prevent personal agendas. He thought it imperative that these specific regulations include a definition of “inn.”
6) He noted the difficulty of making comparisons with the Mayflower Inn, since the Mayflower is “grandfathered” and had been in Town in 1912.
7) Mr. Averill stressed that any decisions made by the Commission about inns and their definition and requirements would not be about one particular application on Wykeham Road, but would affect the whole Town and would be precedent setting.
Mr. Fitzherbert’s comments included the following:
1) He agreed the consideration of inns was absolutely not related to the Wykeham Road application.2) He believed the Commission already has the tools with which it can discuss what is best for the community. He said these are the Special Permit standards and so more specific regulations are not needed. He said the common sense, wisdom, and experience of the commissioners are used to determine how these standards are applied.
3) He did not think a definition of “inn” was needed because historically, Zoning has always worked well without one. He also noted that few of the uses permitted now under the Regulations are defined and he saw no need to make an exception in this case.
4) Mr. Fitzherbert noted the Regulations already state one of its purposes is to encourage the construction of safe business buildings and that they say, too, that the provisions of the Regulations are minimum standards.
5) He said the more regulations written down in black and white, the more is taken from the townspeople because the ability to discuss and debate to come up with what is best in each specific case is lost.
6) Mr. Fitzherbert said he had gotten some general definitions from the internet and dictionary, but said he would not agree to a specific definition for “inn” because the specifics are already addressed in the Special Permit standards and he viewed the request to define “inn” as an attempt to address a hot topic.
Mr. Averill explained that his definition of “inn,” that is, what he thinks of when he considers “inn,” is not even close to what had been proposed as an inn in the Wykeham application. He said that putting a name on something does not make it so, and thought this illustrated the need for the definition. He agreed with the definition of “resort” that Mr. Fitzherbert had included in his 12/8 document in that it stated it was a destination for vacations and recreation and said the definition he had proposed for “resort” was similar.
Mr. Fitzherbert disagreed, saying a resort was a destination like the Bahamas or Disneyland and so did not apply to Washington. He said there were many kinds of inns just as there are many types of schools and that is the reason they are not defined.
Mr. Averill responded that the Zoning Commission had considered inns to be small scale operations as it had included them in the same section of the Regulations as tourist homes and had eliminated larger scale operations such as hotels. He again said it was important to define the term, especially in regards to size and scale.
Mr. Fitzherbert disagreed, saying there were already regulations that promoted what is good for the Town and the commissioners had been elected to make those judgments.
Mr. Averill said if that were the case, we would not need regulations because all decisions could be based on the opinions of the commissioners. He stressed that a definition for “inn” was needed as the basis of discussion, pointing out that now the commissioners did not know whether they were all talking about the same thing whenever they discussed inns. He also noted that Mr. Fitzherbert had often referred to “what’s good for the Town,” but said there were many different opinions about what is good for the Town.
Mr. Averill stated size and scale had to be an integral part of the definition of “inn” and were necessary to differentiate inns from hotels.
Mr. Fitzherbert again stated that most other uses in the Regulations were not defined and so it was not necessary to define this one.
Mr. Averill said the other uses in the Regs would be defined if there was a disagreement about what those terms meant. He also said he did not propose to include specifics such as size and scale in the definition in order to eliminate it, but to include them in order to differentiate “inn” from other uses. He noted the Griswold Inn met his definition of “inn.”
Mr. Fitzherbert noted how the Mayflower Inn had been built and rebuilt and now includes a world famous spa, store, and restaurant and the majority of people think it is wonderful. He said the Commission has found no problem with any of those components of the Mayflower Inn and he questioned why the Commission would not want another similar operation in Town because it would be wonderful for Washington.
Mr. Averill and Mr. Fitzherbert shook hands and agreed to disagree.
The meeting lasted approximately half an hour.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
A copy of Mr. Fitzherberts handout is available HERE in .pdf format. (seven pages)
Posted: December 4, 2009 Attachments #2 and 3 to the minutes of November 23, 2009
The following two documents, submitted by Mr. Averill at the Zoning Commission meeting of November 23, 2009, were not included when the minutes were posted on December 2.
ATTACHMENT #2
DEFINITIONS: Inns and Resorts
Inn - A commercial facility for the housing, and perhaps feeding, of transients.
-Shall have no more than 20 guest rooms.
-Inns with dining/drinking facilities shall be located on state roads with 500 ft. frontage.
-Dining/drinking facilities shall be primarily for the use of Inn guests; size of each shall be limited to 50 persons as per state fire code square footage requirements.
-Dining/drinking facilities, administrative office (front desk), housekeeping facilities, and a minimum of 40% of the guest rooms shall be contained within a single structure.
-All guest rooms not contained in the main structure, must be contained in other structures. Said structures shall be clearly subordinate to the main structure.
-A separate, single-family dwelling unit for exclusive use by inn owner or full-time inn manager may be allowed at the discretion of the Zoning Commission.
-Separate banquet/meeting facilities are disallowed. (See “Resort”)
-Recreational facilities, such as (but not limited to), swimming/wading pool, tennis/squash courts, spa/health club, etc. are disallowed. (See “Resort”)
-Separate commercial activities, (ie “gift/pro shops”) are disallowed, except for sales of toiletries, Inn souvenirs, post cards, etc. sold at front desk.
Resort -A commercial facility for transient guests where the primary attractions are recreational and banquet/meeting facilities and activities.
-Shall have a minimum 500 foot frontage and be located on a state road.
- Shall have a maximum 50 guest rooms.
-May have separate dining and drinking facilities. Dining/drinking facilities shall be contained in the same structure.
- Guest rooms may be in separate individual structures, (i.e. “cabins”)
-Recreational facilities such as, (but not limited to) swimming/wading pools. Tennis/squash courts, spa/health club, etc. are allowed.
-Separate banquet/meeting facilities are allowed. Said facilities shall be limited to 150 people max. occupancy per state fire code.
-Separate retail commercial activities limited to 1 gift/pro shop are allowed.
ATTACHMENT #3
In regard to the letter, dated November 11, 2009, from Matthew Klauer to David Owen, Chairman, Zoning Commission, Washington, Ct.
I wish to thank Mr. Klauer for his efforts to bring to light the history of the hospitality industry in Washington. I also wish to thank Mr. Klauer for helping to illustrate that his proposed project at Wyckham Rise is not allowed by current zoning regulations.
To wit:
In Exhibit A of Mr. Klauers letter, there is a list of several of the hospitality houses that were in business in Washington at around the turn of the 19th century. Nowhere in this exhibit is the word “inn” used in small case letters. The word “hotel” is used four times, the term “motels” is used once, and the term “large resort” is used once. I agree with Mr. Klauer the his project at Wyckham Rise is indeed consistant with these descriptions. Although some of the establishments use the word “Inn” in capitol letters in their name, their description as hotels, motels, and resorts in small case letters is the true description. Hotels, motels, and resorts are not allowed in Washington as per the Regulation 2.3.2.
Exhibit B is a copy of a communication, undated, to The Weekly Star for publication on April 2, 1990, regarding the approval by the Zoning Commission, for a school and an inn at Wyckham Rise. As the school was devoted to the hospitality industry the “inn” was an educational adjunct to that function. The requirement in the approval for “a minimum of 5 rooms available to the public”, is no different than our approval of a hockey rink at Rumsey Hall with the stipulation that time at the rink be made available to the public. Such an approval would not allow a private ice rink business to built.
Exhibit C cites a list of signatures in favor of Mr. Kauer’s project at Wyckham Rise. I wonder how many signatures Mr. Klauer would have collected if he had also asked if approval of his project would allow the construction of a similar facility next door to where the signatories lived?
If the Town of Washington wishes to go back into the hospitality business, so be it. Let us revise our Zoning Regulations and, most important, define the terms. What we should not do is to allow uses in the R-1 zone that are prohibited by our regulations, i.e. hotels, motels, resorts, restaurants, taverns, health clubs , and gift shops to sneak around our regulations under the nebulous, undefined umbrella of an “inn”.
Thank you
Ralph Averill
11/23/09
Posted: December 2, 2009 November 23, 2009
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, Alternate
Absent: A.J. DuBois Alt., Harry Wyant Alt.
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Residents, PressMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There was no Public Hearing Scheduled for this meeting.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The October 26, 2009 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2009, as submitted,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen welcomed Mr. Reich to the Zoning Commission, congratulated Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Shapiro and thanked Ms. Friedman for her years with the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen thanked Steve Wadelton for his volunteer work in the Land Use Office.
Mr. Owen read a statement he composed, dated November 23, 2009 (attachment #1) regarding “several misconceptions concerning zoning-related matters”.
New Application(s)
Mahan/54 Sunny Ridge Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
The Commission looked at the Property/Boundary Survey, prepared for Christopher Mahan, 54 Sunny Ridge Road, dated June 2009, by T. Michael Alex and reviewed the November 23, 2009 Administrative Report. There was a discussion regarding the shared driveway indicated on the survey. Several Commissioners thought the proposed driveway configuration was not a shared driveway as required per Section 13.11.3.h.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on December 28, 2009 to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Mahan/54 Sunny Ridge Road/Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Public Hearings begin at 7:30 pm and this will be the second hearing on December 28th.
Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.13/ Construct Storage Shed:
Ms. Hill distributed a spec sheet for the ESD Waste 2 Water, Inc., Chemical Storage Buildings, which showed there were containment provisions in case of a chemical spill. There were no other issues raised in the 11/23/09 Administrative Report. It was noted the purpose of the building was to store pesticides.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on December 28, 2009 to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Lake Waramaug Country Club/22 Golf Links Road/Section 6.4.13/Construct Storage Shed,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.This will be the third hearing scheduled on December 28th.
Other Business
Revision of Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled for the December 28, 2009 at 7:30 pm.Possible Revision of The Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14 Re: Special Exceptions for Generators and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Ms. Hill stated that the ZBA should have draft language for the December 28th Zoning Commission Meeting.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads:
Ms. Susannah Gray of Washington, CT read and submitted a written statement dated 11/23/09 to the Zoning Commission (on file in Land Use Office) requesting that both Mr. Reich and Mr. Fitzherbert recuse themselves from any discussion regarding the revision of Section 13.19. Both Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Reich said they had no conflict of interest. Mr. Averill stated that it was his opinion that a discussion regarding section 13.9 should not proceed without a definition of what an Inn is in the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations. The Commission discussed the possibility of creating a subcommittee to discuss the issues of defining inns and whether to allow them on town roads.Motion:
to form a Subcommittee, consisting of Mr. Averill and Mr. Fitzherbert, to have preliminary discussions about the possibility of revising Section 13.9 and adding a definition of “Inn” in the Zoning Regulations and report back to the Zoning Commission,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen reminded the Commissioners that the meetings of this subcommittee must be publicly noticed and minutes must be taken.
There was a discussion among the Commissioners regarding how the definition of “inn” would be helpful before going forth with a possible revision to Section 13.9. Mr. Averill distributed some ideas that he wrote (Definitions: Inns and Resorts, attachment #2). He was concerned that words such as inn, tourist home, hotel, motel, resort, etc. are not defined in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Averill read his letter dated 11/23/09 (attachment #3) in response to the letter dated November 19, 2009, from Mathew Klauer asking the Commission to reconsider its position regarding inns on town roads. In Mr. Averill’s letter he states that he thinks it is important that the Zoning Regulations are revised and most importantly, first, the terms are defined which would specifically state what is allowed or prohibited in an R-1 District.
Mr. Fitzherbert commented that he would not have voted for the change in regulation 13.9 and was sorry that he could not have been at that meeting because of serious health issues. He stated he was against the change and believes it was specifically targeted at a possible pending application. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Town Attorney had said that the original Wykeham Rise application was grandfathered under the previously written regulation. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he thought it is important that the Zoning Commission be educated and trained to know and practice legally and ethically and stated that all property owners should be treated fairly. Mr. Owen stated that he felt members of the Zoning Commission interpreted the language and voted to revise Section 13.9 to best of their understanding. Mr. Shapiro stated that he wanted to make clear that the decision to clarify Section 13.9 had been under consideration long before an application had been submitted.
Report on 9/26/09 Land Use Academy:
Ms. Hill distributed a summary of the legal matters that were discussed at the Land Use Academy Seminar.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he visited 16 Church Street on three separate occasions.
Mr. Rob Parker mentioned that Mr. Fitzherbert voted in favor of the Wykeham Rise Application in December of 2008. He asked Mr. Fitzherbert what standards he considered when voting to approve the Special Permit for the Wykeham Rise Application. Mr. Fitzherbert stated he would not comment. Mr. Owen stated that this application is under litigation and did not think it was appropriate to discuss at this meeting.
Ms. Valerie Friedman asked if Mr. Owen could reread item #7 of his statement that he read previously and asked that copies be distributed. Mr. Owen read item # 7 concerning conflict of interest. It was noted that this statement is on file in the Land Use Office and will be published with the minutes on the Town of Washington Website. Ms. Peacock formally invited Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Reich “to reconsider the question of whether or not they should properly recuse themselves from any action of the Zoning Commission that relates to, directly or indirectly, the Wykeham Rise property.”
Communications
Mr. Owen stated that Ms. Jane Boyer submitted a letter at the beginning of the meeting. Ms. Boyer stated that she did not think it appropriate to read now because the matter had already been addressed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Owen stated it would be in the file.
Enforcement
Discussion/16 Church Street/Compliance with the Condition of Approval:
Mr. Owen read Mr. Ajello’s Zoning Enforcement Report, dated November 23, 2009 regarding this property (on file in Land Use Office). Mr. Ajello stated that the site is less cluttered and submitted photos of the property. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that on his visits he noticed residents had items on their back porches. He stated, from most angles, any toys and equipment on these porches are not visible from the road. He stated there is a storage area and it is being used. He stated the front of the buildings were “immaculate.” Mr. Kelly Boling, of 22 Church Street, stated “This project has been a better neighbor than I anticipated and I don’t see anything going on there that strikes me as a problem.”Mr. Owen asked Ms. Hill if she reviewed the ZEO Report and if there is anything that required action from the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen briefly discussed the lighting at St. John Episcopal Church. Mr. Owen asked that all the Zoning Commissioners review the report.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:34 pm
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
ATTACHMENT #1
November 23, 2009
I usually read news coverage of the Zoning Commission by holding the paper at arm’s length and squinting at it, to avoid becoming embarrassed by something that I myself may have said. Nevertheless, in recent months I’ve become aware of what I believe to be several misconceptions concerning zoning-related matters, and I want to comment on a few of them.
First, cell towers. The two most common complaints I hear about the Zoning Commission have to do with cell towers: first, that we that we have recklessly allowed them to be built in Washington; second, that we have stubbornly kept them out. Both complaints are groundless. Decisions regarding the placement of cell towers in Connecticut are made exclusively by the Connecticut Siting Council. Municipalities have some limited opportunities to express opinions about particular sites—and to allow or deny telecommunications facilities inside structures, such as church steeples—but they are prevented by federal law from impeding the expansion of the national telecommunications network. Wireless providers don’t file zoning applications. The reason that Washington has few cell towers is that wireless providers, thus far, have found it unprofitable to place more of them here. The largest section of Washington’s Zoning Regulations is the section concerning telecommunications facilities, including cell towers, but we wrote and adopted those regulations many years ago, when there were still questions about the role of towns in making decisions about the placement of some kinds of communications towers. Today, given current limitations on the authority of zoning commissions, it might make sense to overhaul and considerably condense that section, since its main effect now is to make people believe we have oversight in areas where we don’t. I think that such a change would make sense, but when we raised that possibility, a few years ago, there was a tremendous outcry, and we dropped it.
Second, it has been said that the reason the former Texaco station in the Depot is vacant is that the Zoning Commission won’t allow anything to be built there. That is not the case. In fact, the Commission made an extraordinary effort, a few years ago, to broaden the possibilities for all lots in the Depot, including that one, by significantly relaxing its requirements regarding setbacks, lot coverage, and parking. Those changes remain in effect, and they continue to enlarge the range of options for any potential developer in that district. The Zoning Commission has not received, much less turned down, an application for that site, and one of the reasons, presumably, has to do with the economics of profitably doing business in a low-traffic area—the same reason the gas station closed in the first place. In addition, there are complications involving state and federal requirements regarding the environmental remediation of contaminated soil. The difficulties faced by the owner of that property do not involve Washington’s zoning regulations.
Third, it has been said that the Zoning Commission denied an application for a moderate-incoming housing development. I assume that the development referred to is Myfield, and I will remind everyone that the Zoning Commission has never denied a Myfield application or any other application for moderate-income housing. In fact, the Zoning Commission considered two Myfield applications, and approved both of them.
Fourth, it has been said that the Zoning Commission denied an application for school playing fields. I assume that the reference is to a private-school property on South Street. I will remind everyone that the Zoning Commission has never denied, or approved, an application for playing fields on that site. Such an application was submitted, but it was withdrawn by the applicant in 2001, apparently in response to objections raised by neighbors. The one application we did act on for that site—for an environmental education center—we approved.
Fifth, it has been suggested that the town’s 112 pages of zoning regulations are not always a reasonable basis for making zoning decisions. I would remind everyone that all zoning commissioners are bound by law and by their oath of office to apply those 112 pages of regulations in exactly that way. Zoning commissioners can seek to change regulations that seem to them to “defy common sense,” but they can’t simply ignore or overlook regulations they happen to disagree with. If an application complies with the town’s regulations, it must be approved; if it does not, it must be denied.
Sixth, I have heard the recent election referred to as a referendum on a particular decision by the Zoning Commission. I would remind all zoning commissioners that, by law, no zoning decision is made by referendum. A zoning commission is bound to adhere to its regulations, even when doing so may be unpopular, because property owners have a right to know what they can legally do with their property and to be confident that the regulations will be applied evenhandedly. When residents of the town, or members of the Zoning Commission, feel that existing regulations are inadequate or misguided or outdated, they can seek to amend them through the process described in the regulations and in the Connecticut statutes. That happens all the time.
Seventh, members of planning commissions, zoning commissions, and zoning boards of appeals are prohibited by state law from participating in the hearings or decisions of those same commissions in any matter in which they are directly or indirectly interested in a personal or financial sense. According to our attorney, Michael Zizka, a “personal interest” in such a decision “may include a close friendship or other association with the applicant. It may also include situations in which a member may gain a personal business advantage as a result of his or her actions on an application. Where a commission member is disqualified for one of the foregoing reasons, that fact must be entered on the records of the commission.” In addition, members of those three commissions are not allowed to appear for or represent others before any of those same commissions, whether they are paid to do so or not.
Eighth, it has been suggested that the town’s zoning regulations are subsidiary to its Plan of Conservation and Development. This is a subject I have discussed at some length over the years with two of our attorneys, and I want to summarize those conversations briefly. The role of the Plan of Conservation and Development in land-use matters is established by state law, but is also circumscribed by it. The Zoning Commission must consider the Plan when adopting or revising regulations—and it must submit proposed regulation changes to the Planning Commission for review, and, if the Planning Commission recommends against adoption, the Zoning Commission can approve such changes only by a two-thirds-majority vote, which on a five-member commission means a vote of 4-to-1. But the Zoning Commission is not bound by the Plan of Conservation and Development—and if it were so bound it would often face an irresolvable dilemma because the Plan includes many elements that are, or can be, mutually exclusive.
Ninth, when citizens become members of a zoning commission, they sacrifice several rights, among them the right to freely discuss certain kinds of zoning matters with other people and, especially, with other members of the commission. Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act requires that almost all meetings of zoning commissions be conducted in public and recorded, and the courts have been very broad in defining what constitutes a meeting. If one member of a five-member zoning commission has a telephone conversation about a pending application with one other member of the commission, and then discusses the same application with a third member of the commission, those three commissioners can be considered to have conducted an illegal meeting, since a majority of the commissioners were ultimately involved, even though no more than two of them were in contact at any time. If such meetings are to take place legally, the public must be notified in advance, and a public record must be kept. Even two members discussing zoning matters can present a Freedom of Information problem. I asked our attorney if a two-member subcommittee of the Zoning Commission would be required to post notices and agendas, and keep minutes of their discussions, and he said yes—that even two members acting together in that way would be considered an “agency” for the purposes of Freedom of Information. The soundest course for all commissioners, I believe, is to save all such conversations for formal meetings and public hearings, to keep the decision-making process as transparent as possible to ourselves and to those we represent.
Tenth, decisions by zoning commissioners must always be made without bias or predetermination. I will quote from Attorney Zizka’s own excellent book, “What’s Legally Required?”—which I highly recommend to all members of the commission. He writes, “No member of any commission should publicly take a position on the granting or denial of an application before the application has been formally heard and considered by the commission. . . . Each commission member should avoid making statements that could suggest the member has made up his or her mind about an application before its merits have been fully considered. The purpose of this rule is to protect and preserve public confidence in the commission’s ability to make a fair decision.” We should all take care to follow this advice, not only to maintain public confidence in our impartiality but also to increase the likelihood that, if we are subsequently challenged, a court will uphold the decision we made.
David Owen
Chairman, Washington Zoning Commission
Posted: November 3, 2009 October 26, 2009
Present: David Owen, Valerie Friedman, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: A.J. DuBois, Harry Wyant
Absent: Andy Shapiro, Alternate
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Julie Anderson, Bill & Holly Shannon, Brendan Rourk, Bob Papsin, Irv Ernhout, Martin Brown, Frank Adams, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. AbellaPUBLIC HEARINGS
223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC/223 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit:
Section 10.4.1.a/Renovations, Addition to Eating and Drinking Establishment:Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on October 11 and October 21, 2009. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application.
Mr. Martin Brown from Peter Talbot Architects was present to represent 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC. The Zoning Commissioners and Mr. Brown looked at the Landscape Plan, titled The Community Grill, dated January 6, 2009 with a revision date of September 24, 2009, by Dirk Sabin for Peter Talbot Architects. The Site Plan, titled The Community Grill, dated January 27, 2009 with a revision date of September 24, 2009, by Peter Talbot Architects was also examined.
Mr. Brown explained that the addition would be used for storage and cooking. He stated the revised site plan shows that the parking and addition will be further away from the wetlands than the previous plan. The ZBA and the Inland Wetlands Commission approved this revised plan.
Mr. Martin stated that the occupancy will remain the same with a maximum of 50 and Health Department approved 46 occupants. There was a discussion regarding the parking. Mr. Brown stated the parking area would be paved. The above-mentioned landscaping plan indicated that there was a fraction of a parking space within the 50-yard setback to a neighbor with a residential lot (Section 10.5.2) and that there would be a planted buffer.
There was a discussion regarding the lighting on the addition and in the parking area. The Commission agreed that the lights should be Dark-Sky Friendly.
Mr. Irv Earnhout asked if the generator enclosure could be insulated. Mr. Brown stated that the generator would only be used for power outages and would be tested monthly during the day.
There were no more questions from the public.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC. under Section 10.4.1.a for Renovations, Addition to Eating and Drinking Establishment at 223 Litchfield Turnpike,
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5.A/Special Exceptions for Section 12.1 under specific circumstances:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on October 11 and October 21, 2009. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Owen read the proposed new language for section 17.5 in the Zoning Regulations (on file in Land Use Office). Mr. Owen explained that this revision would relieve the applicant from filing more than one application with ZBA for the same project as well as simplifies the ZBA decision-making process. There were no questions or comments from the public.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulations, Section 17.5.A, Special Exception for Section 12.1 under Specific Circumstances,
by Mr. Owen, seconded Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The September 21, 2009 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:
Corrections:
Page 2:
Under Possible Revision of Zoning Regulation(s)/To Require Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:1st sentence should read: Ms. Friedman stated that at the August 24th Zoning Commission meeting she distributed a memo listing 12 reasons as to why the Zoning Regulations for eating/drinking establishments for three business districts should be revised.
4th sentence – Delete: “and Section 10-B4 Woodville Business District.”
8th sentence – should read: Mr. Shapiro stated that he would be in favor of holding a public hearing for an application that would allow input regarding these issues….
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2009 as corrected,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
There were no new applications.
Pending Application(s)
223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC/223 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit:
Section 10.4.1.a/Renovations, Addition to Eating and Drinking Establishment:The Zoning Commission agreed that under Section 10.5.2 they should officially modify the parking requirement for this application and that the lighting be of Dark-Sky Friendly variety as indicated in the Zoning Regulations under Section 12.15.
Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application: Section 10.4.1.a submitted by 223 Litchfield Turnpike, LLC. at 223 Litchfield Turnpike for Renovations and Addition to Eating and Drinking Establishment, with the following conditions:
1) Under Section 10.5.2 allow the parking configuration as indicated on Site Plan titled The Community Grill, Renovations and Additions, SP-1 by Peter Talbot AIA Architects, dated January 27, 2009 with revision date of September 24, 2009.
2) Lighting on the addition and fixtures in the parking area and any additional light should be “Dark-Sky Friendly,”
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations:
Addition of Section 17.5.a./Special Exceptions for Section 12.1 under specific circumstances:There were no questions or comments.
Motion:
to approve the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 17.5.A/ Special Exception for Section 12.1 under specific circumstances,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.The Commission agreed to move forward on the Agenda under Enforcement.
Enforcement
Discussion /16 Church Street/Compliance with Condition of Approval:
Mr. Bill Shannon of Hinkley Road was present to discuss the issue of lack of compliance with the with condition #9 of the motion to approve the Special Permit application for Washington Montessori School – Washington Housing Trust for 12 units of affordable housing at 16 Church Street per site plans by Peter Talbot Architects, revised date January 10, 2003.Mr. Shannon stated that he and other neighbors have spoken with the management of the housing units and with the Washington Housing Trust but have not received cooperation.
Ms. Anderson stated that the residents were to be provided a designated storage area for their equipment that is screened from the other neighboring properties view. The Commission examined the photos submitted by Mr. Shannon.
While the Commission agreed that the residents have not been provided a designated area for their personal equipment and that the concentration of these items can seem excessive, they also saw no problem with the conditions shown in several of the photos.
The Commission agreed that the ZEO should inspect the site and that they would like to look at the minutes and approval of this property.
Mr. Owen asked the neighbors of 16 Church Street to give the Zoning Commission at least until next month and that they could check with Ms. Hill on the progress of their findings.
Other Business Cont.
Possible Revision of Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled for the December 28, 2009 Zoning Commission Meeting.Discussion Possible Revision of The Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14 Re:
Special Exceptions for Generators and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Ms. Hill stated that the ZBA is working on it and will be bringing draft language to the November 23, 2009 Zoning Commission Meeting.Report on 9/26/09 Land Use Academy:
Ms. Hill stated that about eight people from the Washington land use commissions attended the UCONN Land Use Academy in Torrington. Ms. Hill briefly reported on some of the legal matters that Attorney Gail McTaggart spoke about on Zoning. She distributed a packet titled Public Hearing Procedures, by Mark K. Branse, which outlined legal issues encountered by land use commissions Ms. Hill suggested that all the Land Use Commissions would benefit from having Attorney Zizka or Mr. Branse come speak to them.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Bob Papsin from Mygatt Road asked Mr. Fitzherbert to explain on his statement “Business takes care of itself.” Mr. Fitzherbert declined.Mr. Papsin asked if some of the gas stations have gone to the LED lighting to light up their gas station price signs. He stated that we do not have any regulations against this lighting and then asked if this type of lighting comes to the gas stations on Route 202, will they be able to keep them lit at night.
There was a discussion regarding internally illuminated lighting, which is prohibited in Washington. There was a discussion regarding the CITGO illuminated sign on Route 202 and whether it predated the regulation against internally illuminated signs. It was recommended that the ZEO look into it.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss
Enforcement Cont.
The Zoning Enforcement Report dated October 26, 2009 was considered and briefly discussed.Mr. Carriera from 19 New Preston Hill Road discussed his unauthorized rebuilt storage building.
Executive Session
Motion:
to go into Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. to discuss pending litigation with Wykeham Rise Appeal,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to come out of Executive Session at 9:05 p.m.
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, by 5-0 vote
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:10 pm by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: September 25, 2009 September 21, 2009
Present: David Owen, Valerie Friedman, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: A.J. DuBois, Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant
Absent: Lou Abella
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Randy Snook, Brad Sedito, Reese Owens, Todd Catlin, Rob Parker, Matt Klauer, Chris Charles, ResidentsREGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Dubois, Alt.
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page1:
Under 2nd Public Hearing: should read: Revision of the Zoning Regulation(s)/Section 6.4.13 to allow accessory structures used to operate or maintain a pre existing golf course by special permit….Under 3rd Public Hearing, last sentence before Motion: should read: There were no questions or comments.
Page 3:
Under Privilege of the Floor, 2nd sentence, should read: He stated the basic idea would be to revise Section 12.14.5 to say “under certain circumstances this equipment can be placed farther away and if the distance between the proposed equipment location and the nearest building line is greater than 250 feet, the maximum spacing would increase by 1 foot for every 10 feet additional separation, up to a maximum of 100 feet.Page 4:
4th sentence, should read: Mr. Owen asked that the Commission think about this and get back to him with any input.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2009 as corrected, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen stated that he contacted Attorney Mike Zizka regarding posting the corrected minutes on the website. He stated that Atty. Zizka said that the original minutes posted subject to approval must stay on the website but that a separate corrected minutes could be posted as well but it is not necessary to do so. It was agreed by the Zoning Commission that the corrected minutes should be posted on the Town website.
New Application(s)
There were no new applications.Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations:
Addition of Section 17.5.a./Special Exceptions for Section 12.1 under specific circumstances:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on October 26, 2009, in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulation Section 17.5.a.
Possible Revision of Zoning Regulation(s)/To Require Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:
Ms. Friedman stated that at the August 24th Zoning Commission meeting she distributed a memo listing 12 reasons as to why the Zoning Regulations for eating/drinking establishments for all four business districts should be revised. She discussed the history as to why eating/drinking establishments are uses permitted by a special permit in Marbledale and Woodville. In 2001 the regulations were revised for Marbledale and more recently, Woodville and the Zoning Commission had talked about doing this for the The Depot and New Preston but never got around to it. Ms. Friedman handed out a draft of the proposed deletions and additions to Sections 7 - B1 New Preston Business District, Section 8 - B2 Washington Depot Business District, Section 9 - B3 Marbledale Business District, and Section 10 - B4 Woodville Business District.Mr. Shapiro asked if there was a definition of an Eating/Drinking Establishment. Ms. Friedman stated there is not and if the regulations were streamlined there would only be the need to define it once, as it would mean the same for all four business districts.
Mr. Averill stated that he agreed that uniformity and a definition for eating/drinking establishments is important. Mr. Shapiro stated that he would be in favor of holding a public hearing that would allow input regarding issues such as hours, lighting, and noise.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he was not convinced that these revisions were necessary. He stated that, in his opinion, that if a business is “wanted and they’re good, they will last.” Mr. Shapiro stated that if Mr. Fitzherbert’s statement was correct that it would make it possible for certain businesses to exploit the space in town for other kinds of uses that the town would not be happy with.
Mr. Wyant stated that he thought it would be beneficial to standardize the regulations for the four business districts in Town.
Mr. Averill, referring to Mr. Fitzherbert’s previous statement, stated that a franchise business could open on the well-traveled Route 202 and be very successful; yet, the patrons would not necessarily be from Washington. However, the Washington residents would be stuck with it. Mr. Owen stated that the regulations could not keep a franchise out but regulations could add an extra filter. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he is a firm believer in “business takes care of itself.”
Mr. Owen stated he would be in favor of holding a Public Hearing if that were what the Commission wants to do.
Mr. Dubois stated Mr. Fitzherbert’s comment on “letting business take care of itself” would put the other existing businesses in Town at risk. Ms. Hill stated the criteria is listed in Section 13 under the Special Permit Criteria and it wouldn’t be anything specific to restaurants but it would be specific to the Town’s Special Permit Section.
Ms. Hill stated that the Zoning Commission would reinforce the application of these criteria to an eating/drinking establishment when a business is applying for a Special Permit.
Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on November 23, 2009 to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulations for Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts by Special Permit,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Dubois, by 4-0-1 vote.
Mr. Fitzherbert abstained because he did not feel it was necessary to revise these regulations.
Discussion Re: Special Exceptions for Generators and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Owen asked for the Commissioners input on his proposed language for section 12.14 which had been circulated at the last meeting.Ms. Friedman stated that she did not know enough to comment as to whether or not the numbers were accurate. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he agreed with Mr. Owen’s calculations.
Mr. Shapiro asked for clarification of the definition of a Building Line. Mr. Owen read the definition.
Mr. Averill explained it as “the line within which you can build a building and outside of which you cannot build a building.”
Ms. Friedman asked if any neighbors have complained about any of the generators installed since the adoption of special exceptions. Ms. Hill stated that she does not know of any complaints.
Mr. Owen stated his issue is that the ZBA has been applying a standard, which is not in the Zoning Regulations. He did state that the regulations could be revised to include these guidelines.
Brad Sedito, Chairman of the ZBA, discussed the history of the Special Exception. He stated that the ZBA received special exception applications that were easy to confirm that the proposed location of the generator would have less impact than placing in within 25 ft. of the structure served. However, there were cases that had large parcels of land and due to the topography of the land it was difficult to determine the impact of the noise from the generator on the neighboring properties.
Mr. Owen stated the Zoning Commission has considered ways to deal with this but did not want to lose the simplicity of the regulation. He stated the existing regulation could be enforced with a measuring tape and the owner would be the person most impacted and would most likely take the precautions to make it less noisy.
Reese Owens, Architect, stated that there are many variables to consider when sensibly locating a generator. He stated that he believes that the ZBA has done a good job considering these variables and he thinks the Special Exception should be reinstated.
There was a short discussion regarding the installation of a generator at the Rumsey Hall Hockey Rink.
Mr. Sedito read a prepared statement on behalf of the ZBA (on file in Land Use Office). His letter discussed the five-year history of the ZBA dealing with the Special Exception for Noise Generating Equipment and expressed that the ZBA would like to work with the Zoning Commission in reinstating it.
Mr. Sedito stated that the ZBA and Zoning Commissions knew from the beginning of the institution of the Special Exception that approvals would be subjective and a revision of the regulation would be required eventually.
Mr. Owen stated that ZBA should proceed with rewriting section 12.5 and come back to Zoning with the proposed revision.
Mr. Catlin stated that the ZBA has found that sound is an inexact science and regulating it exactly would be difficult and he asked that the Zoning Commission provide some guidance as to how there could be some flexibility.
Mr. Owen stated that the regulation should have language that can be defined so that it is clear to the applicant. There was a discussion regarding decibel levels and enclosures for generators.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Sedito brought up the issue of windmills in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen stated that it is something to consider.Mr. Chris Charles read a letter discussing the topic of Inns, dated September 21, 2009 (on file in Land Use Office). His letter recommends that there be a concerted effort to define what an ‘Inn’ is, which would stimulate a further discussion regarding the future of the Town of Washington. He proposed that the Board of Selectmen “charge the Planning Commission to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee” to discuss issues such as Energy Conservation and Carbon Emissions, the implications of a Total Real Estate Build Out, housing issues, schools, etc.
In response to Mr. Charles’s letter, Mr. Fitzherbert stated he had a firm look at the Wykeham Rise property and that it had been deteriorating, internally prior to the current owner. Mr. Charles stated that he was referring to the exterior of the property. Ms. Hill stated she would email a copy of Mr. Charles’s letter to the Zoning Commissioners.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he heard that there are major changes at the State level regarding septic systems. He stated that the State has reduced their requirements by 50% by using engineered septic systems. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the statewide 50% reduction would have an impact on the Town of Washington’s density requirements. Mr. Owen asked that Mr. Fitzherbert summarize his concerns and send them to Janet Hill and she would ask Attorney Mike Zizka. Mr. Charles stated the defense for the Town would be the protection of the water supply.
Mr. Rob Parker commented that he understood that the Zoning Commission’s purpose was to preserve the town through the institution of its Zoning Regulations. He questioned whether the Town of Washington’s Zoning Commission was trying to make things less regulated. Mr. Owen stated that this was the first time someone had thought that the Zoning Commission was not strict.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Zoning Commission is to regulate the Zoning Regulations based on some kind of plan. Mr. Owen stated that it was not the number of regulations, but rather what they said that was important and that a town like New Milford is the ‘direct product’ of New Milford’s Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Parker stated that he was impressed by the job the Zoning Commission does in the Town of Washington. Mr. Parker stated that he took offense to Mr. Fitzherbert’s suggestion at the July 27th Zoning Commission Meeting, that the Zoning Commission was not fair and did not do its job regarding the Wykeham Rise application.
Mr. Owen stated that the idea behind zoning regulations is “I give up a little bit of control over my property in order to gain a little bit of control over your property. It’s the balancing of neighbor’s interests.”
Communications
There were no communications to discuss
Enforcement
Ms. Hill summarized the ZEO Report dated 9/21/09 and stated she would email the report to the commissioners.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:45 pm by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: September 9, 2009 August 24, 2009
Present: David Owen, Valerie Friedman, Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: A.J. DuBois, Andy Shapiro
Absent: Harry Wyant, Alt.
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Brian Neff, Ann Compton, Rob Parker, Mr. Charles, ApplicantsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill
Bowman/44 Plumb Hill Road/Special Permit: Section(s) 13.11.3: Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/12/09 and 8/19/09. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Neff briefly described the proposal. There were no concerns raised.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Bowman for a Detached Accessory Apartment at 14 Plumb Hill Road,
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Revision of the Zoning Regulation(s)/Section 6.4.13 to allow accessory structures used to operate or maintain a per existing golf course by special Permit in the Lake Waramaug Residential District:
Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/12/09 and 8/19/09. Mr. Owen noted the documents in the file, which included Planning Commission Minutes stated that Planning had no objections to the revision. He briefly reviewed the proposed revision.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the revision of Zoning Regulation Section 6.4.13 to allow accessory structures used to operate or maintain a pre existing golf course by Special Permit in the Lake Waramaug Residential District,
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Revision of the Zoning Regulation(s)/Section 12.14.2 to require only noise generating pool equipment to be located within 50 ft. of the pool served:
Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 8/12/09 and 8/19/09. Mr. Owen noted the documents in the file, which included Planning Commission Minutes stated that Planning had no objections to the revision. There were no questions of comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the revision of Zoning Regulation Sections 12.14.1 - 12.14.3 to require only noise generating pool equipment to be located within 50 ft. of the pool served,
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Regular Business
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:45 pm.Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page1:
Under Absent:, should read: Harry Wyant, Alt.Page 2:
Under 9th sentence, should read: Mr. Owen stated that if the property owner was willing to give the land up…
Under Pending Application(s), Motion:, should read: to approve the Special Permit Application: Section 7.5 and 7.6 submitted by 10 Main LLC…the following conditions: 1) There will be no outdoor storage per sections 7.6.4 & 7.5.4 and 2) There will only be soffit lighting…Page 3:
Under Discussion Re: Possible Revision of Section 13.9, 10th sentence, should read: Mr. Fitzherbert suggested that if the Commission were to amend this regulation it would allow the applicant of an inn to apply for an inn on a town road…
Under paragraph beginning with: Mr. Owen stated that he agreed…, 7th sentence, should read: She disagreed with Mr. Fitzherbert, stating that having an inn at the Swiss Hospitality Institute was not comparable to the inn recently proposed for the Wykeham Rise property because the property’s main use had been a school and the inn was proposed as part of the school, and had been proposed…
13th sentence should read: Ms. Hill asked Mr. Fitzherbert if…Page 4:
Under Communications, 4th sentence, should read: Mr. Owen volunteered to draft a possible revision that would allow someone with more property some leeway.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2009 as corrected,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Pending Application(s)
Bowman/44 Plumb Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
There were no questions or comments from the Commission.Motion:
to approve the Special Permit Application: Sections 13.11.3 submitted by Bowman for a Detached Accessory Apartment at 44 Plumb Hill,
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Owen, by 5-0 voteNew Application(s) There were no new applications.
Other Business
Revision of Zoning Regulations: Section 12.14.2/Location of Non Noise Generating Pool Equipment:
There were no questions or comments from the Commission.Motion:
to approve the revision of Zoning Regulation Sections 12.14.1-12.14.3/Location of Non Noise Generating Pool Equipment,
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Addition of Section 17.5.a.3/Special Exceptions for Section 12.1 under specific circumstances:
It was the consensus of the Commission that they would hold a Public Hearing for the alternative draft regulation written by Mr. Shapiro.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on October 26, 2009, in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulation Section 17.5.A,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.Section 6.3.11: Accessory Structures Used to Operate or Maintain a Pre Existing Golf Course:
There were no questions or comments from the Commission.Motion:
to approve the revision of the Zoning Regulation Section 6.4.13 to allow accessory structures used to operate or maintain a pre existing golf course by Special Permit in the Lake Waramaug Residential District,
by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Possible Revision of Zoning Regulation(s)/To Require Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Washington Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:
Ms. Friedman distributed to the Commission and read a copy of her ‘rationale’ (on file in Land Use Office), which listed many reasons for her recommendation of this possible revision. Ms. Hill stated that she felt it would add consistency to the regulations. Mr. Abella stated it makes sense to have regulations in all four areas of the town be consistent. Mr. Shapiro agreed with Mr. Abella. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he was not in favor of this revision because he feels it is over-regulating the businesses. Mr. Dubois stated that it would add uniformity to the regulations. Mr. Averill agreed with Mr. Dubois yet he respects Mr. Fitzherbert’s concerns with over-regulating. Mr. Owen requested that Ms. Friedman put this request into a proposal and present it at the next meeting.There was a brief discussion as to who provides input at the beginning stages of possible revisions to the regulations. Ms. Hill stated that by law, proposed changes in the Zoning Regulations must be referred to all the surrounding councils of government and to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hill stated that she has begun forwarding these proposed changes to ZBA by the request of the ZBA. When Mr. Fitzherbert suggested that proposed revisions to the Zoning Regulations should be reviewed by the Selectmen, Mr. Owen stated that it was the Zoning Commissioners who were elected to make and enforce the Zoning Regulations of the Town.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Owen stated that he would like to discuss how people with larger parcels of land would be able to locate noise-generating equipment farther from the structure principally served and that he had forwarded his ideas to Reese Owens, Architect and Darryl Wright of Wright Electric. He stated the basic idea would be to revise section 12.14.5 to say “under certain circumstances this equipment can be placed farther away and if the nearest building lot the distance between the proposed equipment location and the nearest building line is greater than 250 feet the maximum spacing would increased by 1 foot for every 10 feet of additional separation up to a maximum of 100 feet.” Mr. Owen stated that the numbers could change but that this would be one way to give some flexibility without losing the simplicity of the current regulation. Another change he suggested would be to define what the ‘structure principally served’ is in section 12.14.3. Ms. Friedman stated she liked the concept but was not sure about the numbers. Mr. Averill stated he was curious if anyone addressed the issue of exhaust. Mr. Owen stated the exhaust could be handled in the same way as the noise in that if the equipment is kept in a relatively short distance to the owner that they would be most bothered by it and more likely to improve the situation. Mr. Charles stated that he had recently read about micro chip generators and heating systems that would be a quieter and be installed directly inside the house. Mr. Owens asked that the Commission think about this and get back to him with any input. The draft will also be sent to Mr. McGuiness at the Northwest Connecticut Council of Government and to ZBA for their input.Communications
There were no communications to discussEnforcement
The Zoning Commission read the ZEO Report dated August 24, 2009.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:25 pm by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: July 31, 2009 July 27, 2009
Present: David Owen, Valerie Friedman, Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: A.J. DuBois, Andy Shapiro
Absent: Harry Wyant
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Michael Boe, Architect, Brian Neff, Jim Brinton, 2nd Selectman, Mr. & Mrs. Federer, Atty. Hill, Mr. Rosenfeld & Ms. Leach, Mr. Charles, ApplicantsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill
10 Main, LLC./10 Main Street/Special Permit: Sections 7.5 and 7.6: Increase in Maximum Permitted Coverage and Decrease in Minimum Required Setback for Handicapped Ramp:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 7/15/09 and 7/22/09. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application.Mr. Boe of Boe Studio Architects, was present to represent Mr. Rosenfeld and Ms. Leach of 10 Main LLC. Mr. Boe displayed the map titled “Proposed Accessible Walkway and Covered Walkway Addition Site Plan”, by Boe Studio, dated 5/28/09. Mr. Boe explained that over 90% of the building is within the front yard setback. The proposed plan allows for handicap access to the front entrance of the building. The proposed plan includes a covered porch over the portion of the handicap access ramp in the front of the building. Mr. Boe stated that there would be lighting in the soffits of the covered porch area.
Ms. Hill stated that the application seems to have met all the requirements of the regulations and recommended that no outdoor storage be a condition of approval.
There was a discussion as to how the space is being used at the present time. Ms. Hill asked if the Commission wanted to make any conditions regarding outdoor lighting or the length of time the exterior lights would be left on. A discussion followed regarding the exterior lighting.
Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by 10 Main, LLC./10 Main Street/Sections 7.5 & 7.6/Increase in Maximum Permitted Coverage and Decrease in Minimum Required Setback for Handicapped Ramp, by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:40 pm.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page 2:
Under second Motion: should read: to schedule a Public Hearing on July 27, 2009 to consider…
Under Discussion /Section 11.2.1. Density Regulations: 6th sentence, should read: He stated he would most likely not encourage a client to ease that amount of land if it were to put the retained property at les than 1 density unit.
7th sentence – delete
9th sentence – should read: Mr. Owen stated that the property owner was willing to give the land up, and the retained land totals less than one density unit, then he is giving up the right to develop…
11th sentence – should read: Mr. Owen recommended the commissioners continue to consider Atty. Zizka’s opinion and thought that Mr. Szymanski might want to consult with Steep Rock.Motion: to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2009 as corrected, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
10 Main, LLC./10 Main Street/Special Permit: Sections 7.5 and 7.6: Increase in Maximum Permitted Coverage and Decrease in Minimum Required Setback for Handicapped Ramp:
Mr. Averill commended the work that has been done at the site to this date and stated he is in favor of this application. It was the consensus of the Commission that outside storage and lighting should be conditions of the approval.Motion: to approve the Special Permit Application: Sections 7.5 & 7.6 submitted by 10 Main LLC for Increase in Maximum Permitted Coverage and Decrease in Minimum Required Setback for Handicapped Ramp at 10 Main Street with the following conditions:
1. There will be no outdoor storage per sections 7.6.4 & 7.5.4 and
2. There will only be soffit lighting above the ramp and the building will not be lit after 10 pm or when occupant leaves, which ever occurs last
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Bowman/44 Plumb Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Brian Neff, Engineer was present to present this application. He submitted a letter of authorization. Mr. Neff discussed the proposed plan for a detached accessory apartment/3 car garage at 44 Plumb Hill Road. He stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Health Department have approved the proposed plan. Ms. Hill recommended that public hearing be scheduled.Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on August 24, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application: submitted by Bowman/44 Plumb Hill/Special Permit: Section 13.11/Detached Accessory Apartment, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Revision of Zoning Regulations: Section 12.14.2/Location of Pool Equipment:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled for August 24, 2009.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Addition of Section 17.5.a.3/Special Exceptions for Section 12.1 under specific circumstances:
The commissioners discussed Mr. Shapiro’s memorandum dated 7/13/09(on file in the Land Use Office), regarding draft language for a proposed amendment to section 17.5.a. They made changes to the language in order to clarify and streamline the regulation and to add that historically and culturally significant accessory buildings could also qualify for Special Exceptions for coverage. The Commission agreed that Mr. Shapiro would make the applicable revisions and send them to Ms. Hill.Section 6.3.11: Accessory Structures Used to Operate or Maintain a Pre Existing Golf Course:
A public hearing to add this use to the uses permitted by Special Permit in the R-3 District has been scheduled for the August 24, 2009 meeting.Discussion Re: Possible Revision of Section 13.9:
The Commission granted Mr. Fitzherbert his request to be able to make a ‘statement of rationale’ to amend Zoning Regulation, Section 13.9 and then present a motion.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that inns on town roads are not an issue in the history of the Town of Washington. He stated he is concerned with the timing of the past regulation change and that it is his opinion that this change would not have occurred if a certain application hadn’t been submitted. He stated that it is his opinion that the actions of the Commission did not benefit the Town. He stated, “this Town was about agriculture, schools and inns. That was the culture. We no longer have agriculture, but we’ve worked hard for open spaces and preserving land…The schools have flourished. The Mayflower Inn has operated at a standard higher than in the past, but is very much a part of this culture. And I’m not so sure we looked at the culture of the Town now or in the future when this regulation changed.” Mr. Fitzherbert suggested that if the Commission were to amend this regulation it would allow the applicant of an inn to apply for and inn on a town road, as has been the history in the Town of Washington. Mr. Fitzherbert presented the following motion:Motion: to change the regulation through the proper process to state an inn must have 500 feet of road frontage in an R-1 and R-3 district, by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen stated that he agreed that inns are an important part of the Towns culture and that he had been against changing this regulation to limit them to state highways. He stated that the hearing for this particular inn application was most likely the most thorough hearing any applicant had ever received. Mr. Owen stated the applicant had many opportunities to create a proposal that the Commission could have approved.
Ms. Hill stated she could not think of an inn that was on a town road. Mr. Fitzherbert stated he had a list of them at home.
Ms. Hill stated that the process for the revision of the regulation had started in October of the year before the month of May when said application had been submitted. She disagreed with Mr. Fitzherbert, stating that having an inn at the Swiss Hospitality Institute was not comparable to the inn recently proposed for the Wykeham Rise property because the property’s main use had been a school and the inn had been part of the school, and had been proposed to be run by the students and school staff, and was to be located in existing buildings.
There was a lengthy discussion about inns on town roads.
Mr. Owen stated the state highway issue was not a factor in his decision against the application.
Mr. Averill stated that it is important for the Regulations to have a definition of an inn before there are any other revisions regarding inns. There was a lengthy discussion regarding defining an inn.
Several commissioners thought the timing of Mr. Fitzherbert’s motion was inappropriate due to the pending legal appeals. Ms. Hill asked if Mr. Fitzherbert if he would be willing to table the motion until they could discuss with Atty. Zizka whether or not it was appropriate to make changes now during an appeal.
Mr. Dubois, Mr.Averill and Ms. Friedman pointed out that the Commission had not debated whether or not inns should be permitted on town roads but had only clarified the existing regulation, which the majority had interpreted as limiting inns to state highways.
Mr. Shapiro stated he did not agree with changing the regulation and that the current regulation was carefully considered.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he thought it was important to the Town to bring this up now but he would be willing to table the motion until Atty Zizka was consulted.
Mr. Fitzherbert withdrew the above motion, but said he would bring it up again.
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Section 13.9/Appeal:
Mr. Owen stated that the mediation between parties ended without an agreement.
Privilege of the Floor
Atty. Hill stated that it is his understanding that motions have been made to terminate the stays for the Wykeham Rise Inn Inland Wetlands Appeal, Zoning Appeal, and a lawsuit over restrictions, but he was not sure if all of them have been granted.
Mr. Brinton, 2nd Selectman, asked for an explanation of why a request to amend the regulation was suspect now and not before. There was a discussion regarding the timing of the regulation revisions.
Communications
7/14/09 email from Mr. Reese Owens re: deletion of 12.14.5:
Mr. Reese Owens, Architect, emailed a letter to the Zoning Commission stating that he disagreed with the deletion of regulation 12.14.5. His email explained how the regulation allows for a generator to be located in the least obtrusive area. He requested that section 12.14.5 be reinstated. Mr. Owen stated that it might be possible to change the distances according to the nearest property line. Mr. Owen volunteered to make a graph with proposed distances that would allow someone with more property some leeway. He said he would talk with Mr. Owens and Mr. Darryl Wright and report back to the Commission at the August 24th meeting.Enforcement
The Zoning Commission read the ZEO Report dated July 27, 2009.
Mr. Charles asked that if administrative approvals could be listed on the website.
Several commissioners thought it was a good idea. Ms. Hill stated she would talk to Mr. Ajello about adding it to the ZEO Report and posting the list on the website.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:45 pm by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 27, 2009 June 22, 2009
Present: David Owen, Valerie Friedman, Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: A.J. DuBois, Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant
Absent: Ralph Averill
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Michael Boe, Architect, Jim Dobson, Brian Neff, Carol & John Harrison, Paul Szymanski, Engineer, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro, Alt.
Harrison/19 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 6/10/09 and 6/17/09.
Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr.Brian Neff, Engineer was present to represent this application. Mr. Neff and the commissioners examined the Proposed Site Plan, titled Addition to the Garage/Guest House, at 19 Kielwasser Road, dated 4/11/09 by Brian Neff Engineer. Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions. The Zoning Commission looked at the floor plans and elevations, titled Proposed Residential Alterations for Carol and John Harrison, sheet A1.03, dated 5/5/09 and sheet A2.02 dated 5/7/09, by McIver-Morgan. There were no questions or comments from the public regarding this application.
Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Harrison/ 19 Kielwasser Road/ Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Regular Business
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:45 pm.Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Shapiro, Alt
Consideration of the Minutes
Motion: to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2009 as submitted, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, by 5-0 vote.Pending Application(s)
Harrison/19 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
There were no questions or comments regarding this application.Motion: to approve the Special Permit Application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Harrison for Detached Accessory Apartment at 19 Kielwasser Road, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
10 Main, LLC./10 Main Street/Special Permit: 7.5 and 7.6: Increase in Maximum Permitted Coverage and Decrease in Minimum Required Setback for Handicapped Ramp:
Ms. Hill reported the application was complete.Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on June 27, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application: submitted by 10 Main, LLC/10 Main Street/Special Permit: Section(s) 7.5 & 7.6 /Increase in Maximum permitted Coverage and Decrease in Minimum Required Setback for Handicapped Ramp, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Section 12.14.2/Location of Pool Equipment/Discussion with Mr. Dobson:
Mr. Jim Dobson of Dobson Pools was present to discuss section 12.14.2 of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Dobson explained that the only pool equipment that makes noise is the swimming pool pump. He suggested that the regulation should be revised to state that only the swimming pool pump be required to be situated within 50 feet of the swimming pool served and the other non noise generating equipment could be placed where the owner wanted it. The Zoning Commission discussed the possible revisions to the language of Section 12.14.2. The commission agreed to reword the language and to schedule a public hearing at the August meeting.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Addition of Section 17.5.A.3/Special Exceptions for Section 12.1 under specific circumstances:
The Zoning Commission discussed the language that was approved at the June 18, 2009 ZBA Meeting for section 17.5.A.3, which differed from the Zoning Commission’s proposal. Mr. Shapiro volunteered to revise the language to make the regulation more consistent. This revision will go to the ZBA Meeting of July 16, 2009 and they will be asked to provide a written explanation of any changes they propose.Section 4.4.17: Accessory Structures Used to Operate or Maintain a Pre Existing Golf Course:
It was noted that although section 4.4.17 permits accessory structures used to operate or maintain a pre existing golf course by Special Permit in the R-1 district, this provision had not been implemented for the Lake Waramaug Residential District. This means the Lake Waramaug Country Club would be required to apply for a variance rather than a Special Permit for any structure it might propose. It was the consensus to add section 6.4.13, using the existing language in 4.4.17, to the uses permitted by Special Permit in the Lake Waramaug District. A public hearing was scheduled for the August meeting.Motion: to add discussion of Density Regulations and Easements to the agenda, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Discussion/ Section 11.2.1 Density Regulations:
Paul Szymanski, Engineer, distributed a copy of Section 11.2.1 of the Town of Washington’s Zoning Regulations. He stated he would like to discuss the proper interpretation of the Zoning Regulation 11.2 Density Regulations. The commissioners read the letter from Attorney Mike Zizka, dated June 15, 2009 re: Density Regulations. Mr. Szymanski asked for clarification of the regulation. He asked if a property owner eases a portion of his property for conservation and ends up with less than 1 density unit, would this limit the property owner’s ability to add on to the house in the future. He stated he would most likely not encourage a client to ease that amount of land if it were to put the property at less than 1 density unit. Mr. Owen stated the owner could not receive the tax benefit of the conservation easement if he still had rights to develop the land. There was a discussion regarding tax benefits of conservation easements. Mr. Owen stated that if the property owner was willing to give the land up, and it becomes less than one density unit, then he is giving up the right to develop his parcel any further. Mr. Szymanski asked if the Zoning Commission would entertain a clarification of section 11.2.1 Density Regulations and how they relate to Conservation Easements. Mr. Owen recommended the commissioners continue to consider Atty. Zizka’s opinion and thought the commission might want to consult with Steep Rock.Privilege of the Floor No one from the public was present at this time.
Communications
The Zoning Commission discussed the Review of Zoning Regulations section of Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated 6/22/09(on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Owen recommended the commission look for inconsistencies and problems and focus on clarity. Ms. Hill stated a consultant would be helpful in finding inconsistencies and how to solve them. The commissioners and Ms. Hill discussed the possible benefits of hiring a consultant.Enforcement The Zoning Commission read the ZEO Report dated June 22, 2009.
Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation-Mediation/ Wykeham Rise, LLC.
Motion: to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation-mediation/Wykeham Rise, LLC., by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.Motion: to come out of Executive Session to discuss pending litigation-mediation/Wykeham Rise, LLC., by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:50 pm by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 27, 2009 May 18, 2009
Present: Ralph Averill, David Owen, Valerie Friedman
Alternates Present: A.J. DuBois, Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant
Absent: Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella,
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Jeff Anderson, Simone Rourk, Carol Sinnot, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING (S)
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Shapiro
Morrissey (Hermans/14 Hinckley Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.15, 12.6.1.c/General Home Occupation/ Holistic Veterinary Consulting Office:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 5/6/09 & 5/13/09. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Dr. Hermans explained 80% of her business is executed by phone and email and she has scheduled appointments 3 to 4 days a week and only 1 to 2 clients a day. She explained that she has one part time employee. She stated there would not be any changes to the outside of the building and no sign. She operates a consulting practice, not a veterinary hospital. Mr. Owen asked if she would be boarding animals. There was a letter submitted to the Zoning Commission, from neighbor, Danny Pring, dated 5-18-09, expressing a concern that installation of dog runs or kennels will disturb the root system of an old Maple tree between the two backyards. Dr. Hermans stated she does not board animals and her business does not need kennels. She submitted pictures of her current office. Ms. Hill stated that kennels are irrelevant because they are not part of this application. Dr. Hermans submitted her appointment schedule for the month of May 2009 and photos of her current office. Ms. Carol Sinnot of 15 Hinckley Road asked if the permit is limited to what is on the application and limited to the current owner. Ms. Hill confirmed that the permit is limited to what is indicated on the application and the supporting information provided at the time of the public hearing and to that specific owner. Mr. Jeff Anderson of Hinckley Road asked what would happen if there were more office visits and deliveries than indicated with the Special Permit Application. Mr. Owen stated if there was an increase in visits and deliveries than what has been indicated with this application it would become Zoning Enforcement issue. Mr. Anderson asked Dr. Hermans about her evening office hours as indicated on her website. Dr. Hermans stated evening hours are mostly by telephone and occasionally an office visit if needed. Mr. Owen asked if there were any more questions from the public.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Morrissey (Hermans)/ 14 Hinckley Road/ Section 4.4.15, 12.6.1.c/General Home Occupation/Holistic Veterinary Consulting Office, by David Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 6-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Regular Business
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:45 pm
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Shapiro
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page 1
Under Public Hearing(s), the 25th line in the paragraph should read: Mr. Owen stated the proposal does not include closing off the existing driveway on Mygatt Road.
Page 3
Under Preliminary Discussion/Farmers Markets: 3rd line should read: 2) Past discussion of a proposed flea market next to the convenience store on Route 202.
14th line delete: There was a …..in that location.
Under 1) Windmills: 1st line should read: Mr. Owen stated that he believed the question regarding windmills was resolved at last months Zoning Meeting.Motion: to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2009 as corrected, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Morrissey (Hermans/14 Hinckley Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.15, 12.6.1.c/General Home Occupation/ Holistic Veterinary Consulting Office:
Mr. Owen stated he was comfortable with the application and asked if any of the commissioners had any questions or issues.Motion: to approve the Special Permit Application: Section 4.4.15, 12.6.1.c submitted by Morrissey (Hermans) for General Home Occupation/Holistic Veterinary Consulting Office at 14 Hinckley Road, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 6-0 vote
New Applications
Mr. Brian Neff, Engineer was present to discuss this new application. He stated the Harrisons would like to construct a 2nd story accessory apartment above the detached 2-car garage and an addition on the rear of the garage. Mr. Neff stated the applicants have received both Health and Inland Wetlands approval. Ms. Hill stated the applicant would need to submit a letter that states they will be residing on the premises for the duration of the permit.Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on June 22, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application: Submitted by Harrison/19 Kielwasser Road/Section 13.11/Detached accessory apartment, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 6-0 vote.
Other Business Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Addition of Section 17.5.A.3/Special Exceptions for Section 12.1.1 under specific circumstances:
Ms. Hill explained the history of Zoning Regulation Section 17.5. The commissioners discussed the proposed language. Mr. Shapiro stated it should follow the same format as the existing regulations. He read his proposed language for the addition of section 17.5.A.3. The Zoning Commission agreed with Mr. Shapiro’s changes. Ms. White will submit Mr. Shapiro’s proposed changes to the language of the regulation at the ZBA Meeting on May 22 for approval. Mr. Owen stated that if ZBA agrees with the changes, the language should be sent to Atty. Zizka.Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Averill referred to Mr. Ajello’s ZEO report dated 5/18/09 regarding the subject of stonewalls. He asked how boundary line stonewalls and stonewalls along the roads are being regulated. There was a discussion about the laws regarding removing stonewalls. Ms. Hill stated she would look in to the subject.Communications
5/5/09 Memorandum of Decision/ Cappuccio V. Zoning Commission:
Ms. Hill read her Administrative Report dated 5/18/09.Ms. Hill distributed “Ten Tips For New Commissioners.”
Enforcement
The Zoning Commission read the 5/18/09 ZEO report.Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:15 pm by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 voteFILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 5, 2009 April 27, 2009
Present: Ralph Averill, David Owen, Valerie Friedman
Alternates Present: A.J. DuBois, Andy Shapiro
Absent: Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella, Harry Wyant
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Bob Papsin, Michael & Lori Duch, Malina McNamara, Diane Stevens, Ann Neville
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Dubois, Mr. Shapiro
Vincent (Duch)/181 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.i/Storage Facility and Sign:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 4/15/09 & 4/22/09. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Duch stated Mr. Vincent, the owner of the property, has given him permission to use the barn as storage as well as erect a sign on the property for his masonry business. He displayed the A-2 Survey for the property and indicated the proposed location of the sign. Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s administrative report. Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Ms. Friedman asked if there would be any more equipment needed for the business. Mr. Duch stated the business is starting out and he has light equipment and at this point does not have any need for heavy equipment. Mr. Averill stated a masonry business would possibly need a construction forklift but otherwise the equipment is fairly small. Mr. Duch stated if he needed a forklift he would have to rent it and leave it at the job site. Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions from the public. Diane Stevens and Mr. Papsin were concerned about safety considering the condition of the barn. Mr. Duch stated he would only be using the ground level, which he deems to be okay for storage. Bob Papsin asked where the sign would be located and if it would be lit. Mr. Duch explained the proposed location and reassured Mr. Papsin that it would not be lighted. Mr. Owen stated he was comfortable with the location of the sign. Melina McNamara of Mygatt Road asked if the business would be using Mygatt Road as an entrance and exit. Ms. Friedman stated this issue had come up with a previous special permit request to have a business on this property and commercial access had been restricted to Rt. 202 at that time. The Duchs stated they do not have any customers or employees coming and going. When asked by Ms. Stevens if allowing access from Mygatt Road in this case would set a precedent, Ms. Hill stated each special permit is unique so it would not. Ms. Friedman stated it is not the Zoning Commissions responsibility to address the condition of the building and asked who does have this responsibility. Ms. Hill stated she believed that it was an issue for the Building Official. Mr. & Mrs. Duch stated that they are planning to store wheelbarrows, scaffolding and planks in this barn. Mr. Owen stated that the most likely way to improve the condition of the building is to continue the use because the owner will have incentive to make repairs. All members agreed that this was not a Zoning Commission issue. Ms. Stevens asked if this would affect coming in and out of Mygatt Road. Mr. Owen stated the proposal does not include closing off Mygatt Road. Mr. Averill stated the previous proposal to run a business out of this property is different from this proposal. He stated the Duchs would not have daily traffic in and out of the property, as this will be a storage facility only. Ms. Stevens asked if once this permit was granted as a storage facility would everything be stored in the barn and what would happen if it weren’t. Mr. Owen stated it then becomes an enforcement issue.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Mr. Duch for a storage facility and Sign at 181 New Milford Turnpike, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING Regular Business
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:55 pm
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Dubois, Mr. Shapiro
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page 6, under New Applications, the 1st line in the Motion should read: to schedule a Public Hearing on April 27, 2009.Motion: to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2009 as corrected, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Vincent (Duch)/181 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.i/Storage Facility and Sign:
Mr. Owen asked if any of the commissioners would like to discuss the application. Mr. Averill stated he was in favor of this application and he agrees with Mr. Owen that the best way to improve the barn is for someone to be using it and he feels this is a good use for the building.Motion: to approve the Special Permit Application: Section 9.4.1.i submitted by Mr. Duch for a Storage Facility and Sign at 181 New Milford Turnpike, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, by 5-0 vote
New Applications
Morrissey (Hermans)/14 Hinckley Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.15/General Home Occupation/Holistic Veterinary Consulting Office:
Dr. Ann Hermans was present to give the commission an explanation of her request. She has owned and operated a Holistic Veterinary Practice, by special permit, out of her main residence in Bridgewater for 10 years and she would like to move to Hinckley Road in New Preston and relocate her home-based business out of the residence. She explained 80% of her business is executed by phone and she has scheduled appointments 3 to 4 days a week and only 1 to 2 clients a day. She explained that she has one part time employee. She stated there would not be any changes to the outside of the building and no sign. She operates a consulting practice, not a veterinary hospital, clinic or kennel so she does not use any medical equipment that would require special regulation and she does not need kennels as she does not provide hospitalization or boarding of animals. Mr. Owen asked the commission and Ms. Hill if there were any concerns. Ms. Hill stated she believes that the application meets all the general home occupation criteria.Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on May 18, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application: Submitted by Morrissey (Hermans) Section 4.4.15/General Home Occupation/Holistic Veterinary Consulting Office, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Preliminary Discussion/Farmers Markets:
Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report, dated April 27, 2009. Mr. Owen stated he would like to discuss two things relating to this subject; 1) The Zoning Commission previously has declined to add outdoor art galleries to the permitted uses as in the Averill Field sculptures, 2) The idea of putting a flea market next to the convenience store on Route 202. Mr. Averill asked where in New Preston this Farmers Market would be located. Ms. Ann Neville, one of the owners of the Firehouse, stated the Farmers Market would be located at 1 New Preston Hill. Ms. Friedman stated there was a Farmers Market outside the Senior Center/Legion Hall last summer, that the Zoning Regulations do not allow for this, but that it happened anyway. Ms. Hill asked if it was being held again this year. Ms. Friedman stated she believed it was and there is about 4 or 5 vendors. Ms. Neville stated the owner of 1 New Preston Hill would allow the use of the property’s lawn and patio for a Farmers Market. Ms. Friedman asked what this Farmers Market would entail. Ms. Neville stated it would be similar to the Farmers Market in Woodbury. Ms. Hill stated 1 New Preston Hill was in the business district. Mr. Owen stated that since a Farmers Market is not allowed it would be necessary to make changes to the regulations in order to allow it. Ms. Neville asked if a Farmers Market would fit under the definition of a grocery store. Mr. Owen stated he did not think it would fit under the definition of a grocery store. There was a discussion as to how viable a Farmers Market would be in that location. Mr. Owen stated things to consider would be safety, parking, bathrooms and competition with the existing vegetable market. Ms. Friedman stated it would be important to define a Farmers Market so that it does not end up turning into a Flea Market. Ms. Hill said she would look at the Town of Cornwall’s definition of a Farmers Market. There was a discussion about the definition of Farmstands. The commission agreed it would be beneficial to work on a definition for the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Shapiro volunteered to work on it. Ms. Neville was informed that revision of the regulations would be a lengthy process and so it would be unlikely the Commission could approve a Farmers Market in time for it to operate this summer.Mr. Sedito’s 2/23/09 Memo re: Request for Interpretation of Zoning Regulations: 1) Windmills 2) Wetlands 3) Special Exceptions:
1) Windmills:
Mr. Owen stated that he believed question regarding windmills was resolved at last months Zoning Meeting. After a brief discussion, all the commissioners agreed to leave the regulation as written.2) Wetlands Setback:
Ms. Hill discussed how, in many cases a property owner with a nonconforming building applies for a Special Exception, and also needs to apply for a variance for setbacks to wetlands. A Special Exception does not require a proof of hardship but the variance for the setback to the wetlands does. The ZBA finds that in most cases if the Inland Wetlands Commission approves the proposed project, then why would they (ZBA) require the applicant to prove hardship for a variance. Ms. Hill stated the Special Exception is allowed under two conditions and wetlands is not one of them. Ms. Hill stated she believed, as does the ZBA Chairman, it could be handled as a Special Exception if the regulation was amended to require Inland Wetlands approval as a prerequisite. Atty. Zizka will be consulted regarding the language to be added to Zoning Regulation 17.5. Ms. Hill will draft language for Mr. Owen and Mr. Sedito to review before it is referred to Atty. Zizka.3) Special Exceptions:
In response to Mr. Sedito’s question about Special Exceptions, Mr. Owen stated he should continue to follow Atty. Zizka’s advice.Privilege of the Floor
No one from the public was present at this time.Communications
4/14/09 Notice from the Connecticut Siting Council re: Warren cell tower public hearing on 5/21/09:
Ms. Hill stated the meeting would be held at the Warren Town Hall.Enforcement
The Zoning Commission read the 4/27/09 ZEO report.Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation/Wykeham Rise, LLC.
Motion: to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation/Wykeham Rise, LLC, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.Motion: to come out of Executive Session to discuss pending litigation/Wykeham Rise, LLC, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Subsequent Business
Motion: to add subsequent business to the agenda to discuss Allstar Transportation /80-82 Bee Brook Road, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen reminded the commission about the proposed improvements of the School Bus Transportation depot on Bee Brook Road. Mr. Owen stated the Zoning Regulations currently do not permit this type of coverage in the area. Ms. Hill stated she believes the current coverage on the lot is about 90 percent and if the proposed plan were implemented, the total percentage of coverage on the two joined lots would decrease. The commissioners and Ms. Hill discussed how they could revise the Zoning Regulations to allow for improvements to the existing bus depot. Mr. Owen said he had discussed this matter with Atty. Zizka who had thought possible revisions to allow flexibility in coverage could be implemented. Discussion will continue at the next meeting.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:45 pm by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White,
Land Use Clerk
Posted: April 1, 2009 March 23, 2009
Present: Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, David Owen, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: Harry Wyant, A.J. DuBois
Absent: Valerie Friedman Andy Shapiro,
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Matt Klauer, Paul Szymanski, Engineer, Atty. Robert Fisher, Brian Neff, Engineer, Darryl Wright, Donna Wright, John Harris, Mike Gorra, Regine Laverge, Tom McGowan, Bob Papson, Dennis McMorrow, Engineer, Atty. James Steck, Residents
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. DuBois
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 9.2.3/Add Offices to Permitted Uses Under Specific Circumstances in the Marbledale Business District:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/11/09 & 3/18/09. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this and the two following Public Hearings addressing revisions to the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Hill stated that there are other uses that are already permitted, such as small-scale retail businesses and art galleries, as long as there were not any exterior changes and offices are a logical permitted use to add to this regulation. She reported that the Planning Commission does not have any objections to this revision.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 9.2.3/Add Offices to Permitted Uses under Specific Circumstances in the Marbledale Business District, by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14.5/Deletion of Special Exception Provisions for Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/11/09-3/18/09. Mr. Owen stated the Planning Commission has communicated that they have no objection to this revision. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Wright if he would like to comment. Mr. Wright suggested the decision could be postponed and he could provide input to the process of re-wording the regulation so that it allows people who can afford a generator and have the acreage to locate a generator more than 25 ft. from the principal structure served and in the least obtrusive area for themselves and their neighbors. Mr. Owen stated the regulations are meant to put the responsibility on the homeowner to find the quietest solution in locating the equipment because it would be closer to them than their neighbors. He stated Zoning Commission has consulted with experts such as acoustical engineers to determine if there are things that can be done to muffle the noise of these types of equipment. He was told it would depend on the specific application because noise is affected by so many different variables. Mr. Wright stated he would like the commission to consider how many complaints have been received in the last 15 years and not to make a regulation that is too restrictive. Mr. Szymanski stated the special exception gave a little more leeway in placing a piece of equipment. His firm is currently trying to site a generator for a client that would be at least 1,000 feet away from any neighbor. He stated he was concerned that, by state statutes, his client would not be able to prove hardship. Mr. Owen stated the homeowner would have the responsibility of installing the equipment within the regulations and they will be more likely to going to make an effort to muffle the noise as much as possible. Mr. Szymanski asked if the Zoning Commission has looked at other towns’ regulations regarding placement of noise generating equipment. Mr. Owen stated they had not. Mr. Averill stated there have been many advances on quieting generators. Mr. Wright stated the majority of generators in this area are used for emergencies. Mr. Owen suggested that maybe emergency generators could be separated from the rest of the noise generating equipment included in this regulation. Mr. Owen stated there are two options: 1) to vote on this revision tonight and possibly revisit it later, and 2) to postpone acting on the proposed revision in order to discuss it further. The members of the commission felt comfortable proceeding with the revision and agreed to include generators when they consider the regulations for windmills.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14.5/Deletion of Special Exception Provisions for Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Revision of the Zoning Regulation/16.4.1/ To allow Certain Business and Institutional Signs in the Residential Districts:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/11/09-3/18/09. Mr. Owen stated the Administrative Report, dated 1/26/09, and the notes from the 1/26/09 Zoning Meeting, by Ms. Hill, are in the file in addition to the previous items stated. Mr. Owen read the 3/20/09 report from the Planning Commission (on file in Land Use Office) suggesting that further consideration be given to this revision. The Planning Commission suggested a 2 sq. ft. size limitation, lighting be prohibited or strictly limited, and the list of permitted businesses be eliminated. Mr. Owen asked for comments regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Mr. Owen read the proposed list of businesses permitted to have signs. Mr. Owen stated the purpose for these signs should be for the purpose of identification not for promoting a business. Mr. Averill stated he was in favor of the signs not being lit. Mr. Owen stated the lighting regulations for residential areas should be followed. He suggested that regulation 12.15 should be included and more specific about the lighting of signs. Ms. Hill stated that lighting of signs was not addressed however; the Zoning Regulations state if it is not listed as permitted it is prohibited. Mr. Owen stated the Zoning Commission will revisit this issue and at this time the regulation prohibits lighting of signs in residential districts.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the revision of the Zoning Regulation/16.4.1/ To allow Certain Business and Institutional Signs in the Residential Districts, by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, by a 5-0.
Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen read a list of items that were added to the file. Mr. Szymanski was present to represent the Conlons for this application. He presented a written statement that the owner will reside on the premises for the duration of the permit. Mr. Szymanski and the members looked at the Studio/Garage Elevations, prepared for the Conlon Residence, Sheet # A-5, by Wesley H. Quigley III Architecture and Design, revised on March 23, 2009. The revised plans conform to the height requirements of the Zoning Regulation for an accessory building. Mr. Szymanski stated the accessory apartment contains 38.3% of the ground floor area of the main house and is in conformance with Zoning Regulation 12.5.2. Mr. Szymanski stated the Conlons received a variance of Sections 12.1.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3 and 11.6.1 from Zoning Board of Appeals and will be filing it on the Town Land Records. Ms. Hill stated she notified the Towns of Warren and Litchfield regarding this application and did not receive a response.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment, by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permits: 1) Section 9.4.1.d/Restaurant-Addition, Site Improvements 2) Section 9.6.8/Request for Waiver of Building Setback from Residential Property Line:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/11/09-3/18/09. Mr. Owen listed the contents in the file and read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated 3/23/09. Mr. Harris stated he is proposing to build an addition on an existing 12’ x 20’ concrete slab that will provide storage for utilities and liquor and to build a portico at the front entrance of the building that will be ADA compliant. Mr. Owen read the ZEO report dated 3/23/09. The report states that Mr. Harris has received approval from both Inland/Wetlands and ZBA for the proposed plan. Mr. Harris submitted a letter from the adjoining residential property owner approving all of the proposed changes. Ms. Hill suggested the commission make a separate motion to waive the 50 ft. setback requirement in 9.6.8 as Section 9.6 refers to a waiver by the commission. Ms. Hill asked if the sign would be lit. Mr. Harris said it would be lit with Dark-Sky friendly lighting.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permits: 1) Section 9.4.1.d/Restaurant-Addition, Site Improvements 2) Section 9.6.8/Request for Waiver of Building Setback from Residential Property Line, by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
2M Properties/278 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.h/Convert 2nd Floor Apt. to Office and Staff Area for Aspetuck Animal Hospital:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/11/09-3/18/09. Mr. Owen read the list of the contents in the file. Dr. Gorra explained there would not be any exterior changes. Ms. Hill stated building would be changing from part residential/ part commercial to all commercial.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider 2M Properties/278 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.h/Convert second floor of existing commercial building to office and staff area, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
LaVerge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.13/Bed and Breakfast Establishment:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/11/09-3/18/09. Mr. Owen read the list of the contents in the file. Ms. Hill read her administrative report, dated 3/23/09. The 3/23/09 email sent by adjoining property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Mathews, (copy on file in Land Use Office) stated a concern about traffic on the shared driveway with Ms. Laverge. Atty. Fisher was present to represent Ms. Laverge. He stated that the Laverge property is 42 acres and a one-bedroom bed & breakfast should not have any impact on the adjoining properties. Ms. Hill and the commission looked at the Lot Line Revision, Site Analysis Plan, prepared for Regine Laverge, by T. Michael Alex, dated April 1993.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14/Bed and Breakfast Establishment, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote
Bennett/80 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/Addition to Dwelling within 50-75 ft. of Lake Waramaug:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on 3/11/09-3/18/09. Mr. Owen read the list of the contents in the file. Mr. Neff was present to represent Ms. Bennett. He presented the Storm water Management & Landscape Plan/Addition to the Bennett Residence, by Brian Neff, dated 2/21/09. Mr. Neff stated the closest point of the house is 62 ft. from Lake Waramaug. He explained the proposed plan is to convert the house from a 1 ½ to a 2 story home. It was confirmed that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the proposed plan. Mr. Tom McGowan of the Lake Waramaug Task Force was present and looked at the Storm water Management & Landscape Plan. Mr. Neff explained how they storm water management system would work. Mr. McGowan stated the system would need to be cleaned out periodically as there would be sediment build up. Mr. Neff stated the system would need some maintenance that would be dependent on the amount of rainfall. Mr. McGowan asked that there be a condition put on the approval that the owner acknowledges that the system needs to be maintained in order to operate properly. Mr. McGowan asked about the septic system. Mr. Neff explained that the existing septic system is not failing so it will be used for now and an area on the upper portion of the property has been located for a new system when necessary. Mr. McGowan asked about the parking space along the road. He stated the LWTF would like to see the parking away from the lake. Mr. Neff stated there is not an increase in impervious surfaces and there will be a reduction in storm water run off due to the addition of the roof system for the proposed project. He stated the existing parking is on state property and there would have to be extensive blasting on the owner’s property along June Road if they were to provide parking away from the lake. Mr. Papson does maintenance for this property and was present. He stated the catch basins along East Shore Road clog up in the fall and the leaves on the property should be cleaned up once or twice a year.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider Bennett/80 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/Addition to Dwelling within 50-75 ft. from Lake Waramaug, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote
REGULAR MEETING Regular Business
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:55 pm
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. DuBoisConsideration of the Minutes
Motion: to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2009 as submitted, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 9.2.3/Add Offices to Permitted Uses under Specific Circumstances in the Marbledale Business District:
Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to approve the revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 9.2.3/Add Offices to Permitted Uses under Specific Circumstances in the Marbledale Business District, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote
Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14.5/Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to approve the revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14.5/Deletion of Special Exception Provisions for Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Revision of Zoning Regulations/16.4.1/To allow Certain Business and Institutional Signs in the Residential Districts:
Mr. Owen read the proposed revision to section 16.14.1. He asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to approve the revision of the Zoning Regulation/16.4.1/ To allow Certain Business and Institutional Signs in the Residential Districts, by Mr. DuBois, seconded by Mr. Abella, by a 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen stated that two conditions had been mentioned: 1) The variance is recorded on the land records and 2) an As Built regarding height is submitted. He asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Conlon for a Detached Accessory Apartment at 6 Valley Road, with the condition(s) that 1) the variance be recorded on the Town Land Records before the permit is issued, and 2) An As-Built be submitted to the Town to confirm the height of the accessory building meets the Zoning Regulations before the certificate of zoning compliance is issued, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permits: 1) Section 9.4.1.d/Restaurant-Addition, Site Improvements 2) Section 9.6.8/Request for Waiver of Building Setback from Residential Property Line:
Mr. Owen read section 9.6.8. He asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to waive Zoning Regulation/Section 9.6.8 in regard to side yard setback for the Special Permit application submitted by Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. DuBois, by 5-0 vote.
Motion: to approve the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.d submitted by Harris for Restaurant-Addition, Site Improvements at 258 New Milford Turnpike, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. DuBois, by 5-0 vote.
2M Properties/278 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.h/Convert 2nd Floor Apt. to Office and Staff Area for Aspetuck Animal Hospital:
Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to approve the Special Permit application: Section 9.4.1.h submitted by 2M Properties to convert 2nd floor to Office and Staff area for Aspetuck Animal Hospital at 278 New Milford Turnpike, by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. DuBois, by 5-0 vote.
LaVerge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.13/Bed and Breakfast Establishment:
Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.14 submitted by Laverge for Bed and Breakfast Establishment at 226 Bee Brook Road, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by a 5-0 vote.
Bennett/80 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/Addition to Dwelling within 50-75 ft. of Lake Waramaug:
Mr. Owen read the condition for approval of this special permit. He asked if there were any questions or comments from the commission.Motion: to approve the Special Permit application: Section 6.5 submitted by Bennett for Addition to Dwelling within 50-75 ft. of Lake Waramaug at 80 East Shore Road with the conditions that: 1) Cultec C-4 Roof Infiltration System be maintained properly by the home owner, and 2) Proof the variance has been filed on the Town Land Records be submitted to the Land Use Office, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by a 5-0 vote.
New Applications
Winans-Vincent/181 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Sections 9.4.1.i/Storage Facility for Small Scale Business:
Ms. Hill updated the commission on the property. She noted the applicants proposed storage for their masonry business and to erect a signMotion: to schedule a Public Hearing on April 20, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application – Winans-Vincent/181 New Milford Turnpike: Section 9.4.1.i/Storage Facility for Small Scale Business, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business (continued)
Preliminary Discussion/Petition to Amend Zoning Regulations to Allow Dispatch Offices for Local School Transportation by Special Permit in the B-2 District:
Mr. Dennis McMorrow, Engineer, from Berkshire Engineering and Surveying, LLC. and Atty. James Steck of Herbst & Herbst, LLC. were present to discuss the Feasibility Layout Plan, #2, prepared for All Star Transportation/80-82 Bee Brook Road, by Berkshire Engineering and Surveying, LLC., dated 2/16/09. Mr. Owen stated that the use of this property would require more coverage than what is permitted in this zone although the existing coverage was already over the maximum permitted. Atty. Steck stated the proposed joining of the two lots results in a decrease in the percentage of coverage. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that in previous situations there have been trade offs when there has been an improvement in appearance of the area. Mr. Owen stated the town needs school buses and this would be an improvement. Mr. Steck stated there would be a reduction in curb cuts and more room for landscaping. There was a discussion among the members, Atty. Steck and Mr. McMorrow about amending the regulation to specifications for this specific dispatch office. Mr. Owen stated the Zoning Commission would be willing to pursue such a request and this was a topic that would have to be discussed with Atty. Zizka.Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Papson asked if there were any regulation for free standing solar panels. Mr. Owen stated they would have to be treated as a structure. Mr. Owen stated the regulations need work with how they relate to wind turbines and windmills. Ms. Hill stated she thought that solar panels are exempt from the Historic District Regulations.
Communications
3/08 letter from Mr. Talbot re: Lot Coverage and Creation of Parcels:
Ms. Hill stated Atty. Zizka advised the Zoning Commission could not make any policy statements about this type of situation and cannot guarantee that it will not happen again in Washington. And, if it does the commission will have to evaluate each case on its own.2/23/09 letter from Mr. Sedito/ZBA:
Mr. Owen stated the question regarding windmills has been resolved as far as ZBA is concerned but not where the Zoning Regulations are concerned. The question regarding 17.5.c.1 does refer to accessory buildings only. The question regarding wetlands setback is still being worked on.Enforcement
The Zoning Commission read the 3/23/09 ZEO report.
Discussion of Pending Litigation/Wykeham Rise, LLC.
Mr. Owen stated that another neighbor has applied to be an intervener in the case. Atty. Zizka asked the Zoning Commission to discuss if anyone opposes this neighbor having intervener status. No one from the commission opposed. The commission selected Mr. Owen, as the Chairman, to be the representative for the Zoning Commission. The Zoning Commission also had no objection to the mediatior recommended by Atty. Zizka.Motion: for Mr. Owen, Chairman of the Zoning Commission, to represent the Zoning Commission at Mediation Sessions re: Wykeham Rise, LLC., by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Adjournment:
Motion: to adjourn at 9:45 pm by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
4/1/09
Posted: March 5, 2009 February 23, 2009
Public Hearings - Regular Meeting
Present: Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, David Owen, Valerie Friedman
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant
Absent: Mr. DuBois, Lou Abella
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, Atty. Robert Fisher, Brian Neff, Engineer, Darryl Wright, Donna Wright, Mr. & Mrs. Harry Wright, Dick Carey, Jim Ross, Phil Dutton, Wendy Federer, Peter Talbot, Janet Wildman, Chris Charles, John Harris, Mr. Antosh, Residents Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Wyant
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 10.4.1a/Addition of Eating and Drinking Establishments to Uses Permitted by Special Permit in the Woodville Business District:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/11/09 & 2/21/09. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file. Mrs. Hill read her administrative report dated February 23, 2009. Mr. Owen asked if the commission would like to try and define “restaurant” and “eating and drinking establishments” at this time. It was agreed the regulation would be revised at this time and the definitions would be revised in the future.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 10.4.1.a/Addition of Eating and Drinking Establishments to Uses Permitted by Special Permit in the Woodville Business District, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote
Mark & Linda Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/11/09 & 2/21/09. Ms. Hill recommended the public hearing be continued for two reasons: 1) Revised plans had just been submitted and have not been reviewed, and 2) The notifications were just sent out to the Towns of Warren and Litchfield and they need enough time to comment. She stated the applicant must submit a written request for an extension. Mr. Szymanski submitted the letter from the Conlon’s requesting an extension. He presented photos of the property and elevation drawings, titled Garage Plans, by Wesley H. Quigley III, Torrington, CT.Motion: to continue the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application submitted by Conlon for Zoning Regulation 13.11.3 - detached accessory apartment at 6 Valley Road to March 23, 2009, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Sen/116 Shearer Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/11/09 & 2/21/09. Paul Szymanski presented the elevation drawings and floor plans for the accessory apartment. He stated the Inlands/Wetlands Commission and the Health Department have approved the plan. The structure is less than 1200 sq. ft. The existing barn will be demolished and replaced with an accessory apartment. Ms. Hill stated that all paperwork has been submitted, 6 out of 8 green proof of certified mailing receipt cards have been received.Motion: to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application submitted by Sen for Zoning Regulation 13.11.3 - detached accessory apartment at 116 Shearer Road, by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Owen, by a 5-0.
REGULAR MEETING Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:55 pm
Regular Business
Mr. Owen proposed to amend the agenda in order to accommodate Mr. Fitzherbert who needed to leave early due to illness.
Motion: to amend the agenda to consider Executive Session before Pending Applications, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked if Mr. Owen would consider moving Privilege of the Floor as well. Mr. Owen stated he was apprehensive to do this because not all residents may be present that would like to speak and Privilege of the Floor was listed later on the agenda. Mr. Fitzherbert suggested that there be a one-minute time limit per person to make a statement. Mr. Shapiro stated he thought it was a good idea for residents to speak before the commission goes into executive session.
Motion: to amend the agenda to conduct item VI. Privilege of the Floor, prior to going into Executive Session, to solely discuss the topic of proposed mediation with Wykeham Rise, LLC. (allowing each speaker one minute), by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page 1: Others Present: Mr. Roguess should read: Mr. Rogness, Mr. Moore & Mr. Moore should read: Mr. & Mrs. Moore
Page 5: Other Business Continued last sentence in third paragraph should read: The commission agreed that clearer definitions …
Page 6: Privilege of the Floor second to last sentence delete phrase:…he asked that this matter be put on the agenda for the next Zoning meeting.Motion: to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2009 as amended, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Mr. Owen stated he has talked to Atty. Zizka regarding the correction of the minutes. The correction to the minutes are published in the succeeding months on the website and the minutes themselves are never changed. Mr. Owen asked Atty. Zizka if we could publish the corrected minutes on the website. Atty. Zizka advised that the minutes could be replaced with the corrected minutes as long as the original minutes were kept on file in the Land Use Office.
Privilege of the Floor (1)
Mr. Owen asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak regarding the proposed mediation with Wykeham Rise, LLC. Atty. Fisher stated, on behalf of Wykeham Rise, LLC he filed a request for mediation of the Zoning Appeal under section 8-8 of the statutes. He felt the parties could come to a compromise that ‘everybody could live with’. He stated this process is not binding but it does require cooperation between all parties involved to be successful and it will avoid spending time, effort and money in court. Harry Wright stated he thought mediation was a good idea given the issue could be resolved within the town. Janet Wildman distributed an article she had submitted to The Litchfield County Times in support of mediation. Mr. Dutton stated it would certainly save the town some money and he urges the Zoning Commission to take this as another opportunity to revisit this issue in a new light. Mr. Charles asked if the mediation would be open to the public. Mr. Owen stated he believed it was between the parties. Mr. Antosh stated he was in favor of the low-income housing proposal submitted by Mr. Klauer. Mr. Talbot asked if the Zoning Commission would still be looking at the criteria of a special permit. Mr. Owen stated it doesn’t suspend the Zoning Regulations and that any decision mediated between parties would not be binding. The conclusion is sent to a judge who then decides whether the decision is acceptable or not. Mr. Carey asked how a mediator is chosen. Mr. Owen was not sure however, it would probably have to be someone that all parties agree on.
Executive Session
Motion: to go in to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing mediation/pending litigation/Wykeham Rise, LLC, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
Motion: to come out of to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing mediation/pending litigation/Wykeham Rise, LLC, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
8:50 pm
Members of the public enter back into Land Use Meeting Room.Motion: to agree to participate in the proposed mediation for Wykeham Rise, LLC. if all the other parties involved also agree to participate, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Mr. Owen stated this has never been done before and he feels the Zoning Commission has the obligation to the town and the applicant to pursue this avenue in order to avoid or postpone a court battle. Mr. Owen asked if there were any more questions or comments from the public. .
8:55 pm, Mr. Fitzherbert exits.
Pending Applications
Mark & Linda Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Public hearing continued for March 23, 2009Sen/116 Shearer Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Motion: to approve the Special Permit application submitted by Sen for Zoning Regulation 13.11.3 - detached accessory apartment at 116 Shearer Road, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0.New Applications
Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit:1)Section 9.4.1.d/Restaurant/Storage Addition, Site Improvements 2) Section 9.6.8: Building Setback from Residential Property:
Mr. Harris presented the elevation and floor plan drawing for the White Horse Pub.Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on March 23, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application - Harris/258 New Milford Turnpike: 1) Section 9.4.1d/Restaurant/Storage Addition, Site Improvements, 2) Section 9.6.8: Building Setback from Residential Property, by Mr. Owen, Seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.
2M Properties/278 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.h/Convert 2nd Floor Apt. to Office and Staff Area for Aspetuck Animal Hospital:
Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on March 23, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application – 2M Properties/278 New Milford Turnpike: Section 9.4.1.h/Convert 2nd Floor Apt. to Office and Staff Area for Aspetuck Animal Hospital, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.LaVerge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.13/Bed and Breakfast Establishment:
Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on March 23, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application – La Verge/226 Bee Brook Road: Section 13.13/Bed & Breakfast Establishment, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.Bennett/80 East Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.5/Addition to Dwelling within 50-75 ft. of Lake Waramaug:
Mr. Neff was present to represent this application. He explained how the proposed plan is to remove the existing roof to convert the house to a 2 story dwelling from a 1.5 story dwelling and construct an addition to the back of the house over were there is an existing walkway. Mr. Neff submitted a Storm Water Management & Landscape Plan, dated 2-21-09.
Motion: to schedule a Public Hearing on March 23, 2009 to consider the Special Permit application – Bennett/80 East Shore Road: Section 6.5/Addition to Dwelling within 50-75 ft of Lake Waramaug, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, by 5-0 vote.Other Business
Wright Electrical/14 Kinney Hill/ Request to Extend Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen:
Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Review. Mr. Averill stated he drives by the location frequently and does not have a problem with renewing this Special Permit.
Motion: to approve the request for renewal to Special Permit of Wright Electrical/14 Kinney Hill: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen subject to the condition that upon inspection the ZEO does not find any violations, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, by 5-0 vote.Preliminary Discussion /Wright/Section 12.14/Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Darryl and Ms. Donna Wright were present to discuss issues regarding installation of generators. Ms. Wright explained Wright Electric has a customer that would like to replace a previously removed generator. She explained all the equipment to hook up a generator still exists in the same location. Mr. Wright explained the generator was not on a concrete pad and it was encased in prefabricated housing, located 25 ft. off the property line and is 25 ft. from the garage. The Wrights asked for clarification of the definition of ‘structure principally served’ in the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Wright asked what the difference was between the ‘principle building’ and ‘structure principally served’. Mr. Wright stated the CL&P meter is on the garage/office and the generator will be used to power this structure. The commission asked if the generator would be attached to the house. Mr. Wright confirmed it was hooked up to the house and estimated the location of the generator is approximately 40-50 feet away from the house. Mr. Owen stated the regulation tries to prevent a noisy piece of equipment being installed too close to a neighbor as well as giving the owner incentive to reduce the noise since the equipment would be located closer to their home. Mr. Wright brought up different scenarios as to why it may not be necessary or best to locate a generator within 25 feet of a house and urged the commission to consider other factors regarding locating generators. Mr. Owen stated he believed the original generator never had a zoning permit. Ms. Hill stated that in removing the generator the owner abandoned his use of the generator. Mr. Owen stated if the generator is to serve the garage (the structural principally served) and not connected to the house then it would be okay to locate it in the area of the previously removed generator.Petition to Amend Zoning Regulations/Section 11.7.1/Height of Principal Buildings and Structures in Historic Districts/Withdrawn:
(Letter dated 2/13/09 on file in Land Use Office)
Mr. Talbot stated the Historic District Commission agreed to withdraw their petition to amend this zoning regulation. He wanted confirmation that the Zoning Commission approvals for work in the Designated Historic Districts be contingent upon the HDC review and approval. Ms. Hill stated that another issue is that HDC would have to approve parking in a Designated Historic District before Zoning approval according to CT State Statutes.Revision of Zoning of Zoning Regulations/Addition of Eating and Drinking Establishments to Uses Permitted by Spec. Per. In Woodville Business District:
Ms. Hill stated there were no objections from the Planning Commission to amend this regulation.
Motion: to approve the proposed revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 10.4.1.a to add Eating and Drinking Establishments as a use permitted by Special Permit in the Woodville Business District, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, by 5-0 vote.Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Noise Generating Equipment:
Public Hearing scheduled for March 23, 2009 Zoning Meeting.Revision of Zoning Regulations/Business – Institutional Signs in Residential Districts:
Ms. Hill stated the issue of lighting should be included in the discussion. Public Hearing scheduled for March 23, 2009 Zoning Meeting.Discussion Possible Revision of Section 6.3.2/Permitted Accessory Uses in R-3 District:
Ms. Hill stated this is still being researched.Revision of Section 9.2.3/Addition of 9.4.1.f; Office Establishments, to Uses Permitted in Marbledale Business District under Section 9.2.3:
Public Hearing scheduled for March 23, 2009 Zoning Meeting.Preliminary Discussion of Definition of An Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Szymanski read the definition of an accessory apartment. He stated his interpretation of this definition is that one would have to have the ability to cook in the building. Mr. Owen stated that this could not be rented out to someone as an apartment and that if it had a kitchen it would be considered an accessory apartment. Ms. Hill asked for if there was a clear definition for ‘kitchen’ in relation to an accessory apartment.Communications
3/08 letter from Mr. Talbot re: Lot Coverage and Creation of Parcels:
Ms. Hill stated she has been in contact with Atty. Zizka and hope to have answers for the March 23, 2009 meeting.2/4/09 letter from Ms. Anderson re: Multifamily Housing Regulations:
The Zoning Commission read Ms. Anderson’s letter.2/23/09 letter from Mr. Sedito re: Windmills:
Mr. Owen asked that the commission take this letter home and review it.Enforcement
The Zoning Commission read the ZEO report.Privilege of the Floor (2)
Mr. Charles asked about the process of mediation. Mr. Owen stated he was not completely sure how the process would proceed. Ms. Federer asked if Atty. Zizka should come and talk to residents. Mr. Owen stated that would be possible.
Adjournment:
Motion: to adjourn at 9:55 pm by Mr. OwenFILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
3/4/09
Posted: February 28, 2009 January 26, 2009
NOTE:
This is a revised version of the minutes originally posted February 5, 2009Present: Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, David Owen, Valerie Friedman, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant
Absent: Mr. DuBois
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Press, Mrs. Solomon, Mrs. Giampietro, Mr. Rogness, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, Atty. Strub, Atty. Fisher, Ms. Zinick, Mr. & Mrs. Moore, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Federer, Mrs. Benn, Mr. Talbot, Residents
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Seated: Mr. Owen, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert
Mark & Linda Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment
Ms. Conlon submitted a written request for an extension of the Public Hearing to February 23, 2009. At this time, she feels the revisions to the plans should be complete.Motion: To continue the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application submitted by Ms. Conlon for a detached accessory apartment at 6 Valley Road to February 23, 2009, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, passed 5-0
Moore/127 Blackville Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment
Ms. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 1/14/09 & 1/21/09. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file. He noted that the list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners and their certified mailing receipts for their notification of the hearing had not been submitted and read the Administrative Report submitted by Ms. Hill, dated 1/26/09. Ms. Zinick, agent, represented the applicants. She questioned Mr. Ajello’s previous ZEO report, which said that the existing dwelling will be remodeled. She stated there are no plans to remodel the existing dwelling. Ms. Zinick submitted all certified mailing receipts, a list of surrounding property owners, and a map detailing where each neighbor is in relation to the Moore’s property. She confirmed the proposed house would be 2456 sq. ft. and the existing house is 1040 sq. ft., which, she said, meets Zoning Regulation Section 12.5.2. Ms. Zinick and the Commission examined the Proposed Sanitary Disposal System Plan & B-100a Plan prepared for Daniel & Sandra Moore by Arthur H. Howland & Associates, P.C. dated 10-15-08. They discussed the location of the existing and proposed dwelling in relation to the prominence of each. Mr. Owen noted the purpose of the accessory apartment regulation is to prevent property owners from placing two primary dwellings on a lot that is not subdividable, and therefore, the accessory apartment must be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling. Mr. Averill asked if the driveway meets the regulation in regards to having a common driveway. He noted the plans show a common cut and a common driveway for about 10-15 ft. Ms. Zinick presented the floor plan for the existing dwelling. The existing house, which would become the accessory apartment, is 41 ft. x 26 ft., just over 1000 sq. ft. The Commission and Ms. Zinick discussed the proposed house floor plans. Ms. Zinick noted that each dwelling has its own septic system. Mr. Shapiro asked the distance between the two dwellings. Mr. Averill estimated around 120 ft. between the dwellings. Mr. Owen asked if there were any more questions or comments from the public or commissioners. Ms. Friedman stated that she shares the concern with Mr. Averill regarding the driveway. Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, Arthur H. Howland & Associates, P.C. stated they could widen the area at the beginning of the driveway to make it more of a shared driveway. He noted that the existing house is very close to the road, there are existing stone walls that run along Blackville Road that they would like to maintain, and that moving the curb cut presents a problem with the sight line of the road as reasons for the proposed driveway location. Ms Zinick noted the option is to widen the beginning of the driveway so it doesn’t look like a shared curb cut. Mr. Szymanski stated the turning radius could be chamfered to accommodate large trucks.
8:03 pm.
Motion: To close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application submitted by Mr. Moore for a detached accessory apartment at 127 Blackville Road, by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed 5-0.
REGULAR MEETING Regular Business
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:05 pm.
Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page 1: Also Present: delete Mr. Carey(1)
Page 3: Pending Applications, Conlon: should read: “scheduled for January 26, 2009
Page 7: #2 Mr. Owen asked the commissioners to review for the next meeting the ‘draft list of businesses’: should read: draft list of usesMotion: To accept the 12/15/08 Public Hearing – Regular Meeting Minutes as corrected, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Conlon/6 Valley Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment:
Public Hearing continued to February Meeting.Moore/127 Blackville Road/Special Permit : Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen asked for any comments from the commissioners. He stated that he was okay with this application but worries that Zoning has received a number of applications that come close to what is not wanted regarding two primary structures on one lot. Ms. Friedman stated she understands this concern but it does meet the regulations. Motion: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Moore for a detached accessory apartment at 127 Blackville Road, by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed 5-0.New Applications
Reid/287 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.f/Physical Therapy, Yoga, and Nutrition Offices:
Ms. Hill stated the applicant would like the Commission not to schedule a Public Hearing at this time.Sen/116 Shearer Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Hill noted there were two items missing from the application: 1) the signature of the owner on the application form and 2) a signed statement by the owner that he will reside on the premises for the duration of the permit. Mr. Owen listed the items that are included with the application. He stated that Ms. Hill recommends that a Public Hearing be scheduled. Mr. Owen asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. The hearing was scheduled for February 23, 2009 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. Motion: To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. Sen for a detached accessory apartment at 116 Shearer Rd. on February 23, 2009, by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Friedman, passed 5-0.Other Business
Preliminary Discussion/Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road /Affordable Housing:
Mr. Klauer, Mr. Szymanski, and Atty. Fisher were present to discuss the project in its conceptual stage and receive feedback from the Zoning Commission. Mr. Szymanski displayed a Conceptual Site Plan, dated 1/26/09, by Arthur Howland & Associates, P.C. He reminded the Commission that the existing septic system would support 69 bedrooms. He explained that the slabs of the existing dorm buildings would be transformed to accommodate underground parking for the units they serve. Mr. Szymanski stated they are planning for half the parking to be underground. The preliminary plans include the existing tennis courts, a play scape and sports court. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Szymanski requested feedback from the Commission. Mr. Owen stated it is important to the Town of Washington that the units are comparable and the State of Connecticut Affordable Housing Appeals Act not be used as a tool for a developer to get around zoning regulations. Ms. Friedman asked if the existing buildings are structurally sound. Mr. Szymanski confirmed that they are and they have a structural engineer looking at the site. Mr. Fitzherbert asked if the 3 dorms that are at least half underground would have another floor added to them and if the flat roof would be maintained. Mr. Szymanski confirmed there would be another floor added and the flat roof would be turned into a peak roof. Mr. Szymanski stated they are still working on this aspect of the plans. Mr. Fitzherbert asked for the length of the proposed building on top of the hill. Mr. Szymanski stated that his records show that it is 275 ft. Mr. Owen asked if the state fire code was considered. Atty. Fisher stated that under the Affordable Housing Statute 8-30(g) the project is in full compliance. Mr. Averill asked if the affordable units would be dispersed and asked who would be administering the affordable housing. Mr. Szymanski stated they would be dispersed. Atty. Fisher stated that Mr. Klauer met with Mr. Hileman of the Housing Commission for his input. Atty. Fisher stated that they are not required to have a public hearing. Mr. Szymanski requested that the Commission go over the engineering aspect of the project with them before they get to the actual site plan application so that they may address any issues that may arise in a timely manner. Mr. Owen agreed to this and stated that he would like to have a public hearing, but would check with Atty. Zizka on this matter.Petition to Amend Zoning Regulations/Section 11.7.1?Height of Principal Building and Structures in Historic Districts:
On behalf of the Historic District Commission, Mr. Talbot was present to discuss the petition to revise Section 11.7; “Maximum Building Height,” proposing 35’ as the maximum height for buildings and structures in all historic districts. He said this would revert to the pre January 1995 regulation as adopted February 26, 1990. The maximum height would be measured “to the level of the highest roof of the building or highest feature of the structure.” He submitted his letter to the Commission dated January 20, 2009. The HDC has documented the heights of various houses within the Historic Districts to illustrate how existing buildings would or would not comply with the proposed regulation. He pointed out that there are some buildings at the Gunnery that would exceed the proposed maximum height limitations. The Commission and Mr. Talbot discussed the height of a building on a sloping site versus a flat site. Mr. Talbot said he would work on the definition of a sloping site. He feels it is important to the Town to regulate the height and have the back up of the Zoning regulations to help the Historic District Commission avoid legal issues. Mr. Talbot discussed the changes for Section 11.7.1 over the years from 1990 to the present. His letter includes the requested changes to the regulations as well as sketches of typical building heights in Historic Districts, copy of February 27 1989 Reg. 11.3, copy of February 26, 1990 Reg. 11.3, Copy of January 1 & December 1 1995 Reg. 11.3 and copy of December 17, 2007 Reg. 11.7 (all documents on file in Land Use Office). Mr. Owen stated that after reviewing these documents, the Commission could have a preliminary discussion at the February 23 meeting and then schedule the public hearing for the March 23, meeting. Mr. Talbot agreed.Mr. Owen suggested the Commission move to Communications on the agenda
Communications
March 2008 Letter from Mr. Talbot re: Lot Coverage and Creation of Parcels:
Mr. Talbot expressed his concern that several years ago the then owners of 14 Old North Road had created a non conforming lot. He wanted to know how this had been allowed to happen and how the Commission would prevent it from happening again in the future. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the Town’s land use regulations. It was noted that currently 6 and 14 Old North Road were still separate parcels, although owned by the same person. Mr. Owen read the Zoning Regulation 17.2, Nonconforming Lots, 2nd paragraph. Mr. Talbot stated he believed there should be more oversight of the first cut process. Ms. Hill stated that at the time the Commission had been advised that it could not prevent this, but as a result, first cut was added as an activity that would need a Zoning Permit and is now included in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Talbot stated that he was still not clear about what had occurred, how it had been allowed, and how it would be prevented in the future. He asked for specific answers. Mr. Owen stated that the Commission had not yet received a definitive answer from the Attorney Zizka, but would raise the issue again with town counsel. Mr. Charles discussed some other instances where a property owner subdivided and had to remove or demolish structures on the property to produce a legal building lot. Mr. Talbot stated that his concern is how people are circumventing the law and that this should be prevented.Other Business Continued
Revision of Zoning Regulations/Addition of Eating and Drinking Establishments to Uses Permitted by Special Permit in Woodville Business District (Public Hearing: 2/23/09):
A Public Hearing is scheduled for February 23, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room..Revision of Zoning Regulations/1) Eating and Drinking Est. by Special Permit In all Business Districts 2) Addition of Definitions for Types of “Restaurants”:
Mrs. Friedman had previously recommended that eating and drinking establishments be permitted by Special Permit in the business districts in which they are allowed to 1) make the Regulations consistent and 2) to give the Commission the authority to apply the Special Permit standards for each application. Mr. Shapiro agreed consideration of the Special Permit criteria would ensure that these establishments would be harmonious and would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Owen and Mr. Fitzherbert thought eating and drinking establishments should remain a use by right in the New Preston and Depot business districts and did not necessarily think it was important that the regulations governing this use be consistent throughout Town. The commission agreed that clearer definitions are important and will work on them in the future.Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Owen presented the proposed revision, which was the result of discussions at previous meetings. Please see the attached text of proposed revisions. A public hearing was scheduled for March 23, 2009 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.Revision of Zoning Regulations/Business-Institutional Signs in Residential Districts:
The proposed revisions by Mr. Owen, which had been circulated at the last meeting, were reviewed. The 1/26/09 administrative review by Mrs. Hill was noted and several changes to the draft were made. Please see the attached text of proposed revisions. A public hearing was scheduled for March 23, 2009 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.Discussion of Possible Revisions to Zoning Regs. Re: Inns and Tourist Homes:
Discussion at previous meetings had focused on the need for a definition of “inn.” Mrs. Friedman circulated a list of concerns that she also thought should be addressed such as whether inns should be permitted in commercial districts, whether they should be allowed only on state highways, whether the number of rooms should be limited, etc. Mr. Owen said he would not support any revision that would make the existing Mayflower Inn non conforming. Mr. Fitzherbert opposed setting arbitrary limits for inns now, which might interfere with their necessary economic growth in the future. He also thought it was too soon after the Wykeham Rise application for the Commission to discuss this issue. Mr. Averill agreed there was no immediate need to address inns. Mr. Owen recommended the commissioners reflect on this issue and said anyone who was interested could work on it on his own. Discussion Possible Revision of Section 6.3.2/Permitted Accessory Uses in R-3 District: Mr. Ajello had questioned whether this section should include stairs an exempted structure such as docks and floats. Mr. Owen asked that Mrs. Hill and Mr. Ajello work on revised text. This discussion is to be continued.Discussion Possible Revision of Section 9.2.3/Permitted Uses in Marbledale Business District:
Review of the pending Reid/287 New Milford Turnpike application had raised the issue of whether professional offices should be required to have a Special Permit and public hearing if they were proposed in buildings already used commercially and there would be no changes to the exterior of the building or to the site plan. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus that under these circumstances, offices should be approved by regular zoning permit. A public hearing was scheduled for March 23, 2009 in the Land Use Meeting Room. Please see the attached text of the proposed revision.Privilege of the Floor Ms. Valerie Anderson asked that the Zoning Commission consider revising the Zoning Regulations to permit multifamily housing because there is a great need for it in Washington. She stated that under the Affordable Housing Appeals Act developers may ignore local regulations, but noted if the Town had regulations governing multifamily housing, it would have greater control over these developments. She suggested the Commission could put a time limit on the regulation or limit the number of units that could be constructed. She thought that it would be more beneficial to the Town to build 10 reasonably priced houses with 1 affordable home than to have another affordable housing project. After a brief discussion in which Mr. Owen stated that the Commission had already spent many months discussing this issue and that the construction of multifamily units would bring Washington further from the state mandated goals for affordable housing. When asked, none of the commissioners expressed a desire to work on this issue.
Enforcement
Mr. Owen read the ZEO Report.
Adjournment
Motion: To adjourn the Meeting, by Mr. Owen
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Meetings in 2008