The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Commission
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission |
|
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 19 •November 28 •November 22 •October 24 •September 26 •August 22 •July 25 •June 27 •May 23 •April 25 •March 28 •February 28 •January 24 •Previous years: 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 26, 2011 December 19, 2011
Present: Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella, Ray Reich, Nick Solley, Dave Werkhoven
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro
Absent: Harry Wyant, A.J. Dubois
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill, Mike Ajello
Others Present: Atty. Fisher, Atty. Olson, Atty. Branse, Atty. Schain, Mr. Szymanski, P.E., Mr. Klauer, Mr. Parker, Ms. Giampetro, Mr. & Mrs. Solomon, Mr. & Mrs. Federer, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Millington, ResidentsMr. Fitzherbert called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
The Commissioners acknowledged that they read the reports submitted at the November 28, 2011 Public Hearing. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that there is a large amount of information that has been submitted for this application that does not have a lot to do with Zoning. He stated that Zoning is the final approval for an application but the applicant’s plan needs to be approved by the Health Department, the Inland Wetlands Commission, the Fire Marshal, etc. He stated that the Zoning Commission would not be basing their decision on areas that are not in their purview. Mr. Reich read the list of documents added to the file since November 28, 2011.Mr. Klauer stated that they have responded to each of Ms. Purnell’s concerns that she included in her letter to the Zoning Commission dated November 28, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). He stated that one of her observations was that the size of the proposed building footprint is substantially larger than any of the properties surrounding it. Mr. Klauer stated that this seems to be the case with all of the schools that are in the Town of Washington. He stated that most of her points had to do with inland wetlands and these issues were addressed at the Inland Wetlands Commission meeting.
Mr. Klauer stated that Mr. Rogness’s letter to the Zoning Commission dated November 28, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office) contained impertinent information and states repeatedly that inns are not allowed on Town roads. He stated that this application is for a school and meets the criteria for a school. Mr. Klauer stated that the sight line interpretation that Mr. Rogness submitted to the Commission at the regular meeting of the Zoning Commission on November 28, 2011 is inaccurate. He submitted a photo of the same view and explained the location of the proposed main building compared to the existing structures and stated that the proposed main building would not be as visible as Mr. Rogness’s photo suggests. The Commission and Mr. Klauer looked at the map titled Overall Site Development Plan, prepared for Mathew and Erika Klauer, sheet OSD.1 with a revision date of 12-7-11 by Arthur H. Howland & Associates. Mr. Klauer stated that the proposed main building would begin approximately 700 feet away from the curb cut and the existing building is approximately 325 feet away from the curb cut. He stated that the main building would be difficult to see from the road due to the distance from the curb cut along with the proposed plantings for screening and he feels that Mr. Rogness’s photo along with the elevation that he produced should not be considered as part of the record for this application.
Mr. Reich asked Mr. Klauer to discuss the difference in the height of the existing main building and the proposed main building. He stated that the proposed main building is not higher than 40 feet and that six foot markings are included on the architectural drawings to indicate scale. He stated that the broad side of the proposed main building is positioned so that it is not visible from the road and that one would have to stand directly in front of the building to see the full length of it.
Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, stated that the applicant would be requesting an extension of the Public Hearing so that there would be time to meet with Mr. Ohmen, Fire Marshal, and Ms. Hill, Land Use Administrator to address the questions Ms. Hill included in her Administrative Report dated December 19, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). He stated that he would take that time to address questions about access.
Mr. Szymanski stated that Ms. Hill recommended that a Traffic Management Plan be implemented during the construction due to the large scope of the project, the duration of the project and safety concerns on the winding, narrow road. He asked the Commission if they are requesting a flag person for entering and exiting trucks. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that a flag person would be important to maintain safety on Wykeham Road. Mr. Szymanski stated that he would submit a formal response regarding traffic management. Atty. Branse stated that typically a Traffic Management Plan would include days and hours of operation.
Mr. Szymanski stated that Mr. Natale, Licensed Surveyor, submitted a letter certifying the lot coverage using class A-2 standards and he asked the Commission to confirm whether that is acceptable or not acceptable. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that it was acceptable. Mr. Szymanski stated that areas of 8-10 inches of ¾ aggregate base with 4-6 inches of top soil is often used to provide access for emergency vehicles but is maintained as lawn and he asked if this Commission would consider it part of the lot coverage. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that Glenholme Devereux uses this method for emergency access vehicles, the fire department has a map locating the areas and he does not feel it would be considered lot coverage.
Mr. Szymanski addressed Ms. Hill’s comment in her Administrative Report that architecture of other schools in town is irrelevant. Mr. Klauer stated that he submitted photos of other school’s buildings to show that there is not a consistent type of architecture throughout any of the existing schools.
Mr. Szymanski displayed and discussed the drawing titled Planting Plan prepared for Mathew and Erika Klauer, revision date of 9-21-11, sheet PL.1 (on file in the Land Use Office). He stated that the design of the planting plan takes into consideration potential impacts to neighboring properties by proposing 10-12 foot Eastern White Pines and Norway Spruces to screen along property lines, Wykeham Road and to visually break up buildings. The Commission and Mr. Szymanski agreed that the addition of some coniferous trees along the east and west sides of the driveway would be added to the plan.
Mr. Szymanski agreed that the site plan sheets erroneously indicate 8 units in Dorm#1 but should indicate 16 units, which is indicated in the floor plans. He stated that he would revise the plans and submit a new set for the records.
Atty. Fisher, representing the applicant, stated that he met with Ms. Hill and she indicated that she still had some outstanding questions for the Fire Marshal. He stated that he invited Mr. Oles, a professional appraiser, to look at the property and the plans and to speak tonight and give his opinion on the impact, if any, on the neighboring property values.
Mr. Oles introduced himself and gave a brief history of his career. He stated that this property has been used as a school since 1903 and it is his opinion that the reuse of a school on this property would not devalue the surrounding properties
Mr. Werkhoven asked if the applicant could explain the phases of construction. Mr. Szymanski stated that the project would be split into four phases of construction. The Commission and Mr. Szymanski looked at maps titled Detailed Erosion Control Plan & Construction Sequence (Phase 1,2,3& 4), prepared for Mathew & Erika Klauer, by Arthur H. Howland & Associates, revision date 12-7-11, sheets SEQ.1, SEQ.2, SEQ.3, SEQ.4. Mr. Szymanski stated that no more than 5 acres would be disturbed at one time and unstable at any point of construction and that a weekly timeline of the construction was submitted for the record. He stated that site construction should take a year and recommended that the I/W Commission and the Zoning Commission hire the same person for the Construction Inspection Consultant job.
Mr. Reich asked if there was an estimated date for the start of the first class. Mr. Szymanski stated that that would be difficult to determine at this point of the permitting process.
Mr. Reich asked how legal challenges would affect the timeline of the proposed plan. Atty. Fisher stated that they have fine-tuned the plan, considered input from people who are opposed and in favor of the project and also have taken feedback from the Commissions into consideration over the past couple of years and hopefully the residents that were opposed to this project realize that this is a good plan. He stated that he does feel that legal challenges are inevitable.
Mr. Solley stated that the width of driveway #2 is indicated on the site plan as 16 feet wide, yet the Fire Marshal approved a plan for a 20-foot wide driveway in which 4 feet would be a cape cod curb and this is not indicated on this map. Mr. Szymanski stated that the plans have always shown a 16-foot driveway and he was not sure where the Fire Marshal got 20 feet. Mr. Szymanski and the Commission looked at the Overall Site Development Plan. Sheet OSD.1. Mr. Szymanski stated that the width of the driveway and the curbing were considered in the lot coverage calculation and that he would discuss the 20 foot requirement with the Fire Marshal and Ms. Hill when they meet. He stated that reinforced lawn alongside the driveway would support emergency vehicles and would not need to be included in the lot coverage calculation. There was a brief discussion regarding pavers and lawn with an aggregate base reinforcement. Mr. Solley stated that he did not feel that there was sufficient area for food service vehicles to maneuver access to the Main Building. Mr. Szymanski stated that he was comfortable with the plan. Mr. Solley asked how Mr. Aubrey came up with a different lot coverage calculation that Mr. Szymanski’s firm. Mr. Szymanski stated, “The only calculations that have been submitted that have been certified by a Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Connecticut are ours.”
There were no further questions or comments from the Commission at this time.
Atty. Branse recommended that Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report be reviewed. Mr. Fitzherbert addressed main points from Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report, dated 12-19-11. He stated that a meeting with the Fire Marshal would be scheduled. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the report raises questions about the safety of the entrance and exits and he read portions of the section titled Safety of the Existing Entrances/Exits in Ms. Hill’s report. Mr. Szymanski stated that it was his understanding these access points were used for two-way traffic in the past. This plan proposes a one-way entrance and exit and he stated that the lower driveway would make the most sense to be used as an entrance and the upper access (near Bell Hill) used as an exit “from a user perspective.” Mr. Szymanski stated that the existing service access driveway would be closed off so that it could not be used during construction. He stated that he would add notes to sheet SEQ.1 that states that other than during the removal and restoration of the existing access driveway area to lawn, there would be no construction traffic on Bell Hill. Mr. Fitzherbert, reading from Ms. Hill’s report, stated that the topics of Lot Coverage, Driveway Width, Dorm #1 number of units have been discussed and Architecture would be discussed. In order to address the section titled Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report he asked Mr. Ajello, ZEO, to explain the Inland Wetlands Commission’s decision to approve the request by Wykeham Rise, LLC to amend Permit #IW-08-31 for 101 Wykeham Road (on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Ajello briefly discussed the conditions of this approval.
Atty. Branse stated that he thinks it is a legitimate request to have the applicant explain the height difference between the existing main building and the proposed main building and he suggested that if Smith and Co. performed a peer review on the prior set of plans regarding lot coverage that maybe this should be done for this set of plans. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that based on the past he is not inclined to question the integrity a second time. Atty. Branse stated that it might not be a question of integrity but the report that was submitted tonight from Mr. Donald Aubrey of Towne Engineering, Inc., addressed to Atty. Mark Branse, dated December 19, 2011, list many mistakes on the plans.
Atty. Olson stated that one of the questions tonight is “what actually constitutes lot coverage depending upon what the applicant decides to construct.” She recommended that it is important to meet with the Fire Marshal to produce a plan of what exactly is going to be constructed and then the Commission could seek a legal opinion on whether what is proposed should constitute lot coverage or not, regarding the emergency access.
Atty. Branse asked if Mr. Oles did a written report, if he had done comparables and if the report he issued tonight conforms to Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Mr. Oles stated that he did not feel there was any reason to do a report because this is a continued existing use of the property. He stated that he visited the site and the surrounding area, reviewed the proposed plans and it is his opinion that this school would not affect the value of the surrounding properties and therefore there was no need to produce a report with comparable sales analysis. Atty. Branse asked if this is an appraisal or not. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that it is Mr. Oles opinion at this point and not an appraisal. Atty. Branse asked if Mr. Oles reviewed the architectural plans. Mr. Oles stated that he reviewed all of the current plans.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked the applicant to speak about the height of the existing and proposed main building. Mr. Klauer stated that the heights of the existing main building and the proposed main building are comparable and that they could discuss the scaled elevations tonight if the Commission would like. There was a discussion regarding the number of stories in each building and the definition of a ‘story’. Mr. Klauer stated that the proposed main building would have 3 floor levels.
Atty. Branse submitted his follow up report with attachments addressed to the Zoning Commission dated December 19, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office).
Mr. Werkhoven asked why this information isn’t received ahead of time so that the Commissioners would have time to review the materials before the public hearing.
Atty. Branse stated that he agrees with Commissioners that it would be better to have the materials in advance. He stated that his office received the updated materials late and that is why his response was handed in today. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that this issue would be addressed after everyone has made his or her comments tonight.
Atty. Branse discussed the main points of his report. Mr. Branse stated that the documents submitted prior to this public hearing are missing information necessary to evaluate the modifications to the plans. He stated that the Commission has addressed the Fire Marshal issue tonight and he and his clients will be interested to hear the results of the meeting with Mr. Szymanski, Ms. Hill and Mr. Ohmen. He stated that the width of the driveway and the discrepancies in architectural drawings regarding the width of the four and six pod dormitories would affect the lot coverage calculation. Atty. Branse stated that the height of the proposed main building is not indicated on the site plans. He asked that the Commission to review his report.
Atty. Branse submitted a follow up Report to the November 28th, 2011 Peer Review from Mr. Donald Aubrey of Towne Engineering, Inc., addressed to Atty. Mark Branse, dated December 19, 2011. He stated Mr. Aubrey addresses the issues regarding the driveway and traffic in his report. Mr. Aubrey’s report notes that the detail of the plan shows a dumpster pad but this pad is not indicated on the site plan and State Code prohibits indoor trash storage exceeding 1.5 cubic yards and a dumpster pad would need to be included in the lot coverage calculation. Atty. Branse stated that Mr. Aubrey addresses issues regarding the Judea Water Company in his report as well.
Atty. Branse submitted a copy of Mrs. Peacocke’s letter to the Zoning Commission dated November 15, 2010 regarding requirements for a university for the record. He stated that this letter is from a previous application but he wanted it submitted for part of the record for this application. Atty. Olson stated that she would like to clarify that her advise to the counsel is that “it is not wise to incorporate complete records of a prior application because of the fact that you would be incorporating information that is not relevant…that if you want information from a prior application that it would be best to have it actually incorporated and specifically put in to this record.” Atty. Branse agreed with her and stated that he feels Mrs. Peacocke’s letter brings up some legitimate questions. He stated that his clients would welcome a school that is comparable to the previous schools on this site but they question whether this is a university and his clients are concerned that the plans have been “cheapened”.
Mr. Parker asked if this public hearing would be continued and Mr. Fitzherbert confirmed that it would be. He stated that Mr. Rogness’s photo of the proposed main building was produced with the materials that were available to him and he was trying to put the proposed main building into perspective. Mr. Parker submitted copies of renderings of the proposed buildings for the inn application and noted the detail on these drawings. He stated that the size and scope of the proposed main building for this application is difficult to see and asked that the applicant submit perspective drawings. Mr. Parker questioned why the applicant is pushing the 10% lot coverage with no proof of how this business would operate.
Mr. Millington stated that he is part of the Washington Community Housing Trust which had its eye on this property. He stated that he envisioned 6-8 condominiums on this site because he feels that this Town has a need for moderate income housing and housing for older residents.
Ms. Purnell stated that her report to the Zoning Commission, dated December 1, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office) includes the specifications of the existing buildings on the Wykeham Rise property and that “from a volumetric perspective” there is a significant difference between the existing and the proposed. Regarding the peer review done by Smith & Company in 2008, she stated that the applicant had calculated 2.78% lot coverage and Smith & Co. calculated 2.80% lot coverage. Ms. Purnell discussed what was and was not included in the lot coverage calculation. She stated that there has been “a level of non cooperation” with regard to information requested of the applicant and as a result making it difficult to determine the size, scope and scale of the project.
Ms. Giampetro stated that she appreciates all of the time people in this Town have put in to this work.
Mr. Parker read and submitted a letter addressed to Mr. Fitzherbert and the Zoning Commission dated December 19, 2011 (on File in the Land Use Office) which questions if this proposed plan is for a school or an inn and why is the school not going to seek accreditation. Atty. Fisher stated that whether the school is accredited is not a Zoning issue.
Mr. Fitzherbert explained the accreditation process for the State of Connecticut and stated that an institution does not have to be accredited to be a school. Atty. Olson stated that the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations does not require that a school be accredited.
Mr. Parker stated that he agrees with Atty. Fisher and Atty. Olson but what the neighbors cannot understand is what the function of this school is going to be. Atty. Branse stated that this is a legitimate topic to discuss at a public hearing.
Ms. Purnell stated that she listed the various development constraints that exist on the property. She stated that two of the critical underlying assumptions made by the applicant are that the onsite soils will be mapped as NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) though because of the mapping resolution the soil boundaries can be off as much as a few hundred feet and that ground water is not going to be an issue on the site. She stated that since 2009 she has asked for the test pit results and found them in the inn application documents of 2008. She stated that she has provided information along with a comparison of the typical soil profile for what would be expected in those areas. It shows disturbed soils and an overburden of approximately two feet of topsoil on top of fill or fine sandy loam. She stated that she feels the Commission should consider whether additional information is necessary in order to properly evaluate whether construction can be done safely. She stated that in her report that she included some conditions of approval that the Commission may want to consider.
Mr. Klauer stated that in addition to requesting an extension of this public hearing it would be helpful for the Zoning Commission to facilitate the meeting between the Fire Marshal, Ms. Hill and Mr. Szymanski due to time constraints.
Atty. Fisher submitted a written request to extend the Public Hearing to January 23, 2012 on behalf of the applicant.
There were no further questions or comments from the Commission or the Public.
Motion:
to continue the Public Hearing at the next Zoning Commission Meeting on January 23, 2012 at following the first Public Hearing at 7:30 pm in the Land Use Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Wykeham Rise, LLC, 101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he would like to discuss future document submissions. He stated the Zoning Regulations set a policy to limit submissions of documents from the applicant to 15 days before the Public Hearing. Mr. Szymanski stated that they would submit any additional materials by Friday January 6, 2012.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked Town Counsel if a limit could be placed on other submissions. Atty. Olson stated that there could not be a limit placed since there is no regulation in place but the Commission could request the information is submitted by a certain date. Mr. Fitzherbert requested that any other submissions be handed in to the Land Use Office a week before the Public Hearing. Atty. Branse stated that he could email the material. The Commission agreed that paper would be better at this point.
There was a brief discussion regarding monitoring of the site to check for compliance.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Fitzherbert called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:45 pm.
Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Reich, Mr. SolleyConsideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the November 28, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.
Corrections:
2nd page, last paragraph, 1st sentence, should read: Mr. Shapiro asked Mr. Szymanski to discuss the difference in the exterior materials that will be used for the approved main building from the last application to the proposed main building of this application.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of November 28, 2011, as corrected,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 4-0-1 vote
Mr. Solley abstained because he did not receive the 11-28-11 minutes.
New Application(s)
Stone/295 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.d/Eating and Drinking Establishment/Addition of Outdoor Seating:
Ms. Hill stated that the applicant has received approval from the Health Department. The Commission scheduled a Public Hearing for this application.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing for the next regular Zoning Commission Meeting on January 23, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Land Use Meeting Room to consider the application for Stone/295 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 9.4.1.d/Eating and Drinking Establishment/Addition of Outdoor Seating,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Nominating Committee for Officers:
Mr. Fitzherbert asked that Mr. Reich and Mr. Abella to be the Nominating Committee and to prepare a slate for the January 23, 2012 regular Zoning Commission Meeting.
Privilege of the Floor
No one from the public was present at this time.
Communications
2010 Zoning Commission Meeting Calendar:
The Zoning Commission considered the Zoning Commission 2012 Calendar.Motion:
to approve the Zoning Commission 2012 Calendar as submitted,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Zoning Enforcement
Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello stated that he sent a letter to Mr. Anderson, the owner of CT. He stated that his letter offered several workable site improvement concepts to the owner and that as the owner, he is ultimately responsible for making the decision that he feels is best for his business but he must be proactive in addressing the issue. Mr. Ajello requested a response before the January 23, 2012 regular meeting of the Zoning Commission.The Commission briefly discussed the parking availability at the Dobson property and Mr. Ajello stated that the property is being used but there is no formal agreement between Mr. Dobson and the Community Table. Mr. Ajello has observed no more than 3 employee vehicles parked on Wilbur Road during his drive by inspections over the past month.
The Commission considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated 12-19-11.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 10:05 pm.
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Fitzherbert adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Posted: December 7, 2011 November 28, 2011
Present: Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella, Ray Reich, Nick Solley, Dave Werkhoven
Alternates Present: Harry Wyant, Andy Shapiro, A.J. Dubois
Absent:
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill, Mike Ajello
Others Present: Atty. Fisher, Atty. Olson, Atty. Branse, Atty. Schain, Mr. Aubrey, P.E., Mr. Szymanski, P.E., Mr. Klauer, Mr. Rogness, Mr. Parker, Ms. Giampetro, Mr. & Mrs. Boyer, Mr. & Mrs. Solomon, Mr. & Mrs. Federer, Ms. Purnell, Ms. Kurz, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Stichter, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Peterson, ResidentsMr. Fitzherbert called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Mr. Fitzherbert welcomed new members Mr. Werkhoven and Mr. Solley. He stated that the Commission had a training session with Attorney Zizka on November 22, 2011. The Staff of the Land Use Office and Atty. Olson were invited to attend this meeting. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Land Use Attorneys advised him that the most important part of a Public Hearing is for the property owner or applicant to fully explain their application, should always be first and have as much time as needed to present the application. He stated that the attorneys also advised that a time limit be put on speakers and he pledged that all submitted written documents would be read by all of the Commissioners and that any speakers summarize their documents to the most important points. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he would begin the hearings with a five minute speaking limit and that people would get another chance to speak after everyone else has had their turn, if more time is needed.
Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Wyant & Company/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment/Installation of Outdoor Cooler:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on November 16th and 23rd, 2011 and the list of documents in the file. Mr. Wyant recused himself. Mr. Drew Stichter stated that he would like to open a restaurant on this site and would like install and exterior walk-in cooler at the rear of the building which measures 10’x20’ on an existing paved surface (photo submitted and on file in Land Use Office). Ms. Hill stated that there would be no increase in lot coverage, it meets the setback requirements and has been approved by the Health Department. Mr. Stichter stated that it would be installed on a slab, and there would be minimal noise from the compressors that would run in cycles. Ms. Hill stated that the nearest property line is 67 feet. Mr. Ajello stated that there is a separate application for the signage. There were no further questions from the public or the Commissioners.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Wyant & Co., 88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment to install outdoor cooler,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on November 16th and 23rd, 2011 and the list of documents in the file. Atty. Fisher stated that he was present on behalf of the Mr. Klauer, Principal of Wykeham Rise, LLC. and that he was planning on giving an overview of the proposed plan but upon entering the meeting received materials from Atty. Branse which he would like to review and respond to at a later date. He stated that Mr. Szymanski was present and would be addressing the points in Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated 11/28/11 (on file in the Land Use Office).Mr. Klauer stated that he would like to summarize 4 main points as to why this application meets the criteria of a Special Exception. He stated that the footprint of the main building has been decreased from 20,441 sq. ft. to 16,019 sq. ft., the emergency vehicle access from the south end of the driveway to the dorm building has been deleted, and a driveway has been added to the back of the main building. The proposed plans have received approval from the Inland Wetlands Commission and Fire Marshal for all emergency vehicle access. Mr. Klauer stated that all of these changes result in lot coverage of 9.63% for this proposed plan, which is a decrease from the 9.87% lot coverage that was approved by the Commission with the last application. Mr. Klauer went through the 8 criteria for a Special Permit and stated how this application meets those criteria.
Mr. Szymanski, P.E. stated that he would like to summarize the site development and displayed the map titled Overall Site Development Plan, prepared for Wykeham Rise, LLC, by Arthur Howland and Associates, page OSD.1, dated July 8, 2011 and discussed the proposed location of structures. He stated that they are proposing demolition of all existing structures, the existing tennis court would be removed and restored and how the proposed Storm Water Drainage System has been designed according to the 2004 Storm Water Quality Manual as well as the 2002 Guidelines for Sediment and Erosion Control. Mr. Szymanski stated that LandTech reviewed these plans for the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Szymanski reviewed proposed landscaping and displayed the map titled Planting Plan, prepared for Wykeham Rise, LLC., by Arthur Howland and Associates in cooperation with Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, dated July 8, 2011, sheet PL.1 and discussed the areas of screening. He stated that a lighting plan is included in this proposal as well.
Mr. Szymanski stated that he would like to address and clarify some of the items mentioned in Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report to the Zoning Commission, dated 11/28/11 (on file in the Land Use Office). He stated that he would like to sit down with Ms. Hill to discuss a Traffic Management Plan for the construction period. Mr. Szymanski stated that the students would park in the main area and walk to the other parts of the campus. He discussed screening of the parking areas and stated that they are looking for guidance from the Zoning Commission regarding the buffering along Wykeham Road. Mr. Szymanski stated that he would get a certified letter of confirmation from the licensed Land Surveyor that calculated the lot coverage for this proposed plan. He stated that the materials of the main building would mimic the character and aesthetics of the four pod and six pod dormitories and that labels would be added to the plans to clarify. Mr. Szymanski stated that he would meet with Ms. Hill to discuss where the benchmark elevations should be indicated on the proposed plans and that he would address the vertical distance from the average pre-existing grade and the height of the buildings. Mr. Szymanski stated that he would meet with Ms. Hill to discuss the Traffic Safety Plan regarding the lack of a sidewalk from the main parking lot to the main building. He stated that they would indicate the method of dust control that will be used on the proposed plans.
Mr. Shapiro asked Mr. Szymanski to discuss if the dorms and the main building would be similar between the dorms and the main building. Mr. Szymanski stated that he would verify that information and get back to the Commission. Mr. Solley asked if the applicant could provide some sort of reference point on the elevation drawings for each of the buildings. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Zoning Commission does not usually require a rendering of a plan but one of the schools did provide one for a project. Mr. Werkhoven asked if the soccer field on the south side was part of this property. Mr. Szymanski stated that it was not.
Mr. Boyer asked if this changed plan would require any amendments to applications to the State Department of Education for accreditation. Mr. Klauer stated that they are not seeking State accreditation at this time.
Atty. Branse stated he was representing a group of neighbors of 101 Wykeham Road and that in order to keep the record clear, he has submitted an updated letter, dated November 28, 2011(on file in Land Use Office) with all of the relevant documents that they want to be included in the record. He stated since the applicant received approval last year, they are now trying to cut corners with the materials and simplified, less attractive architecture and that the reduction of square footage of this site is actually only 374 square feet. Atty. Branse stated that the approved plan of 2010 had 35,000 square feet of porous pavement and this plan proposes 6,770 square feet of porous pavement. He questioned whether the Storm Water Plan has been revise as a result of the decrease in porous pavement. Atty. Branse stated that he sought assistance from Mr. Aubrey, P.E. of Towne Engineering to review the plans and the calculations for lot coverage that has been submitted for this plan are incorrect. He stated that he and his clients feel that this is an inn and not a university and this application is worse than the approved 2010 application. Atty. Branse stated that the parking is inadequate and the proposed plans do not indicate the heights of the buildings. He distributed a report from Versteeg Associates addressed to the Washington Zoning Commission, dated November 25, 2011 regarding code compliance and fire safety (on file in the Land Use Office). Atty. Branse stated that handicap access surfaces and driveway widths must be included on the proposed plans and when they are included the lot coverage will be over 10%. He submitted a letter addressed to the Zoning Commission dated November 28,2011 that summarizes the report done by Towne Engineering (on fie in the Land Use Office) and introduced Mr. Aubrey, P.E.
Mr. Aubrey, P.E. of Towne Engineering submitted his report regarding a peer review of Wykeham University, dated November 28, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office) to the Commissioners. He stated that he believes that the proposed plan is incomplete and does not follow the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations. Mr. Aubrey stated that he does not feel that a 16-foot wide driveway is wide enough for two-way traffic or areas provided for turning movements of delivery trucks and emergency vehicles are too small. He stated that he is concerned with the lack of sidewalks and the fact that a traffic report does not exist for this application. Mr. Aubrey stated that his calculations show that the lot coverage has been calculated incorrectly.
Mr. Rogness submitted a colored photo of the main building that he produced to simulate the view of the main building from the parking area. He stated that it is difficult to get an idea of the exact size of the main building because the plans are missing key measurements and that the main building would be the biggest structure in Town and is only drawn to a 1/16” scale. He displayed a 1/8 “ scale of the proposed main building and discussed the size and scale of the building and the change in architecture compared to the main building of the 2008 application and the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Giampetro stated that when she bought her house 15 years ago she saw “nice, white New England Buildings across the street and she is concerned that now the property is dilapidated, furniture in the stream, unmowed lawns and general lack of care and that “lack of respect for the neighborhood does not bode well for the future.”
Mr. Parker stated that he does not understand how a new business could start out with an almost 10% lot coverage maximum with no knowledge of how the business would operate and what would be needed in the future. He asked if there is room for an alternate septic system if the current one is not approved. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the proposed plan would not be approved until the septic is approved by the DEP. He asked, “What precedent school transaction has pushed the limit of 10% lot coverage with no prior history of operating?” He stated that there is a lack of information as to how this school would operate and he asked how many parking spots currently exist on the property. Mr. Fitherbert stated that he was not sure. Mr. Parker stated that he does not think it was 103 parking spots and he asked, “How do we know the traffic patterns of this business without a plan, without any understanding, without any precedent?” He stated that he would be happy to see a bonafide school on this property but he “has yet to see a business that starts up and goes from 0 to 100 in one go with no room for error. Size and Scale is our problem.”
Atty. Schain stated that there is no way to verify the proposed 309 auditorium seats because they are not affixed, but if this is the true amount of seats 103 parking spaces would not be adequate.
Ms. Purnell stated that she has conducted a special permit standards analysis and stated that she is looking at this proposed plan from a conservation biologist point of view. Ms. Purnell submitted a letter dated November 28, 2011, with attachments, an 8 1/2'” x 11” copy of Existing Facilities Plan prepared for the Swiss Hospitality Institute, dated July 15, 1991 and a document entitled 101 Wykeham Road, Wykeham University – Special Permit Application III, Special Permit Standards Analysis. She stated that she has included some information from the Washington Montessori School project statistics, old photos of the original Wykeham Rise School. She stated that she is concerned with a number of elements and feels that the lot coverage is severely underestimated.
Ms. Boyer stated that she read that on October 11, 2011 a judge upheld the Zoning Commission’s denial of the inn at Wykeham and she is “curious as to why Mr. Klauer submitted the paperwork to appeal this denial if he is doing Wykeham University.” She asked why he is putting the Washington Zoning Commission as well as other Washington Commissions, and the public employees and the taxpayers of the Town are put “through all of these endless hoops and time and money for Wykeham University when to me he has no desire to do anything except put in the inn.” She stated that “I wonder if he has considered the amount of man hours that our Town and our Town monies that have been used for not only the current ruse but also for the affordable housing ruse along with the denial of, but legitimate, Wykeham Inn application. And I just feel enough is enough.”
Ms. Kurz asked for clarification as to what removal and restoration of the access road off of Bell Hill meant. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the material of the access road would be removed and replaced with soil.
Mr. Tomlinson stated that he agrees with Ms. Boyer and that he feels that small groups of people are abusing the system and the rest of the Town is paying the bill for this small group of people that have made a big issue out of something that has existed for a long time and has resulted in ‘taxpayer abuse.’ He stated that he “would like, from the staff, at this point, because of their obvious dedication to one side…I would think Mrs. Hill and Mr. Ajello should be removed from any further process and somebody else be appointed to deal with this issue.” Mr. Tomlinson stated, “Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Solley be removed because they have already indicated where their interest is.”
Mr. Solley disagreed and stated that he did not believe that he should recuse himself.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that Mr. Shapiro has not been seated for this public hearing.
Atty. Olsen stated that the staff would not be rendering a decision and it would not be necessary to remove them from working on this application. Atty. Branse stated that his knowledge of the law is that staff can’t have a conflict of interest because they don’t vote.
Ms. Hill stated that she objected to someone saying that she is biased one way or another.
Mr. Aubry, P.E. stated that the plan shows one-way traffic and it would be important to show this on all the maps and a traffic report is very important. He stated that he contacted the water company and they do not serve this property at the moment but are obliged to serve the property because there is a water main within 200 feet. Mr. Aubrey stated that the water main was built in 1898 and there is currently no definite location or details of the main and any easement, which may apply throughout this site, indicated on the plans. He stated that the proposed main building generator location would violate the Zoning Regulations and there is no indication of an auxiliary back up pump or generator for the water pump house on the plans. Mr. Aubry stated that there were no soil logs for the test pits, the information in the drainage report is incomplete and the farm road that exists on the property is not fully detailed on any of the sheets in the plan set including the Topographic Survey. He stated that there is no vehicle access provided for the southerly portion of the Main Building, dorms #2, #3, #4, the Art Building or Pool House and handicap accessible routes for each building are not indicated on the plans. He stated that he was not sure if the Flexi-pave surfaces, if that is what would be used, are sufficient for an ADA accessible route. Mr. Aubrey summarized issues regarding the height benchmarks of buildings, the old sewage leaching area, servicing of tanks behind buildings, footing drains and the amount of material needed for fill all which are included in the section titled Miscellaneous Site Plan Specific Review Items and other Comments/Concerns from his report dated November 28, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office).
Mr. Rogness stated that he included and outline of his house, which is 2800 sq. feet on the 1/8 “ scale drawing of the proposed main building for a comparison as to how large the proposed main building is to be and by estimating he has figured that 37 of his houses would fit into the proposed main building. He stated that his letter to the Zoning Commission dated November 28, 2011 addresses his concern that this is a plan for an inn or a resort. He stated that he and Mr. Parker have met with the Klauers to see if they could find some kind of common ground and they asked that the Klauers make a public statement about what the property would be used for other than a resort or inn if the school idea does not work. He stated that there has been no response to the request.
Break: 9:40-9:45pm
Mr. Parker stated that the use for this property would be noisy and busy, which is the exact opposite of the previous uses of this property. He asked when the removal of and restoration of the Bell Hill Road access would take place and would it be used during the construction phase. Mr. Parker stated that it would be helpful if the applicant would provide the total floor space of the buildings
Ms. Giampetro stated that from her house she would be looking at a parking lot and a lot of rip rap and that would not be an improvement.
Atty. Branse stated that he feels that fact that Mr. Szymanski did not show details on the architectural drawings when the Commission asked for it in August is a problem. He asked when the exact height calculations would be available.
Mr. Parker stated that clarity on the size of the buildings and the ability to see the whole project in scale is important.
Ms. Purnell stated that she calculated the sq. footage of the abutting properties and she compared them to the proposed square footage of the proposed Wykeham University.
A resident of Old North Road stated that he lives across from the Gunnery property. He urged the Commission to require the plans to be as detailed as possible. He stated the proposed plans are vague and he hopes that the Commission does not vote on this tonight.
Atty. Fisher stated that the applicant would like to take time to respond to each question and concern and discuss at a later date.
Mr. Fitzherbert verified that all documentation should be submitted 15 days prior to the continuation of this Public Hearing.
There were no further questions or comments from the Commission or the Public.
Motion:
to continue the Public Hearing at the next Zoning Commission Meeting on December 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm in the Land Use Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Wykeham Rise, LLC, 101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote.
Break: 9:55-10:00 pmRevision of the Zoning Regulations/Section15.1/Addition of general requirements for compact car parking spaces:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on November 16th and 23rd, 2011 and the list of documents in the file. She read the proposed language for Section 15.1:
General Requirements:
Parking Facilities which are sufficient to accommodate the motor vehicle of occupants, employees, customers and other persons normally visiting the premises shall be provided on the property. Parking facilities shall be designed to accommodate normal usage not maximum possible usage during unusual circumstances unless modified by the Commission pursuant to Section 15.3. Each parking space shall be rectangular and measure 9 feet by 18 feet. A designated compact car parking space shall measure at least 8 feet by 15 feet. Up to 30 percent of parking spaces may be designated for compact cars. In addition, adequate maneuvering space shall be provided for all parking spaces and facilities.Mr. Fitzherbert updated the new members as to why the Commission is considering this revision.
Ms. Hill read the letter from Mr. McGuinness, Director of the Northwest Connecticut Council of Governments (on file in the Land Use Office). He stated that the revision does not require that the compact parking spaces are marked and that there is no practical way to enforce that only compact cars shall park in designated compact car spaces.
There was a brief discussion how this revision would ease the current regulation on parking spaces.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for the Revision of Zoning Regulations Section 15.1/Addition of general requirements for compact car parking spaces,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Fitzherbert called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:20 pm.Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the October 24, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of October 24, 2011, as submitted,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Wyant & Company/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment/Installation of Outdoor Cooler:
There were no further discussions from the Commission.Motion:
to approve the application for Wyant & Co., 88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment to install outdoor cooler,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section15.1/Addition of general requirements for compact car parking spaces:
The Commission agreed to add a phrase that compact parking spaces be marked on site.Motion:
to approve the Revision to Section 15.1/Addition of general requirements for compact car parking spaces,
by Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Parker stated that he would like to work with someone in the Town to get wireless Internet in the Town Hall. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he supports this idea and that they could talk to the First Selectman about it.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Zoning Enforcement
The Commission considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated 11/28/11.Mr. Ajello stated that he welcomes comments from the Commission regarding the Generator Regulations. He stated that with the consent of the ZBA, he has suspended enforcement of the segment of Section 12.14.4, which requires generators to be surrounded by a 6-foot stockade fence or an equivalent sound deflecting structure.
Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Ajello stated that he has been doing repeated drive by inspections of the Community Table. He stated he was waiting to see if the Revision to Section 15.1 would be passed and he expects that he will have a full report for the next Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Hyde spoke at length regarding his concerns about parking on Wilbur Road.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 10:40 pm.
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Fitzherbert adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: December 1, 2011 November 22, 2011
Special Meeting
6:00 p.m. Bryan Memorial Town HallMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Solley, Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Zizka
Staff: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. J. Hill
Conservation Commission: Mr. Markert, Mrs. Frank
Inland Wetlands Commission: Mr. Bedini, Mr. LaMuniere, Ms. Cheney
Planning Commission: Mr. Carey, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank
Historic District Commission: Mr. Smith, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Hollinger, Mr. Chute
Zoning Board of Appeals: Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Catlin, Mr. R. Wyant, Mr. Wildman
Public: Ms. Purnell, Mr. ParkerMr. Fitzherbert called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., introduced Atty. Zizka, Zoning Commission counsel, and stated the purpose for the Special Meeting was to review proper procedures for land use commissioners and to answer legal questions.
Atty. Zizka addressed those present and answered questions for approximately two hours. The topics covered included conflict of interest and recusal, participation of alternates, predetermination, standards for approval, and establishing the record.
There is an audio recording made of Atty. Zizka’s presentation and it is on file in the Land Use Office. A video recording was also made and will be available for viewing soon.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: December 7, 2011 October 24, 2011
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Gary Fitzherbert, Ray Reich, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Harry Wyant
Absent: Andy Shapiro, Alt., A.J. Dubois, Alt.
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill
Others Present: Ms. Martin-Ebner, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Rogness, Mr. & Mrs. Solomon, Mrs. Federer, Mr. Solley, Ms. Purnell, Ms. Hyde, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Wyant, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Reich
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
No Public Hearings were scheduled.REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the September 26, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of September 26, 2011, as amended,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Applications
Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC, /27 Mt. Tom Road/Special Permit: Section 17.8/Expansion of Nonconforming Use/Camp:
Mr. Owen stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission approved the application unanimously. He stated that the baseball field has been crossed out on the site plan titled First Cut Map, prepared for Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC, by Charles Farnsworth, dated September 30, 2008 and moved north. Ms. Hill stated that the golf cart path has been changed to a footpath.The Commissioners discussed putting a ceiling on the number of campers. Mr. Abella stated that the ceiling should not be too restrictive. Mr. Owen stated that the Commission could approve this application and include several conditions. He stated another option would be to not add any conditions and that the camp is a low impact use and has a history of coexisting with neighbors and the campers are present for a limited time over the course of the year.
Motion:
to approve the application for Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC, 27 Mt. Tom Road for Special Permit: Section 17.8/Expansion of Nonconforming Use for a Camp on several conditions,
1. The number of campers cannot exceed 150.
2. No outdoor lighting as shown on the site plan.
3. No public address system.
4. Ball field will be relocated to the north as indicated on the site plan.
5. Golf cart path indicated on site plan is changed to a footpath.
6. Applicants must uphold the promise to install vegetative screening along side of neighbor’s property,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.Wykeham Rise, LLC. /101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
Mr. Owen read a letter of withdrawal from the applicant dated October 20, 2011.
New Application(s)
Wyant and Company/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19:
Mr. Owen stated that this is an existing restaurant that has an existing Special Permit that is still in effect, but this application is to add a walk-in freezer at the rear of the restaurant.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on November 28, 2010 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, at 7:30 immediately following the 1st Public Hearing to consider the application for Wyant and Company, 88 Bee Brook Road, Special Permit: Section 8.4.19,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Wykeham Rise, LLC. /101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
Atty. Fisher stated that this application should be complete and he would like the Commission to schedule a public hearing.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on November 28, 2010 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, at 7:30 immediately following the 2nd Public Hearing to consider the application for Wykeham Rise, LLC, 101 Wykeham Road for Special Permit: Section 4.4.10, School,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Owen read the ZEO Report dated October 24, 2011 regarding 223 Litchfield Turnpike (on file in Land Use Office). Ms. Hyde stated that she was interested to hear what has been done regarding this issue over the last month. Mr. Own stated that Mr. Ajello should have more information for the next Zoning Commission Meeting on November 28, 2011.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations – Compact Sized Parking Spaces:
Ms. Hill stated that notices have been sent out and that a public Hearing has been scheduled for November 28, 2011 at 7:30 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Rogness asked if two copies of the application were submitted to the Land Use Office for Wykeham Rise, LLC. Ms. Hill stated that she thought this was the case but that she would check to make sure. Mr. Solley stated that he would like to thank Mr. Owen, on behalf of the entire Board of Selectman, for his 12+ years of volunteering for the Town’s ZBA and Zoning Commissions. He stated that on behalf of the Town he would like to thank Mr. Owen for his expertise and that Mr. Owen has done a great job. Mr. Owen thanked Mr. Solley.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Zoning Enforcement
The Commission considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated 10/24/11.
Executive Session/Wykeham Rise Litigation
Motion:
to go into executive session to discuss Wykeham Rise Litigation at 7:50 p.m.,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to come out of executive session at 8:05 p.m.,
by Mr. Owen seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:06 pm.
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: September 30, 2011 September 26, 2011
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Gary Fitzherbert, Ray Reich, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Harry Wyant
Absent: Andy Shapiro, Alt., A.J. Dubois, Alt.
Staff Present: Shelley White
Others Present: Ms. Martin-Ebner, Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Rogness, Mr. & Mrs. Solomon, Mr. & Mrs. Peacocke, Mrs. Federer, Mr. Solley, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Werkhoven, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel, Mr. Solley, Press, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Reich
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
ContinuedWykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
Mr. Owen read the list of documents added to the file since the August 22, 2011 Public Hearing. Mr. Owen explained that Mr. Shapiro, an alternate commissioner, would normally be seated since he was present for this Public Hearing last month, standing in for Mr. Reich. He stated that since Mr. Shapiro was not present and Mr. Reich had listen to the recording of the August 22, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting and reviewed the documents on file that Mr. Reich could be seated tonight. Mr. Owen stated that the Land Use Office received site and floor plans today and the Commissioners have not had the chance to review them and he read Section 2.4 Public Hearing Submissions of the Zoning Regulations. He suggested that the Commission refuse to consider the documentary evidence that has been submitted after the fifteen day cut off. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission couldn’t act on this application until the Inland Wetlands Commission has acted. He stated that after the Inland Wetlands Commission has acted the Zoning Commission could approve or deny the application based on what has been submitted prior to the 15 day cut off or they could deny the application based on the fact that a lack of information submitted in order for the Commission to make a decision. Mr. Owen stated that the applicant could also withdraw the application and submit a new, complete application at a later date. He stated that no one needed to make a decision tonight because the Inland Wetlands Commission has not acted on this application at this time.Mr. Owen stated that at the August meeting the Commission and the staff noted that the drawings that were submitted were too small and they would need better, more complete drawings. He stated that the Commission also noted that it is not sufficient to reference the previously approved application for the Zoning Commission’s consideration of this new and separate application and that all materials that are to be considered should be included in the file for this application.
Atty. Branse stated that Mr. Aubrey of Town Engineering joins him and that an engineering review of the plans that were in the file as of Friday September 23, 2011 was requested by their client and at their client’s expense. He stated that they would like to have the opportunity to present this report verbally at this public hearing.
Atty. Fisher was present on behalf of the applicant. He asked if the Commission would consider scheduling a special meeting so that the recent submission could be considered and that everyone could be heard.
Mr. Owen stated that Section 2.4 was added to the Zoning Regulations upon suggestion of Town Counsel to avoid this type of situation. He stated that this application was incomplete as of 15 days prior to this public hearing and that he feels that it is in the best interest of everyone to consider a complete application that meets the Zoning Regulations at a later date.
Atty. Fisher stated that he disagreed with this ‘heavy handed approach’ because these engineering reports take time.
Mr. Klauer stated that he understands Mr. Owen’s point but that some of the delays are due to the fact that they are dealing with two separate commissions and some of the requests from the Zoning Commission are subject to the decisions of the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Owen stated that some of the very basic requirements were not submitted with the application or within fifteen days of the continuation of this public hearing and this is why Section 2.4 was added to the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Abella stated that Mr. Owen’s point is well taken. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed with Mr. Abella and stated that he was confused as to why the public hearing could not be continued. Mr. Owen stated that continuing the public hearing is an option. He stated that if the Zoning Commission chooses to close the public hearing and make it’s decision based upon what was submitted prior to fifteen days ago and if the applicant is denied they may apply again with the same materials and hopefully, a complete application. The Commissioners briefly discussed the incompleteness of the application and how long it would take to schedule a public hearing for a new application from the applicant. Mr. Averill stated that he agreed with Mr. Owen.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Rise/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10 for a school,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the August 22, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.
Corrections:
Page 3, 2nd to last paragraph, 3rd sentence should read: He stated that if there are specific parts of the approved application that are meant to be part of the application then they would need to be included with this application ….Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2011, as amended,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
There were no new applications.
Pending Applications
Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC,/27 Mt. Tom Road/Special Permit: Section 17.8/Expansion of Nonconforming Use/Camp:
The Public Hearing was closed for this application at the August Zoning Meeting and the Zoning Commission is waiting for the Inland Wetlands Commission to act.Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School: The Public Hearing was closed and the Zoning Commission cannot act on this application until the Inland Wetlands Commission act.
Other Business
Response from Atty. Zizka re: New Members on the Commission:
Mr. Owen stated that Atty. Zizka stated that the newly elected members to the Commission would have to familiarize themselves with any currently open public hearings if the newly elected members had not been present at the public hearings previous to their appointment. He stated that this letter from Atty. Zizka is on file in the Land Use Office.Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Mr. Owen read a letter from the owner of the Community Table, Mr. Anderson, dated September 23, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). He stated that the Zoning Commission had asked that the owner come back to them with some possible solutions to the problem. Mr. Owen stated that there is a question as to whether using the front porch to seat and serve cocktails to waiting patrons is in compliance with the special permit granted to them. He suggested that the matter be looked into by the ZEO, Mr. Ajello, and that Mr. Ajello should consult with the Town Sanitarian and the Selectmen. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he has driven by the restaurant and noticed that the neighbors lot has not been used. Mr. Solley stated that he does not know if Mr. Anderson has considered a couple parking spaces to the right of the building. He stated that he drove by on a Sunday morning and saw about 6 cars parked in the Dobson parking lot and about 3 cars parked on Wilbur Road and the restaurant parking lot was not filled. Mr. Solley stated that his personal opinion as a Selectman is that he would rather not put up “no parking” signs on Wilbur Road as other businesses along that road have historically parked on the right of way. Mr. Owen asked if a possibility would be to allow the restaurant owner to improve the shoulder for parking. Mr. Solley stated that it could be considered with a limit of the maximum number of cars allowed to park there and that he feels that if the restaurant would take reservations that this problem would be solved but he feels that they are resistant to this idea.Mr. Owen stated that the Special Permit allows for 36 seats and the porch is not described as a cocktail area.
Mr. Hyde stated that he would like to see Mr. Anderson address the suggestions that were given to him from the Zoning Commission. He stated that the Dobson parking lot would be able to accommodate all of the employee parking and that it encourages other people to park on Wilbur Road when people they see that there are cars already parked there. Mr. Hyde stated that there are many times that cars are parked on Wilbur Road and the parking lot at CT is totally empty.
It was the consensus of the Zoning Commission that they would ask the ZEO to pursue this as an enforcement issue in consultation with the Selectmen.
Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations – Compact Sized Parking Spaces:
Mr. Fitzherbert read and submitted proposed language that would add provisions for compact size parking spaces in the Zoning Regulations. The Commission agreed that a Public Hearing should be scheduled for the consideration of the revision to section 15.1 General Requirements. Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on November 28, 2010 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, at 7:30 to consider a Possible Revision of Zoning Regulation 15.1 General Requirements re: Compact Size Parking Spaces,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Fitzherbert requested that Mr. Owen write a statement regarding his recommendations concerning the Zoning Regulations pertaining to Telecommunications before he resigns from the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen stated that he would consult with Atty. Zizka regarding this issue. Mr. Owen and the Commission discussed the Siting Council and the municipality’s preferences. The Commission discussed the regulations and the Town Emergency Communication System.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Zoning Enforcement
The Commission considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated 9/26/11.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:40 pm.
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Posted: August 27, 2011 August 22, 2011
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro
Absent: Ray Reich, Harry Wyant, Alt., A.J. Dubois, Alt.
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. Ebner, Ms. Martin-Ebner, Ms. Hock, Mr. Fiedorowicz, Mr. Syme, Mr. Sabin, Landscape Architect, Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, Atty. Fisher, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Rogness, Mr. & Mrs. Solomon, Mr. & Mrs. Peacocke, Mrs. Federer, Mr. Solley, Ms. Giampetro, Mr. Hyde, Press, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Shapiro, Alt. (for Reich)PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC/27 Mt. Tom Road/Special Permit: Section 17.8/Expansion of Nonconforming Use/Camp:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on August 10 and August 17, 2011 and the list of documents in the file. Mr. Ebner and Ms. Martin-Ebner, property owners, were present to discuss this application with the Commission. Mr. Ebner stated that they would like to utilize the adjacent land that they bought several years ago to expand the operations of the existing Camp Chinqueka. The Commissioners and the Ebners looked at the map titled First Cut Map, prepared for Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC, by Charles Farnsworth, dated September 30, 2008. The Ebners discussed the location of the proposed buildings and sports fields and how they would be used for the day camp program. Ms. Martin Ebner stated that the current camp is an all girls overnight camp. Ms. Martin Ebner stated that the red buildings indicated on the First Cut Map are part of this application and the blue buildings are part of a future phase. She stated that she estimates an enrollment of 75-100 campers in the first year and she discussed the Monday through Friday, 9a.m. to 4 p.m. schedule for the day camp. Ms. Hill stated that she is concerned with the proposed athletic field so close to the residential zone. Ms. Martin- Ebner stated that the property becomes very steep and there are wetlands so it is difficult to find a large enough, level area for the fields. She stated there would not be a P.A. system at the day camp or outdoor lighting.Mr. Syme was present to represent the Stephens Family, adjacent landowners. Mr. Syme looked at the First Cut Map and stated that the Ebners and Camp Chinqueka have been good neighbors. Ms. Hock and Mr. Fiedorowicz are adjacent landowners and were present. Mr. Fiedorwicz stated that they own sub dividable land that abuts the southern boundary of the Ebner’s property. He stated that they are concerned that the expansion of the camp would devalue their property and that the sports field on the southwestern part of the property is close to the property line and they are worried about the noise. Mr. Fiedorwicz, the Commission and the Ebners discussed the location of the kickball field and the topography of the property. The Ebners agreed that they would move the kickball field a little further from the property line and indicated the location by hand on the First Cut Map and they stated that vegetative screening would be planted. Mr. Ebner explained the location and purpose of the proposed buildings to Ms. Hock.
Mr. Owen stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission has received an application for this plan and cannot take action until September 14, 2011 at the earliest so the Zoning Commission cannot act on this Special Permit application until they receive the report from the IWC. The Commission agreed to close the Public Hearing and will act on this application at the next Zoning Commission Meeting on September 26, 2011, Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall at 7:30.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC/27 Mt. Tom Road for Special Permit: Section 17.8/Expansion of Nonconforming Use for a Camp,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on August 10 and August 17, 2011 and the list of documents in the file and noted the addition of an email from Ms. Purnell and thirty-one return receipt green cards. Mr. Klauer summarized his letter to the Zoning Commission dated July 20, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office) explaining that Wykeham Rise LLC made changes to the approved Special Permit that was granted on December 27, 2010. He stated that he feels these improvements are substantial enough to warrant a new application.Atty. Fisher stated that in April of 2010 the Appellate Court ruled that in cases such as a special permit requiring a public hearing that alternates of a commission couldn’t participate in the deliberations. He stated that, “to be on the safe side,” he is hoping that there are no procedural problems that could cause a Right of Appeal later on. Mr. Owen stated that the Commission did take the position that alternates were allowed to deliberate until the Court’s decision in April. Ms. Hill stated that the point is that alternates are not allowed to participate after the Public Hearing is closed unless they are seated. Atty. Fisher stated that with the last application there was participation during deliberations by two alternates and he would like to prevent any issues with this application in that respect.
Mr. Owen reminded everyone present that this is a new application and everything that Wykeham Rise, LLC. is proposing should be included in this application and materials from the last approved application do not apply to this current application. Mr. Averill asked if the previous approval is still valid. Mr. Owen confirmed that it is. Atty. Fisher stated that this application is a scaled down version of the approved application and if this application is approved and there are no appeals the first application will be withdrawn.
Mr. Szymanski, Engineer stated that he was present to represent Wykeham Rise, LLC. He displayed the map titled Overall Site Development Plan with Previously Approved Site Plan Overlay for Mathew & Erika Klauer, by Arthur H. Howland and Associates, P.C., dated July 8, 2011 and explained the differences of this layout compared to the layout of the previously approved Special Permit.
Mr. Sabin, Landscape Architect was present to review the map titled Planting Plan for Mathew Klauer, sheet PL.1, by Arthur H. Howland and Associates P.C., dated July 8, 2011 with revision dates of 7/22/11 and 8/22/11. He stated that they have relocated some conifers and added 15 spruce trees and that the modifications are not significantly different from the previously approved Planting Plan.
Mr. Szymanski stated that they would respond in writing to each point of Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report and they are waiting to hear from Land Tech and will forward that information to Ms. Hill so that she may submit the plans to the Fire Marshal. Mr. Szymanski stated that since Dormitory #1 will have a sprinkler system they are not required to plan emergency vehicle access and he will get that in writing from the Fire Marshall for clarification.
Mr. Owen stated that there is a lot of material that the Commission needs to review. Mr. Klauer confirmed that there is a letter accompanying the application that states the proposed school’s academic policy, academic calendar and the curriculum. Mr. Szymanski stated that they are in communication with the State regarding the septic system.
Point of order: Mr. Solley asked if the timeline of the Public Hearings and the deliberations on this particular application are going to be complete before Election Day and when Mr. Owen’s last meeting would be as Chairperson. Mr. Owen stated that his last meeting would be October 24th. Mr. Solley stated that he sees that this could become problematic procedurally for this application, as there would be new members and a new chairperson. Mr. Owen stated that this would be a question for the Town Counsel and he believes that the new member(s) would have to review the records to bring themselves up to speed with the application.
Mr. Solomon submitted a letter, with attachments dated August 22, 2011 from Atty. Mark Branse who is representing the Solomons and some of the other abutting property owners. He stated that on page 3 and 4 of Mr. Klauer’s application letter states why this application satisfies the criteria of a Special Permit and there were two points that he had questions about. Mr. Solomon stated that regarding section 13.1.b.8 of the Zoning Regulations under Standards that Wykeham Rise, LLC has stated that, “Wykeham University is continuing the approved use of a school by special permit. Wykeham University will likely have adult students, older than the student body of the Swiss Hospitality Institute. Consequently, we expect Wykeham University will not produce such nuisances as noise, fumes, odor, bright lights, glare, visual obstructions, vibrations, or other nuisance conditions at or beyond the property line.” Mr. Solomon stated that Mr. Klauer used the words from the Zoning Regulation to satisfy the Commission and he used phrases such as ‘likely to have adults,’ ‘consequently,’ and ‘expect’ and he feels that the Commission should not be satisfied by just using the wording from the Zoning Regulations and he questioned why the requirement exists.
Mr. Solomon’s second point was that Mr. Klauer’s response to requirement 13.1.b.2 was that “the buildings will be distributed across the entire property.” He stated that Mr. Klauer only addresses the location of the buildings and not all of the points of the requirement. Mr. Solomon stated that he wonders why the bar is set so low and that these requirements are not addressed. He stated that the other requirements are discussed in Atty. Branse’s letter and asked that the Commission read it.
Mrs. Solomon submitted a letter from Ms. Purnell.
Mr. Owen stated that the Commission would like to have larger scale architectural drawings. Mr. Szymanski stated that they would.
Ms. Peacocke stated that this is a new application and that the applicant seems to be drawing on information from the previous application and she is questioning the impact of outstanding litigation and asked if the materials from the previous application would be incorporated into this application. Mr. Owen stated that materials from the previous application would not be incorporated into this application and this is a separate, new application. He stated that if there are specific parts of the approved application that are part of this application then it would need to be included with this application and the Commission would not be drawing from any material from the previously approved application file.
Mr. Szymanski requested that if the Zoning Commission has any questions of comments that they forward them to Ms. Hill so that they may be addressed in time for the next meeting.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to continue the Public Hearing for Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Rise/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10 for a school, at the next regularly schedule Zoning Commission Meeting on September 26th at 7:30 in the Land Use Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the July 25, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of July 25, 2011, as submitted,
by Mr.Owen, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
There were no new applications.Other Business
Update: Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Ms. Hill stated that she Atty. Kelly had asked for some time to review the situation with the his client. Ms. Hill distributed a copy of Atty. Zizka’s response to the questions the Commission had regarding this issue.Mr. Owen suggested that the Community Table come to the next Zoning Commission Meeting and try to work out something with the parking but if this is not possible the Commission would have to review the Special Permit and see if they are in violation of their approval and require steps be taken to improve the parking. The Commission agreed that they would like to hear from Atty. Kelly and the Community Table.
Mr. Hyde stated that he feels it would be beneficial to the Commission to obtain a copy of the shared parking agreement with Mr. Dobson. Mr. Hyde discussed the footpath from Wilbur Road to the Community Table.
Mr. Owen stated that he hopes that the Community Table would come back to the Zoning Commission with a revised parking plan and that different solutions could be discussed.
Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations – Compact Sized Parking Spaces: Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Zoning Regulations do not include compact car parking spaces and that parking space dimension requirements vary from town to town. He stated that compact car spaces allow for other cars to come through the parking lot and allow for more space. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he would work on language that would provide for compact parking spaces in the Zoning Regulations for review at the next meeting.
Update Plan of Conservation and Development:
Mr. Shapiro stated that the POCD Subcommittee would be meeting the last week in September and he has been asked to provide a report from the Zoning Commission that includes additions, deletions and modifications to the current POCD. There was a brief discussion regarding the process of revising the POCD. Ms. Hill stated that a big consideration is money and that a new POCD would probably cost around $100,000.00. She stated that getting input from the other commissions is phase one of the revision process. Ms. Hill stated that they should forward their comments to her by September 16th.
Privilege of the Floor
There were no comments from the public.Communications
There were no communications to discuss.Zoning Enforcement
The Commission considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated 8/22/11.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:30. by Mr. Owen, seconded
by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: July 30, 2011 July 25, 2011
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro
Absent: Harry Wyant, Alt., A.J. Dubois, Alt.
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. Ebner, Mr. Szymanski, Engineer, Atty. Fisher, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Rogness, Mr. & Mrs. Peacocke, Mr. & Mrs. Federer, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven, Ms. Giampetro, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Abella, Mr. Reich, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the June 27, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2011, as submitted,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC/27 Mt. Tom Road/Special Permit: Section 17.8/Expansion of Nonconforming Use/Camp:
Mr. Ebner was present and stated that he still needed to get approval from the Inland Wetlands Commission.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on August 22, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Shepaug Valley Properties, LLC, 27 Mt. Tom Road for Special Permit: Section 17.8/Expansion of Nonconforming Use/Camp,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Wykeham Rise, LLC/101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
Atty. Fisher was present to represent the property owners.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on August 22, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Wykeham Rise, LLC, 101 Wykeham Road for Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike:
Ms. Hill stated that she sent a letter to Mr. Anderson, the owner, of the Community Table and Atty. Kelly contacted Ms. Hill to ask that all correspondence regarding this matter be sent to him and that he had read the letter and disagreed with it and planned to attend this meeting to discuss this issue. Atty. Kelly was not present so the Commission agreed to defer this discussion until later and proceed to the next item on the agenda.Discussion re: Erhardt/57 West Shore Road/Patio vs. Drainage Structure:
Ms. Hill stated that the property owner applied for an Inland Wetlands Permit for 57 West Shore Road to correct the erosion problem along the shore and install a new drainage system for run off. She stated that the application was for a drainage improvement system and patio and patios are not permitted within 50 feet of the shore of Lake Waramaug. Mr. Szymanski was present to discuss the proposed drainage structure. He submitted photographs of the site depicting the erosion at the site and explained the drawing titled Proposed Erosion Control Remediation Plan, sheet SD.1. Mr. Szymanski stated that the original plan was to install a blue stone patio with mortared joints, but because patios are not permitted in this area the plan was modified to incorporate a drainage structure of randomly placed fieldstone, a minimum of 2 inches apart and pea stone between the fieldstone. He explained how the system’s layers of stone and a water quality basin would aid in controlling the erosion problem at the site. The Commissioners looked at Zoning Regulation, Section: 12.1.1a. Ms. Hill confirmed that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved this proposed plan. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that this drainage system is badly needed and chairs may be put on it. Mr. Owen asked if the Zoning Commission has an issue if the property owners were to put a couple of chairs and maybe a table on this structure. Ms. Hill stated that she thought an issue could be that everyone around the Lake may want to do this. Mr. Owen stated that if the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved a plan and their regulations do not prohibit people from placing chairs on an erosion and sedimentation remediation system, then it should be permitted. Mr. Reich stated that the erosion is a serious problem and this plan will fix it. It was the consensus of the Commission that if an erosion and sedimentation remediation system is needed on a particular property and the property owner proves that a proposed system would resolve any existing issue of erosion to the Inland Wetlands Commission’s satisfaction, that the Zoning Commission would be okay with this.Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike, Continued:
Atty. Kelly was present on to represent Mr. Anderson, owner of the Community Table. Atty. Kelly stated that he does not feel that his client has violated any of the Zoning Regulations and stated that Section 15 states that there should be adequate parking and that parking for all vehicles at all times is not required and the site plan and parking layout is exactly what was approved by the Zoning Commission. He stated that the employees park on Wilbur Road on peak nights to keep the other parking spaces available for patrons and this past winter it became a problem because of the snow. Atty. Kelly stated that Mr. Anderson is willing to consider some of the suggestions mentioned in the letter from Ms. Hill.Mr. Owen stated that the entry deck of the restaurant is being used as part of the restaurant and that patrons are sitting at tables and being served drinks as the are waiting. He stated that this is a Zoning issue because the restaurant was approved for 34 seats and this deck is being used for something other than what it was in the approved application. He stated that he feels that this would require a revision to the Special Permit and that he would like to seek Atty. Zizka’s opinion on this matter.
Atty. Kelly stated that this is the first notice that the owner received and he would like to have the opportunity to consider this issue and to come up with a solution.
Privilege of the Floor
There were no comments from the public.
Communications
Ms. Hill stated that someone had asked her where in the Zoning Regulations does it list bridges a permitted use and she said that bridges are not listed as a permitted use in the Zoning Regulations and that it may not be a permitted use but bridges have always been built without permits. The Commission briefly discussed bridges and the permitting process. Ms. Hill stated that she would consult Atty. Zizka regarding bridges.
Zoning Enforcement
The Commission considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated 7/25/11.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:20 pm. by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded
by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Posted: July 27, 2011 June 27, 2011
Present: Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, A. J. Dubois
Absent: David Owen, Lou Abella, Harry Wyant, Alt.
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Ms. Berg, Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Neff, Engineer, Mr. Klein, Mr. Ebner, Ms. Ebner-Martin, Mr. HydeMr. Fitzherbert called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Reich, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Shapiro, Alt., Mr. DuboisBerg/148A Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on June 15 and June 22, 2011 and Mr. Fitzherbert read the list of documents in the file. Mr. Neff, Engineer and Ms. Berg, property owner, were present. Mr. Neff and the Commissioners looked at the map titled Proposed Site Plan, Swimming Pool and Pool House, 148A Whittlesey Road, by Brian Neff, dated 5-11-11. Mr. Neff stated that the pool house would have all the amenities and a shared driveway with the main house and would qualify as an accessory apartment. He stated that the proposed plan has been approved by the Health Department and it is not near wetlands. Ms. Hill stated that this application is complete. There were no further questions or commentsMotion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Berg, 148A Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Dubois, passed by 5-0 vote.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 17.8: Expansion of Grandfathered Non Conforming Uses by Special Permit:
Ms Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on June 15 and June 22, 2011 and Mr. Fitzherbert read the list of documents in the file. Mr. Fitzherbert read the motion from the Planning Commission, dated 6-7-11, approving the revision (on file in the Land Use Office) and the proposed language for the proposed section 17.8. Mr. Averill stated that he felt this was a good way to resolve the problem without ‘opening a can of worms.’ Mr. Shapiro stated that this proposed revision would allow the Zoning Commission the authority to act on these situations. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 17.8: Expansion of Grandfathered Non Conforming Uses by Special Permit
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the May 23, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2011, as submitted,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Berg/148A Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
The Commission considered the application submitted by Ms. Berg. There where no further discussions.Motion:
to approve the application for Berg /148A Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
There were no new applications.
Other Business
Revision of Zoning Regulations t/Proposed Section 17.8: Expansion of Grandfathered Non Conforming Uses by Special Permit:
The Commission considered the proposed revision. There were no further comments or questions.Motion:
to approve Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 17.8: Expansion of Grandfathered Non Conforming Uses by Special Permit
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Update: Parking at the Community Table/223 Litchfield Tpk.: Mr. Fitzherbert stated that there have been complaints from the neighbors regarding parking on Wilbur Road for employees and some customers of the Community Table. He stated that the cars park there everyday and that the commercial boundary line goes down the middle of Wilbur Road and parking is legally allowed on the shoulder unless the Selectmen issue an ordinance against it. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Board of Selectman has asked for the Zoning Commissions feedback on this matter. Mr. Shapiro asked if parking on the shoulder of Route 202 was permitted. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that Route 202 is a State road and the State is responsible for enforcing parking issues on that road. Mr. Averill stated that he sympathizes with the neighbors on Wilbur Road and he feels that the employees of the Community Table should park further away, shuttle everyone to work in one car and save the parking spaces for the customers. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the existing parking spaces are much larger than needed and that these could be decreased in size to maximize the number of spaces and there is a possibility of more parking spaces in front of the garbage/delivery area. He suggested that the restaurant hire a professional to create a more efficient parking plan. He stated that there is about 12-14 feet of mowed wetlands that could also be used to add more parking as long as the Inland Wetlands Commission approved it. Mr. Fitzherbert read the suggestions listed in Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated June 27, 2011.
Mr. Averill asked what the Selectmen would like from the Zoning Commission. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that they are looking for suggestions. Ms. Hill stated that she would write a letter to the owner of the restaurant with the suggestions.
Mr. Hyde of Wilbur Road read and submitted a letter to the Zoning Commission dated 6/27/11 (on file in the Land Use Office). In Mr. Hyde’s letter he stated that parking from the restaurant is a public safety issue and he cited Zoning Regulations Sections 15.1 General Requirements and 10.1 Purpose. He stated that the Community Table has a shared parking agreement with one of it neighbors and he does not understand why it is not in use. The Commission discussed whether or not the people that are parking on Wilbur Road are walking on a footpath that goes through wetlands to get to the restaurant. Ms. Hill stated that parking could not be located on the existed septic because the galleries are not reinforced. The Commission looked at the photos submitted by Mr. Hyde.
Mr. Averill stated that he did not see how the Community table could get around Zoning Regulation 15.1. Ms. Hill stated that the use as a restaurant was grandfathered in. Mr. Hyde stated that he did not understand why 17 parking spaces were accepted as enough parking for employees and customers. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the 17 parking spaces were considered adequate when the plan was brought to the Zoning Commission. Ms. Hill stated that the current shared parking agreement is for weekends only. Mr. Averill stated that he does not understand why the Zoning Commission is spending so much time on this issue and he feels that the owner of the restaurant needs to solve the problem. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Selectmen have asked the Zoning Commission to review the issue and possibly come up with some suggestions and draft a letter with these suggestions to the owner of CT restaurant.
The Commission discussed what they would like to include in the letter to the restaurant. Ms. Hill stated that she would compose a letter and send it to Mr. Fitzherbert for review before sending it.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Fitzherbert asked Mr. Woodruff if he had any new issues he would like discussed regarding his neighboring property, 35 East Shore Road and stated that under item VIII. Enforcement on the agenda, the Commission would be discussing Ms. Hill’s report on the issues Mr. Woodruff has requested be addressed by the Town. Mr. Woodruff stated that the Zoning Regulations are meant to protect the property owner’s property. He stated that his neighbor has done many things to her property without going through the proper permitting process and he would like his property protected and requests a cease and restore order be issued.
Zoning Enforcement
Smith/35 East Shore Road/Discussion of Woodruff Complaint:
Ms. Hill submitted a memo to the Zoning Commission regarding Complaints re: Work Done/Activities at 31 and 35 East Shore Road dated June 23, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). Ms. Hill stated that this document is an attempt to show to Mr. Woodruff’s satisfaction that each of his complaints regarding zoning matters has been fully investigated.The first item on the memo was regarding the utility shed that is too close to wetlands and boundary line and the Commission agreed that the Land Use Office has handled this matter correctly.
The second item was regarding the “footbridge” installed across the East Aspetuck River. The Commission noted that the footbridge (two planks and sheets of plywood) is considered temporary and the Inland Wetlands Permit would expire on 10/25/11 at which time the planks will have to be removed and an extension to the I/W Permit would have to be applied for. The Commission discussed whether a zoning permit is necessary for a temporary bridge. Mr. Shapiro stated that he feels a zoning permit is necessary for a bridge because it is a structure. Mr. Averill stated that he feels a temporary structure should be allowed without permits and before signoff of the permit the temporary structure must be removed. Ms. Hill stated that any bridge would have to go to ZBA because of its proximity to wetlands. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he did not feel the Zoning Commission needed to do anything regarding this “footbridge” as the I/W permit expires in October. It was the consensus of the Commission that this bridge did not need a zoning permit.
The third issue included in the memo was regarding installation of bright outdoor lighting. Ms. Hill stated that she has not heard back from the Building Department on this matter. The Commission agreed that Ms. Smith might have to apply for a permit if she could not prove the installation date was before 4/14/07 when the lighting regulations changed.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the boundary lines must be verified and that a permit must be obtained for item #4 – Installation of concrete pad and propane tank too close to boundary line. Item # 5 was regarding placement of garden ornaments. The Commission confirmed that small garden ornaments that cover no more that 4 square feet with a manmade impervious surface do not need a zoning permit.
The sixth issue was regarding a stone patio that is too close to the boundary line and approximately 65 feet from the East Aspetuck River. Ms. Hill stated that a permit was never issued for this patio. Ms. Hill and the Commission discussed the definition of a patio. Mr. Shapiro stated that a patio is included in the regulations as a structure. Ms. Hill stated that all structures must meet the setback requirements. Mr. Averill stated that he felt a patio becomes a structure when it is constructed of impervious materials such as concrete or stones set in concrete. Ms. Hill stated that she read a definition of a patio and it included that the structure is attached to a house. The Commission did not agree that a patio would have to be attached to a house. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would have to define ‘patio’ in the future. Mr. Averill questioned when would a cluster of stones set in the ground become a patio. Mr. Reich stated that it could be defined by use. The Commission discussed whether a pervious surface patio could ever be considered a drainage structure. The Commission agreed that Ms. Smith would have to apply for a permit for the stone patio.
The Commission considered item # 7 – Installation of Stone Walkway from Driveway to Shed and looked a photos of the walkway. It was the consensus of the Commission that a permit would not be necessary for this walkway.
The eighth issue was regarding electrical panels located within the 25-foot boundary setback. The Commission looked at photos of the electrical panels and agreed that it was a structure and a permit is required.
The ninth and final issue addressed in the memo was regarding reconstruction of the guesthouse at 31 East Shore Road without the required permits. Ms. Hill stated in her letter that the house was rebuilt slightly larger than the original footprint 13 years ago and would have required a permit. The Commission agreed that per Section 8-13a of the Connecticut General Statutes that the Zoning Commission could take not further action.
The Commission stated that the Building and Health Departments and the Inland Wetlands Commission still have to address Mr. Woodruff’s complaints.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 10:10 pm.
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Fitzherbert adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Posted: May 27, 2011 May 23, 2011
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant,
Absent: Lou Abella, A.J. Dubois, Alt.
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Ms. Laverge, Mr. Talbot, Architect, Mr. Neff, EngineerMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Averill, Mr. Wyant, Alt.Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Fitzherbert read the legal notice published in Voices on May 11 and May 18, 2011 and the list of contents in the file. Ms. Laverge and the Commission looked at the map titled Septic System Design, prepared for Regine Laverge, by Hrica Associates LLC, dated 7/2/07. Ms. Laverge discussed the location of the existing house, driveway and the proposed barn. The Commission looked at the map titled Lot Line Revision, prepared for Regine Laverge, by T. Michael Alex, Surveyor, with revision date of 3/5/07. Ms. Laverge stated that the deck indicated on the Septic System Design map would not be constructed at this time. Ms. Hill stated that this application was complete and that she did not have any further questions. Mr. Reich asked if any neighbors would be able to see the new structure. Ms. Laverge stated that she did not think so but that there is a possibility that one neighbor, under certain circumstances in the winter, may be able to see a small portion of the structure. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Doherty/214 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Fitzherbert read the legal notice published in Voices on May 11 and May 18, 2011 and the list of contents in the file. Mr. Talbot submitted a letter of authorization, a copy of an email that states that the property owner will reside on the premises during the duration of the permit, and drawings titled Homestead Site Plan and Zoning Notes, sheet SP.101 and Existing & Proposed Site Plans, sheet HD.BC.0, both dated May 23, 2011 by Peter Talbot Architects. Mr. Talbot displayed an aerial photograph of the property. The Commission and Mr. Talbot looked at the Existing & Proposed Site Plans sheet HD.BC.0. Mr. Talbot stated that the proposed plan is to turn the existing guesthouse into a pool house and put a guesthouse into the existing barn and he and the Commission looked at the drawing titled Proposed Guest House Floor Plans, sheet HD.GH.1 by Peter Talbot Architects, dated March 18, 2011. Mr. Talbot stated that there are four separate off road parking areas on the property and no main driveway. He stated that the property owners would like to maintain these parking areas to maintain the characteristics of the farm. The Commission and Mr. Talbot discussed the purpose of the Section 13.11.3.h, which states, “The apartment shall utilize the same driveway as the principal use.” Mr. Talbot stated that the proposed barn would be dismantled; a new foundation would be built and the barn would be rebuilt in the existing footprint with the exception of a six foot bump out on the north side of the barn and a 1-foot increase to the pitch of the roof. He stated that the Historic District Commission approved these minor changes and that in the future the property owners are planning an addition that would be approximately 1,000 sq. ft. to the main dwelling that is currently 1,864 sq. ft. Mr. Talbot discussed the possibility of creating a driveway on the western side of the main house. The Commission agreed that this location for a driveway would not meet the criteria for an accessory apartment. The Commission and Mr. Talbot had a lengthy discussion regarding the location of a future driveway and how it relates to the future addition to the main house, curb cuts and parking. Mr. Owen stated that a new driveway would have to be balanced between the main house and the accessory apartment. Mr. Averill stated that he agrees with Mr. Owen. Mr. Talbot stated that he would reconsider options for a future driveway. The Commission and Mr. Talbot agreed to eliminate the parking area on the east side of the barn. Mr. Talbot indicated this deletion by hand on sheet HD.BC.0 and initialed the changed on the drawing. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Doherty/214 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the April 25, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2011, as submitted,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
The Commission considered the application submitted by Ms. Laverge. There where no further discussions.Motion:
to approve the application for Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Doherty/214 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
The Commission considered the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Doherty. There where no further discussions.Motion:
to approve the application for Doherty/214 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment per amended plan signed and dated 5-23-11,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Berg/148A Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Neff and the Commission looked at the proposed Site Plan. The Commission scheduled a Public Hearing.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing for the next regular Zoning Commission Meeting on June 27, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Land Use Meeting Room to consider the application for Berg /148A Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Revision of Zoning Regulations t/Proposed Section 17.8: Expansion of Grandfathered Non Conforming Uses by Special Permit:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled for 6/27/11.
Privilege of the Floor
No one was present from the public.Communications
Mr. Owen stated that in April of this year the State Court ruled that alternate commission members are allowed to participate in a public hearing if they are not seated but they are not allowed to participate in deliberations unless they are seated. The Commission discussed the interpretation of the law.Zoning Enforcement
There were no issues to report.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:50 pm. by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 9, 2011 April 25, 2011
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Lou Abella, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant, A.J. Dubois
Staff Present: Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. Hileman, Mr. Frank, Selectman Solley, Ms. Ebner-Martin,Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill
Request for Revision of Zoning Regulations from Housing Commission/Section 13.13.4/Delete Minimum Apartment Size Under Housing in the Business Districts:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on April 17 and April 20, 2011 and the list of contents in the file. Mr. Hileman, Housing Commission Chair, stated that when the petition for deleting minimum apartment size in Section 13.10 Conversion of an Older Home, discussions began at the Housing Commission Meetings and it was the consensus of the Housing Commission to petition for the deletion of minimum apartment size for Section 13.13 Housing in the Business Districts. Mr. Owen read the response from the Northwest CT Council of Governments, dated 3/14/11, which states, “The proposed amendment does not conflict with any plan or policy of the Northwestern CT Council of Governments.” The Commission confirmed that the apartment, no matter what size, would have to abide by the Town’s Building Codes. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulations from Housing Commission/Section 13.13.4/Delete Minimum Apartment Size Under Housing in the Business Districts,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the March 28, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.
Corrections:
Page 3:
2nd paragraph: 2nd sentence should read: Mr. Owen stated that there are not but that it could not add a bedroom …
Page 6:
Under Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Discussion of Expansion of Grandfathered Non Conforming uses by Special Permit: 1st, 2nd sentence should read: He stated that it is identical to Atty. Zizka’s Coventry language without…Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2011, as amended,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
There were no pending applications.
New Application(s)
Doherty/214 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
The Commission scheduled a Public Hearing.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on May 23, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Doherty /214 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
A Public Hearing was rescheduled for May 23, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment.Request for Revision of Zoning Regulations from Housing Commission/Section 13.13.4/Delete Minimum Apartment Size Under Housing in the Business Districts:
Mr. Frank, Commissioner with the Planning Commission, confirmed that the Planning Commission made a motion at it’s last meeting to approve this proposed revision.Motion:
to approve the Revision of Zoning Regulation(s) from Housing Commission for Section 13.13.4/Delete Minimum Apartment Size Under Housing in the Business Districts,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.Ross-Dobson/24 Wilbur Road/Discussion re: Request to Revise Site Plan for Special Permit/Proposed Changes to Screening and Driveway and Installation of Patio:
Mr. Owen read the ZEO Report dated 4-25-11(on file in the Land Use Office) regarding this property. The Commission looked at photos that Mr. Ajello took of the existing conditions of the property and photos that the property owner submitted for documentation of the changes. Mr. Owen stated that the changes are two air-conditioning units, two propane tanks, boulder wall at north end of building, 140 sq. ft. patio and reconfiguration of driveway with no additional square feet. He stated that 4 or 5 spruce trees were removed because of existing trees and 285 sq. ft. of parking area was also removed (photos on file in the Land Use Office). There was a brief discussion regarding the office space and apartments in the building. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to approve the proposed changes to the screening and driveway and addition of a patio to the Site Plan for the Special Permit for Ross/Dobson, 24 Wilbur Road,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Discussion of Expansion of Grandfathered non conforming uses by Special Permit:
Mr. Owen distributed a draft of proposed language for this revision (attached). He stated that Atty. Zizka noted, in his letter, that the major consideration is how extensive the Commission would want the potential allowance by Special Permit to be to a legal non conforming use for enlargement or extension of that non conforming use. He stated that this proposed language is identical to Atty. Zizka’s Town of Coventry language without the 50% limitation. He stated that Atty. Zizka told him that there was no science to the 50% in the Coventry language. Mr. Owen stated that the size of the enlargement or extension would be addressed in the Special Permit process. Mr. Averill asked for confirmation that the Commission would not be required to approve an expansion of an existing use just because it was 50 years old or older. Mr. Owen confirmed that the Commission does not have to approve it and it must still go through the Special Permitting process. Mr. Owen stated that the proposed language allows the Zoning Commission flexibility to preserve uses that predate and were not included in the Regulations yet are still part of the community and the Commission feels should be preserved. The Commission agreed that the 50-year-old requirement fits the needs of the Town. There was a brief discussion regarding whether or not an existing industrial use could be expanded to another slightly larger but different industrial use. Mr. Frank stated that most of the regulations he has seen do impose a percentage on the size of the enlargement/expansion. He stated that it might be a good idea to find out what the existing non conforming uses are in Town. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that they did not have a problem with this proposed language and to schedule a public hearing. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on June 27, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulations to include Expansion of Grandfathered Non Conforming Uses by Special Permit,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Frank stated that the Planning Commission’s letter suggests that the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission might find it useful to explore some kind of arrangement to exchange dialog before an issue comes to a Public Hearing. Mr. Owen recapped the discussion of the last Zoning meeting when he expressed that he feels the system is working the way it was meant to and that this would be adding another layer to the process. Mr. Averill stated that he understands the Planning Commission’s position and that there are times that discussion between the two commissions are necessary but he feels that there is no need to change the process. Mr. Reich and Mr. Shapiro agreed with Mr. Owen and Mr. Averill. Mr. Abella stated that there might be a special situation where it would be useful to have a member representing the Planning Commission at the Zoning Meeting. Mr. Frank stated that he feels having a member represent the Planning Commission at the Zoning Meeting and being able to offer suggestions on certain situations could be a solution. Ms. Ebner-Martin asked about the process of approving the revisions to the Zoning Regulations. There was a brief discussion regarding the process.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Zoning Enforcement
Community Table/223 Litchfield Turnpike/Parking:
Mr. Owen read Mr. Ajello’s ZEO report dated April 25, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office). Selectman Solley stated that Mr. Hyde, property owner of a neighboring property on Wilbur Road, came to the Selectmen seeking relief from the overflow parking, which has been obstructing Wilbur Road. Employees of the Community Table are mainly parking on the shoulder of Wilbur Road in order to preserve space in the parking lot for patrons according to the ZEO report. Mr. Solley requested assistance from the Zoning Commission in resolving how to create additional parking. He stated that are around 10 cars that are parked on the shoulder of Wilbur Road daily. Mr. Hyde suggested a no parking sign for the area to the Selectmen. Mr. Solley and the Zoning Commissioners discussed different scenarios that could possibly resolve the issue of overflow parking for the Community Table. Mr. Shapiro suggested that the restaurant be required to take dinner reservations. There was a discussion regarding shared parking at neighboring properties. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission should look at the Special Permit granted to the Community Table and see if the site plan would allow for more parking and that the Zoning Commission would join the Selectmen in finding a solution to the overflow parking issue.There was a brief discussion regarding Smith - 31& 35 East Shore Road.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:45 pm.
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Shelley White,
Land Use Clerk
Posted: April 10, 2011 March 28, 2011
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert
Absent: Lou Abella, Ralph Averill,Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant, A.J. Dubois
Staff Present: Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. Collum, Mr. Frank, Ms. Ebner-Martin, Mr. Collum, Mr. Stichter, Mr. Charles, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Worcester, Ms. Mullen, Mr. Williams, Ms. Peterson, Ms. Mathews, Ms. Shaffner, Ms. Hatfield, Ms. Stevens, Ms. Krajnak. Ms. Demeo, Ms. Allen, Press, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich
Continued
Dobson – Ruscoe-Sedito/217 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 10.4.1/Office and Sign:
Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated 3/25/11. There was no one present to discuss this application. A written request for an extension was not submitted. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Dobson (Ruscoe-Sedito)/217 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit 10.4.1/Office and Sign,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 3-0 voteCollum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on March 16 and March 23, 2011 and the list of contents in the file. Mr. Collum submitted 5 return receipt green cards. Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Review, date 3/25/11 (on file in the Land Use Office). Ms. Hill’s report states that the question of whether the building was constructed prior to 1920 is the only outstanding issue. Mr. Collum stated that the building was constructed around 1910. Mr. Owen stated that he would be willing to close the Public Hearing and act pending on construction date. Mr. Collum and the Commissioners looked at the survey map with the parking areas drawn in. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 3-0 vote.Collum/36Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on March 16 and March 23, 2011, the list of contents in the file and Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated March 25, 2011. Ms. Hill’s report states that the only outstanding issue is the ZEO’s confirmation that the parking indicated on the site plan is available on the property. Mr. Collum and the Commissioners looked at the “Map Prepared for Rex K. Collum,” by Burnham and Gee with a revision date of 8/10/82. Mr. Stichter approached the table to look at the indicated parking areas on the map. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Collum/36 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 3-0 vote.Request for Revision of Special Permit Issued to Myfield, LLC. For Affordable Housing at 7 Mygatt Road:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on March 16 and March 23, 2011.
Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Fowlkes and Mr. Worcester, Architect, were present to discuss this application. The Commission, Mr. Gitterman and Mr. Worcester looked at the Site Plan for Myfield LLC, sheet SP-1, By William W. Worcester, Architect with a revision date 10/4/10. Mr. Worcester stated that the three houses that were connected are now separated, the plan is downsized from 16 units to 13 units, the footprint of the buildings was decreased, the permeable parking areas were increased because of the change in the garages orientation and screening has been added along the road. Mr. Gitterman stated that the driveways were reconfigured for safety reasons so that the homeowner would not have to back in to the road. Mr. Worcester discussed the configuration of the plan before the current revisions were made. Mr. Owen gave a brief history of this application and how the Zoning Commissions voted. He stated that the Zoning Commission was concerned with the comparability of the affordable and market units with the original plan and asked that the comparability be discussed with these revisions. Mr. Worcester indicated the market rate and the affordable housing units on the Site Plan, which ones would include decks and noted that two affordable units would not be next to each other. The Commission looked at the house plans for Myfield LLC, sheet A-2 & A-3, By William W. Worcester, Architect, dated 10/4/10. Mr. Worcester stated that there are two different floor plans, one with the ridgeline parallel to the road with 1,740 square feet and the other with the ridgeline perpendicular to the road with 1,817 square feet. Mr. Fowlkes stated that the approved septic is installed. Ms. Mullen asked if the existing units would remain rentals. Mr. Gitterman stated that it would be sold. Ms. Mullen asked if the gulley with a pipe located at the end of the road was going to remain. Mr. Gitterman stated that it was required by the Inland Wetlands Commission to put the pipe in for drainage and it would remain. She asked if the road within the complex was going to be improved. Mr. Gitterman stated that they were not planning on paving the road.The public came to the table to look at sheet SP-1, A-2 and A-3.
Mr. Williams asked if any of the units have a shared bay garage. Mr. Owen stated that each unit has two bays in either a double garage or a stand-alone garage. Mr. Worcester confirmed this. Mr. Williams asked if there would be any provisions for guest parking. Mr. Worcester stated that there would be two spaces in front of the garage doors that could be used for guest parking and that they are trying to discourage parking along the road. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Regulations do not require parking space for the maximum conceivable moment and that like anywhere in Town there may be overflow parking on the street.
Ms. Peterson asked how the issue of affordable and market value units would be addressed and if both types of units would have full basements. Mr. Wooster stated that all units would have accessible basements.
Ms. Mathews asked where the septic system was located. Mr. Owen stated that the septic system is already installed and approved.
Ms. Krajnak stated that page 3 of the Affordability Plan, dated February 15, 2011 (on File in the Land Use Office) states that “at least fifteen percent of the units must be affordable for 40 years to families earning eighty percent or less of the median income for the greater Danbury area…” She asked why it was not for the Town of Washington area. Mr. Owen explained the State Law for affordable housing and stated that the State defines the median income area. Mr. Fowlkes stated that they were advised to use the Danbury area by the State Department. Ms. Krajnak referred to section II of the Affordability Plan and asked if it were true that these designated affordable units would be designated affordable forever. Mr. Fowlkes confirmed that they would be. Ms. Krajnak referred to section IV of the Affordability Plan and asked how someone with limited income would be able to afford to make capital improvements. Mr. Owen stated that the State’s purpose for affordable housing is to give people a head start and build equity. Mr. Gitterman stated that the homeowners could not increase the footprint of the property. Mr. Owen stated that when the homeowner decided to sell that they would not be able to sell by the value of the property, but rather sell it at 80% of the area median income. Ms. Krajnak asked what would happen if the median goes down. Mr. Owen stated that they would lose money. Ms. Krajnak asked if there would be a limitation to the number of individuals residing in a unit. Mr. Gitterman stated that there would not be a limitation. Ms. Krajnak asked who is creating the rules and regulations and the overall declaration. Mr. Fowlkes stated that they have been drafted but not made public. Ms. Krajnak asked if all unit owners must follow the same rules and regulations. Mr. Fowlkes confirmed that all owners in the complex would follow the same rules and regulations. Ms. Krajnak asked if the same affordable homeowners would pay the same association dues and /or assessments as the other owners. Mr. Fowlkes stated that they would be required to pay the affordable or ½ the market rate.
Ms. Peterson asked how much, as a taxpayer of Washington, of the affordable property is she going to be responsible for if the owners do not pay for the assessment or common charges as well as if the units do not sell and become rentals? Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission does not have authority if the homeownership turns to rentals. Ms. Peterson stated that Bee Brook and Quarry Ridge sustain themselves.
Mr. Williams asked why the median for buying was based on the Danbury area and the median for selling was the Washington area. Mr. Fowlkes stated that he believed it was both Danbury and it was possibly a typographical error.
Ms. Shaffner asked about changes to the floor plan. Mr. Worcester stated that if a prospective owner would like to see the floor plan rearranged that it could be done as long as it stays within the footprint, location and does not add a bedroom. Mr. Owen stated that anything that is modified other than what has been approved must come back to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Gitterman stated that there is an enormous amount of flexibility with the interior floor plan.
Ms. Hatfield asked where the Zoning Commission sits on the sewage/waste of the complex. Mr. Owen stated that they are concerned with it, however this complex has an approved septic system that is already in place. There was a brief discussion regarding the septic system.
Ms. Stevens asked if there was a landscape plan. Mr. Worcester stated that there is a screen of plantings that would be along the road and these plantings are indicated on the Site Plan. Ms. Stevens asked when the screen would be planted. Mr. Worcester stated when the first house is constructed. Mr. Gitterman stated that the trees would be similar to the trees that have already been planted between Myfield and Quarry Ridge. Ms. Krajnak asked if the trees that are already planted be continued around the bend to screen the buildings that are underneath the culvert. Mr. Worcester stated that there aren’t any indicated on the plan. Mr. Gitterman stated that he was not sure it would be allowed.
Ms. Hatfield asked how much the units would be sold for. Mr. Owen stated that this was not a Zoning issue.
Ms. Demeo asked if there are any restrictions of what a property owner could do with their basement space. Mr. Owen stated that there are not but that it could add a bedroom because the number of bedrooms is limited by the size of the septic.
Ms. Krajnak asked if the median for selling was a typographical error would it be corrected and does the Zoning Commission have to wait until it is corrected before they could make a decision. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission could move forward and vote on this without the possible correction.
Ms. Allen asked if the houses would be constructed all at once. Mr. Gitterman stated that two units would be built at a time. Mr. Owen stated that proportion of affordable units to market units could never go below what is required by the State.
Mr. Owen stated that the Town of Washington already has some successful affordable housing. Ms. Allen stated that those are rentals. There was a discussion regarding how a person would be eligible for affordable housing. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that it is the intent of the State law is for each municipality to have a certain percentage of affordable housing and the Town of Washington has a low percentage.
Mr. Worcester stated that Myfield LLC is requesting approval for revisions to the existing Special Permit to reduce the number of units from 16 to 13 individual units, reduce square footage of eight houses , and reduce height of units.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked if there were any questions that are relevant to these changes.
Ms. Allen stated that she disagrees with Mr. Fitzherbert that the Town of Washington is low on affordable housing but perhaps that the percentage is not as high as the State would like. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he was trying to explain that the Town has to show over time that the Town is working towards the State’s percentage. There was a brief discussion about how many more affordable units would be needed to reach the State’s percentage. Ms. Johnson asked what happened with the affordable housing at Wykeham Rise. Mr. Owen stated that an application was never submitted.
Ms. Krajnak asked if there were any plans to build affordable housing in the Depot. Mr. Owen stated that no one has come forward with any plans.
Mr. Reich stated that he is a neighbor of Myfield and he feels that Myfield LLC is comprised of people that have a vested interest, as they are all residents of the Town.
Ms. Stevens asked if the affordable units could be rented if the owner defaults. Mr. Owen stated that they must remain in compliance with the State requirements.
Ms. Krajnak asked if the assets indicated in the Affordability Plan were Stated requirements. Mr. Owen confirmed that they were.
Ms. McDonald asked if units would look the same. Mr. Owen stated that they would be the same but would be oriented differently on the lots.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Myfield LLC./7Mygatt Road, to consider the revision of Special Permit for Affordable Housing,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 3-0 vote
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the February 28, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.
Corrections:
Page 1:
Under 1st, Public Hearing, 3rd paragraph: 1st sentence should read: Ms. Boyer stated that she is disturbed by what she called the Zoning Commission’s practice…
Last sentence continued to Page2:
should read: He stated that the Zoning Commission followed Town Counsel’s advice throughout the process.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2011, as amended,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 3-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Dobson – Ruscoe-Sedito/217 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 10.4.1/Office and Sign:
There was no one present to speak for this incomplete application. There were no further questions or comments from the Commission.Motion:
to deny the application for Dobson(Ruscoe-Sedito)/217 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit 10.4.1/Office and Sign,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 3-0 vote.Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment:
The Commission considered this application. They stated that they could approve it pending verification that the property owner shows documentation that the building was constructed before 1920. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to approve the application for Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 3-0 vote.Collum/36Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment:
The Commission considered this application and satisfied that the parking has been substantiated. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to approve the application for Collum/36 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 3-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
No one from the public was present to discuss this application. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on April 25th 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 3-0 vote.
Other Business
Request for Revision of Zoning Regulations from Housing Commission/Section 13.13.4/Delete Minimum Apartment Size Under Housing in the Business Districts:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled for April 25, 2011, 7:30 pm, at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Land Use Meeting Room.Request for Revision of Special Permit Issued to Myfield, LLC. For Affordable Housing at 7 Mygatt Road:
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he liked the reconfiguring of the houses. Mr. Reich and Mr. Owen stated that they did not have any issues with this request. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to approve the Revision of Special Permit Issued to Myfield, LLC. for Affordable Housing at 7 Mygatt Road,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 3-0 vote.Ross-Dobson/24 Wilbur Road/Discussion re: Request to Revise Site Plan for Special Permit/Proposed Changes to Screening and Driveway and Installation of Patio:
The Commission agreed to discuss this at the next regular Zoning Commission Meeting on April 25, 2011.Referral from Inland Wetland re: Shoreline Protection Policies:
Mr. Owen stated that he feels that the word cement throughout the document should be replaced with concrete and otherwise he did not have any other comments. Mr. Reich and Mr. Fitzherbert agreed with Mr. Owen. There were no further questions or comments.Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Discussion of Expansion of Grandfathered non conforming uses by Special Permit:
Mr. Owen distributed and read a draft of proposed language for this revision. He stated that it identical to Atty. Zizka’s Coventry language without the 50% limitation because he did not see the need for it. Mr. Owen stated that Commission might want to consult Atty. Zizka about revising the six sections (17.1-17.6) in the Zoning Regulations regarding nonconforming uses. He stated that the language in section 17.1 dates back to the beginning of the Washington Zoning Regulations and that it states that as soon as there is a discontinued use of any nonconforming use then this use should be eliminated. Mr. Owens stated that the Zoning Commission adopted section 17.4 Nonconforming structures around 2003 and the two sections are not “harmonious.” He stated that there were other inconsistencies within the six sections. He asked the other Commissioners how they would like to proceed. Mr. Owen suggested that one possibility would be to proceed with the proposed language and another would be to talk to Town Counsel for further guidance. He stated it would be difficult to make a decision tonight without the other members of the Commission. Mr. Owen suggested that he review the proposed language with Atty. Zizka, ask him how this proposed language would work with the other six sections and then discuss this with the other Commissioners. Mr. Reich and Mr. Fitzherbert agreed with Mr. Owen’s suggestion.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Charles stated that the median income is time sensitive. He discussed the factors considered for an affordable home. The Commission and Mr. Charles discussed who would qualify for affordable housing.
Communications
3/21/11 Letter from the Planning Commission re: Process of Revision of Zoning Regulations:
Mr. Frank stated that the letter requests that, in the spirit of cooperation, there be an open dialog between the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission before an issue comes to a Public Hearing. Mr. Owen stated that he feels the system is working the way it was meant to and that this would be adding another layer to the process. Mr. Frank stated that many towns have a combined Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he feels there is strength in having the two commissions separate. Mr. Frank stated that the Planning Commission feels that there should be some sort of discussion on certain issues before the statutory public hearing. There was a brief discussion regarding spot zoning.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:45 pm. by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 3-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 9, 2011 February 28, 2011
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Ralph Averill, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, Harry Wyant
Absent: A.J. Dubois
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. Collum, Mr. & Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Solley, Ms. Coakley, Ms. Rowe, Mr. McDonough, Mr. & Mrs. Frank, Ms. Ebner-Martin, Mr. Ebner, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. ReichRevision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 4.4.19 and 21.1.69: Addition of Youth Camp as a Use Permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District and Definition of Youth Camp: (Continuation)
Mr. Owen read the list of documents that were filed since the Public Hearing held on January 24, 2011 for this application. He then read the Planning Commission's new resolution made at the February 1, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting (on file in the Land Use Office) stating that they did not approve this revision(s). Mr. Owen read a letter from the Conservation Commission dated February 14, 2011 supporting the Planning Commission's position (on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Owen stated that Town Counsel did not favor the Planning Commissions suggestion because he feels that "it is a classic form of Spot Zoning." Mr. Owen read Atty. Zizka's response that stated, "The Zoning Regulations should not be changed to address the needs of a singular property owner" and that he thought it would be "more appropriate to create a narrow definition of Youth Camp and allow such a use by Special Permit." Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission could define Youth Camp and permit it by Special Permit, consider adopting a broader change in the Zoning Regulations regarding nonconforming uses (like Atty. Zizka's Town of Coventry example), or discontinue the revision process for this section. Mr. Owen requested any comments from the public or the Commissioners.Mr. Shapiro asked Mr. Owen for a copy of the regulation Atty. Zizka created for the Town of Coventry. Mr. Owen read the regulation. Mr. Owen stated that a regulation like this would make it possible for any existing nonconforming use to apply for a Special Permit to expand. There was a brief discussion regarding the existing camp in Town. Mr. Owen stated that he feels that one advantage of creating a definition and regulating something directly is that it would be clear as to what is conforming and what is nonconforming. The Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of creating a broader regulation.
Ms. Boyer stated that she is disturbed by the Zoning Commission,s practice of proposing changes to the existing Zoning Regulations in "the entire R-1 District to accommodate two commercial requests." She stated that it is her opinion that this is worse than 'Spot Zoning' and that the requests erode the rural character of the Town. Ms. Boyer stated that she felt that creating a regulation similar to the one Atty. Zizka created for the Town of Coventry was a good idea. Mr. Owen stated that the application for an Inn was submitted at the time when Inns were a permitted use in the Town of Washington and the regulations were not changed to accommodate the applicant. He stated that the Zoning Commission followed Town Counsel's advice throughout the process and that the Zoning Regulations were changed after the application was denied. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission does not have an application for a camp and the Zoning Commission has not changed its regulations in order to accommodate a camp. He stated that the Zoning Commission should consider revisions or additions to the Zoning Regulations when someone comes to the Commission with a recommendation for change.
Mr. Abella stated that he felt Atty. Zizka's example regulation from the Town of Coventry would work as long as limitations were included. Mr. Owen stated that the Washington Zoning Commission could put in different numbers that could be broader or narrower than the numbers in the Coventry regulation. Mr. Reich stated that there would not be a definition. Mr. Owen stated that a definition would not be needed because it would be for an existing nonconforming use. Mr. Reich stated that he would like to look at this further.
Mr. Averill stated that he was trying to think of any loopholes in adopting a regulation similar to the Coventry regulation but he feels that it could work. He stated that he also likes what the Planning Commission recommended even though it is considered 'Spot Zoning' it would solve the problem. Mr. Averill stated that he takes the opinions of both the Planning Commission and the Conservation Commission into consideration because they reflect the opinion of the public. He stated that he was wondering how many other commercial operations exist in the R-1 District. Mr. Owen stated that if a broader regulation was created to include nonconforming uses that the Zoning Commission would not be 'pre-granting' expansions to nonconforming uses.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he feels that the Planning Commission and the Conservation Commission represent the feelings of their commission members. He stated that he respects their opinion but he does not agree with them all the time. Mr. Averill stated that he meant that he feels that those commissions represent a large group of people in Town. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he does not want the Zoning Commission to lock in to one point of view and that he sees the Planning Commission's and the Conservation Commission's view but he would also be in favor of the broader regulation addressing existing nonconforming.
Mr. Shapiro stated that he feels creating a regulation similar to the Town of Coventry seems to be most sensible and he is in favor of exploring this approach.
Mr. Owen stated that the broader regulation approach would cover the Golf Courses and those regulations could be taken off the books. He stated that he felt that a Youth Camp fits very well into the POCD, but he understands the Planning Commission and Conservation Commission's points of view.
Ms. Hill stated that she felt some residents might be concerned with the first proposed revision that would allow camps throughout the R-1 District because people that already live here may not want the possibility of a camp moving in next door to them.
There were no more questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 4.4.19 and 21.1.69: Addition of Youth Camp as a Use Permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District and Definition of Youth Camp,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Revision of the Zoning Regulations/New Section 2.4 Re: Public Hearing Submissions:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on February 16 and February 23, 2011 and list of contents in the file. Mr. Owen stated that Town Counsel recommend that this language be added to the Zoning Regulations and it was added to the Inland Wetlands Regulations a couple of years ago. Mr. Owen read the proposed Section 2.4 Public Hearing Submissions language. He stated that this proposed revision would make it more difficult for an applicant or people objecting to an application to make last minute revisions that would require continuation of the public hearing. Mr. Owen read Mr. McGuinness's of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments comments dated 1/20/11(on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Owen read portions of the letter dated February 24, 2011 from Atty. Zizka that addresses Mr. McGuinness's concerns (on file in the Land Use Office). Mr. Shapiro stated that he thinks this revision is a good idea. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he did not see a down side to this. Mr. Averill stated that he was in favor of this revision. Mr. Shapiro stated if the hearing is continued that this language seems to limit all other people wanting to present evidence to having to present that on or before the date on which the public hearing is commenced. He suggested that the language should state "All other persons wishing to present documentary evidence in the proceeding shall file evidence on or before the date of the hearing or any reconvening thereof." The Commission briefly discussed this request and their options on how to proceed.There were no more comments or questions.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/New Section 2.4 Re: Public Hearing Submissions,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Rowe-McDonough/38 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14 Bed and Breakfast Establishment:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on February 16 and February 23, 2011 and list of contents in the file. Mr. McDonough and Ms. Rowe were present to present this application. Mr. McDonough discussed the floor plan. Ms. Hill stated that the applicants have met all the requirements. There were no more questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the application for Rowe-McDonough/38 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: 13.14/Bed and Breakfast Establishment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.Dobson - Ruscoe-Sedito/217 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 10.4.1/Office and Sign:
Mr. Owen read the legal notice published in Voices on February 16 and February 23, 2011 and list of contents in the file. Ms. Hill informed the Commission that the application was incomplete. No one was present to represent this applicant.Motion:
to continue the Public Hearing on March 28th at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the application for Dobson/Ruscoe-Sedito/217 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 10.4.1/Office and Sign,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the January 24, 2011 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.
Corrections:
Page 3:
Under Rowe-McDonough/38 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14/Bed and Breakfast Establishment: 2nd sentence should read: Ms. Hill stated that the applicant needs to submit a floor plan and that she...
Page 4:
4th Paragraph: 5th sentence should read: He stated that the telecommunications company does not have to apply to the Zoning Commission because all decisions regarding cell towers are made by the Connecticut Siting Council.
11th sentence should read: He stated that Federal law states that municipalities cannot impede the spread of national telecommunications.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of January 24, 2011, as amended,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote
Pending Application(s)
Rowe-McDonough/38 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14/Bed and Breakfast Establishment:
The Commission considered the application. There were no more questions or comments from the Commission.Motion:
to approve the application from Rowe-McDonough for a Special Permit: 13.14/Bed and Breakfast at 38 Kielwasser Road,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment &
Collum/36Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment:
Mr. Collum was present to represent these applications. He explained the location of each of the houses. Ms. Hill stated that Mr. Collum received approval from the Health Department.Motion:
to schedule Public Hearings on March 28th 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider two applications for Collum/70 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment & 36 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.10/Residential Conversion of Older Home/Add Additional Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business Request for Revision of Zoning Regulations from Housing Commission/Section 13.13.4/Delete Minimum Apartment Size Under Housing in the Business Districts:
Mr. Owen read a letter from the Housing Commission Chair, Wayne Hileman, dated February 14, 2011 (on file in the Land Use Office) requesting that Section 13.13.4 be deleted. Mr. Owen read section 13.13.4 of the Zoning Regulations.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on April 25, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulation /Section 13.13.4/Delete Minimum Apartment Size Under Housing in the Business Districts,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.Request for Revision of Special Permit Issued to Myfield, LLC. For Affordable Housing at 7 Mygatt Road:
Mr. Owen stated that the proposal is to change the configuration of the housing units on the property. Ms. Hill stated that they have obtained approval from the Health Department and the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Gitterman stated that this proposal is a downsizing of most of the buildings and is less invasive.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on March 28, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the Revision of Special Permit issued to Myfield, LLC for Affordable Housing at 7 Mygatt Road,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 4.4.19 and 21.1.69/Youth Camp:
Mr. Owen suggested that the Zoning Commission would drop consideration of the current proposed revisions for sections 4.4.19 and 21.1.69 and instead consider new language similar to the Coventry example to allow expansion of a nonconforming use by Special Permit. This will be discussed at the next Zoning Meeting on March 28.Revision of the Zoning Regulations/New Section 2.4 Re: Public Hearing Submissions:
Mr. Fitherbert stated that he feels that this is an improvement. There were no more comments or questions.Motion:
to approve the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/New Section 2.4 Re: Public Hearing Submissions,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, Passed by 5-0 vote.
Privilege of the Floor Ms. Coakley was present to represent the 17 Warren Road neighborhood committee. She thanked Mr. Fitzherbert and read a statement from the neighbors of 17 Warren Road opposing the 17 Warren Road Site and the alternative sites that were proposed on January 29. (Statement on file in the Land Use Office) Mr. Cruse, abutting neighbor to 31 East Shore Road read a deed for
Enforcement
The ZEO report dated February 28, 2011 was considered.
Communications
Mr. Owen read an email from Ms. Devlin, dated February 28, 2011, thanking Mr. Fitzherbert for his participation at the January 29, 2011 informational meeting with AT&T. The Commission and Ms. Coakley discussed the January 29th meeting. The Commission made some suggestion on how Ms. Coakley and the neighborhood committee could proceed.Mr. Cruse read a deed from the 31 East Shore Road property of which he is an abutting neighbor. He stated that the property owner currently has an application before the ZBA requesting a garage for the property and he opposes this application and he is asking the Zoning Commission for some direction. Ms. Hill stated that the Land Use Office and Zoning Commission are required to enforce the Zoning Regulations and enforcing the deed is a civil matter. The Commission suggested that Mr. Cruse speak to an attorney.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 9:05 pm. by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Posted: February 11, 2011 January 24, 2011
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Ralph Averill, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert
Alternates Present: Harry Wyant
Absent: Andy Shapiro, A.J. Dubois
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. & Mrs. Boyer, Ms. Federer, Ms. Klauer, Selectman Solley, Mr. & Mrs. Afiouni, Ms. Coakley, Ms. Rowe, Mr. McDonough, Mr. & Mrs. Frank, Ms, Payne, Mr. Woodruff, Ms. Gager, Ms. Ebner-Martin, Mr. Ebner, Mr. & Mr. Werner, Mr. Odom, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. ReichRevision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 4.4.19 and 21.1.69: Addition of Youth Camp as a Use Permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District and Definition of Youth Camp:
Mr. Owen read the Legal Notice published in Voices on January 12 and January 19, 2011 and then read the list of contents that are in the file for this application. Mr. Owen read the proposed revision. He then read the Planning Commission’s January 4, 2011 resolution (on file in the Land Use Office). The Planning Commission did not approve this revision(s) because it found that it is not consistent with the goals of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and that the revision(s) is contrary to the goal of the preservation of rural character and Section 4.1 of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission could pass this revision only with super majority vote of at least 4-1 due to the Planning Commission’s denial. Mr. Owen read the comments from Mr. McGuinness of the Northwest CT Council of Governments dated 12/6/10 (on file in the Land Use Office).Mr. Owen requested any comments or questions from the public.
Mr. Frank of the Planning Commission spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission and stated that “it is our view that this is a limited problem dealing with a specific site” and that the Planning Commission does not believe that this requires a town wide solution. He briefly explained the Planning Commission’s views of this revision and asked that the Zoning Commission develop a narrower regulation that would not affect the entire R-1 district, but allow the existing camp to expand.
Mr. Owen discussed the background of golf courses being a use permitted by Special Permit and how the regulations were written. He stated that the Zoning Commission knew what a golf course is but in the case of this revision, it needed to define ‘Youth Camp.’ He stated that he feels the Commission produced a very restricted definition and any applicant would have to meet the Special Permit requirements. Mr. Owen stated that a youth camp is in keeping with the Town’s rural character and this revision would allow it to grow with and adapt to the changing times. He stated an alternative approach would be to adopt a regulation regarding the expansion of a nonconforming use. Mr. Owen read language regarding expansion of non conforming uses that Atty. Zizka helped develop for the Town of Coventry. He stated that the Washington Zoning Regulations do not mention all the uses that are valued in this Town and that however the regulation is revised, a definition of ‘Youth Camp’ would be necessary.
Mr. Boyer asked if the Commission had received any indication that there is an interest in a new camp in Town. “And, if not, why bother?” He stated that the regulations should take care of the existing camps. Mr. Owen stated that State Statute requires that regulations be created to apply universally in the town. Mr. Boyer asked if it would be possible to grant the extension without a new regulation. Mr. Owen stated that the extension would not be possible without a new regulation. Mr. Boyer suggested that a regulation should be created for an existing youth camp to expand. He stated that he doesn’t feel that the new regulation should encompass the whole R-1 District.
Mrs. Boyer stated that she always thought this was a summer youth camp and she is curious as to why ‘year round’ and ‘adults’ were mentioned. Ms. Ebner stated that they currently operate 11 weeks of the year but would like to provide a ‘nature’s classroom’ type of program for environmental education year round. She stated that they would like to open it up to the surrounding schools in the spring and the fall for these classes. Mr. Owen stated that there was no intention to have adult programs at the camp and that was just mentioned in Mr. McGuiness’s comments. Ms. Ebner stated that she feels that maintaining the integrity of the property would be better than subdividing it.
Second Selectman Solley asked if the Zoning Commission sought Atty. Zizka’s advice as to what language would work best for this regulation. Mr. Owen stated that Atty. Zizka was not in favor of allowing a single existing non conforming use and that he recommended creating a regulation that allows for an extension of all non conforming uses by Special Permit. Mr. Owen stated that he feels that it would be very difficult for a non existing camp to meet all the Special Permit requirements. Mr. Solley stated that he supports the Planning Commission’s opinion and feels that the Zoning Commission should create a more in depth definition of ‘Youth Camp’ and not subject the entire R-1 district to the potential of camps, however unlikely that may be. Mr. Owen stated that once again, he feels that the applicant would have to go through the entire Special Permit process and it would be very difficult to meet these criteria.
Ms. Frank stated that she feels it is the Zoning Commission’s job to protect property owners so that adjoining property owners cannot infringe on each other’s rights. She stated that the 40 acre requirement in the proposed definition of ‘Youth Camp’ sounds like a lot but not inconceivable for this area and she does not feel it would be a barrier for someone who wanted to start a Youth Camp. She stated that these camps have large trucks delivering items that would possibly be traveling down narrow rural roads and that would change the quality of the neighborhood while the camp was in operation. She stated that the Zoning Commission is opening up the likelihood of this being allowed with this revision. Mr. Owen read the Special Permit requirements and he agreed with Ms. Frank that the Zoning Commission and Regulations should protect property owners.
Mr. Frank stated that he feels that the Zoning Commission should ask itself whether or not this is an appropriate use in the R-1 District. He read the other uses that are permitted in the R-1 District. He stated that summer camps are not quiet, bucolic operations.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he feels the Zoning Commission is apprehensive about creating site specific zoning regulations and does not feel that it would benefit the Town. He stated that he was conflicted after hearing everyone’s opinion.
Mr. Reich stated that he was concerned with the Zoning Commission creating a regulation that would include the entire R-1 District for this one issue. He stated he was content with considering addressing the current applicant’s issues.
Mr. Owen stated that the Commission could continue this hearing and consult with Atty. Kari Olson. He stated that he could ask what the legal ramifications would be if a line were added in Section 4 allowing expansion of an existing Youth Camp and a definition of ‘Youth Camp’. Mr. Owen stated that he could also ask Atty. Olson about a broader regulation regarding the expansion of non conforming uses.
Mr. Abella stated that he felt the Commission should consult with Town Counsel and outline the Planning Commission’s suggestions. He stated that he feels the revision should concentrate on existing camps.
Mr. Averill stated that he gives a great deal of weight to the Planning Commission’s recommendations, but he also understands the apprehension of being too specific. He stated that both approaches to the revision make a lot of sense but he is unsure at this point.
Mr. Owen stated that he would seek further guidance from Town Counsel.
There were no further comments or questions.
Motion:
To continue the Public Hearing to consider the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 4.4.19 and 21.1.69: Addition of Youth Camp as a Use Permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District and Definition of Youth Camp at the February 28th Zoning Meeting at Bryan Memorial Town Hall,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The minutes of the November 22, 2010 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.
Corrections:
Page 9:
Under Wykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
8th sentence should read: Mr. Owen said that after consulting with Atty. Zizka in connection with a previous application he concluded that the grass pavers leading to Pond No. 1 should not be part of the lot coverage calculation.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of November 22, 2010, as corrected,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.The minutes of the December 27, 2010 Zoning Commission Meeting were considered.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of December 27, 2010, as submitted,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s) Dobson/217 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit: 10.4.1/Sign:
The applicant requested an extension until the Zoning Commission’s Regular Meeting on February 28, 2011 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall. Extension was granted.
New Application(s)
Rowe-McDonough/38 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14/Bed and Breakfast Establishment:
Ms. Rowe and Mr. McDonough were present. Ms. Hill stated that the applicant needs to submit a floor and that she would contact the applicants if anything else is needed before the public hearing.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on February 28th at Bryan Memorial Town Hall, to consider the application for Rowe-McDonough/38 Kielwasser Road/Special Permit: 13.14/Bed and Breakfast Establishment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote
Other Business
Proposed Cell Tower at 17 Warren Road:
Mr. Owen stated that he was aware that residents were present to speak about the proposed cell tower at 17 Warren Road. He reminded everyone that the Zoning Commission, despite what is in the regulations, does not have any authority over cell towers. He stated that the state statute does say that the Siting Council must consider the Town’s location preferences based on the Town’s Zoning Regulations.Ms. Coakley stated that she is part of the neighborhood group that is opposing the proposed tower. She stated that the Zoning Commission represents them and she urged them to talk to AT&T at the informational meeting on Saturday (1-29-11) and tell them that the proposed tower violates 11 sections and 31 components of the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Owen stated that it has been argued in the past that the whole section of 13.19 in the Zoning Regulations dealing with telecommunication structures should be condensed and have the Zoning Commission adopt the new language so that the Town would have something concrete. Ms. Payne, Conservation Commission Chair, stated that in 2007 she and Selectman Sears asked that Mr. Owen not delete Section 13.19 of the Zoning Regulations because it expresses where the Town stands on this matter. She stated that it reflects the POCD and the information that is in the Natural Resource Inventory Report. Ms. Payne stated that she feels it is in the best interest of the Town that the Town commissions support the Town regulations and the philosophy of the Town.
Ms. Coakley stated that the proposed tower is a 180-foot tower; it is less than 400 feet away from a home, and within 1500 feet of the Washington Montessori School. She asked the Commission if it thought that this was preserving the rural character. Ms. Coakley stated that the Town needs the Zoning Commission to support them and that it should speak at the Town informational meeting on Saturday. Mr. Owen stated that he did not think this proposed tower preserves the rural character but he agrees with Town Counsel that the Zoning Commission has no authority over cell towers.
2nd Selectman Solley stated that the Board of Selectman has written letters to the Siting Council in the past opposing proposed cell tower sites. He stated that the Selectmen will be writing a letter to the Connecticut Siting Council opposing the location of the proposed 17 Warren Road tower because there are areas of concern with this proposed site such as the height, and the access road excessively exceeds the maximum grade that is allowed by Zoning. He stated that he personally opposes the proximity to the Montessori School. Mr. Solley stated that, as of this time, the Selectmen have not developed an opposition standard for the proposed cell tower and that he would like to hear what is said at the informational meeting with AT&T and the Town on Saturday, January 29, 2011. Mr. Owen stated that the Selectmen’s letter would represent the Town position and they could cite the Town regulations. He stated that the telecommunications company does not have to apply to the Zoning Commission because it applies to the Connecticut Siting Council. Ms. Werner of the Washington Montessori School stated that they would like the support of the Zoning Commission and would like someone from the Commission to speak. She stated that they have worked with consultants and have come up with alternate sites that would not affect the neighbors like this one would. Mr. Fitzherbert volunteered to be at the meeting on Saturday. He stated that he would speak personally and that he recalls that when the regulations for cell towers were drafted that the figure of “at least 1500 feet” from a school was what was figured to “err on the side of caution” to keep children safe. Mr. Owen stated that the CSC is supposed to consider the Town regulations when siting a tower but the Town has limited input. He stated that the State Law was written to give the municipalities less power. Mr. Owen recommended that the Town have a written position that states where the Town would like to place cell towers. He stated that in the Zoning Regulations it states that the Zoning Commission cannot impede the spread of national telecommunications. Ms. Payne stated that the Town “should at least try.” Ms. Frank questioned the steep driveway. Mr. Solley stated the Selectmen usually approve driveways but this one was not approved by them. Ms. Frank asked if fire trucks would be able to get to the tower if there was an emergency.
Mr. Odom stated that he lives 350 feet from the proposed tower. He stated he did not realize how tall it would be until he saw the balloon test. He asked that the Zoning Commission draft a letter saying that the proposed site does not comply with zoning regulations. He stated that he is “terrified” that the tower would catch fire and a fire truck would not be able to make it up the driveway.
Mr. Afiouni stated that Verizon has existing infrastructure behind the Citgo station in Marbledale. He stated that AT&T has stated that this tower would provide coverage up Route 202 and 341 and it would also like to lease out to other companies and make money. Mr. Afiouni stated that it is his understanding that AT&T has had the right to co-locate on the tower in Marbledale. He stated that the Coakleys did a drive test and found that they had coverage in the area. Mr. Owen stated that they would need an engineering study, which would provide the hard numbers that would show coverage in the area and prove that this tower is not necessary. He stated that he feels a reasonable strategy for the Town would be to develop a plan that indicates specific locations for towers and then create concise regulations.
Mr. Werner stated that he was concerned that the tower would be at a high elevation and very visible. He stated that he thought the tower in Marbledale was appropriately located and he hadn’t noticed it for years. Mr. Reich stated that he thought cell towers are inevitable and there should be a group in town that could develop a report that indicates cell tower sites that everyone could live with. Ms. Coakley stated that she believed this was recommended in 2005 and was never done.
Ms. Payne stated that she was told that AT&T had requested to increase the height of the tower in Marbledale from 130 ft. to 170 ft. Mrs. Afiouni stated that the Town should be cautious in allowing such tall towers and that the telecommunication companies will eventually want these tall towers all over Town.
There was a brief discussion regarding future technology and whether cell towers would be needed.
Possible Revision of the Zoning Regs re: Excavation:
Ms. Hill distributed a sample of options that could be used to revise the zoning regulations regarding Excavations. This will be discussed at the next meeting.
Enforcement
Mr. Woodruff stated that he feels that the Zoning Commission is for the protection of the property owners and their rights. He gave a history of his communications with the Land Use Office regarding his complaint about alleged violations on the Smith property at 35 East Shore Road. He stated that his neighbor has violated many Zoning Regulations and he wants to see the violations corrected. The Commission and Mr. Woodruff discussed his requests. Mr. Owen stated that he thought a meeting should take place with himself, Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Ajello, Ms. Hill, Mr. Woodruff’s Neighbor and Town Counsel. Mr. Woodruff recommended that Mr. Jenks, Building Official, and a commissioner from the Inland Wetlands Commission attend as well. Mr. Owen asked Mrs. Hill to consult with Atty. Olson.Ms. Hill stated that Ms. Smith has Brian Neff, Engineer, working on an application for a variance for the shed.
Communications
Ms. Hill stated that the Land Use Office has received two appeals of the Zoning Commission’s approval of the Wykeham University application.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:30 pm.
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Meetings in 2010