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
February 25 •January 28 •January 7 •Previous years: 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: March 5, 2008 February 25, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Fisher, Mr. Papsin, Atty. Coploff, Mr. Moore, Mr. Farmen, Mr. Bohan, Mr. Federer
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Wyant for Mr. Fitzherbert.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
James/79 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 13/11/3/Detached Accessory Apartment
Mr. Owen called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/13 and 2/20/08. Mr. Owen then read the list of all the documents in the file and the 2/25/08 ZEO Report.
Atty. Fisher submitted an affidavit signed by the prospective owner of the property that he would reside on the premises for the duration of the permit and a photocopy of the certified mailing receipt cards. He then read his 2/25/08 letter to Mr. Owen, which specified how the proposed apartment would comply with each provision in Section 13.11.3 and he noted the apartment would be 1000 sq. ft.
Mr. Shapiro asked how large the primary dwelling was. Reading from the Assessor's field card, Atty. Fisher said it had 4649 sq. ft. above grade, which would make the proposed apartment less than 25% the size of the house. The apartment floor plan was reviewed.
Mr. Ajello noted it had been the future owner, not the present owner applying for the permit, who signed the affidavit. The Commissioners did not think this was a problem because he would be the one residing on the property when the apartment was in use.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. James for a detached accessory apartment at 79 West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:44 p.m.
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 8:45 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 2/13 and 2/20/08. Mr. Owen then read the list of documents in the file and the 2/25/08 ZEO Report.
The map, "Site Analysis Plan," by Mr. Alex, revised to 11/16/06 and the portion of this map with proposed screening and the buildings and outside storage area labeled by Mr. Moore were reviewed.
Mr. Moore stated that he had not submitted the certified mailing receipts, but would bring them in the next day. Mr. Ajello noted that the two neighbors most concerned about the ongoing operation had received their notification. Mr. Griffith sent an email and Mr. and Mrs. Updegraff were present. It was noted that none of the green certified receipt cards had been received.
Mr. Owen read Mr. Moore's statement regarding how the proposed landscaping business would comply with each requirement of Section 13.16. Several of the points were briefly discussed. 13.16.3: Mr. Moore had submitted a list of eight commercial vehicles that would be used and said no additional off street parking would be created. Mr. Ajello noted there would also be employee vehicles parked on site during the day. 13.16.4: It was noted that a maximum of 5000 sq. ft. of outside storage was allowed and that no storage was allowed within the setback and that this had been properly indicated on the map. Mr. Ajello also noted there would be no outside storage in wetlands, that potentially hazardous materials such as muriatic acid and fertilizers would be stored inside the storage shed, and that materials such as bricks, gravel, stone, and sand would be stored on site. 13.16.4.e: It was noted that Mr. Moore had proposed a row of evergreens to screen the outside storage from the Updegraff property, but that he had offered to erect a fence along that portion of the property line if the Updegraffs preferred.
Mrs. Friedman read the 2/22/08 email from Mr. Griffiths in which he expressed concerns about any activities that could adversely impact the residential character of the neighborhood and about business activity in the early morning, evening, and on weekends.
Mr. Shapiro asked if the proposed use was clearly subordinate to the residential use of the property. Mr. Ajello responded that approximately an eighth of an acre of the 6.2 acre property would be occupied by the business and that the owner resided on the property with his family.
Mr. and Mrs. Updegraff noted their concerns were similar to Mr. Griffiths'. They thought the use of natural screening would be more effective than a fence. Mr. Moore said he planned to plant Norway Spruce, hemlocks, or a combination of 7 to 8 ft. tall trees, approximately 10 ft. apart. He noted that until they grew, you would be able to see through them. Mr. Owen said that in the past the Commission had conditioned approvals upon the installation of natural screening that was satisfactory to the abutting neighbors. Mr. Ajello noted that the area in front of the garage doors would be used commercially and so requested that the screening be extended to buffer this area as well.
Mr. Ajello noted that Shop and Storage Use Special Permits must be renewed every two years and so said that if the neighbors experience any problems they should file their complaints on record so that they can be considered when the permit is up for renewal.
Hours of operation were discussed. Mr. Moore said his normal hours vary depending upon the season and that during the summer he sometimes works seven days a week.
Mrs. Friedman noted she had observed a plastic shed when she had inspected the property. Mr. Moore said this was temporary and would be removed upon the completion of the barn.
It was noted that any outdoor lighting must comply with Section 12.15. Mr. Owen said that flood lights should be shielded so the bulbs are not visible from the road, directed downward, and ideally, on timers so they are not on all of the time.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.16 submitted by Mr. Moore for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 25 Litchfield Turnpike. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
These public hearings were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order at 8:18 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 1/28/08 Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as corrected. On page 2, the sentence beginning, "He noted an additional...." in the 5th line from bottom was changed to: He noted that one proposed building had been relocated to the north of the existing driveway entrance.
MOTION: To accept the 1/28/08 Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 13.16: Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Conditions of approval were briefly discussed. It was the consensus that screening agreeable to both parties and a limitation on the hours of operation would be appropriate. It was also noted that the list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners, the proof of certified mailings, and the green certified mailing receipt cards had not been received. It was noted that a condition regarding outdoor lighting would not be necessary because any outdoor lighting for the barn would be covered under the zoning permit issued in December 2007.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.16 submitted by Mr. Moore for Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen at 25 Litchfield Turnpike subject to the following conditions:
1. the hours of operation shall be limited to
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
2. the applicant shall plant and maintain a
vegetative buffer to create a reasonable
barrier between his and the Updegraff
property, the buffer shall be to the
satisfaction of the Updegraffs, and if
the applicant and neighbors are not able to
come to an agreement on the buffer this
matter shall be brought back to the Zoning
Commission, and
3. proof of the required certified mailings to
adjoining property owners shall be submitted
to the Land Use Office before the Special
Permit is issued.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, passed 5-0.
James/79 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. James for a detached accessory apartment at 79 West Shore Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Rumsey Hall School/200 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/Second Dormitory, Faculty House, Extend Circular Driveway: Mr. Owen read the 2/25/08 ZEO Report. He noted that a variance for coverage was required for the proposed buildings and driveway and that the Zoning Commission's standard practice was to wait until the variance had been granted to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Farmen, Headmaster, explained that the information that had been missing from the variance application had already been submitted to the ZBA and said that the school was pressed for time since it wanted to have the dorm ready for the opening of school the September. Mr. Ajello noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission had requested that Zoning refer the stormwater management plans for this application to a consulting engineer for review. He said that all of the documentation supplied by Smith & Co. was very good, Rumsey had been cooperative, and that the construction site was under control. Mr. Owen said then that a referral to the Town engineer was not necessary. The map, "Compilation Plan for ZBA Application," by Smith & Co., dated 2/7/08 and revised to 2/25/08 was reviewed and it was noted there were steep contours from the construction site down to Romford Road. Regarding the proposal to extend the circular driveway, Mr. Ajello said the Fire Marshal had recommended the driveway loop. The drainage system was discussed. Mr. Farmen said a separate drainage system was proposed for these proposed buildings. It was the consensus to schedule the public hearing for the
March 24th meeting, but Mr. Owen advised the applicant that if in the meantime the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, the Zoning Commission would deny the Special Permit application without prejudice. The public hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Laffont/128 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment: Mr. Owen read the 2/25/08 ZEO Report. The Public Hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Sections 13.11.1.A, 13.11.1.B Accessory Apartments: Mr. Owen circulated language he had drafted after receiving input from Atty. Zizka. Under the proposed revision, two apartments would be permitted per property by Special Permit only if one was attached and one was detached and one was deed restricted to preserve it as affordable housing. (See attached document for the specific language.) Mr. Owen noted that at the previous public hearing to consider revisions that would have restricted accessory apartments to only one per property, the public had not been supportive because it thought there was a need in Town for more affordable housing units. Mr. Owen said that the situations described at the hearing; housing needed for family members, the elderly, farm workers, etc., could qualify as affordable housing and that per the proposed regulation, a second apartment could be used as affordable housing without undermining soil based zoning. It was not thought that adopting the proposed revisions would result in a big change in the number of apartments in Town. It was the consensus of the commissioners to schedule a public hearing in May.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations: Section 13.9: Inns: Mrs. Friedman noted that until recently the Commission had interpreted the Regulations to mean that inns were permitted only on state highways, but that Mr. Owen had pointed out that this was not what was actually written. She said that at the last meeting the Commission had discussed a compromise to permit inns on state highways and on Town roads within the business districts. Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Averill thought this was a reasonable approach as inns could have restaurants or taverns, which could generate traffic. Mrs. Friedman asked whether revisions concerning architecture, the number of rooms permitted, or the deletion of the reference to tourist homes should be considered. Mr. Owen did not think that inns were a pressing matter and so recommended that the Commission make only one revision at this time; to require inns to be located on state highways. In addition, 13.9.1 will be included in 13.9 and the following sections will be renumbered. 13.9.3 will read, "The frontage shall be on a state highway and shall be a minimum of 500 feet." Mr. Federer asked what could be done to prevent an inn from acquiring additional parcels and then evolving into a much larger, multi faceted operation. Mr. Ajello suggested this could be controlled with a specific definition of "inn." A public hearing was scheduled for May to consider only the clarification that inns shall be located on state highways. Mr. Owen recommended that a subcommittee of interested commissioners tackle the remaining issues.
Revision of the Regulations/Section 16.5.1: Signs: It was noted that several meetings ago the Commission had agreed to revise Section 16.5.1 to state, "No sign shall be closer than 10 feet to any side property line." Mr. Owen pointed out that this would help to resolve the problem of wide right of ways along front boundary lines. A public hearing was scheduled for April. The current request by the Washington Club for a sign in The Green District, a residential district, was discussed. Currently, Section 16.4.1 permits one sign on residential lots only in residential districts. It was the consensus that the Commission would pursue revisions to permit limited signage for specific uses by Special Permit in residential districts. Inns and bed and breakfast establishments were two such uses given as examples.
Washington Club/92 Green Hill Road: Mr. Ajello presented a newspaper ad for renting out the Washington Club Hall and asked whether a private club hall in the residential district could be rented out to the public. Mr. Owen said that the club had been rented out for functions for years and this was a grandfathered use predating Zoning. He also said he thought it was good for the Town because there were few buildings here with the potential to be used in this way. Mr. Ajello asked if there was any question about whether the Club was a non profit organization. Mr. Owen responded that it was a non profit social club. It was the consensus that the renting out of the Club hall was not an issue because this activity predated Zoning.
Privilege of the Floor
Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations: Section 21.1.37/ Definition of Lot Coverage: Atty. Kelly, representing Kent Greenhouse and Kelly and Trevenen, submitted the letter dated 2/25/08, which requested that Section 21.1.37 be amended by adding the following sentence, "Notwithstanding, driveways, parking areas and lots, and walkways, which are constructed of engineered pervious materials systems are exempt from this definition, provided that certification installation in accordance with manufacturer's standards is provided by a certified installer or licensed engineer." He said that not counting them in the lot coverage calculation would provide property owners with an incentive to install pervious driveways and walkways. He presented several samples of pervious engineered materials that could be used. He also submitted some past Zoning Commission minutes, which indicated that in 2003 the Commission had discussed possible incentives for impervious driveways. Mr. Owen said this was a good issue to consider, noting that he had attended an environmental seminar on this topic and had brochures on the subject. He noted, however, that the Commission would carefully study the matter to be sure that granting an increase in coverage would not result in a problem. For example, he cited the dust problem in the parking lot at 16 Church Street, which resulted in its being paved. Mr. Ajello noted the downside would be maintenance problems; the installed surfaces would have to be maintained so they would continue to function properly. Mr. Owen and Mr. Ajello will meet with Atty. Kelly to discuss the petition before the next meeting. It was noted the petition would be officially received at March 24th meeting.
Mr. Papsin, Mygatt Road, voiced his concern about the increased hours of operation at the Citgo Station at 210 New Milford Turnpike, because its excessively bright lights were now on from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Mr. Averill agreed that the lighting was "obnoxious." Mr. Ajello noted there were also mercury vapor lights with no shields on poles at the storage facility and at Dowler's Garage that are excessively bright and shine toward Mygatt Road. Mr. Papsin asked the Commission to contact CL&P as it did several years ago to ask again that these lights be lowered, shielded, and directed downward. Mr. Papsin also asked if there was any provision in the Regulations that would protect nearby residences from businesses expanding their hours. He said this was a problem both along Rt. 202 and elsewhere in Town and so asked for revisions to address it. Mr. Owen agreed that the canopy lights at the gas station were a nuisance because they light up the whole area, and a safety issue because it takes a long time for a driver's eyes to recover from their glare. He also agreed the CL&P lighting was inappropriate and dangerous because it shines in your eyes as you drive west on Rt. 202 as well as incredibly inefficient as it does not do the job that its intended to. Mr. Owen asked Mr. Averill to research the CL&P lighting. Mr. Papsin also complained about the 150 watt flood lights on Dr. Kane's office and the lights at the state DOT property, which are on all day as well as all night. Mr. Owen thought that it was time the Commission tackled the problem of outdoor lighting in the commercial districts. While it was noted that the existing lighting would be grandfathered, it was thought that the Commission would persuade some of the business owners to install more appropriate lighting, especially if there was support from the Board of Selectmen. Mrs. Hill suggested that Section 13.1.b.8 regarding nuisances be used to control existing lighting. Mr. Ajello was directed to send a letter to the owners of properties with problem outdoor lighting to inform them that complaints have been received and to persuade them to take corrective measures.
Mr. Papsin expressed his concern about drainage for the Moore Special Permit for Shop and Storage Use should Mr. Moore wash his vehicles on site. Mr. Ajello said there would be no plumbing in the building.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.15.4, 12.15.9/ Outdoor Residential Lighting: Mr. Owen proposed to add to Section 12.15.4 that no outdoor lighting may be mounted on trees or other vegetation. He noted this had been in the original draft, but had been deleted. Since then he noticed that a number of the worst examples of outdoor lighting in Town are mounted in trees. In 12.15.9 there had been a typo and the word, "not," had been omitted. He read the proposed revised language for the non binding guidelines. All of the commissioners agreed to proceed with the proposed revisions. A public hearing was scheduled for May. Mr. Averill noted that the lights in the J.D. Tucker parking lot are on all night. Mr. Ajello will contact the owners.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment: Mr. Owen noted when it had dealt with the Rumsey Hall School request for a variance for noise generating equipment, the ZBA had suggested that a stockade fence be built around the generator. Mr. Ajello pointed out that in that case there was no significant impact to neighboring properties. Mr. Owen responded that the Regulations state that there must be less impact to neighbors if the equipment is to be moved farther than 25 feet from the structure principally served. He said the intent of the Regulations was to require this equipment to be close to the homeowner so that he would keep it quiet. Mrs. Friedman noted that the ZBA had granted many variances of this requirement. Mr. Owen reported that he had spoken with an acoustical engineer who advised him that there is a small device, a broad band noise generator, which can be used so that you can measure the noise generated with a decibel meter. He proposed to retain the requirement that in order to be moved farther than 25 feet from the principal structure served the equipment must have less impact on the neighbors and to add a provision regarding how this must be proven. Mr. Owen noted that the Zoning Regulations had not stated that less impact had to be proven, which resulted in the ZBA loosely interpreting this section. The commissioners thought the proposed language was an improvement because it would require applicants to use a specific method to prove that there would be less impact to neighbors if the equipment was moved and also thought that there would probably be fewer variance applications under this section. (The proposed language is attached.) This will be discussed again at the next meeting and Mr. Owen will ask Mr. Sedito, Chairman of the ZBA, for his input.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
CAPS = new13.11 Accessory Apartments.
13.11.1 Intent. It is the intent of the Zoning Commission to permit property owners to create accessory apartments to provide small-scale housing for a variety of possible occupants. Such occupants may include relatives of the property owners, caregivers, guests of the property owners, the elderly, individuals, couples, and small families with limited income or limited housing needs, and others. NO MORE THAN ONE ACCESSORY APARTMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED PER PROPERTY, EXCEPT THAT BY SPECIAL PERMIT A SECOND APARTMENT MAY BE ALLOWED IF:
A. ONE OF THE APARTMENTS IS ATTACHED AND THE OTHER IS DETACHED, AND
B. ONE OF THE TWO APARTMENTS IS DEED-RESTRICTED SUCH THAT IT MUST BE RENTED AT A PRICE THAT WILL PRESERVE IT AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" IS DEFINED AS HOUSING FOR WHICH PERSONS AND FAMILIES PAY THIRTY PERCENT OR LESS OF THEIR ANNUAL INCOME, AND SUCH INCOME IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO EIGHTY PERCENT OF MEDIAN INCOME. "MEDIAN INCOME" IS DEFINED AS THE LOWER OF THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE STATE OR THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE AREA IN WHICH THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON IS SITUATED, AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FOR FAMILY SIZE. SUCH PERMIT SHALL BE VALID FOR AS LONG AS THE DEED RESTRICTION REMAINS IN EFFECT.
13.11.2 Accessory Apartment, Attached.
a. No more than one attached accessory apartment shall be permitted per property.
13.11.3 Accessory Apartment, Detached.
a. No more than one detached accessory apartment shall be permitted per property.
16.5. Non Residential District Signs. The following signs are permitted in non residential districts:
16.5.1 No sign shall be closer than 10 feet TO any SIDE property line.
12.15 Addition of Section 12.15 re: outdoor lighting in residential districts effective 4/14/07 Outdoor Lighting in Residential Districts. Nighttime darkness is a vanishing natural resource. Excessive or poorly designed outdoor lighting unnecessarily brightens the nighttime sky, emits objectionable illumination visible on other properties, poses a safety risk to pedestrians and drivers, disturbs natural habitats, and is not in keeping with the rural character of the Town. The purpose of these regulations is to permit reasonable illumination of outdoor areas during their active use, while reducing negative impacts.
12.15.1 All exterior lighting shall be shielded and aimed so that the lamps (bulbs) or other light sources cannot be seen from beyond the property served. No exterior lighting may be used in a manner that produces a bloom or a direct glare visible beyond the property served. These requirements can be met by using "Dark-Sky Friendly" exterior lighting fixtures approved by the International Dark-Sky Association, or fixtures similar to the "Fixtures that do meet the requirements of 12.15.1" in the chart in 12.15.10.
12.15.2 Nighttime outdoor activities may be illuminated only during periods when the activities are underway.
12.15.3 Decorative lighting of trees, other vegetation, ponds, land forms, steeples, structures, and other property features is prohibited. (See traditional holiday exception, 12.15.8). American flags and their flagpoles may be illuminated; no flagpole may be illuminated when its flag is not flying
12.15.4 No light fixture may be aimed at the sky or toward any area, structure, or surface that is not situated on the property. NO LIGHT FIXTURE MAY BE MOUNTED IN, OR ATTACHED TO, A TREE OR OTHER VEGETATION.
12.15.5 Security lighting is permitted only if it is directed toward the structures being protected, not away from them. This requirement can be met by wall-mounted fixtures only if the wall-mounted fixtures are aimed directly downward and properly shielded.
12.15.6 No exterior light source may be installed more than 15 feet above grade or more than 30 feet from the object or area that it is intended to illuminate.
12.15.7 Moving lights, lights producing varying intensities or changing colors, and search lights are prohibited.
12.15.8 Traditional decorative holiday lights may be operated temporarily, without a permit, between Thanksgiving and January 31.
12.15.9 Non-binding guidelines and recommendations. Residents are encouraged to use lamps (bulbs) of the lowest effective wattage, and to use sensor-activated fixtures whenever practical. Studies have shown that most security lighting is self-defeating because it creates deep shadows and blinding glare, OR BECAUSE IT HELPS CRIMINALS BY ILLUMINATING REMOTE AREAS OR STRUCTURES THAT CANNOT BE OBSERVED BY PASSERSBY OR PATROLING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Walkway lighting usually works better when it is mounted CLOSE TO THE GROUND RATHER THAN at the eyelevel of pedestrians. EMPTY PARKING LOTS DO NOT NEED TO BE ILLUMINATED AT NIGHT. Turning off unnecessary exterior lighting reduces energy consumption and saves money. Keeping exterior lighting to a minimum is neighborly, and it helps to preserve the rural character of our town.
12.15.10 Lighting Fixture Chart.
12.14 Addition of Section 12.14, Noise generating equip., effective 11/26/99; revision of 12.14 - 12.14.3; add purpose, increase setback distances, effective 11/18/02 Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment. The purpose of this section is to limit the impact of noise generating equipment on neighboring properties and to give the owners of noise generating equipment an incentive for reducing the noise produced by equipment they own and operate for their own benefit. THE REQUIREMENTS OF 12.14 ARE MEANT TO BE CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND TO BE COMPREHENSIBLE TO NON-EXPERTS; TO THIS END, COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 12.14.1, 12.14.2, AND 12.14.3 CAN BE DETERMINED WITH A MEASURING TAPE.
12.14.1 All generators, air conditioners, and other noise generating equipment installed in a fixed location (except pool filters and related equipment; see 12.14.2) shall be situated within twenty-five (25) feet of the structure principally served.
12.14.2 All pool filters, pool heaters, and related equipment shall be situated within fifty (50) feet of the pool served. Addition of 12.14.5 re: Special Exceptions for noise generating equipment effective 2/12/05
12.14.3 All generators, air conditioners, pool filters, and other noise generating equipment shall be situated nearer to the structure principally served than to any building line (defined in Section 21) ON ANY ADJACENT LOT.
12.14.4 All noise generating mechanical equipment and the structures that enclose them are considered structures under the definition of structure in Section 21 of the Zoning Regulations.
12.14.5 By Special Exception application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, a request may be made for generators, air conditioners, pool filters, and other noise generating equipment to be situated, under certain circumstances, farther from the structure principally served than is specified under Sections 12.14.1, 12.14.2, and 12.14.3. In order to be granted such a Special Exception, an applicant must PROVE
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Appealsthat placing the noise generating equipment in the proposed location would have less noise impact on neighboring properties than would placing it in accordance with Sections 12.14.1, 12.14.2, and 12.14.3. THE APPLICANT SHALL MAKE THIS PROOF BY EMPLOYING AN ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER, ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT, OR CIVIL ENGINEER TO MEASURE THE DECIBEL LEVELS OF A TEST NOISE THAT IS PRODUCED BY A BROADBAND NOISE GENERATOR OR COMPARABLE DEVICE AT BOTH THE PROPOSED SITE AND A SITE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 12.14.1, 12.14.2, AND 12.14.3. DECIBEL READINGS OF THE TEST NOISE PRODUCED AT EACH SITE SHALL BE TAKEN, AT INTERVALS OF NO MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET, ALONG ALL BULIDING LINES ON ALL ADJACENT LOTS, AND THESE READINGS SHALL BE RECORDED ON A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS WHERE AND WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN. THE TEST NOISES GENERATED AT THE TWO SITES MUST BE IDENTICAL AND MUST BE LOUD ENOUGH TO BE DETECTED BY A DECIBEL METER AT ALL THE REQUIRED MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS. IN ORDER FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER 12.14.5, THE DECIBEL READINGS AT ALL MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS MUST BE LOWER FOR THE TEST NOISE GENERATED AT THE PROPOSED SITE THAN FOR THE TEST NOISE GENERATED AT THE SITE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 12.14.1, 12.14.2, AND 12.14.3. AN ASSURANCE BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE PROPOSED NOISE GENERATING EQUIPMENT WILL BE ENCLOSED IN A SOUND-DEADENING STRUCTURE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 12.14.5.NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT WHEN THESE NOISE READINGS ARE TAKEN. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to send written notification of the pending noise test to all neighboring property owners. Neighboring properties shall include all adjoining properties plus any properties located across the street which, except for the street, would also be adjoining. Notification shall be by certified mail/return receipt requested, on forms provided by the Land Use Office. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Board of Appeals a list of the names and addresses of all neighboring property owners and all certified mail receipts prior to the HEARING AT WHICH the APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED. Certified letters sent to adjoining property owners to inform them of THE NOISE TEST shall be postmarked no later than ten days prior to the test. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not consider the application complete, nor may it approve such application, if the list and the receipts have not been submitted.
Posted: February 7, 2008 January 28, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mt. Fitzherbert, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Wyant
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Neff, Mr. Gitterman, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Boling, Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Sears, Mr. Williams, Ms. Stevens, Mrs. Arturi, Mrs. Ward, Mr. Hileman, Mrs. Condon, Mrs. Matthews, Mr. Tagley, Mrs. Watkins, Mr. Allen, Mrs. Brown, Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Charles, Atty. Fisher, Atty. Zizka, Atty. Pocius, Mr. Papsin, Ms. LoPresti, Mr. Rinaldez, Mrs. McDonald, Ms. Curtis, Mr. Kiss, Residents, Press
Mr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Friedman, and Owen. He noted the order of the agenda would be changed to give anyone who wanted to speak about the proposed revisions to Section 13.11 regarding accessory apartments the opportunity to do so prior to the Myfield public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3/To Permit Only One Accessory Apartment Per Property
Mr. Owen reconvened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. He noted the hearing would be continued to Monday, March 24, 2008 and that the proposed revisions would be referred to the Planning Commission and councils of government as required by the state statutes.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3 to permit only one accessory apartment per property to Monday, March 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
At 7:32 p.m. Mr. Owen continued the hearing to 7:30 p.m. on March 24, 2008.
Myfield, LLC./7 Mygatt Road/Affordable Housing Per CGS 8-30g
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 1/16 and 1/23/06. Mr. Owen read the list of all of the documents in the file and the 1/28/08 ZEO Report, which stated that the certified mailing receipts had not been submitted. Mr. Boling submitted 36 certified mailing receipts.
Mr. Gitterman read his introductory statement dated 1/28/08.
When Mr. Boling began to speak on behalf of the applicant, Atty. Zizka, Commission counsel, noted he had previously represented Mr. Boling on another matter, and although this was not a traditional conflict of interest, he thought he should note it for the record. He asked then if either the applicant or the Commission objected to him continuing to represent the Commission. Atty. Ebersol, Mr. Boling, and the Commission said they had no objections.
MOTION: The Washington Zoning Commission has no problem with Atty. Zizka continuing to represent it regarding the Myfield, LLC. affordable housing application given that he has represented Open Space Equity in the past and may do so in the future. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and passed 5-0.
The map, "Site Layout," by Mr. Worcester, revised to 12/16/07 was reviewed.
Mr. Boling noted the previous application had been approved for thirteen identical units. The current application, he said, would introduce enhancements to make the project more aesthetically pleasing. He pointed out how the orientation and placement of some of the buildings changed, that more landscaping buffers were proposed, and that there were now a greater variety of unit types He noted an additional building was proposed to the north of the existing driveway entrance. He also stated that the conservation easement area on the property had been increased to include 80% of the site and the proposed impervious surfaces would decrease to 9%.
Mr. Boling provided details about the different types of units. Buildings #1 - #3 would each have two 940 sq. ft. apartments, one per floor. The apartments would vary slightly due to variations in the ingress and egress of each; the ground level units would have access to the basement, whereas the upper units would include the unfinished area over the garage. Two of these six units would be affordable; one on the first floor of Building #2 and one on the second floor of Building #1, so that there would be an affordable unit for each floor plan. These units would have one bedroom. Mr. Owen noted each unit would have access to unfinished space and asked if this was included in the square footage. Mr. Boling said it was not. The rest of the buildings would be 1980 sq. ft. single family dwellings, each with two bedrooms. Buildings #5, #7, and #9 would be affordable. Mr. Boling stated that all of the units would be fully finished and functional and that the purchasers could select from available options. Mr. Owen asked if all of the options were detailed in the material submitted. Mr. Boling said that standard unit specs for purchasers who did not want to make their own decisions had been submitted. Mrs. Friedman asked if purchasers could choose finishes and make changes to the floor plans. Mr. Boling said they could, but the choices had to be within their construction budget and any changes to the floor plans could not decrease the number of bedrooms or the sq. ft. of the finished floor area. Mr. Gitterman added that interior changes could be made, but no change that would affect the footprint of any building.
Mrs. Friedman asked if any moderately priced units would be offered. Mr. Boling said the smaller sized market rate units might qualify for CHAFA mortgages, but that was not known at this point and the owners would have no control over this matter.
Mr. Boling noted the two buildings proposed along Mygatt Road would screen the rest of the development behind them.
Mr. Boling reviewed the floor plans, Sheets A-1 - A-12 by Mr. Worcester, revised to 12/16/07. He noted subtle differences between each proposed building that provided architectural variety, but said each unit type would have essentially the same sq. footage. Mr. Owen noted that in previous promotional material market rate buyers would have the opportunity to increase their living area by finishing the basement. He asked if this was still an option. Mr. Boling said that buyers of both the affordable and market rate units could do so. Mrs. Friedman asked if the option was still available to locate the master bedroom on the first floor. Mr. Boling said that the modular construction made this a possible option. Mr. Gitterman briefly detailed the modular construction technique.
Mrs. Friedman noted that changes could be made within the budget for each unit, but asked how future buyers would be kept within the affordable guidelines when they make further changes. Mr. Gitterman said that for the affordable units, the owner would be able to recoup only a percent of his investment set by state statute.
Mrs. Friedman asked if interior floor plan changes that would affect exterior features such as doors and windows would be allowed. Mr. Gitterman said that window changes would not be permitted on certain walls due to privacy concerns. Mr. Boling thought the most likely window changes would be on the side or back of the units or that due to the change in the location of the kitchen, the front windows might be lengthened.
Mr. Owen asked if there could be changes that would alter the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. Mr. Boling said that the number of bedrooms could not be increased in any of the units and could not be decreased in the affordable units.
Mrs. Friedman asked how the budget for the affordable units would be determined. Mr. Boling said it would be determined by Myfield, LLC. He noted that no unit owner would be able to make modifications that would result in an affordable unit becoming uninhabitable or not fully finished.
Mr. Abella noted the current application was for three more units than the number originally approved. Mr. Boling said this was true, but that the total number of bedrooms was the same.
Mr. Ajello asked if air conditioning would be advertised as an option. Mr. Boling said it would. It was noted it would be difficult to install air conditioning in existing unit #5 because it has no duct work, but Mr. Boling stated that the rest of the units would not be built until there was a buyer who would choose his own options.
Atty. Zizka asked if it had been decided which of the units would be priced at 60% and which at 85% and if of the five affordable units, three would be priced at 60% and two at 80%. Mr. Boling said this had not yet been determined.
Atty. Pocius said he had been asked to summarize his correspondence to Atty. Zizka and made a lengthy statement on behalf of the applicant. He included the following points: 1) Regarding the issue of customization, in this case reasonable profit comes from a few extra units and the custom options. He said that the state favors this approach. He noted that customization allows the developer to compete in the market place. 2) The law does not state that identical units must be offered and that the diversity of unit types would lead to a diversity of buyers, which is one goal of the law. 3) State statues state only that the units must be comparable in size and workmanship and that the proposed units would have a very high standard of workmanship in both the affordable and market rate units. 4) Per the Wisniowski case, affordable housing projects could not discriminate against larger families and interior improvements could be added to affordable units as long as by doing so the affordable price cap was not exceeded. 5) Although he said he was hoping to avoid a lawsuit, he described the circumstances under which his client would sue the Commission.
Mr. Owen clarified the statement made by Atty. Pocius in his 1/11/08 letter to Atty. Zizka that the Commission had taken the position that all of the units had to be made comparable by being "essentially identical." Mr. Owen pointed out that the idea of building "absolutely identical" units had been proposed not by the Zoning Commission but by the applicant in its first application, which had been subsequently approved by the Commission with only minor conditions, one of which was that any changes in the approved design would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Commission. When Myfield then built units that were different from each other and from the single set of plans in the approved application, Mr. Owen had informed Myfield's attorney that the applicant would have to seek a revised approval, and that the Zoning Commission could not issue certificates of zoning compliance until this matter had been resolved. Mr. Owen noted that Atty. Pocius's points about identical units were not relevant to the current application, which would be judged on its own merits. Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Owen briefly gave the background of the first application to make it clear that the concept of building "identical" units came from the applicant and not the Commission. Mr. Owen noted that the Commission, before approval, had asked the applicant if modifications could be made to individual units so that the units would not all be identical, and that the applicant had told the Commission that such variations would be impossible because the units would be factory-built. Mr. Owen said the current application included many features that improved the appearance of the development by introducing variety.
Questions and comments were taken from the public.
Mr. Fairbairn read his 1/26/08 letter on behalf of the Washington Community Housing Trust in support of the application.
Ms. Stevens, Mygatt Road, asked what the front yard setback requirement was. Mr. Owen noted that because this application falls under the state Affordable Housing Appeals Act, the developer could circumvent local zoning regulations if 30% of the units proposed were "Affordable" under the state definition. Ms. Stevens stated that Mygatt Road was slated for improvements and widening by the Town and so said the applicant must take this into consideration when siting the buildings. Mr. Sears, former First Selectmen, said there were no plans to widen the road. Mr. Owen said he did not see this as a safety issue because the proposed units would not significantly increase traffic on Mygatt Road. Atty. Zizka asked if the building was close enough to the road to cause a safety issue. Mr. Boling said that it would be 22 feet back from the property line and that the Board of Selectmen and Highway Dept. would not have approved the driveway cut if there had been a safety issue. He noted the buildings had been moved closer to the front boundary line to meet the setback requirements from the septic system. Ms. Stevens asked that the driveway sight lines be reviewed because she said Mygatt Road curves, which would prevent drivers pulling out onto the road from seeing oncoming traffic. Mr. Papsin, Mygatt Road, agreed. Mr. Boling said the proposed buildings would not block the sight lines as they would be 22 feet back from the boundary line.
Mrs. Watkins asked why the number of units had been increased and that the number of units be decreased to the original number approved in the first application. Mr. Boling said the number of units had been increased to increase the diversity of unit types and to provide more architectural variety.
Mr. Sears read of statement in support of the application and applauded the efforts of both the Commission and the applicant.
Mr. Rinaldez, First National Bank of Litchfield, said that he had been involved with affordable housing projects for 30 years, he was impressed with the size and quality of the proposed units, and that this proposed affordable housing development was the best he had seen in Connecticut.
Mrs. Watkins noted that nearby residents were "nervous" because the applicant had stated that if the application was not approved, the Commission would be sued.
Mrs. Lopresti, Quarry Ridge, said the project was now a horrible eyesore and asked how long construction would continue in her back yard. Mr. Owen said there was no firm time table. Mr. Gitterman noted that all of the infrastructure was now in place and since the proposed buildings were modular construction, they would go up quickly once purchased. However, no one knew how long it would take for all of the units to be sold.
Ms. Stevens complained that from her property she would see 120 ft. of vinyl siding only 22 ft. from the road. She asked if landscaping could be required for screening. Mr. Gitterman noted that a pine buffer had been planted along the Quarry Ridge/Myfield boundary and that Myfield would continue to plant buffers. Ms. Stevens asked when she could expect to see evergreens along Mygatt Road. Mr. Owen pointed out that in the original approval screening had been required.
Mr. Hileman, chairman of the Housing Commission, stated that Commission had sent a letter in support of the application, noting that the project was 1) in compliance with CGS 8-30g, 2) in line with the goals of the Housing Commission, and 3) consistent with the 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Tagley asked that the Commission make a survey to find out how many people living in Washington's existing affordable/moderate housing units were from Washington. He said he had heard that the majority of residents were not from Washington and so more affordable housing was not needed. Mr. Hileman said the latest data was from 2005 and that at that time 73% of the units were occupied with people who had Washington roots. Mr. Fairbairn of the WCHT said it was now closer to 80% with Washington roots. Mr. Owen said this would have no bearing on the current application. Mr. Gitterman stated that the affordable units would be made available to Washington firemen, EMT personnel, and people with Washington ties.
Mrs. McDonald asked what the price range of the units would be. Mr. Owen said this was not set and that the prices would vary depending on the options chosen by the purchasers.
Ms. Curtis asked if the affordable units would be available only to first time buyers. Mr. Owen said there was a complicated state formula used to determine who would qualify. Mr. Fairbairn said a buyer would have had to live in Washington for the last two years or for six out of the last ten years to qualify.
Ms. Stevens asked if there would be provisions in the deeds to require ownership of the units. Mr. Boling stated that the affordable units could not be rented out. Mr. Fairbairn said this would be enforced by the WCHT who would monitor the units on an
annual basis.
Mr. Kiss asked what the basis was for proposing market rate housing. Mr. Owen said it was the decision of the owner and had no bearing on this hearing. Mr. Kiss asked how many affordable and market rate units were proposed. Mr. Owen said five affordable and eleven market rate units were proposed and that this met the requirements of the state statutes.
Mrs. Lopresti asked if the project were not affordable housing, would it be permitted on this site. Mr. Owen said that it would not be permitted under the local zoning regulations.
Mr. Papsin asked if the Commission would approve the application before looking into the sight line issue. Mr. Owen noted that the Commission had previously approved the same driveway in the previous application.
Regarding landscaping, Mr. Papsin asked for more evergreens than deciduous trees in the buffer. Mr. Boling said that ultimately there would be fairly dense vegetation along Mygatt Road, but he objected to planting dense evergreens because he said would change the rural landscape to a suburban look.
Mr. Owen asked for comments and questions from the commissioners.
Mr. Abella thought the current plans were an improvement, which resulted in a better application.
Mrs. Friedman asked what would happen if the developer could not sell the units. Mr. Owen said they would not be built until sold. Mrs. Friedman was concerned that the developer would buy from itself and then rent out units. Mr. Owen noted that as part of the previous application, the 30% ratio of affordable units to market rate units had to be maintained throughout construction; there could never be a time when 30% of the units were not affordable.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the Fire Dept. had reviewed the application. Mr. Ajello said it had commented on the turn around, water availability, and the hard shoulders along the driveway; all of which had not changed since the first application.
Mrs. Friedman asked what color the houses would be. Mr. Boling noted the houses would be white and that the two existing garages were red, but the new ones would be white in response to requests by neighbors.
Mrs. Friedman asked about outdoor lighting. Mr. Boling stated that the lighting would have shielded fixtures and that all of the outdoor lighting would comply with the new zoning regulations. The outdoor lighting for houses #5 and #6 already existed, but he said it was discreet and would not be changed. Mr. Owen noted that the lighting at 16 Church Street was a good example of shielded outdoor lighting. Mr. Gitterman said he would have no problem with modifying the existing lighting so that it would comply with the new regulations.
Mrs. Friedman asked how many parking spaces were proposed. Mr. Boling said there would be one garage bay per bedroom and strong shoulders along the driveway for additional parking.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked if there were any time dated restrictions on the buildings. Mr. Fowlkes said that the condominium documents had the usual restrictions that no changes could be made without the approval of the condo association.
Mr. Kiss asked what the estimated cost of the project was. Mr. Owen said this was not known and was not information that the Commission could require.
Mr. Kiss asked who the developer was. Mr. Owen said it was Myfield, LLC.
Mr. Ajello asked for the distance between the structure and the front boundary line. The 12/16/07 site plan was again reviewed. Mr. Boling noted the garage was slightly closer to the front line, only 13 ft. than was the house. He said the garage was located as proposed so that the vehicular infrastructure would be screened from Mygatt Road. It could be flipped to the opposite side of the house, but then the garage entrance would face the road. He said the location of the garage was a totally aesthetic decision.
Ms. Stevens asked for an evergreen screen between the building and the front boundary line. Mr. Abella thought a few evergreens could be planted, but not so many that it looked like a row. Mr. Boling said he wanted to keep the existing stonewall and hedgerow and plant maples.
Mr. Averill thought the current application was a vast improvement over the first one.
Mr. Owen asked the commissioners if any additional information was needed. It was agreed it was not.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the application submitted by Myfield, LLC. for affordable housing at 7 Mygatt Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Mr. Owen closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:58 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 12/17/07 Regular Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 1/7/08 Special Meeting minutes as written. By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Owen, and passed 5-0.
Pending Applications
Myfield, LLC/7 Mygatt Rd./Application/Affordable Housing Per 8-30g
Mr. Owen thought the current plan was better than the original; that simple revisions had resulted in a plan with a more pleasing appearance. He noted that while comparability had been a valid issue in the previous application, he did not have the same concerns with this proposal. He said because the units were not lined up the development had more of a village feel and he liked the diversity of housing choices offered.
Mrs. Friedman said she was happy with the current application, but asked that a few items be addressed. She thought there should be a plan for screening the units along Mygatt Road and that this plan should be agreeable to both the developer and the neighbors. Mr. Owen noted that in the past the Zoning Commission had conditioned application approvals on screening to be agreed upon by the developer and neighbors.
Mr. Owen said that he agreed with Mr. Boling that the proposed placement of the garage for the front building was a safer location as it would keep passengers and the loading and pulling out of vehicles away from the road.
Mr. Ajello suggested that instead of a row of evergreens that other plantings more in keeping with the rural landscape be used to screen the building from the road.
Mrs. Friedman noted that the applicant had offered to modify the existing outdoor lighting for units #5 and #6 so that the light source would be shielded and consistent with the lighting for all of the other units and said she wanted this to be done.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the sight lines for the driveway were a concern. Mr. Wyant noted the road foreman had signed off on the driveway entrance.
Mr. Averill thought the current plan was a vast improvement over the previous one and that it would set high standards for any future affordable housing projects in Town.
Mr. Owen noted that the proposed housing units would be modestly sized and priced, consistent with the housing goals of the Town and state, and would increase the diversity of housing options in Town.
Mr. Abella also thought the current proposal was an improvement over the first. He noted that there was a demand for smaller, one bedroom units. He recommended that some evergreens be planted between the front building and the boundary line.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Myfield, LLC. to construct an affordable housing project at 7 Mygatt Road subject to the following conditions:
1. that reasonable vegetative screening , but not a solid row, be planted between Buildings #1 and
#3 and the front property line along Mygatt Road, the plantings to be worked out by the developer
and the neighbors and
2. that the existing outdoor lighting for Units #5
and #6 be brought into compliance with the rest
of the project's proposed outdoor lighting.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
James/79 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment: Atty. Fisher represented the applicant and explained that the person buying the property wants to legalize an existing apartment. It was noted that the Health Department had already approved the application. Mr. Owen read the 1/28/08 ZEO Report. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot. Public hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. This is the second hearing scheduled and it will begin immediately upon the completion of the first hearing.
Pending Application
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen: Mr. Owen read the 1/28/08 ZEO Report. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2008 in the Land Use Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot. Public hearings begin at 7:30 p.m. This hearing will be the third and will begin immediately after the conclusion of the second hearing. Mrs. Friedman said she would inspect the site on behalf of the Commission prior to the hearing.
Carusillo/204 Wykeham Road/First Cut: Mr. Owen read the 1/28/08 ZEO Report, which stated the application was now complete and complied with all of the requirements for a first cut.
MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Mr. Carusillo for a first cut at 204 Wykeham Road. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Revision of the Regulations: Mr. Owen noted that the public hearing for consideration of revisions to Sections 13.11.1, 13.11.2, and 13.11.3 regarding accessory apartments was continued to the March meeting. Also, the ongoing discussion regarding possible revisions to Section 13.9: Tourist Home or Inn, would be tabled to the next meeting. Mrs. Friedman noted that discussion about this section was timely because she had heard that a local inn was considering expanding.
Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission: At the request of the Planning Commission, who has a new member who will not be available until March, the joint meeting will not be rescheduled until March. Mr. Owen stated that this meeting might not be necessary, however, because the Selectmen's Office might schedule a meeting of all the land use commissions with an agenda set by the Selectmen. The purpose of such a meeting would be to make the land use commissions aware of each other's goals and jurisdictions.
Communications
Mr. Owen said he had received a letter from Mr. Picton, chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, that Inland Wetlands should have reviewed the recent Rumsey Hall School application for the dormitory and hockey rink prior to Zoning's decision. Mr. Owen stated that Mr. Ajello, the EO, had acted correctly in this matter because the Wetlands Commission had authorized its EO to determine whether applications fall under its jurisdiction. He noted that Rumsey was now cooperating with the Inland Wetlands Commission and that the plans had been referred to a consulting engineer for review.
Enforcement
Moore/25 Litchfield Turnpike: Mr. Moore has a public hearing scheduled in February for consideration of the current use of his property for shop and storage use by contractors and building tradesmen.
Peloquin/1 New Preston Hill Road: Mr. Ajello noted he had approved an application for light retail use as a flower shop.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Fitzherbert.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Coordinator
Posted: January 31, 2008 January 7, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Owen
MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Shapiro
ALTERNATE ABSENT: Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Fenwick, Mr. Farmen, Ms. Habib, Mr. Smith, Mr. Charles, Mr. Carey, Mr. Brinton, Mr. Lyon, Mrs. Payne, Mrs. Braverman, Mr. Sears, Mr. Boyer, Mr. Markert, Mr. Cornet, Ms. Gager, Mr. Fowlkes, Mr. Mustich, Mrs. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Buck, Mr. Riefenhauser,
Mr. Powell, Ms. Samples-Smart, Mr. Carpenter, Students, Residents, Press
PUBLIC HEARING
Rumsey Hall School/184 Romford Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.10
Construct Dormitory and Hockey Rink
Mr. Owen called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Averill, Friedman, and Owen and Alternate Shapiro for Mr. Fitzherbert. Mrs. Friedman read the legal notice published in Voices on 12/26/07 and 1/2/08. Mr. Owen read the list of documents in the file and the 1/7/08 ZEO Report, which included copies of Section 13; the standards for the review of Special Permit applications.
Mr. Farmen presented the maps, "Illustrative Master Plan," dated 5/15/2000 and "Proposed Ice Rink and Dormitory," by Smith & Company, dated 10/22/07 and pointed out the area on the upper side of the campus where the buildings were proposed. Renderings of both buildings were also presented.
Mr. Farmen introduced Ms. Habib, Business Manager, Mr. Smith, surveyor, Mr. Riefenhauser, engineer, Mr. Buck, engineer, and Mr. Powell, architect.
Mr. Farmen noted there had been concerns about emergency vehicle access up the existing steep driveway. He pointed out that the entrance had been widened for safety reasons and the Fire Department had been asked to drive one of its trucks up the driveway, and this had been accomplished without a problem. He pointed out two possible locations for a fire hydrant; one near the water storage tanks and the other near the pump house. Mrs. Friedman asked if there were any safety concerns regarding the portions of the driveway that had not yet been constructed. Ms. Habib said the proposed new section of driveway had been designed to be accessible by fire trucks. Mr. Smith discussed the specs for the driveway around the rink which, he said, would be 24 ft. wide with curbs on both sides, would not exceed a 10% grade, and would accommodate busses and fire apparatus with a 40 ft. wheel base. He noted the 24 ft. width would allow two vehicles to pass safely. Mr. Farmen stated that the existing driveway from the arts center would be widened.
Mr. Owen read the 1/4/08 letter from the Fire Marshal, which recommended that a hydrant with a pull off area for fire truck access be installed in one of two locations in the vicinity of Dorm #1. Mr. Ajello noted the Fire Marshal also recommended a driveway loop to facilitate the traffic flow of emergency vehicles. Ms. Habib stated that the driveway would eventually loop around the new dorm and existing Hill Top dorm, but was not included in the current application.
Mr. Farmen addressed the reasons the school felt the new dorm and hockey rink were needed for its students. He said an increase in enrollment was not planned and that the new facilities would reduce the number of daily bus trips to transport students to and from dorms and rinks off campus.
Mrs. Friedman asked if organizations other than Rumsey would use the rink. Mr. Farmen said it would not be rented out to the general public, but that there were plans for the Shepaug hockey team, Washington Youth Hockey, and Foreman School to use the rink.
Mr. Owen asked if Rumsey would object to a condition of approval that would limit the rink's hours of operation. Mr. Farmen said that the school did not want to open the campus to strangers during the night. Mrs. Friedman noted it was common for rinks to be used as early as 5:00 a.m. Ms. Habib said that this one would not be used before 7:00 a.m.
Mr. Powell, architect, said that the proposed 34,000 sq. ft. rink would be fully enclosed with windows only at the entrance. This would contain the light in the building and help to soundproof it as well. It would also be fully insulated so there would be no heat gain from the outside and provide sound insulation. In addition to the rink, the building would contain dressing rooms, a skate sharpening room, ice resurfacing room, storage, mechanical room, etc. The building would house a standard national size hockey rink and two rows of bleacher seats.
Exterior lighting was discussed at length. Mr. Smith reviewed the "L-1" plan dated 10/22/07 for landscaping and lighting. He said twelve free standing lights, each twelve feet high with a 100 watt white light bulb, were proposed around the rink. He said they would be shrouded and directed downward like at the Big Top. Mr. Owen asked what the purpose of all the lighting was. Mr. Smith said it was to light the parking area. Mr. Powell also noted that the Building Code requires lighting at all emergency exits. Mr. Owen showed photos of examples of the existing exterior lighting at Rumsey; most of it very bright and glaring. Mrs. Friedman noted she had heard complaints about the lighting at the new art center and asked how the proposed rink lighting would compare to that at the art center. Mr. Smith submitted lighting specs by Lithonia Lighting, sheet # MRW-M-S. Mr. Owen circulated the "Dark Sky Resource Guide" by the Hudson Highlands Land Trust. Mr. Smith stated that it had been determined that 100 watt lights were needed unless more poles were added and said the building mounted lights would be motion activated and the pole lights on timers so that neither would be on all night. It was noted that currently the lights at the Big Top and art center are on from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Owen noted how unsafe the tree mounted light at the intersection of the driveway with Romford Road was because it shines into drivers' eyes as they come to the stop sign. He also pointed out how the extraordinarily bright lights at the art center impact the area, saying it was appropriate that the Zoning Commission ensure that this type of lighting would not be installed on the proposed buildings. He recommended that Rumsey purchase hoods for the existing undirected lighting that is mounted too high to serve the purpose for which it is intended. Mr. Farmen said he would consider all of Mr. Owen's concerns. Ms. Habib said the tree mounted light at the intersection was only temporary until a pole light on a timer could be installed there.
Mrs. Friedman asked if the Health Department had approved the application. Mr. Ajello said the Health Dept. had no issues.
Mr. Shapiro asked if there would be an increase in parking. Mr. Smith stated that 25 parking spaces were proposed at the rink and 6 at the new dorm. He noted, too, that a pull off area for busses would be installed outside the rink.
Mrs. Friedman asked how many months per year the rink would be used. Mr. Farmen said it would be used mainly from December into March. It was noted, however, that the building would have a concrete floor and so could be used for other activities such as roller hockey, tennis, baseball practice, indoor lacrosse, and assemblies throughout the year.
Questions and comments were taken from the public.
Mrs. Fenwick asked if the applicant would be required to put up a balloon so it could be determined how visible the building would be from surrounding properties before it was erected. Mrs. Friedman asked how tall the rink would be. Mr. Smith said it would be 32 ft. 8 inches to the peak.
Mr. Smith addressed view shed concerns. Ms. Habib submitted an email dated 1/7/08 from Atty. Koscuiszka, representing the Robbs, adjoining property owners. Mr. Smith presented his plan, "Viewshed Analysis," dated 12/26/07, which he created with the assistance of Mr. Robb whose property is located across the Bantam River approximately 1600 ft. from the proposed rink. The plan showed the sight lines from both the front of the Robb house and from the Robb pool. Some trees on the south side of the rink would be cut to install the proposed detention basin, but Mr. Smith said the remaining trees would be adequate to block the view from the house, but not from the pool. Therefore, a planting plan including 25 ft. tall evergreens was proposed. Mr. Owen asked if the Robbs were the only neighbors who would be able to see the new building. Mr. Smith did not know. Mrs. Friedman read the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robb re: mitigation to decrease the impacts on their property from the proposed construction. It was suggested that the colors of the roof and the side of the building facing the Robbs be a color that would blend in with the landscape.
Ms. Fenwick read the 12/20/07 letter she presented at the 12/20/07 ZBA hearing, which listed her concerns about the continuing expansion of the school and the loss of peace and quiet on her property. She noted an "immense" generator had been installed behind the auditorium and the school was taking steps to quiet it. She said the school's lighting turns night into day and that the art center is white and very visible from off site.
Mrs. Friedman asked Mr. Farmen what was being done to ameliorate these problems. Mr. Farmen said a stockade fence had been erected around the generator and trees planted to screen it. Mr. Owen did not think that would decrease the noise. Ms. Habib said the generator had been placed in a logical area near the propane tanks and access to the building. Mr. Owen asked if a substantial concrete enclosure could be built. Ms. Habib noted the generator has a sound shield and is used only for back up power. Mr. Farmen stated the generator operates only when the power goes off and during tests, but said when it is on, the noise is "horrendous." He offered to encase and insulate it so it could not be heard.
Mr. Owen asked if noise generating equipment would be installed for the new buildings. Mr. Powell said there would be a condenser in an enclosed concrete block wall on the east side of the rink and a compressor inside the building.
Mrs. Friedman asked how the roof would be addressed. Mr. Smith circulated photos showing the view, in winter when there were no leaves, of the Big Top and where the new building would be from a) the Robb's pool, b) the Robb's house, and c) on the driveway in front of the house. They were visible from only the pool, which is at a higher location. He said that the Robbs did not want a shiny roof to be installed and that the school would work with them to find a color that would blend in with the background. Mrs. Fenwick stated that the new auditorium glares in the sun and so thought a green wall would be far better than white and would blend in better with nature. She asked if view shed studies had been done for the Luckey property, which is located next to the Robbs. Mr. Farmen said he had contacted the Luckeys and they said they were OK with the rink.
Mr. Ajello asked the applicant to state for the record that the clearing and disturbance would be limited to the areas indicated on the site plan and would be kept to a minimum. Mr. Smith referred to the heavy red line on the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan and noted that was the proposed limit of clearing. He said one area would be modified due to the revision of the drainage plans and that he would work closely with the contractor.
Mr. Charles asked if another dorm was planned. Mr. Farmen said there would be another dorm in the future. Mr. Owen noted it would require another variance for coverage.
Mr. Charles noted that the existing driveway off Romford Road is very steep. Mr. Smith said it averaged 18% and was 19% along the worst section. Mr. Charles said he had been advised that a traffic analysis would be done since new traffic would be introduced at this steep and congested intersection. He suggested a second separate access from an old Town road on the other end of the property.
Mr. Charles asked if the Inland Wetlands Commission had been advised of this "substantial" proposal. Mr. Ajello said it had not because there were no wetlands features on the hillside and the building site is approximately 350 feet from the river. Mr. Charles recommended that the Wetlands Commission be notified of the application so that it could determine for itself whether it wanted to review it and the stormwater management plans.
Mr. Charles asked whether the proposed buildings would be Leed certified. Mr. Owen noted that Leed certification was not required in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Farmen said that although the buildings would not be Leed certified, they had been designed in an environmentally thoughtful way.
Mr. Charles asked how the sound level of the condensers would be measured. Mr. Powell stated that they would be inside and that they would not be heard 350 feet from the building. Mr. Owen noted that decibel levels were not governed by the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Ajello noted that there would be 40,000 gallons of water stored on site and that the Fire Marshal required a hydrant so that it would be accessible to the Fire Department. Mr. Buck, engineer, agreed to install the hydrant per the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
Mrs. Friedman asked how the roof runoff would be handled. Mr. Smith discussed the specifications of the stormwater detention system, noting that the Zoning Regulations require a design that will handle a 50 year storm event, but the proposed system would handle a 100 year storm. He said there would be no increase in peak runoff for a 100 year storm.
Ms. Fenwick noted that the driveway was very steep and asked how its runoff would be handled. Mr. Farmen stated that last summer the school had installed an elaborate drainage system downhill of the driveway and along Romford Road. Mr. Buck noted it was a conventional stormwater drainage system to handle surface flows and that it discharged into the Bantam River. Mr. Smith noted that the proposed buildings would not add runoff to this system.
Mr. Averill asked Ms. Fenwick if she would still object to the proposal if all of the Robb's issues were addressed. Ms. Fenwick said she would have to have time to review the plans before making that determination. She asked why the proposed rink could not be built over the existing pond on the other side of Romford Road. Mr. Owen said it was a regulated wetland. Ms. Habib said a building could not be constructed there because it would be within 200 feet of the Bantam River.
Mr. Charles noted that normally the Zoning Commission gets approval from the Washington Health Dept. before acting on applications. Mr. Ajello said the state DPH had said that the Zoning Commission could proceed with its review and that the local Health Dept. had given a verbal OK, although there was nothing in writing.
Mr. Charles asked if the Zoning Commission would address the traffic issue. Mr. Ajello said it had been improved by the widening of the driveway and would be addressed with improved lighting. Ms. Habib said Rumsey had also requested pedestrian crossing signs. Mr. Owen noted that Rumsey had always had traffic problems and that the impact was almost entirely on the school itself. Ms. Fenwick disagreed. It was noted that although there would be an increase in traffic due to the new rink, some daily trips to and from the Sunny Ridge Road dorm and to and from off campus rinks would be eliminated. Mr. Charles, however, pointed out that another use would be added seven days a week to a steep intersection at the iciest time of year. Mrs. Friedman attested to the dangerous driveway and intersection conditions.
Ms. Samples-Smart, student, spoke in favor of the proposed dormitory.
Mr. Carpenter, student, spoke in favor of the proposed rink.
Mrs. Friedman noted the school's existing lighting was brighter than necessary and urged Rumsey to make improvements. Mr. Owen said that using lower watt bulbs and installing shields would be an inexpensive way to address neighbors' concerns. Mr. Farmen said he would consider the Commission's recommendations. Ms. Samples-Smart said the existing lighting did not bother her.
There were no other comments from the commissioners or from the public.
MOTION: To close the public hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 4.10.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School to construct a dormitory and hockey rink at 184 Romford Road. By Mrs. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
At 9:15 p.m. Mr. Owen closed the public hearing.
This public hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Ct.
SPECIAL MEETING
Mr. Owen convened the Special Meeting at 9:16 p.m.
Mrs. Friedman thought Rumsey had chosen the least obtrusive location for the proposed rink, but said conditions of approval were needed.
Mr. Shapiro thought that view shed issues could be adequately addressed, especially by planting vegetation, which would make the rink less objectionable to neighbors. Mr. Averill and Mr. Abella agreed.
Mr. Owen suggested conditions of approval, which the Commission agreed should be included in the motion of approval:
1) The tree clearing shall be limited to the area within the line of disturbance shown on the site plan,
2. The rink shall not be in use between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
3. The tree mounted light at the intersection of Romford Road and the Big Top driveway shall be removed as soon as reasonably practical, and
4. The recommendations made by the Fire Marshal shall be met.
Potential noise problems from the compressor were discussed. It was agreed that if noise should become a problem the school would then be in violation of its Special Permit under the general standards of Section 13.1.B and would have to come back to the Commission to resolve the problem. It was agreed a condition was not needed to address this matter.
Landscaping and the color of the roof and building were briefly discussed. It was the consensus that since the area of clearing would be limited and the planting of 25 ft. tall trees was already included in the plan, provisions for building color and additional landscaping need not be made a condition of approval.
Use of the hockey rink by outside agencies was discussed. It was thought that restricting the hours of use also served to restrict its use by parties other than Rumsey.
MOTION: To approve the Special Permit application: Section 4.4.10 submitted by Rumsey Hall School to construct a dormitory and hockey rink at 184 Romford Road per the plans, "Proposed Ice Rink and Dormitory," sheets CS-1, OPS-1, SP-1, SG-1, L-1, SE-1, ND-1, and ND-2, by Smith & Company, dated 10/22/07 subject to the following conditions: 1. tree clearing shall be limited to the area within the line of disturbance shown on the site plan, 2. the rink shall not be in use between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 3. the tree mounted light at the intersection of Romford Road and the Big Top Driveway shall be removed as soon as reasonably practical, and 4. the recommendations made by the Fire Marshal in his 1/4/08 letter shall be met. By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, and passed 5-0.
JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS
Due to the late hour the Planning commissioners requested that this meeting be rescheduled. Mr. Owen thanked them for coming.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Owen.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Coordinator
Meetings in 2007