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
June 4 •May 20 •May 14 •May 7 •April 22 •March 26 •March 25 •March 20 •March 13 •February 25 •February 20 •February 13 •February 11 •January 7 •Previous years: 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: June 7, 2013 June 4, 2013
Special Meeting
9:30 a.m. Upper Level Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Dr. Craparo
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. HillMr. Solley called the revision of the Zoning Regulations subcommittee meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. The purpose of this meeting was for the subcommittee to discuss and decide upon language for minor revisions to the Zoning Regulations and to designate sections to be considered for more significant revisions in the future.
A list of revisions agreed upon and their proposed language is attached.
In addition, sections of the Regulations, which were discussed but for which it was determined that a) further consideration was warranted, b) legal advice was needed, and/or c) the section should remain as written were:
Section 13.13 - Housing in the Business Districts:
Two main ideas were discussed; whether to permit this type of apartment by regular rather than by Special Permit and whether to require that a percentage of new commercial buildings be used as a residential dwelling unit(s). These issues will be discussed in the future.Section 13.14 – Room and Board or Bed and Breakfast Establishment:
Why this section allows only three bedrooms and whether any significant changes are needed in this section will be considered in the future.Section 13.15 – Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing:
Mr. Fitzherbert had asked Mr. Charles to recommend revisions for this section and Mr. Charles did so in his 3/25/13 letter, which Mr. Solley read aloud. The commissioners had many questions and did not understand how the recommended revisions would make this type of development easier or more affordable. This matter will be considered in the future.The next subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 11, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Upper Level Meeting Room.
Mr. Solley adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Proposed Revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations
6/4/13 Draft
To be deleted: [underlined and in brackets]
To be added: BOLD CAPS
After additional discussion, the revisions to 12.7 agreed upon at the last meeting were further revised to:
12.7.3 [no machinery parts, except for farm equipment on a farm, scrap metal, rubbish, or similar unsightly material shall be stored in a residential district.] NO CONSTRUCTION, EXCAVATION, PAVING OR EARTH PROCESSING EQUIPMENT, OR LOGGING, SAWING OR MILLING EQUIPMENT, STORAGE CONTAINERS, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, COMMERCIAL TANKERS, OR HAULERS SHALL BE STORED OUTSIDE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT UNLESS AN ACTIVE AND AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS IN EFFECT OR UNLESS THE EQUIPMENT STORAGE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY A SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED BY THE ZONING COMMISSION. EXCEPT FOR EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES USED FOR LEGITIMATE FARMING OPERATIONS, NO COLLECTIONS OF UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLES OR OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT, TRACTORS, ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES, BOATS, TRAILERS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, AIRCRAFT, OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ACCUMULATED AND STORED IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR ANY REASON UNLESS SHELTERED IN AN ENCLOSED, ROOFED BUILDING.
12.7.5 Garage, yard, TAG, and cellar sales not to exceed [two] THREE consecutive days shall be permitted twice on any one calendar year on any piece of property. A permit must be procured for each sale from the [Zoning Enforcement Officer] LAND USE OFFICE STAFF for a fee established by the Commission.
Regarding Shop and Storage Use for Contractors and Building Tradesmen:
13.16.1 IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, any such use shall be conducted by the resident owner of the premises, and shall be subordinate to the main use of the premises for residential purposes, and shall be a use customarily incidental to the work of such resident owner tradesman performed off the premises.13.18 Commercial Kennel OR SMALL ANIMAL RESCUE OPERATION.
(The remainder of this section is unchanged.)
Posted: May 29, 2013 May 20, 2013
Present: Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella
Alternates Present: Dr. Craparo
Absent: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Dutton, Alt, Mr. Wyant, Alt.,
Staff Present: Ms. Hill, Mr. Ajello, Ms. White
Others Present: Mr. Haddad, Atty. Kelly, Mr. Averill, Ms. Pond, Mr. Charles, Mr. Johnson, ResidentsMr. Reich, Vice-Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Solley, Dr. Craparo, Alt. (for Fitzherbert)PUBLIC HEARING
Haddad/155 West Shore Road/Revision of Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Extend Dock:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on May 8 & May 15, 2013 as well as the list of documents on file for this application. Atty. Kelly and Mr. Haddad, property owner were present to speak on behalf of this application. Atty. Kelly reminded the Commission that the Haddads had applied for a Special Permit to extend their dock 90 feet out into the lake, which was denied, and today they are here to request that the Zoning Commission approve the additional 30 feet of dock that was added to the existing dock in the summer of 2012. Mr. Haddad submitted depth measurements of the lake water along the 70 feet of dock (50 feet-existing, addt’l 30 feet- requested). He stated that the measurements were taken on May 12, 2013 and is about average for this time of year; however, the water depth varies throughout the year, and varies by each year.Mr. Ajello noted that 20 feet of the dock is on land.
Atty. Kelly stated that the Special Permit is addressing the side yard setback for the dock and that the square footage of the proposed dock is less than the maximum that the zoning regulations permit. Mr. Haddad stated that the proposed dock would be 280 square feet. Ms. Hill confirmed that the proposed dock is under the maximum square footage allowed per the zoning regulations.
Mr. Reich noted that an adjoining property owner, Mrs. Pond, submitted a letter opposing the extension of the dock. Atty. Kelly stated that Mr. Haddad and Mrs. Pond communicated about the proposed dock extension and, as he understood, Mrs. Pond was now okay with the proposed plan.
Mr. Werkhoven asked if the Oberndorf dock was currently in the water. Mr. Ajello stated that he submitted a schematic of the Oberndorf dock that is 60 feet in length and currently in the water. He noted that a photograph of the shoreline of the Oberndorf property was also submitted and depicts the reconstruction of the shoreline to its original location.
The Commissioners looked at the photograph and the schematic of the Oberndorf dock/shoreline. There was a brief discussion regarding the shoreline.
Atty. Kelly submitted a copy of a tax map of 155 West Shore Road and the surrounding properties. He noted that the map shows amount of shoreline each property owner has.
There was a discussion regarding the location and size of the 155 West Shore Road shoreline compared to the neighboring properties.
Mrs. Pond asked how much further the propose dock would extend past the Oberndorf’s dock.
Mr. Ajello responded that it would probably little longer due to the differences in the shoreline.
Mr. Haddad stated that the proposed dock would be about even with the Oberndorf’s dock.
Mr. Pond and the Commissioners looked at the photographs of the shoreline and the proposed dock.
Mr. Averill stated that he feels the Commission should take caution in reaching a decision as this could set a precedent on the lake and could lead to a lot of docks extending out into the water.
Mr. Haddad stated that the maximum allowed square footage for a dock is 360 sq. ft. and they are requesting 240 sq. ft.
Ms. Hill informed the Commission that Town Counsel said that they are required to consider the impact of natural resources on the shoreline or lake.
It was noted that the material of the proposed deck would be non-treated cedar. The Commissioners felt that this would not impact the natural resources.
There was a discussion regarding the water level of the lake.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Haddad, 155 West Shore Road for Revision of Special Permit: Section 6.6.12: Extend Dock,
by Mr. Solley, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, passed by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Seated: Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Solley, Dr. Craparo, Alt. (for Fitzherbert)Consideration of the Minutes
The Commission considered the April 22, 2013 regular Meeting Minutes of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2013 as submitted,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote.The Commission considered the April 23, May 7 & May 14, 2013 Special Meeting Minutes of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Special Meeting Minutes of April 23, May 7 & May 14, 2013 as submitted,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Dr. Craparo, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Haddad/155 West Shore Road/Section 6.6.12/Revision of Special Permit – Extend Dock:
Mr. Reich stated that Mrs. Pond, neighbor to the Haddads, was able to have her questions answered and seems to be satisfied with the proposed plans for the dock. Mr. Ajello stated that he feels that this is a unique situation due to the fact that the dock starts on the beach. He noted that the surface area does not exceed the maximum square footage allowed by the regulations. Dr. Craparo thought the reason for the request to extend the dock was to have the ability to dock the property owner’s boat. Mr. Solley stated that they Commission cannot determine what would happen with the water level and it is not their concern. He said that he does not feel that this proposed dock is environmentally damaging and it clears up the existing non-conformity.There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to approve the Revision for Special Permit: Section 6.6.12to Extend Dock per “Sketch/Site Plan – Haddad – 155 West Shore Road” and supporting File Documents,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Ingrassia/5 Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Hill stated this application is incomplete and still needs a site plan and Health Department approval. She noted that the owner would not be residing on this property, which is a requirement under Section 13.11.3 in the Zoning Regulations and therefore a detached accessory apartment is not a permitted use.Atty. Kelly stated that the property owner lives on adjoining property.
Mr. Solley asked if the property in question has an existing single-family dwelling.
Atty. Kelly confirmed that there is an existing single-family dwelling He submitted this application with the idea that a public hearing would be scheduled for the Regular Zoning Commission meeting of June 24, 2013. He stated that the ZBA that meeting is scheduled for June 20, 2013 and they would have the decision in time for the next scheduled Zoning Commission meeting. He submitted a site plan titled Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, Detached Garage Apartment for 5 Whittlesey Road, by Brian Neff, Licensed Engineer with a revision date of 5-8-13. Atty. Kelly stated that the septic plan was submitted to the Health Department and they are waiting for approval.
Atty. Kelly described the property as containing an existing 6 bay garage and an existing dwelling.
The Commissioners and Atty. Kelly looked at a Google map aerial view of the property and its surrounding properties. Atty. Kelly noted that the property at 5 Whittlesey Road has a long accessway and the property around it is Spring Hill Farm and explained that this same property owner, Ingrassia, owns the majority of the surrounding properties. He stated that the property owners would like to create a summer intern program related to the vineyards that are on the property(s) and that all of these properties are either owned by the Ingrassias or one of their LLCs.
Atty. Kelly submitted a floor plan of the proposed detached accessory apartment and a survey of the property titled Property Survey prepared for 5 Whittlesey Road, LLC dated September 3, 2012 by Charles Farnsworth, LLS. (on file in the Land Use Office).
Atty. Kelly discussed the issue of owner occupancy and stated that the property owners would be willing to accept a condition that the apartment could not be rented because they are intending to use it for an intern and occasional guests. He submitted a letter addressed to the Zoning Commission from Mr. Johnson, Manager, dated May 20, 2013 (on file in the Land Use Office)
Ms. Hill noted that the letter states that the owner “will occupy the property” when the zoning regulations say that the property owner “shall reside on the property.”
There was a brief discussion on the language of the zoning regulations. Ms. Hill stated that the regulations are currently being reviewed but with the current language the Zoning Commission cannot vary its own regulations.
Atty. Kelly responded that he is asking the Zoning Commission to consider a broader definition of the
Mr. Solley asked if part of the ZBA could vary part of a Special Permit.
There was a brief discussion regarding the uniqueness of this situation.
Atty. Kelly stated that the intent is to create privacy for the occupant while they are under supervision of the property and the idea was to isolate the summer intern in a house on a separate parcel. He feels that the Zoning Commission has the right to “treat adjoining parcels as one for purposes of zoning.” And in this case, would find that the property owner does reside on the property.
Mr. Johnson stated that one of the issues is that most people in this program are women and feels that this would most likely be the case going forward. He said that he would like the intern to have her privacy but not isolated.
The Commission looked at the Google map of the property and briefly discussed variances.
There was a brief discussion regarding large properties and development rights.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing for June 24, 2013 at 7:30 pm, in the Upper Level Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall for Ingrassia/5 Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.Wahlers/43 Wilbur Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.3/Commercial Horseback Riding Establishment:
Ms. Hill stated that the property owners would like to build an indoor arena. The Commission discussed the expansion of use.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing for June 24, 2013 after the Scheduled Public Hearing for Ingrassia, in the Upper Level Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall for Wahlers/43 Wilbur Road/Special Permit: Section 4.4.3/Commercial Horseback Riding Establishment,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Proposed Revisions to Zoning Regulations/ Discussion Draft Revisions Sections 1-12:
Mr. Solley reported that the Revisions Subcommittee revisited the subjects of farm stands and noise producing equipment at their last meeting. Ms. Hill stated that she sent the proposed revisions that have been done to this date to Atty. Olson for review.The Zoning Revisions Subcommittee scheduled their next meeting for June 4, 2013 at 9:30 am.
Enforcement
Enforcement Report:
The Commissioners considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated May 20, 2013. Mr. Ajello, ZEO stated that there were no pressing issues at the moment.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Charles recommended that the Zoning Commission consider adopting regulations for an 8-32 Affordable Housing Application so three would be guidelines for developers to follow. He stated that he has also suggested that the Town consider adopting a review process similar to the Town of New Milford that would allow an applicant of a major or potentially controversial application to have a comprehensive review. He asked if the Zoning Commission had a sense of when something like this could be considered.Mr. Solley responded that they are going to continue reviewing the entire book of zoning regulations and he feels that this could be considered during this process.
Mr. Charles asked what the position was of the Zoning Commission with discussing Ms. Purnell’s letter dated 1/14/13 (on file in the Land Use Office) regarding the settlement agreement with the Wykeham Project. He feels that this is an opportunity for an after action analysis. He stated that he feels that the Commission owes the community a review of this controversial project.
There was a brief discussion regarding the end of litigation. Ms. Hill stated that she received a copy of the withdraw notice from Town Counsel.
Mr. Solley feels that the Commission needs to make a decision whether it is appropriate to “rehash” an already approved application.
The Commission briefly discussed how they should proceed.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:55 pm.
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Reich adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 18, 2013 May 14, 2013
Special Zoning Commission committee meeting for regulations revision
Present: Ray Reich, Nick Solley, Mike Ajello
Start: 9:35 am
Prolonged discussion of 12.7 revisions
Final Section 12.7 draft wording as follows:
“No construction, excavation, paving or earth processing equipment; or logging, sawing or milling equipment, storage containers, construction materials, commercial tankers or haulers shall be stored outside in a residential district; unless an active and authorized construction permit is in effect, or; unless the equipment storage is specifically authorized by a Special Permit approved by the Zoning Commission.”
Also:
“No personal collections of unregistered motor vehicles, or of heavy equipment, tractors, all terrain vehicles, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, aircraft, or similar equipment shall be accumulated and stored in any residential district, for any reason; unless sheltered in an enclosed, roofed building.* Janet & Mike will fit above wording into Sect. 12.7 and renumber if necessary.
* Add “rubble” and/or similar words to Section 12.7.4
* Consider definitions if necessary13.13 A. Has merit but needs development & parameters
B. No change
13.13.3 Needs more thought by commissioners – discussion to be continued
13.14 Is “boarding house “ synonymous with “room & board”
We should consolidate to one term – “boarding house”Table remainder of 13.14 for discussion w/Janet and/or Zoning Commission
Adjournment: 11:35 am
(no future meeting scheduled at this time)Submitted By:
Michael Ajello, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Posted: May 11, 2013 May 7, 2013
Special Meeting
9:30 a.m. Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Craparo, Mr. Solley
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. HillMr. Solley called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m. The purpose of the meeting was for the revision of the Regulations subcommittee to discuss and decide upon language for minor revisions to the Zoning Regulations.
Mrs. Hill passed out packets containing copies of the work accomplished to date:
1) Proposed Revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations, Sections 1-12 – 5/2/13 Draft (dated 5/6/13 in the upper corner)
2) Lists of Sections the Subcommittee Decided to Leave As Is or Consider Changes in the Future, Sections 1-12, also dated 5/6/13, 3) the 5/3/2013 referral letter to Atty. Olson and the complete list through 5/6/13, 21 pages, of issues and concerns to be discussed regarding possible revisions to the Zoning Regulations. She asked the commissioners to review these documents for any errors or omissions.
Mr. Solley stated, however, that Mrs. Hill had reviewed the proposed revisions at the last Zoning Commission meeting and so he was fairly certain they were accurate.A list of the revisions agreed upon and their proposed language is attached.
In addition, sections of the Regulations, which were discussed, but for which it was determined that
a) further consideration was warranted,
b) legal advice was needed, or
c) the section should remain as is were:13.8: The question of whether excavation resulting in more than 100 cubic yards from a bonafide construction, landscaping, or agricultural project should be required to meet the same standards as a commercial excavation operation approved by Special Permit was discussed at length. It was noted that extremely large homes and estates were being issued zoning permits and were being constructed in the area, generating large amounts of excavated material. Mr. Solley thought that Special Permit projects such as the construction of Rumsey’s hockey rink should have to meet the Section 13.8 standards. However, the commissioners did not want to impose any undue restrictions on homeowners conducting permitted projects generating less than 100 cubic yards of excavated material. Mrs. Hill noted that Atty. Olson had advised her that the definition of Excavation should be improved. In addition, to be considered in the future:
1) whether to drop “calendar” in calendar year in both Section 13.8 and 21.1.25,
2) whether to divide excavation into separate categories such as homeowners vs. commercial, under 100 cubic yards, over 100 cubic yards, bonafide construction projects, and any other categories applicable,
3) whether there should be specified limitations for the on site crushing of materials or whether conditions of approval would be sufficient to handle this matter,
4) whether a separate section to govern construction noise is needed, and
5) whether it is possible/legal to require that large construction projects not requiring Special Permits must comply with the standards of Section 13.8.
The issue of stockpiling by contractors was noted, but this will be considered in the future under Section 13.16; Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen.13.8.c: The last part of this section had been omitted in the most recent versions of the Zoning Regulations. It should read as follows: “No excavation shall take place…c. within 50 feet of a property line or 150 feet of any building unless the owner of such adjoining property or building shall have consented in writing in which case the provisions of Section 13.8.4 shall apply.” No change was contemplated at this time.
13.9: It had been decided in a previous meeting that a definition and standards for inns would be discussed at a later date.
13.10: After a general discussion, it was the consensus that 1950 might be a more appropriate cut off date. The subcommittee will consult with the Assessor before making a final recommendation.
13.10.7: Regarding the residential conversion of an older home, it was the consensus that converted buildings should still have the appearance of a single family dwelling from the front view and that this requirement should be added. Several different versions such as view from the street, front façade, front yard appearance, existing architectural appearance, etc. were considered and this matter will be sent to the Commission’s attorney for a recommendation for the most suitable language.
13.10.5: The subcommittee considered whether the current parking requirement was adequate and decided it should be changed to require 2 parking spaces for the first unit and 1.5 spaces for each additional unit.
13.11.2 and 13.11.3: Pool houses and detached accessory apartments were discussed. The issue is that recently, property owners have wanted their pool houses to contain both a full bath and a kitchen or kitchenette. This qualifies them as accessory apartments and since only one detached accessory apartment is permitted per property, that means they can not then apply for a detached accessory apartment in addition to the pool house. This issue as well as whether there should be any special provisions for housing for farm workers on a farm will be considered in the future.
13.11.2.g, 13.11.3.g, and 12.5.2: The language of these sections was coordinated. See attached proposed revision.
13.11.2.d and 13.11.3.d: Both of these sections should include septic systems. Mrs. Hill will research previous Regulations to determine whether this was omitted in error or whether a revision is needed.
An additional question the subcommittee will ask its attorney is whether the Zoning Commission can waive Special Permit requirements.
The next subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Upper Level Meeting Room.
Mr. Solley adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: April 27, 2013 April 22, 2013
Present: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella
Alternates Present: Mr. Dutton
Absent: Dr. Craparo, Alt, Mr. Wyant, Alt.,
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Mike Ajello
Others Present:Mr. Fitzherbert, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Solley, Dr. Craparo, Alt. (for Fitzherbert)Consideration of the Minutes
The Commission considered the March 25, 2013 regular Meeting Minutes of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2013 as written,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, passed by 5-0 vote.The Commission considered the March 26, April 2, & April 9, 2013 Special Meeting Minutes of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Special Meeting Minutes of March 26, April 2 & April 9, 2013 as submitted,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Haddad/155 West Shore Road/Section 6.6.12/Modification of Special Permit – Extend Dock:
The Commission scheduled a public hearing to consider the application for Haddad to modify an existing Special Permit to extend the dock at 155 West Shore Road.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing for May 20, 2013 at 7:30 pm, in the Upper Level Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall for Haddad/155 West Shore Road/Modification of Special Permit: Section 6.6.12/Extend Dock,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Proposed Revisions to Zoning Regulations/ Discussion Draft Revisions Sections 1-12:
Mr. Solley and Mr. Fitzherbert reported the progress of the Zoning Regulation Revision Subcommittee, which has been meeting every week for two hours. Ms. Hill stated that most of the revisions were “housekeeping” revisions and anything that they came upon that they thought needed an attorney’s advice or was a much more complicated matter was put aside to review at a later date in more depth. The Commission reviewed the proposed revisions to Sections 1-12 in detail. It was the consensus of the Commission that Sections 21.1.28 – Farm Stand, 12.7.3 – No Machinery and 12.14.2 – Noise Generating Equipment be reviewed again by the Zoning Regulations Revision Subcommittee at its next meeting on Tuesday April 23 at 9:30 am. Ms. Hill stated that applicants are given a Residential Density Determination form to help them with the soil based zoning calculations and she suggested that it would be helpful to include this form in the Zoning Regulations either in Section 11 or an appendix. Mr. Solley stated that they would discuss where this form should be inserted in the Zoning Regulations at the next Revision Committee meeting. Ms. Hill stated that Town Counsel recommended adding ‘impact to neighboring properties’ as a standard to consider when making a determination regarding whether to approve a Special Permit to allow a dock to be located closer than 25 feet to the side yard setback. Town Counsel also recommended that Section 2.2.1 more clearly state that the Zoning Enforcement Officer is the agent of the Commission and the Zoning Commission retains the ultimate jurisdiction over zoning applications. Another recommendation from Town Counsel is that the Commission reserves the right to enforce Zoning Regulations in Section 2.3.3. The Zoning Regulations Revision Subcommittee will meet tomorrow April 23, 2013 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Upper Level Meeting Room at 9:30-11:00 am.Referral from CT DEEP re: Town of Washington/Intersection Shinar Mountain and Walker Brook Roads/Replace Culvert:
Ms. Hill informed the Commissioners that the DEEP is required to refer all of these types of changes to Planning, Zoning and Inland Wetlands Commissions. She stated that the plans would be in her office if any of the Commissioners would like to review them.
Enforcement Enforcement Report:
The Commissioners considered the Zoning Enforcement Report dated April 22, 2013.Mr. Ajello noted that he forgot to include the request from the Washington Supply store to display the Art Association’s mural (currently in front of the Art Association Building) on one of their barns facing Titus Road. He stated that he and Ms. Hill do not object and would like the Commission to weigh in on the matter. The Commission discussed the Special Permit that was granted to Washington Supply for the storage barns. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Washington Supply would need to come back to Zoning and request a revision to their Special Permit.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Charles discussed the future of generators with the Commission.Mr. Charles stated that his neighbors were granted permission to put temporary housing on their property for a year and it has now been 18 months that this temporary housing has been three feet away from Mr. Charles’ driveway. He noted that Section 12.8.3 in the zoning regulations require RVs to be parked on the rear half of a single family dwelling lot but not within 25 feet of a lot line and for not more than four weeks in a calendar year.
Mr. Ajello stated that the neighbor has told him that the temporary housing would be removed by the end of the month.
Mr. Charles feels that the regulations should require temporary housing units to be located on the rear half of a lot as well.
Mr. Charles discussed his ideas for revising the zoning regulations that address affordable housing. He feels that the Town of Washington should adopt a set of regulations that say if you are a developer and you would like to build an affordable housing project and you observe these standards the Town would be more inclined to approve the plan. He feels a developer would be much more inclined to come to the Town with a project that conforms to things the Town views as important.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he feels the Zoning Commission should take a hard look at affordable housing regulations. He noted that when the State of Connecticut approves an affordable housing project there is very little local input. He agrees that the regulations should include standards that would make it worthwhile for a developer to build in the Town of Washington. He noted that one of the main goals of the revised POCD is diversity in housing and regulations that support this goal should be considered.
Mr. Charles stated that he is opposed to the Housing Trusts plans for the Vincent property because he feels that it does not make financial sense. He is troubled that they have received approval from the Zoning Commission for their site plan and they have represented to others that the Zoning Commission is enthusiastically behind this project.
Mr. Charles addressed his letter that he submitted to the Zoning Commission for the March 25, 2013 regular meeting regarding the Wykeham Rise property.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Commission would not discuss Wykeham Rise because it is currently in court.
There was a brief discussion as to why the Zoning Commission would not discuss anything on this property at a Commission meeting.
Motion:
to add New Business to the agenda regarding appointing a Deputy ZEO,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Business
Appointment of Deputy ZEO:
The Commission appointed Ms. Hill as Deputy ZEO.Motion:
to designate Janet Hill as Deputy ZEO effective upon swearing in date,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 10:14 pm.
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Fitzherbert adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 30, 2013 March 26, 2013
Special Meeting
9:30 a.m. Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Dr. Craparo
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. HillMr. Solley called the revision of the Zoning Regulations subcommittee meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
The following sections were discussed and it was determined that either a) further consideration was warranted, b) legal advice was needed, or c) the section should remain as is.
11.2: Mrs. Hill circulated copies of the Residential Density Determination form and said she thought it could be used to help explain how soil based zoning works if this form were included either in this section or in an appendix. This will be discussed again in the future.
11.3.3: It was the consensus to keep this requirement as it is now written, although it was noted this size requirement for interior lots might be changed in the future if soil based zoning is ever adjusted.
A discussion regarding the rationale and history of soil based zoning in Washington followed.
11.4: Mr. Solley suggested that the problem that pre existing lots fall under the category of interior lots when they front on a road but don’t have the required frontage could be solved by revising the definition of Frontage Lot in Section 21.1.41. He asked staff to work on improving this definition.
11.4, 12.1.40, 21.1.41, and 21.1.47: Staff was asked to work on resolving the discrepancies between the definitions for Lot Frontage, Frontage Lot, and Lot Width.
Mr. Ajello left the meeting at this point.
11.5.1.b: This issue had been resolved at the 2/13/13 meeting. It was agreed that “.03 acres” would be change to “12.5% of the total land area.”
11.5.2: Maximum coverage permitted in the business districts will be considered in the future. Mrs. Hill noted that the coverage limitations were implemented in part to protect water quality, but said given the small lot sizes throughout the business districts, that perhaps if limited impact development standards were adopted, the maximum coverage permitted could be increased.
11.6.1.a: It was noted that currently there are provisions to give some of the business districts flexibility in dealing with maximum lot coverage and minimum setback requirements by Special Permit. Mr. Solley recommended that the Regs be revised in the future to give all business districts the same flexibility.
11.6.1.b: In the future the Commission will look into whether the larger setback requirements for interior lots are too restrictive.
11.6.4: While no substantive changes to the regulations governing fences were proposed, staff was asked to consider whether there are any improvements that could be made for clarity.
11.7.2: This section re: maximum height will be reviewed in the future.
11.7.3.2: It had previously been decided to delete this section.
11.7.4: As agreed at a previous meeting, Mr. Ajello will get the state definition of agriculture and it will be discussed in the future. Mrs. Hill will check into the booklet, “Planning for Agriculture,” will make copies for the subcommittee, and will distribute any helpful information.
12.1.1: The provision that no structure may be located within 50 feet of a flood plain boundary will be considered in the future as this impacts potential development in the New Preston, Depot, and Marbledale business districts.
12.5.1: Again, the term, “agriculture,” will be reviewed and this section as well as others previously cited will be discussed in the future.
12.5.2: Mr. Ajello’s concerns about this section will be discussed when he is present.
12.5.3: This section will remain as written.
12.5.4: There was a brief discussion regarding windmills and wind turbines. It was the consensus that either this section would be updated or a new section on wind turbines added and that when this work is begun it would be helpful to consult with the Conservation Commission.
12.6.1.A.6 and 12.6.1.B.6: These two sections stating that no finished goods shall be acquired for resale in connection with a home office or traditional home enterprise shall remain as written.
The proposed language for all revisions agreed upon at this meeting is attached.
The next subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Upper Level Meeting Room.
Mr. Solley adjourned the meeting at 11:48 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Proposed Revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations
3/26/13 DraftTo be deleted: [underlined in brackets]
To be added: BOLD CAPS
[11.6.3 In the case of lots fronting on roads with a right of way width less than 50 feet wide, the minimum front yard distance shall be increased by one half the difference between 50 feet and the actual right of way width.] (and renumber following section)
11.6.4. A. Open fences that are no more than 8 feet tall are exempt from the requirements of Sections 11.6.1 AND 11.6.2. [and 11.6.3.]
B. Semi-open fences and closed fences, including picket fences and stone walls, are exempt from the requirements of 11.6.1 AND 11.6.2. [and 11.6.3] if
1. they are no more than 4 feet tall, or
2. they do not face a front lot line or a street.
C. EXCEPT IN THE LAKE WARAMAUG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, HEDGES ARE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 11.6.1 AND 11.6.2.12.1.1 No structure EXCEPT A FENCE shall be located within 50 feet of any water body, watercourse, or wetland or within 50 feet of a flood plain boundary line….
12.6.1.A.5 Business is conducted only by telephone, mail, courier, fax, modem, EMAIL, and the like.
12.6.1.B.5 Business is conducted only by telephone, mail, courier, fax, modem, EMAIL, and the like.
12.7.2 No wrecked or junked vehicle nor more than one unlicensed vehicle, except for farm equipment on a farm, shall be stored or parked OUTSIDE on any lot OR PARCEL in a residential zone.
12.7.5 Garage, yard, TAG, and cellar sales not to exceed two consecutive days shall be permitted twice in any one calendar year on any one piece of property. A permit must be procured for each sale from the [Zoning Enforcement Officer] LAND USE OFFICE STAFF for a fee established by the Commission.
Posted: March 30, 2013 March 25, 2013
Present: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella
Alternates Present: Dr. Craparo
Absent: Mr. Dutton, Alt, Mr. Wyant, Alt.,
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill, Mike Ajello
Others Present: Atty. Fisher, Ms. Laverge, Mr. Laverge, Mr. & Mrs. Payne, Mr. Johnson, ResidentsMr. Reich, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. SolleyLaverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14/Expand Existing Bed and Breakfast Establishment to Three Rooms:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on March 13 & 20, 2013 and the list of documents in the file for this application.Atty. Fisher gave a brief background of the existing Bed and Breakfast establishment. He stated that a Special Permit was granted to Ms. Laverge for the Hidden Valley B & B four years ago and the establishment has been very successful so she would like to expand to three guest rooms. He note that there is ample space for parking and that Ms. Laverge runs the B& B from April to November and the other months the house is rented to a single family.
Atty. Fisher addressed the complaints from the two neighbors that share a driveway with Ms. Laverge. It was noted that Ms. Dobkin and Mr. and Mrs. Mathews submitted letters objecting to the expansion of the B & B establishment. He submitted two letters of support from the Johnsons (neighbor) and Ms. Keilty, owner of the Hickory Stick Bookshop and President of the Washington Business Association.
The Zoning Commission discussed it’s jurisdiction over the shared driveway. Mr. Ajello stated that Zoning has control over the number of lots that could be developed from the driveway. Atty. Fisher stated that Ms. Laverge and the Mathews have deeded rights to share a 50-foot wide access way that runs from Bee Brook Road to the Mathew’s property. He stated that the Mathews only use the last 300 feet and the Dobkins, Ms. Laverge and the Mathews share the first ± 1300 feet. It was noted that the property line runs midway through the 50-foot wide driveway and there are no restrictions on the deed.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Commissioners had visited the site and asked if they had any questions.
Mr. Reich asked about the intensity of use of the driveway. Ms. Laverge responded that there would be very little increase in traffic on the driveway because she rents the house out to one family from December to March and the Bed and Breakfast is active from April thru November and mostly on weekends or long weekends.
Mr. Werkhoven asked if the directional signs were reflective. Ms. Laverge responded that they are partially reflective and that she would make sure that they are visible at night.
The Commissioners reviewed the letters from Ms. Dobkin dated October 21, 2012 in favor of Hidden Valley Bed and Breakfast and another letter dated March 22, 2013 opposing the expansion of the Bed and Breakfast. They reviewed a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Mathews dated January 31, 2013 opposing the Bed and Breakfast (all three letters on file in the Land Use Office).
The Commission discussed the concerns of the neighbors.
Mr. and Mrs. Payne spoke in favor of the expansion of the Hidden Valley Bed and Breakfast and feel that this is a successful, sustainable business in the Town of Washington.
Mr. Ajello stated that the Zoning Regulations allow the maximum of 3 guest rooms.
Mr. Fitzherbert feels that this is a large, 42-acre property that is tucked away and he does not find a problem with the establishment increasing to 3 guest rooms. He agrees that clearer, reflective signage on Ms. Laverge’s side of the driveway would be necessary.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Zoning Regulations on signs.
Mr. Solley asked if this expansion would be added to the existing Special Permit or would a new permit be granted.
The Commission discussed the 3-year length of the Special Permit.
Ms. Laverge stated that most of her customers are parents visiting their children at the local boarding schools and they stay for a long weekend most of the time but there is very little business during the week.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Laverge, 226 Bee Brook Road for Request to Revise Special Permit: Section: 13.14: To expand existing Bed and Breakfast establishment to three rooms,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
8:10 pm
REGULAR MEETINGSeated: Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Solley, Dr. Craparo, Alt. (for Fitzherbert)
Consideration of the Minutes
The Commission considered the February 25, 2013 regular Meeting Minutes of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.Addition:
Under Zoning Enforcement at the end of the first paragraph, add: The Commission discussed possible action it could take and decided that the notice on the Land Records was sufficient.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2013 as amended,
by Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, passed by 5-0 vote.The Commission considered the March 5, March 13 & March 20, 2013 Minutes of the Special Meetings of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Special Meeting Minutes of March 5, March 13 & March 20, 2013 as submitted,
by Mr. Solley, seconded by Mr. Abella, unanimously approved.The Commission considered the March 13, 2013 Minutes of the Site Visit of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission at 226 Bee Brook Road.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Special Meeting Site Visit Minutes of March 13, 2013 as submitted,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, unanimously approved.
Pending Application(s)
Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Dr. Craparo, Alt. (for Solley)
Mr. Solley abstained from voting on this Special Permit for personal reasons. Dr. Craparo was seated.Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 13.14/Expand Existing Bed and Breakfast Establishment to Three Rooms:
Mr. Ajello feels that the directional signs should take care of the neighbors concerns about lost drivers and he does not feel that such a low intensity use of the driveway should bring more concern to the neighbors more than any other homeowner. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the neighbors were concerned about large events being held at the property and he feels that it has been made very clear to Ms. Laverge that these events are not permitted and should not occur again. He said the allowable use is very clear that the house could be rented out as a vacation home or run as a bed and breakfast and any other use would jeopardize the allowable use granted by Special Permit.Mr. Reich asked what would happen if there were complaints during the three year term of the Special Permit. The Commissioners agreed that this would be an enforcement issue and the Special Permit could always be revoked.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he does not see why the Hidden Valley Bed and Breakfast should not be allowed to expand to three guest rooms.
Ms. Hill stated that the Zoning Regulations do not say that a B & B needs a separate driveway.
Mr. Werkhoven feels that night visible directional signs are necessary and must be maintained.
The Commission discussed Section 13.14.8 under Room and Board or Bed and Breakfast Establishment: No exterior signs regarding this activity are permitted. The Commissioners agreed that reasonable, minimal directional signs on property owner’s side of the driveway.
Ms. Hill asked if Ms. Laverge needs to worry that her B & B would be shut down if an occasional driver pulls in to the wrong driveway because they are lost. The Commissioners agreed that this would not be a reason to jeopardize the establishment because it is an every day occurrence in any town.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that they did not see any reason to not grant the expansion of the Hidden Valley B & B from one guest room to three guest rooms.
Dr. Craparo implored that there be no further aggravated circumstances with the property owners that share this driveway.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to approve the Special Permit Application: Section 13.14 submitted by Laverge to expand existing Bed and Breakfast establishment to three rooms at 226 Bee Brook Road, with the condition that appropriate night visible signs are located at possible turn offs,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Mr. Solley was reseated.Revisions to Zoning Regulations:
Mr. Solley reported the progress of the Zoning Regulation Revision Committee to the Zoning Commission.Telecommunications Facility-10 Blackville Road:
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations, Section 13.19 Telecommunication Antennae, Facilities and Antenna Towers Including Personal Wireless Service Facilities and Towers, was written before the State took over. He said that if there were an application submitted by the Town the Zoning Commission would have to review it against the Town Zoning Regulations and most likely deny it. He continued explaining that the application would still go to the Connecticut Siting Council, which considers the towns zoning regulations, but they can override the Towns decision. Mr. Fitzherbert noted that it is not the Zoning Commissions job to demand somebody submit an application to the Zoning Commission. He has been informed that the company that has the lease with the Town has offered to come to any meetings that the Town asks them to come to. He does not see an application coming to the Zoning Commission for the proposed cell tower at 10 Blackville Road.Ms. Hill stated that a local attorney informed her that a town resident that wanted to appeal the approval of the cell tower at 10 Blackville Road had approached him. This attorney did not take the case but was concerned that even though the CSC has jurisdiction, the Town gave the Zoning Commission jurisdiction in the Town of Washington Zoning Regulations and therefore residents of the Town have the right to have their attorneys do a writ of mandamus and force the Zoning Commission to abide by their Zoning Regulations.
The Commission discussed the possibility requiring a cell tower application, reviewing it and then denying it rather as well as requiring an application for the cell tower.
Privilege of the Floor
Ms. Hill distributed a letter address to Mr. Fitzherbert from Christopher Charles LLC, dated March 25, 2013 regarding possible Zoning Regulations for an 8-30g Affordable Housing application and an amendment to Section 13.15 in the Zoning Regulations (on file in the Land Use Office).
Zoning Enforcement
Enforcement Report:
Mr. Ajello, ZEO distributed the Zoning Enforcement Report dated March 25, 2013 (on file in the Land Use Office).The Commission briefly discussed accessory buildings. Mr. Ajello stated that the Commissioners might want to consider how the Zoning Regulations address structures such as playhouses and tree houses.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 8:58 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: March 23, 2013 March 20, 2013
Special Meeting
9:30 a.m., Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Dr. Craparo
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. HillMr. Solley called the revision of the Zoning Regulations subcommittee meeting to order at 9:33 a.m.
The following sections were discussed and it was determined that either a) further consideration was warranted, b) legal advice was needed, or 3) the section should remain as is.
Section 21: A definition for “storage box” will be drafted in the future.
21.1.30: The definition of “float” will remain as proposed at the last meeting.
7.1, 8.1, 9.1, and 10.1: References to protecting the rivers flowing through the New Preston and Washington Depot business districts and their river viewsheds will be added to Sections 7.1 and 8.1 and the Commission’s attorney will be consulted regarding the most appropriate way to add references to the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and how to ensure that development within each village center will be in keeping with the Plan and the character of each.
7.4, 8.4, 9.4, 10.4: The Commission will consider whether the construction of all new commercial buildings in all of the business districts should be permitted by Special Permit.
11.2: Mrs. Hill suggested that a copy of the Residential Density Determination Form be included in the Regulations to help explain the density regulations. She will bring copies of the form to the next subcommittee meeting and this section will be discussed at that time.
11.3.2: Soil based zoning was discussed and it was the consensus that the current lot size requirements are one factor that contributes to the high cost of housing in Washington. Mr. Fitzherbert noted that if the 2013 Plan of Conservation and Development recommends more housing, the Zoning Commission will have to look into how it can make that happen.
The proposed language for all revisions agreed upon at this meeting is attached.
Mr. Fitzherbert said he had asked Atty. Zizka and Atty. Olson to review the Regulations and to make recommendations regarding revisions they think are needed and to advise the Commission about how to improve public hearing procedures.
The next subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
Mr. Solley adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: March 18, 2013 March 13, 2013
Special Meeting
4:30 p.m. 226 Bee Brook RoadMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Solley
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Dr. Craparo
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Dutton, Mr. Wyant
ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Laverge, Atty. FisherLaverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Revision of Special Permit:
Section 13.14/Expand Bed and Breakfast Establishment to Three RoomsThe site inspection was called to order at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners viewed the boundary lines, common driveway, and signage. Mrs. Laverge showed the one bedroom now used for the bed and breakfast and the two additional proposed bedrooms. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Special Meeting
9:30 a.m. Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. HillMr. Reich called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.
The purpose of the special meeting was for the subcommittee to discuss and decide upon possible minor revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations.The following sections of the Regulations were discussed and it was determined that either
a) further consideration was warranted,
b) legal advice was needed, or
c) the section should remain as it is.6.5: Mrs. Hill thought clarification was needed re: whether this section applies to the entire lot when activities are proposed within 50 to 75 feet of the lake or just to that specific area. The majority thought it applied to the entire lot. Mr. Ajello noted that stairs, fences, hedges, and walls don’t have setback requirements for the most part, but there was nothing in the Regs stating these were OK within 50 to 75 feet of the lake. It was suggested that “between 50 and 75 feet” should be changed to “within 75 feet of the shoreline.”
This section will be discussed in the future.6.5.1.a.2: Mr. Ajello will check on whether the DEP has a revised plant list that should be referenced in this section.
6.5.3: A new section was recommended to address stairs and modifications to existing structures within 75 feet of the lake. Possibly ramps, platforms, and cantilevered decks will also be addressed in this section.
6.6: Mr. Ajello noted the Regulations don’t address docks or catwalks over ground instead of over water and therefore, they are not permitted. He thought this should be addressed. He said he also saw no reason why rowing shell docks could not be contiguous to docks.
6.6.8: Stairs to beaches or other destinations, stairs across the road from the lake, ramps, platforms, cantilevered decks, etc. will be discussed in the future.
6.6.9: This section will be left as written.
11.5, 11.6, 11.7: Requiring stricter coverage, setback, and/or height requirements for the Lake Waramaug Residential District will be considered in the future.
The list of revisions agreed upon and their proposed language is attached.
The next subcommittee meeting was set for Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the upper level meeting room.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: March 8, 2013 February 25, 2013
Present: Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella
Alternates Present: Mr. Dutton, Dr. Craparo
Absent: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Wyant, Alt.,
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill, Mike Ajello
Others Present: Atty. Kelly, Mr. Neff, P.E.Mr. Reich, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Solley, Dr. Craparo, Alt. (for Fitzherbert)Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Request to Revise Special Permit: Section: 6.5: Modifications to Approved Site Plan:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on February 13 & 21, 2013 and the list of documents in the file for this application.The Commission looked at the map titled “Proposed Site Plan, The Lancaster Residence Addition,” prepared for the Lancasters by Brian Neff, P.E. dated 7-31-12 with a revision date of 1-17-13.
Mr. Neff stated that he highlighted the changes on the Site Plan and incorporated the conditions from the motion of approval made at the December 2012 regular meeting of the Zoning Commission.
Atty. Kelly noted that at the December meeting there was a discussion regarding the lot coverage on the Lancaster property as it pertains to the approach to garage/storage entrance which resulted in a condition of approval that the “new addition formerly the garage cannot have a door wider than five feet.” Mr. Neff and the architect revised the Site Plan, which addresses the outlet of the drain in the backyard, the screens on the gutters and meeting lot coverage with an approach to the garage.
The Commissioners looked at the revised Site Plan.
Mr. Neff stated that the walkway would remain as random stones and grass up to the front door and the approach to the garage would remain a grassed over area.
There was a brief discussion regarding traveled surfaces as part of the lot coverage calculation.
Atty. Kelly stated that with the revised Site Plan indicates the decreases in the other structures and the lot coverage of 14.9% includes the traveled surface to the garage. He submitted a suggested draft for a motion of approval.
There was a brief discussion regarding the interpretation of Section 11.5 – Maximum Lot Coverage of the Zoning Regulations.
There was a discussion regarding the use of the addition.
The Commission discussed the proposed motion of approval and filing of the revised Site Plan.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Lancaster, 244 West Shore Road for Request to Revise Special Permit: Section: 6.5: Modifications to Approved Site Plan,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote.
8:05 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Seated: Mr. Reich, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella, Mr. Solley, Dr. Craparo, Alt. (for Fitzherbert)Consideration of the Minutes
The Commission considered the February 11, 2013 regular Meeting Minutes of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of February 11, 2013 as submitted,
by Dr. Craparo, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.The Commission considered the February 13, 2013 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Special Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2013 as submitted,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Solley, unanimously approved.
Pending Application(s)
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Request to Revise Special Permit: Section: 6.5: Modifications to Approved Site Plan:
The Commissioners considered the application for Lancaster. Mr. Werkhoven stated that he feels that this is an efficient way to handle the issue of the access way to garage/storage structure and meet lot coverage requirements.Motion:
to approve this Special Permit Application and modify the Special Permit originally approved on December 17, 2012 and recorded at Vol. 224, Page 947 as follows:
That the “Proposed Site Plan, The Lancaster Residence Addition,” dated 7-31-12 Revision 3 dated 1-17-13 and “Site Supplementary Plan”, dated 10-31-12 Revision 1 dated 1-17-13 by Brian Neff is hereby approved and substituted for the prior plans of the same name, but revision date 9-12-12
And further, in light of the applicant having met the lot coverage requirements of Section 11.5 in other ways as set forth in these most recent revised plans, the earlier consideration of approval requiring “the new addition formerly the garage cannot have a door wider than 5 feet” is hereby waived,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Dr. Craparo, passed by 5-0 vote.Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Revision of Special Permit: Section 13.14/Expand Existing Bed & Breakfast Establishment to Three Rooms:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled for the regular Zoning Meeting on March 25, 2013, 7:30 pm, at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Upper Level Meeting Room.Ms. Hill stated that she would be looking into sizes of other Bed & Breakfast establishments in the area.
The Town of Washington Zoning Commission rescheduled a site visit for Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 4:30 pm at 226 Bee Brook Road.
Other Business
Review of Letter to EIS Realty, LLC Re: Driveway on State Right of Way:
The Commissioners reviewed a draft letter by Mr. Solley to EIS Realty. The Zoning Commission unanimously approved the letter.Revisions to Zoning Regulations:
Mr. Solley stated that the subcommittee is making progress on the minor adjustments that they would be presenting to the Zoning Commission.
The next meeting of the Zoning Regulations Revisions Subcommittee is scheduled for March 6, 2013 at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Upper Level Meeting Room.
Zoning Enforcement
Smith/35 East Shore Road:
Ms Hill stated that she receive a response from Town Counsel (dated February 21, 2013 – on file in the Land Use Office) responding to the concerns of an abutter to 35 East Shore Road regarding possible loopholes with the notice that was put on the Land Records for this property.
The Commission discussed cost to the Town if it were to seek an injunction and the purview of the Zoning Commission.Enforcement Report:
Mr. Ajello, ZEO distributed the Zoning Enforcement Report dated February 25, 2013 (on file in the Land Use Office). There was a brief discussion regarding the town ordinance that allows for the Citation Officer, Mr. Ajello, to issue fines for zoning violations.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:05 pm.
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Dr. Craparo, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Reich adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 2, 2013 February 20, 2013
Special Meeting
9:30 a.m., Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Dr. Craparo
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. HillMr. Solley called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. It was noted its purpose was for the revision of the Regulations subcommittee to discuss and decide upon language for minor revisions to the Zoning Regulations. Using Mrs. Hill’s comprehensive list of issues revised to 2/14/13, discussion continued from the point reached at the 2/13/13 Special Meeting.
Sections of the Regulations, which were discussed, but for which it was determined that
a) further consideration was warranted,
b) legal advice was needed, or c) the section should remain as is were:
2.2.1: No change was needed.
2.3.7: The committee will ask for legal advice regarding the expiration of Special Permits.
2.3.8: No change was needed.
2.4: Counsel will be consulted regarding the legality of refusing to accept documents before a public hearing is closed.
3.2: The most appropriate way to deal with lots currently divided by zoning district boundaries will be considered in the future.
4.3.2 and 21.1.27: No changes were proposed at this time, but in the future the committee will review the state definition of agriculture, consider the possibility of permitting the manufacture and sale of farm products by Special Permit, and will look into issues and problems associated with breweries and vineyards. Also nurseries, garden centers, etc. will be considered separately.
11.5: Mrs. Hill will check NEMO documentation to compare its basis for lot coverage to what Washington uses in its current Regulations.A list of revisions agreed upon and their proposed language is attached.
The next subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, March 6th at 9:30 a.m. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted, Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Proposed Revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations
2/20/13 DraftTo be deleted: [underlined and in brackets]
To be added: BOLD CAPS2.3 …issued in conformance with the provisions of these Regulations. ALL APPLICATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
2.3.6 …unless the proposed or modified system has been reviewed and approved by the Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT or the [Officer’s] DEPARTMENT’S authorized agent, or, if the system can not legally be approved by the Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT, by any state agency or official that may have jurisdiction….
4.3.10, 5.3.8, 7.3.14, 8.3.14, 9.3.1, 10.3.7 Accessory buildings or structures not used for residential purposes provided that the Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT approves any well or septic connection.
6.3.8 Accessory buildings or structures not used as dwelling units provided that the Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT any well or septic connection.
11.3.1 (Regarding minimum lot size)
Any lot, prior to approval for development for any use, shall require a certification by the Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT that a functioning septic system can be provided in accordance with the requirements of the State Health Code, as amended and Section [2.3.5] 2.3.6 of these Regulations..12.6.3 (Regarding home occupations)
….Conditions may include a limitation on the hours of operation, noise, number and types of vehicles, parking matters, approval by the Washington Health [Official] DEPARTMENT and/or the Washington Fire Marshal, etc.13.5.3 (Regarding convalescent homes, nursing homes, and rest homes)
It shall be certified by the Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT that adequate water is available.13.10.6 (Regarding the residential conversion of an older home)
In accordance with Section [2.3.5] 2.3.6, the Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT or [his] ITS agent shall certify that the existing or proposed modified subsurface sewage disposal system is adequate to serve the proposed use.13.11.2.d (Regarding attached accessory apartments)
The Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT shall approve the water supply for the principal dwelling and the accessory apartment.13.11.3.d (Regarding detached accessory apartments)
The Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT shall approve the water supply for the principal dwelling and the accessory apartment.13.13.5 (Regarding Housing in the Business Districts)
The apartment may utilize the existing sanitary system on the lot if approved by the TOWN Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT, but a complete new sanitary system may be required if it is found by the Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT or [his] ITS agent to be inadequate for the proposed use….13.18.3 (Regarding commercial kennels)
The Washington Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT shall certify that the proposed kennel meets the standards of the State of Connecticut Health Code.14.7.9 (Regarding site plan approval)
Water and Sewer. Proper provision shall be made for the water supply and sewage disposal requirements for the proposed development and use….The design and construction shall be approved by the Town Health [Officer] DEPARTMENT or [his] ITS agent….2.3.7 No zoning permit [or Special Permit] shall be valid after one year from the date of [the decision of the Commission granting such approval] APPROVAL unless construction, as defined in Section 2.3.8 below, shall have been started within such year and is diligently prosecuted to completion….
2.3.9.a, 14.7.2.b A residential driveway shall not exceed 15 percent in grade NOR 20 FEET IN WIDTH. At no point along its length shall a driveway exceed the maximum slope permitted.
2.3.9.b, 14.7.2.c A [commercial] NON RESIDENTIAL driveway shall not exceed 30 feet in width or 10 percent in grade. At no point along its length shall a driveway exceed the maximum slope permitted.
2.3.9.d., 14.7.2.d APPROVAL BY THE SELECTMEN’S OFFICE OR THE STATE DOT SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION.
14.7.2 No driveway shall be constructed with a grade greater than 10 percent, either ascending or descending, within [20] 50 feet of the intersection of the driveway with the street or highway.
4.3.3 Farm stand for the sale of farm products. [the major portion of which is derived from the same premises.] SEE SECTION 12.13.
21.1.28 Farm Stand. [An] A GENERALLY SEASONAL open air structure or table [situated at the side of a street] in which agricultural products specifically grown on the premises or food items produced from raw materials by said home occupation are publicly displayed and offered for sale. IN ALL CASES, MORE THAN 75 PERCENT OF ALL FOOD AND FOOD ITEMS OFFERED FOR SALE SHALL BE GROWN OR PRODUCED ON THE PREMISES. [Its use is generally seasonal.]
4.3.4 Swimming pools, [ponds,] fences, PATIOS
[4.3.7 Patios.]
[4.3.5 Public dump, sanitary landfill, and other facilities for the disposal of sewage, garbage, and waste materials only if operated or controlled by the Town of Washington.]
4.4.19 SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION, SANITARY LANDFILL, AND OTHER FACILITIES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE, GARBAGE, AND WASTE MATERIALS ONLY IF OPERATED OR CONTROLLED BY THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON. (add to the list of uses permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 District)
4.3.10 TRADITIONAL HOME ENTERPRISE (add to the list of permitted uses in the R-1 District – will be 4.3.10 due to renumbering)
12.6.1.b Traditional Home Enterprise. This use includes the production of homemade goods and merchandise….This use is permitted and shall [not] require a zoning permit, provided that all the following conditions are met….
18.1.1 (Regarding the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals)
To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order or decision made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer or in his absence by the [Commission Chairman]DEPUTY ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER [or in the Chairman’s absence, by the Commission’s Secretary] in their grant or denial of a zoning permit….
Posted: February 18, 2013 February 13, 2013
Special Meeting
9:30 a.m., Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. HillThe Special Meeting was called to order at 9:54 a.m. and it was noted its purpose was for the revision of the Zoning Regulations subcommittee to discuss and decide upon language for minor revisions to the Zoning Regulations.
A list of the revisions agreed upon and their proposed language is attached.
In addition, sections of the Regulations, which were discussed, but for which it was determined that a) further consideration was warranted, b) legal advice was needed, or c) the section should remain as is were:
21.1.12: A proposal to add the sentence, “Buildings shall include pools, patios, and sports courts for the purposes of these Regulations.” This will be reconsidered at a later date.
2.3: Should zoning permits be required as they once were for demolition of buildings and structures? This will be considered at a later date.
2.3.1: A search of the Zoning Regs will be done to find out if the word, “plot,” is used in any other section of the Regs, and if so, it will be deleted or changed to either “lot” or “parcel” as appropriate.
2.3.2: Helipads and airstrips were briefly discussed. Definitions for each might be considered in the future, but for now no revisions were proposed.
2.3.2.c: No change was needed. It was noted that while mobile homes and mobile home parks are prohibited, they would be permitted under 8-30g.
2.3.3: Legal advice will be sought for language regarding the hiring/appointment/authorization of the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
2.3.4: Zoning’s attorney will be consulted about whether once filed on the Town Land Records, Special Permits are good forever or whether the Commission can set expiration dates, require them to be renewed, etc.
2.3: Language stating that all Zoning applications that are not under the DEEP’s jurisdiction require a sign off from the Town Health Officer will be inserted in an appropriate place in this section.
12.14: A complete revision of this section on noise generating equipment is underway and will be discussed in the future.
The subcommittee scheduled another special meeting on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Upper Level Meeting Room, Bryan Memorial Town Hall to continue its discussion regarding the revision of the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Solley adjourned the meeting at 12:18 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 18, 2013 February 11, 2013
Present: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Abella
Alternates Present:
Absent: Mr. Wyant, Alt., Mr. Dutton, Alt., Dr. Craparo
Staff Present: Shelley White, Janet Hill, Mike Ajello
Others Present: Mr. Boyer, Mr. Whitney, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel, Mr. Wrabel, Mr. Charles, Ms. Gavenas, Mr. Wren, P.E., Mr. Quicquaro, Architect, Press, Mr. Oskandy, P.E., ResidentsMr. Fitzherbert called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Reich, Mr. Abella, Mr. SolleyContinued:
Washington Community Housing Trust/181 New Milford Turnpike/Special Permit:
Section 13.15/Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing/Construct Two Dwellings:Ms. Hill read the list of documents submitted to the file since the December 17, 2012 meeting of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission. Mr. Whitney was present to represent the Washington Community Housing Trust for this application.
Mr. Whitney displayed the map titled Zoning Location Map by Arthur H. Howland & Associates, sheet ZL-1, dated 10-14-2012. He stated that they are proposing affordable limited equity housing to qualified applicants and explained how the Housing Trust works. Mr. Whitney stated that currently there is one two-story, four-bedroom home on the property. He stated that there is a curb cut on New Milford Turnpike as well as one on Mygatt Road and a portion of the driveway between the existing house and one of the proposed houses would be discontinued and a third curb cut has been approved for the other proposed house. Mr. Whitney stated that the proposed plan has been approved by the Health Department and he discussed the soils and topography. He stated that Arthur H. Howland & Associated created the drainage and run off water plan and noted that the lighting plan for the two proposed houses meet the Zoning Regulations Section 12.15.
Mr. Whitney submitted a spec. sheet for the two different styles of the proposed houses designed by Westchester Modular Homes, Inc. and stated that the existing house is about 2,000 sq. ft. and the two proposed houses would be approximately 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. with three bedrooms each. He stated that the property is 2.8 acres, there are good distances between houses, and a garage is optional for any of the three dwellings. Mr. Whitney said that the WCHT plan to install driveways, septic systems and wells in order to have the property ready for delivery of the proposed houses.
Mr. Whitney noted that the WCHT would retain ownership of the property and are not proposing to subdivide it. He stated that the land lease defines by metes and bounds the property that comes with each house and that is what the homeowner is responsible for.
There was a brief discussion regarding the responsibilities and obligations of the homeowners.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked what the WCHT plans to do with the existing house on the property.
Mr. Whitney responded that they plan to sell it as soon as they can. He stated that they have had the house inspected and are going to make the improvements that were recommended. He stated that the plans show and optional garage for the existing house.
The Commission and Mr. Whitney discussed outbuildings and garages
Mr. Whitney discussed the income requirements to qualify for one of these homes.
Mr. Boyer stated that these requirements are for entry qualification only and does not limit the homeowner if their income increases over the years.
There was a brief discussion regarding the point system that is used to qualify potential homeowners.
Mr. Solley asked if there were public funds involved in the purchase of this property and what would happen in the event of a foreclosure.
Mr. Whitney responded that there is a grant from LISC local initiatives and a private loan that they will have to pay in a few months. He stated that there is a tri-party agreement with the bank and it is in the lease that the WCHT has the right of first refusal in the case of a foreclosure.
Mr. Charles read his letter addressed to Ms. Adams of the Washington Housing Commission, dated February 11, 2013 requesting that WCHT withdraws its request for $325,000.00, until they can present a plan that requires no subsidy (on file in the Land Use Office).
Ms. Gavenas, President of the WCHT, responded that they have spent a great amount of time in deciding what would be the best for people who would have homes on the property as well as people in the community. She stated that they considered other forms of housing and what they wanted is to have individual houses that would be, as much as possible, close to an individual home for a family.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the funding aspect of this proposed project is not part of Zoning but a revision of the Zoning Regulations is and the Commission would be working on it.
Mr. Charles discussed the “Cape Cod” style for the proposed modular homes.
Ms. Bishop-Wrabel, Trustee of WCTH, responded that they considered footprints that would maximize the property.
There was a brief discussion regarding silt-fencing placement.
Mr. Whitney stated that the existing trees provide adequate buffering and the WCHT would not be providing additional landscaping,
Mr. Ajello asked if there were provisions for patios, steps, decks, etc.
Mr. Whitney responded that they have made provisions for the stoops and sidewalks in the proposed plan.
Ms. Hill stated that the proposed application is well under the maximum lot coverage.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Washington Community Housing Trust, 181 New Milford Turnpike for Special Permit: Section: 13.15 Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing to construct two dwellings,
by Mr. Solley, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
EIS Realty, LLC/92 Bee Brook Road/Section 8.3.9: Offices and Special Permit:
Section(s) 8.5: Increase in Maximum Lot Coverage and 8.6: Reduction in Minimum Setback Requirement:Mr. Wren, P.E. and Mr. Quicquaro, Architect, were present to represent EIS Realty, LLC. Mr. Wren stated that EIS Realty, LLC are proposing to turn the former furniture store into offices and would like to take this existing space and renovate it.
The Commissioners and Mr. Wren looked at the drawing titled Site Plan by Indigo Land Design, LLC, prepared for Solidus Inc., sheet SP-1 Dated 10-24-12 and revised to 2-11-13.
Mr. Wren noted that the request for Section 8.6: Reduction in Minimum Setback Requirements is no longer required because they have eliminated the two bump outs on the front corners of the building that were part of the original submission. He stated that the existing building is in the front yard setback because there is a very wide State right of way, which is approximately 19-feet away from the front of the building.
Mr. Wren discussed the proposed planters, noted that the scale bars on the drawings were adjusted, the existing sign in the southwest corner is a sign support, which can be removed and they are keeping the main sign and would change the sign plate.
A site lighting plan was submitted. Mr. Wren reviewed the proposed lighting with the Commissioners.
Mr. Wren noted that the footprint of the building would remain the same; some pedestrian access and enhancements as well as landscaping have been added around the building. He stated that they are proposing to widen the driveway to 24-feet and expand the parking to the back of the property, which is the reason they are requesting a lot coverage increase. He noted that the number of parking spaces (32) meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Wren said that the utilities would essentially remain the same except for the conversion from oil to propane heat. He noted that the existing oil tank and 3 a/c compressor units at the north side of the property would be removed and showed the proposed location of the buried LP tank, the back up generator, well and septic system on the Site Plan.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked for clarification regarding the removal of the bump outs at the front.
Mr. Quicquaro responded that there is no change in the footprint and the changes to the building are cosmetic.
It was noted that the applicant does not need a Special Permit for the reduction in setback but does need it for the lot coverage increase.
Mr. Wren stated that the lot coverage is increasing by 10% because of the proposed additional pavement and some handicap walkways/access.
There was a discussion regarding the State right of way.
There was a discussion regarding the width of the driveway, number of employees and proposed dimensions and number of parking spaces.
Mr. Werkhoven expressed concern about the proposed amount of bituminous pavement and asked if pervious surfaces were considered.
Mr. Wren responded that it would not be cost effective regarding application and maintenance. He discussed the proposed drainage plan for the property and the addition of two catch basins on the property.
Mr. Wren briefly explained the landscaping plan and noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Health Department have approved this proposed plan.
The Commissioners and Mr. Wren discussed pervious versus impervious pavement.
Mr. Solley asked if there are 28 people working for the Ericson Agency now.
Mr. Quicquaro responded that there are.
The Commissioners discussed the existing circular driveway that is within the State right of way.
Mr. Quicquaro displayed the drawing titled Proposed Building Renovation for Ericson Ins. Advisors, Proposed Plan, Sheet A-1, by Quicquaro Architecture, with a revision date of 12-7-12. He stated that they are not proposing any changes in the massing of the building and all changes are cosmetic in nature. The Commissioners and Mr. Quicquaro looked at the elevation drawings title Proposed Building Renovation for Ericson Ins. Advisors, Proposed Elevations, Sheet A-3, by Quicquaro Architecture, with a revision date of 12-7-12. Mr. Quicquaro circulated samples of the product that they are proposing for the façade of the building that is an exterior insulation system as well.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed lighting plan. The Commission requested that the tall parking lot lights that would be on at night be put on timers and that the wattage of the bulbs not exceed what it is necessary to maintain safety and security. Mr. Ajello noted that the regulations require that the maximum height of a lighting fixture may not exceed 15 feet above grade. Mr. Wren stated that the closest light is 30 feet away from the property line and there is a row of trees blocking it from the residential property to the north.
Mr. Solley calculated the lot coverage as 29-30% coverage is approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of existing coverage and the proposed coverage “to be bumped up to” almost 40% and approximately 20,000 sq. ft. He asked if there was any attempt to decrease the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Ajello stated that the opportunity for shared parking at this location is not available and the Depot Study encourages businesses to have parking behind the buildings.
There was a brief discussion regarding the size of the proposed parking spaces.
Mr. Wren stated that he could ask the property owner if they would consider removing the circular driveway in the State right of way over a period of time to decrease the amount of pavement but it is not in the budget to remove it at this time.
The Commissioners agreed that this would be favorable but could not be a condition of approval.
There were no further questions or comments.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for EIS Realty, LLC, 92 Bee Brook Road/Section(s) 8.3.9:Offices and for Special Permit: Section(s) 8.5: Increase in Maximum Lot Coverage & 8.6: Reduction in Minimum Setback Requirement,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
9:40 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Seated: Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Werkhoven, Mr. Reich, Mr. Abella, Mr. SolleyConsideration of the Minutes
The Commission considered the December 17, 2012 regular Meeting Minutes of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.Motion: to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2012 as submitted,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.The Commission considered the January 7, 2013 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.
The Commission briefly discussed how the minutes are meant to be a summary of the meeting and the public has access to the recordings.
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Special Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2013 as submitted,
by Mr. Werkhoven, seconded by Mr. Reich, passed by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Washington Community Housing Trust/181 New Milford, Turnpike/Special Permit:
Section 13.15/Town of Washington or Non Profit Sponsored Affordable Housing/Construct 3 Dwellings:
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he likes the proposed plan.
Mr. Werkhoven stated that they have been working on this for years and he applauds them for their efforts.
Mr. Reich feels that it is a reasonable size project, which makes it possible to be executed successfully. He stated that he likes the eligibility rating system that has been put in place.
Mr. Abella stated that he was in favor of the proposed plan.
There was a brief discussion regarding landscaping and drainage.
Motion:
to approve the Special Permit Application: Section 13.15 submitted by Washington Community Housing Trust for 3 Single Family Dwelling Units of Affordable Housing at 181 New Milford Turnpike per “Proposed Sanitary Disposal System Plan,” By Arthur H. Howland & Associates, Dated 11-9-12 and revised to 12-17-12 and supporting File Documents,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Solley, passed by 5-0 vote.
EIS Realty, LLC /92 Bee Brook Road /Special Permit: Section(s)8.3.9 Offices and 8.5 to increase the maximum lot coverage and to reduce the minimum side yard setback:
There was a brief discussion regarding a possible condition of approval for lighting.Mr. Solley volunteered to draft a letter to the business owners requesting the removal of the circular driveway in the State right of way to decrease the amount of pavement.
There was a brief discussion regarding pervious and impervious surfaces.
Motion:
to approve the Special Permit application: Section 8.5 submitted by EIS Realty, LLC to increase the maximum lot coverage and to reduce the minimum side yard setback at 92 Bee Brook Road per “Site Plan,” by Indigo Land Design, LLC, Dated 10-24-12 and revised to 2-11-13 & “Proposed Building Renovation for Ericson Insurance Advisors,” 4 sheets, by Quicquaro Architecture, Advent Design, Solidus, LMG Consulting Engineers, LLC, dated 12-4-12 with sheets A-1 and A-3 revised to 1-9-13 & Supporting Documents as revised,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, passed by 5-0 vote.Motion:
to approve the Special Permit application: Section 8.3.9 submitted by EIS Realty, LLC for Professional Offices at 92 Bee Brook Road per “Site Plan,” by Indigo Land Design, LLC, Dated 10-24-12 and revised to 2-11-13 & “Proposed Building Renovation for Ericson Insurance Advisors,” 4 sheets, by Quicquaro Architecture, Advent Design, Solidus, LMG Consulting Engineers, LLC, dated 12-4-12 with sheets A-1 and A-3 revised to 1-9-13 & Supporting Documents as revised; subject to the following conditions:
1. The Zoning Commission prefers that exterior lighting fixture do not to exceed the height of the building.
2. Maximum amount of outdoor lighting be put on timers without compromising security.
3. That minimum wattage is used on fixtures without compromising security, by Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Revision of Special Permit: Section 13.14/Expand Existing Bed & Breakfast Establishment to Three Rooms:
The applicant’s attorney requested that the public hearing be scheduled for the regularly scheduled meeting for March 25, 2013 of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission.Motion
to schedule a Public Hearing for March 25, 2013 at 7:30 pm, in the Upper Level Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall for Laverge/226 Bee Brook Road/Revision of Special Permit: Section 13.14/Expand Existing Bed & Breakfast Establishment to Three Rooms,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, passed by 5-0 vote.
Ms Hill distributed copies of the letter addressed to the Zoning Commission from Mr. & Mrs. Matthews, dated January 31, 2013 regarding the Special Permit for Ms. Regine Laverge to conduct as bed and breakfast at 226 Bee Brook Road, Washington, CT (on file in the Land Use Office).
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that a site visit would be beneficial. The Town of Washington Zoning Commission scheduled a site visit for Thursday, March 20, 2013 at 5 pm at 226 Bee Brook Road.
Discussion of Lancaster:
There was a brief discussion regarding a possible new application for the Lancaster property on West Shore Road.It was the consensus of the Commission that Ms. Hill would seek advice from Town Counsel.
Other Business Revisions of the Zoning Regulations:
Minor revisions throughout:Mr. Fitzherbert recommended a publicly noticed scheduled work meeting to go through some of the minor changes in the Zoning Regulations with Mr. Ajello, ZEO and Ms. Hill, Land Use Administrator.
Mr. Solley volunteered to chair the subcommittee and the group scheduled a work session for Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 9:30 am in the Upper Level Meeting Room at Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
Section 12.14 Noise Generating Equipment:
There was a brief discussion regarding the process of applying for a Special Exception/Variance for standby generators. Mr. Ajello feels that it is necessary to regulate generators and above ground propane tanks for property setbacks.There was a brief discussion regarding location of a generator and safety.
Zoning Enforcement Smith/35 East Shore Road:
Ms Hill stated that she has contacted Town Counsel for some addition advice on this matter. There was a brief discussion regarding the notice that was put on the Land Records for this property.Enforcement Report:
Mr. Ajello, ZEO distributed the Zoning Enforcement Report dated February 11, 2013 (on file in the Land Use Office).
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 10:43 pm. by Mr. Solley, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, passed by 5-0 vote.Mr. Fitzherbert adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: February 5, 2013 January 7, 2013
Special Meeting
5:30 p.m. Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Reich, Mr. Solley, Mr. Werkhoven
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Dr. Craparo, Mr. Dutton, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Ajello, Mrs. Hill, Atty. Olson
ALSO PRESENT: Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Ms. Purnell, Mr. Wadelton, Mr./Mrs. Federer, Mrs. Peacocke, Atty. Fisher, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Averill, Mr. Charles, Mrs. Hardee, Mrs. Giampietro, Mr. Szymanski, Mrs. Radosevich, Mr. Papsin, Mr. Mustich, Atty. Smith, PressMr. Fitzherbert called the Special Meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. and seated Members Abella, Fitzherbert, Reich, Solley, and Werkhoven.
Proposed Settlement of Litigation/Wykeham Rise, LLC. v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Washington, et al./Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, Docket No. LLI-CV-09-4007939-S./ Property Owned by Wykeham Rise, LLC., located south of Wykeham Road and west of Bell Hill Road in the Town of Washington. Subject matter of settlement involves the proposed use of the property for an inn, restaurant, and related commercial facilities:
Atty. Olson briefly reviewed the purpose of the meeting, which was to discuss the proposed settlement agreement and to decide whether the Commission would agree to its proposed terms and she explained the procedure that would be followed. She noted this was a proposed settlement to resolve pending litigation and not an application so the Zoning Commission was not compelled to receive public input, although it could decide to do so per counsel’s recommendation. She also noted that a resolution of this appeal would also resolve several other current appeals with respect to Wykeham University, which had been approved by the Zoning Commission. She warned that alternates could participate in any public discussion, but could not participate or vote once deliberations began.
Atty. Fisher reviewed some of the history of the Wykeham Rise, LLC. inn application, its denial and appeal, and the settlement now proposed. He noted the agreement included the following provisions: the “physical plant” was identical to what had been approved by the Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission as a school, the floor area of the main building had been reduced from what had been originally proposed for the inn, the traffic would be one way; enter from the west on Wykeham Road and exit to the east near Bell Hill Road, the overflow parking plan had been deleted, the number of parking spaces had been reduced from 103 to 100, the number of seats in the restaurant had been reduced from 80 to 68, the fitness building was reduced in size, the service road off Bell Hill Road would be decommissioned and restored to a natural state, there would be no amplified sound outside at any time and all non amplified sound outside would have to end 30 minutes after sunset, the outdoor lighting would comply with the Zoning Regulations, pool activities would be restricted, and there would be no construction or activities in the restricted conservation area at the southern end of the property. Atty. Fisher circulated copies of the proposed settlement.
Mr. Szymanski, engineer, reviewed the site development plans, “Site Development Plan for Wykeham Project,” 32 sheets, by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 7/8/11 and revised to 12/17/12. He stated that the drainage system had been designed to handle 100 to 200 year storm events, that Land Tech had reviewed the plans for the Inland Wetlands Commission and had found them adequate to protect the wetland resources, and that the landscaping plan was the same as the one previously approved by the Zoning Commission.
Mr. Solley noted the lot coverage had been decreased by .5% and asked where the changes had occurred. Mr. Szymanski said the entrance to the main building had been reconfigured.
Mr. Solley asked if the conditions that had been imposed by the Commission when it had approved the university had been included in the plans. Mr. Szymanski said the property owner would be willing to do so. Atty. Fisher said he would suggest that they all be incorporated in the settlement agreement.
Mrs. Hill asked what architectural style was proposed. Mr. Szymanski submitted two renderings of the main building, which depicted a style that was neither the country/rustic design of the inn nor the austere/barracks design of the school. Mrs. Hill asked if the Commission could have any input concerning the architecture. Mr. Reich stated that both parties had already agreed to the revised architectural plans.
Mr. Fitzherbert asked for public comments.
Mr. Averill, New Preston Hill Road, asked how was it legal that the use as an inn, which had been denied by the Commission and which decision had not been thrown out by the court could return for consideration. He noted the Zoning Commission had approved a school, not an inn, which, he maintained, is in violation of the current Zoning Regulations. Atty. Olson responded that there were no guarantees in litigation, noting that the appellate court might not uphold the lower court’s decision to uphold the Commission’s denial of the inn. Therefore, both sides had agreed to negotiate and compromise and had come up with the proposed settlement plan.
Mrs. Giampietro, abutting property owner on Wykeham Road, asked about plans to widen and rip rap the entire north side of Wykeham Road. Mr. Szymanski stated that the improvements along Wykeham Road were no longer part of the proposal as they had not been included in the application for the school. He pointed out a 10 ft. wide area of rip rap for the emergency spillway that would be visible from the road.
Mr. Solomon, abutting property owner on Bell Hill Road, noted that the proposed settlement had been agreed to by only two of the neighbors. He said he was associated with a group representing all of the neighbors and had been working on a settlement that would benefit both the neighbors and Wykeham Rise, LLC. He noted these conversations were ongoing and that appeals of other neighbors were still pending. He urged the Commission to wait until a settlement agreed to by all the neighbors had been reached.
Mrs. Solomon said the above group of neighbors had asked Wykeham Rise, Mrs. Peacocke, and the Federers to hold off going to Zoning until all of the neighbors had agreed to a settlement proposal. She also thought the Commission should not make a decision until it had a detailed plan before it so it would know exactly what it was approving.
Mr. Solomon said he had asked Mr. Klauer for a full detailed set of site plans and architectural plans that he could review, but that these had not been provided. He said the Commission was being rushed into acting on the settlement before it had all the details.
Mrs. Solomon added that this is a difficult piece of land and so the plans should be complete for everyone’s protection.
Ms. Purnell, Old Litchfield Road, asked what the proposed lot coverage was. Mr. Szymanski said it was 9.39%. Ms. Purnell then asked for the size of the footprints for each of the proposed buildings. Mr. Szymanski said the approximate lot coverage of each building, which, he said, is not the same as the footprint, was: main building/24,000 sq. ft., fitness building/3600 sq. ft, poolhouse/1500 sq. ft., pump house/320 sq. ft., dorm #1/2700 sq. ft., and dorms #2 and #3/1800 sq. ft. Ms. Purnell asked if the accessways to the pool and to the pump house had been included in the lot coverage calculation. Mr. Szymanski said that based on Atty. Zizka’s 2008 letter they had not been included.
Mrs. Peacocke, a party to the compromise, stated that the current settlement agreement took six months to negotiate, that it combined features of both the inn and school proposals, and that there was no present prospect of a negotiated settlement with all the adjacent property owners. She added that all litigation on this property would be brought to an end by the proposed compromise because once approved, Wykeham Rise, LLC. would relinquish all of its other permits. Atty. Olson agreed that the University appeals would be moot when those permits were relinquished.
Atty. Fisher confirmed that those permits would be given up if the settlement agreement was approved. He also noted the Solomons could have intervened during the appeals process, but had not done so.
Mrs. Radosevich, Shearer Road, said it was the responsibility of the Zoning Commission to protect the rights of all of the neighbors, not just those involved in the settlement.
Mr. Boyer, Nichols Hill Road, asked how the judge could approve a settlement that was not agreed to by all litigants. Atty. Olson explained that while Mr. Solomon had appealed Zoning’s approval of Wykeham University, Wykeham Rise, LLC. would relinquish the University permits if the settlement comes to fruition. She said the Solomons had had the opportunity to become a party of the inn appeal, but had not done so.
Mr. Dutton asked what would prevent the Solomons from initiating new litigation should the Commission approve the settlement. He suggested that Mr. Klauer meet with the rest of the neighbors and incorporate their ideas into the settlement agreement so the Town would be protected from another round of litigation. Atty. Olson explained that provision could not be made a condition of approval; Mr. Klauer could not be forced to negotiate with anyone who was not a party to the suit.
Mr. Solomon said he would not back down.
Mrs. Solomon said there was a credibility issue and again said that details were needed.
Mrs. Boyer asked if the settlement was approved, could inns be located anywhere in Town. Mrs. Hill explained that unless the Zoning Regulations were amended, they could only be located on state roads. Ms. Purnell pointed out that the issue that had arisen in 2008 about whether the Regulations required inns to be on state roads had never been settled. Mr. Fitzherbert said that was irrelevant.
Representing the Federers, Atty. Smith provided some background and stated the Federers had intervened early in 2009.
Mr. Reich asked how satisfied the Federers were with the settlement proposal and its “apparent vagueness.” Atty. Smith said they were satisfied or they would not have signed it, but said his clients would support any conditions of approval the Commission thought were necessary.
It was noted that one of the conditions of approval the Commission had placed on the last Wykeham University Special Permit; evergreens were to be planted between Wykeham Road and the parking lot to help buffer it, had not been included in the proposed settlement plan and Mr. Dutton recommended this be specified as a condition of approval for the settlement. Mr. Wyant agreed, saying he wanted the landscaping to be done properly.
Dr. Craparo said she was satisfied with the proposed settlement now that she knew the interveners backed it wholeheartedly.
Hearing no other comments from the public, Mr. Fitzherbert noted that part of the meeting was closed and the Alternates could no longer participate in the discussion.
Mrs. Hill asked whether the proposal had been written concisely so the Commission would know exactly what it would approve and would be able to enforce it. For example, she asked whether the health club would be open only to customers or to the general public and said the original inn application had included specific details about when children could use the pool. Atty. Fisher responded that per the settlement agreement the spa would be open to guests only and Mr. Szymanski pointed out provisions regarding the pool and outdoor activities were included in the agreement.
Mr. Solley asked if the Commission had to make its decision quickly. He noted there were three new commissioners who would need time to review the plans and that a delay would give all of the neighbors the opportunity to come to an agreement with Mr. Klauer. Atty. Olson said that when it would act was up to the Commission, but warned the reason for any delay should not be to impose negotiation with the neighbors on Mr. Klauer. She also said that part of the time crunch was the tight briefing schedule in the appellate court and that the appeal had been pending for so long she did not know whether the judge would be inclined to grant an extension. Mr. Solley asked if the judge would rule on the proposed settlement without the Commission’s approval. Atty. Olson said he could.
Mr. Reich asked Mr. Ajello if he was comfortable with the site plan and he responded that he was.
Mrs. Hill circulated the conditions of approval that the Commission had placed on its latest approval of Wykeham University, which, she said, most were standard for larger projects. These were reviewed by the commissioners. It was the consensus that #5, no license for the sale of liquor, would be deleted, and that #6, the provision for evergreen buffering of the parking lot, was necessary because this had not been added to the site plan. After a discussion, it was decided to retain all of the conditions as written except for #5.
Mr. Werkhoven asked about construction materials. Mr. Szymanski said the roofs would be asphalt, the retaining walls would be concrete or concrete faced with field stone, and the siding would be “typical hardy plank” horizontal clapboards.
Mr. Solley was still hesitant about approving the plans without more time for review. Mr. Reich and Mr. Werkhoven thought it was time for the Commission to act. Mr. Solley asked if staff would be comfortable enforcing the complete site plan. Atty. Olson said Mr. Ajello had said he was comfortable. Mr. Ajello noted, too, that the Inland Wetland Commission approval also had conditions, which included long term monitoring. Mr. Fitzherbert noted all parties involved were present and urged Mr. Solley to ask any questions he had. Atty. Olson said if the plans and architectural renderings were incorporated in the motion, it would be clear what was being approved.
Mr. Fitzherbert noted that any change to the approved plans would have to come back to the Commission for approval.
MOTION:
The Washington Zoning Commission hereby approves the Settlement Agreement received 1/7/13 per the plans, “Site Development Plan for Wykeham Project,” by Arthur H. Howland and Assoc., dated 7/8/11 and revised to 12/17/12, 32 sheets, the architectural renderings, A and B, received 1/7/13, and the proposed conditions of approval with the exception of #5, received 1/7/13.
By Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Werkhoven, and passed 4-1.
Mr. Solley voted No.Mrs. Hill asked if the other parties now had to agree on the conditions of approval. Atty. Olson said they were present and no one had objected.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations
Mr. Ajello’s 1/7/13 list of potential amendments to the Zoning Regulations was circulated. Mr. Fitzherbert noted that staff had gone through the list and had picked out those that could be addressed easily. These were in bold font on the list. The commissioners will review them and they will be discussed at the next meeting.Next, draft #10 of the proposed revision of Section 12.14; Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment, was reviewed and discussed. Mr. Fitzherbert noted the ZBA had already had input on a previous draft. He said he would like this section to have enough flexibility to allow for common sense judgments regarding the placement of this equipment. He also asked if the Zoning Commission should have responsibility for people’s health and whether it would be liable if it tried to regulate for safety. Mr. Solley stated the goal of the regulation was to have the person served by the generator to be the one most impacted, not his neighbor, and he also said the Building Code supercedes Zoning and so Zoning should not get into issues of liability. Mr. Werkhoven noted that pool filters do not make noise and should not be included in this section. The pros and cons of various possible setback requirements were discussed. Mr. Solley questioned whether the regulation should be the same for small lots as for large lots with accessory buildings. Mr. Fitzherbert did not think generator noise was a problem and so thought the application process for Special Exceptions for generators was too costly and time consuming. The commissioners will study the draft and discuss it further at the next meeting.
Mr. Fitzherbert said he had been studying the latest information on pervious surfaces and would forward it to all members. He noted water is a top concern and so said the Zoning Regulations should be revised to address how to more effectively prevent stormwater runoff from flowing onto other properties. Such measures as pervious surfaces, landscaping, and infiltration systems could be considered.
MOTION:
To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Reich.Mr. Fitzherbert adjourned the Meeting at 8:22 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted
By Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Meetings in 2012