The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Zoning Commission
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Zoning Commission |
|
 |
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Zoning Commission
February 22 •January 25 •Previous years: 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: March 1, 2010 February 22, 2010
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: A.J. Dubois, Harry Wyant
Absent: Andy Shapiro, Alt.,
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, Members of the Board of Hollister House, Selectman Solley, Mr. Klauer, Mr. Federer, Mr. Peacocke, Mr. Dutton, Mr. Charles, Ms. Branson, Ms. Forese, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella, Mr. Fitzherbert
Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: section 13.17/Town Landmark Site:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on February 10 and February 17, 2010.
Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect was present to represent Mr. Schoelkopf’s application. Mr. Sabin gave an overview of the property at 300 Nettleton Hollow and discussed the merits of why the property should receive “Landmark Status” in the Town of Washington. Mr. Sabin presented the Property/Boundary Survey, by T. Michael Alex, prepared for Hollister House Garden, The Garden Conservancy, 300 Nettleton Hollow Road, dated March 2009 and he explained the topography of the property. He discussed The Garden Plan, by T. Michael Alex, for Hollister House Gardens, dated May 2007, and Existing Floor Plans, by Dirk W. Sabin, dated 2/20/10 of all the buildings at 300 Nettleton Hollow Road. He explained that the reason why they are seeking Town Landmark Designation is that there are some events that are held on the property, and it is open on periodic weekend days during the growing season, by appointment, and it will continue to operate this way for the present time, however, in the future they would like the capability to make improvements to accommodate more public access. He stated that at the present time there are two part time employees and volunteers that work for Hollister House and there are no retail goods. The Fire Marshall was contacted and he stated that the occasional tent may need an approval but otherwise, approval of the current outdoor use of the property was not necessary. Mr. Owen stated that this is what Regulation 13.17 is for and that all the required information has been submitted. He stated the permit would cover the occasional outdoor activities. There was a discussion regarding parking. Mr. Sabin stated that there is room for approximately 15 cars. Mr. Owen read Zoning Regulation Section 13.17. He stated that any additional site plan alterations would have to go through the proper application processes. Ms. Susan Branson asked the Zoning Commission if they permit this designation, would each part of the property be listed in the approval. Mr. Owen stated that the approval would consist of all the items that have been discussed at this hearing and that are on record for this application.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Schoellkopf, under section 13.17 Town Landmark Site at 300 Nettleton Hollow Road,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the regular meeting to order at 7:55 p.m.
Motion:
to add Sekikawa/4 Green Hill Road, Washington Depot, CT/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment and Williams/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment under IV. New Applications on the Agenda,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Consideration of the Minutes
The January 25, 2010 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:
Corrections:
Page 5: Delete: He stated that there are statements that could be clarified and otherwise these statements tend to mislead the public.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of January 25, 2010, as amended,
by Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: section 13.17/Town Landmark Site:
Mr. Averill asked if the Zoning Commission was declaring this property a Town Landmark Site by Special Permit or if this is just part of a process. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission would be approving a Special Permit application for it to be considered a Town Landmark Site. This would be giving the official status to the property. The Commissioners discussed how the motion should include specifics to identify the current property that would be designated as a Town Landmark.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application: Section 13.17 submitted by Schoellkopf for Town Landmark Site at 300 Nettleton Hollow Road for current land, gardens, buildings, driveways, parking areas and outdoor activities as described in the application,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Sekikawa/4 Green Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment:
This application has been approved by the Health Department.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on March 22, 2010 to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Sekikawa/4 Green Hill Road/Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Wyant recused himself.
Williams/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment:
Mr. Williams was present and stated that he would be meeting with the Town Sanitarian tomorrow.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on March 22, 2010 to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Williams/88 Bee Brook Road/Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 voteMr. Wyant returns.
Other Business
Possible Revision of The Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14 Re: Special Exceptions for Generators and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
The Zoning Board of Appeals has not submitted a response as of the time of this meeting.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads- Definition of “Inn”:
It was the consensus of the Commission to move this to the last item under Other Business on the Agenda.Possible Revision of The Zoning Regulations Re: Definition of “Eating and Drinking Establishment” – “Restaurant”:
A Public Hearing has been scheduled on Monday, March 22, 2010 at the regular scheduled Zoning Commission Meeting for the Town of Washington.Murgio/21 New Preston Hill Road/Section 13.14/Request to Renew Bed and Breakfast Special Permit:
Ms. Hill stated that she has a letter requesting the renewal, the fee has been paid and that there were no complaints filed for this property. Mr. Owen stated that the permit would be extended for another three years. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to approve Special Permit: Section 13.14 submitted by Murgio to Renew Bed and Breakfast Special Permit,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Possible Revision of Zoning Regulations Re: Transfer of Special Permit for Eating and Drinking Establishments under Specific Circumstances:
Ms. Hill stated that she and Mr. Ajello, ZEO, discussed the possibility of revising the Zoning Regulations to provide the ability to transfer a Special Permit for Eating and Drinking Establishments if a new restaurant sets up business in the a space where there had already been a restaurant, same type of restaurant, same seating capacity and no exterior changes. Mr. Ajello suggested that there should be a provision added to the Zoning Regulations that when a new building is not being constructed or an existing building is not being remodeled into a restaurant and when it’s exactly the same business, a transfer of the Special Permit should be allowed. There was a discussion regarding if this should be done administratively. Ms. Hill stated that she thought that a line should be added to the regulations and it could be handled the way a renewal for a Special Permit upon request for a Bed and Breakfast is handled. Mr. Averill agreed that it could be done as expeditiously as the process of requesting a renewal for the Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Owen stated that he and Ms. Hill would work on the language.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on April 26, 2010 to consider a Possible Revision of Zoning Regulations re: Transfer of Special Permit for Eating and Drinking Establishments under Specific Circumstances
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads – Definition of “Inn”:
Because the Town email was down, a brief recess was needed so that copies of the draft discussion documents could be made and circulated.Motion:
to take a 10 minute break at 8:15 pm,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.8:22 pm discussion resumes.
Mr. Owen suggested defining Bed and Breakfast and Inn and removing the definition of Boarding House (section 21.1.10) in the definition section of the Zoning Regulations. He stated that if the Commission decided to keep Boarding House in the Regulations that the language would need to be clarified in section 13.14, which refers to a Room and Board, and he suggested basing the definition on the proposed Bed and Breakfast definition he submitted in his draft dated 2/22/10. He suggested that section 13.9 Tourist Home or Inn, sections 13.14.1, 13.14.4, 4.4.14, 7.4.12, and 8.4.12 be deleted. Mr. Owen stated that in section 15.2 Number of Parking Spaces and eliminating boarding house, rooming house, or tourist house. He suggested that the Commission tailor the regulations regarding Inns for each district individually where Inns are allowed. He stated that the Commission should consider a way to place a limit on the seating in an Eating and Drinking Establishment associated with the Inn related to occupancy of the Inn so it would not make it possible for someone to open an establishment that is essentially a restaurant in a residential district by using the Inn designation. He stated another use to consider would something similar to the residential conversion of an older home in districts such as the Washington Green in which Inns would be permitted under specific conditions such as that the building be constructed sometime prior to 1935. He stated that inns should continue to be allowed in the Lake Waramaug District and that they continue to not be allowed in the Marbledale and Woodville Business Districts. Mr. Averill stated that he thought the basic premise of Mr. Owen’s draft was good. He stated that under the R-1 District, Section 4.4.1.b, he thinks a lodging capacity of 75 was too high and under Section 4.4.1.d that the eating and drinking establishment seating capacity should be the same as the overnight lodging capacity. Mr. Owen stated that he personally did not want to change the language to the extent that it would make the Mayflower Inn a nonconforming use. There was a discussion regarding whether the Mayflower Inn had been considered a nonconforming use in the past. Mr. Averill stated that he did not see how the Zoning Commission could logically use the Mayflower Inn as a template for this revision. Mr. Owen stated that the Mayflower Inn has been an asset of this Town over the years and has been allowed to expand and as a result, stay successful. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he agreed that the Mayflower Inn should not be made into a nonconforming use. Mr. Owen stated that he understands Mr. Averill’s point and that the Town could treat the Mayflower Inn as they treat the existing Golf Courses in Town. Mr. Shapiro’s memo regarding Definition of an “Inn” dated February 22, 2010 was discussed. Mr. Owen stated that he thought the Zoning Regulations should avoid limiting the access to the eating and drinking establishment and other facilities associated with the inn to only the guests of the inn. He stated that he thought this was unenforceable and it would be an unreasonable burden to the business establishment and the people of the Town of Washington. He stated that he would rather find ways to limit the scale without limiting the access by calculating capacity limitations of these facilities related to the overnight lodging capacity. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he feels that the Special Permit Process has been successful and will continue to be successful as long as it stays subjective and not objective. He stated that his main concern was the precedent that creating these objective criteria for inns would be set and how it would affect the Special Permit application process in the future for places such as schools, churches, museums and libraries. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that another concern he had with Mr. Owen’s draft was under Sections 4.4.1c and 6.4.14.c regarding boundaries. He stated that he did not agree with the setback being 100 feet. Mr. Owen stated that maybe this is something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Averill agreed with Mr. Fitzherbert and suggested that the setback requirements should be made for new structures. Ms. Hill stated that a lesser front yard setback would allow the use of some older buildings and there could be the opportunity to have parking in the rear of the property, which would help maintaining rural character of the neighborhood.
There was a discussion regarding the difference of inns and institutional businesses (i.e. schools, churches). Mr. Fitzherbert stated that all of the schools in the area have increased the number of students and if schools were locked into a number of how many students they could have, they would be closed right now. Mr. Owen stated that, in the future, he would like the Zoning Commission to consider looking at the issue of lot coverage differently for schools, and adjust the Regulation to permit greater density for certain uses, such as schools, rather than enforce the existing narrow lot coverage requirements of the Town.
Mr. Abella stated that he likes Mr. Owen’s draft but he thought that the minimum size of a 5 acre lot seems rather small. Mr. Owen stated that this is what is in the current regulations about inns. Mr. Owen stated that the Town would like to make it possible to have a small inn in Town and that the total lodging capacity should not exceed 2 people per acre. Ms. Hill suggested that the acre-per-person issue be looked into a little further. Mr. Owen stated that he agrees with Mr. Fitzherbert that the Zoning Commission doesn’t what to allow a use and then make this use impossible to conduct this business. Mr. Dubois stated that he liked Mr. Shapiro’s definition of an inn and he ‘could live with’ Mr. Owen’s proposed definition but, was not sure about using the words ‘small country hotel, country resort, or similar facility’ in the definition. Mr. Owen stated that this is what is meant by ‘Inn’ in the Town of Washington and he thinks that the definition should reflect what the Town has considered to be an inn in the past. Mr. Reich stated that he thought a size word, such as small, was unclear. There was a discussion regarding the language and clarifying size. Mr. Averill stated that he agreed with Mr. Shapiro’s definition of an inn and has made some suggestions. He stated that in Mr. Shapiro’s definition he states that the number of rooms should not exceed 30. Mr. Averill stated that he feels strongly that the capacity should not exceed 50 people and he feels that the capacity for the restaurant and the bar should be 2 times the inns overnight capacity in the R-1 District. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he did not expect to see these numbers reached. He stated that he didn’t think these numbers would make it impossible for a business to operate. Mr. Reich stated that the numbers would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Owen stated that there should be a way to calculate the size of the eating and drinking establishment by using a formula based on the amount of overnight rooms. Ms. Hill stated that since the accessory health club would be open to the public, she liked that it would be limited in size. She stated that she had a problem with ‘the total seating capacity of the inn’s meeting rooms shall not exceed 100’. Ms. Hill stated that she does not see how this would be enforceable and suggested a maximum square footage instead. There was a brief discussion regarding how the capacity of a meeting room could be enforced. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he would like to propose a motion to pass the draft that Mr. Owen submitted and take it to a public hearing. Mr. Owen stated that he would like to work on the draft. Many of the members stated that would rather have more time to refine specific provisions. Mr. Fitzherbert suggested that a special meeting be scheduled to move the process along. There was a discussion regarding how long this process should take. Ms. Hill stated that the language is very important and needs to be written thoughtfully. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would read the proposed definitions by Mr. Owen and Mr. Shapiro, and submit feedback to Ms. Hill prior to the next meeting.
Motion:
to continue Discussion of Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads – Definition of “Inn” at the next Regular Meeting of the Zoning Commission scheduled for March 22, 2010,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Peacocke asked if Mr. Owen read the letter he sent. He stated that he would like the Commission to consider the phrase ‘small country hotel’ between now and the next meeting. He urged the members think carefully of what a corporation would try to apply for.
Mr. Charles asked if all the Commissioners of the Zoning Commission would be submitting comments and if these comment would be available on line for the general public. Mr. Owen stated that the entire Commission will have the opportunity to make comments and that he was not sure if they would be available on line. Mr. Charles stated that he understood that this was a lengthy process and appreciates the availability of information to the public and the ability for the public to participate.
Ms. Forese asked if there was a legal way to avoid having a chain hotel in town. Mr. Owen stated that the Special Permit process allows a great deal of latitude in controlling the things that the Town is most worried about.
Mr. Federer stated that he wanted the record to show that there were less than 20 people from the public at this meeting.
Mr. Dutton asked if there was a way to set deadlines for submission of information that is to be discussed at the meetings so that the Commissioners have time to review the information and possibly move the process along more expeditiously. Mr. Dutton stated that both definitions are reasonable but he does not agree with Mr. Shapiro’s cap of 1 bedroom per acre not to exceed 30 rooms. He stated that there are large parcels in Town and a 30 room hotel would be ‘miniscule’ on these properties. He stated that a property owner with this size parcel has the potential to build an enormous house that could look like a 30 room hotel. Mr. Dutton stated that he feels this number needs serious consideration by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission should consider if there are properties large enough to conceal a use of any size and also how it would impact the Town. He stated it is difficult to formulate the numbers.
Mr. Dutton asked if the Town has a regulation that governs the size of a new school. He stated that he thought it was arbitrary to say that an inn would not be allowed in Woodville but a school that size is allowed.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Enforcement
The Commissioners look at Mr. Ajello’s Zoning Enforcement Report dated 2/22/10. There were no questions or comments.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 9:43 pm
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
3/1/10
Posted: February 3, 2010 January 25, 2010
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: A.J. Dubois, Harry Wyant
Absent: Andy Shapiro, Alt.,
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Bob Papsin, Dirk Sabin, Matt Klauer, Wendy Federer, Phil Dutton, Jim Brinton, Barb Cheney, Frank Monteleone, Rocky Tomlinson, Linda McGarr, Chris Charles, Christopher Peacocke, Stephen Lasar, Ms. Wrabel, Drew Stichter, Anthony Martino, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella, Mr. Dubois, Alt. (for Mr. Fitzherbert)Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fences on the Lake Side of West Shore Road:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on January 13 and January 20, 2010. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application.Mr. Fitzherbert arrives and is seated.
Mr. Papsin was present as agent for Mr. Lancaster. He submitted certified mailing receipts and photos of the property. The photos indicate the height of the fences from various locations of the property from the center of the road and the edge of the lawn. Mr. Papsin explained that the property is on a dangerous corner and the property owner has small children and would like to install a picket fence at the front of the property and a split rail fence along a portion of the side of the property. He explained that the Department of Transportation approved the setback of the fence and he submitted a map from Terence Phelan, Permit Inspector of the D.O.T, indicating the fence location. The Commissioners looked at the Site Analysis Plan, prepared for John Lancaster, 244 West Shore Road, by Brian Neff, Engineer, dated 10-15-07, which indicated the location of the picket fence (drawn in by hand) to be 11 feet off the road. Mr. Owen read the Administrative Review, by Ms. Hill, dated 1/25/10. Mr. Papsin stated that Mr. Manse of West Shore Road called to state he had no objections to the proposed fences. Mr. Owen read a letter from Ms. Leila Klein, (on file in the Land Use Office) stating that she objected to the proposed fences and wanted the view of the lake preserved. The Commissioners discussed the obstruction of the view of the lake and the height of the proposed fences. Mr. Papsin stated there is a small area that is usually overgrown with vegetation that would possibly be affected. The commissioners examined the copies of photos that indicate the height of the pickets from the roadside and other locations. There were no further questions or comments from the public.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Lancaster, under section 6.4.6 for Fences on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road to install fences at 244 West Shore Road,
by Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the regular meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.Consideration of the Minutes
The December 28, 2009 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:
Corrections:
Page 1: under Present: Valerie Anderson should read: Valerie Friedman
Page 4: under Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulation/Section 13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads:, First line should read: Mr. Owen stated that Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Averill had a subcommittee meeting to discuss regulations concerning inns.
Page 5: Delete: Mr. Owen stated that the Town or State road was not the issue at the moment but an inn in a R-1 District.Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of December 28, 2009, as amended,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Lancaster/244 West Shore Road/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Fences on the Lake Side of West Shore Road:
There were no additional comments or questions from the Commissioners.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application: Section 6.4.6 submitted by Lancaster at 244 West Shore Road for Fences on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road to install fences at 244 West Shore Road,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/Special Permit: section 13.17/Town Landmark Site:
Mr. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect was present to discuss Mr. Schoelkopf’s application. Mr. Sabin gave a brief history of the property known as Hollister House. He stated that Mr.Schoelkopf has entered an agreement for the National Garden Conservancy to inherit the property upon his passing, which they will then run as a fine garden. In addition, there are plans to run the property as a historic homestead. He stated he has come to the Zoning Commission as the first step before making any further applications to the Town for such things as public bathrooms. He has submitted surveys indicating all the buildings and their locations and the gardens on the property. Mr. Sabin stated that they have received approval for historic designation from the State of Connecticut and are pursuing Federal designation. The Commissioners and Mr. Sabin discussed what else was needed for his application to be complete. Mr. Owen read section 13.17.8 of the Zoning Regulations, which states what the application should include, in addition to the general requirements for Special Permits. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on February 22, 2010 to consider the Special Permit Application submitted by Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/Section 13.17/Town Landmark Site,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Reich asked if there would be any impact on the Town’s property income structure. Mr. Sabin stated that the taxes on the property are paid and that upon the passing of Mr. Schoelkopf an endowment has been set up for maintenance, however, he does not know what the tax ramifications would be when the property is under the ownership of the National Garden Conservancy.
Other Business
Possible Revision of The Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14 Re: Special Exceptions for Generators and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Zoning Board of Appeals has not submitted a response as of the time of this meeting.The Commissioners agreed to move item B. on the agenda after item D. Election of Officers.
Election of Officers:
Mr. Reich stated the following nominations for officers of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission:
Mr. David Owen, Chairman, Mr. Gary Fitzherbert, Vice Chairman, and Mr. Ralph Averill, Secretary.Motion:
to nominate David Owen as Chairman, Gary Fitzherbert as Vice Chairman and Ralph Averill as Secretary of the Town of Washington Zoning Commission,
by Mr. Owen, Seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.2010-2011 Zoning Commission Budget:
The Commission considered the draft of the Zoning Commission Budget and there was a brief discussion. There were no objections. Mr. Owen authorized Ms. Hill to submit the budget to the Selectman’s Office.Revision of Zoning Regulations/Eating and Drinking Establishments in the New Preston and Depot Business Districts by Special Permit:
Mr. Owen read a proposed revision to section 21.1.24/2.3.2.g/12.6.1.10/15.2 (on file in the Land Use Office). Ms. Hill suggested that the word cars be changed to vehicles in section 21.1.24.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on March 22, 2010 to consider the Revision of the Zoning Regulations Re: Definition of “Eating and Drinking Establishment” – “Restaurant”,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads:
M. Owen talked about correspondence to the Zoning Commission from the public. He stated that any written correspondence goes directly into the file and is part of the public record. He suggested, in order to cut down expenses to the Town, that people provide 12 copies of their correspondence to the Land Use office, which will then be distributed to all commissioner, staff and one file copy. He recommended that emails not be sent because spam, viruses and large PDF files may make the email undeliverable or unable to be opened. He stated that there will always be this type of correspondence with attorneys, but when possible it should be avoided. There was a brief discussion regarding establishing a policy. Mr. Owen stated that he and Ms. Hill would work on establishing a new policy after consulting with the Town’s attorney.Mr. Owen distributed a draft regarding defining ‘inns’. He stated that this draft could be a place to start the discussion and the numbers indicated were just examples and there were still a lot of questions to be answered. He suggested that the Zoning Commission should produce a general definition of an ‘inn,’ remove section 13.9, eliminate the term ‘tourist home’ and then in each of the districts that the Commission decides that inns would be a permitted use, list under Uses Permitted by Special Permit under the section regarding inns, specific requirements for that district. Mr. Averill asked what ‘small’ means in this definition. Mr. Owen stated that there would not be a single template for the entire Town. He stated that there might be an ‘inn’ that would be appropriate for one district but not appropriate in another district of the town. Mr. Averill stated that he was trying to look at it from the applicant’s point of view. Mr. Owen stated that the requirements for each district would be listed under that district’s Uses Permitted by Special Permit section. He stated that the Zoning Commission would still be required to make discretionary judgments regarding neighborhood impact and rural character. Mr. Averill stated that the more vague the regulations are that the Commission would be required to make more discretionary decisions and the applicant would have more ‘wiggle room’ legally. Mr. Owen stated that, in his opinion, the definition should be general enough to cover the entire town and the specifics would be listed under the regulations for each district. Mr. Averill stated that he was concerned that allowing commercial establishments, such as spas, tavern, gift shops and eating and drinking establishments in the R-1 or R-2 districts, which are not permitted by themselves but would be permitted under the business of an inn. He questioned why it would be okay to allow these businesses under an inn when it would otherwise not be allowed. Mr. Abella stated that these are secondary to the inn. Mr. Averill asked how that could be determined. Mr. Owen read his proposed definition of an inn, dated January 25, 2010. He stated that this definition was consistent with what the Town has treated as an inn in the past. Mr. Dubois stated that the Mayflower is not an inn, it’s on a state road and he did not agree with using it as a template for a definition of an inn on a town road. Mr. Owen stated that the town road issue is separate and could be specified in the regulations of each district. There was a discussion regarding inns on town roads. Mr. Owen stated that the Town has consistently treated the Mayflower as an inn. He stated that if inns are permitted in a residential neighborhood that the facility has to be a lodging facility first and foremost and the other entities of the business could be regulated by size, similarly to how accessory apartments are regulated. There was a brief discussion regarding how the size would be regulated. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he likes the concept of specifying requirements under each district as well as maintaining the Special Permit process. There was a brief discussion as to whether this would be a possible framework that the Zoning Commission would be able to work with. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he would still like to address the issue of inns on town roads separately. Mr. Owen stated that this issue could be addressed in the definition of an ‘inn’ or the Commission could address the issue another way. There was a brief discussion regarding the Mayflower Inn and its expansion over the years. Mr. Reich stated that the Mayflower did not have to go through all of these specifics to get to where they are today. Mr. Owen stated that he would not be in favor of changing the requirements in the regulations that would result in making the Mayflower non-conforming. There was a brief discussion regarding how the size of a secondary business of an inn would be regulated. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he sees two issues: 1. Inns on a town or state road, changing section 13.9 in the Regulations to what it was, and 2. Zoning should have a definition of an ‘inn’. He stated that he does not see that the Zoning Commission is near to agreeing what the definition of an ‘inn’ and he questions whether the two issues need to be discussed as one. Mr. Owen stated that Mr. Fitzherbert made a motion to change 13.9 to what it was and then withdrew it. Mr. Owen stated that Mr. Fitzherbert could put the motion back on the table. Mr. Fitzherbert agreed to work with Mr. Owen’s draft. Mr. Owen stated that he would prefer to deal with all of this at once. (Mr. Averill explained that the 2008 revisions of section 13.9 were clarifications only regarding the intent of this Zoning Regulation.) Mr. Fitzherbert asked if quick, special meetings could be held or if this process would take six months to a year to finish. Mr. Owen stated that special meetings would be possible. Ms. Hill suggested that the Zoning Commission make comments regarding all the points indicated on Mr. Owen’s draft of Inns, add and delete items as they see necessary and submit them to her. She stated that she would collate and compile them and bring them to the next meeting.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Chris Charles stated that there is a list of inns that have previously been in Town and he has not seen it and feels it would be helpful. He stated that he has gone through the letters that have been submitted to Zoning in the past month and 75 % of the inns that are mentioned as examples are not inns that are in Washington. He stated inns such as the Cogswell Tavern are never mentioned. He stated that the Zoning Commission reviews the previous meeting minutes but the Z.C. does not check the minutes of the previous meeting against the minutes ‘of a month, or two, or three before that.’ He stated that he realizes this would be difficult but, it is his perception, over the past six months, that ‘statements were made that are inconsistent with statements made at an earlier meetings’ and in order to move on with the discussion of the ‘inns’ he feels it would be helpful if a lot of these ambiguities were cleared. He stated that it would be helpful for the general public to know if the Commission would state whether it was a change in the regulation or a clarification. Mr. Owen stated that, in the opinion of the Town’s Attorney, that this issue was ‘unsettle-able’. He stated that there are statements that could be clarified and otherwise these statements tend to mislead the public. Mr. Charles stated that he would submit specific statements for the Zoning Commissioners to address. He stated that he feels the Zoning Commission’s current discussions tend to ‘slide back and forth between the discipline of being a Zoning Commission and the discipline of the Planning Commission’. He stated the Z.C. has discussions of economic development, which is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not think that anyone from the Zoning Commission has a background in inns or hotels. He stated, “There is no practical, real world expertise on the Zoning Commission.” He stated, that in his opinion that he didn’t think that the Zoning Commission could state for a fact, how big an inn should be, or determine how it would impact a certain property. He stated that he feels that the Zoning Commission should be consulting with an advisor regarding inns.Ms. Linda McGarr thanked the Zoning Commissioners for their volunteer work. She asked how an Eating and Drinking Establishment is differentiated from a Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Owen stated that there are definitions for both Eating and Drinking Establishment and Bed and Breakfast and the definition of an Eating and Drinking Establishment would not cover a Bed and Breakfast.
Ms. Wrabel stated that she felt the language she is hearing at the meetings could be characterized as retrospective and would like to urge the Commissioners to be more forward looking. She stated she likes Mr. Owen’s draft regarding concepts of inns but was concerned about using the Mayflower as a template for a definition and that the possible risks to the Town should be considered and efforts to protect the Town from these possible risks. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission does try to work for the long-term health of the Town. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Town would need to adapt for the future.
Mr. Phil Dutton stated that it should be made public that Ms. Peacocke is an intervener against the proposed inn and currently is in appeal against the most recent proposal of the property. He stated that he thought Mr. Charles’ idea for the Planning Commission and Zoning Commission to put together a feasibility study and hire experts on inns is ‘preposterous’. He stated that an entrepreneur would use their money to conduct a feasibility study and that it would be a ‘slippery slope to start to have the Town thinking about regulating business from that standpoint.’ He stated that the Town should seriously think about the capacity for a commission to over regulate the potential outcome.
Mr. Anthony Martino asked if there is in the Regulations about resorts and how they differ from inns and hotels, etc. Mr. Owen stated that there is nothing in the Regulations. Mr. Martino asked what would happen if an applicant changed the name of the business from inn to resort and resubmitted. Mr. Owen stated that resorts are not permitted and per the Zoning Regulations, if it’s not listed as permitted, it’s not allowed.
Mr. Drew Stichter stated how an entrepreneur could improve a property even if the business does not survive. Mr. Owen agreed and stated that the Zoning Commission’s job is not to evaluate whether a business will be successful.
Mr. Christopher Peacocke asked if the draft definition of inns would be on the Town Website. Mr. Owen stated he was not sure, but it would be in the file that is available to the public.
Mr. Stephen Lasar stated that he was concerned with the Z.C. using the Mayflower as a template for the definition of an ‘inn’.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.Enforcement
Mr. Owen asked that the Commissioners look at Mr. Ajello’s Zoning Enforcement Report dated 1/25/10.Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 9:35 pm by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Meetings in 2009