The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Planning Commission
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Planning 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 Planning Commission
June 6 •May 7 •April 2 •March 5 •February 19 •February 5 •January 8 •Previous years: 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: June 14, 2013 June 4, 2013
7:30 Upper Level Mtg Room
Members Present: Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent: Ms. Roberts
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne
Staff Present: Ms. Hill, Ms. White
Also Present: Mr. CharlesMs. Gager, Vice Chair called the Meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Ms. Gager, Mr. Carey, Alt.Privilege of the Floor
There were no comments from the public at this time.
Consideration of the Minutes
The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the 5-7-13 regular meeting.Motion:
To accept the May 7, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Janke, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications to discuss.
OTHER BUSINESS
Plan of Conservation and Development
Revised Drafts:
Community Facilities Draft:
Ms. Gager stated that Milone & MacBroom would supply an updated draft of what the final POCD would look like before June 30th. The prototype of the POCD would be sent electronically to the Planning Commission before the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on July 2, 2013. Ms. Gager recommends that the commissioners look at the prototype from a visual standpoint as well as the content.There was a brief discussion regarding the budget for the revision of the POCD. Ms. Gager confirmed that they were currently up to date with any payments
The Commissioners and Ms. Hill discussed comments and suggestions that they had for the consultants regarding the most recent draft of the Community Facilities section of the revised POCD.
7:45 pm – Mr. Charles arrives
Ms. Gager stated that comments regarding the drafts should be given to Milone & MacBroom no later than the end of July 2013.
Mr. Rimsky feels that the drafts should be cleaned up and consolidated.
The Commissioners agreed that all of the drafts should follow the same format with the recommendations at the beginning and support documentation and commentary as part of the appendix.
The Commissioners had a lengthy discussion regarding how they should address Regional School District 12 in the revised POCD. Mr. Carey suggesting waiting until the last minute possible to include anything in the revised POCD regarding the schools because of the ongoing issues. He recommended having a member of the Board of Education approve this section in the revised POCD.
The Commissioners discussed the Town Garage site and the renovations to Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
There was a brief discussion regarding the future needs of the Senior Center. Ms. Hill feels that municipal parking should be addressed in this section.
8:25 pm – Ms. Bishop-Wrabel arrives.
The Commissioners discussed the issues and strategies that were included in this most recent Community Facilities draft. The Commissioners agreed that this section should be streamlined and acknowledge that the Town of Washington must continue to provide and maintain facilities that provide support to its residents. And, these services and facilities should be in line with the demographic community.
Natural Resources, Open Space & Recreation Draft:
Ms. Hill stated that the Planning Commission had asked for an update of this section that was written for the 2003 POCD.The Commissioners discussed how the Natural Resource Inventory Report could be included in the revised POCD.
Mr. Rimsky feels that reuse or revitalization of agricultural land for locally grown sustainable agriculture should be addressed in this section.
Mr. Frank read the email that provided input from Ms. Payne, Chair of Conservation Commission, to Milone and MacBroom regarding this draft.
Bryan Memorial Plaza Improvements:
The Committee for the Bryan Memorial Plaza Improvements has not met at this time. Ms. Gager recommended that Mr. Rimsky keep in mind the suggestions that the Planning Commission has already brought forward to the Selectmen when the Plaza Improvement Committee does meet.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.Administrative Business
There was no administrative business to discuss.
Public Comment
Mr. Charles mentioned that he sent 4 emails to Ms. Hill to forward to the Planning Commission members that he feels would be beneficial to them.Mr. Rimsky discussed the meeting that the representatives from the Planning Commission had with the heads of private schools and Regional School District 12.
Mr. Charles recommended that the grant for the Plaza improvements include the whole Depot area. He stated that there are a lot of opportunities for the Planning Commission to be more involved, more proactive in seeing things that they envision implemented.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky.Ms. Gager adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 16, 2013 May 7, 2013
7:30, Upper Level Mtg Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne
Staff Present: Ms. Hill, Ms. White
Also Present: Mr. Bedini, Mr. HilemanMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Seated: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Jahnke, Ms. Gager
Privilege of the Floor
Ms. Roberts reminded the Commissioners to listen to what the public has to say and hold on to their comments until later.It was noted that opportunity for Public Comment has been included as an agenda item before Adjournment.
Consideration of the Minutes
The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the 4-2-13 regular meeting.Motion:
To accept the April 2, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications to discuss.
OTHER BUSINESS
Plan of Conservation and Development
Revised Drafts:
Mr. Looney, Planning Consultant, asked for input from the Commissioners on the revised Village Centers Draft. He stated that brought larger Zoning maps and asked if they would like to review them map-by-map.Mr. Frank stated that he does not get the sense that the recommendations listed in the Village Center Draft are providing enough guidance for people in town. He feels that the POCD needs to be an action document and that there needs to be more specifics.
Mr. Rimsky suggested that the term “Village District” be defined and the POCD should include how we visualize the villages growing for the next ten years.
The Commissioners and Mr. Looney discussed the meaning of Village Districts.
7:55 pm, Mr. Hileman arrives.
Ms. Gager feels that the POCD needs to direct the Zoning Commission as to what they need to do. She suggested that the POCD recommends perpendicular growth of the villages in order to prevent urban sprawl. She feels that the POCD should not be too explicit and should provide other commissions with areas to focus on.
There was a brief discussion regarding Village District Designation. Ms. Gager stated that there are a lot of different components of what can and cannot be accepted in these designated areas. The Commission briefly discussed whether the Zoning Commission would be amenable to looking into how other towns use Village District Designation.
The Commission and Mr. Looney discussed the idea of changing the zoning designation of properties around villages. Mr. Carey stated he is concerned that changing the zoning designation of a property could change the property owner’s tax designation.
Ms. Gager feels that the POCD should recommend focusing consideration on specific areas but not limited to stated specific areas. Mr. Looney stated that the consultants do try to get pretty specific with strategies.
Mr. Frank asked how the septic issue affects the specific strategies recommended for Washington Depot. There was a brief discussion of a septic study of the Depot. Mr. Carey stated that would be a great expense to the Town and that it is known that sewage and water are big problems that need to be considered.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the POCD should be more of a guide of what should be in the Town of Washington rather than what currently exists.
Ms. Hill stated that the general public expressed support for enhancement of village centers but did not support business development when the Depot Study was performed.
Mr. Carey favors specificity and brevity for the recommendations in the revised POCD.
Ms. Roberts feels that the Planning Commission is responsible for providing the town with general ideas for the next ten years but not the exact implementation.
The Commissioners and Mr. Looney discussed the cost of a market study and what it would include.
There was a brief discussion regarding the concept of an Economic Development position or Committee for the town.
The Planning Commission discussed meeting with the Zoning Commission to discuss the zoning maps. Ms. Hill stated that she would look into when the two commissions could meet.
3/7/13 Memo re: Depot Study and Plaza Improvements:
Mr. Rimsky volunteered to represent the Planning Commission for the improvement committee for Bryan Memorial Plaza.
Communications
Ms. Hill informed the Commissioners that the Army Corp. of Engineers are planning on installing a culvert at Shinar Mt. & Walker Brook Roads and 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.She reminded the Commissioners that there would be a tax workshop on tax incentives for small business on May 14, 2013 at Kent Town Hall.
Public Comment
Mr. Bedini feels that it would be a good idea for the Planning Commission to meet with the Zoning Commission.Mr. Hileman encouraged the Commission to make decisions and take action.
Adjournment
Motion:
To adjourn by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Gager.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:27 pm.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: April 13, 2013 April 2, 2013
7:30, Upper Level Mtg Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank
Members Absent: Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Carey
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel
Staff Present: Ms. Hill, Ms. White
Also Present: Mr. BediniMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Carey, Alt.
REGULAR MEETING
Privilege of the Floor
Ms. Roberts stated that she would like to change the format of the Planning Commission meetings to allow Privilege of the Floor at the beginning of the meetings. She feels that the meetings can be lengthy and this would allow the members of the public who may not be able to stay for the entire length of the meeting to be heard by the Commission.Ms. Roberts encouraged the Commissioners to listen to what the public has to say and hold on to their comments until later.
Mr. Frank stated that he feels the public should be invited to speak toward the end of the meeting as well. Ms. Roberts suggested that they could request that a member of the public submit a statement or question(s) in writing to the Commission if they cannot stay for the meeting. Mr. Frank stated that he is concerned about closing off public comments or questions on issues that are discussed during the meeting.
It was noted that opportunity for Public Comment has been and will be included as an agenda item before Adjournment.
7:35 pm Ms. Gager arrives and is seated.
Consideration of the Minutes
The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the 3-5-13 regular meeting.Motion:
To accept the March 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications to discuss.
OTHER BUSINESS
Plan of Conservation and Development
Revised Drafts:
Ms. Gager stated that she found the revised format easier to read. Mr. Looney said that they revamped the format of the Demographics & Housing, Economic Development, and Village Centers drafts based on the feedback the consultants received from the Commission. He stated that they put the goals, objectives and strategies at the beginning, and placed the underlying data and discussion sections in as added an appendix at the back of each report. The revised reports also include more specific comments.The Commissioners and Mr. Looney discussed the inclusion of an “action agenda” at the end of the POCD that would list the proposed actions, who is responsible for them, and the time periods in which they should be accomplished.
Mr. Looney stated that he removed the proposed zoning maps from the Village Center draft and would like to go over them with the Commission to determine which parcels should be proposed as residential or business.
Mr. Looney said that they have received feedback for the Sustainability, Natural Resources, and Community Facilities drafts and would have the revised drafts ready for discussion at the May 7, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting.
The Commissioners and Mr. Looney reviewed the status of discussions with local business owners.
The Commissioners next reviewed the Demographics and Housing draft with Mrm. Looney.
There was a discussion regarding housing statistics as reported in census data, particularly with regard to the significant number of “second homes” in town designated “vacant” for census purposes.
Mr. Frank feels that the Commission needs to be very specific in terms of the recommendations that are included in the POCD rather than making general proposals, for example, that the zoning regulations be examined to see what changes might be made to achieve a particular result..
Mr. Looney explained the difficulties in making specific recommendations for the Demographics and Housing portion of the POCD.
The Commissioners and Mr. Looney discussed the issue of housing diversity.
It was recommended that technical terms and abbreviations used in the POCD be explained in a glossary.
Among the subjects discussed by the Commission were the interrelationship of the status of the Region 12 school system with the need for, and availability of, diverse housing choices, matters relating to the Affordable Housing Appeals Act (including the significance of, and the difficulty of obtaining, deed restrictions for accessory apartments), and the growing interest in meeting the housing needs of our aging population.
If LEED and Smart Growth development is to be proposed as part of a strategy, these concepts should be described and specific recommendations made. Mr. Carey stated that it is his understanding that most LEED and Smart Growth development is predicated on a municipal sewer and water system. Mr. Looney responded that there are ways that it could be done without municipal water and sewer systems and he would look into the infrastructure requirements a bit further.
The Commissioners and Mr. Looney next reviewed the Economic Development draft. The need to be very specific in recommendations made was again stressed. The consultants were requested to identify specific government and other programs that could be utilized to assist existing local businesses and attract new ones.
Mr. Rimsky suggested that some of the language be streamlined to avoid redundancy.
There was a brief discussion regarding the topography of the town and the influence it has on the zoning of certain parcels.
The “Journey to Work” section, and the census data in the related tables were discussed. Mr. Frank stated that he believed that this data required further research and explanation. He noted that the POCD should not contain data, which the Commission cannot explain.
The importance of telecommunications infrastructure to the economic development of the town was discussed.
There was a discussion of light industrial uses along the Route 202 corridor and elsewhere. The feasibility of providing tax deferments to new or expanded businesses was discussed.
There was a lengthy discussion of the consultants’ recommendation that the town employ a part-time economic development staff officer, or create and economic development group or commission and how that might be financed. In response to the recommendation that the town conduct a public opinion survey concerning economic development, Ms. Gager suggested that the use of social media be considered as an alternative way to bring economic development ideas to the town from residents and business owners.
There was a discussion regarding the suitability of recommending the designation of Village/Business Improvement Districts for Washington Depot and possibly other areas. Mr. Looney will investigate further.
The Commissioners also discussed open space in the town and the possibility of promoting increased agricultural uses.
The Commission deferred the review of the Village Centers draft until the May 7, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.
3/7/13 Memo re: Depot Study and Plaza Improvements:
The Commissioners briefly discussed the status of the Depot Study. Ms. Roberts stated the study was referred to the Selectmen, but was never formally adopted or acted upon by the town.
Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Public Comment
No one from the public was present at this time.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:50 pm.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 13, 2013 March 5, 2013
7:30, Upper Level Mtg Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Ms. Jahnke
Members Absent:
Alternates Present:
Alternates Absent: Mr. Osborne, Mr. Carey, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel
Staff Present: Ms. Hill, Ms. White
Also Present: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Charles, Ms. PurnellMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Ms. Roberts, Ms. Jahnke, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. GagerConsideration of the Minutes
The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the 2-5-13 regular meeting.Motion:
To accept the February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the 2-19-13 special meeting.
Motion:
To accept the February 19, 2013 Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Rimsky, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications to discuss.
OTHER BUSINESS
Plan of Conservation and Development
Meeting with Heads of Schools:
Mr. Rimsky stated that he, Mr. Frank and Mr. Looney, Planning Consultant, met with the heads of schools. Each private school in the Town had a representative at this meeting and Pat Cosentino, Superintendent of Region 12 also attended. He expressed that he was surprised to find out that the private schools are experiencing similar demographic declines in their day student population. Mr. Rimsky noted that most of the educational institutions are located in residential zones and must follow the zoning regulations for the residential zone. He stated that the heads of schools believe that this constrains the development of the institution and makes updating facilities difficult.Mr. Rimsky noted that there was a conversation regarding the institutions tax relationship with the Town. Mr. Frank stated that most of the schools pay a certain amount in lieu of taxes. Mr. Rimsky said that the school representatives discussed the residential rate of certain buildings used for private residential purposes.
Mr. Rimsky felt that the schools are reacting positively to the economic component of the POCD. The school representatives discussed working cooperatively with the Town for special events and discussed their potential to contribute to the Town. There was a brief discussion regarding the possible uses of the institutional facilities.
7:45 pm – Ms. Gager arrives and is seated.
Mr. Frank stated that the school representatives also expressed a concern for the lack of housing available for their staff. The Commission briefly discussed housing.
3/5 Meeting with Mr. Looney and Mr. McDermott
Ms. Gager stated that she, Ms. Roberts and Ms. Hill had met today with Mr. Looney and Mr. McDermott of Milone & MacBroom, POCD consultants and discussed the modification of the format of the revised POCD. She stated that each section would start out with an introduction, and then focus on the issues, goals and strategies. She stated all of the detail would be in the appendix at the back of the document for reference. Ms. Gager noted that all of the maps would be changed and improved with updated information and the strategies would include specifics.Ms. Gager stated that all of the drafts would be put in this new format and submitted to the Planning Commission for review by the April 2, 2013 meeting. She noted that after discussing the formatting of the revised POCD they all agreed that a June deadline would be difficult and they are now considering a September-October deadline.
The Commission discussed how they would be reviewing the content of the newly formatted drafts after they are submitted.
Mr. Rimsky asked if there was any discussion about public outreach meetings.
Ms. Gager replied that Mr. Looney had open office hours today in which he met with some people but they did not discuss meetings in the other villages. She noted that they mainly discussed the format of the reports at this meeting.
The Commission discussed referencing the previous POCDs.
Mr. Frank stated that since the Planning Commission is called upon from time to time to determine whether a proposed action is consistent with the POCD, he believes that the revised POCD document should be consistently formatted in a way to enable the Planning Commission to state clearly the basis for its decisions.
Ms. Gager responded that the revised POCD would use the data from the precious POCDs as a baseline and factor in the new data. She stated that the old data would be in appendix format.
Mr. Frank noted that the Consultants have proposed that the Depot Study be incorporated by reference in the revised POCD. He believes that it was never a part of the POCD and should only be incorporated to the extent that the Commission believes that it should be part of the Plan going forward.
Ms. Gager responded that they must mention in the cover letter anything that they want incorporated into the POCD otherwise it is not a part of the plan. She stated that it would be as specific as, for example, creating a line item in the budget for an economic development person as well as the steps that follow.
Mr. Frank noted that the contract with the planning consultants there is a section regarding public outreach and consensus building and asked how the Commission would determine whether this is being fulfilled.
The Commission discussed public outreach meetings.
Mr. Rimsky stated that he does not think that the Town website is the public access document in the way the Planning Commission would like it to be. He feels there could be a better way to direct the public to the information more efficiently.
The Commission discussed the need for focus groups during the revision process as well as after the POCD has been updated as a means of receiving public input.
Other POCD Discussion:
The Conservation Commission is working with the planning consultants on the Sustainability draft. There was a brief discussion regarding sustainability.The Planning Commission discussed Mr. Hileman’s email outlining his views on the POCD's role in addressing the Region 12 crisis. They agreed that Region 12 facilities would be addressed in the revised POCD.
Mr. Bedini, member of the Board of Education, was present and requested that he have the opportunity to clear up some of the misinformation that is circulating about changes in Region 12. He stated that the crisis in Region 12 is the declining enrollment, which is something that is happening all over the State of Connecticut.
Mr. Bedini discussed the options that are being considered by the Board of Ed. Long Range Planning Committee and stated that it is not true that the Superintendent is looking to tuition out the kids in the High School.
The Commissioners and Mr. Bedini discussed the monetary components of the options for Region 12. Mr. Bedini stated that the L.R.P. Committee would present these options to the Board of Education and then they would vote on which one to send to referendum.
There was a discussion regarding a referendum and how important it is to get the right information to the public so they are informed what they are voting for.
The Commission and Mr. Bedini discussed the Region 12 facilities and the need to consider modern technology because of the unique land-based challenges.
Ms. Roberts requested that the Commissioners continue to read through the existing drafts, not concentrating on the format, and provide feedback for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on April 2, 2013.
Ms. Roberts urged the Commission to stay positive through this process and provide constructive criticism when needed.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pm.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: February 23, 2013 February 19, 2013
Special Meeting
7:30 p.m., Upper Level Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frank, Ms. Gager, Mrs. Jahnke, Mr. Rimsky, Mrs. Roberts
ALTERNATE PRESENT: Mr. Carey
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Ms. Bishop-Wrabel, Mr. Osborne
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Bedini, Mr. HilemanMrs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and seated members Frank, Gager, Jahnke, Rimsky, and Roberts.
She noted the purpose of the Special Meeting was to discuss the following draft documents for the update of the Plan of Conservation and Development; “Demographics and Housing,” “Economic Development,” and “Village Centers.”Mrs. Roberts recommended the Commission write a preamble to the updated Plan to explain it focused on four issues that were either new or had not been adequately addressed in previous Plans; Housing, Economic Development, Village Centers, and Sustainability.
Demographics and Housing:
Points raised included the following:
1. Mr. Frank asked whether the census population figures include weekenders. Mr. Hileman said they do not; only full timers with their primary residence in Washington were included. Mr. Frank said that fact should be mentioned in the text.2. Mrs. Jahnke noted the 2000 census data for Washington was incorrect and so advised that the 1990 figures should be included.
3. It was generally thought there were too many charts and graphs depicting the same thing and so some should either be combined or eliminated.
4. It was the consensus that it was important to place the background information and analysis at the end of the chapter or in an appendix so that the focus of this section is on the goals and objectives and the recommendations.
5. Everyone agreed that specifics and more details are needed in the recommendations.
6. It was the consensus that this draft (and all the others) need a lot of additional work because they do not meet the Commission’s expectations or requirements to be considered a final draft. Ms. Gager also said the sections need to have a consistent format. She asked, for example, why the SWOT analysis had been done for only one chapter.
7. Mr. Frank asked how the 2003 Plan would be integrated with the 2013 update. Ms. Gager noted that many of the recommendations were already in the 2003 Plan and so recommended that the Commission look into their current status and proceed from there.
8. Mr. Rimsky asked how the Zoning Commission and Zoning Regulations would be integrated into the update process. He asked for more of a focus on this issue.
9. Ms. Gager offered to reorganize the Demographics and Housing draft before the next meeting. When completed, it will be sent to the commissioners for review and eventually posted on the Town website.
Economic Development:
The discussion included the following issues:
1. Mr. Frank asked for an explanation of the statistics. For example, he did not understand how the number of workers commuting into and from Washington could both be 714.2. Again, it was the consensus that the general information and the tables and charts should be moved to the end of the section or placed in an appendix so the focus would be on the goals and objectives and recommendations. Mrs. Roberts thought the use of footnotes would be another option.
3. Mr. Rimsky thought the relevant information for Washington, as opposed to Litchfield County, should be used. Also on page 5, for example, he did not think references to the national economy were relevant and so thought there was no reason to include them.
4. Re: page 6, Mr. Rimsky asked for specific recommendations on how the Town’s growth potential could be enhanced. Ms. Gager agreed, saying that for each goal listed the consultants need to tell the Commission how to make it happen.
5. The relevance of the Economic Comparison “bubble” chart was questioned.
6. Mr. Hileman noted that the public school jobs were included under government and everyone thought this should be clarified in the text.
7. Regarding page 11, Mr. Rimsky thought some of the statements were contradictory and suggested that the bullets be condensed and combined and that examples of businesses for each category be given.
8. Specific goals and objectives listed by the commissioners were:
a) keep existing businesses and continue to support schools, arts, and culture,
b) expand clean industry,
c) encourage development along the Rt. 202 corridor – in depth development, not sprawl,
d) enhance mixed use in the village centers,
e) update, expand use of the Town website.9. Ms. Gager noted it was important to state who has ownership of each recommendation and who contributes to the process because when this connection is shown there is accountability for implementation. Mr. Frank said that implementation charts were needed.
10. The Commission supports the idea of a new position for an economic development professional to work for the Town and coordinate with the Business Association and that this would be an initiative rather than a goal.
11. It was noted the Commission had received a suggestion that a future study be conducted about business development on Rt. 202, but the commissioners did not decide whether to recommend that this be undertaken.
12. It was thought the Zoning Commission should reevaluate its Regulations on the basis of economic potential. Mr. Rimsky also asked the consultants for working models for specific areas of Town and specific plans for village district zones.
13. Mrs. Jahnke voiced her concern that an across the board revision of the Zoning Regulations to shift all lots currently divided by a business district/residential district boundary line into the business districts might not be appropriate. She cited Cook Street properties as an example. Mr. Carey agreed that rezoning the NE quadrant of Cook Street would not accomplish anything. Mr. Rimsky thought Church Street properties in New Preston also needed to be reviewed and that the consultants should recommend a more workable, imaginative approach.
14. Mr. Frank noted the consultants had suggested tax deferments for new businesses. He asked for examples of other towns that have done this and whether it was a feasible idea.
15. Ms. Gager urged that the Town website be updated to provide links for business opportunities, economic development, the arts, and cultural events. Mr. Rimsky said the website could be used to foster Town spirit and to coordinate the different Town segments; schools, churches, government, etc.
16. Mr. Rimsky will reorganize this section prior to the next meeting.
Village Centers:
Points raised included the following:
1. It was agreed that although it states on page 1 that this section dovetails with the chapter on economic development, it doesn’t.2. It was also agreed that too much time was spent telling the reader what the Town looks like. We already know this.
3. Mr. Frank said there were many references throughout to soil types, but no explanation provided as to why soil types are significant.
4. The commissioners cited these goals for The Depot:
a) retain existing businesses
b) make the village center more conducive to foot traffic
c) improve Bryan Plaza – both parking and traffic circulation
d) encourage mixed use
e) have a sewage/septic capability report done
f) plan for use of floodplain areas5. Mr. Carey voiced his disagreement with the Depot Study, noted the recently completed flood plain study found there was more floodplain in The Depot than we had thought, disagreed with what he described as Milone and MacBroom’s findings that all is well in The Depot, when we know there are now many vacant business spaces, said that Mr. Hileman’s undated document, “Achievable Goals for the Town of Washington 2013 POCD, Housing and Demographics,” which proposed a Town sponsored local down payment assistance program, would get the Town into trouble, and said there were not five village centers because Woodville was zoned out and The Green is not an economic center. He thought the Commission should have undertaken the update itself because he did not think the consultants were doing an adequate job. Ms. Gager responded that although the drafts were not acceptable, the Commission would return them to the consultants with guidelines and directions and would hold them accountable.
6. Mr. Rimsky noted that if The Green was to be included as a village center, the hubs of the center; the library, museum, and churches had been left out of the draft.
7. Mrs. Roberts did not support the idea of coordinating lighting fixtures throughout the village centers.
8. Mr. Rimsky stated the old Texaco station property was the most significant site in The Depot. While all agreed the empty Ficalora former gas station property is an eyesore, they noted it is private property and so did not think the Town could mandate a plan for it or do anything other than keep the lines of communication open with the property owner. Mrs. Hill noted Mr. Ficalora had a very good development plan drawn up before the economy crashed in 2007.
9. Regarding The Depot, it was thought the following issues should be considered; possible alternate uses for the Town Garage property on Blackville Road should it become available in the future, village district designation for The Depot, Mr. Talbot’s Mill Race plan for the old Town Garage site and adjoining properties, and reuse of the Primary School building if it should become available.
10. Mr. Frank asked what the consultants meant when they wrote that the Depot Study was incorporated in the update. Were recommendations being made based on that Study? He thought it would be confusing to have to refer to a number of documents whenever the Commission was asked if something was in compliance with the POCD.
11. Mr. Cary stated the sketch plan in the Depot Study for improvements to Bryan Plaza would not work because it had not been properly measured and would not fit in the area. Mr. Rimsky thought diagonal parking with a marginal planted median strip would require an approx. six ft. encroachment into the Town Hall lawn and could be accomplished.
12. Mr. Rimsky noted the Zoning Commission would have to reevaluate its Regulations to ensure they support business and mixed use.
13. Mr. Rimsky said it was important to make sure that Church Street was included in the New Preston village center and River Road was included in The Depot village center.
14. It was noted the 2003 POCD had recommended a gateway district for The Depot, but that this had never been implemented.
Ms. Gager again stated the drafts would be reorganized before the next meeting to better give the consultants new directions. Mr. Frank said he wanted to make each of the drafts a different kind of document.
Mrs. Roberts advised the Commission that she had met with Ms. Gager who had agreed to take a more prominent roll in the update of the POCD. Ms. Gager said the Commission would continue to do an in depth review of the drafts and to facilitate this work, public comments would be taken at the end of the meeting. She thought, and the Commission agreed, that continual public comments during discussions was disruptive and slowed the Commission’s progress. She said the public would be encouraged to submit written comments before each meeting so there would be time to review and to think about them. Mr. Rimsky noted that although comments would be put off until the end of each meeting, this would not diminish their importance and that all input would be considered. Ms. Gager thought a better time for public input would be after the drafts had been revised.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill, Land Use Administrator
Posted: February 12, 2013 February 5, 2013
7:30, Upper Level Mtg Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Osborne, Mr. Carey
Alternates Absent: Ms. Bishop-Wrabel
Staff Present: Ms. Hill, Ms. White
Also Present: Mr. Looney, Consultant, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Bedini, First Selectman Lyon, Mr. Charles, Mr. TalbotMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Ms. Roberts, Ms. Jahnke, Mr. Frank, Mr. Rimsky, Mr. Osborne (for Ms. Gager)Consideration of the Minutes
The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the 1-8-13 meeting.Motion:
To accept the January 8, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Jahnke, passed by 5-0 vote.
New Applications
There were no new applications to discuss.
OTHER BUSINESS
Referral from Board of Selectmen/8-24/Cell Tower at 10 Blackville Road :
First Selectman Lyon distributed copies of a sheet that has highlights of the proposed Option and Lease Agreement between the Town and Homeland Towers LLC, Site Plan, Compound Plan, Southern Elevation, cellular coverage maps and photos os what the proposed tower would look like. Representatives of the Planning Commission had previously had an opportunity to review the terms of the proposed agreement, had attended the Town Informational Meeting on February 2 and had an opportunity to review the balloon float on that date.7:50 pm - Ms. Gager arrives and is seated.
First Selectman Lyon explained the highlights of the lease and discussed the other documentation. He stated that if the Town chose a “tree” shape for the proposed cell tower, then from the majority of the viewsheds the tower would look like a tree amongst trees. The Commission looked at the maps and discussed telecommunication coverage to be afforded by the tower
Mr. Frank stated that Homeland Towers was also in negotiation with the Town of Morris for a tower to be erected at the Morris Transfer Station. Homeland representatives had explained that the Morris Tower should be able to communicate with this proposed Washington tower ,which would add to the area of coverage.
Mr. Frank noted that the Planning Commission had been dealing with potential lease arrangements for a cell tower at this site for two years and had made a site visit. He noted that a lease of town property required a report from the Commission, and asked whether the Commission was prepared to make such report at this meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would move forward with a resolution.
There was a brief discussion regarding letters of support for the proposed tower as well as expressions of concern.
Mr Frank proposed the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approves the leasing by the Town of Washington of a portion of the grounds of the Town Highway Department Facility at 10 Blackville Road to Homeland Towers LLC for the purpose of erecting a radio transmission tower and related facilities under terms substantially in accordance with those set forth in the proposed Option and Lease Agreement between the Town and Homeland presented to this Commission, with such changes therein as are acceptable to the Board of Selectmen and any other town governmental entities having jurisdiction. The Planning Commission finds that such project at such location, as presented, is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development in that it will enhance a village center by bringing wireless telephone and related communications coverage to the Washington Depot area, including the Town Hall government center, police, fire and emergency services, and the business and residential communities located there. This resolution constitutes the report of the Planning Commission required under Section 8-24 of the Connecticut General Statutes.Motion:
to adopt the resolution
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Gager, passed by 5-0 vote.
Plan of Conservation and Development
Comments on Previous Drafts:
The Commissioners had a lengthy discussion regarding the contents of the drafts. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to schedule a special meeting to go through the drafts in depth.The Planning Commission scheduled a special meeting for February 19, 2013 at 7:30 pm at Bryan Memorial Town Hall in the Upper Level Meeting Room to review the Demographics and Housing, Economic Development, and Village Centers Drafts in depth.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he has read the drafts and agrees with the Planning Commission that the documents should be more specific and forthright.
Mr. Bedini feels that the Commissioners would have been able to write any of the drafts and that a lot of effort has been put into stating the obvious. He suggested the POCD concentrate on a few specific things and provide solutions to the specific problems. Mr. Bedini stated that he attended the August Town Information Meeting and asked if any of the Commissioners heard anything from the public that they had not heard before.
Ms. Gager responded that she did not hear any new issues from the public.
Mr. Rimsky stated that there has been a shift in what the residents view as important issues. He stated that 10 years ago it was “rural character” and now people are interested in discussing housing and the population changes.
Mr. Talbot was hoping that the Consultants would have some sense of the past POCDs of the Town and that there would be an opportunity for them to inspire the residents and the stakeholders in this community to address the issues holistically.
Mr. Charles asked why future energy needs of the Town are not being addressed.
Mr. Frank stated that it is important that the public has access to these drafts and is able to provide input. He stated that the drafts are available online but it has not been explained that these are draft memoranda for discussion and there has been no request for the public to provide feedback.
The Commission discussed how they could encourage more feedback from the public.
Blackville Town Garage site/Retain for Town Garage or Investigate Possibility of Relocating:
First Selectman Lyon stated that the Town needs to make a decision now on what t will be done with this site. This short term issue should not be addressed in the 10 year plan, but consideration should be given there to long term Highway Department needs.Mr. Frank stated that adequacy of the Town Facilities must be addressed in the POCD.
Mr. Charles asked how a complete build-out of the Town would impact the Town Highway Department.
Mr. Lyon responded that it would be a huge impact but he doesn't feel that the ten year plan is looking at having 4700 residences in Town. He stated that the POCD should address the long term needs of the Town and the replacement of the burned building at the Town Garage Facility would be a decision that would be made in the short term.
Mr. Charles feels that it is important that the Town does soil testing in the Depot to determine septic capacity and building potential. He stated that without this information the Town does not know how important the Town Garage property or any of the properties in the Depot are.
Mr. Talbot asked if the Commissioners and the Consultants had come to any conclusions regarding the memo he sent them following up on a meeting he had with the Board of Selectmen regarding the Town Garage property at 10 Blackville Road.
Ms. Gager responded that some of the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the 10 Blackville Road property were the density at that location, sight lines with traffic, whether or not we could economically support moving the facility and whether there is a piece of property available for a new Highway Department Facility.
Mr. Talbot asked if the Planning Commission would even consider another use for the site or if they have already made the decision.
Ms. Gager responded that the Commission did not have an in depth discussion as to whether the Commission supported Mr. Talbot's proposal or not.
Mr. Talbot stated that in terms of village center enhancements, 10 Blackville Road is the only viable piece of property in the Depot. He feels that a decision has been made because of the proposed cell tower. He asked if the Commission is considering the notion of light industrial business and whether it is important to the Town's future development. He stated that businesses such as this could be a viable use for the 10 Blackville Road property. Mr. Talbot stated that this is a time sensitive issue.
Ms. Roberts stated that she felt that the Board of Finance did not seem receptive to the idea of moving the Town Garage to another location.
There was a brief discussion regarding the cost of relocating the Town Garage Facilities.
Mr. Looney explained that the Economic Development portion of the POCD would focus on promoting locally grown entrepreneurship and building upon the strengths of the villages.
Mr. Charles feels that it would be irresponsible not to consider the ideas brought forth by Mr. Talbot.
Ms. Roberts stated that she feels that there are important points that are being made and it becomes more complicated to get everyone to agree on the priorities and actions to take.
Mr. Carey stated that the State mandates that the POCD be updated every ten years. He doubts that the Legislature ever considered all the factors, such as the economic and sociological forces of today that would be involved. He stated that the Town has to deal with the issues of Regional School District 12, its failing infrastructure and the lack of support from the other towns within the region. Mr. Carey stated that the Planning Commission is trying to put together a document that meets the requirements of the State and input is valuable during this process. He feels that input that requires them to “think and bemoan what might have been” is not helping the process.
Mr. Talbot stated that he would like to talk about future plans for Bryan Memorial Plaza as it relates to economic development. He stated that he is now the Vice President of the Art Association and he would love the opportunity for an examination of additional septic capacity for the Depot to allow for future expansion of the Art Association and the Fire House ( now the Washington Police Building) and other uses. He stated that even if expansion of the septic is not possible he hopes that the recommendations for the Plaza in the 2005 Depot Study would be carried out.
Mr. Lyon stated that a meeting with the DOT was scheduled in March and the plan for Bryan Memorial Plaza would be discussed.
Marbledale-New Preston-Woodville Meeting:
The Commission discussed the proposed meeting with representatives of the villages.
Meeting with Heads of Schools:
Mr. Looney stated that he has contacted several of the heads of schools and believes that a meeting at the end of February may be planned but he is waiting to hear back from a couple of people.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky.Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:15 pm.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: January 15, 2013 January 8, 2013
7:30 pm., Upper Level Mtg Room
Members Present: Ms. Roberts, Mr. Rimsky, Ms. Gager, Mr. Frank, Ms. Jahnke
Alternates Present: Mr. Osborne, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel
Alternates Absent: Mr. Carey
Staff Present: Ms. Hill, Ms. White
Also Present: Mr. Bedini, Mr. Charles, Mr. Harrall, Mr. LooneyMs. Roberts called the Meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Seated: Roberts, Gager, Rimsky, Frank, JahnkeConsideration of the Minutes
The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the 12-4-12 meeting:Motion:
to accept the December 4, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission as submitted,
by Ms. Gager, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote
New Applications
There were no new applications to consider.
OTHER BUSINESS
Plan of Conservation and Development
Discussion of Village Centers Draft Report:
Ms. Roberts requested that the Commission comment on the Town of Washington Plan of Conservation and Development Update, Village Centers Draft Report prepared by Milone & MacBroom. She stated that she found the Opportunities listed on page 5 interesting and noted that there would be challenges because of the floodplain. Mr. Looney stated that a more detailed site analysis would need to be done for these sites and any structure proposed would need to be raised 2 ft. Mr. Rimsky noted that the shopping plaza on Green Hill is raised because it was built in the floodplain. Ms. Bishop-Wrabel agreed that the revised POCD should use specific language and be constructive when addressing issues such as the floodplain.Mr. Rimsky suggested that the revised POCD address the concerns and provide achievable suggestions for each village center in a concise and directed manner and refer to the existing conditions.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Former Gas Station Site, the revisions made to the Zoning Regulations to allow commercial development of sites such as this in the Depot and the limitations of this particular site due to its size. Ms. Hill stated that she would like to see a reference in the revised document recommending parking behind a commercial building whenever possible.
Ms. Roberts stated that the current Town Garage Site has been discussed at many meetings lately and the Selectmen have agreed to put off any building until March. She stated that the Town has been asked to consider whether this parcel should be developed differently in a way that would positively contribute to the vitality of the Depot rather than being used as the municipal garage and storage facility. She feels that whatever is decided needs to be well thought out because the impact would be substantial.
Mr. Osborne feels that the current Town Garage Site is adequate and that there is a little more site work to be done for materials storage. He spoke with First Selectman Lyon and from what he understands the proposed garage would have all the buildings in one area, increase floor space and provide an area for mechanic work. Mr. Osborne stated that the proposed garage would be built on the area previously approved for materials storage and the cement pad from the burned down building would be used for the materials storage, as it is not suitable for building.
Ms. Roberts asked if Mr. Osborne feels that there is enough flat area on the parcel to meet the needs of the Town Garage as well as its future needs.
Mr. Osborne responded that he does feel that it meets the Town’s needs and he is not aware of any plans to move the Washington Ambulance to the site. He stated that the ambulance has one bay at the firehouse and room for another bay if needed.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Fire Department property on BeeBrook Road and possible uses of the Town Garage site on Blackville Road.
Mr. Frank feels that it would be nice to take the time to do some more studies on the Town Garage property but there is an enterprise to be run. Mr. Rimsky agreed with Mr. Frank and feels that the revised POCD should focus on the main areas of concentration and present cogent objectives.
There was a brief discussion about the cost of replacing the burned down garage.
Mr. Charles feels that the Town Garage should have been planned more thoroughly and the future growth of the Town should have been considered.
The Commission briefly discussed the process of how the Town Garage site was chosen.
Mr. Looney described CGS Section 8-2j and designating the B-2 zone as a Village District. He stated that this would give the Town a considerable amount of design control and would protect against strip mall type development.
The Commissioners and the Consultants looked at and discussed the map titled Proposed Parcel Based Zoning, by Milone & MacBroom, dated January 2013 (included in DRAFT Village Centers Report). Ms. Hill stated that she feels the easiest way to address the split-lot issue would be to put these lots into the less restrictive zone but she questions whether there should be a lot-by-lot analysis. Mr. Looney stated that the zone boundaries could not be changed without changing the zoning regulations.
The Commissioners and the Consultants discussed existing residential areas near the villages and what would be considered a mixed-use zone. Ms. Bishop-Wrabel stated that she feels that the housing near the village centers should be protected and enhanced.
Mr. Frank feels that it is important to have the meetings with the villages and public comments considered before the Consultant’s Village Centers report is put on line. Mr. Looney stated that he would like to set up the meetings with the villages and the office hours when he or Mr. Harrall would be in the Town Hall. He said that the drafts should be put on line as well for public review and be able to provide suggestions and ask questions.
Mr. Rimsky stated that it is important that the Planning Commission is specific when going to the Zoning Commission to make recommendations for revisions to the regulations that would allow for more contiguous village centers.
There was a discussion regarding whether one village needs to be in one zone. Mr. Harrall stated that the Village District designation is primarily for design purposes and there could be more than one zone in a village. The Commissioners discussed the application of the village district approach in the Town of Washington. Mr. Harrall stated the specificity of a village district is up to the town and the impact of a particular use should be considered.
Ms. Roberts feels that the pedestrian circulation needs to be improved with a better system of crosswalks. The Commissioners and Consultants discussed the difficulty of crossing Route 47 to The Green.
There was a discussion regarding adjustments to the map titled Existing Land Use Washington Green, by Milone & MacBroom, dated August 2012 (included in the DRAFT Village Centers Report).
The Commissioners and Consultants discussed the possibility of meeting with the educational institutions in Town.
The Commissioners and Consultants discussed the institutions within the Washington Green village center.
The Commissioners and Consultants discussed the villages of Marbledale and New Preston. Mr. Rimsky stated that he feels that deepening the village centers would be valuable. Ms. Roberts stated that there has been resistance to that concept in the past but she is not sure how people feel about it these days.
Mr. Charles stated that the original plan for the 31-acre New Preston Open Space property was to purchase the property with Town funds and then it would be reviewed through a detailed planning process. He felt that there was an opportunity to create some small building lots, open space and passive recreation at this site. He feels that there is more value to this property than just open space and should be looked at. Mr. Charles also noted that the Housing Trust bought the property next to the Fire Department on Route 202. Since there is a water company nearby at Quarry Ridge and the Town is going to be rebuilding the road, he feels the Housing Commission could put its money into putting a water main there.
The Commissioners and the Consultants discussed adjustments to the maps titled Existing Land Use Marbledale and Existing Land Use New Preston, by Milone & MacBroom dated August 2012 (included in the DRAFT Village Centers Report).
The Commissioners discussed whether Woodville should be restored to its former boundaries. They briefly talked about how they would need to work with the Zoning Commission to define a possible mixed-use zone.
Discussion of Sustainability Draft Report:
Mr. Looney stated that the Conservation Commission would be reviewing this report and providing feedback and suggested that the Planning Commission take more time to review the draft.Mr. Harrall stated that he had met with some of the businesses in Town and confirmed that most of the employees that work for these businesses cannot afford to live in Town. He stated that the businesses have only limited dealings with the Internet and e-commerce, which are of increasing importance in today’s economy. He spoke about the larger impact of Economic Development, Sustainability, Village Centers and Housing.
Ms. Bishop-Wrabel stated that improved cell phone service is necessary for people who run businesses out of their homes. She also mentioned that someone has asked her to mention the need of a dog park in Town.
Public Comment
Mr. Charles stated that these documents should be online and available for the public. He stated that the subject of Energy should be addressed.
Administrative Business
Election of Officers for 2013Motion:
that the current slate of officers (Adelaide Roberts, Chairman; Sarah Gager, Vice-Chairman) be renominated,
by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Rimsky, passed by 5-0 vote.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn by Mr. Frank, seconded by Ms. Roberts
Ms. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Meetings in 2012