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
August 23 •July 28 •June 28 •May 24 •April 26 •March 22 •February 22 •January 25 •Previous years: 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: August 27, 2010 August 23, 2010
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Ray Reich, Ralph Averill, Gary Fitzherbert
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, A.J. Dubois
Absent: Harry Wyant
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Ms. Field, Mr. Davenport, First Selectman Lyon, Mrs. Lyon, Mr. Szymanski, Mr. Klauer, Ms. Klauer, Mr. & Mrs. Klein, Ms. Weeks, Mr. Wellings, Ms. Sutter, Atty. Kelly, Ms. Ebner Martin, Mr. Ebner, Ms. Carron, Mr. Gambino, Mr. & Mrs. Peacocke, Mr. Snook, Selectman Solley, Residents
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Reich
Sandals-Field/25 RiverRoad/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen started the Public Hearing at 7:37 pm. Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on August 11 and August 18, 2010. Mr. Owen read the list of contents of the file for this application. Ms. Field was present and stated that they would like to finish the second floor of the existing garage to include a bedroom, living space, kitchenette and bathroom. The Commission looked at Elevations and Floor Plans of Existing Garage and Proposed Accessory Apartment, by Hinkel Design Group, LLC., dated June 8, 2010, sheets A-1, A-2& A-3. Ms. Field stated that the main house is 2700 square feet and the second floor of the proposed accessory apartment is 600 sq. ft. and the first floor parking area is 600 sq. ft. The Commission looked at the “Map prepared for John H.S. and Joyce H. Cook,” by Mr. Burnham, dated 6/15/77 with the location of the garage and driveway sketched on by the property owner. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Sandals-Field/25 River Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3 for Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.Davenport/51 Dark Entry Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use for Contractors and Building Tradesmen:
Mr. Owen read the list of contents in the file. Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on August 11 and 18, 2010. Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated 8/23/10 stating that Mr. Davenport had submitted a revised plan to show only 4,800 sq. ft. of outside storage and a driveway to access it. Mr. Davenport was present and submitted a photo of the type of buildings he constructs. Ms. Hill stated that there was a letter of support in the file from Mr. Bedini, an adjoining property owner. There were no further questions of comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Davenport/ 51 Dark Entry Road/Special Permit Section 13.16 for Shop and Storage Use for Contractors and Building Tradesman,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 voteKlein/236 Tinker Hill Road (West Shore Road)/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Gate on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road:
Mr. Averill asked the Commission to delay the Public Hearing for this application. He stated that adjoining property owners in opposition of the application went home because he misinformed them that there was not going to be a Public Hearing. The adjoining property owners were notified and were returning to the Town Hall so that they may participate in the Public Hearing.Motion:
to delay the Public Hearing for Klein /236 Tinker Hill Road (West Shore Road)/Special Permit Section 6.4.6 for Gate on Lake Waramaug side of West Shore Road until 8:15,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote
REGULAR MEETING
Motion:
to add Elbow Partners, LLC/110 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment as item E under Section IV. New Applications,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Consideration of the Minutes
Corrections:
Page 2, under the first Public Hearing, Paragraph starting with “Mr. Owen reconvened”, 2nd sentence: listed should be: listen After the last sentence in the paragraph beginning with “Mr. Owen read the 7/20/10 supplement”, add: The Planning Commission stressed that it had, in fact, considered the applicable Section 13 Special Permit criteria in reaching its decision, but found them inadequate to overcome the threat to “rural character” posed by the proposed inn regulations.Page 5 , Paragraph beginning with Mrs. Stacey Mathews, Windvian should be: Winvian. Last sentence in this paragraph should begin: She also noted the Mayflower…. The July 26, 2010 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:
Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of July 26, 2010, as amended,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Sandals-Field/25 RiverRoad/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
There were no additional comments or questions.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Sandals-Field/25 River Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Davenport/51 Dark Entry Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use for Contractors and Building Tradesmen:
There were no additional comments or questions.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Davenport/51 Dark Entry Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use for Contractors and Building Tradesman,
by Mr. Abella, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Town of Washington/10 Blackville Road/Revision of Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Facilities of the Town of Washington/Driveway, Stormwater Management, Outdoor Storage Area:
First Selectman Lyon stated that the Town would like to construct an outside storage area for road materials at the Town Garage site in an effort to relocate the materials that are stored at the Titus Road location. He stated that the Town has applied for a Variance for setback and lot coverage requirements with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The location of the proposed storage was chosen for accessibility and because it was one of the more level areas of the site. Ms. Hill suggested that the Town buffer the proposed storage area as it is close to the property lines.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing at 7:30 on September 27, 2010, in Bryan Memorial Town Hall, to consider the application for Town of Washington/10 Blackville Road/Revision of Special Permit: Section 4.4.9/Facilities of the Town of Washington/Driveway, Stormwater Management, Outdoor Storage Area,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Davis/120 Roxbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated 8/23/10. There were no pending issues.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on September 27, 2010, in Bryan Memorial Town Hall, to consider the application for Davis/120 Roxbury Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 voteWykeham Rise, LLC./101 Wykeham Road/Revision of Special Permit: Section 4.4.10/School:
Mr. Klauer stated that they are applying for a modification of an existing special permit. He stated the modifications include increasing the parking spaces, adding online classes, and eliminating the part of the Special Permit that was approved in 1990 that calls for a minimum of 5 rooms for an inn. Wykeham Rise, LLC has also submitted a request to the Inland Wetlands Commission to revise its permit for the Wykeham Rise Inn. Mr. Owen stated that not using the existing building and proposing a new site plan and new structures would also be a modification to the existing Special Permit. Mr. Klauer stated that Wykeham University would not be seeking University accreditation but would be a ‘for profit educational institution’ offering continuing adult education classes at a college graduate and postgraduate level. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission would consult Atty. Zizka to discuss whether this is a school by definition in Connecticut and in the Town of Washington. It was noted that the Swiss Hospitality Institute was not an accredited institution. There was a brief discussion regarding Section 21.1 of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Klauer stated that there were a couple of mistakes with the proposed plan submitted with this application. He stated that he would submit a corrected version by Friday.Mr. Shapiro asked if rooms for inns were eliminated from this application. Mr. Klauer confirmed that they were not part of this application and that one of the modifications to the existing Special Permit that they are requesting is that the minimum of a 5-room inn component be eliminated. Mr. Klauer confirmed that the rooms on the proposed plan are to be used as housing for the students. He stated that the proposed plan has 61 dorm rooms and that the existing Special Permit allows for a maximum of 120 boarding students. Mr. Klauer confirmed that the proposed fitness center would not be operated as a spa and will only be used by the students.
Mr. Averill asked if there would be any culinary offerings to the public. Mr. Klauer stated that only the students and school staff would use the cafeteria and kitchens. Mr. Shapiro asked if the cafeteria would be a traditional cafeteria or would it be a dining room with waiters and service. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that at Glenholme Devereux School the food is served at the table.
Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission has 65 days after receipt of an application to schedule a public hearing and asked the Commission how they would like to proceed. Mr. Averill stated that he would like to wait to discuss this application with Atty. Zizka. Mr. Klauer stated that he would appreciate any feedback so that they could address any concerns that the Commission would have.
Ms. Hill stated that she was concerned about the existing entrance-exit. She stated that she asked Atty. Zizka if the Zoning Commission could be held liable if it approved an application and there were no changes to this entrance-exit, and an accident occurs. She stated that he advised that he was not certain, but thought it was less likely that the Commission would be liable if the decision was based on the advise of the Commissions consultant. She recommended that the Commission refer this matter to a consultant, which would be paid for by the applicant, per Ordinance #711.
Mr. Owen stated that he questions whether this is an application for a school because it is so similar to the plan for the Wykeham Rise Inn that was denied. He stated that this application raises questions about traffic, driveways and scale that are specific to this property and not just the use of an ‘inn’. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that there are a number of different associations that an institution could choose to join that would provide certification and accreditation to the school.
Mr. Klauer stated that the footprint of this proposed plan is very similar to the previously denied application and asked that it not be compared to the denied application. Mr. Owen stated that there are questions that have to do with the property that had nothing to do with the fact that the previous application was for an inn. He stated that there are questions regarding scale, which may be different for a school. He stated that the applicant should be prepared to explain, for instance, if scale was a concern the first time around, why would it be different, or not, for this application. Ms. Hill stated there are three major differences between this application and the previous application: 1. Schools are permitted by Special Permit in the R-1 district. 2. This specific property has a history of schools and 3. There is a Special Permit on the Land Use Records for a school on this property. Mr. Shapiro stated that he would be concerned whether any aspect of this university would develop into a commercial enterprise that veers away from a school use. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to consult with Attorney Zizka before scheduling a public hearing for this application.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued
Klein/236 Tinker Hill Road (West Shore Road)/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Gate on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road:
Mr. Owen opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 pm. Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on August 11 and August 18, 2010. Mr. Owen read the list of contents in the file. Mr. Owen read Ms. Hill’s Administrative Report dated August 23, 2010. Mr. Owen read a letter of opposition from Ms. Natalie Frost Weeks, an adjoining property owner on West Shore Road. The Commission looked at photos of the height of the gate compared to the existing fence posts. Mr. & Mrs. Klein were present and explained that the existing posts were necessary for the railing that goes down the steps to the dock. Mr. Owen read the ZEO report, dated August 23, 2010, regarding this property. In his report, Mr. Ajello, ZEO, states that the proposed structure and plantings do not appear to be excessive or improper. Mr. Wellings, an adjoining property owner, stated that there isn’t anything but vegetation along that section of the road, that the proposed gate would be an eyesore and ruin the natural landscape and a gate would not prevent trespassers from going down to the dock. Ms. Sutter, from West Shore Road, stated that she was concerned that the gate would harm the scenic views. She stated that the road was designated a Scenic Road by the State of Connecticut in 1996. She read a letter from the State, which stated that “the positive response from the Connecticut Historical Commission and the impressive vistas and views provided along this rural roadway were instrumental in positively processing the nomination.” She stated that feels the fences and gates are not what the State intended to be part of the Scenic Road Designation. She agrees with Mr. Wellings that if someone wanted to access the dock that this gate would not prevent them from doing so. Ms. Sutter also questioned the location of proposed plantings. Atty. Kelly stated that he represents an adjoining property owner and they do not have any objections. Mr. & Mrs. Klein stated that they had not met with their neighbors because they did not think it would be such a problem. Ms. Sutter asked how far the State right of way extends. The Commissioners looked at the Site Analysis Plan, by Michael Alex, Surveyor, dated October 2009. Mr. Owen read Section 6.4.6 of the Zoning Regulations. Ms. Klein stated that the proposed gate would be 7 feet from the edge of the road and that the State Department of Transportation has approved the location. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Klein/ 236 Tinker Hill/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Gate on Lake Waramaug side of West Shore Road,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application- continued
Mr. Abella stated that the Lake Waramaug area is sensitive and that he agrees with the findings of the ZEO. Mr. Reich stated that he does not feel that he has enough information and could not visualize the impact the gate would have on the view of the lake by the pictures that were submitted. Mr. Averill stated that the proposed open picket gate would not unduly obstruct the view. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that it’s difficult to get a full visualization but feels that it will not obscure the view. Mr. Owen stated that there is nothing in the Zoning Regulations that would allow the Zoning Commission to deny this application.Motion:
to approve Special Permit submitted by Klein/236 Tinker Hill/Special Permit Section: 6.4.6/Gate on Lake Waramaug side of West Shore Road,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote
New Application(s) – Continued
Elbow Partners, LLC/110 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Hill stated that there is an issue with the size of the proposed detached accessory apartment and its access to an adjoining recreation room. The Commission looked at the 2nd Floor Proposed Construction Plan by Daniel Frisch Architect, drawing # A.B-03 with a revision date of 8/19/10. Atty. Kelly discussed the recent history of the property. He stated that the current owners are going save and use the structures that exist and convert the barn as the residence and the farmhouse into the detached accessory apartment and recreation room. He stated that the recreation area is not part of the accessory apartment. The Commission and Atty. Kelly discussed how the recreation area and the accessory apartment could be separate but under one roof.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on September 27, 2010 in Bryan Memorial Town Hall, to consider the application for Elbow Partners, LLC./110 Calhoun Street/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Tracy/47 Rabbit Hill Road/Renewal of Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen:
There were no further questions or comments regarding this renewal.Motion:
to approve the Renewal of Special Permit Tracy/ 47 Rabbit Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Ebner/25 Mt. Tom Road/Preliminary Discussion/Expansion of Camp:
Mr. Oscar Ebner and his daughter, Ms. Kristin Ebner Martin, were present. The Commission and the Ebners looked at the map: Property-Line Transfer, prepared for Oscar Ebner, Jr., by Guiliano Land Surveying, LLC, dated 11/20/09. Mr. Ebner stated that they purchased the adjacent property and are in the process of filing for a first cut lot. He stated that the property is located in a residential zone and the existing camp was grandfathered in on the original property and they would like to extend the camp operation in to the recently acquired 25 Mt. Tom Road. Ms. Ebner Martin discussed future plans for Camp Chinqueka. She submitted research data from the American Camp Associations and discussed the positive impact that the extension of the camp would have on the community. Ms. Hill suggested that the Ebners could petition to amend the regulations to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use by special permit. Mr. Owen stated that there are two ways to proceed: 1. To make camps a permitted use in the R-1 district, and, 2. Permit an existing non conforming camp to enlarge its operation to an adjacent property by special permit. There was a brief discussion about how they would develop the camp property. Ms. Hill suggested that the revision to the regulation should be done before the lot line revision. Mr. Averill stated that he was in favor of allowing an existing non conforming camp to expand but not to allow camps as a use in all of the R-1 district. Ms. Hill stated that she and Mr. Owen would work on the wording for the next meeting and then if the Commission agrees with the wording a public hearing could be scheduled for the month of November.Carron/Discussion of Section 13.8/Excavation Limitations:
Ms. Carron was present to discuss Section 13.8. Ms. Carron stated that her neighbor, Mr. Gambino, has been mining stone from his property since 2009 and that there has been jack hammering at 7 am, during the weekend, and constant movement of large trucks loading and unloading materials and traveling up and down the road. Ms. Carron submitted photos of the on going work. She stated that she and her husband are seeking relief and would like to have 11 words removed from Section 13.8 and this deletion would limit the amount of stone that could be taken out. She stated that she contacted the ZEO who informed her that Section 13.8 allows the removal of 100 cu. yds. of material per calendar year without a permit. Mr. Ajello did visit the site and request that Mr. Osborne, contractor at the site, discontinue the use of the jackhammer because the processing of excavated material on site in the R-1 District is not permitted. Ms. Carron stated that the truck activity continues. Ms. Hill stated that Mr. Ajello did not find any soil erosion issues or disturbance of wetlands. Mr. Owen stated that it is not clear that Mr. Gambino is violating the regulations. Mr. Averill asked if the police had been contacted. Ms. Carron stated that she did call the police and they told her this was a civil issue. Mr. Owen stated that Ms. Carron could submit her proposed revision as a petition to change the regulation. There was a brief discussion regarding State noise regulations. The Commission discussed Section 13.8. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that it does not make sense that an individual that has a Special Permit to excavate more that 100 cu. yds. has stated hours of operation but otherwise hours of operation are not enforced. Mr. Fitzherbert volunteered to work on this section of the Regulations and provide feedback at the September meeting. Ms. Carron stated that she would look at the definition of ‘Excavation’ and Section 13.8 with her husband and then talk with Ms. Hill as to how she would like to proceed with petitioning to have this regulation revised.Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment:
Mr. Randy Snook, ZBA Commissioner, was present to discuss the revision of Section 12.14. Mr. Owen thanked the ZBA for drafting this revision. Ms. Hill asked about faulty equipment. Mr. Snook suggested that if the generator is not working properly it would not produce the energy for the home and it would be the owner’s responsibility to fix it. Ms. Hill asked how the decibel levels were figured. Mr. Snook stated that it does not take into account changes in humidity, wind direction, topography, etc and that is why they require a stockade fence around the unit in order to deflect any sound waves vertically. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing at 7:30 on October 25, 2010, in Bryan Memorial Town Hall to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulations/Section 12.14/Generators, Air Conditioners, Pool Filters, and Other Noise Generating Equipment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by a 5-0 vote.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Robert Gambino stated that he would like the Zoning Commission to think carefully before revising Regulation 13.8. He stated that he had his property appraised and was advised on how to make the property a building lot. He stated that in the process, granite was discovered on the property and is now being harvested and that he does not exceed the 100 cu. yd. per year limit. Mr. Gambino stated that his contractor drives down Gunn Hill Road when he moves the stone. He apologized if the contractor worked on a weekend and has asked the contractor to work reasonable working hours. Mr. Averill asked Mr. Gambino if the stone continues to be harvested to ameliorate the site and if he sees a projected completion of this project. Mr. Gambino stated that he wants access from Tinker Hill Road and a building site. He stated that this won’t be finished in 6 weeks but it would not take 6 years. Mr. Averill suggested that Mr. Gambino should be able to calculate how much more stone needs to be removed to create this building lot. The Commission recommended that Mr. Gambino have the property surveyed and figure out when this project will end and that the excavation work be scheduled for times when the Carrons will be away.
Communications
Email Re: Code of Ethics from Mr. Burke:
Mr. Owen recommended that the Commissioners read this email.Enforcement
The Commission considered the ZEO report date August 23, 2010Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 10:03 pm by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Owen, by 5-0 vote.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Posted: August 11, 2010
PLEASE NOTE:
The following three letters, which are part of the minutes of the July 28 Public Hearing,
were not available when the minutes were posted on August 9.
David Owen
Notes. July 26, 2010The Washington Planning Commission has unanimously recommended that the Zoning Commission not adopt its proposed regulation changes regarding inns. At the last meeting, I read aloud the Planning Commission’s statement regarding those proposed changes. Planning has followed that recommendation with an additional statement, which I will read now: [new letter from Planning Commission]
I’d also like to read a few passages from “What Is Legally Required?”, which is a book written by the town’s own land-use attorney, Michael Zizka, and a reference work we often turn to:
First of all, the Plan of Conservation and Development, in Zizka’s recapitulation of Connecticut statutes, should represent the Planning Commission’s “recommendation for the most desirable use of land for residential, recreational, commercial, industrial, and other purposes, and for the most desirable density of population in the various parts of the municipality.” The plan must, among other things, “be a statement of policies, goals and standards for the physical and economic development of the municipality, and recommend the most desirable types of uses and population densities in the various parts of the municipality.” It must also, among still other things, “be designed to promote with the greatest efficiency and economy the coordinated development of the municipality and the general welfare and prosperity of the people of the municipality.”
The POCD, which was last revised in 2003, is of considerable interest to the Zoning Commission. As Zizka also writes, “Although the plan is not legally binding on the zoning commission, it must be considered whenever zoning regulations are adopted or amended. If the municipality has a combined planning and zoning commission, the commission must state on the record its findings as to whether any proposed zoning regulation or amendment is consistent with the plan. If the zoning commission is separate from the planning commission, it must refer any proposed zoning regulation or amendment to the planning commission for a report on consistency with the plan. Any proposal disapproved by the planning commission can be adopted only by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the zoning commission”—on a five-member commission, which is what we have, that’s a vote of at least four to one.
The Planning Commission made an emphatic case that the inn-related regulation changes proposed by the Zoning Commission are contrary to the POCD. But the POCD is a rich document, and it can be read in more than one way. Here’s a passage that I think is both important and incontrovertible:
The arrival of rail service [in 1872] resulted in another change in the local economy. Washington was now more accessible from a larger area and trains brought an increasing number of city dwellers seeking rural vacation retreats. Inns and boarding houses were established around Lake Waramaug with horse and carriage service to the New Preston train station. The whole town became a rural, second home retreat for many New York City residents.
This remains true today. And I believe that when we talk about “rural character”—that ineffable, impossible-to-define quality that we all celebrate, and that runs through the POCD and our regulations—we are also, necessarily, talking about this. In addition, when the POCD lists the existing “community strengths” that contribute to this character, they include the sole surviving inn that is fully within the town limits, the Mayflower Inn.
In the section of the POCD that directly addresses the preservation of “rural character,” the plan identifies six areas of concern and proposes strategies for them. Those six areas are natural resource elements, open space, scenic resources, agricultural land and farming, historic resources, and architectural design. These are all important, and not only to the planning commission: concern for them is reflected throughout our zoning regulations. But most of them have more to do with how the town looks than with how it functions, and I would suggest that there is an additional, critical element of “rural character”—what the POCD referred to in a previous section as “community strength” but isn’t mentioned here.
The hospitality business has been a big part of the town’s economic and civic life for more than a century, just as schools and farms and shops and weekenders have been. I am convinced that inns were very much in the minds of the authors of our zoning regulations, back in the nineteen-thirties, and that they have been in the minds of subsequent zoning commissioners, at least until very recently. One of the things that struck me in reading Janet’s excellent summary of the history of the commission’s treatment of inns—a copy of which is in the file—is the extent to which parts of our regulations seem to have evolved almost by random mutation. Even so, inns have always been included, and have, therefore, always been part of the town’s conception of “rural character”—the indefinable but cherished local quality that we are charged to protect. Rural character, in my view, is not strangers living in widely separated houses on seldom-traveled roads. Rural character is, more than anything else, a spirit of community and interdependence. It’s the town hall and the grocery store and the firehouse and the nursery school and the library and the Gunnery and the pizza place and the town beach and Devereux-Glenholme and the Mayflower, along with all the residents and visitors who regularly come together in those places. The rural character of Washington would be terminally diminished if such places were replaced with empty fields, even though local decibel levels and traffic counts would decrease.
For those reasons, I believe that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the Planning Commission in its report of July 21, 2010, inns should be considered to be among those “uses which will retain the rural character and natural beauty of the Town.” The dangers cited by the planning commission are real. But the special permit standards of the zoning regulations give the commission the tools it needs to protect the town and its rural character—tools that it has never hesitated to use in the past, including on applications regarding inns. The planning commission, in that same letter, describes a hypothetical inn that includes such amenities as a restaurant a bar, a spa, a fitness facility, a retail shop, and conference and meeting rooms—and says that such an inn would be “fundamentally incompatible with the goal of the POCD to preserve rural character” and that “such a commercial enterprise may be suitable for a business district, but not for our protected residential districts.” But the hypothetical inn described by the Planning Commission is indistinguishable from the Mayflower—which the POCD itself lists among Washington’s “community strengths.” Furthermore, since at least the seventies the only place in town where such an enterprise could be build is the R-1 residential district.
***********************************************************
The narrow question before us is whether our zoning regulations should allow for inns with the size, scope and intensity of use equivalent to the Mayflower Inn to be built on our town roads. For at least 32 years the answer to that question has been “no”.
That narrow question has caused many of us to consider the broader issues of who we are and who we want to be as a town. This is America. We believe in capitalism. We support private enterprise. We support individual rights and the pursuit of life, liberty and even sometimes happiness. But when one person’s pursuit of happiness or profit adversely impacts another person – or a whole neighborhood – our Constitution authorizes our governing bodies to intervene to protect “the common welfare”. To me, that is the origin and just purpose of our land use commissions – to protect and preserve the historic values and unique character of our town and the neighborhoods within it. I believe in private enterprise and capitalism, but I do not believe that I was elected to this position by people who held in their hearts the fervent hope that I would vote to put a bar, a restaurant, a spa and all of their inherent traffic, noise, lights, and congestion in their backyards.
Since 1978 our regulations have prohibited inns on town roads. When one member of this commission expressed the personal opinion that the language of the regulation was vague, we clarified it to make the intent absolutely clear so that no other potential developer could argue that he/she had been misled. That should have ended this sad saga but instead it was just the beginning of a new chapter. Why was that? Why has this controversy dragged on dividing neighbors, disrupting friendships, besmirching the reputations of honorable people, and even tainting an election in our otherwise idyllic town? It is the elephant in the room. We need to put a stake through the heart of this issue now and lay it to rest so that a more appropriate and beneficial use can be found for that unnamed vacant and decaying property – a use that is more in keeping with the real needs of our townspeople and consistent with our shared values as reflected in our Plan of Conservation and Development.
Clear regulations allow developers to realistically assess the potential of a property. A vote against this proposed change will provide them with those clear regulations so that they will know up front what is required and allowed. It might also help to remove any lingering perception that our elections and our commission votes might be for sale to the highest bidder.
The good work of the commissioners who served before us needs to be honored. This proposal to change our regulations to allow the construction and operation of such large scale commercial enterprises - inns, bars, restaurants, and spas - on the town roads that run through our quiet neighborhoods must be defeated.
Arthur J. DuBois, Jr.
Alternate to the Zoning Commission
July 26, 2010
***********************************************************
Memorandum
TO: Washington Zoning Commission
FROM: Andy Shapiro, alternate
RE: Ten Reasons to Reject Proposed “Inn” regulations
DATE: 25 July 2010Introduction. The proposed inn regulations should be rejected or withdrawn pending further consideration. They pose too great a gamble. And since the stakes are the Town’s character, it is not worth taking. What began months ago as an attempt simply to define a single term, “inn,” has expanded into a much more ambitious and potentially harmful exercise in reformulating the character and the future of the vast majority of Washington. This is not the time for radical change that the whole Town may soon regret. Here are ten reasons why we should not vote to adopt the proposed inn regulations.
[ 1 ] Planning Commission vote. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission ruled that our proposed inn regulations are “fundamentally incompatible” with “the pre-eminent goal” of Washington’s 2003 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), namely, preservation of Washington’s prized asset, its “rural character.”
[ 2 ] Zoning’s relation to Planning. The Planning Commission decision does not dictate how we act, but it should give us serious pause for two reasons, both written into our Zoning Regulations: (1) We state “These Regulations are intended to promote effectively the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development” (Regs. Sec. 1.3); and (2) Before a Special Permit for an inn may be granted, the Zoning Commission must find “that the proposed use and any building or other structure in connection therewith are consistent with the objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development for the Town of Washington….” (Regs. Sec. 13.1(b)(1)). Question: If, despite the vote of the Planning Commission, we adopt of our proposed inn regulations, will we not wind up violating the intent of the POCD and our own regulations every time we grant an application for an inn?
[ 3 ] Lack of conformity with the ‘comprehensive plan.’ The Plan of Conservation and Development is not the only plan we must be concerned with. There is also the so-called comprehensive plan, the overall scheme for land use and development that resides in our entire zoning regulations and zoning map. The Connecticut General Statutes prescribe that zoning regulations like Washington’s “shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan” (CT. Genl. Stat. 8-2). Any changes to these regulations, like our proposed inn amendments, must also be in accordance with this comprehensive plan. Conformity with a comprehensive plan is legally required for the obvious reason that it prevents the arbitrary, unreasonable, and possibly discriminatory exercise of the zoning power. Our proposed inn regulations do not satisfy this salutary principle of conformity with the comprehensive plan. In several important aspects, they directly conflict with the “intent and requirements” of other Zoning Regulations already on our books. Three illustrations of this nonconformity follow in points [ 4 ], [ 5 ], and [ 6].
[ 4 ] R-1 ‘rural character.’ Permitting high-intensity commercial enterprises, like multi-function inns, to intrude on the R-1 district conflicts with the core concept underlying that residential zone, which is dedicated to low-intensity uses “that will retain the rural character and natural beauty of the Town” (Regs. Sec. 4.1). This key aspect of our proposed inn regulations does not conform to our comprehensive plan.
[ 5 ] ‘Home occupation’ restrictions. Permitting high-intensity commercial enterprises, like multi-function inns, to intrude on the residential district contradicts the extreme solicitude shown by our regulations toward protecting homeowners from the adverse impact of relatively small-bore “home occupations” next door (Regs. 12.6). As I pointed out in my memorandum of Feb. 22, 2010, only so-called quiet businesses can be run out of homes in the residential district, e.g., accounting, psychotherapy, law. More commercial uses, like barbershops, dancing schools, and karate schools are prohibited. Stores are prohibited. Restaurants are prohibited. Traffic, storage, and delivery of goods are carefully restricted. These are all indications of how our comprehensive plan protects residential neighborhoods from undue commercial intrusion. The proposed inn regulations do not conform to these detailed aspects of our comprehensive plan.
[ 6 ] Room size limitations. Permitting inns of an indeterminate size deviates from our regulatory scheme of limiting similar facilities to a specific maximum size: e.g., B & B’s (3 rooms), rooming houses (10 rooms), convalescent homes (10 beds per acre), and general home occupation (33% of total finished floor area). Clearly, the intent behind our comprehensive plan is to impose a ceiling, some maximum limit, on the size and scale of commercial structures in the residential district. The proposed inn regulations, facilitating as they do inns of indeterminate size, do not conform to our comprehensive plan.
[ 7 ] Custom of limited inns. Permitting inns to be multi-function hotel-restaurant-bar-spa-gym-conference-centers departs from Washington’s long-standing custom of inns functioning solely as places of overnight accommodation and maybe meals—the sole exception to this custom being the unique case where the Zoning Commission permitted the Mayflower Inn to expand and diversify on state highway 47.
[ 8 ] Mayflower: the exception, not the rule. Permitting inns to be multi-function hotel-restaurant-bar-spa-gym-conference-centers distorts one specific case, the Mayflower Inn, into a general rule and model for all future inns, even though we know that the Mayflower, like all other Special Permits, “should be considered as an individual case,” not as a precedent for anything (Regs. Sec. 13.1(a)). Remember: the Mayflower was a long-standing pre-existing use, located on a busy state highway, and abutting a large institutional land use, namely, the Gunnery School. It was not dropped in the middle of an unsuspecting residential neighborhood, as could happen under our proposed inn regulations. There is no requirement—indeed, no good reason—why the Mayflower Inn’s parameters should be adopted by us as the legal poster child for future inns in our Zoning Regulations.
[ 9 ] Not on all roads. Allowing inns to be located on any road, town or state, anywhere in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones exposes all of Washington’s most scenic roads—many of them narrow, winding, unpaved, and enjoyed by walkers, joggers and bicyclists—to the danger and noise of increased traffic to and from inns. This is not rational. More rational, though still imperfect, would be the current system of limiting inns to state highways. Most rational would be to permit inns on roads—be they town or state—that will both accommodate inn traffic, as well as leave unspoiled Washington’s rural character. As it happens, a rational, well-thought-out designation of Washington’s roads sits on our bookshelves, awaiting our use. It’s contained in the Natural Resource Inventory Report and Recommendations, compiled in 2000 by the then Washington Ad Hoc Conservation Committee. The Committee evaluated Washington roads across a spectrum of 14 criteria (including unpaved, winding, narrow, steep, views, etc. ) In general, roads that satisfied eight or more of these criteria were designated as scenic: “The scenic nature of these roads helps to define the character of the Town,” wrote the Committee, “and enhances the general quality of life for residents and nonresidents alike. If scenic roadways are inappropriately developed, the ambiance of Washington is in danger of being destroyed” (Report at p. 31). It’s highly instructive that on July 8, 2010, the current Conservation Commission—successor to the Ad Hoc Conservation Committee—voted that the Zoning Commission’s proposed inn regulations are “not consistent with the Natural Resource Inventory Report.” Rather than arbitrarily throw open all roads in the Town’s residential districts to future inns, the Zoning Commission should be far more discriminating. It should exempt certain highly vulnerable roads—again, be they town or state—from the inappropriate demands that would be made on them and their residents, as well as on travelers, if they were exposed to the intense commercial development that inns involve. The recommendations made in the Natural Resource Inventory Report, for example, might provide a well-researched rational basis for locating future inns in Washington.
[ 10 ] Special Permit standards are too vague. It is wishful thinking—and bad legislating—for us to rely on our vague Special Permit standards (Regs. Sec. 13.1) to supply, on an ad hoc basis, the necessary limitations regarding the size, scale, and impact of inns on all of our residential neighborhoods. Our Special Permit standards are subjective and general, offering minimal guidance for sound decision-making. Special Permit standards may serve us adequately while inns are restricted to state highways; they will not be up to the task if the whole Town is opened up to inns. Then, Special Permit standards will lead to arbitrary decisions, depending not on predictable rules, but on unpredictable people, who happen to be zoning commissioners at the time. Such decisions may not stand up in court. Also, relying on vague Special Permit standards will deprive property owners of certainty about how they can use their land, as well as how neighbors can use theirs, because the size, character, and operations of inns will be highly unpredictable, until each individual application is finally resolved.
Posted: August 9, 2010 July 28, 2010
Public Hearing – Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m., Main Hall, Bryan Memorial Town HallMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Abella, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mr. DuBois, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Wyant
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Hill
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Kyte, Mr. G. Klauer, Ms. Klauer, Mrs. Minor Mr. M. Klauer, Mr. Smith, Mrs. McDonald, Ms. Johnson, Mrs. Swigart, Mr. Caroe, Mr. Fowlkes, Ms. McGuire, Nina Johnson, Kelly McGuine, Mr. Adams, Mr./Mrs. Tomczyk, Ms. Field, Mr. Schoellkopf, Mr./Mrs. Manning, Mr. Adams, Clarissa Matthews, Mr. Matthews, Ms. Adams, Patricia Matthews, Ms. Craparo, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Collum, Mr. Solley, Mrs. Wildman, Mr. R. Wyant III, Mr. Peterson, Mr. D. Solomon, Mr./Mrs. Solomon, Mr. Markert, Ms. Bishop-Wrabel, Mr. Dexheimer,Mr. Neff, Mr./Mrs. Benn, Tammy Rill, Mr. Charles, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Payne, Mrs. Middlebrook, Mrs. Hardee, Mrs. Addicks, Mr. R. Templeton, Mrs. Clark, Mr. Boling, R. DellaPietra, C. DellaPietra, Mr. Novak. Stacey Matthews, Mrs. Fisher-Bruzzi, Mrs. E. Johnson, Ms. Root, Zack Goodyear, Julie Goodyear, Mr. McGowan, Marie Swanson, Barbara Cheney, Mr./Mrs. Tagley, Mrs. Sandals, Mr. Davenport, Zen Rill, Ms. Fulton, Ms. Staggen, Phil Dutton, Mr./Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Somersett, Tammy Wyant, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Giampietro, press, and others who either did not sign in or whose handwriting was illegible
PUBLIC HEARING
Revision of Washington Zoning Regulations/Sections:
2.3.6: regarding approval of applications requiring installation or modification of sewage disposal systems and deletion of current language re: septic approval in Sections 13.6 (renumbered), 13.10, 13.11.2.d, 13.11.3.d, 13.14.7, 13.15, and 13.17.5 as they will now be covered under 2.3.6; 4.4.1, 5.4.9, 6.4.14: addition of “Inn” and specific Special Permit standards as a use permitted by Special Permit in the R-1, Farming and Residential, R-2, Washington Green, and R-3, Lake Waramaug Residential Districts; 4.4.1, 4.4.6, 4.4.14, 5.4.1, 6.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.12, 8.4.5, 8.4.12, 9.4.8, 10.4.5, 13.14, 13.14.3, 15.2: Deletion of “Tourist Home,” “Room and Board Establishment,” and “Boarding House” from uses permitted either by zoning permit or by Special Permit in all Zoning districts and from the “use” column in the parking requirement chart and Addition of Inn as a use permitted by Special Permit in the B-1, New Preston ad B-2, Washington Depot Business Districts; 13.5 (and renumbering of following sections): Addition of new section regarding the continuance of a Special Permit upon the conveyance of the property and/or change in lessee; 13.9: Delection of Special Permit Standards for Inn and Tourist Home; 21.1.10: Deletion of definition of “Boarding House” and addition of definition of “Bed and Breakfast Establishment;” 21.1.30 (and renumbering of following sections): Addition of definition of “Fitness Facility;”21.1.38: Addition of definition of “Inn;” 21.1.65: Addition of definition of “Spa;” 6.4, 12.1.2, 13.17: minor deletions to make language consistent throughout the textMr. Owen reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m., seated Members Abella, Averill, Fitzherbert, Owen, and Reich, and reviewed the list of proposed revisions. He then briefly explained the correct procedure for the seating of alternates and noted Mr. Reich was seated for this session of the hearing because he had listed to the recording of the portion of the last session that he had missed. Mr. Owen read the list of documents submitted at and since the last meeting and included those that had just been submitted this evening.
Mr. Owen read the 7/20/10 supplement to the Planning Commission’s 6/21/10 report, in which the Planning Commission corrected what it considered to be misinformation presented at the last session of the hearing and reiterated that Planning found the proposed inn regulations were not consistent with the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. DuBois read his prepared statement dated 7/16/10 and Mr. Shapiro summarized his memorandum dated 7/25/10, both against the proposed revisions regarding inns. These are included as Addendums A and B to these minutes. Mr. Abella then read his prepared statement in which he said he did not support the proposed inn regulations because they were not consistent the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Owen read from What’s Legally Required by Atty. Zizka, which explained that although the Zoning Commission is required to consider the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development, it is not legally bound by it. He then read his statement, dated 7/26/10, in which he detailed his reasoning for finding the proposed inn regulations were consistent with the POCD and his reasons for supporting their approval. This document is attached as Addendum C
Mr. Averill voiced his frustration that there was still no general agreement on the meaning of the word, “inn.” He said to him it means a very small hostel type of place with a maximum of 10 to 15 rooms “and not much else;” an operation similar to the old Cogswell Tavern.
Mr. Owen asked for public comments. These remarks are briefly noted below. Most of the statements were submitted in writing and are in the file and available for review.
Ms. Bishop-Wrabel 1) read Section 4.1 of the Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the R-1 District, 2) asked the Commission to consider the letters submitted based on their logic and relevance to the issue in question rather than by their numbers for or against, 3) referred to Mr. Matthew’s 7/23/10 op ed piece in the Litchfield County Times, which noted that the Zoning Commission is not the economic development comm., and 4) said she thought preservation of the special character of the Town would attract more people and business and enhance the tax base more than approval of the proposed inn regulations would.
Mr. Baldwin raised a point of order, asking that Mr. Fitzherbert and Mr. Reich recuse themselves until it is determined whether they have a conflict of interest. In a statement dated 7/26/10 he raised four questions concerning the alleged conflicts of interest and asked that all of the Commission minutes from 12/15/08 through 6/28/10 and any other relevant information be included for the record. He also submitted many sheets of copies of newspaper articles and emails for the record.
Mr. Owen noted 1) the decision to recuse oneself is a personal one made by the commission member and 2) the Zoning Commission would not investigate this matter.
Mrs. Payne, Chairman of the Washington Conservation Commission, read that Commission’s 7/8/10 memo to Zoning, which said Conservation had voted 4-1 that the proposed inn regulations were not consistent with the POCD or the Natural Resource Inventory Report. She said the dissenting vote was because the statement against the proposed regulations had not been strong enough in that commission member’s opinion.
Mr. Tagley referred to the letter he had submitted from Atty. McTaggart and Atty. Strub dated 7/23/10 and said his attorney was present to answer any questions. There were no questions. Mr. Tagley spoke against the proposed inn regulations saying the most important concern was the commercialization of the R-1 zone in which most of the Town’s residents live and where they have invested in property.
Mr. Manning spoke in detail against the proposed inn regulations emphasizing three main points: 1) they would permit large scale commercial development in locations where it should not exist, 2) they fail to provide adequate limitations on inns and their adjunct businesses, and 3) there are far more appropriate solutions to the problem of existing institutional properties than the current proposal. He said if inns were to be permitted in the residential districts they should have to comply with the same regulations that other businesses in these districts must adhere to. In closing, he stated that governance should rest on institutions and not “fallible individuals susceptible to the passions of the moment.”
Mr. Caroe spoke in support of the proposed inn regulations, referring to the recent exhibit at the Gunn Museum, which traced some of the history of inns around Lake Waramaug, and urged the Commission to take the “strategic step” of approving the revisions, which would improve employment prospects for families and lodging opportunities, which would, in turn, promote tourism.
Mrs. Giampietro, said she did not oppose small inns in Town, but agreed with Mr. Averill that the definition of “inn” had to be discussed further.
Ms. Fulton supported the proposed revisions. She also referred to the exhibit at the Gunn Museum, listed approximately ten inns, which had been located on town roads in the past, and she said she trusted the Zoning Commission would use the Special Permit process to protect the community from improper development.
Ms. Staggen(?) spoke against the proposed revisions. She said they would make all residential communities vulnerable to large scale commercial development, which would change the character of the Town. She said this would be contrary to the POCD and that the Zoning Commission should protect the community, not private interests.
Mr. Peterson spoke in support of the proposed inn regulations. He included the following points: the concept of what rural character is has changed over the years, before the adoption of Zoning there were many inns on town roads in Washington and he listed the names and locations of several, appropriate development that encourages the development and maintenance of local businesses should be encouraged, the character of a town is its people, and none of the Zoning commissioners had been “bought and paid for.”
Mr. Averill asked Mr. Peterson how many rooms the inns on town roads that he had just listed had. Mr. Peterson responded they had between six to fourteen rooms.
Mrs. Tagley did not support the proposed revisions. She stated that emotions and economics should be kept out of the discussion and the impact the revisions would have on the entire town is where attention should be focused. She thought opening the whole town to commercial development was “dangerous” and reminded the Commission that not long ago it had rejected tennis courts at the Washington Club and a sculpture park because they would violate the serenity of the R-1 District.
Mrs. Stacey Matthews supported the proposed inn regulations, saying that while she understood the fears expressed about losing the Town’s rural character, these same fears had been raised by Morris residents when the Windvian Inn had been proposed, but it had not impacted the rural character. She was concerned that the Wykeham Rise property would be allowed to deteriorate. So also noted the Mayflower Inn was an “excellent addition to the community” and said the inn that was not being discussed would raise property values in Town.
Mrs. Boyer expressed her opinion that the proposed inn regulations were drafted because some commissioners felt that the denial of the Wykeham Rise Inn had been unfair. She thought that if the owner had made the sale contingent upon permit approvals this townwide controversy would not have occurred and that “manipulating a commission for a single special interest” is not the way things are done in Washington, Ct. She suggested that affordable and senior housing would be suitable uses for the Wykeham Road property. She hoped the issue would soon be resolved so the townspeople could heal.
Ms. Klauer noted that opponents to the proposed inn regulations have voiced concern the revisions would permit unlimited commercial development because such a broad definition of “inn” was proposed. But she thought meaningful limitations were impossible because one definition could not fit all possible locations. She stressed that the Special Permit criteria require all applicants to meet standards of scale, appearance, proportion, and character based on the particular site where the activity is proposed. For example, she explained how a certain type of inn may not be appropriate for the Calhoun-Ives historic district, but would be appropriate for the old Birches Inn site in New Preston. She said the Special Permit process requires that each application be considered on a case by case basis. She also urged the commissioners to act according to the vote outcome in the November 2009 election.
Mr. P. Dutton stated that before the Commission had clarified the regulation, inns had been permitted on both town and state roads since 1939. Many in the audience said this was not true. When asked to “set the record straight,” Mrs. Hill noted that in 2003 when the Mayflower Spa had been approved, the Commission had required access from the state highway, requiring a deed restriction that the two properties, inn and spa, must forever be joined and use the one access from the state road. Mr. Dutton noted that since the 1940’s there had been only one inn application in Town.
Mr. McGown, executive director of the Lake Waramaug Task Force and consultant for the Lake Waramaug Association, spoke at length against the proposed inn regulations for the R-3, Lake Waramaug Residential District. He stated the R-3 District is distinctly different in its character and features than the other residential districts in Town. He said in his experience as a planner, you have to deal with the proposed regulation as written and can not assume it can be adjusted to meet all circumstances. He said both the organizations he represents were concerned about the possibility of large commercial operations on the one winding, unsafe road around the lake. He said for years it had been Zoning’s policy not to allow inns around the lake; one reason for this being that the increase in traffic that would be generated would cause safety problems. He detailed the safety issues. He concluded by saying that if the proposed regulations were approved, the Task Force had voted to appeal the approval.
Mr. Somersett stated that when the Swiss Hospitality Inst. had operated on Wykeham Road, it had not caused an increase in traffic accidents there.
Mr. Markert noted the “enormous divergence of views” in the hall, advised the Commission it should bring the two sides together when modifying the regulations, and suggested it “back off” and reconsider the way the proposal was drafted.
Barb Cheney gave Mr. Owen letters of support from her and her husband, Dave, and asked him to read them aloud. Several other letters were submitted on behalf of people who were not able to attend the hearing, and were added to the file.
Ms. Tammy Wyant supported the proposed inn regulations because she said an inn would create jobs and revenue for the Town.
Mr. Tomczyk spoke in favor of the proposed inn regulations saying Washington has a long history of inns on town roads, the Special Permit process would ensure that each inn application would receive extensive study, the increased traffic that might result from an inn would increase the tax base, and create local jobs, and the common good must champion.
Mrs. Fisher-Bruzzi said that as an attorney she knew the Special Permit criteria would provide safeguards for the location of inns and she said inns were both the history and the future of Washington.
Mr. Fitzherbert noted the Town of Washington is made up of good people, said everyone has the right to express his opinion, and agreed with Mrs. Boyer that it would be good for all to get this issue resolved.
Mr. Owen noted there were two other matters addressed in the proposed revisions. 1) Section 2.3.6 regarding the approval of applications requiring approval or modification of sewage disposal systems. Mr. Owen noted that Mr. McGuinness of the NWCtCOG found the proposed revision to be redundant because this matter is governed by state law. However, Atty. Zizka said the proposed language has merit because a) it solves a problem with the current Regulations, which state a zoning application may not even be accepted until the Health Department has approved it; Mr. Owen noted to date the Commission has ignored this provision, b) it eliminates the problem when state approval of a septic system is involved; currently, the Commission can’t accept the application until the state has approved the system, but the state won’t approve the system until the local approvals are in place, and c) the proposed revision would give the Commission the authority to enforce compliance with the Health Code, which it would not have the ability to do otherwise. 2) Section 13.5 regarding continuance of a Special Permit upon transfer of the property or change of lessee. Mr. McGuinness had written that the proposed process was cumbersome and was not necessary because Special Permits go with the property, not with the owner. Mr. Owen said he had consulted with Atty. Zizka who had advised the Commission to withdraw this proposed revision and to revise those sections of the Regulations, which currently require Special Permits to be renewed.
Mrs. Minor stated she considered an inn to be an intimate place to spend the night and to get a meal and that it had no other “extras” and she had no problem with inns of this nature operating in Town. She questioned if inns were so important to the Town, why was the Mayflower in such a dire financial situation.
Mr. Averill stated that he was not opposed to small inns in Town, but said the proposed inn regulations would open up the entire R-1 District to taverns, restaurants, bars, gift shops, etc. under the name of “inn.” He thought just because something was called an inn did not make it one. He also noted that both the Conservation Commission and the Planning Commission had found the proposal to be inconsistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development, and therefore, he could not support it as written. He suggested the Commission redraft language to include limitations. He worried about the precedent that would be set if regulations that did not include specific limitations were adopted and said limitations were needed to help keep the Commission out of court.
Mr. Shapiro thought all of the commissioners were in favor of inns in Washington, but disagreed on what an inn is and where an inn should be allowed. He stated that the public had often referred to the Special Permit standards as strict requirements, but said they were only general guidelines at best. He suggested the Commission use the criteria on roads listed in the Natural Resource Inventory Report to determine which roads would be appropriate for large commercial development rather than approving regulations, which would open up the entire town to this kind of use.
MOTION:
To close the Public Hearing to consider revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations (many various sections regarding conveyance of Special Permits at the time of property transfer or lessee, approval of applications requiring installation or modification of a sewage disposal system, and inns)
By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.Mr. Owen closed the hearing.
This public hearing was recorded. The audio is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the Meeting to order.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/28/10 Public Hearing – Regular Meeting minutes were accepted as amended.
Page 3: 2nd line in the paragraph beginning “Mr. Ecton Manning….” Change to: “Mr. Owen incorrectly confirmed that it was.”
7th line, same paragraph: Delete: “and other districts.”
7th line, same paragraph: sentence beginning at the end of the line: Change to: “Repeated decisions by the Zoning Commission have treated those amenities as customary features of inns.”
Page 4: 8th line in the paragraph beginning “Mr. Rex Swain….” Insert a period after “inn.” Begin the next sentence: “However….”
9th line in the paragraph at bottom: Change: “the application” to “an application.”
Page 5: 11th line in the first full paragraph: Change: “Mr. Owen stated… all the way through the end of the paragraph to: “Mr. Owen said that there had been a difference of opinion on the Zoning Commission as to the meaning of one element of an earlier version of the inn regulations. That version had stated that “frontage on a state highway shall be 500 feet.” Mr. Owen said that members of the Commission had believed that this requirement had prohibited inns without frontage on state highways, but that he had raised the point that grammatically, it did not say that but, as he read the requirement, merely specified what the frontage must be if the inn had frontage on a state highway. He said that no one else on the Commission had agreed with him but that Atty. Zizka had, and that after he had communicated Mr. Zizka’s opinion to the Commission the Commission had voted 4-1 to change the regulation to what a majority of commissioners believed was intended all along. Mr. Owen said that before this change became effective the Commission received an application for an inn, and, because of the timing, the changed regulation had not been in force for that application.”
Page 8: 7th line in the paragraph beginning “Kelly Boling….” Change “POCD” to “comprehensive plan.”MOTION:
To accept the 6/28/10 Public Hearing-Regular Meeting minutes as amended.
By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.
New Applications
Sandals/25 River Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Hearing from Mrs. Hill that the application was complete, a public hearing was scheduled.MOTION:
To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.11.3, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Sandals for a detached accessory apartment at 25 River Road on August 23, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. in the Land Use Meeting Room.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.Davenport/51 Dark Entry Road/Special Permit: Section 13.16/Shop and Storage Use by Contractors and Building Tradesmen:
Mrs. Hill discussed two unresolved issues: 1) The applicant proposed 40,000 sq.ft. of outside storage, but only 5,000 sq. ft. is permitted per Section 13/16. Mr. Davenport presented a page from the Regulations that stated 40,000 sq. ft. of outside storage was permitted. Mrs. Hill said she would check this out. 2) Since outside storage is proposed, Mrs. Hill said approval would have to be obtained from the holder of the conservation easement. Mr. Davenport stated he had found there was a deed restriction on the property, not a conservation easement. Mrs. Hill said, then, this was not an issue. A public hearing was scheduled.MOTION:
To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 13.16, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Davenport for shop and storage by contractors and building tradesmen at 51 Dark Entry Road on August 23, 2010 in the Land Use Meeting Room, to begin immediately following the first hearing of the evening, which begins at 7:30 p.m.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.Klein/236 Tinker Hill Road (West Shore Road)/Special Permit: Section 6.4.6/Gate on the Lake Waramaug Side of West Shore Road:
Mr. Neff, engineer, represented the applicant. Mrs. Hill explained the proposed gate was only 5 feet wide and 3.3 feet high and that it had narrow pickets so you could view the lake through it. She said it would be up to the Commission to determine whether it would “unduly obscure the view of the lake from West Shore Road.” A public hearing was scheduled.MOTION:
To schedule a Public Hearing to consider the Special Permit application: Section 6.4.6, submitted by Mrs. Klein for a gate on the lake side of West Shore Road at 236 Tinker Hill Road on August 23, 2010 in the Land Use Meeting Room, this will be the third hearing, the first hearing begins at 7:30 p.m.
By Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.Swanson-Forese/41 Horse Heaven Road/First Cut:
Mrs. Swanson signed the mandatory conservation easement form to state there are no conservation easements on this property. Mrs. Hill reviewed her report dated 7/26/10, which noted all of the requirements for a first cut application had been submitted, including a variance for the width of the right of way and Inland Wetlands approval. The map, “Property/ Boundary Survey,” by Mr. Alex, dated January 2010 was reviewed. Mrs. Hill recommended as a condition of approval that monuments or iron pins be required to mark the corners of the proposed boundary line between the two lots. Mrs. Swanson had no objection.MOTION:
To approve the first cut application submitted by Mrs. Swanson and Mr. Forese for their property at 41 Horse Heaven Road subject to the condition that monuments or iron pins be set at the corners of the boundary line between the two lots.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and passed 5-0.Revision of the Washington Zoning Regulations-(See entire list of proposed revisions beginning on page 1):
Mr. Owen noted that a 4-1 vote would be needed to approve the proposed revisions regarding inns and that based on the discussion at the public hearing, he thought there would not be four affirmative votes. Mr. Abella and Mr. Averill said this was so. Therefore, Mr. Owen proposed to vote on each section of the proposed revisions; continuance of special permits, approval of applications requiring the installation or modification of sewage disposal systems, and inns separately. The commissioners agreed.MOTION:
To withdraw all proposed revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations concerning regulations governing the conveyance of Special Permits at the time of transfer of property or change of lessee.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To approve proposed revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations regarding the approval of applications requiring the installation or modification of sewage disposal systems.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To deny the Zoning Commission’s proposed amendments regarding inns.
By Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, and vote: 2-3.Mr. Shapiro noted that this motion and vote were confusing because they stated the proposition in the negative. Therefore, Mr. Averill and Mr. Abella rescinded their motion.
MOTION:
To approve the proposed revisions to the Washington Zoning Regulations regarding inns.
By Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, and approved 3-2.Mr. Owen noted again for the record that the 3-2 vote was not enough to carry the motion because a vote of 4-1 had been required to counter the negative report by the Washington Planning Commission. (This denial includes the associated proposed revisions regarding bed and breakfasts, tourist homes, fitness facilities, spas, boarding houses, and room and board establishments.)
Communications
Mrs. Hill noted a letter submitted to the Myfield, LLC/ Mygatt Road/Affordable Housing file regarding the transfer of the supervision of the affordable units from the Washington Community Housing Trust to a new company.
MOTION: To adjourn the Meeting. By Mr. Averill.
Mr. Owen adjourned the Meeting at 10:08 p.m.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Janet M. Hill
Land Use Administrator
Posted: July 2, 2010 June 28, 2010
Present: David Owen, Lou Abella, Ray Reich, Ralph Averill, Gary Fitzherbert
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, A.J. Dubois, Harry Wyant
Absent:
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Residents (see attached), Press, Mr. BibbMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant, Alt. (for Mr. Reich)
Sirowich/47 Sunset Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on June 16 and June 23, 2010. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application and the Administrative Review by Ms. Hill, dated 6/28/10. Mr. Fairbairn stated that the house was renovated about five years ago and at that point the apartment above the garage was finished. The Commissioners looked at Property Boundary Survey Map prepared for Carol Sirowich, 47 Sunset Lane by T. Michael Alex, Land Surveyor, and dated July 2007. There were no additional questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Sirowich/47 Sunset Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3 for Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 13.5: Conveyance of Special Permit at time of property transfer or new lessee; Sections 4.4.1, 5.4.9, 6.4.14, 13.9: Addition of Inns, Deletion of Inn standards under Section 13; Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.6, 4.4.14, 5.4.1, 6.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.12, 8.4.5, 8.4.12, 9.4.8, 10.4.5, 13.14, 13.14.3, 15.2: Deletion of “Tourist Home,” “Room and Board Establishment,” and “Boarding House;” Section 2.3.6: Approval of applications requiring installation or modification of sewage disposal system and deletion of current language in Sections 13.6 (renumbered), 13.10, 13.11.2.d, 13.11.3.d, 13.14.7, 13.5, and 13.17.5; Section 21.1.10: Deletion of definition of “Boarding House,” and addition of definition of “Bed and Breakfast Establishment;” Sections 21.1.30, 21.1.38, and 21.1.65: Addition of definitions of “Fitness Facility,” “Inn,” and “Spa;” Sections 6.4, 12.1.2, 13.17: minor deletions for consistent language throughout text, and renumbering throughout:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on June 16 and June 23, 2010.
Point of Order: Ms. Michelle Rodin read a statement requesting that any discussion of Section 13.9 be adjourned pending an investigation as to whether Commissioners Reich and Fitzherbert should recuse themselves. She submitted a letter dated June 28, 2010, from Ms. Teresa Peacocke, with enclosures, in support of her request (on file in the Land Use Office).
Mr. Reich arrives.
Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for these proposed revisions. Mr. Owen stated that he would like to divide the discussion into parts:
Proposed section 13.5: Conveyance of Special Permit at time of property transfer or new lessee:
Mr. Owen read the proposed language. He stated that in the past, the Zoning Commission required that applicants renew the Special Permit when the property changed ownership. Town Counsel drafted this proposed language, which was then referred to the Town of Washington Planning Commission. Mr. Owen read the report of the Planning Commission, which finds that the proposed language for Section 13.5 is consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Owen read a statement from Dan McGuinness of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments. Mr. McGuinness stated that there are a couple issues to consider: 1. It is the property owner’s responsibility to be aware that a Special Permit has been granted on the property. By State Statute all permits are filed on the Town land records. Therefore any new owner should be aware of the Special Permit. 2. The property owner is responsible for making sure that tenants adhere to the conditions of the Special Permit. If a zoning violation occurs, it is the property owner and not the tenant that should be issued the cease and desist order. 3. Neither Zoning Commissioners nor Land Use Officials are routinely notified whether property is sold or a new lease is signed. It would be difficult to enforce this proposed regulation as it would require the Land Use Officials to monitor property sales and determine which properties that have been sold have a Special Permit and then contact the new property owner and inform them of the requirements. 4. The Town Health Department, not the Zoning Commission, is responsible for enforcing its regulations. 5. This proposed regulation does not work with the basic principle of Zoning Regulations govern the use not the user by requiring that the use not be continued until the new user files an acknowledgement. Mr. Owen stated that, according to this report, Mr. McGuinness is not in favor of this proposed revision. Mr. Averill stated that he agrees with Attorney Zizka’s recommended revision of the Section 13.5. Mr. Owen suggested that the Zoning Commission share Mr. McGuinness’s comment with Atty. Zizka before proceeding. Mr. Reich asked if the Zoning Commission should be concerned with what the State permits the Commission to do or forbids the Commission to do. Mr. Owen stated that they are concerned that the State forbids the Town of Washington Zoning Commission what they have customarily done for years which is require new owners of Special Permit properties to reapply to the Zoning Commission when the property changes hands. There were no more comments or questions concerning this section.Section 2.3.6: Approval of applications requiring installation or modification of sewage disposal system and deletion of current language in Sections 13.6 (renumbered), 13.10,13.11.2.d, 13.11.3.d, 13.14.7, 13.5 and 13.17.5:
Mr. Owen read the proposed language that was provided by Atty. Zizka. He stated that this proposed revision is an effort to solve the current issue in which the Zoning Regulations prevents the Zoning Commission from considering certain applications until there is Health Department or State Health approval. However, the State refuses to act on applications until the Zoning Commission had approved them. The State does not want to invest time in a proposal that has the possibility of being turned down. The proposed language eliminates this problem. Mr. Owen read the Planning Commission response, which found that the proposed language is consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Owen read the response from Dan McGuinness of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments. Mr. McGuinness stated that this proposed language is redundant and that the Town Health Department is independent of the Zoning Commission and is authorized to approve or deny sewage disposal systems. He states, in his report, that a facility could not legally be occupied without the approval of the Towns Health Department even if it has been granted a permit or special permit by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen stated that he agreed with Atty. Zizka. He stated that this proposed language eliminates inconsistency and will allow the Zoning Commission to deal with applications that require State approval.Sections 4.4.1, 5.4.9, 6.4.14, 13.9: Addition of Inns, Deletion of Inn standards under Section 13; Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.6, 4.4.14, 5.4.1, 6.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.12, 8.4.5, 8.4.12, 9.4.8, 10.4.5, 13.14, 13.14.3, 15.2: Deletion of “Tourist Home,” “Room and Board Establishment,” and “Boarding House;” Section 21.1.10: Deletion of definition of “Boarding House,” and addition of definition of “Bed and Breakfast Establishment;” Sections 21.1.30, 21.1.38, and 21.1.65: Addition of definitions of “Fitness Facility,” “Inn,” and “Spa;” Sections 6.4, 12.1.2, 13.17: minor deletions for consistent language throughout text, and renumbering throughout:
Mr. Owen clarified some misconceptions: 1. “Inns are and remain, under the proposals, Special Permit applications. Which means that any application for an Inn is required to comply with Washington’s Special Permit standards.” Mr. Owen read the eight standards listed under Special Permits in the Zoning Regulations under Section 13. Mr. Owen read the report from the Planning Commission (on file in Land Use Office) that found that the proposed revisions to these sections of the Zoning Regulations are fundamentally inconsistent with the goal of the POCD to preserve rural character. Mr. Owen read the report from Dan McGuinness (on file in Land Use Office) in which he discussed a number of issues regarding the proposed revisions to these sections.Mr. Fitzherbert asked Mr. Owen what his reaction is to the threat of a lawsuit at the beginning of this Public Hearing. Mr. Owen stated that he did not have a reaction to this threat and that “people threaten lawsuits all the time.”
Mr. Owen opened the discussion to the public. Mr. Owen stated that this is a Public Hearing for the proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations and that it is not about a specific application. He requested that the comments focus on what is being proposed by the Zoning Commission for this Public Hearing.
Mr. Ecton Manning of Painter Ridge Road asked Mr. Owen if it was in accordance with State Law that an absent member chooses an alternate member. Mr. Owen confirmed that it was. Mr. Manning stated that he sees an issue with the Zoning Commission allowing a restaurant, bar, spa, gym, or conference room in conjunction with an Inn in a residential or farming district, and how would they be able to avoid allowing these uses as freestanding applications, and have they sought legal counsel regarding this matter. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission has discussed this with legal counsel. He stated that the Town Zoning Regulations have permitted inns in the R-1 and other districts for a very long time. By custom the inns have included those facilities. These decisions were discussed and made in Public Hearings. He stated the Town has never had a definition of ‘inn’ and the current proposal includes the things that the Zoning Commission has historically approved with an application of an inn. Mr. Owen read the definitions that are part of this proposal. He stated that with or without these definitions the Zoning Commission is governed by the Special Permit requirements and standards that he read earlier. The elected Zoning officials are required to base their decision on the requirements and standards.
Mr. Paul Antosh stated that he worked at the Swiss Hospitality Institute and “the property in question.” Mr. Owen repeatedly stated that there is not a property in question and that this Public Hearing is regarding proposed revisions of the previously mentioned sections of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Antosh stated that the Town has ‘conveniently misplaced’ an application for an inn that was approved at the Wykeham Road property. He asked if there would be a criminal investigation. Mr. Owen stated that there would not be a criminal investigation.
Ms. Susan Bishop Wrabel of Baldwin Hill Road stated that she is “troubled by the proposed definition of ‘inn’ and how it was derived.” She stated that she was not in favor of defining ‘inn’ based on The Mayflower and feels, as she has stated at a previous Zoning Commission Meeting, that this is “retroactive thinking, retrospective thinking on the part of our esteemed Zoning Commissioners.” She stated that “we have no idea what a fitness facility might be in six months” as trends change around the world. She stated her “concern is that by enacting this broad proposal our citizens will be inviting the unscrupulous, opportunistic endeavors of people who would exploit our beautiful town.” She stated, “We cannot see it coming if we look only to the past.” She stated that she was concerned that this proposal would generate numerous lawsuits in town. Mr. Averill asked Ms. Wrabel and every resident what their personal definition of ‘inn,’ ‘hotel,’ and ‘resort’ is. Ms. Wrabel stated that she considers an ‘inn’ to be different from a ‘resort’. She stated that she considers an ‘inn’ provides lodging, “which may offer some food on a small scale to a small number of transient people. I would consider it to have none of the ancillary functions such as conference centers, fitness centers, spas and whatever else may occur in some large corporate inn. What we may call an ‘inn’ in Connecticut may not resemble an ‘inn’ in the Hunt Valley of Maryland…It’s a very regional thing.” She stated that she thought an ‘inn’ in Washington, CT should be “something small...I think it is not a resort.”
Ms. Constance Hill of New Preston read the Random House Dictionary definition of ‘inn,’ which is a small countryside hotel.
Mr. Rex Swain of South Street stated that he was concerned with the issue of scale as represented in these proposed revisions. He stated that the proposal does not address size. He stated that he feels that this is too much authority to “grant to five people the ability to decide by Special Permit what they consider to be harmonious in a residential zone.” He stated that he is a member of the Board of Finance and that there are limits on the amount of money that they can act on and that anything over $20,000 must go to a Town Meeting. He stated that he does not see a limit in these proposed regulations and he feels that this is unacceptable. Mr. Owen stated that the current regulations do not contain a limit on the size of an inn and that the regulations have never had a numerical limit on the size of an inn, however the regulations do provide the stringent requirements of the Special Permit section.
Mr. Peter Tagley asked Mr. Owen, “As Chairman, can you explain under what conditions a chairman would have to recuse himself or any member of his committee?” Mr. Owen explained that it is a personal decision and that he cannot recuse anybody but himself. Mr. Tagley explained that he is a thirty-three year resident of the Town. He stated that one of the problems for him, “perceptively, this issue has become very tainted because of what many people perceive as the personal involvement of several of your commissioners and I think that’s very difficult for many of us. And it’s caused a problem which somehow you have to address.” Mr. Tagley stated that another issue he has is that “if we were discussing building one inn in Town, you may get approval of a lot of people…if this was an issue where the Zoning Commission was dealing with one individual building one inn on one piece of property…you may get some support. But there is so much apprehension in your proposal in changing the entire zoning laws, where, perceptively, anyone, everyone here owns a valuable piece of real estate...I see people being very concerned about what gets constructed in their neighborhood…What does it mean for all of the value that we have accrued as citizens? The investments we’ve made in our property? That has to bear on the Commissioners. When you change the zoning laws you can change the property values of many people in Town.” Mr. Owen stated that the Special Permit requirements specifically state that the Commission must consider these issues.
Ms. Debbie Forese stated that she was in favor of the Special Permit process and did not see the need for a finite definition of ‘inn’ or ‘restaurant’ and that each application should go through the Special Permit process. She stated that the Town of Washington has always benefited from the existing inns. She stated that the majority of the Town voted for the Zoning Commissioners. Mr. Owen clarified that the there is a definition for ‘eating and drinking establishment’ in the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Frank Monteleone of Cook Street stated that he feels that this situation is unfair and that the Town “has changed the rules halfway through the game.” He asked why Mr. Reich could not vote at this hearing tonight. Mr. Owen stated that Mr. Reich was not here at the beginning of the Public Hearing and he asked that Mr. Wyant, Alternate, be seated in his place. Mr. Monteleone stated that there was no reason for this to issue to be continuing after 2 years and that he thought it was unfair for Mr. Klauer. Mr. Owen stated that this Public Hearing was not about an application for an inn. Mr. Monteleone asked why the regulation was changed to allow inns only on State roads while there was an application pending. Mr. Owen stated that Zoning Commission revises their regulations all the time. Mr. Owen stated that the rules that were in effect at the time of the submission of the application are the rules that apply to that application. Mr. Monteleone stated that it would be a benefit to the Town to have a less expensive lodging choice in Town. Mr. Owen reminded the public that this Public Hearing is not about a specific application and that there is nothing in the Zoning Regulations that deal with the maximum and minimum pricing on rooms at inns.
Joan Lodsin of Tompkins Hill Road read a statement. She was concerned that a small group of people, “with an obvious agenda” will determine what is good for the majority of the Town. She stated that “any change in the Zoning Regulations should be for the good of all in Washington, to enhance the beauty of the town, to insure that the town grows in a way that is acceptable, to maintain the bucolic nature.” She stated that she believes that the original Zoning Regulation that allowed inns on town roads should be restored and that the Zoning Commission should allow the Special Permit process to assess each application “on it own merits and determine whether or not it conforms to the regulations.” She stated that many people in the Town have already spoken when they voted last year. She stated, “the voters elected people with a vision for how this town can grow, retain its charm, and not become stagnant with no room for new people or new ideas.” She asked that the Commission “vote to restore the regulation allowing inns on town roads and then judge each application without bias or prejudice.” Mr. Owen stated that there was a difference of opinion on the Zoning Commission as to the meaning of one element of the original regulation. It states what the required frontage is on a State road and some members believed that this meant that they were only allowed on State Roads. Mr. Owen stated that he raised the point that “grammatically it did not say that” and that it was just specifying what the frontage should be if an inn was on a State road. He stated that no one agreed with him except for Atty. Zizka and the Commission voted by 4-1 to change the regulation to what they thought it always intended. He stated that this did happen while there was an application for an inn going through the Special Permit process and he stated that it was not an issue in the decision of that application.
Mr. Jack Boyer of Nichols Hill Road stated that he thinks people in Town are not considering that there is still a great amount of opportunity in Town for someone to establish an properly sized inn on a State road and that inns are not being banned from Town under the proposed revisions.
Selectman Nick Solley stated that he was not representing any views on behalf of the Board of Selectman and that he was present to discuss this matter on his own behalf. Mr. Solley stated that including West Shore Road, which is a State Highway, the Town has approximately 26 miles of State road. He stated we have 88 miles of Town roads. Twenty-three of those Town roads are dirt. Mr. Solley stated that he was on the Zoning Commission years ago and he believes that the Zoning Commission did not want to burden Town roads with the truck traffic going to inns so they limited the location of inns to State Highways. He stated that his personal feelings are consistent with the Planning Commission’s decision. He stated that he has lived here for sixty years and that he does not feel the Town should open up the residential districts to commercial development. Mr. Owen stated that Ms. Hill had compiled information on the evolution of the regulations on inns and there was a regulation that stated “frontage shall be 500 feet and then a clause was added to that, maybe in 1978…that stated frontage on a State Highway shall be 500 feet.”
Ms. Louise King of Wykeham Road stated that she would hardly call Wykeham Road a rural road since it’s improvement.
Ms. Pat Mathews of Route 47 addressed her question to Mr. Monteleone. She asked if we need jobs why doesn’t the Town come up with a “development plan, which is cogent.” She stated that she does not want a promise from an individual that he will establish a business that will provide jobs for the Town. She stated “there is no way to run an inn at this time, in our economy without hiring cheap labor. And nobody in Washington gets low money.” Ms. Mathews stated, “the illusion is that all the building and the construction is all going to be done by people in Washington.” She stated that we all know that they’re doing a large project so they would most likely hire larger, cheaper companies to do the work. Ms. Mathews stated that the Zoning Commissions job is to protect the Town.
Mr. Owen reminded everyone to stick with the topic.
Ms. Betsy Manning asked why the 500 feet required frontage is not in the proposed language. Mr. Owen stated that it was an “arbitrary number” and the standards of the Special Permit requirements enable the Zoning Commission to make judgments based on the size of the property. There was a brief discussion regarding the frontage requirement for any property. Ms. Hill stated that most properties are required to have 200 feet of frontage. Ms. Manning stated that this is “just one more criterion that is left to the discretion of the five people…” Mr. Fizherbert stated that the Town has sightline requirements for driveways.
Mr. Phil Dutton of Route 109 talked about how inns have played and important role in the history of Washington. He stated that The Mayflower Inn was allowed to expand and there was no definition of an inn and the Planning Commission did not oppose it. He stated that The Mayflower Inn and Spa is over 76,000 sq. ft. and has been considered an ‘inn’ by the Town. Mr. Dutton criticized the lack of attendance of the Planning Commission at the Zoning Meetings and accused them for “their lack of vision for the future other that “protecting rural character.” He stated that this is not the only goal that the Townspeople desire. He stated that allowing inns only on State roads is unfair to any person who owns property on a town road and would like to build an inn on their property. He stated that some people will inherit large properties and their only option to maintain the property would be to establish an inn. He states the other option would be to subdivide which would not be along the lines of preserving rural character. He suggested that ‘rural character’ should be defined. Mr. Dutton stated that the people of the Town spoke ‘loudly and clearly’ when they voted at the last Zoning Commission election. He mentioned that there is a petition that has been signed by over 400 people urging the Zoning Commission to restore the right of inns on Town roads.
Mr. Justin Primo owns land in Town but is not a resident. Mr. Primo stated that he feels the Town is reducing it’s potential by two-thirds by limiting inns to only State roads.
Ms. Diane Tagley of New Preston stated the Zoning Commission’s job is to protect our town not businesses, and she moved to Washington for its bucolic nature.
Ms. Sharon Wyant McGuire stated that she would like to address that the Town Attorney was the only one that agreed with Mr. Owen that inns were not restricted from Town roads. She stated there couldn’t be any more traffic going to an inn on Wykeham Road than there would be going to a hockey game at a private school.
Mr. Peter Pappas of Parsonage Lane stated that there have been a lot of comments as to whether business makes any difference to the Town or not. He stated that people in Town should get used to the idea of paying high taxes because businesses would not want to come to Washington if they are treated as Mr. Klauer has been treated.
Mr. Owen reminded the public that no one has an application before the Zoning Commission for an inn. He stated that this is a Public Hearing to discuss the proposal of the Zoning Commission regarding revisions of the regulations. He stated that he hopes that Mr. Klauer, even though he did not like the decision of the Zoning Commission, feels that he was treated fairly.
Mr. Hank Martin stated he was the past Chairman of the Zoning Commission. He stated he feels strongly about this issue and that for 32 years the Zoning Commission only allowed inns on State roads. He stated that these regulations have been established by past generations of Zoning Commissioners. He believes that the past generation believed that an inn is a more intensive use and needs extra restrictions. He stated that he would like to associate himself with the opinion expressed by the Planning Commission. He stated that he does not agree with the proposed language because the inns are not scaled and would be limitless in size. Mr. Owen stated that inns have always been limitless in size and scale in the regulations. Mr. Martin said while this was true, in the past there were more restrictions than now proposed and since inns weren’t allowed everywhere in Town, the definition was not as important.
Ms. Erika Klauer stated that she would like to clarify that the Zoning Commission did unanimously approve an inn application in 1991 that was on a Town road. She stated that this paperwork was not available to any of the Zoning Commission members and feels that it is an unfortunate omission in the consideration of changing the regulation to allow inns on Town roads and the Wykeham Rise application. Mr. Averill stated that the inn that was approved was associated with the Swiss Hospitality Institute. Ms. Klauer stated that the paperwork shows that the approved inn was separate from the Swiss Hospitality Institute.
Mr. Averill stated that he was hoping that the public would come up with some kind of consensus of what the word ‘inn’ means.
Ms. Manning stated that she thought an inn would be a place for overnight accommodations with meals for the guests. She stated a resort would be someplace that would have full service recreational facilities, spa, etc.
Ms. Jane Boyer of Nichols Hill stated that she felt it was impossible to define ‘inn’. She stated that she felt the Town should be dealing with ‘eating and sleeping establishments’. She stated there should be small, medium and large eating and sleeping establishments and each category would have their own requirements.
Ms. Janet Hill, Land Use Administrator, stated that the approved inn on Wykeham Road was to be a teaching facility, run by the students to teach them the hospitality operation and it was housed in the classroom wing of the building.
Mr. Owen stated that the Commission wanted to prevent someone trying to establish a restaurant and using the inn as a shield. He stated the simplest way to do this was to place a maximum number of seats in the restaurant as a multiple of the number of beds. Within the Special Permit requirements, it gives the Commission a tool to limit the size of the eating and drinking establishment based on the number of beds in the inn.
Drew Stickler of Calhoun Street asked how the numbers of the proposed language where derived. Mr. Owen stated that the numbers are based on the past experience of the Commission. Mr. Stickler stated that he found it “hard to understand how the Zoning Commission could limit someone’s ability to make a living with a number that you’re not really sure where it’s coming from.”
Wayne Hileman of River Road stated that there is a concern regarding people’s rights as property owners in the R-1 District. He stated no one expects or wants to live next to a commercial operation when they buy a home in a residential district. He stated that he does not support the “vague language that does not take the interest of homeowners to heart.” He asked why Marbledale and Woodville were not included in these proposed revisions. Mr. Owen stated that members of the Zoning Commission did not feel that inns were an appropriate use in these districts. Mr. Owen stated the Woodville district is too small; the use of an inn did not seem to fit in to Marbledale. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the Special Permit process has a list of criteria that the Zoning Commission must consider when an application is before it and the size of an inn is under control using these criteria. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he was not in favor of these definitions but finds that they have ‘cleaned up’ other areas in the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen stated that the current Special Permit requirements and standards give the Zoning Commission ‘extraordinary leeway’ in the decision making process. He stated that he does not think that “any wording that the Zoning Commission could use that would resolve” this issue of ‘inns’ that divides the Town. He said, “ What we have tried to do is make the regulations consistent with the way the Commission has acted in the past…In the past…we repeatedly approved inn applications that…without the benefit of a maximum size limit or …most of the requirements we have because we found the Special Permit standards to be adequate.”
Kelly Boling of New Preston stated that he was nervous that the proposed regulations would allow inns on any road in Town. He stated that one of the standards of the Special Permit process is that the proposed use is consistent with the POCD and he feels that these proposed revisions conflict with this standard. He asked the Zoning Commission since the Planning Commission has voted that these revisions are not consistent with the POCD how does the ZC reconcile the difference. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission would have to address the specific objections of the Planning Commission. Mr. Shapiro stated that the Zoning Commission must consider the POCD and “be mindful in amending any of our regulations, the end product we wind up with, however we change a given regulation, should also be internally consistent with all the rest of our regulations as they stand.” He stated that under our current regulations restaurants, spas, meeting facilities, bars, and gyms are not permitted in a residential district, unless they are included under the use of an inn. Mr. Shapiro referred to the lengthy section in the Zoning Regulations that deals with Home Occupations. He stated that these regulations limit to what degree a home occupation could intrude, in a commercial sense, on the surrounding homes and how it can or cannot change the residential character. He pointed out that, in these regulations, “we specifically prohibit people from using their homes to run a restaurant.” He stated that there are numerical limits on the amount of rooms for Bed and Breakfasts and Rooming Houses and that it would not be impossible to put numerical limits on Inns. Mr. Shapiro stated that he feels that allowing Inns with their accessory uses on any road in Town is not consistent with the “whole body of our Town’s Zoning Regulations.” Mr. Owen asked Mr. Shapiro if he was suggesting that Inns should be eliminated as a use by Special Permit in the R-1 Zone. Mr. Shapiro stated that he did not suggest that and that he agreed with the current regulation that allows inns only on State roads. He suggested using the Natural Resource Inventory to refine a list of roads where inns would be allowed. Mr. Owen suggested that maybe there were locations on State roads that the Zoning Commission would find an inn would not be appropriate. Mr. Owen stated that, as the current Zoning Regulations are written, the Zoning Commission would be able to deny an inn on a State Road if they needed to. Mr. Shapiro stated that what “troubles him is opening up all of these roads...to a high intensity commercial use.”
Rob Parker asked, “Can you explain…that Mr. Klauer, in the past, hasn’t been treated fairly…David, could you remind everyone how much of the ‘inn on Town road’ was even a factor in the conclusion that was drawn in December of 2008 when his application was denied?” Mr. Owen stated that it was an important consideration for some of the Commissioners but he had suggested to the Commissioners that they not base their decision on this. Mr. Parker asked, “When you cast your final vote, where was the ‘Town road’ issue?” Mr. Owen stated that it was not part of his decision. Mr. Parker stated that he thought it was impressive that the entire Planning Commission “voted to not commercialize our residential zones, which is what your language, as proposed, enable. And I do think you guys had it right in June of ‘08 when you did decide to not commercialize our residential zones.” Mr. Owen reminded the public that in the current regulations inns are only allowed in the R-1 zone.
Mr. Antosh stated that the Zoning Commission is “confusing. They restrict the size of a restaurant to the amount of rooms but they don’t tell us how many rooms are allowed.”
Mr. Owen recommended the hearing be continued so the Commission could consult with its attorney regarding some of the issues raised.
Motion:
to continue the Public Hearing to consider the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 13.5: Conveyance of Special Permit at time of property transfer or new lessee; Sections 4.4.1, 5.4.9, 6.4.14, 13.9: Addition of Inns, Deletion of Inn standards under Section 13; Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.6, 4.4.14, 5.4.1, 6.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.12, 8.4.5, 8.4.12, 9.4.8, 10.4.5, 13.14, 13.14.3, 15.2: Deletion of “Tourist Home,” “Room and Board Establishment,” and “Boarding House;” Section 2.3.6: Approval of applications requiring installation or modification of sewage disposal system and deletion of current language in Sections 13.6 (renumbered), 13.10, 13.11.2.d, 13.11.3.d, 13.14.7, 13.5, and 13.17.5; Section 21.1.10: Deletion of definition of “Boarding House,” and addition of definition of “Bed and Breakfast Establishment;” Sections 21.1.30, 21.1.38, and 21.1.65: Addition of definitions of “Fitness Facility,” “Inn,” and “Spa;” Sections 6.4, 12.1.2, 13.17: minor deletions for consistent language throughout text, and renumbering throughout, to seek advice from Town Counsel,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.10:00 p.m. Break
10:10 p.m. Meeting resumes.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The May 24, 2010 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of May 24, 2010, as submitted,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Sirowich/47 Sunset Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
There were no additional comments or questions.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Sirowich/47 Sunset Lane/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
There were no new applications to discuss.
Other Business
Mr. Owen announced that the Public Hearing regarding inns has been continued to the next Zoning Commission Regular Meeting on 7/26/10, in the Main Hall at Bryan Memorial Town Hall at 7:30 p.m.
Privilege of the Floor
Craig Bibb was present to discuss activity at 329 West Shore Road. He is a neighbor to this property. Mr. Owen stated that he has talked to the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding this matter, which is currently before the Inland Wetlands Commission. Mr. Bibb stated that a “violation has occurred of Washington Zoning Regulations but nothing has come from Zoning because nothing has been presented to Zoning.” He stated he was here to get the damages that have occurred, cleaned up. Mr. Bibb explained that Tom Auth of 329 West Shore Road “built a retaining wall in the lake and began filling in behind it.” Mr. Bibb stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission had told Mr. Auth that he was not allowed to do this. Mr. Bibb stated that the regulations do not allowing any re-grading or re-contouring of the shoreline. Mr. Owen stated that issues such as this do not usually come before the Zoning Commission and the ZEO deals with these issues and comes to the Commission for help if needed. He stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission makes property owners fix any damage that is done. Ms. Hill stated that the Inland Wetlands told Mr. Auth what it had approved and Mr. Auth is required to submit plans showing what has been approved before he may proceed.
Communications
A letter from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection dated May 28, 2010, Re: Approval of Authorization, Minor Grading. There will be new sand spread at Mt. Tom State Park.A letter from The Northwest Connecticut Regional Planning Collaborative, dated June 10, 2010, Re: availability of services.
Enforcement
The Commission considered the ZEO report date June 28, 2010. Ms. Hill stated that Mike Ajello, ZEO would like some clarification from the Zoning Commission regarding 329 West Shore Road. Ms. Hill discussed the history of Mr. Auth’s Inland Wetlands Application. She stated that the Inland Wetlands Commission and Mr. Ajello are waiting for engineered plans from Mr. Auth. The Commissioners urged the enforcement office to resolve this matter.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 10:29 pm by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk,
Partial List of Public in Attendance, Public Hearing – June 28, 2010
Mr. and Mrs. P. Dutton Mr. G. Fairbairn Mrs. Sutter Mr. Pappas Mr. and Mrs. Boyer Ms. Adams Mr. and Mrs. Bedini Mr. Duncan Mr. and Mrs. Desimone Mr. Antosh Mr. and Mrs. Tagley Mr. Swain Mrs. Friedman Ms. Rodin Mr. Adams Ms. Bishop-Wrabel Mrs. Middlebrook Mr. & Mrs. Monteleone Mrs. Canning Mrs. Lodsin Mr. and Mrs. E. Matthews Ms. King Mr. Boling Mr. Primo Mrs. Minor Ms. McGuire Mr. Mustich Ms. Klauer Mr. and Mrs. Roth Mr. Klauer Mr. R. Wyant Mr. Chute Mr. and Mrs. Davis Mr. Hileman Mr. and Mrs. Manning Mrs. Roberts Mrs. Peckerman Ms. Gager Mrs. McDonald Ms. Purnell Mr. and Mrs. Rickart Mr. Werkhoven Mrs. Silk Ms. F. Hill Mr. O’Toole Ms. Forese Mr. N. Solley Mrs. Cheney Mr. Martin Press Mr. Papsin Mrs. Johnson Mrs. Hardee Mrs. Addicks Mrs. Greene Mr. and Mrs. Solomon and son Mr. Parker Mr. Charles Mr. and Mrs. Federer Mrs. Wildman Mr. and Mrs. Condon Mr. Wool Ms. McGarr Mr. Tomlinson Ms. Setlow Mr. Frank
Posted: July 2, 2010 May 24, 2010
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Ralph Averill, Gary Fitzherbert
Alternates Present: Andy Shapiro, A.J. Dubois
Absent: Lou Abella, Harry Wyant Alt.
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Mr. Reese Owens, Architect, Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Parker, Ms. Federer, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Dubois, Alt. (for Mr. Abella)
Spring Hill Farms, LLC/69 Whittlesey Road/Addition of Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on May 12 and May 19, 2010. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Ms. Hill stated that there were no outstanding issues with this application. There were no additional questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Spring Hill Farms, LLC/69 Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3 for Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on May 12, and May 19, 2010. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Owen stated that Ms. Hill noted two issues regarding this application in her Administrative Review to the Zoning Commission dated 5/24/10. The first issue was the computation of the square footage of the accessory apartment. Ms. Hill suggested stated that if the storage area had a ceiling height of less than 5 ft. that it would not count as square footage and the apartment would not exceed the maximum size permitted. She suggested that Mr. Fairbairn should either note that the ceiling height is less than 5 ft. on the plans or revise the plans to slightly decrease the size of the apartment. The second issue was that the Health Department had not approved the application. Mr. Geoff Fairbairn was present and he submitted the Health Department approval. Mr. Fairbairn and the Commissioners looked at sheet A-1.02, titled “Construction Plan- Second Floor & Roof’” for Gray Lyons Residence, by Hottenroth and Joseph Architects, with a revision date of April 8, 2010. The Commissioners and Mr. Fairbairn briefly discussed the plans. It was determined that the plans sufficiently show the ceiling height and that the square footage of the apartment does not exceed the maximum size permitted. There were no additional questions or comments.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3 for Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
REGULAR MEETING
Consideration of the Minutes
The April 26, 2010 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2010, as submitted,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote Mr. Owen recused himself.
Pending Application(s)
Spring Hill Farms, LLC/69 Whittlesey Road/Addition of Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
There were no additional comments from the Commission.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Spring Hill Farms, LLC. /69 Whittlesey Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Dubois, by 5-0 vote
Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
There were no additional comments from the Commission.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Fitzherbert, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
New Application(s)
Sirowich/47 Sunset Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Fairbairn explained that this house was a tear down and a rebuild. A garage with an apartment was built and the homeowners never applied for a Special Permit.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on June 28, 2010 to consider the application for Sirowich/47 Sunset Lane/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
Other Business
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 13.5/Conveyance of Special Permit at time of property transfer or new lessee; Sections 4.4.1, 5.4.9, 6.4.14, 13.9/Addition of Inns, Deletion of Inn standards under Section 13; Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.6, 4.4.14, 5.4.1, 6.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.12, 8.4.5, 8.4.12, 9.4.8, 10.4.5., 13.14, 13.14.3, 15.2/Deletion of “Tourist Home,” “Room and Board Establishment,” and “Boarding House”; Section 2.3.6/re: Approval of applications requiring installation or modification of sewage disposal system and deletion of current language in Sections 13.6 (renumbered), 13.10, 13.11.2.d, 13.11.3.d, 13.14.7, 13.15, and 13.17.5; Section 21.1.10/Deletion of definition of “Boarding House” and addition of definition of “Bed and Breakfast Establishment”; Sections 21.1.30, 21.1.38, and 21.1.65/Addition of definitions of “Fitness Facility,” “Inn,” and “Spa”; Sections 6.4, 12.1.2, 13.17/minor deletions for consistent language throughout the text, and Renumbering throughout:A Public Hearing has been scheduled for 6/28/10.
Privilege of the Floor
There was a brief discussion with Mr. Reese Owens regarding the regulations regarding noise-generating equipment. It was agreed that Mr. Owens would contact Ms. Polly Roberts, Chairman of the ZBA to discuss this matter.
Communications
Ms. Hill stated that the Land Use Office received a letter for the Connecticut Department of Transportation regarding the retaining wall that is to be installed on East Shore Road (Route 45).
Enforcement
The Commission considered Mr. Ajello’s Zoning Enforcement Report, dated May 24, 2010. Mr. Ajello reported that he issued two fines to the two retail shops and that both owners submitted zoning applications.
Adjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 7:55 pm by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: May 3, 2010 April 26, 2010
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Ralph Averill, Lou Abella
Alternates Present: Harry Wyant, A.J. Dubois
Absent: Gary Fitzherbert, Andy Shapiro Alt.,
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, Mr. Reese Owens, Architect, Mr. Schoellkopf, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Templeton, Mr. Parker, Mr. Klauer, Ms. Federer, Mr. Dutton, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant, Alt. (for Mr. Fitzherbert)
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Addition of Section 13.21 regarding Transfer of Special Permits for Eating and Drinking Establishments:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on April14 and April 21, 2010. Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this proposed revision of the Regulations. Mr. Owen stated that the Atty. Zizka advised that Special Permits do not need to be transferred from one owner to another because the permit stays with the property. Atty. Zizka suggested an alternative approach to make sure that the property stays in compliance from one owner to another. Mr. Owen recommended that this hearing be closed and the Commission could discuss it under Other Business on the agenda.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Addition of Section 13.21 regarding Transfer of Special Permits for Eating and Drinking Establishments,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen recused himself, as he was recently a paid speaker for the Garden Conservancy.
Mr. Averill, Secretary, was seated for Mr. Owen.
Seated: Mr. Averill, Mr. Reich, Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant, Alt. (for Mr. Fitzherbert), Mr. Dubois, Alt. (for Mr. Owen)Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.17/Public Restrooms:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on April 14, and April 21, 2010. Mr. Averill read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, was present to represent Mr. Schoellkopf. Mr. Sabin presented a photograph of the homestead, circa 1900, indicating that there was a building in this location at that time. He discussed the Property/Boundary Survey, by T. Michael Alex, prepared for Hollister House Garden, The Garden Conservancy, 300 Nettleton Hollow Road, dated March 2009 and the elevation/floor plans, titled Recreated Outbuilding Barn, at Hollister House, dated March 18, 2010. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners or the public. Ms. Hill stated that she reviewed the application and that it is complete.Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.17/Public Restrooms,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 voteMr. Owen returns.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the regular meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant, Alt. (for Mr. Fitzherbert)Consideration of the Minutes
The March 22, 2010 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2010, as submitted,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen recused himself.
Mr. Averill, Secretary, was seated for Mr. Owen.
Seated: Mr. Averill, Mr. Reich, Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant, Alt. (for Mr. Fitzherbert), Mr. Dubois, Alt. (for Mr. Owen)
Pending Application(s)
Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.17/Public Restrooms:
There were no additional comments from the Commission. Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.17/Public Restrooms,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Dubois, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen returns.
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Averill, Mr. Abella, Mr. Wyant, Alt. (for Mr. Fitzherbert)
New Application(s)
Spring Hill Farms, LLC./69 Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Mr. Reese Owens, Architect was present to represent the applicants. He stated that the property owners would like to add a sleeping area and kitchen space to the existing attic space that is a farm office. Ms. Hill and Mr. Owens looked at the Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations titled, Spring Hill Farm Residence, Sheet Z101, by Halper Owens Architects, dated 3/31/10. Ms. Hill noted that the proposed apartment is less than 1200 sq. ft. and that it has a separate entrance from the main house. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on May 24, 2010 to consider the application for Spring Hill Farms, LLC/69 Whittlesey Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/ Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.Lyon-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3/Detached Accessory Apartment:
Ms. Hill noted that this application needs approval from the Health Department. Mr. John Lyon was present. He stated that the engineer did the perc tests for the septic system today. Mr. Lyon stated that the structure is a basic garage with an apartment over the top. Ms. Hill stated that the proposed apartment meets the requirements for height, lot coverage and setbacks. There were no further questions or comments.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on May 24, 2010 to consider the application for Lyons-Gray/82 Old Litchfield Road/Special Permit: Section 13.11.3 Detached Accessory Apartment,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Wyant, by 5-0 vote.
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.Revision of Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 13.21/Acknowledgment of Special Permit for Eating and Drinking Establishments at the time of transfer of the property or new lessee:
Mr. Owen recommended that this discussion be merged with the following discussion:Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads – Definition of “Inn”:
Mr. Owen asked the Commission to refer to his document distributed to them titled Inn-Draft concepts for discussion only, April 26, 2010 (attached). He stated he and Ms Hill are working on additional minor technical revisions that are not included in this draft and that they will be included in the final draft. Mr. Owen discussed the revised/proposed definitions for Bed and Breakfast Establishment, Fitness Facility and Inn and noted that the definition for Boarding House would be eliminated. He stated that Health Department approval is mentioned in the Zoning Regulations and Atty. Zizka recommended replacement language for Section 2.3.6. Mr. Owen stated that with the current regulations a property owner cannot apply for a Zoning or Special Permit unless they have septic approval from the State or other officials such as the Connecticut Department of Health or the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and this proposed replacement language makes it possible for the Zoning Commission to make the approval of a septic system by the State or other officials, a condition of approval for a Special Permit.Mr. Owen stated that Atty. Zizka advised that a Special Permit stays with the property so there is nothing to renew when the property changes hands. He stated that Atty. Zizka provided language for a possible addition to section 13 of the Zoning Regulations that would require the new owner or lessee to submit a signed, notarized acknowledgement to the Commission that they have reviewed and understand the terms of the Special Permit, there will be no significant changes to the operation and that the Town of Washington Health Department has been notified of the new ownership or lease status.
Mr. Owen discussed the proposed revisions to Section 13.14 Bed and Breakfast Establishment, 15.2 Number of Parking Spaces, Section 4.4 Uses Permitted by Special Permit (R-1 District), Section 5.4 Uses Permitted by Special Permit (R-2 District), Section 6.4 Uses Permitted by Special Permit (Lake Waramaug Residential District), Section 7.4 Uses Permitted by Special Permit (New Preston Business District), Section 8.4 Uses Permitted by Special Permit (Washington Depot Business District), Section 9.4.8 (Marbledale Business District) and Section 10.4.5 (Woodville Business District).
Ms. Hill asked why the total seating capacity of the inn’s eating and drinking establishment was based on the total overnight lodging capacity and not the total number of rooms. She asked how the overnight capacity could be determined. Mr. Owen stated that it would be the number of people the lodging facility sleeps. Mr. Averill stated that a thirty-room inn, with double occupancy would allow for a 120 person seating capacity eating and drinking establishment and he stated that he thinks this is too large for the residential districts. He stated that there should be a limit of thirty rooms for an inn in the R-1 District. He stated that he feels that the inn is going to be the accessory use to the restaurant. Mr. Averill stated that he does not agree with allowing a retail establishment as an accessory use under an inn in the R-1 District. He stated that in the proposed definition of an “Inn” the phrase “retail establishment” is vague and could mean anything. Mr. Wyant stated that is limited by it’s allowed square footage. Mr. Abella stated that he agreed with the proposed language. Mr. Dubois stated that he was concerned with the proposed eating and drinking establishment seating capacity and that he feels that it is too high. He stated that he does not think that inns should be allowed on Town roads. Mr. Dubois stated that he was fine with the retail establishment but that he thought that 2,500 square feet was too large for a conference/meeting room. Mr. Reich stated that he did not have a problem with section 5.a-g under the proposed revision of Zoning Regulation 4.4.1. Mr. Owen stated that he was comfortable with the language and that he feels that the Special Permit process has been successful in limiting things such as size and scale. There was brief discussion regarding the Section 15 Parking. Mr. Owen stated that the Town’s parking regulations are adapted directly from the Model Parking Regulations for the Northwest Corner of Connecticut. He stated that these Model Parking Regulations were generated by the Northwest Connecticut Council of Governments and are intended to serve the needs of Towns such as Washington.
Mr. Owen acknowledged that Mr. Dubois objects to the allowance of 2,500 square feet for meeting space. He stated that the Commission discussed square footage of meeting space at the Regular Zoning Meeting in March and that the Commission agreed that it was the Commissions desire to make it possible for the Inn to provide this standard function but set a size limit on it so that it could not ‘morph’ into something else.
Mr. Owen stated that he feels that these revisions are consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and that inns are a part of the Town of Washington’s history. He stated that the main adjustment with these revisions is that inns would be allowed on Town roads. He stated that the Special Permit process would determine the size and scope of an Inn. Mr. Averill stated that the Commission must refer to the Zoning Regulation(s) for the reason for declining an application. Mr. Owen stated that the impact of the neighborhood and the Town must be considered not just the impact of the property. Mr. Averill quoted Mr. Shapiro’s comments on the latest draft of the proposed revisions.
Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on June 28, 2010 to consider the Revision of Zoning Regulation(s) Sections 21 – Definitions for Bed and Breakfast Establishment, Fitness Facility, Inn, etc, 2.3.6 – Sewage Disposal System, 13.5 Property Conveyance (new section), 13.9 – Inn, 13.14 Bed and Breakfast Establishments, 15.2 – Number of Parking Spaces, 4.4.1, 5.4.9, 6.4.14, 7.4.18, 8.4.20 and other related revisions throughout the text per Mr. Owen’s documents, “Inn Regulations,” dated 4/26/10 and “Additional,” dated 4/26/10,
by Mr. Reich, seconded by Mr. Abella, by 5-0 vote.
Privilege of the Floor
There were no comments from the public.Communications
There were no communications to discuss.
Enforcement
The Commission considered Mr. Ajello’s Zoning Enforcement Report, dated April 26, 2010. The Commission discussed Mr. Ajello’s need to levy fines for two retail shops that have not responded to numerous Zoning Enforcement letters. The Commission discussed the Town of Washington – 16 Titus Road- Soil stockpiling near the Shepaug River.
Adjournment
Motion: to adjourn at 8:30 pm by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
Posted: March 28, 2010 March 22, 2010
Present: David Owen, Ray Reich, Gary Fitzherbert, Ralph Averill
Alternates Present: Harry Wyant, Andy Shapiro
Absent: Lou Abella, A.J. Dubois, Alt.,
Staff Present: Janet Hill, Shelley White
Others Present: Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, Mr. Bedini, Mr. Williams, Mr. Parker, Mr. Klauer, Ms. Federer, Mr. Dutton, ResidentsMr. Owen called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Seated: Mr. Owen, Mr. Reich, Mr. Averill, Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Shapiro Alt. (for Abella)
Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section 2.3.2.g, 12.6.1.10, 15.2 and 21.1.24/Add Definition of Eating and Drinking Establishment, Change “Restaurant” to “Eating and Drinking Establishment” throughout, Add as prohibited use establishments that serve food or drink to customers in vehicles:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on March 10 and March 17, 2010.Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Owen stated that Dan McGuinness, of the Northwest Council of Governments, stated that this revision does not conflict with any plan or policy of the Northwest Council. Mr. Owen read the motion from the Planning Commission Meeting of 2/2/10which stated that it had no objections to this revision. Mr. Owen read the approved language and briefly discussed that these revisions were made to make the regulations more consistent throughout. Mr. Parker asked about the connection of rural character to the approval of these revisions. Mr. Owen explained that the Planning Commission must consider, when approving these revisions, that they are consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and rural character, which is a component of the POCD.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 2.3.2.g, 12.6.1.10, 15.2, and 21.1.24/add Definition of Eating and Drinking Establishment, Change “Restaurant” to “Eating and Drinking Establishment” throughout, Add as prohibited use establishments that serve food or drink to customers in vehicles,
by Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
Sekikawa (Read)/4 Green Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on March 10 and March 17, 2010.Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Mr. Owen read a letter from the applicant stating that they will comply with the Town of Washington’s Zoning Regulations regarding signs, the current signs will be used and only the lettering will be changed. Ms. Hill stated that the application is complete and she recommended that the Commission recommend to Ms. Sekikawa that all employees park at 16 Titus or behind Town Hall because of the limited parking for all the businesses in the immediate area. Ms. Sekikawa was present and stated that she was aware of the parking situation. There were no questions or comments from the public or the Commission.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Sekikawa (Read)/4 Green Hill Road, Washington Depot, CT/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Shapiro, by 5-0 vote.
Mr. Wyant recused himself.
Williams/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment:
Ms. Hill read the legal notice published in Voices on March 10 and March 17, 2010.Mr. Owen read the list of documents on file for this application. Ms. Hill reviewed her administrative report, dated 3/22/10, with the Commission. Mr. Williams was present and submitted a note stating that he would correct the sign lighting immediately and will comply with the lighting regulations. Mr. Owen explained how the lighting could be fixed in order to comply with the Zoning Regulations. There were no questions or comments from the public or the Commission.
Motion:
to close the Public Hearing for Williams (Wyant & Co.)/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment,
by Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Wyant returns.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Owen called the regular meeting to order at 7:57 p.m.
Consideration of the Minutes
The February 22, 2010 Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes were considered:
Corrections:
Page 4: Paragraph beginning Mr. Owen suggested…4th sentence should read: Mr. Owen suggested that in section 15.2 Number of Parking Spaces, eliminating “boarding house, rooming house, or tourist house”
7th sentence should read: He stated that another possibility to consider would be something similar to the residential conversion…
8th sentence should read: He stated that inns should be allowed in the Lake Waramaug District and that they continue to not be allowed in the Marbledale and Woodville Business Districts.
Page 5: 2nd Paragraph, delete 3rd sentence beginning with Mr. Owen stated that the Town…Motion:
to accept the Zoning Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2010, as amended,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
Pending Application(s)
Sekikawa/4 Green Hill Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment:
There was a brief discussion regarding employee parking and signage.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Sekikawa/4 Green Hill Road/Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment, with the recommendation that employees park at the Old Town Garage Site or behind the Town Hall,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
Williams/88 Bee Brook Road/Special Permit: Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment:
There was a discussion regarding section 16.3.4 in the Zoning Regulations.Motion:
to approve Special Permit Application submitted by Williams/88 Bee Brook Road/Section 8.4.19/Eating and Drinking Establishment, with the requirement that lighting of the signs be brought into compliance with Section 16.3.4,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote
Swanson/Forese/41 Horse Heaven Road/First Cut – Pending ZBA Variance:
Ms. Hill distributed copies of her correspondence, regarding this application, with Attorney Mike Zizka.
New Application(s)
Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.17/Public Restrooms:
Mr. Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, was present to represent Mr. Schoellkopf. He stated that Mr. Schoellkopf has received a variance from the Z.B.A.Motion:
to schedule a Public Hearing on April 26, 2010 to consider the application for Schoellkopf/300 Nettleton Hollow Road/ Special Permit: Section 13.17/Public Restrooms,
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.
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.
Revision of The Zoning Regulations/Sections 2.3.2.g, 12.6.1.10, 15.2, 21.1.24/ Re: Eating and Drinking Establishments:
There were no further comments from the public or the Commission.Motion:
to approve the Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Sections 2.3.2.g, 12.6.1.10, 15.2, and 21.1.24/add Definition of Eating and Drinking Establishment, Change “Restaurant” to “Eating and Drinking Establishment” throughout, Add as prohibited use establishments that serve food or drink to customers in vehicles,
by Mr. Shapiro, seconded by Mr. Reich, by 5-0 vote.
Revision of Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 13.21/Eating and Drinking Establishments/Transfer of Special Permit for Eating and Drinking Establishments under Specific Circumstances:
Ms. Hill distributed a copy of the proposed language for Section 13.21 Eating and Drinking Establishments. The Commission discussed whether or not the Zoning Enforcement Officer could handle this transfer in the Land Use Office. Ms. Hill stated that she would check with Town Counsel as to whether or not staff would be able to approve Special Permits and if the Regulations need to have language that includes Zoning Permits being changed into Special Permits. A Public Hearing has been scheduled for the next Zoning Meeting on April 26, 2010.Motion:
to continue Discussion of Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Proposed Section 13.21/Eating and Drinking Establishments/Transfer of Special Permit for Eating and Drinking Establishments under Specific Circumstances, and to have Ms. Hill discuss procedures with Town Counsel,
by Mr. Averill, seconded by Mr. Fitzherbert, by 5-0 vote.
Possible Revision of the Zoning Regulations/Section13.9/To Allow Inns on Town Roads – Definition of “Inn”:
Mr. Owen read Attorney Mike Zizka’s email response, dated 3/22/10, to Ms. Hill’s memo titled Inns Comments/Suggestions/Recommendations after 2/22/10 Meeting and Mr. Owen’s document titled Inns – Draft, dated March 22, 2010. Atty. Zizka stated in his email that most of the issues are philosophical or policy related, that he had concerns that the definitions are ambiguous and that the Commission could not legally require a preliminary meeting and if they did this for inns, then why not do it for other uses. Mr. Owen stated that in his Inn-Draft concepts, dated 3/22/10, section 21.1.36 Inn, the phrase “small country hotel’ could be replaced with the word “facility”. He suggested changing “small gift shop intended primarily for guests” to “a single retail shop primarily for guests.” The Commission suggested “a gift shop” would be fine as the square footage is already limited. Mr. Owen stated that “low intensity,” “spa,” and “health club” should be defined. Mr. Averill stated that he did not see how a health club fits in with the definition of a lodging facility. The Commission discussed what they felt was low intensity recreation. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he was concerned about being too specific with defining “health club.” Mr. Owen stated that the definition could be vague enough to allow flexibility or the definition could be revised in the future. He stated that an example of “health club” could be “an establishment that provides facilities for indoor exercise.” Mr. Shapiro stated that he was more concerned with who the health club would be opened to. Mr. Owen stated that it would be difficult to enforce and for the owner to comply with a regulation that limits or does not allow people other than guest not to use the facility. He stated that the use could be controlled by limiting the size/capacity. Mr. Owen stated that if an inn is considered a use in the R-1 district then amenities that an inn requires should be allowed and included in the definition. Mr. Shapiro stated that allowing restaurants and gyms in the R-1 district ‘under the rubric of an inn’ could lead to problems.Ms. Hill stated she had two concerns. The first is that she feels a preliminary discussion for this proposed use is important because this is a truly commercial use in a residential district and that it ‘merits that extra layer of review.’ Ms. Hill also stated that parking could impact the character of residential neighborhoods, but is not addressed in the draft of the inn regulations.
Mr. Fitzherbert stated that it is his opinion that the question is whether the Town wants a business in the R-1 district. He stated that these businesses need to be economically viable and the Town needs to decide if they are going to be ‘business friendly or if we, in fact, are going to be anti-business.’ He stated that he studied the numbers in the proposed language for the inn regulations and that none of the numbers work. He stated that he was concerned that the Zoning Commissions decisions regarding this proposed language would impact the economic viability of existing and future businesses. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that it is his opinion that the Zoning Commission needs to consider the bigger picture. Mr. Shapiro stated that he did not feel this should determine the framework of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Owen stated that the Zoning Commission has the responsibility to protect the rural character of the Town and that it is important that the Zoning Regulations reflect this rural character. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he did not agree with placing a limit of one guest bedroom per acre. Mr. Owen stated this is placing a maximum amount not a minimum and the size can be limited through the Special Permit regulations. Mr. Owen stated they are making the decision based on Town character ‘whether the economics within those parameters make sense to somebody, it’s up to them.’ Mr. Fitzherbert stated that these numbers are making business economically impossible. Mr. Owen stated that the Town of Washington, through the Zoning Regulations, has limited the size of our commercial districts and limited the scale of what the businesses are allowed to do in those districts. Mr. Owen stated that the Regulations deal with scale and impact not economics. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he did not see a reason to change the Regulations because they have always worked in the past. Mr. Shapiro stated it is important because Zoning is considering allowing inns on any road in Town and before this is done the word “inn” should be defined. Mr. Owen stated that the purpose of this process is to make it clearer for the Commission and the applicants going forward. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that the numbers in the proposed language are random and do not make sense. Mr. Owen stated that the numbers are an attempt to envision a scale of operation that we feel would be acceptable in the Town.” Mr. Shapiro stated that he was not sure that the Zoning Commission has the authority to consider economic viability for an application. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that in a discussion, before the Zoning Commission makes a decision regarding changing the Regulations, economic viability could be discussed. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that he would like this discussion to go to a Public Hearing. He stated that the Special Permit Process is very efficient, “we have the worlds best criteria and it has never not worked.” Ms. Hill stated that the majority of the Commissioners thought that inns were only allowed on State roads and now the regulations are possibly being revised to say they are allowed on Town roads and people are concerned about what is being allowed in more areas of Town. She suggested that there be a public informational meeting because specific draft language was not ready. Mr. Owen stated that he agreed with Ms. Hill that a public informational meeting would be a good idea if the Commission could not agree on a proposal. Mr. Reich stated that his main concern is that if someone were to come to the Zoning Commission with a proposal of something that is not defined in the Zoning Regulations, would the Zoning Commission have to spend four months defining this use. He stated that he feels that the Zoning Commission will most likely miss something when defining these terms and that they are not qualified to apply numbers to these definitions. Mr. Shapiro stated that the numbers that have been applied are the Zoning Commissions efforts to set limits of impact on things as they understand them under the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development. He stated that the Zoning Commission is trying to limit the impact of the use of land in Town. Mr. Reich stated that he felt defining “inn” has become a ‘road block’ for the Town of Washington Zoning Commission. Mr. Owen stated that the regulation was changed in order to clarify what the Commission had always thought it to be, which was to allow inns only on State roads. He stated that this has been an opportunity to clarify the regulations. There was a brief discussion regarding the history of revising this regulation. Mr. Owen stated that they could just keep the regulations the way they are. Mr. Fitzherbert stated that that would be fine but he would make a motion to include inns on Town roads.
Mr. Averill stated that he agreed with most of Mr. Owen’s and Mr. Shapiro’s concepts except for Mr. Owen’s revisions to Section 4.4.1.d. Mr. Averill stated that, in his opinion, this section is allowing an inn and a restaurant in the R-1 district. He stated that he would like to see the seating capacity to be no more than the overnight lodging capacity of the inn. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Shapiro that, in the R-1 District, the primary purpose of an inn is lodging. Mr. Owen stated that ‘d’ could be eliminated and dealt with through the Special Permit process. Mr. Averill suggested eliminating the section 4.4.1.e (addressing the capacity of the spa, fitness facility, etc.) under the same principle. Mr. Owen stated that the rationale for ‘d’ is to prevent someone from applying for an inn that has 1 token room in order to open a restaurant in the R-1 District. He stated that this was his similar rationale for 4.4.1.e. Mr. Shapiro suggested that in the definition of “inn” that he would prefer to list the accessory services that are allowed rather than saying ‘such as’. There was a brief discussion regarding what is meant by low intensity recreation. The Commission agreed that this term needs to be defined. Mr. Owen stated that he could see listing activities that are appropriate for the property and the neighborhood. There was a brief discussion regarding noise.
Mr. Shapiro read his proposed definition of “Inn” dated 3/22/10. Mr. Owen stated that he would be fine with Mr. Shapiro’s definition of an “Inn” if ‘(and, in the case of a spa, fitness facility, and low-intensity recreation, exclusively)’ were omitted and that the terms stated previously are defined. The Commission suggested that “health club” could encompass “spa” and “fitness facility”. Mr. Averill suggested that low-intensity outdoor recreation be included. Mr. Owen suggested that they could use low-intensity recreation in the definition of an “inn” and then define low-intensity recreation and put appropriate limits on the size in each district.
Mr. Owen explained the reason for using square footage limits on gift shops and meeting rooms is that it would be easy to enforce at the application level. There was a discussion regarding capacity and how it relates to the square footage of a space. Mr. Owen stated that these limitations would avoid inns in the R-1 district from having frequent large gatherings that would impact the neighborhood with traffic, parking and noise.
Mr. Shapiro suggested adding language to Section 13 that states ‘it can be demonstrated that the location and appearance of structures on the lot as well as their use and operation as an inn shall not adversely alter the primary residential character of the lot and the neighborhood.” He also briefly discussed the possibility of requiring a management plan that would show the inn would operate so it would not have adverse effects on the neighborhood.
Mr. Owen stated that he did not feel that a Public Hearing should be scheduled for this revision at this time. He stated that he would incorporate all that has been discussed at this meeting and distribute the amendments among the Commissioners, Ms. Hill and Atty. Zizka. He stated that it might be possible to schedule a Public Hearing at the next Zoning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Owen stated that he gave the keynote address at a conference in Hartford about smart growth and urban planning in Hartford. He stated that one of the seminars was conducted by a law school professor from Robinson and Cole, which had a class that created a model zoning ordinance. He stated that he had a copy of this and was going to try to make it accessible through the Town Website. He urged the Commissioners to review it.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. Dutton reminded the Commission that the hospitality and education industries have been an important part of the Town of Washington’s history. He stated that the Town has had to grow and change with these businesses. He stated that he appreciates Mr. Fitzherbert’s argument that the Zoning Commission needs to consider the economic impact of the Zoning Regulations. He stated that putting a limit of 30 rooms may be suitable for one location but not for all locations. He stated that he thinks the maximum amount of rooms should be dealt with through the Special Permit process. Mr. Dutton stated that he thinks the positive impact of an economically viable business should be considered. He stated that he thinks disallowing inns on Town roads is ‘blatantly unfair and discriminatory against property owners on Town roads that might want to do some sort of small, medium or large inn.’ He stated that he would like to know what the process is for allowing the townspeople to decide whether inns should be allowed on Town roads. Mr. Owen stated that there is none; this is under the authority of the Zoning Commission. A person could petition the Zoning Commission to amend its Regulations.Mr. Parker asked the Commission to explain the process of changing a Zoning Regulation. Mr. Owen stated that there needs to be a proposal, the proposal goes to a Public Hearing if there are only minor changes, if it requires more than minor changes the proposal needs to be worked on and resubmitted, then it is submitted to the Planning Commission. When the Zoning Commission agrees on draft language, Planning has to consider it and vote on whether it is consistent with the Town Plan, then it goes to the Northwest Council of Governments and three other councils and they need to submit comments. Mr. Parker stated that using the Mayflower Inn, which is on a State road, as the standard for an inn does not seem fair to allow something of that scale on a Town road. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Owen how many new applications have been received by the Zoning Commission for inns during his tenure.
Communications
Mr. Owen stated that a letter from Peter Talbot regarding the Meeting with the Board of Selectman on March 25 at 5:30 pm regarding 16 Titus Road has been received.
Enforcement
No enforcement issues were discussedAdjournment
Motion:
to adjourn at 10:50 pm
by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Averill, by 5-0 vote.Mr. Owen adjourned the meeting.
SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL:
Shelley White, Land Use Clerk
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