PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010

Present: Regular members Pat Hare, David Colbert, Chris Hopkins, James LaPorta, Alternate Josh Tyson, commission staff Karen Griswold Nelson and commission planning consultant Tom McGowan.
Absent: Regular members Heidi Kearns and Emily Pryor and alternate Buddy Hurlburt.

PUBLIC HEARING:
Cornwall Housing Corporation – Amendments to Section 8.25.1.c., “Town or Non-Profit Sponsored Affordable Multi-Family Housing” to change limit from six units to ten units per single building.
The entire proceedings were recorded on audio tape and are available in Town Hall.
Chairman Pat Hare called the public hearing to order at 7:10 P.M. in the Cornwall Library with a quorum established. Mr. Tyson was seated for regular member Heidi Kearns.
As part of the record:
October 7, 2010 correspondence from Margaret Cooley, president of the Cornwall Housing Corporation addressed to Pat Hare, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, constituting the request for the change to the Zoning regulations was read into the record by staff.
The legal notice for the public hearing as published in the Waterbury Republican on December 2nd and December 9th was read into the record.
Other information made part of the record, as stated by staff:
A copy of October 29th, 2010 correspondence to Dan McGuiness, executive director of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments in compliance with state statute requiring notification to the regional planning agency.
November 1, 2010 correspondence from the Northwestern Council of Governments constituting a report from the regional planning agency. Staff comments from Dan McGuiness stating that “the proposed amendment does not conflict with any plan or policy of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments" were noted.
A copy of the amendments filed with the Cornwall Town Clerk 10 days (time stamped November 9, 2010 by Town Clerk Vera Dineen) prior the hearing.

Prior to opening the floor to the applicant and public for questions and comments, Chairman Hare outlined the procedure to be followed, allowing set times for both the applicant and opponents to make opening presentations, the public to comment both in favor and against the applicant, and for closing remarks by both the applicant and any opponent.
Prior to opening remarks, a petition addressed to the Town of Cornwall Planning & Zoning Commission, citing Connecticut General Statute Section 8.3 “Establishment and changing of zoning regulations and districts” ….. “If a protest against a proposed change is filed at or before a hearing with the zoning commission, signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the lots within five hundred feet in all directions of the property included in the proposed change, such change shall not be adopted except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the commission….” and signed by 4 “property owners within five hundred feet of the property included in the proposed change”, was made part of the record by Joanne Wojtusiak.

The floor was opened to Margaret Cooley, president of the Cornwall Housing Corporation. Mrs. Cooley read a statement into the record. (Copy on file in the Land Use office.) As part of the presentation by the Cornwall Housing Corporation (CHC) Will Calhoun, CHC member addressed references in the Cornwall Plan of Conservation and Development that CHC felt supported the request for the amendment change, citing references on page 7 – Cornwall Bridge objectives – “To support the plans, such as that for the Merz property, that provide nearby compact housing design., page 24 – “Affordable housing objective – “to improve existing affordable housing regulations and employ new organizational and financial and regulatory tools to improve the potential to achieve the State mandated goal for local affordable housing units”, and page 30 “Annual Planning & Zoning Commission review meeting” – “to review the changes in the techniques for improving rural residential zoning to provide affordable housing options and community vitality”.
The floor was opened to the public in support of the amendments changes.
Gordon Ridgway, First Selectman, spoke in favor, stating that the amendment change would give the CHC more flexibility in its design.
Jerry Blakey, (Pine Street) spoke in favor (“wants to see it happen”)
Darilyn Woods, (Kent Road) spoke in favor, citing the amendment as an option for elderly.
Earl Brecher, West Cornwall, spoke in favor, stating that that a one building design would result in “getting a lot more bang for the buck”.
Wayde Wolfe, (Popple Swamp Road) Cornwall Bridge, and member of the CHC, spoke in favor, stating that one building would be better than 2.
Hearing no other comments, the floor was opened to those in opposition.
Joanne Wojtusiak, Cornwall Bridge, (and speaking as an acknowledged spokesperson for the opposition) addressed the CHC as being a developer, citing other projects including Kugleman Village and the parcel program. Ms. Wojtusiak, calling the larger scale building proposed a visual assault on the landscape in Cornwall and one that would destroy the rural character as endorsed in town plan, submitted copies of emails received from CHC members supporting her contention that the amendment change was “all about Cornwall Bridge).
John Harding, (Popple Swamp Road), citing Section 8-3 of the State statutes, addressed the requirements for the commission to take into account the Plan of C&D in its decision. Mr. Harding addressed the size of a HUD housing building of 10 units (nearing 6,000 square feet in size and the size of 3 modest 3 bedroom houses) having a visual impact and not being part of the rural character. Mr. Harding addressed references in the Plan of C&D as to the need to retain rural character and roadside open space, noting that Route 7 is a state scenic road.
Kim Herkimer, Bald Mountain, addressed particulars of the CHC site in Cornwall Bridge, including the proposed location of a building on either the upper and lower parts of the site. In response, Maggie Cooley addressed the constraints of the CHC site, stating that construction of a building on the upper site was not possible. In response, Mr. Harding addressed plans prepared by Brian Neff showing buildable area on both, with input from Mr. Calhoun stating that there was no possibility of building on the upper plateau. With note made that the discussion was not to be about the site but the amendment change, Mr. Herkimer continued with remarks regarding the development of the site relating to rural character. Mr. Herkimer submitted correspondence entitled “The Master Plan for Cornwall Bridge” for the record.

Judy Herkimer, Bald Mountain, spoke in opposition, submitting written comments for the record. Mrs. Herkimer addressed the requirement for noticing in local newspapers, requesting that the Commission consider changing from the Waterbury Republican American to the Lakeville Journal.
Jim Young (Kent Road) Cornwall Bridge, addressed the amendment changes being proposed being in response to problems with the Cornwall Bridge site. Mr. Young addressed particulars of the Brian Neff map previously referenced as part of the CHC file.
Denny Frost, in response to questions regarding the site, addressed his personal knowledge of site testing.
Email correspondence from C. Ronald Hummel, to Joanne Wojtusiak, was read into and submitted for the record by Joanne Wojtusiak.
James Batterton, (Kent Road) Cornwall Bridge, thanked the Commission for their consideration of his property (special permit application approved in October) and asked the Commission to use the same care as used for him in this situation.
John Harding addressed his belief that the CHC has the wrong site.
Chairman Hare, in response to concerns raised about the impact on rural character by larger buildings, asked if anyone could explain how we could protect rural character if we not did not permit larger buildings that were concentrated in centers, but instead let them be spread out over rural areas.
Charles Gold, (Rexford Road) asked for clarification of what a unit was in this project, questioning if 6 units could be bigger than 10 in some other applications.
Will Calhoun, referencing page 6 of the Plan of C&D, as stated in “History of Cornwall Bridge” – Cornwall Bridge was the location of what was probably Cornwall’s largest factory building ever” suggesting that while big building are not the vernacular of today’s Cornwall Bridge, they were in previous times.
Peter Busby, Cornwall Bridge, questioned Mr. Hare’s questions and comments as to the consideration of concentration of housing in village.
Gordon Ridgway suggested that a straw poll might be useful.
John Harding, relating to rural character, addressed the appearance of the solitary building, “bumps and grinds” and the appearance of clustering.
In response to the concerns raised, in closing remarks, Mrs. Cooley addressed the decision process being used by the CHC to make the Cornwall Bridge site the most pleasing as possible and the request for the amendment change to give the CHC flexibility in the design. Will Calhoun addressed the special exception process that would be needed for the final consideration of the site.
Joanne Wojtusiak made closing remarks, raising concerns regarding the CHC as a developer and the “trust me” attitude of the CHC, the previous giveback of setback requirements for the site as part of another amendment request by the CHC to the Commission, the lack of input at the public meeting as to the wishes for a single building, the destruction of the real meaning of zoning, and the lack of impact of the change to the rest of the town.
Prior to closing the hearing, in response to concerns by Mr. Colbert, it was clarified that the proposed amendment would only increase the number of units but would not affect the density requirement.
With input from Mr. McGowan, in response to the consideration of a straw poll raised by Mr. Ridgway and re-addressed by members of the public, it was agreed that a straw poll was not appropriate.

Motion made by Mr. Hopkins, seconded by Mr. LaPorta to close the public hearing; unanimously approved.
Motion made by Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Tyson, to amend the agenda to act on Pending applications prior to all other business; unanimously approved.

Cornwall Housing Corporation – Amendments to Section 8.25.1.c., “Town or Non-Profit Sponsored Affordable Multi-Family Housing” to change limit from six units to ten units per single building,
Prior to discussion of the pending application, discussion ensued as to the validity of the petition submitted with 4 signatures of property owners. Issues discussed included the need for a legal opinion prior to a vote on the amendment, the amendment not being for a specific site but rather the town as a whole, and the number of votes needed for approval whether the petition was valid or not. Based on the questions as to whether the Commission should move forward to vote on the application or delay action until a legal opinion regarding the petition was received
Motion Mr. LaPorta, second Mr. Tyson, as to whether to take a vote. By majority vote, the decision was to move forward and take a vote that evening. Mr.’s Hare and Tyson opposed based on their wishes to seek a legal opinion on the petition prior to the vote.

Motion made by Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Hopkins, to approve the application of Cornwall Housing Corporation – Amendments to Section 8.25.1.c., “Town or Non-Profit Sponsored Affordable Multi-Family Housing” to change limit from six units to ten units per single building.
The floor was opened for discussion.
Mr. Colbert addressed the proposed amendment as relating to the Town Plan of C&D, stating his belief that the amendment was not inconsistent with the Town Plan, citing references in the Plans as to “Goals and Recommendations” (page 1) including “supporting its resident’s needs for affordable housing”. Mr. Colbert stated that he was not sure that he agreed with the arguments that it would certainly impact of the rural character of the town based on the number and size of the building.
Mr. Hopkins, addressing the difference between one building versus two buildings, stated his belief that the number was not as important as the appearance. Mr. Hopkins, addressing remarks made regarding “more bang for the buck” reiterated his belief that it was not so much the number but the architectural integrity of either.
Mr. LaPorta, suggesting that the number 6 was an arbitrary number to begin with, suggested that there was no reason to stop at 6 or 10 based on the need for consideration of other criteria during the special exception process. Mr. LaPorta added that the amendment change certainly added flexibility during the design process.
Mr. Tyson re-addressed the regulations for density with clarification by Mr. McGowan that the density would not change.
Mr. Hare stated that the recent Plan did not come up with an explicit way to protect rural character but that he personally favored higher density in the village centers and supported the amendment.

By unanimous voice vote, the application was approved with an effective date the day following the date of publication.
REGULAR ZONING MEETING:

1. APPLICATIONS FOR ZONING PERMITS. None recorded.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. November regular meeting.
Motion made by Mr. LaPorta, seconded by Mr. Colbert, to approve the minutes of the November meeting as presented; unanimously approved.

3. NEW APPLICATIONS:

4. PENDING APPLICATIONS.
A. Cornwall Housing Corporation – Amendments to Section 8.25.1.c., “Town or Non-Profit Sponsored Affordable Multi-Family Housing” to change limit from six units to ten units per single building. See above.

5. OTHER BUSINESS PROPER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
A. Re-Review of “Statement of Past Uses” – 131 Kent Road.
Discussion ensued as to commission concerns as to a lack of history in terms of zoning approvals, the process of the legitimization of non-conforming or illegal uses and the need to clarify what was appropriate uses for the site based on the past and current regulations. There was consensus that the commission needed to define what non-conforming usage would be permitted on the site based on its known history of uses. The definition would use the language in the current zoning regulations regarding residential uses. It was also agreed that a letter, to be prepared, should state that for any additional or expanded uses, the owner would have to submit an application for a new zoning permit. Staff was to prepare the draft letter for Commission consideration and review prior to being sent and the draft was requested as soon as possible.

6. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED.
Chairman Hare addressed conversations with Tim Abbott from the HVA and Michael Everett, the retired head of the landscape architecture department at the Rhode Island School of Design to create a draft Open Space Plan for Cornwall, based on the HVA Conservation Resources Map. Mr. Hare suggested that the map could be passed on to the Conservation Commission. The matter was to be placed on the January 14th agenda.

PLANNING MEETING.
Workshop meeting to include but not be limited to discussion of the following with commission members 1. Proposed changes to the Zoning regulations for A.. Accessory apartments, residential conversion of older homes or structures and apartments within business buildings
B. Village District and C. Signage. 2. Abandoned and discontinued roads. (Tyson) 3. Planning priorities – (input from Tyson and Hurburt and timing). Discussion on all topics deferred.

7. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made by Mr. Hopkins, seconded by Mr. LaPorta to adjourn at 10:00PM; unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,
Karen Griswold Nelson