 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
| ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES |
December 13, 2006
Attendance: Andrea Light, Chair; Jackie Lightfield; Karen Spencer; John Tobin; Patrick Shields; James White; Larry Bentley; Robert Hard; Corinne Weston (7:36 PM); Robert Keyes (7:42 PM).
Staff: Michael Greene, Director of Planning & Zoning; Sarah Rettger, Conservation Assistant
Others: Attorney David Waters; Beverly Krieger; Ken Krieger
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM.
ROLL CALL
Mr. Greene called the roll.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) #15-06R - Zoning Commission - Revise definition of dwelling unit to clarify only one kitchen permitted
Ms. Lightfield read the legal notice. Ms. Light reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Mr. Greene reviewed the committee report. He said that appeals before the Zoning Board of Appeals often deal with whether an additional kitchen constitutes an additional dwelling unit. He also noted that the definition of kitchen as written refers to "preparation, storage, and service" of food, so staff suggested changing the conjunction to "and/or."
Attorney Waters spoke on behalf of several clients who are concerned that the proposed regulation overreaches. He agreed that a two-family residence in a single-family zone was an illegal use, but that two kitchens in a single-family residence did not constitute an illegal use. He noted that under the proposed definition, a craft room that used kitchen cabinets and a kitchen sink would be considered a kitchen. Attorney Waters also noted that kosher and halal dietary requirements also require separate food preparation areas. He also listed several reasons why a single-family residence might have multiple kitchens. He cited 42 U.S.C. 2000, which prohibits any land use regulation that interferes with the practice of religion.
Attorney Waters suggested that homeowners who follow regulations would be hurt most by the regulation, and might try to sidestep regulations as a result.
Attorney Waters noted that a sticking point in the recent Zoning Board of Appeals hearing was the presence of a kitchen sink, which he considered form over substance. He suggested that homeowners be able to submit an affidavit, similar to the affidavit used for accessory apartments, attesting that the additional kitchen does not constitute and is not used for a second dwelling unit. He also suggested requiring it to be recorded on the Land Records that the kitchen does not constitute an illegal apartment.
Ms. Krieger said the proposed regulation was an attempt to monitor and mandate lifestyle. She suggested that the intent of zoning enforcement was to maintain neighborhood environments, not to restrict the use of rooms within a house. She said she did not think the regulation change was necessary.
Mr. Krieger asked if a laundry sink and overhead cabinets constituted a kitchen. He said he did not see a problem with multiple kitchens.
Mr. Greene said that zoning regulations restrict things other than use, such as the number of commercial vehicles can be stored on a property. He pointed out that the zoning regulations currently define "family." He acknowledged concerns about religious dietary restrictions, but said that was the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He said he did not anticipate problems with homeowners trying to get around the regulations. He also noted that zoning officers will only investigate multiple kitchens if a complaint is submitted. He said that illegal apartments were an enforcement problem, and that kitchens were often a major factor. He said the regulation change would be an additional enforcement tool.
Ms. Light asked if the zoning department had any experience with summer kitchens. Mr. Greene said there had been instances of summer kitchens.
Ms. Spencer asked if the language could be tweaked. Mr. Greene said that including a religious exemption in the regulation would invite more problems.
Mr. Hard asked if the regulations defined "kitchen." Mr. Greene pointed out the definition, and said it had been written by the building department.
Mr. Bentley asked if the City would face liability for kitchens installed outside the regulations. Mr. Greene said he did not see a problem of legitimate additional kitchens in single-family homes. He discussed the use of discretion in zoning decisions.
Mr. Bentley addressed the homeowner's desire to decide how best to use their homes. Mr. Greene said the department did not get such requests, but got many complaints about illegal apartments.
Mr. White said he was probably in violation and described the "kitchen" in his room. Mr. Greene said that Mr. White was an example of someone who had not been complained about. Mr. White suggested that a neighbor could complain as a way to inflict harm, and he would then be found in violation.
There was a discussion of possible complaint and appeal procedures.
Mr. Bentley asked if the regulation change addressed a major problem. He suggested that the problem of illegal apartments should be addressed instead. Mr. Greene said illegal apartments were a major problem for the City.
Ms. Spencer asked if the regulation would have an impact on illegal apartments. Mr. Greene said it would not reduce the number of violations, but would simplify the process of proving that a violation exists.
Ms. Lightfield asked if changing the regulation would mean that any single-family residence with multiple kitchens would be in violation. Mr. Greene said that some might have variances or prior permits, but those who did not have a permit would be in violation.
Mr. Greene said his experience was that complaints about illegal units were legitimate, and he had not seen frivolous complaints.
There was a discussion of the nature of zoning complaints.
Ms. Weston asked if the definition of kitchen could be amended. Mr. Greene said it was possible, and asked for suggestions. Mr. Hard said that would not address the issue of homeowners who legitimately want additional kitchens. He suggested adding a provision to the regulations to define additional kitchens used by homeowners for their own use.
Mr. Bentley asked if the kitchen issue could be separated from the single-family/multi-family residence question. Mr. Greene said he did not have a perfect answer.
Mr. Keyes asked for clarification of what changes were proposed.
Mr. Greene discussed the process of getting a legal accessory apartment.
Ms. Lightfield asked if the regulation would be enforceable if it contained a provision for an affidavit. Mr. Greene said honest homeowners would sign an affidavit and comply, and illegal landlords would sign and create illegal apartments anyway.
Mr. Keyes noted that determining whether a kitchen exists is a subjective matter, and different zoning officers may come to different conclusions.
There was a discussion of the effect of installing refrigerators and sinks on residence type.
Mr. Greene said that there were far more true violations than legitimate cases.
Mr. Shields asked if regulations would deter people from acting. Mr. Greene said legitimate users tend to work with zoning officers to comply.
There was a discussion of possible ways to rewrite the regulation. Mr. Greene said he would come back to the Commission if the regulation change resulted in more problems.
Ms. Light suggested sending the regulation back to committee for additional wording changes.
Ms. Lightfield read the referrals.
The public hearing was closed at 8:52 PM.
REPORT OF PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
a) #1-03SP/#2-03CAM - SSMLN, LLC - Moody's/Daskam Lane - 57 units and rowing club - Request for release of surety - Report & recommendation
** MR. WHITE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
RESOLVED THAT COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT APPLICATION #1-03SP/2-03CAM - SSMLN, LLC - MOODY'S/DASKAM LANE - 57 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ROWING CLUB, HAVE THE SURETY RELEASED, SUBJECT TO THE RETENTION OF FUNDS NEEDED TO INSTALL THE REQUIRED BRICK BOARDWALK AT THE ROWING CLUB AT THE NORTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE DECEMBER 22, 2006.
** MS. LIGHTFIELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
b) #6-05CAM/#05SP - BG Development Company, LLC - Highland Avenue - Harbor Bluff Conservation Development - Request for release of surety - Report & recommendation
** MR. WHITE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
RESOLVED THAT APPLICATION #6-05SP/6-05CAM - BG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - 12-UNIT CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT AT 26 AND 30 HIGHLAND AVENUE (NOW KNOWN AS HARBOR BLUFF) HAVE 50% OF ITS SURETY RELEASED AS ALL THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ARE IN GOOD CONDITION.
** MS. LIGHTFIELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
c) #14-05SP/#27-05CAM - Knipschildt Chocolatier - 12 South Main Street - Addition of 228 square feet of restaurant space to existing retail, restaurant, and boutique manufacturer of chocolates - Modification to approved plan to expand restaurant area and add liquor sales - Report & recommendation
** MR. WHITE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION #14-05SP/27-05CAM - KNIPSCHILDT CHOCOLATIER - 12 SOUTH MAIN STREET - MODIFY TO ADD 228 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT SPACE TO EXISTING RETAIL/CAFÉ/BOUTIQUE MANUFACTURER OF CHOCOLATES WITH BASEMENT STORAGE AS SHOWN ON A CERTAIN SET OF PLANS BY NEIL HAUCK ARCHITECTS & FITZGERALD AWNING AS REVISED AND PRESENTED TO THE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE ON DECEMBER 7, 2006, BE APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT A FEE BE PAID (IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF ZONING
PERMIT) TO THE CITY OF NORWALK'S FEE-IN-LIEU OF PARKING FUND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF A ZONING PERMIT IN LIEU OF PROVIDING ONE PARKING SPACE FOR THE EXPANDED RESTAURANT;
AND
2. THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF INTERIOR RESTAURANT SPACE SHALL NOT EXCEED 400 SQUARE
FEET; AND
3. THAT ALL REFUSE BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF AND THAT DUMPSTERS BE EMPTIED WEEKLY
OR AS OFTEN AS NEEDED; AND
4. THAT ANY FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED PLANS BE SUBMITTED TO THE
ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND THAT ALL CEAC SIGN-OFFS BE SUBMITTED PRIOR
TO THE ISSUANCE OF A ZONING PERMIT; AND
5. THAT THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REMAIN IN EFFECT; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 118-1450 SPECIAL PERMITS, SECTION 118-501 WASHINGTON STREET DESIGN DISTRICT, AS AMENDED, AND WITH APPLICABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AND USE POLICIES AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE BUILDING ZONE REGULATIONS; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL IS DECEMBER 22, 2006.
** MS. LIGHTFIELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Spencer noted that retailers in the area objected to more restaurants. She asked if the Commission was comfortable with increasing the size of the restaurant. Mr. White explained that the expansion was necessary to comply with state liquor law requirements.
There was a discussion of the fee-in-lieu.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
d) #25-06CAM - Rowayton Marine Landing - 105 Rowayton Avenue - Addition of gate at parking lot - Report & recommendation
** MR. WHITE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT APPLICATION #25-06, SUBMITTED BY ROWAYTON MARINE LANDING, 105 ROWAYTON AVENUE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF GATES TO CONTROL PARKING INTO AN EXISTING PARKING LOT ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROWAYTON AVENUE BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AND USE POLICIES; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE DECEMBER 22, 2006.
** MS. LIGHTFIELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
REPORT OF ZONING COMMITTEE
a) Action on Item III (a)
** MS. LIGHTFIELD MOVED TO SEND THE ITEM BACK TO COMMITTEE.
** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
** THE MOITON PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) November 15, 2006
** MR. BENTLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
** MR. WHITE SECONDED THE MOTION.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
b) December 6, 2006
** MR. BENTLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
** MR. WHITE SECONDED THE MOTION.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMENTS OF DIRECTOR
COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
ADJOURNMENT
** MS. LIGHT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** MS. LIGHTFIELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 PM.
 |
 |