SALISBURY — The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a change to the regulation that defines “buildable areas� on Tuesday, Feb. 2.
Dan McGuinness, executive director of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments (COG), was on hand to help explain the addition to the definition of a buildable lot. The COG is a group made of first selectmen from nine Litchfield County towns, including all six towns in the Region One school district.
The added language states that a buildable area is defined as “a rectangular area of a lot that contains no wetland soils, waterbodies, watercourses, utility, conservation or access easements, rights of way or any naturally occurring slope exceeding 25 percent as measured using 2-foot contour intervals.�
Will impact subdivisions
McGuinness said, “The concept is to make sure there is an area that can be built on without a lot of grading.
“The major impact [of the change in the regulation] is on subdivisions. The expansion of an existing house is not impacted. An existing vacant lot that didn’t meet the requirements would have to go to special permit.�
He added, “A 25-percent grade is not flat. It’s pretty steep.�
McGuinness said the proposed regulation is very similar to ones now in effect in the towns of Warren and Cornwall.
Fear of ‘irreparable harm’
Attorney Mark Capecelatro led off the public comments. “My concern is about the regulation, not the goal. This proposal will do irreparable harm to residents who have yet to develop.�
Capecelatro also noted that special permits mean additional costs for landowners. “I am concerned about people spending significant sums to find out if they have a buildable area.�
He also questioned whether the Planning and Zoning Commission has any authority over wetlands.
George Massey said he was concerned about a possible impact on efforts to provide affordable housing if applications have to go into the special permit process.
Builder Pat Hackett of New Milford said, “Beware of this,� and described a situation with a client in Cornwall who had approvals from that town’s inland wetlands commission and the Torrington Area Health District. Nonetheless, the client incurred “considerable expense to build and a lot of duplication.�
Hackett said another client had 11 acres, of which the only buildable area was on a peak, necessitating a long driveway.
“I think the regulation has some merit when it comes to new lots, but I’m not sure what it does to help soil and erosion concerns. Better conservation regulations are what you should concentrate on.�
Throughout the public comments, which were mostly critical, Planning and Zoning Chairman Cristin Rich said repeatedly, “A buildable lot will remain buildable.�
And McGuinness similarly repeated several times that he believed it would be rare for a special permit to be denied.
David Elwell said he thought the regulation wasn’t “full enough,� and Philip Oppenheimer compared Salisbury with “over the border in New York state, where poor regulation has created poor property values.�
But others continued to object. Architect Mac Gordon said, “There’s no reason not to build on steep slopes,� and opined that a 25-percent slope rule “would rule out San Francisco and every hill town in the Mediterranean.�
He expressed a concern that in “the desire to prevent something bad from happening we’re likely to rule out something good.�
Realtor Pat Best said she didn’t believe the regulation should apply to existing lots. “I object to changing the rules on people who already have building lots. It does not seem fair.�
And realtor Elyse Harney said, “There is a perception that this creates additional hardship for property owners and expense to new buyers.�
She also said she finds the 2-foot contour measurement requirement “excessive.�
Steven Moore said, “I see the extreme probability of financial stress and loss of income for landowners,� and Daniel Floyd denounced what he called “extraordinary restrictiveness.�
“This is a highly restrictive covenant,� he said. “It’s almost impossible to find these areas. You should know what you’re doing, and everyone else should know what you’re doing.�
McGuinness said, “The regulation doesn’t stop anyone from clearing. The problem is people building on slopes and causing other problems.�
Planning and Zoning member Dan Dwyer asked McGuinness, “In the absence of regulations like these, what are you looking at?�
“New Milford,� replied McGuinness.
Planning and Zoning Vice Chairman Michael Klemens said, “This regulation would have prevented the house on Salmon Kill Road. That’s the kind of excess that’s the problem.� (He was referring to a hilltop home near the intersection of Salmon Kill and Farnam roads that required significant earth moving before construction.)
“We’ve heard a lot about individual property rights and from people in the real estate business,� he said. “The flip side is the commons — the loss of property value due to inappropriate development.�
‘We want to look at it first’
Planning and Zoning member Jon Higgins said, “In light of the comments, is there a way to handle exceptions without going to special permit?�
McGuinness replied, “A special permit is a pain but it’s the best way. It’s a clearly defined orderly process, everyone is treated the same, and almost invariably the special permit is granted.
“It amounts to this — you can probably do it , but we want to take a look first.�
Higgins explained to the meeting that a new regulation goes to public hearing and then back to the commission for amendment and/or further discussion. If significant changes are required then there is another public hearing. If not, the commission votes.
The public hearing was closed and the matter is on the agenda for further discussion at the regular monthly planning meeting Tuesday, Feb. 16, 5:30 p.m. at Town Hall.
Submitted
