KENT, Conn.—It’s almost official. A public hearing was held in New Milford Monday, Aug. 11, to hear comments on an ordinance prohibiting tour buses on the New Milford section of South Kent Road. But the lack of a quorum for the subsequent Town Council meeting delayed its adoption.
The mayor’s executive secretary Patricia Hembrook said a special council meeting will be warned for Monday, Aug. 25, to adopt the ordinance. While the council has not officially approved the ordinance, it did vote in July to present it at a public hearing and no opposition is expected.
It does not have to go to a town meeting vote.
Following adoption, the ordinance will be legally noticed and will be enacted 21 days after posting.
Use of the road by tour buses taking a shortcut to Club Getaway in South Kent has vexed South Kent residents for many years. They complain that the buses are so large that they force both pedestrians and other vehicles off the road and present an increasing danger.
Club Getaway owner and operator David Schreiber told the town council at its June 23 meeting that he has repeatedly asked the bus companies and their drivers to avoid using South Kent Road.
The police department will be able to enforce the ordinance through fines of $250 per violation. Area residents can take time-stamped photos of violators’ license plates and send them to the police department, which will then issue citations through the mail.
The ordinance would not ban school buses, jitney buses, trailers or similar vehicles.
The New Milford Chief of Police or the chief’s designee may, at their discretion, temporarily suspend the ordinance in the event of an emergency or special event necessitating bus traffic. If the suspension is for a special event, the sponsor would have to pay for the presence of New Milford police officers for safety purposes.
Kent officials plan to draft a similar ordinance for their section of the road.
ARB Okays Window Design Change
KENT, Conn.—The Architectural Review Board has approved the replacement of upper story windows on the Main Street building that houses Kingsley Tavern.
Owner Ellen Corsell approached the board asking permission to change the historic appearance of the existing windows, which had a decorative element of individual panes on the supper sash.
She said she had tried to preserve the old windows for as long as possible, but that they are now deteriorated beyond repair.
She asked to replace them with energy-efficient Marvin windows with single panes in the upper and lower sashes. She argued that having the original design replicated would have produced a “modern look” inconsistent with the character of downtown buildings.
Board members did not agree. They suggested a compromise between single panes and ones with a simulated mullion “dividing” each pane in two. “Proportionally, if you stuck with a simulated middle mullion, it would match the others in the tavern,” said ARB Chairman Joanne Wasti.
“It makes it more coherent,” agreed member Jill Porter.
Corsell asked if she could just use the divided panes on the three front windows, but the board members said the first windows on the north and south, which are visible from the street, should match the front.
Corsell said she hopes to do the work in September.
The board quickly approved a planting plan submitted by Anthony Palumbo for his renovated building at 26 South Main St. He will plant boxwoods and hydrangeas around the building “to add some color to the landscape.”
ZBA Grants KLT flood plain regulation relief
KENT, Conn.—The Zoning Board of Appeals okayed the construction of high tunnel greenhouses in the floodplain on the Kent Land Trust’s property at 168 Kent Road during its August 12 meeting.
ZBA members were impressed with the “very robust application” that sought relief from the flood plain regulations brought before them. Still they questioned KLT representative Matt Winter and Conundrum Farm operator Sarah Lang closely about the structures.
Winter explained that the flood plain regulations are designed to prevent safety issues if structures are built in a flood plain. A structure is defined as having a roof and sides. The Planning and Zoning Commission decided earlier that the membrane covering the hooped frame would, in fact, constitute a roof.
It had allowed, however, that the structures could be erected if they were removed seasonally. The KLT decided this provision would be too costly and inconvenient and sought relief from the regulation.
Winter said that if the area were not a flood plain, the use would be permitted under Kent zoning regulations. He said the high tunnels do not displace water in the same way as a true structure and the threat to public safety is minimal. The sides can be rolled up in case of flooding, allowing water free passage.
He said that the KLT had consulted topographical maps and that any flooding would probably occur downstream from the tunnels. “The only time it would be subjected to flooding is when there are ice floes and the river jumps its banks upstream,” he said.
Lang said the sides would be rolled up in summer and fall but would generally be lowered in winter.
The application had the support of neighboring property owners and the Housatonic River Commission.
Lang informed the board members that the Connecticut legislature had passed a bill making such structures legal in Connecticut after Oct. 1. “Let’s get this show on the road,” said board member John Johnson and the board unanimously approved the application.
Court denies High Watch greenhouse expansion
KENT, Conn.—The state Supreme Court recently overruled an Appellate Court opinion on what constitutes an illegal expansion of a non-conforming use at High Watch Farm, a residential treatment program for substance abuse.
The issue has gone back and forth in the judiciary system for several years as High Watch sought to construct greenhouses on land adjacent to its main campus.
High Watch is located on two parcels, one with the residential treatment buildings, and the second an operating arm that provides food for the program guests and staff, as well as therapy programs for the guests.
The treatment facility predates adoption of zoning and is treated as a nonconforming use. The farm, acquired later, required a special permit and site plan approval. The commission denied the application for the greenhouse, stating that because the farm operation had been approved as a special permit, the use of the property could not deviate from the provisions of that permit.
The applicant disagreed, arguing that all nonconforming uses must be treated alike and allowed to intensify. The Appellate Court supported this argument and ruled that no matter how they are created, all nonconforming uses can intensify.
The State Supreme Court focused on the nature of the nonconforming use and whether the erection of a hoop house/greenhouse would be an expansion. In this case, the nonconforming use would be the therapy program associated with farming fruits and vegetables. High Watch stated numerous times that the hoop house would allow for an extended growing season and thus extend the therapy program associated with it.
It is well established that changing a seasonal nonconforming use constitutes an impermissible expansion of the amount of time when a non-conforming use would be active.
