CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
January 27, 2022
Present/Absent:
Chester: Tom Brelsford , Jenny Kitsen
Deep River: Jerry Roberts, (vacancy)
East Haddam: Crary Brownell, (vacancy)
Essex: Claire Mathews, Misha Semenov
Fenwick: Newton Brainerd, Borough Warden
Haddam: Susan Bement, Mike Farina
Lyme: J. Melvin Woody, Wendy Hill
Old Lyme: Suzanne Thompson, Greg Futoma
Old Saybrook: Bill Webb, Diane Stober
Regional Reps: Raul Debrigard (N), Marilyn Gleeson (N), Judy Preston (S)
DEEP: David Blatt
Staff: J H Torrance Downes
Guests: Katie Peranowski, DEEP; Dorene Warner, W-Design; Judy Anderson,
Community Consultants; Kevin Armstrong, RiverCOG
Call to Order
This meeting was called to order by Chairman Thompson on the virtual meeting platform Zoom at 7:05pm.
Chairman Thompson opened the meeting by acknowledging DEEP Commissioner’s Representative David Blatt,
who will be retiring at the beginning of April. As of the March Gateway meeting, Katie Peranowski will become
the DEEP Commissioner’s representative.
Approval of Regular Minutes
A motion was made by Bement to approve the regular meeting minutes of the 12/2/21 meeting with a correction
made by Matthews. The correction stated that a “small amount of funds” were to be shifted in funds devoted to
ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) to take advantage of improving performance in that sector, rather
than a large shift was agreed to. The motion with the recommended correction was seconded by Woody. The
motion and second were approved unanimously.
Communications and Outreach Committee Presentation of Draft Website. Dorene Warner of W-Design, Judy
Anderson of Community Consultants and Kevin Armstrong of RiverCOG were present to present the status of
the new Gateway website. Futoma introduced by stating that the website redesign was by far the largest part
of the project, which commenced in the spring of 2021. The website, members were reminded, is a work in
progress with some pages close to finished with others in various states of completion. Warner demonstrated
many of the landing pages showing how photos would be used and how text would be included. Links to other
sections were demonstrated. Warner demonstrated the functioning of the Gateway parcel map that the
Commission has requested replace a static PDF that exists now on the live Gateway website. Members
expressed their support and pleasure regarding what they saw.
Futoma made a point to make specific content requests from the members of the website subcommittee and
asked for others outside of the subcommittee to step up to present content as well. Roberts confirmed he will
provide historic content after expressing concern over how there is much disinformation about “The Turtle”,
America’s first submarine. Preston, Hill, Woody, Thompson, Farina and others all expressed willingness to
provide content. Futoma finished by indicating that Gateway’s social media campaigns have begun on
Facebook and Instagram. Downes demonstrated recent Facebook posts.
Rules of Procedure Committee Discussion of Standards pertaining to Light Pollution. Webb introduced
Semenov who summarized work on light pollution standards undertaken to date. He referred to the more
substantial standards that may need to be considered for town adoption in sections of regulations other than
1the Gateway section, and then presented the Light Pollution definition and the special permit review standard
that had been developed by the committee. These Gateway standards concerning light pollution are intended
for adoption into the Gateway section of the eight towns, standards that will allow the opening of a dialogue
between the local zoning commissions and applicants for residential structures over 4,000 square feet (3,500
square feet in Old Saybrook). Blatt commented that these discussions are one way to reduce the amount of
lighting residential property owners produce as they will have likely not even been aware that light pollution is
a concern. The local zoning authorities will be able to condition approvals in a way which would reduce the
amount of non-safety-related exterior lighting. Other suggestions were made by members including increased
public education, the enlistment of partners like SustainableCT and pollinator pathway groups, differentiating
between lighting for safety and lighting for architectural effect (lighting directed toward the ground and not the
sky). Semenov suggested that individual GW members could be of influence in their own towns. The language
is to be forwarded to Gateway counsel clearing the legality of the standard and definition prior to sending to
the eight towns for consideration and comment. With positive response, Gateway would schedule a public
hearing to adopt the new standards.
Petition Concerning Zoning Regulations Concerning Town-wide Prohibition of Tattoo Parlors, Town of Haddam
A first proposal was submitted to eliminate an existing prohibition on tattoo parlors in the Town of Haddam.
The intent is to remove the restriction because an existing nonconforming tattoo parlor on Bridge Street (and in
the Conservation Zone) wants to move to a new location in Higganum Center (outside of the Conservation
Zone). In supporting this move, the P&Z is deleting said prohibition.
Petition Concerning Zoning Regulations Concerning the Establishment of Adult-Oriented Businesses, Town of
Haddam. A second petition was presented which proposes the establishment of adult-oriented business in
Haddam under certain limited circumstances. The proposed regulation would only allow such businesses to be
established in the Industrial I-2 District, which is limited to the Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam Neck. As the
likelihood of such a business being established there is negligible, and that adult-oriented businesses are a
“use” that would have to comply with Gateway standards concerning structures, members expressed little
concern with the proposal.
Motion on Two Haddam Petitions
A motion was put forward to approve both Haddam petitions by Debrigard, which was seconded by Bement.
The motion was passed unanimously. The members found that neither petition would create deterioration of
the “natural and traditional river scene” in the Gateway Conservation Zone.
Petition Concerning Commercial Building Maximum Size in the Shopping Center (B-2) Commercial District,
Town of Old Saybrook. 633 Middlesex Turnpike LLC submitted a petition to allow an intermediate building
maximum size in the Shopping Center (B-2) Commercial District in town. The regulation change is specifically
targeted at a property located outside of the Conservation Zone. Because there are several properties
designated as “B-2 District” within the Conservation Zone, this proposal could impact those properties as well.
Because it would be unlikely that a large commercial building would be built on the aforementioned properties,
and because the properties cannot be seen from the Connecticut River, members voted to approve the petition
as no undesirable impacts would occur if buildings were to be built on the Conservation B-2 properties.
Petition Concerning “Opting-Out” of Certain Provisions of Public Act 21-29 Concerning Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU, aka Accessory Apartments), Town of Old Saybrook. A second petition was presented which proposes
that the town “opt-out” of certain provisions of PA 21-29. Staff explained that the Old Saybrook Zoning
Commission has already adopted new regulations concerning ADUs (previously approved by the Gateway
Commission) that would make the establishment of accessory apartments (ADUs) easier for property owners,
consistent with PA 21-29. The proposal to “opt-out” is a legal strategy recommended by Zoning Commission
counsel to retain flexibility and control over regulations that have been adopted. If a town doesn’t “opt-out”
2by January 1, 2023, it must adopt the provisions of PA21-29 and then cannot modify the new language in any
way.
Motion on Two Old Saybrook Petitions
A motion was put forward to approve both Old Saybrook petitions by Debrigard, which was seconded by
Matthews. The motion was passed unanimously with Webb abstaining as his property is located within the B-2
District within the Conservation Zone. Stober voted in the affirmative as the alternate Old Saybrook member to
the Commission. The members found that neither petition would create deterioration of the “natural and
traditional river scene” in the Gateway Conservation Zone.
Correspondence/Staff Report
Staff summarized items included in the Monthly Staff Notes adding that an educational PowerPoint on the
Gateway Commission would be presented to a meeting of the Old Saybrook Land Use Boards on Monday night,
January 31, 2022. Members asked that a link to the Zoom meeting be forwarded for those who may consider
joining the meeting. The educational program also includes a review of the Connecticut Coastal Management
Act by DEEP Environmental Analyst Marcy Balint.
Chairman’s Report. Thompson reported her appreciation to those of who are assisting in the development of
the new Gateway website, specifically, Greg Futoma, former Old Saybrook member Tom Gezo, and staff
Torrance Downes. Thompson also promoted a webinar by Patrick Cummins of the Connecticut Audubon,
referring to it as a good overview to watch.
Finance Committee. Matthews reported on Gateway portfolio performance, providing members with specifics
for their consideration. Matthews also discussed the “overhead” portion of the RiverCOG bills submitted to
Gateway for the services of Downes, Fernald and Armstrong. She reported that she had a good conversation
with RiverCOG Executive Director Sam Gold about overhead (charged at a rate of the auditor-confirmed rate of
126.27% based upon requirements of the CT DOT) and how and why it is charged. Matthews indicated that the
overhead rate has come down and the agency continues to do everything it can do to lower the rate further.
Upon presentation of bill for payment, and upon a motion by Bement which was seconded by Semenov, the
Commission voted to pay this month’s bills. The motion was passed unanimously. The billed amounts included
$7,523.21 for staff services plus overhead, $507.75 attributed to the mapping work performed by RiverCOG’s
Kevin Armstrong, and $4,387.50 charged for consulting services by Judy Anderson of Community Consultants.
As a note, the RiverCOG staff charges include the month of December and the month of January. The three bills
total $12,418.46.
Communications Committee. Committee chair Futoma raised the issue of differing information on the amount
of the funds dedicated to this project. Original minutes reflect a total authorization of $35,000 while the total
on the Commission-signed MOA reflects a total funding commitment of $39,075 (not to exceed) with a timeline
through 12/15/2022. This does not represent an increase in funds to the project, rather, a correction of the
record. A motion to acknowledge the difference and adoption of the change made by Debrigard, seconded by
Matthews. The motion passed unanimously.
Rules of Procedure Committee. Committee chair Webb stated that the light standards should be sent out to the
towns as soon as is possible following approval by counsel. Debrigard and Downes will get the 6/25/2021
amended standards out to towns as soon as possible as well. All of the town representatives should be
involved in the discussion in their respective towns. Debrigard suggested that the amended standards should
be reviewed by Attorney Mark Branse as he was the one who made the suggestions for revision of the original
6/25/2021 standards and because he and Attorney Matt Willis represent five of the eight planning & zoning
commissions. Those commissions rely on Branse and Willis’ concurrence that the revised standards are ready
for local adoption. Downes has begun rewriting the standards into each of the eight town’s zoning regulation
3format so that the Gateway section with revisions can be simply scheduled for public hearing without the
requirement for local staff to perform the reformatting. A short discussion occurred with respect to when funds
for counsel review requires commission approval rather than just committee level approval.
Grants Committee. Roberts reported two documents that have been drafted by the committee will be
distributed by staff after committee members confirm and concur on circulation. Webb, a former member of
the original grants ad hoc committee, has offered to assist the Grants Committee moving forward.
Land Committee. No report.
Thompson asked members, particularly newer members, to identify additional committee interest.
Old Business. None.
New Business. None
Adjournment
A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:57pm Bement, which was seconded by Matthews. The motion
was unanimously approved. Members acknowledged that this meeting is the last with David Blatt as the DEEP
Commissioner’s representative, thanking him for his years of service and sage advice.
Respectfully submitted,
J H Torrance Downes
4Staff Report
January 27, 2022
Proposed Regulations
Old Saybrook Zoning Regulation Proposals.
(1) New Building Size Category for Maximum Footprint of Commercial Buildings. A petitioner wants to include an additional
category of building size where two currently exist for properties in the Commercial (B-2) Shopping Center District, primarily
located along Route 1 in the center of Saybrook’s business district. Since several lots zoned as B-2 existing in the
Conservation Zone, this proposal impacts properties in the Conservation Zone and requires Gateway approval.
On lots up to five (5) acres in size, the cap for building footprint sizes is 25,000 square feet. Beyond twelve (12) acres,
building footprints must not exceed 80,000 square feet. The petitioner would like to include that “for each complete five (5)
acre parcel, one building of thirty-five thousand square feet (35,000) of gross floor area be allowed, e.g. lots between the
five (5) acre size and the twelve (12) acre size. This proposal has been submitted AND APPROVED BY THE ZONING
COMMISSION to allow for the building of an addition at the Yale Medical building near Route 9 on the Middlesex Turnpike.
Without the approved regulatory language, they’d need a variance to build the addition, one for which there isn’t really a
“hardship”.
The key Gateway takeaway is that there are numerous B-2-zoned lots in the Conservation Zone, several in the area of the
LaMarea Restaurant and B&L Construction properties, the largest of which is 7.8 acres (attached map to be displayed at
meeting). The proposed regulation would impact this one property – the B&L Construction property – but the property
(along with all of the surrounding B-2 properties) can be seen from the CT River or its tributaries. As a result, the regulation
won’t detrimentally impact that area from a Gateway standpoint in that whatever is done there won’t be seen from the
river.
The second area includes six properties, the largest of which is the 2.65 acre Quality Inn site. The other lots are developed
with the American Legion building, the “Comfort Café”, the Montessori School and two commercial business buildings.
NONE of those lots are five (5) acres or more. The six lots total 7.2 acres, so conceivably, this regulation could impact that
area if all six lots were purchased by one developer, combined and all of the current uses/buildings demolished. In that such
an eventuality is unrealistic, the proposed regulation won’t likely impact that area either. Further, although these lots and
structures are down the street from one of the marina channels where it extends close to Essex Street, they are far from the
river and can’t be seen. A 30,000 square foot building, IF built on these combined lots, wouldn’t be seen either. NO IMPACT.
(2) Opt-Out of ADU (Accessory Dwelling Units – aka accessory apartments) Requirements (ZC). This is a curious, but common
legal maneuver that towns are adopting based upon counsel from their attorneys. First, accessory apartments are a “use”
that must adhere to all Gateway standards for building height, setbacks and coverage. The requirements of PA 21-29 were
adopted in the past legislative session to require the easing of standards for accessory apartments, presumably allowing
more of them to come into existence. More, and likely cheaper, housing options. Most towns are willing to ease regulatory
hurdles to allow more ADUs. Some, not so much.
As for the legal explanation, the Town of Old Saybrook has already adopted regulations consistent with the requirements of
PA 21-29 and has eased up on how challenging application for ADUs are, as intended by the General Assembly. The public
act has an “opt-out” provision
that says, if a town doesn’t want to adopt the requirements of PA 21-29, they must “opt-out” by January 1, 2023. Opting
out (1) allows the town to ignore the Public Act and/or (2) leaves the town with flexibility in how they want to adopt or
amend these regulations.
Even though the Old Saybrook Zoning Commission has adopted the regulations consistent with the requirements of PA 21-
29, their legal counsel (Mark Branse and Matt Willis) have told them to “opt-out” so as to preserve the flexibility to amend
those regulations if they so choose (which at this point, they don’t). At a recent statewide meeting of certified ZEOs, the
other “800-pound gorilla” in land use law – Attorney Mike Ziska – recommended the same thing to all of the attending ZEOs.
If a town doesn’t opt-out, the regulations are locked in and can’t be modified in a negative OR positive way. Opt-out and
retain flexibility rather than being locked in.
Since this is a town-wide regulation that impacts properties in the Conservation Zone, the Gateway Commission must
approve the regulations before they can become effective.
Haddam Zoning Regulation Amendments
1. Adult-Oriented Businesses (P&Z). Courts have found that towns must make provisions to allow for adult-oriented businesses
as a matter of Constitutional law (First Amendment rights). Most towns have adopted such regulations within the last
5fifteen to twenty years including seven of the eight Gateway towns. Haddam has not and has no regulations that pertain to
this generally-discouraged use. Haddam is proposing to allow such businesses by Special Exception on the one property
identified as “Industrial I-2 District”. That property is currently occupied by the Connecticut Yankee in Haddam Neck, a site
located within the Conservation Zone.
This regulatory strategy satisfies legal requirements but requires Gateway “approval” to become effective. The town has
made provision for this “free speech” use, although in reality it could never be established on that site, at least not under
present conditions. It is up to a potential applicant to find a way to establish such a use on the property where the use is
allowed. NO IMPACT. ANY building that would house such a business – or any other business – would have to comply with
Gateway standards for building height, setbacks and coverage. This regulation is about a USE.
2. Lifting of Town-wide Prohibition of Tattoo Parlors (P&Z). Subsection 5 of Section 5.6 currently prohibits tattoo and/or body
piercing studio “provided, however, that existing & licensed tattoo businesses in the Town of Haddam are allowed by site
plan review to terminate and abandon their current location and relocate to other zones in the Town which allow personal
service establishments”. The one tattoo parlor in town is proposing to move from Bridge Street just up the hill from the
Route 154/Bridge Street intersection and move to Higganum Village. Repeal of the town-wide prohibition (even with the
caveats) impacts properties – including the existing tattoo parlor location – within the Conservation Zone. Hence, approval
of this proposal is necessary for the regulation to become “effective”. No impact to “natural and traditional river scene”.
New location in Higganum Village is not in the Conservation Zone. The current location, to be vacated, is.
Communications/Public Outreach Committee – Presentation of Draft Website with Usable Parcel Map
Dorene Warner of W-Design and Judy Anderson of Community Consultants, the consultants hired by the Commission to do the
communications/website update, along with Greg Futoma, will present the current mock-up of the draft Gateway website.
Included will be a demonstration of the parcel map that Gateway members have been seeking for numerous years. The overall
project status will be summarized as well. An Addendum to the original MOUs between the consultants and the
Committee/Commission is proposed for review and approval and is attached. The Addendum includes revisions and additional
detail recommended by the committee. The revised MOA is attached at the end of this report.
Rules of Procedure
The Rules of Procedure Committee is proposing the adoption of the following language concerning exterior lighting and light pollution,
pending a review and approval from Commission counsel:
a. Proposed Definition:
Light Pollution: Excessive, misdirected, or obtrusive light from artificial sources at a site, including site and architectural lighting,
which may result in brightening of the night sky, inhibiting the observation of stars and planets; light trespass onto neighboring
properties; visual glare and discomfort; or significant disruptions to wildlife and ecological cycles.
b. Proposed Standard (i) (additional standard for review of Residential Structures exceeding 4,000sf
Within the Gateway Conservation Zone, lighting of properties, including site lighting and the illumination of building facades
and other architectural features, shall be the minimum necessary for health and safety. The purpose of this standard is to
minimize the amount of artificial lighting emanating from Conservation Zone properties in a way that may contribute to light
pollution.
A one-page document showing definition and the 12 standards, including the proposed additional standard, is included at end of
report.
Other Items of Interest
• Lyme, 100-1 Joshuatown Road, Peter and MyLan Sarner. ZEO Ross Byrne has reached a restoration plan for the cove-front
adjacent to the 100-1 Joshuatown Road, Lyme property of Peter and Mylan Sarner. Staff of the Gateway Commission
participated in one on-site meeting with Byrne and Mr. Sarner and reviewed and commented on the plans during the
process. The restoration plan was approved by the Lyme Planning and Zoning Commission with the restoration plan being
required to commence on April 1, 2022.
• Manthous Private Residential Dock Application, Hamburg Cove, Lyme
An application for a private residential dock on a cove-front property owned by a Mr. Manthous was the subject of a DEEP
review. During the 1980s, the property was owned by the Dennis and Diana Milnes (upon later marriage, Diana Atwood
Johnson of Old Lyme), who placed a restrictive covenant on the property that limited development, including one caveat
that forbade the construction of a private dock at the property. A subsequent owner (a Mr. Deuttermann) argued that the
covenant language did NOT prohibit such construction. A request was made by the DEEP at the time of the Deuttermann
application to have the covenant language reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General. That review concluded that the
covenant language did indeed forbid the construction of a dock. A dock permit was therefore never issued. The current
6property owner, Mr. Manthous, applied for a dock, again arguing (like Mr. Deuttermann) that the language did NOT forbid
the construction of the dock. Relying on the previous finding of the Office of the Attorney General, the DEEP denied the
current application of Mr. Manthous. The dock itself didn’t seem overly large or impactful in either an ecological,
navigational or scenic sense, but the covenant language overrode those other considerations. What avenue of appeal Mr.
Manthous has, if any, is unknown at present time (although your departing Commissioner’s Representative may have an
opinion on that subject).
• Discussion of Tree Removal and Placement of Gravel Embankment below the Coastal Jurisdiction Line, Mouth of Chester
Creek in Chester. Staff and Tom Brelsford, Chester representative, previously reported on possible zoning/Gateway
standards violations and a possible violation of state statutes with respect to the permitting authority of the DEEP was
previously discussed. Staff of Gateway has informed the contract ZEO of the Town of Chester that the Gateway Commission
and, potentially, the State of Connecticut, are interested in pursuing these potential violations. No further action has been
taken beyond that communication with town staff.
• Tree Regulations. Regional Representative Marilyn Gleeson has researched tree cutting regulations from other states and
will report out to the Rules of Procedure Committee for a determination on how to proceed before extensive Commission
discussions are held. Outgoing Commissioner’s representative Blatt provided copy from a local newspaper on Westport,
CT’s efforts to implement tree-cutting regulations of some kind. The article is copied at the end of this report.
• Old Saybrook Land Use Board Educational Event, January 31, 2022, 6pm
Downes will be partnering with Old Saybrook Town Planner Chris Costa and DEEP Coastal Management specialist Marcy
Balint to discuss the CT Coastal Management Act (Marcy) and the Gateway Commission/Gateway Conservation Zone for
attendees. There are many new board members in Old Saybrook, so Costa thought this approach would be the best way to
bring them up to speed with respect to the responsibilities of their boards in these two regulatory areas. It will also be a
refresher for those who have been on the boards and commission.
The Gateway presentation will include some pertinent history so that it’s understood where the Gateway authority came
from, why it came about and how it came about. The discussion will remind attendees of the partnership nature that
Gateway has with the member towns (and how it was the choice of each one of the eight towns to join the compact) and
visa versa, generally describe the standards and how the Gateway/town partnership works with respect to regulation
proposals, variance applications and development applications. The Zoom invite will be provided and is being sent to the
other towns as well, so this will be a good time for numerous boards and commission in various Gateway towns to hear the
same discussion. Marcy, Chris and I expect plenty of questions.
• Short-Term Rental Regulations.
The Town of Lyme will be submitting regulations concern short-term rentals, likely in time for review at Gateway’s February,
2022. They are currently under review by P&Z Commission Counsel. Short-term rentals (Air BnB and the like) are a “use”.
Structures that house this particular use must comply with all regulations concerning structures, including any applicable
Gateway standards. Like many towns, Lyme is attempting to control the proliferation of this particular kind of use and the
negative impacts some have to neighborhoods.
• Borough of Fenwick, Regulation Proposing to “Opt-Out” of ADU Requirements in PA 21-29. Similar to the Old Saybrook
proposal on the 1/27/22 Gateway agenda. This proposal will also be heard at Gateway’s February 24, 2022 meeting.
__________________________________________________________________________________
• Chairman’s Report. As presented.
• Finance Committee: Presentation of bills: Judy Anderson (Community Consultants) $4,387.50 and Staff billing ($7,523.21 –
covering December and January), Billing for Communications project ($507.75 Kevin Armstrong of RiverCOG). Ms. Anderson’s
invoice brings her total invoiced amount to $13,162.50, approximately 60% of the $22,500 approved by the Communications
Committee in the original budget.
• Rules of Procedure Committee: Report as necessary.
• Community Relations/Communications Committee: Additional report as necessary
• Land Committee: Update on Land Committee initiatives (Executive Session).
• Grants Review Committee: Update on status.
7Memorandum of Agreement Addendum (Revisions in Red)
This addendum to the memorandum of agreement (MOU) serves to adjust the scope of work and product delivery expectations
by W Design and Community Consultants (Consultants) on behalf of the Connecticut River Gateway Commission (Commission).
The addendum recognizes that the complexity of concept development, organizational positioning, and design process within
the Commission’s committee and work group structure has necessitated considerable time and coaching by the consultants
beyond that expected within the RFP and subsequent MOUs.
Significant progress has been made, yet both parties recognize that the original timeline estimate, and related scope of work and
budget, has not been reflective of the workload and content development process.
Pursuant to prior conversations with the Commission’s board chair and Communication chair, as part of an ad-hoc Guidance
Team serving to manage the Consultant’s partnership and work with the Commission, this contract adjustment reflects the
Consultants agreement to continue to invoice for time expended with the understanding that not all tasks as contemplated in
the organization MOUs will be completed within the previously agreed schedule or specified budget.
Furthermore, it is understood by the Commission and Consultants that as the audience engagement strategy is further refined,
the Commission may continue to shift its emphasis on product creation. This has already occurred with reallocation of funds
from a hard-copy newsletter to cover expanded coaching and facilitation by the Consultants. That said, this change in approach
will likely be beneficial in the long run. The website audience development and related content creation and repurposing,
including eBooks and handouts, is an example of how the Commission will be able to leverage this work in a multitude of ways.
Likewise, the effort invested in the finalization of the Communications, Marketing and Engagement document will streamline the
Commission’s framing and engagement strategies, and therefore save time related to other projects and tasks such as
presentation development, eNewsletter strategies and engagement, and social media.
The Commission may wish to amend project tasks specified within the initial MOUs with the consent of both parties. The
Commission recognizes and applauds the Consultants willingness to be flexible in this regard, given their other commitments.
As we proceed during the second year of the project, we anticipate a sharpened focus on product completion, as outlined in the
attachment. Every effort will be made by both parties to complete all project work, as it may be amended, by the end of 2022
and within the total contractual budget of $39,075.
The parties recognize that the Commission may wish to adapt the project beyond the original budget to achieve the scope of work
and Commission’s availability. The Consultants are willing to be flexible as much as possible, given other commitments.
Agreed by, on behalf of the Commission:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Suzanne Thompson, Chairperson, Connecticut River Gateway Commission Date
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Judy Anderson, Community Consultants, LLC Date
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Dorene Warner, W Design Date
MOU Addendum Attachment (All NEW)
Marketing and Outreach Strategy. Provide a scale-appropriate, integrated, marketing and outreach strategy pursuant to include
audience clarification, messaging, shared values, tone and organizational positioning.
Specific product: Marketing, Communications, and Engagement Strategy Document for present and future Commission use.
Status of remaining work:
• Add executive summary (commission to write)
• Add history of commission (commission to write)
• Add visuals (commission and Dorene)
• Tweak content after website “testing”
• Approvals from communications committee, full commission
8Website. Assistance with functionality and messaging/engagement with various audiences. Content development for specific
landing pages per the Commission and workgroup.
Specific product – new website
Status of remaining work
• Organizational outline of completed content; addt’l content needed (Greg)
• Create content (team effort, commission “experts”)
• Continue building image library
• Coding and Design (Dorene)
• Final Approval
• Go live, publicize
• Develop/outline procedures for future posting & site maintenance post contract
Social Media Creation of a scale appropriate social media strategy focusing on Facebook and Instagram, pursuant to input from
the workgroup.
Specific product: posting procedures developed; content outline created
Status of remaining work
• Facebook and Instagram up and running live Jan 2022
• Consultants coach/advise Torrance as needed
• Continue developing content library; reach out to current social media posters such as Twitter photographic community
• Coordinate social media posting with website when latter is live
Newsletters Coaching on design/messaging interface, storyboard creation; content creation based upon input from the relevant
working group; editing, design and audience engagement strategy development.
Specific product:
• Hard copy newsletter deferred. May be considered in future
• e-newsletter template to be created to integrate with website appearance.
• Creation of a mailing list
o Dorene to develop address collection database with website sign-up
o Commission to populate database with addresses of town officials, organization partners, etc.
• Distribute initial e-newsletter
o Develop procedures to guide commission in future e-newletter creation and distribution post contract
General handout, focused handouts (2) for realtors/landowners and homeowners. Coaching on the messaging, look/feel/shared
values, readability, text density and images, desired engagement of readers. Creating content from discussions, working with
designer as needed.
Specific product:
• General brochure to hand out at fairs, etc. To be posted on website
o Confirm messaging objectives (Suzanne & Torrance)
o Repurpose & revise existing publication – sync with engagement language & project visual themess (Torrance, Judy &
Dorene)
o Review & approve
o Print
• Consider future creation of audience specific brochures for realtors, homeowners and landowners, contractors, tree
services, others as time and budget permit.
o Existing – repurpose or revise:
▪ Gateway Mission Booklet
▪ Structure Height Diagram
▪ Land Acquisition History
Overview Presentation
Specific product:
PowerPoint presentation to reflect marketing, communications & engagement strategy.
Status of remaining work:
• Integrate existing .pptx content and newly drafted content into template created by Judy & Dorene
9• Integrate with website. Promote site with web URL, social media addresses slide
• Suzanne, Tom and ad hoc team
Review Criteria for Special Permit and Site Plan Applications
Section II - Definitions:
Light Pollution: Excessive, misdirected, or obtrusive light from artificial sources at a site, including site and architectural lighting, which
may result in brightening of the night sky, inhibiting the observation of stars and planets; light trespass onto neighboring properties; visual
glare and discomfort; or significant disruptions to wildlife and ecological cycles.
Section II, J(3) Review Criteria for Special Permit and Site Plan Applications
a) Proposed site development shall maintain the essential natural characteristics of the site, such as major landforms, natural
vegetative and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities and open space that contributes to a sense of place.
b) Structures shall be adapted to the existing terrain, rather than altering the earth form to create a platformed development site.
c) Structures located above the crest of hillsides facing the River shall be held back from the crest of the hill to maintain a clear sense
of the hillside brow in its natural condition.
d) Vertical architecture elements shall not be over emphasized in a manner which disrupts the natural silhouette of the hillside.
Structures shall be designed so that the slope angle of the roof pitch is generally at or below the angle of the natural hillside or
manufactured slope.
e) Building forms shall be scaled to the particular environmental setting to avoid excessively massive forms that fail to enhance the
hillside character. Massing of structural elements such as large roof areas shall be broken up to approximate natural slopes.
f) Roof lines shall relate to the slope and topography. Rooftop treatment shall be designed to avoid monotony of materials, forms
and colors. Dark colored roof treatments, which reduce visual impact of the structure on the landscape, are preferred.
g) Site design shall preserve the existing natural landscape where possible and include new landscaping which is compatible with
existing natural vegetation, the scenic character of the area, and increases visual buffering between the building and the River or its
tributaries within the Gateway Conservation Zone.
h) Development shall be located so as to minimize disturbance of sensitive areas. The smallest practical area of land should be exposed
at any one time during development and the length of exposure should be kept to the shortest practical time. Disturbed areas shall
be replanted with trees, shrubs and ground cover which are compatible with existing vegetation.
i) Site grading shall avoid straight and unnatural slope faces. Cut and fill slopes shall have curved configurations to reflect as closely
as possible the forms and shapes of surrounding topography. At intersections of manufactured and natural slopes, abrupt angular
intersections should be avoided and contours should be curved to blend with the natural slope.
j) Within the Gateway Conservation Zone, lighting of properties, including site lighting and the illumination of building facades and
other architectural features, shall be the minimum necessary for health and safety. The purpose of this standard is to minimize the
amount of artificial lighting emanating from Conservation Zone properties in a way that may contribute to light pollution.
ARTICE: You may soon need a permit to cut down trees in Westport - By Serenity Bishop/CT Post
WESTPORT — Town officials are considering requiring a permit to cut down mature trees after a bevy of tree removal incidents have
left many residents upset. Planning and Zoning chairwoman, Danielle Dobin, said the commission’s regulation subcommittee is looking
to find a balance between preservation and residential rights.
“It’s not about a particular property, but the idea and purpose behind this is to look to preserve mature trees within the setbacks in a
way that doesn’t interfere negatively with the utilization of people’s personal property,” Dobin said. “At the same time, for the sake of
preserving our drainage and soil and erosion issues where they are now instead of making them worse.”
The Zoning Regulation Revision Subcommittee has offered a number of suggestions for Westport’s tree protection ordinance after
reviewing similar policies in Hartford, Ridgefield, Greenwich and Brooklyn.
Within that proposal, which the subcommittee put together in December, the group decided to restrict removal and setbacks on
10private property. Westport planner Michael Kiselak said if a tree provides a safety issue, it has to show that it is a threat of some sort
before it can be taken down.
The latest draft amendment adds to the proposal, defining a mature tree as a tree that is alive, non-invasive with a diameter of at least
12 inches and measures four feet above ground.
Kiselak said town officials wanted to find something that wasn’t too restrictive, but also something that wasn’t too small to protect.
“We wanted to find a balance on a good size,” he said.
The proposal also states that in order to remove a tree, residents would need a zoning permit. Trees in setbacks of properties at least a
quarter acre in size, would be further protected unless there was a reason to take them down. Those reasons could be that the tree is
dead, diseased or a public health hazard certified by a licensed arborist.
Other parts of the proposal include requiring pruning, trimming and repairs to mature trees to meet certain standards and to require a
tree protection action plan be submitted with the sediment and erosion control plan if there are any mature trees affected.
Also, any trees that are removed, even with a permit, would have to be replaced with three new trees that are at least two inches in
size and a native species. Kiselak said there is a benefit to the type of tree and not just having trees in general.
“Specific types of trees have value to the local ecosystem,” he said.
The subcommittee questioned if the ordinance should pertain to certain species of trees, if the measurements made sense and if the
town should incorporate a process that allows a resident to have permission to take down a tree even if it is not dead or diseased.
Tree Warden Ben Sykas said the ordinance should be for any species that are considered non-invasive.
“I think it’s really important to maintain species diversity and have as many options for tress out there as possible,” Sykas said. “With
the number of novel insects and diseases that we are encountering, to make sure that we have the diversity there would really be
helpful.”
Sykes also suggested that in terms of replacement the subcommittee should consider an inch-by-inch replacement, meaning if 20
inches of trees are removed, another 20 inches need to replace it.
Dobin said the subcommittee plans to pass the draft amendment on to the full Planning and Zoning Commission, but must conduct
more research, receive more feedback and consider comments from the community first.
From
11You can also read
