Woodstock CT Café

Communicate with Admin by email: woodstockctcafe@gmail.com

The tagline above is meant to encourage contributions from residents in surrounding towns. We would like to learn more about what is happening in neighboring towns.

The Cafe challenges residents of surrounding towns to contribute. Those who speak up at the Cafe dominate the discussion. So there is really no reason why the Woodstock Cafe could not become the Eastford Cafe or the Pomfret Cafe. It boils down to who speaks up about important issues that other readers find interesting. The Cafe already has valued contributors from Eastford, Pomfret, and Canterbury. We are all in the same ark and a significant part of Eastford, Pomfret, Brooklyn, and Canterbury’s budget is sent to the Woodstock Academy. Let’s turn the Woodstock Cafe into the WEBCPPT Cafe.

WPZC motion that affirmed the assignment of the task of drafting new zoning regulations to Ken Goldsmith. This motion was offered shortly before the election to address the repeated, false allegations of Dottie Durst, Wayne Durst and Dan Very that the PZC had never assigned this task to Ken Goldsmith and that the new regulations had “fallen out of the sky” – a blatant falsehood which shocked and disgusted several members of PZC. The motion passed unanimously without change with one abstention – Dottie Durst. The comments of Dottie and Wayne Durst and Dan Very are in the public record. John Filchik of NECCOG was so impressed with Ken’s work that he has since asked the PZC’s permission to use Goldsmith’s document in re-drafting the town’s zoning ordinance. Joe Breen

MOTION 
Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission 
October 4, 2007

Whereas, the Town of Woodstock Zoning Enforcement Officer has over a period of several years reported frequent difficulty in enforcing the Town of Woodstock Zoning Regulations;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the current Zoning Regulations contain extensive contradictions, omissions and ambiguities that make administration and interpretation highly problematic;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that enforcement of the current Zoning Regulations in its current form exposes the Town of Woodstock to significant risk of legal and financial liability;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the Special Permit process within the current Zoning Regulations is insufficient for proper management of commercial and other nonresidential zoning applications;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the problems inherent in the current Zoning Regulations cannot be adequately addressed through further amendment;

Whereas, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the offer of its member Kenneth Goldsmith to draft new Zoning Regulations that preserve the town’s current zoning plan but provide best practices to address Special Permit, enforcement and other problems as described above;

Whereas; the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission has accepted an initial Draft of said new Zoning Regulations for consideration;

Now, therefore, based on the above factors, the Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission hereby commits to review the proposed new Draft Zoning Regulations with such review to be consistent with the advice of the Town of Woodstock land use boards; the Town of Woodstock legal counsel; and the advice and interests of all citizens of Woodstock with the objective of adopting new Zoning Regulations that properly address the issues described above.

Article V, Section 3.  Prohibited Uses -   1) Penal institutions;    2) Manufacture of explosive or highly flammable products;    3) Junkyards;   4) Solid, radioactive or hazardous waste.  

Article V, Section 2.  Special Permit Uses -  1) Professional offices;   2) Retail commercial uses;   3) Service establishments;   4) Multi-family residential uses;   5) Houses of worship and related buildings;   6) Commercial recreation facilities;   7) Cemeteries;   8 ) Light industrial/manufacturing uses;   9) Excavation and removal of 1500 cubic yards . . . of earth materials;   10) Horse riding academies;  11) Cottage resorts;  12) Zoos, wildlife sanctuary . . . nature centers;  13) Outdoor Recreational Facilities for Schools and related accessory structures;  14) Higher-density Residential Subdivision.  

Article IV, Section 4.D.  Special Permits Evaluation Criteria - 1) Compliance with Woodstock zoning regulations;  2) Conform to Plan of Conservation/Development & Plan of Open Space/ Conservation;  3) No adverse impact on existing traffic . . . streets adequate for additional traffic . . . no traffic safety problem (e.g., poor sight line);  4) Generate minimal off-site impacts including . . . adverse impacts on property values and the reasonable use, enjoyment and development of properties in the surrounding neighborhood;   5) Adequate landscaping and buffering;    6) No additional storm water runoff or adverse effect on downstream drainage systems, wetlands, watercourses;   7) No adverse effect on ground/surface waters or . . .  drinking water supplies;   8 ) Adequate systems for sewage disposal and water service;   9) Erosion and sedimentation control plan;   10) Unhindered emergency vehicle access;   11) No adverse effect on health and safety of residents or workers.    

Article IV, Section 4.A. Expansions of Special Permit Uses – Any . . . Special Permit Use . . . may be expanded . . .  without the need for a special permit provided the . . . expansion . . . does not exceed 25% of the (remaining) (sic) area of the lot.

Eastford voters say NO to the Town Hall expansion. See the Norwich Bull.

The referendum on the Eastford Town Office Improvement project is scheduled for tomorrow, July 21. The issue on the table is specifically the approval of up to 1.5 million towards the expansion of the Town office building, roughly doubling its space and eliminating a number of problems with the current structure. Unfortunately very few people showed up to the hearing on the plan (2 committee members missing it due to a regular Monday night Poker game). I only counted about 30 people there including the committee members and moderator even though there was seating for well over 100.

The biggest problem seems to center around privacy, where selectman have to share office space with other town officials and there is no way to have a private conversation anywhere inside without locking the exterior doors. Eastford also is debt free at the moment and borrowing some money for this project would be a good move according to accountants. Other issues include humidity free storage for town records, and increased space for public functions. A committee has put together a very detailed plan and are waiting for town approval to put this thing out for bids.

It is likely to be voted down if you listen to the bluster from some town residents who claim that a town office building open only 2 days a week should consider other alternatives (such as opening for 4 days with some officials being there for 2 days only). Read the rest of this entry »