PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Ferguson Jansen, Charles Houlihan, Carol Cole, Mark Drake and Brad Mead. Also in attendance was Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, as well as other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Loomis appointed Brad Mead as alternate for Greg Piecuch.
III. PUBLIC HEARING(s)
Secretary Gardow motioned to interchange Agenda Item IIIa and IIIb in order to hear the application of Douglas Holbrook first. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bednarcyk and unanimously approved.
b. Application of Douglas Holbrook, Owner, Peter B. Hanley, Jr., Agent for a one (1) lot re-sub division on property located at addressStreet7 Highview Road. (Continued from 1/9/07).
Douglas Holbrook referenced the recent site walk, as well as the letter that has been received from the Farmington Valley Health District. Later in the meeting, Secretary Gardow confirmed for the record that there had been a site walk on 1/20/07 with Commissioners Loomis, Cole, Gardow and Bednarcyk attending. Commissioner Jansen walked the site on 1/22. Mr. Peck read into the record a 1/23/07 memo from Richard Sawitzke concerning the application, which addressed issues such as soils, utilities, drainage, and traffic issues.
Brian Ralphs, addressStreet14 Highview Road, referenced a letter he submitted at the suggestion of Rich Sawitzke, which addresses his concerns regarding safety considerations during construction. Mr. Ralphs confirmed for Commissioner Houlihan that he has been in discussions with the applicant regarding these issues. Peter Hanley confirmed for Commissioner Houlihan that he will do his best, to the extent that he can control, to ensure the safety of the neighborhood children, especially with respect to the delivery of cement or lumber. In response to Commissioner Bednarcyk, Mr. Hanley noted the Mr. Ralphs’ suggestion of moving the driveway would not work. The house would have to be moved too far to the south and would no longer be in compliance with the Zoning regulations. In addition, creating parallel driveways would
not be the most desirable from a design aspect.
Secretary Gardow motioned to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Houlihan and unanimously approved.
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the resolution as drafted by Mr. Peck. He suggested adding a reference to the fact that the hearing was carried over until 1/23/07. Mr. Peck confirmed for Commissioner Houlihan that the statements regarding parking/operating the construction equipment legally and submitting the record map to the Chairman for signature would address the concerns in Rich Sawitzke’s memo (i.e., heavy equipment use restriction, assigned house numbers, etc.). The drainage issues can be dealt with at the time the applicant comes in for the building permit, but it could be added now as well.
Commissioner Houlihan motioned to close the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mead and was unanimously approved.
(see Agenda Item IVa for motion of approval)
a. Application of Jonathan Batterson, Owner, and Gregory Maglieri, Maglieri Development, LLC, Agent for a four (4) lot subdivision on property located at addressStreet344 West Mountain Road (continued from 12/12/06 meeting and 1/9/07)
Attorney William Case confirmed for Chairman Loomis that only new information will be presented this evening, including the detailed landscape plan by John Stewart. In response to requests by the Town Staff, some minor changes in the calculations on the subdivision plan have been submitted to the file and will be presented by Chris Alford. In addition, the applicant is requesting this hearing be held over again until 2/13/07 as the Wetlands hearing has been continued until 2/6/07. Attorney Case confirmed that the necessary written documentation will be submitted for that extension request.
Chris Alford, engineer from Alford Associates, reviewed the new information that has been added to the file in response to Rich Sawitzke. New analysis is included on the culvert that brings the Nod Brook under placePlaceNameWest PlaceTypeMountain showing its capacity to handle up to a 50-year storm and how the connection for this subdivision would not be impacting that capacity. Detailed grading near the entrance to the subdivision from placePlaceNameWest PlaceTypeMountain has been provided that reflects the prevention of unwanted water collection in that area. Finally, an analysis of the run-off from the site pre- and post-construction from Lot 1 and 2 down across 4, 5 and 6, has been provided showing there will be no overall net increase in volume or discharge from the site.
In response to the Commission’s questions last meeting regarding the volumes of materials to be removed from the site, Mr. Alford provided visuals for each phase of construction indicating how much would be removed during each phase and what measures were being taken (i.e., grading, filtration, drainage basins, highly permeable soil, etc.) during each phase to prevent unnecessary sediment from entering the stream. The amount of material to be removed during all phases of road construction totals 15,800 cubic yards (Phase 1 = 4200, Phase 2 = 7200, Phase 3 = 4400) and will be accomplished in approximately 2 months. He confirmed Mr. Maglieri will be at the site during all phases and it will be his responsibility to ensure all plans, including the landscaping plan, will be followed.
In response to Secretary Gardow, Mr. Alford reviewed the subdivision plan for the building rectangles for each lot. Attorney Case confirmed that only 4 lots are to be included in the application, with 2 of them resulting from an allowable first cut. However, Attorney Case emphasized that all lots comply with the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Alford confirmed for Commissioner Jansen that all of the concerns in Rich Sawitzke’s 11/17/06 memo have been satisfied. He further described the grading of each lot and Attorney Case noted the orientation of some of the houses have been changed in order to address issues raised by Mr. Sawitzke. Mr. Alford noted for Secretary Gardow that, although he is unsure whether the Fire Marshall has reviewed the plans, the driveway to Lot 6 is not a particularly long one for placeCitySimsbury. He confirmed for Commissioner Houlihan that there will not be any visibility issues with cars exiting onto addressStreetWest Mountain Road. He confirmed for Commissioner Bednarcyk that a waiver has been received from the WPCA noting they will not be providing public water or septic access to that area for the next 15 years. Mr. Alford
responded to Commissioner Bednarcyk regarding drainage, noting that the additional borings done address the drainage issues and confirm the soils are sandy, easily moved, and suitable for infiltration systems. Attorney Case also confirmed several discussions with Town Staff and their satisfaction that the soils will handle the infiltration and there will not be any negative impacts with the extensive excavation and land clearing.
Commissioner Bednarcyk requested further clarification regarding open space for the site. Mr. Alford described the percentages of open space in terms of both the total acreage as well as the buildable area. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted the intent of some of the open space is for it to be accessible. Attorney Richard Case noted that the lots are zoned R-25 and yet the lots are significantly greater than 25,000 square feet. The offer for open space is significantly larger than what is required. Commissioner Houlihan confirmed with Town Staff that the open space requirements have been satisfied. Mr. Alford noted for Commissioner Bednarcyk that the conservation easement is fairly flat and the wetlands total only 2/3 of an acre, meeting the requirements as laid out in the Subdivision Regulations Section III-9(c) that she
referenced. In his opinion, the areas that need protection (i.e., the Brook, preserving streetscape) are provided for, as well as the provision for 2 smaller areas that are to be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association.
John Stewart, landscape architect with CR3, described the details of the landscape plan, including a cross-section of the proposed excavation at the entrance, the retaining walls, and how the cut resolves itself back to its original height at the top of the slope. He described the variety of plants that will be used to hold the soil in this particular soil type. He described the rain garden and cul de sac plantings. Screenings for the properties have not been shown, as they will be individually designed specific to each lot (i.e., evergreens, flowering lower trees, etc.) He noted for Secretary Gardow that the retaining walls will be 6 feet high and run 100 feet long and described the plantings to be included there. Mr. Alford confirmed for Commissioner Drake that there would be a smaller 3rd retaining wall by
the rain garden. Mr. Maglieri provided pictures of possible retaining walls that would be used, which he has used several times in the past. He will work with Mr. Stewart for the final layout.
In response to George Clee, addressStreetWest Mountain Road, Mr. Alford provided distances of the houses from the Brook (i.e., closest one is 67 feet in Lot 6), distances from the culvert that construction will be going on (i.e., 60 feet) and confirmed that all Federal and State EPA considerations have been met.
Mr. Alford responded to Nancy Gregory, 44 Fernwood, that the driveway to placeLot #6 is 230 feet. In her opinion, that is a long driveway for this development and expressed concern regarding the possibility of having to access that lot through her property in a fire emergency. Attorney Richard Case noted the length of the driveway is within the regulations. Mr. Alford indicated the house in that lot was moved 5-6 feet away from the Brook and the septic is still within 10 feet of her property line. Commissioner Mead confirmed with Mr. Peck that this is allowed. Commissioner Houlihan read the 12/12/06 letter from the FVHD noting their determination of adequate soil conditions for septic systems and sufficient distance from adjacent wells. Mr. Peck confirmed the Fire Marshall will review the plans. In addition, he will
address Ms. Gregory’s septic issue with the FVHD.
HB Kaplan, addressStreet36 Drumlin Road, indicated she has filed for intervenor’s status. Mr. Peck confirmed that this evening he has received a CGS 22-A-19 - Notice of Intervention, which will be put into the official record. Although the Town Attorney will determine the validity of the intervenor status, Mr. Peck confirmed Ms. Kaplan can make her presentation tonight regardless of the official status. In response to Commissioner Jansen, Mr. Peck will confer with the Town Attorney regarding having the Conservation Commission address the issues related more to the environment and wetlands.
Ms. Kaplan read into record a 1/22/07 letter from her attorney, Margaret Rattigan, who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Her letter references the Notice of Intervention, as well as issues such as providing unequal amounts of time for the applicant versus her client and her client’s representatives, the lack of a decision from the Conservation Commission, as well as the applicability of an excavation permit to this proposed development.
Michael Klein, soil scientist representing Ms. Kaplan, referenced the previously expressed concerns regarding the environment, as well as areas of nonconformity to the Subdivision Regulations. His 1/23/07 letter suggested ‘the plans still do not meet the minimum requirements of the regulations, and have a reasonable likelihood of degrading Nod Brook’. His letter outlined specific regulations that he and his client feel are not being met. With regard to open space, he disagrees that land outside the subdivision is an acceptable designation of open space. In addition, language for the conservation easement should be made available for public review. Finally, there is a very tight working distance between the house on placeLot 6 and the easement, with encroachment a strong possibility, and there is also no public
access to the proposed easement.
Mr. Klein acknowledged improvement in the plan in terms of preservation of the water quality in the Nod Brook, but suggested several issues still remain. Although the landscape plans do indicate they are only conceptual, he questioned the appropriateness of the suggested tree plantings over the infiltration basins and noted the significant difference between a rain garden and a sediment basin. Further, he noted there is no tree protection detail shown at the northern portion of the cut which is within 30 feet of the abutting property line. Although the cut has been moved, it still does not meet the Zoning regulations under the earth excavation permit. He noted the substantial investment that will be required by the homeowner’s association to build and maintain the retaining walls, which are critical to the
stability of the bank. He questioned the erosion control measures with the existing slopes.
In response to Commissioner Drake, Mr. Klein agreed the characterization of the existing soil type as permeable. However, there are some areas of reduced permeability, the top soil is not nearly as permeable and could cause problems if the detention basin overflows, and if construction is done during the winter there could be heavy runoff conditions. He still questioned the inconsistency between the landscape and drainage plans, as well as the nonconformity to the requirements for an earth excavation permit (i.e., maximum slopes and setbacks). Without the proposed excavation, there will be no frontage for Lots #1-4. Mr. Klein also confirmed on the plans for Commissioner Houlihan that there is a drainage pipe from the rain garden at the cul de sac that goes directly to the Brook. He will further review the updated
plans.
Mark Austin, engineer representing Ms. Kaplan, further described his client’s concern regarding the incompleteness of the proposed plans. He distributed a letter outlining their concerns. Subdivision regulation concerns include questions on the location of the rectangles for houses on lots #5 and #6 being in the middle of the conservation easement. In addition, full access to placeLot #6 is shown via easement documents and therefore creating a nonconforming lot. With regards to the slopes at the road, he suggested some type of maintenance agreement should be drafted outlining long-term fiduciary responsibility for the protection and upkeep of the areas owned by the homeowner’s association. Details of the wall construction should be provided, slope benching is required at the end of the walls, fencing should be
shown on top of the proposed walls, and a geotechnical engineer should evaluate the slopes to verify stability. Mr. Austin noted several drainage issues exist and he expressed his strong disagreement with the runoff calculations submitted, indicating they do not take into account lawn and road drainage. The design of the cul de sac rain garden is not complete and no flow calculations have been provided for either of the infiltration areas.
Concerns also exist regarding the proposed septic systems and wells. placeLot #5 appears to have only a primary septic shown with no reserve. Setbacks should be verified with such excessively drained soils and the well and septic for addressStreet350 West Mountain Road need to be shown on the plans.
Details for the proposed plantings are needed for placeLot #5 and 6 to avoid loss of flood plain and encroachment on the conservation easement. He suggested moving the houses on these lots farther back toward placePlaceNameWest PlaceTypeMountain. He noted the wetlands concerns in his letter had already been addressed.
Although Mr. Peck confirmed for Commissioner Mead that the regulations do not specify that the houses have to be built within the building rectangles, Mr. Austin suggested it speaks to the inconsistency of the proposed plans and the credibility of the applicant. Attorney Richard Case confirmed the houses do not have to be built within the building rectangle and that he resented the credibility comment. Mr. Peck suggested for the Commission that although lots 5 and 6 are not officially included in the application the new construction is for 6 houses with earth movement involved in all areas and lot 5 and 6 are part of those plans. Chairman Loomis welcomed any further clarification Mr. Peck can provide.
Charles Warren, licensed engineer representing H.B. Kaplan, again reminded the Commission of their responsibility to protect the health, welfare and public safety of placeCitySimsbury’s citizens. In response to Commissioner Houlihan, Mr. Warren noted the hazardous slope at the entrance, possible sight line problems from the entrance onto addressStreetWest Mountain Road, as well as the protection of the wells and septic systems are examples specific to this application of that responsibility. He noted he agreed with much of Mr. Austin’s testimony (i.e., details on retaining walls, runoff coefficients, box culvert capacity calculations, open space not allowing for public access, etc.).
Mr. Warren referenced previous statements made by George Logan, an expert who testified for the applicant at the last meeting, on a similar application in another CT town. Mr. Warren noted the inconsistency between Mr. Logan’s statements on that application and this one with regards to standard wetlands setbacks.
Mr. Warren suggested the deed restrictions be regulated by the homeowner’s association and not the developer. In addition, they make no reference to support of common spaces. In his opinion, the FVHD letter does not approve anything, but rather simply acknowledges that the soils are suitable for septic. Finally, the regulations require one alternate plan be submitted and that has not been met. Mr. Warren closed his comments by suggesting the highest and best use for this parcel is open space. Commissioner Mead suggested he would have the right to that opinion if he owned the land. However, such a suggestion would be depriving the owners of the economic value and use of their land. In response to Mr. Warren, Commissioner Mead noted it is up to this and other Commissions to determine whether this development will
revert to a liability to the community in the long-run. Mr. Warren noted for Commissioner Jansen that he will provide his comments in writing to the Commission prior to the next meeting, including several issues in Rich Sawitzke’s 11/17/06 memo that have not yet been addressed. He particularly agreed with Mr. Sawitzke’s statement that the number of lots should be reduced.
HB Kaplan again addressed the Commission. She began presenting the case referenced by Mr. Warren from the Town of placeCityBerlin in order to illustrate George Logan’s contradictory recommendations. Both Commissioners Houlihan and Mead questioned its relevance to the addressStreetWest Mountain Road application. Chairman Loomis cautioned Ms. Kaplan against trying to get the Commission to infer something from information that is not directly relevant to this application and which may lead to the discrediting of an expert. Commissioner Houlihan encouraged her to make a clear and direct connection between the 2 applications and submit it in writing to the Commission prior to the next meeting. Ms. Kaplan went on to distribute and read notes from a conversation she had with Walt Landgraf, an expert in glaciation, and
his opinion that removal of a significant portion of the esker would significantly decrease the ability of the esker to regulate water flow following rain. She then distributed and read her own personal comments addressing her concerns with the affect of this development will have on the character of the surrounding area as well as the Nod Brook, and the effect on the discharge and recharge ability of the esker once it is excavated. It is her opinion that the esker and forest are natural features that should be preserved. In response to Commissioner Houlihan, Mr. Peck will gather information regarding whether this part of addressStreetWest Mountain Road has ever been reported to overflow.
Kathy Batterson, indicated she is in the process of selling this land to Greg Maglieri. Ms. Batterson explained the thought process that she and her husband went through in order to decide what to do with the property. She described her husband as an ‘environmental nut’ and emphasized how important the integrity of the Brook was to him in the considerations. A decision was not made overnight regarding this development. She spoke to the integrity of Mr. Maglieri, his professional building reputation, and his active participation in finding a plan that is in the best interest of the Brook, this land and the neighborhood. She also indicated she has never seen the Brook overflow.
Mike Lefebvre, addressStreet14 Lionel Drive, spoke in support of this application and Greg Maglieri as a responsible developer who has contributed a lot to this community. Mr. Lefebvre described Mr. Maglieri’s positive role in developing the land that was owned by his family and ultimately became Gillette Farms. He expressed his anger at the mean-spirited sentiment toward Mr. Maglieri and encouraged the Commission not to take that as a commonly held sentiment.
Chairman Loomis reiterated the hearing would be continued until 2/13/06.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DECISION ON ANY PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
a. Application of Douglas Holbrook, Owner, Peter B. Hanley, Jr., Agent for a one (1) lot re-sub division on property located at addressStreet7 Highview Road. (Continued from 1/9/07).
Upon a motion made by Secretary Gardow and seconded by Commissioner Bednarcyk, the following resolution was unanimously adopted. Voting on this item: Messrs Loomis, Gardow, Jansen, Houlihan and Mead, and Ms. Bednarcyk.
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9, 2007, which was continued to January 23, 2007, and took all testimony as required by law; and
WHERAS, the Commission notes the applicant proposes to remove the existing single family dwelling at this location; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to re-subdivide a 31,109.6 square foot lot into two conforming R-15 lots of 15,058.3 square feet and 16,051.3 square feet respectively; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to supplement existing landscaping as a landscape buffer on the western property line as shown on the Re-subdivision Plan in accordance with Note 11; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to install a proper septic system on each of the proposed lots in accordance with the approval granted by the Farmington Valley Health District on 1/18/07.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of Douglas Holbrook, owner; Peter B. Hanley Jr., agent, for a one lot re-subdivision of property in the R-15 Zone at 7 Highview Road as shown on the Re-subdivision Plan drawn by D. Laferriere, LS dated 11/27/06 is hereby approved.
The applicant should note that all construction vehicles are to be parked and operated legally during the demolition and construction process.
The applicant should also note that the record map shall be prepared for the Chairman’s signature and submitted to the Planning Department prior to signing and filing on the placePlaceNameSimsbury PlaceTypeLand Records.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 9, 2007.
Secretary Gardow motioned to add the minutes of 12/28/06 to the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mead and unanimously approved.
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes of 12/28/06 as edited. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Houlihan and unanimously approved.
Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes of 1/9/07 as edited. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jansen and unanimously approved.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
Chairman Loomis noted the Executive Session was held on Meadowood and another one may be scheduled in the future.
a. Discussion of process to address Special Areas Chapter of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Mr. Peck indicated he continues to work on the report regarding other communities relevant actions and will have it completed just before 2/13/07.
Chairman Loomis noted his emailed response to Lou George, of the EDC, regarding equal opportunity for other organizations and individuals to comment on the SHARE recommendations. He indicated to Mr. George that
anyone can submit a written copy of their Special Areas comments. Notice will also be given in the Hartford Courant welcoming such comment by 2/8/07. Mr. Peck will collate and organize those comments and do his best to distribute them to the Commission for their review prior to the 13th. Although he and Mr. Peck will further discuss the meeting’s structure, it is Chairman Loomis’ intent that the meeting be a discussion among Commissioners, staff and Mr. Dahlquist only. Commissioner Drake expressed concern that all the comments submitted be accessible to the public prior to the meeting. Mr. Peck noted it will be a public file open for viewing. In response to Commissioner Mead’s suggestion to allow all recognized groups to give a short presentation, Mr. Peck indicated it is not recommended
to limit it to just recognized groups, noting it would result in disenfranchised individuals. He will talk with the Town Attorney further, but Mr. Peck expressed his discomfort with only allowing organizations or individuals who have submitted materials to speak. Commissioner Houlihan noted the continued delay of the Plan is becoming more problematic for the Town, i.e., holding up pending grant applications. Chairman Loomis also noted the consideration of Village Districts cannot be done unless it is in the Plan.
Tentatively, a meeting was set for 2/13, in a larger venue to be determined, and to begin at 6:30 in order to give Rich Sawitzke time for his capital projects presentation. Mr. Peck will also review the necessary timing for the Maglieri application.
b. Discussion of FY 2007/2008 Budget.
Chairman Loomis referenced the Economic Development Commission letter regarding funding recommendations and the endorsement he provided for it. Recommendations include funding for 4 full-time staff, as well as monies set aside for more studies (i.e., Master Plan for PlaceTypeplaceTown PlaceTypeCenter, etc.), consultants for large land use applications (i.e., attorney, traffic specialists, economic analyst, etc.). Mr. Peck noted for Commissioner Bednarcyk that providing a designated line item for the Planning Commission in the budget results in complications. In response to Commissioner Houlihan, Chairman Loomis indicated he was not sure whether the Zoning Commission had made a recommendation, but is aware that Austin Barney feels strongly and has been outspoken about a need for adequate staffing. Mr. Peck has tried to
incorporate as many recommendations as he could to the budget process.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioners Jansen, Bednarcyk, Gardow and Loomis all expressed interest to Mr. Peck regarding the 3/17 seminar at placePlaceNameWesleyan PlaceTypeUniversity.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m.. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Houlihan and unanimously approved.
___________________________________________
Ernest B. Gardow, Secretary
| 
