Simsbury, CT - Planning Commission Minutes

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman John Loomis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the PlaceNameplaceSimsbury PlaceTypeTown Hall. The following members were present: Secretary Ernest Gardow, Susan Bednarcyk, Ferguson Jansen, Charles Houlihan, Carol Cole, Brad Mead and Mark Drake. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Community Planning & Development, Howard Beach, Conservation/Inland Wetlands and Zoning Compliance Officer, and Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, Design Review Board, as well as other interested parties. Mr. Peck left the meeting at approximately 8:15 p.m.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Loomis appointed Brad Mead as alternate for Greg Piecuch.

III. DRAFT 2007 PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (POCD)

• Special Areas, including revisions

Commissioner Bednarcyk motioned to adopt the 3/25/07 draft of the Special Areas Form District section, pps. 1-19, of the Plan of Conservation and Development. The motion was seconded by Secretary Gardow and passed by a vote of 4-2, with Commissioners Bednarcyk, Loomis, Mead and Gardow in favor and Commissioners Jansen and Houlihan opposed.

During the discussion period for the motion, Commissioner Bednarcyk noted the Planning Commissioners are pioneers and form-based development will put CityplaceSimsbury on the map, allowing for both preservation of the scenic vistas as well as responsible economic development. The residents of the Town need to be heard.

Commissioner Jansen noted the 3/25/07 draft had a lot of good things in it and he agreed with Commissioner Bednarcyk regarding her thoughts on form-based development. However, he questioned why the motion had been raised in the absence of Commissioner Piecuch and, in a spirit of fairness, he suggested it was completely inappropriate to do so.

Commissioner Mead expressed his comfort level with voting on the present draft. He reiterated his opinion that the Commission needs to represent the residents of placeCitySimsbury.

Commissioner Houlihan expressed his disappointment with the way the motion had been orchestrated. He characterized it as ‘embarrassing’ for the Planning Commission if they were to act today. It was his understanding that the draft would be considered next week. Several outstanding issues, such as the metrics, still need to be resolved and this current draft is inconsistent with Hiram Peck’s previous suggestions. He noted the time and energy Commissioner Piecuch has put into the Plan and it would be sad for the Plan to be decided upon in his absence. All the work the Commission has done over the last 3 years has been something to be proud of and such an action would not be consistent with that. He noted the rest of the Plan is good except where it oversteps into the Zoning Commission’s purview. In his opinion, it would be a mistake to accept this draft as it would not only thwart economic development in Town, but come adoption time will only result in a possible stalemate.

In Commissioner Drake’s opinion, definition is necessary to this concept of form-based development in order to avoid ending up with any unintended consequences in development. He recognized the POCD does not have regulatory power, but characterized it as a ‘blueprint’ for Zoning to change the regulations and ease toward a new Zoning format. If direction is not provided for that, they will be left guessing.

Commissioner Cole noted her opinion is not as strong in terms of the anti-metric sentiment. She prefers the 12/29/06 version and indicated she felt badly proceeding without Commissioner Piecuch. Chairman Loomis confirmed for her that the preferred designation for the Southern Gateway is still Industrial.

Secretary Gardow indicated the idea of heading in the direction of form-based development over the next couple of years will be a landmark decision. He suggested this is a document the Commission can live with and if there are still concerns regarding metrics they could be dealt with through amendments to the Plan.

Chairman Loomis noted the challenge and task of the Planning Commission is to come up with a vision as far ahead as possible and to formulate outcomes that are in the Town’s long-range best interest. Dimensional elements are important within form-based planning, especially where no context exists already as with the Northern and Southern Gateways. He expressed his support for this latest version of Form District section, but also noted there will be opportunity at the Public Hearing for further editing. Commissioner Houlihan suggested the Plan could get to Zoning and if they find the dimensional elements are not appropriate, the Town could end up with Zoning Regulations that are different from the Plan. Chairman Loomis noted it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility to set policies, standards and guidelines. Although the Zoning Commission is obligated to pay attention and consider that policy picture, they are not obliged to follow it.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 6, 2007.

Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes of 3/6/07. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mead and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Houlihan abstaining.

V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

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. (Hearing closed 3/6/2007).

Referencing Attorney Rattigan’s letter, Chairman Loomis reiterated this application was for a 4-lot subdivision and should not be considered as 6 lots. Mr. Peck confirmed that the last map was filed on 2/26/07, but that any other material that has been since then (i.e., alternate plans, summation information, etc.) is included in the file.

Secretary Gardow read page one of the resolution drafted by Mr. Peck which dealt with the Notice of Intervention. Mr. Beach noted for Secretary Gardow that the Wetlands regulations provide for a 100-foot upland review area near a stream, but that construction is not necessarily prohibited there. Mr. Beach responded to Secretary Gardow’s concern regarding the possibility of Nod Brook meandering over time by noting that the sandy conditions down near the neighbor’s property could allow for the Brook to cut a new channel. However, the elevation difference between the stream and the proposed house sites is substantial enough that were meandering to occur it is highly unlikely the Brook will have any effect on the proposed structures.

Chairman Loomis suggested adding the Nod Brook to the issues reviewed and addressed by the Conservation Commission-Inland Wetlands Agency on page 2 of the resolution. Mr. Peck clarified he did not reiterate the entire Wetlands finding in the resolution. He noted further it was important to recognize the Wetlands jurisdiction and that the Intervenor petition does not expand the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction.

Chairman Loomis requested clarification as to this actually being a 4-lot subdivision but the plans showing 6 lots with part of the offered conservation area actually being located on the other 2 lots. Mr. Peck reiterated the Town Attorney’s 3/6/07 letter which confirmed the application as a 4-lot subdivision with the remaining 2 lots a result of the free cuts. Mr. Peck noted the application should be viewed as a 4-lot subdivision with 2 existing lots. The Commission does not have control over what happens in those 2 lots, however the applicant has agreed on record several times to designate a conservation easement in that area. Mr. Beach noted as well that there are no standards in the regulations when it comes to conservation easements and they do not have to be equivalent to the 20% open space requirement. Mr. Peck confirmed for Chairman Loomis that the file contains a statement by Gerry Toner that open space in this subdivision is not desirable by the Town. Mr. Peck confirmed the easements on the extra 2 lots will be executed and filed in the land records with reference to the map the same way as any other easement. Mr. Beach confirmed they would be subject to the same enforcement as any other easement.

Mr. Peck reiterated for Commissioner Bednarcyk that the current regulations would not allow for the alternative plan of using a private driveway for access into the subdivision.

Commissioner Mead strongly urged the Chairman to poll the Commissioners and possibly bring the resolution to a vote. Commissioners Houlihan and Jansen indicated they were ready to vote, as did Secretary Gardow. Commissioner Bednarcyk said she would rather wait for the Town Attorney’s input.

After discussion about clarifying the actual percentage of total land that would be restricted as open space or conservation area, it was agreed to notate the number as ‘over 51%’. Mr. Beach noted for Chairman Loomis that, unlike the bonding for a road which is a standard requirement and not necessary to specifically mention in the road waiver portion of the resolution, bonding is specifically mentioned in reference to the landscape planting and wall construction.

After several minor grammatical edits the following resolutions were put forth and voted upon.

Notice of Intervention

The Commission notes that abutting upgradient property owners have submitted a Notice of Environmental Intervention under CGS 22a-19 which claims that the subdivision as proposed as of the date of filing of the Notice of Intervention, January 23, 2007 if approved, “may cause significant irreversible impacts on the site’s natural features, including wetlands, watercourses and upon indigenous fauna and flora” based on the following:

A. The risk of erosion and consequent transportation of excessive sediment into the watercourses both on and off site including the adjacent Nod Brook due to the grading and construction of the road and residential lots;

B. An increase in flow volumes which is likely to cause erosion and potential flooding both on and off site;

C. The risk of increased flooding, including flooding of the Nod Brook due to increased flow volumes and soil erosion;

D. Degradation of water quality both on and off site, particularly in the Nod Brook, caused by runoff from the increase in impervious surface on-site which runoff may include heavy metals, hydrocarbons, nutrients and other potential pollutants associated with the road areas; and

E. Decrease and disturbance of the one hundred foot (100’) buffer a/k/a upland review area between the wetlands and watercourses and the proposed residential development and impervious road area diminishing the buffer’s existing functions supporting both wildlife and natural vegetation and foreclosing the possibility of restoring and/or enhancing such areas.

In acknowledgement of the receipt of the above referenced Notice of Environmental Intervention and in response to its allegations, the Commission finds the following;

WHEREAS, the applicant was granted approval for all the proposed activities on the subject site under the jurisdiction of the PersonNameConservation Commission-Inland Wetlands Agency as part of the application, public hearing and decision process which ended with an approval of the applicant’s proposal on February 20, 2007; and

WHEREAS, based on the record it is clear the CC-IWA addressed and focused on slope stabilization, wetlands impacts, stormwater management, Nod Brook impacts, and wildlife corridor protection during and after construction as well as the applicant’s submitted proposed best management practices as they related to the proposed development and maintenance activity; and

WHEREAS, the CC-IWA also carefully considered the assertions raised by the intervenors and found the application as modified by the applicant and the CC-IWA in its decision, “to be preferable to the alternatives suggested by the intervenors” with regard to the area of authority and impact review under the jurisdiction of the CC-IWA; and

WHEREAS, the Commission is aware that the applicant has revised the proposed development plans subsequent to the filing date of the Notice of Intervention January 23, 2007 and has submitted revised plans with the last revision date of February 26, 2007, in response to concerns raised by the intervenors and specifically finds the erosion and sedimentation control plan to be acceptable, and finds that no engineering calculation submitted shows an increase in stormwater flow volumes which would cause the noted flooding and finds that the stormwater management plan as designed meets applicable standards for dealing with both quality and quantity of stormwater and finds that wetlands buffer functioning issues have been appropriately addressed and approved by the CC-IWA; and

WHEREAS, the intervenor has not shown that calculations, maps, plans and technical data provided by the applicant and the Town Engineer’s approval of them to be in error, nor have they shown that the revisions to the plans made after January 23, 2007 have not addressed the issues raised in the Notice of Intervention; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds no basis to determine that the activity proposed by the application as it has been revised to February 26, 2007, has or is reasonably likely to have the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state and specifically the resources cited in the Notice of Intervention.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the PersonNamePlanning Commission has considered the assertions and allegations contained in the Notice of Intervention and finds the application as revised to February 26, 2007 to be acceptable. The assertions of the Notice of Intervention are hereby denied as the application as evidenced by the record has adequately addressed these concerns. Therefore no further alternatives to the submitted and revised application are required.

Upon a motion made by Commissioner Houlihan and seconded by Commissioner Mead, the above resolution was adopted by a vote of 5-1. Voting in favor on this item: Chairman Loomis, Secretary Gardow and Commissioners Mead, Houlihan and Jansen. Voting in opposition to this item: Commissioner Bednarcyk.

Waiver of subdivision road grade requirement

The CityplaceSimsbury PersonNamePlanning Commission in accordance with all applicable regulations, has considered the above referenced application and considered the request for waiver of the road grade requirements:

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the applicant has requested a waiver of road grade standards referenced in Subdivision Regulations Section III. 10, and as found detailed in the Highway Construction and Design Standards for the Town of placeCitySimsbury, StateConnecticut; and

WHEREAS, the Town Engineer has recommended approval of the requested waiver in order to lessen the impact of the proposed excavation needed for the construction of the cul-de-sac access road.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission finds the requested waiver to be acceptable as recommended by the Town Engineer in that it allows the applicant to lessen the impact of the proposed grading associated with the construction of the proposed cul-de-sac access road.

Upon a motion made by Commissioner Mead and seconded by Commissioner Jansen, the above resolution was adopted by a vote of 5-1. Voting in favor on this item: Chairman Loomis, Secretary Gardow and Commissioners Mead, Houlihan and Jansen. Voting in opposition on this item: Commissioner Bednarcyk.

Waiver of open space requirement

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a waiver of Section III. 9. of the CityplaceSimsbury Subdivision Regulations; and

WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to establish specific PersonNameConservation Easements over the property as shown on the referenced maps on sheet SD1 as covering 3.324 acres of property on lots 15A-1 and 15A-2 and in addition areas to be owned and maintained by the proposed homeowners association to be set aside as open space including a parcel of .417 acres in size on the north side of the entrance to the proposed cul-de-sac and a parcel of .243 acres of land on the south side of the entrance to the cul-de-sac and in addition the applicant also proposes to establish a conservation easement around the rear perimeter of the property over lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 which is .692 acres in size. The total area of property deed restricted for open space or conservation purposes is 4.676 acres of the total land area of 9.068 acres, (over 51% of the total land area); and

WHEREAS, the Commission notes that the PersonNameConservation Commission- Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency expressed no interest in public acquisition of any portion of the land which is part of this application as open space, nor did it recommend that any portion be made available for public access to the proposed easement areas; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the applicant has provided a significant portion of the total property as permanently deed restricted for open space, permanent plantings or for conservation purposes, and the Parks and Recreation Director has also indicated that the Town would have no interest in obtaining any of this particular property for public park or recreation purposes and recommends a conservation easement for these areas as they are unacceptable for such purposes from a Parks and Recreation standpoint; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in light of the above, the Commission approves the granting of the requested waiver of open space for this subdivision.

Upon a motion made by Commissioner Jansen and seconded by Commissioner Mead, the above resolution was adopted by a vote of 5-1. Voting in favor on this item: Chairman Loomis, Secretary Gardow and Commissioners Mead, Houlihan and Jansen. Voting in opposition on this item: Commissioner Bednarcyk.

Subdivision application for addressStreet344 West Mountain Road:

The CityplaceSimsbury PersonNamePlanning Commission in accordance with all applicable regulations, considered the above referenced application at a regular meeting on March 27, 2007 and took the following action.

WHEREAS, the PersonNamePlanning Commission held public hearings on December 12, 2006, January 9, 2007 and February 27, 2007 and March 6, 2007, performed a site walk on December 16, 2006, and took all testimony as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to use 9.068 acres of land in the R-25 Zone for two (2) existing, reconfigured residential lots and 4 new residential lots as shown on the referenced maps and plans, all of which are proposed to be served by a 548 foot long cul-de-sac road; and

WHEREAS, the application has been revised to reflect comments from the abutting property owners and to show a revised lot line between the existing Petersen lot which fronts on West Mountain Road, and lot 15A-2; and

WHEREAS, the applicant also proposes to excavate and remove approximately 15,000 cubic yards of earth material in order to construct the proposed cul-de-sac which would provide access to all the lots and in addition the applicant proposes to construct two 6 foot maximum height retaining walls in the northwest corner of the property as shown on sheet G1 of the referenced plans in order to lessen the amount of earth cut which would be necessary to construct the proposed cul-de-sac; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds, based on information submitted for the official file, that the applicant had originally considered constructing the cul-de-sac from West Mountain Road on the south side of the existing Petersen dwelling as shown on Preliminary Layout dated March 30, 2006, but was precluded from doing so by a significant amount of mapped, regulated inland wetland and floodplain land; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the applicant proposes to establish a PersonNameConservation Easement over 3.324 acres of the property on lots 15A-1 and 15A-2 as shown on Sheet SD1 of the referenced maps. In addition two (2) other areas are to be owned and maintained by the proposed homeowners association to be set aside as open space shown as “North Parcel” which is .417 acres in size on the north side of the proposed cul-de-sac and a parcel shown as “South Parcel” which is .243 acres in size which is located on the south side of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition the applicant also proposes to establish a PersonNameConservation Easement around the rear perimeter of the property over lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 which is .692 acres in size. The total area of the proposed PersonNameConservation Easement on existing parcels 15A-1 and 15A-2 is 3.324 acres. The total area of the proposed PersonNameConservation Easement on proposed lots 1-4 is .692 acres. The total area of property deed restricted for open space, homeowners planting areas or conservation purposes in this entire property is 4.676 acres. This equates to over 51% of the entire parcel. The amount of land to be deed restricted on the four (4) proposed lots is .692 acres. This equates to 23.37% of the area of the proposed lots; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the applicant has satisfactorily addressed all subdivision drainage and stormwater issues raised by the Town Engineer and notes that the applicant has requested a road grade waiver which was approved by the Town Engineer as a way to lessen the impact of the proposed excavation; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the applicant has presented the entire application to the Conservation/Wetlands Commission, has answered all concerns in that regard and on February 20, 2007, obtained the necessary Inland Wetlands Agency approval; and

WHEREAS, the Commission questions whether the issue of the proposed removal of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of earth material constitutes an excavation activity and therefore requires the applicant to secure a Special Permit from the PersonNameZoning Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the issue of whether the applicant needs a Special Permit from the PersonNameZoning Commission for the proposed excavation must be resolved with the PersonNameZoning Commission prior to the onset of any excavation on this property.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of Jonathan Batterson, owner and Greg Maglieri, Maglieri Development, LLC, agent for a four (4) lot subdivision on property located at addressStreet344 West Mountain Road as shown on plans by Alford Associates dated November 3, 2006 and last revised February 26, 2007 and other submitted materials is hereby approved with modifications.

Upon a motion made by Commissioner Houlihan and seconded by Commissioner Jansen, the above resolution was adopted by a vote of 5-1. Voting in favor on this item: Chairman Loomis, Secretary Gardow and Commissioners Mead, Houlihan and Jansen. Voting in opposition on this item: Commissioner Bednarcyk.

The modifications are as follows and must be addressed as indicated.

1. The applicant is to revise the submitted plan to include a note reflecting the Fire Marshal’s comments regarding the width of the travelway to lot 4.

2. The applicant is to prepare and submit a record subdivision mylar for signing by the Chairman. In addition any Homeowner’s Association documents regarding the long term maintenance and upkeep of the Association property specifically including any walls and drainage structures shall be submitted prior to any request for issuance of any zoning signoff and prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any structure shown on the submitted plan.

3. The applicant is to obtain a determination from the PersonNameZoning Commission regarding whether a Special Exception permit is needed for the proposed excavation to create the cu-de-sac access road prior to any earth moving activities on the site.

4. The applicant shall prepare an estimate for all the proposed landscape plantings and wall construction in the homeowners maintained parcels on the north and south side of the cul-de-sac entry along with an estimate for all the proposed landscaping shown on the applicant’s latest landscaping on the submitted plan. The applicant shall submit the landscaping estimate to the Town Engineer for verification and shall post a bond in an amount acceptable to the Town Engineer and in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney to insure the proper installation of the landscape plantings and wall construction. Said bond shall also include an amount for the proper installation and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation controls as may be required from the onset of construction through to final site stabilization.

b. Re-approval of re-subdivision of 1-3 Grist Mill due to time limit to file map

Commissioner Houlihan motioned to approve the subdivision of 1-3 Grist Mill as approved a year ago in light of the fact that:

1.) No changes have been made to the application or any of the maps.

2.) The re-approval is for exactly the same property and proposal as was approved on January 24, 2006.

3.) Any and all of the findings and conditions which were part of the Commission’s January 24, 2006 decision are hereby made part of this decision and remain in full force and effect.

4.) This re-approval is a procedural matter and is recommended by the Town Attorney.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mead and unanimously approved.

c. Request to approve tree removal and replanting in Conservation Easement Area at addressStreet8 Joyce Lane

Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the cutting/removal of trees and the replanting on a 4:1 ratio at addressStreet8 Joyce Lane. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Houlihan and unanimously approved.

VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 13, 2007.

Secretary Gardow motioned to approve the minutes of 3/13/07. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mead and unanimously approved.

VII. STAFF REPORTS

VIII. COMMUNICATIONS

Chairman Loomis indicated a communication from Hiram Peck is imminent to the Commissioners regarding a recent FOIA request along with instructions on how to reply. Mr. Beach noted the FOI was addressed to Mr. Peck and therefore all correspondence will be going through him.

Chairman Loomis noted the Town is in the beginning stages of developing Town email addresses for all land use commission members. Commissioner Mead suggested that would then create a repository of all communication and facilitate response to the FOIA requests.

There will be an information session regarding the FOIA process on April 10, 2007 at 7:00 in the High School Amphitheater. No regular Planning Commission meeting will be held that night.

Commissioner Jansen encouraged the Commissioners to attend the seminar this Thursday, 3/29, also at the High School Amphitheater, being sponsored by the MetroHartford Alliance entitled “Economic Development for Public Officials”. He suggested it would provide a good balance to their role as Planning Commissioners.

Commissioner Jansen reported back on the last CRCOG meeting. The main presentation was in regard to the proposal to do an $80 million horse showing area development on almost 200 acres of PlaceNameKeney PlaceTypePark in placeCityHartford. Most of the investment will be from a private source. In addition, the CityplaceNew Britain bus-way plans are progressing and his main suggestion was to have the bus-way go right to the train station. Finally, there was some discussion regarding the rotating participation of representatives from placeCitySimsbury at the CRCOG meetings. Commissioner Jansen suggested one person should attend on a regular basis for consistency purposes. Commissioner Drake noted a CRCOG representative from another town thought placeCitySimsbury had a unique way of sending a different person each month and that served to keep individuals from burning out or just not showing up. He suggested perhaps the Commissioners go on a quarterly basis. Commissioner Jansen suggested everyone get the agendas for the meetings and email the one scheduled to attend with any questions or comments. Commissioner Houlihan suggested circulating minutes from each of the meetings. Chairman Loomis will work with those interested in participating on a new type of rotating schedule.

Chairman Loomis and Commissioner Bednarcyk described the Wesleyan Land Use Law seminar as ‘excellent’ and full of valuable information. The seminar was also attended by Secretary Gardow and Commissioner Jansen.

Commissioner Jansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mead and unanimously approved.

___________________________________________

Ernest B. Gardow, Secretary